More aid? Why not work? The west coast is still dealing with the devastation of wildfires...plenty of work there to clean/repair. Storm damage in the south. What city doesnt need a little repair, shine around the edges? I get the initial aid response to the pandemic, but now? Put people to work, dont give them a handout they dont really want.
I think there's merit there. And precedent - the WPA and CCC, for example. Displaced people need somewhere to live - use existing park facilities, some built by CCC crews, for starters. Pay people to work - clearing storm and fire debris, cleaning flooded but otherwise safe homes, cooking meals for work crews, delivering food/supplies to folks who can't work, the list is endless. Even stuff like setting up a computer and getting people (re)connected.
Here in Austin 'Discount Electronics' has truckloads of lease-return computers of all shapes and sizes. They can't possibly sell all of them, no matter how cheaply they're listed. Donate them (tax write off) and set up information centers where people can get information. For that matter, donate them to individuals for remote working, online school, surfing pron: you know, the essentials.
The 'rona isn't going away anytime soon. Natural disasters are not going to stop. Sure FEMA and whatnot have their place, but we need a larger, and more personal, mobilization. c.
More aid? Why not work? The west coast is still dealing with the devastation of wildfires...plenty of work there to clean/repair. Storm damage in the south. What city doesnt need a little repair, shine around the edges? I get the initial aid response to the pandemic, but now? Put people to work, dont give them a handout they dont really want.
You know when people complain that everything is now politics?
GDP is a financial number. It doesn't identify fat people, poor people, billionaires, efficiency, medical availability, immigration...it's a number. I thought it was interesting to see that California is roughly the financial size of the UK. You don't...OK. New Jersey having the financial throughput of Switzerland isn't making anyone vote differently...is it?
Next time you walk past a mirror, ask "am I the type of person pushing people to vote for Trump?"
Actually GDP is part of the System of National Accounts. That place where statisticians do the national book keeping. GDP is not a financial number. It is a measure of economic value; it is a flow number; it does not capture national wealth per capita, for example, which in passing is much harder to measure because financial concepts and measures are so important.
Economists got over GDP as an indicator of economic performance a long time ago. Per capita real wealth is the preferred number in many quarters. Moreover, much output such as 'home production' is never monetized but is most valuable all the same. But nobody serious limits themselves to just one indicator. (Besides, complexity sells....)
Socio-economic output indicators try to go beyond annual income and capture meaningful wealth, e.g., indicators of health and education. In that respect, many small European countries with stable populations, i.e., near zero population growth, exhibit outstanding socio-economic outcomes.
rgio, I am probably far more conservative on many policies than you are so let's not go there, please.
I apologize for coming down so hard on you. Unnecessary. Probably twigging off my own fears of population growth.
So what made you bring up this nonsense? Let me guess.
+ rgio does not care about the welfare of lower-income working Americans.
+ rgio believes that obesity and a whole host co-related health outcomes are positive for economic productivity and national security
No, I do not like the map. Next time, you pass a mirror. Ask yourself: "Am I partially responsible for the election of President Trump?"
You know when people complain that everything is now politics?
GDP is a financial number. It doesn't identify fat people, poor people, billionaires, efficiency, medical availability, immigration...it's a number. I thought it was interesting to see that California is roughly the financial size of the UK. You don't...OK. New Jersey having the financial throughput of Switzerland isn't making anyone vote differently...is it?
Next time you walk past a mirror, ask "am I the type of person pushing people to vote for Trump?"
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US â demographically and economically â really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
SInce you brought it up....
Of course that's your contention. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian â Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year â you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
So you like the map?
So what made you bring up this nonsense? Let me guess.
+ rgio does not care about the welfare of lower-income working Americans.
+ rgio believes that obesity and a whole host co-related health outcomes are positive for economic productivity and national security
No, I do not like the map. Next time, you pass a mirror. Ask yourself: "Am I partially responsible for the election of President Trump?"
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US â demographically and economically â really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
SInce you brought it up....
Of course that's your contention. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian — Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year — you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
This is an interesting way to look at the US economy...
Yes and no. It is not per capita. And frankly does the size of the US — demographically and economically — really benefit Americans ?
All the countries with superb socio-economic outcomes tend to be smaller countries with stable populations.
