How equal should Ireland be?

Qualitymark

If we stay calm and kind, we can work this out together.

Barely Hedged

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not about equally distributing one (or two/three) specific sets of resources, it's about picking a societal goal (such as everyone being able to be provided with shelter/heat, food, medical facilities, education etc.), and distributing a portion of societies resources to meet those needs (and leaving the rest to be distributed based on market demands).

The resources are there in abundance, for providing that - it is the management of money that prevents it.
The most important 'resource' there is in the economy, is labour, and there is such an abundance of that right now, that could be put to work on other resources providing useful services and doing useful work.


What you've said about money on the second line isn't clear at all: To understand the full potential of an economy, you look at its physical resources - how labour (one 'resource'), can be combined/put-to-work with all the other resources available to the economy.
Money is the what is used to put those 'resources' together, and what is also used to decide how those resources should be distributed within the economy; when you're not making full use of those resources (i.e. when you're not at full employment), the distribution of money is being mismanaged.


Assuming linear anything in an economic model, is assuming something which isn't true in reality, and is wrong by default. Economies are dynamic/chaotic systems (like the weather), so you need to use dynamic modelling, or your model is wrong - dynamic modelling doesn't just 'add' to linear models, that doesn't make sense; dynamic models are mathematically built from the ground-up, not tacked on to linear models.


Our government has plenty of available means of funding, even while we are in the Euro, and Europe stuck in political deadlock (and without added burden of interest or public debt, since the linked method of funding is not counted as debt), to provide the jobs program I speak of for starters.

When you want to run an economy well, the question is "What's the most efficient way to put all the resources (labour/production/physical-materials) together, to meet our economic goals?", so you start by making full use of all the labour you have (because if you don't, you're not running the economy efficiently, your GDP is below maximum potential), and you ask "How much will it cost?" for deciding where to allocate all of those resources (for deciding why people should be put to work doing 'x', instead of 'y'), not how much of the resources you will allocate (because you always want to maximize use of resource, to the point of full employment - to maximize economic output).

I think Ireland achieves the societal goal outlined?

What sort of schemes are you suggesting to mobilise labour? Is the Job Bridge scheme sufficient? What sort of percentage of the approx 13% of unemployed people would take part in full mobilisation?

No, i said the principal component of a model you are trying to understand can more often than not be explained by a linear model. Im not validating linear models. Working on a daily basis with stochastic models, their principal component is easily deducible and analytical formulae can be constructed to infer that the outputted number is correct. Dynamic models are not the be all and end all.

The T.A.N. looks like a good idea on the face of it. Im surprised ive not heard of it before. Sounds too good to be true though. Whats the return for the investor and how much could be possibly raised (by Ireland as an exmaple). Maybe the ECB wernt willing to act as a redeemer on the securities like the Fed does. Imagine the Greeks could issue these and then the ECB has to redeem them!

Im a bit lost in your last paragraph - all theory aside, what could be done practically to implement what you say? If you need to train people to do x and y, then what do we have to put place. More colleges etc?

Tiddlypeeps

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Thats what would be needed if KB's plan were to work. It's utterly ludicrous and devoid of coherent logic.

No it's not. As I mentioned before there are countries existing that already operate fairly efficiently in this manner. Scandinavian countries are a pretty good example. While I'm sure they have issues that could be improved on as a whole they typically operate pretty damn well. They are the happiest countries in the world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

KyussBishop

Qualitymark wrote: »

If we stay calm and kind, we can work this out together.

Calm in plenty, but if you don't very critically call people out when they deliberately misrepresent others, you make that kind of argument respectable/credible, and that soon becomes the dominant form of argument that some posters use (and get away with too).

Vitaliorange

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'd find it a little hard to judge how we should live if I didn't know how much I needed to live well myself. Don't you?

What does "living well" mean? You'll have to be more specific.

Vitaliorange

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

No it's not. As I mentioned before there are countries existing that already operate fairly efficiently in this manner. Scandinavian countries are a pretty good example. While I'm sure they have issues that could be improved on as a whole they typically operate pretty damn well. They are the happiest countries in the world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

They have good healthcare etc, that doesn't mean they are the happiest. Happiness needs to be measured by how you feel. There are tribesmen with nothing to their name that are happier than millionaires.

Vitaliorange

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, that's your straw-man based on your complete ignorance, and your jumping to conclusions/assumptions about how what I put forward would be implemented. Ask if it would be implemented in a particular way, don't jump to (worst-case) conclusions, just so you can sneer.

