Top two percent keep on raking in profits while the rest of us lose money

[Capper Al]

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I have a friend retiring whose job won't be replaced because of technology. More will be demanded out of the other employees. This is not an isolated story. I'm sure many of you have witnessed similar. The information age is a blessing but the question is should it benefit all or only those who own the means of production? Corporate wealth increases and the stocks move up as our middle-class shrinks.

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Valuist

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

Solutions aren't easy. The advancement of technology should have made all our lives better. The French tried the 36 hour work week, but couldn't compete when the rest of the world refused to join in. This might of been the solution that would have allowed technology to advance and better everyone, besides creating more jobs instead of eliminating jobs.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Valuist

The endless money printing of QE is much more responsible for the stock market's rise over the past 4 years. The irony is that Obama wants wealth redistribution, yet the main beneficiaries of the money printing have been those involved in the equity markets.

Yep, those unintended consequences will bite you in the butt every time. While Obama does not have direct control over the Fed and its QE policy, Obama and Bernanke are pursuing the same goals with the same failed Keynesian policies. Obama believes that government "investment", i.e., deficit stimulus spending, can create jobs. He also believes that the more money businesses make, the more they can be taxed, i.e., pay their fair share, and that money can be redistributed in the form of government "investment" and increased minimum wages.

Obama and Bernanke believe the Keynesian model that says that interest rates are the prime driver of business investment spending, and that the lower the rates, the higher the level of investment and therefore the greater the level of aggregate demand. And therefore the more money to redistribute.

The failure of Obama's stimulus spending to create jobs or promote economic growth is one proof that Keynesian economics does not work. The failure of low interest rates to increase business investment spending is the other. The evidence is obvious to most, but apparently not to the Keynesians, that interest rates are not the primary driver of investment. The impact of low interest rates has been canceled out by investor uncertainty about fed policy, government regulation (ObamaCare, EPA, etc.), and international instability.

The other problem is the usurpation of power by the Federal Reserve. The Fed was created by Congress to provide a stable monetary environment for business, with focus on inflation and unemployment. Greenspan took it upon himself to expand the Fed's responsibilities to include stimulating the economy and propping up asset prices, i.e., stocks, mortgages, etc. Bernanke has continued to follow Greenspan's lead. With low interest rates and very low business investment, there is no other place to put money than in the stock market. QE has created a market bubble that starts to deflate anytime Bernanke even thinks about backing off on QE.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The French tried the 36 hour work week, but couldn't compete when the rest of the world refused to join in.

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.

[Capper Al]

Just a quick point, Keynesian policy gets kicked around as if supply side is the proper way. Both the great depression and the great recession were outcomes of supply side reasoning. I am not saying that there is never a time to consider supply side reasoning. There is a time when inflation needs to checked for eaxample, and an good ecomony could use a boast. Otherwise, Keynesian works just fine.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Clocker

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.

Would you reiterated my point? We had advances in technology, and who is raking in the Benefit? Your post argues no point. It's just saber rattling.

[Capper Al]

Clocker,

What about our unskilled jobs going overseas as well as our private money to escape taxes? Doesn't this play into the picture? And shouldn't we all benefit from technology?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Your post argues no point. It's just saber rattling.

No, it is just political satire.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

And now we have gone one step further as ObamaCare moves us toward a 30 hour work week as the new normal. Pretty soon we will be outsourcing jobs to France.

We have a few high profile companies who say they are going to a 30 hour work week, but they are far from a majority. Has any of them done any more than blow smoke thus far? I think I will wait until Obama care has been fully implemented before I evaluate its success or failure.

I mean we heard a lot of opinions on how insurance rates were going to soar, but when the actual rates came out from the new exchanges they were down substantially.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Just a quick point, Keynesian policy gets kicked around as if supply side is the proper way.

Keynesian economics is a misnomer used to justify large government and ever increasing deficits. Keynes would never recognize nor condone what gets done in his name today. What Keynes said was that if you had a small government sector, a balanced budget, and a balance of trade surplus, you could stimulate your way out of a down-turn in aggregate demand with a relatively short period of deficit spending.

What Americans call Keynesian economics today is what we used to call Democratic Socialism. And we have seen what that leads to. Increased unemployment, low economic growth, growing income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I mean we heard a lot of opinions on how insurance rates were going to soar, but when the actual rates came out from the new exchanges they were down substantially.

They did not go down. They went up less than had been forecast, and advocates trumpeted that as a major victory.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Keynesian economics is a misnomer used to justify large government and ever increasing deficits. Keynes would never recognize nor condone what gets done in his name today. What Keynes said was that if you had a small government sector, a balanced budget, and a balance of trade surplus, you could stimulate your way out of a down-turn in aggregate demand with a relatively short period of deficit spending.

What Americans call Keynesian economics today is what we used to call Democratic Socialism. And we have seen what that leads to. Increased unemployment, low economic growth, growing income inequality, and the disappearance of the middle class.

Size of government is only relevant to Kenyes in the amount of money of being spent, not in the ideological point of view that you are implying. Keynes believed that when the private sector slowed down their spending that the government was needed to spend or loosen money up so that spending/investing would pickup again. What America calls conservatives is more incorrect than their label implies. True conservatives would not want radical change and push for an America that concedes our power of self governance to corporate America.

[offtrack]

The long term winners, in my experience, were the lotus-eaters. The government employee's who were left to maintain and administrate once the building and growth were attained.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by clocker

The failure of Obama's stimulus spending to create jobs or promote economic growth is one proof that Keynesian economics does not work.

What planet do you live on? Here is a listing of job gains or losses by year in descending order. I used the administrations of George HW Bush, George W. Bush and the last three years of the Obama administration. I did use the Clinton Administration because that would really embarrass the Republicans

Year.........................President............ .........Jobs created/lost
2005.......................GWB.................... ........2,484,000
2013.......................Obama.................. .......2,422,000*
2012.......................Obama.................. .......2,420,000
2011.......................Obama.................. ...... 2,103,000
2004.......................GWB.................... ........2,019,000
2006.......................GWB.................... ........2,071,000
1989.......................GHWB................... .......1,938,000
1992.......................GHWB................... .......1,168,000
2007.......................GWB.................... ........1,115,000
1990.......................GHWB................... .......300,000
2003.......................GWB.................... .........62,000
2002.......................GWB.................... ........minus 636,000
1991.......................GHWB................... .......minus 898,000
2001.......................GWB.................... ........minus 1,757,000
2008.......................GWB.................... ........minus 3,617,000

*estimated by doubling jobs gained in first six months of 2013.

Source: www.bls.gov Payroll employment click on the dinosaur.


What does all this show? It shows that the second, third and fourth best years of job growth in the sample were during the Barack Obama Presidency.
It shows that the Bush boys had eleven years in which job growth was worse than those "Awful" Obama years. It shows that supply side sucks and Keynes rules.