Is being obese an advantage? Less blood to the head, reduced mobility, promising future of opioid dependence?
The USA looks a little like some 3rd world countries that are in the midst of a Neo-Malthusian crisis. Lots of population growth, lots of angry young men and scarce resources. It is pretty damn clear that liberals and self-styled progressives do not understand the scarce resource part especially in regards to immigration, both legal and illegal.
Unlikely. The stylized facts suggest that financial bubbles that turn into financial crises rarely follow each other.
But the current President of the USA has already contributed to a slower growth trajectory going forward. So, by comparison, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, I would have expected faster growth rates over the next decade or so than will occur under Trump.
Unless mainstream contemporary economics is all wrong...... If it is then you can easily count on the USA being GREAT AGAIN. Protectionism, increased economic and financial uncertainty, tweeted threats, arbitrary changes of rules (de facto expropriation): all guaranteed to make the USA richer.
The thing I love about Trump is that he reminds me so much of Neo-Marxist guided populists. So lots of old lefties, and many self-styled progressives should feel rather comfortable with Trump's policies. Never mind that Neo-Marxist regimes in developing economies have been an absolute disaster. This is also something that many old lefties and self-styled progressives share in common with Trump: a complete and utter disdain for evidence-based science.
Poverty is spiritually enriching! Screw markets! Let the privileged set up committees to look after themselves!
Remarks to an aspiring politician by Andrew Undershaft, CEO of the giant defense contractor Undershaft & Lazarus.
From George Bernard Shaw’s play, Major Barbara (1906).
"I am the government of your country; I, and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus?
“No, my friend; you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it does not. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures.
“When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military.
“And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.
“Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune."
That was excellent. "Democrats always turn up to gun-fight with a butterknife". ha.
Pretty damning analysis on status quo governments worldwide and I like his explanation of why Trump won the election. But the trouble is, what conclusions can you draw from this? What is the way forward?
He made me think the best solution was to prevent people over the age of 60 voting..
Mark Blyth giving incisive, spot on readings of US and international political and economic dynamics.
That was excellent. "Democrats always turn up to gun-fight with a butterknife". ha.
Pretty damning analysis on status quo governments worldwide and I like his explanation of why Trump won the election. But the trouble is, what conclusions can you draw from this? What is the way forward?
He made me think the best solution was to prevent people over the age of 60 voting..
Mark Blyth giving incisive, spot on readings of US and international political and economic dynamics.
The video was removed, presumably because the professor speaking for the Democrats was embarrassing, capable of speaking only in Hillary's talking points.
...American economic revival will require far more radical measures than what the Trump administration is contemplating. It will require a systematic industrial policy that rebuilds the depleted productive capabilities of the US economy, ranging from worker skills, managerial competences, industrial research base and modernised infrastructure. To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system, so that more "patient capital" is made available for long-term-oriented investments and more talented people come to work in the industrial sector, rather than going into investment banking or foreign exchange trading.
... the improvement in infrastructure is an ingredient in a genuine strategy of American economic renewal. However, as you suggest in your question, this may meet resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Republican-dominated Congress. It will be interesting to watch how this pans out, but my bigger worry is that Mr. Trump is likely to encourage "wrong" kinds of infrastructural investments — that is, those related to real estate (his natural territory), rather than those related to industrial development. This not only will fail to contribute to the renewal of the US economy but it may also contribute to creating real estate bubbles, which were an important cause behind the 2008 global financial crisis.
I'm sure an amateur Austrian economist as bright as you are can put together a much more convincing takedown of Keynesian economics.
Just don't forget the Law of Holes.
This one is accessible and an obvious illustration of the broken window fallacy, a concept baked into Keynesian economics.
There is of course more to it—Keynes was wrong about more than one thing—but this is a good starting point.
I'm not an Austrian or Australian economist but I don't see why you say he got it wrong. Sounds to me like he described the situation correctly. You might not like it. Economic stimulus by injecting money, as a concept, doesn't necessarily depend on the 'value' of the investment. But IMO that doesn't mean it is a bad concept, it is just up to the government and society to invest in things that a) are of value, and b) values that are not well factored into private investment decisions. Like environmental sustainability, defense, science, and health.