Typical ignorant nonsense you encounter in these discussions:
Sneer/play-down what the person is saying first, find out and understand what the person is actually saying/proposing later.

You need to cheer up and take a break from the internet.

You simply haven't outlined realistic plans to put your theories into practice. It's bolderdash.

Qualitymark

Vitaliorange wrote: »

What does "living well" mean? You'll have to be more specific.

Living well according to how you yourself feel is a good standard of living.

Tiddlypeeps

Vitaliorange wrote: »

They have good healthcare etc, that doesn't mean they are the happiest. Happiness needs to be measured by how you feel. There are tribesmen with nothing to their name that are happier than millionaires.

How do you think Forbes put that piece together, they would have had to do studies where they go and ask people how they feel. Norway pretty much always tops any study do on general happiness in various nations. The other Scandinavian countries typically rank quite highly too.

Saying there are tribesmen that are happy is not a response to what I said, it's a meaningless point.

Scandinavian countries have low unemployment, generous welfare rates, fantastic education systems, really good health care and all round pretty much excellent public services. They have a really high tax rate but they still manage to top the charts on how content the population are.

If, as you say, a system like that will never work and is preposterous then how come it's working so well for them?

KyussBishop

Barely Hedged wrote: »

I think Ireland achieves the societal goal outlined?

What sort of schemes are you suggesting to mobilise labour? Is the Job Bridge scheme sufficient? What sort of percentage of the approx 13% of unemployed people would take part in full mobilisation?

No, i said the principal component of a model you are trying to understand can more often than not be explained by a linear model. Im not validating linear models. Working on a daily basis with stochastic models, their principal component is easily deducible and analytical formulae can be constructed to infer that the outputted number is correct. Dynamic models are not the be all and end all.

The T.A.N. looks like a good idea on the face of it. Im surprised ive not heard of it before. Sounds too good to be true though. Whats the return for the investor and how much could be possibly raised (by Ireland as an exmaple). Maybe the ECB wernt willing to act as a redeemer on the securities like the Fed does. Imagine the Greeks could issue these and then the ECB has to redeem them!

Im a bit lost in your last paragraph - all theory aside, what could be done practically to implement what you say? If you need to train people to do x and y, then what do we have to put place. More colleges etc?

We have massive unemployment, still have plenty of homelessness, worsening health services, extremely poor mental health services etc. etc..
Ireland does well to meet a lot of the goals I mention, in comparison to other countries, but we are getting worse in many ways due to the crisis, and have the real physical resources to do much better, and should be doing much better.

Job bridge doesn't pay people a decent wage for their employment - the program I advocate would.


I'd advocate a restaffing of public services to start with, to get them back up to par, expanding public services to better cover societal issues surrounding mental health (that were never really dealt with well in the past either), and promote development work in poorly maintained communities, and large infrastructural projects for improved public transport, and large infrastructural projects/R&D for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels going into the future.

There's not really a lack of things that can be done, and I'm sure others can think of much better things to add to the above, and government has the means to pay for it all.
The money from this that goes into workers pockets, and then gets spent in the private sector (as well as paying down private debt - opening more money to be spent in the private sector), would even boost jobs in the private sector over time as well, until all the job program jobs are soaked up by the private economy.


Economies are dynamic systems, so dynamic modelling is the be-all-end-all; it's the only way to correctly model whole economies at a macro scale.
You can simplify things using a linear model, sure, but it won't be based on reality anymore, and won't provide a useful description of reality (economists say they do - but really they don't, they promote misconceptions and incorrect assumptions about how economies work, many of which led to the economic crisis).

Stuff like DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) modelling, still holds linear assumptions, and it also assumes that economies tend towards equilibrium - this is wrong, they tend towards disequilibrium, and proper dynamic models show this.


Yes I'm surprised I've not heard of the TAN stuff before myself, until recently - I've seen some ideas like it, but that's the first place I've seen it coherently put together all in one piece.

People wouldn't invest in the TAN's, like people do bonds, they'd be directly issued as payment to people working for or contracting with the government - pretty much unlocking fiscal spending from Euro restrictions.
They would get used by people holding TAN's, to pay down tax liabilities over time, meaning no involvement of the ECB or even central banks (though our central bank would likely have to monitor/restrict issuance of them, to keep inflation in check).


As to my last paragraph:
It's hard not to speak based on theory here; mainly what I'm pointing out is that if you pick a certain set of societal goals you want to achieve (full employment, types of public services you want, meeting a minimum quality of living), and have a plan for how to implement them (this is the practical part), then you should first look to see if the actual raw physical resources (labour/production/materials) can be obtained to do this (without putting too much strain on others areas of the economy, e.g. by using up too much labour), and if they can, then it is possible.

Money (and funding like the TANs I mention) is then a means of putting all of these resources together, to meet these goals - when money is talked about like a restraint (one that prevents you from reaching full economic capacity, i.e. has lots of workers laying idle doing nothing, and GDP below full potential), then that is a mismanagement of money and the economy.

Vitaliorange

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

How do you think Forbes put that piece together, they would have had to do studies where they go and ask people how they feel. Norway pretty much always tops any study do on general happiness in various nations. The other Scandinavian countries typically rank quite highly too.

Saying there are tribesmen that are happy is not a response to what I said, it's a meaningless point.

Scandinavian countries have low unemployment, generous welfare rates, fantastic education systems, really good health care and all round pretty much excellent public services. They have a really high tax rate but they still manage to top the charts on how content the population are.

If, as you say, a system like that will never work and is preposterous then how come it's working so well for them?

A system like the one KB described would never work, with only or mostly fulfilling and productive jobs :rolleyes:. Thats no where near the scandinavian model.

KyussBishop

Vitaliorange wrote: »

You need to cheer up and take a break from the internet.

You simply haven't outlined realistic plans to put your theories into practice. It's bolderdash.

You are unable to even describe any 'theory' I have put forward (which would be a hard thing to do, seeing as I haven't mentioned any 'theory', I've put forward direct policies for recovery), because you are ignorant of what I have posted, and you don't care about any workable policies put forward that don't fit your own ideological views.

I've pointed out a direct set of policies/programs that government can use to engage in economic recovery, and I've pointed out a direct means of funding it too.

You post to sit on the sidelines and sneer/play it down, because the fact that government is capable of doing what I have described, destroys the ideological 'free-market' views you hold, by providing a workable alternative.

KyussBishop

Vitaliorange wrote: »

A system like the one KB described would never work, with only or mostly fulfilling and productive jobs :rolleyes:. Thats no where near the scandinavian model.

Lets hear an actual counterargument instead of the usual 'rolleyes' or "it will never work"?

Just to note as well:
I don't advocate having a system like that anytime soon, I think long before that can be done, countries have to fund a massive R&D and infrastructural development, to move away from fossil fuels, before the idea/system I speculated over way earlier in the thread could be looked at.

The system I am promoting now, later on in the thread, is a simple jobs program for restoring full employment - I describe both things that people can be put to work on for achieving that, and how to fund it.

Vitaliorange

KyussBishop wrote: »

Lets hear an actual counterargument instead of the usual 'rolleyes' or "it will never work"?

Just to note as well:
I don't advocate having a system like that anytime soon, I think long before that can be done, countries have to fund a massive R&D and infrastructural development, to move away from fossil fuels, before the idea/system I speculated over way earlier in the thread could be looked at.

The system I am promoting now, later on in the thread, is a simple jobs program for restoring full employment - I describe both things that people can be put to work on for achieving that, and how to fund it.

What will this jobs program do that cam restore full employment?

Qualitymark

Vitaliorange wrote: »

A system like the one KB described would never work, with only or mostly fulfilling and productive jobs :rolleyes:. Thats no where near the scandinavian model.

I must have missed KB's system - what was it?

If it was suggesting that all jobs could be fulfilling and productive, I'd look to Japan (one of the most equal-income countries in the world), where I was impressed by how everyone from the cashier in the supermarket to the building workers, the bus drivers, the executives and medics (I got sick while there) took their jobs deeply seriously. In the supermarket, for example, and in small shops, the cashier took your money and carefully packed the goods in a bag, making a beautiful package of them. In chain stores, it's automatically expected that goods you buy as a gift will be gift wrapped, and wonderfully done, with a twirly ribbon to finish off. Building workers have the dedication of a football team as they swarm over scaffolding (sometimes made of bamboo) in their bell-bottomed overalls. Bus drivers wear crisp uniforms and white gloves, and lovingly clean out their bus after each run. People in general think of others within society - for instance, in many train stations hooks are glued up in a particular place, and if you find gloves or mittens or keys, etc, you hang them up there for their owner; if you find a wallet you hand it in, and the owner knows it'll be there.

Tiddlypeeps

Vitaliorange wrote: »

A system like the one KB described would never work, with only or mostly fulfilling and productive jobs :rolleyes:. Thats no where near the scandinavian model.

KB's idea of using TAN's is pretty much a means by which we could move from what we are towards a Scandinavian model.

Do you at least agree that the Scandinavian way of doing things is something that we should strive to achieve?

Do you have a specific reason why that won't work other than "it'll never work" and "it's preposterous"?

I'll admit I'd be cautious of TAN's because they seem to be a newish concept and I'd like to see it in action on a small scale to ensure they actually work but the theory seems sound enough from the outside looking in.

KyussBishop

Vitaliorange wrote: »

What will this jobs program do that cam restore full employment?

The jobs program would provide jobs, up to the point of full employment - and because these workers would be getting paid, and spending in the private sector, the private sector will grow as a result of this, and gradually soak up all workers out of the jobs program.

There's not really a limit to what can be done in the jobs program; some things I mentioned here

KyussBishop wrote:

I'd advocate a restaffing of public services to start with, to get them back up to par, expanding public services to better cover societal issues surrounding mental health (that were never really dealt with well in the past either), and promote development work in poorly maintained communities, and large infrastructural projects for improved public transport, and large infrastructural projects/R&D for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels going into the future.

There's not really a lack of things that can be done, and I'm sure others can think of much better things to add to the above, and government has the means to pay for it all.
The money from this that goes into workers pockets, and then gets spent in the private sector (as well as paying down private debt - opening more money to be spent in the private sector), would even boost jobs in the private sector over time as well, until all the job program jobs are soaked up by the private economy.

If any other posters can think of useful infrastructural/public-service/anything type jobs that can be done, the only limit is the amount of unemployed people available for employment (so, other suggestions welcome).

the_syco

KyussBishop wrote: »

If there is such an abundance of these physical resources, that everyones needs can be met for a comfortable quality of life, yet this is not done because of how money is managed, then that is a mismanagement of money in the economy.

If you want comfort, you better work for it. Otherwise, in Ireland, you'll be given enough to live.

=-=

The jobs program costs money. This money is brought in from tax. Tax is brought in from people who work and get taxed. Unless you charged the employers for these "free" workers, you'll end up running out of cash. You'll also have companies existing on the basis of workers working for free, with the profit going to a few individuals, not the state.

KyussBishop

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'll admit I'd be cautious of TAN's because they seem to be a newish concept and I'd like to see it in action on a small scale to ensure they actually work but the theory seems sound enough from the outside looking in.

There's precedent of them being used in the US for funding alright, though they are not quite the same as the proposal I am promoting.

Have to say, good to finally come across a proposal for a method of funding, that doesn't suffer from the usual pitfalls I encounter in these discussions. Very promising I think, for spreading the idea around very far.

KyussBishop

the_syco wrote: »

If you want comfort, you better work for it. Otherwise, in Ireland, you'll be given enough to live.

=-=

The jobs program costs money. This money is brought in from tax. Tax is brought in from people who work and get taxed. Unless you charged the employers for these "free" workers, you'll end up running out of cash. You'll also have companies existing on the basis of workers working for free, with the profit going to a few individuals, not the state.

Where are you getting the idea of workers working for free? Nobody advocated that.

I've pointed out a method of funding that doesn't require any increases in taxation whatsoever, and programs for utilizing that funding to provide full employment.

My other posts, are for pointing out a way of looking at economics, that looks first at what is physically possible (to see how inefficiently economies are being run right now, and how efficiently they could be run), and to point out that money is supposed to be used for putting resources together in economies with maximum efficiency, not as an artificial restraint holding economies back from full-potential/full-employment.

CruelCoin

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

What sort of solution do you suggest to combat unemployment and poverty? Just leave them too it and let them fend for themselves?

The alternative being to artificially plump them up with benefits and the like?

Qualitymark

Apparently, we're the best little country in the world to be at risk of poverty:

http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/the-best-little-country-in-which-to-be-at-risk-of-poverty/

Tiddlypeeps

CruelCoin wrote: »

The alternative being to artificially plump them up with benefits and the like?

I asked you what do you suggest we do with unemployed and poor people?

Don't avoid the question by asking another.

Idbatterim

I'd love to hear of one example of a country that operates a strong and equitable economy without a minimum wage.

Germany up until now, and only as a compromise to form the new coalition...

http://www.thelocal.de/20131121/germany-to-introduce-minimum-wage

Scandinavian countries have low unemployment, generous welfare rates, fantastic education systems, really good health care and all round pretty much excellent public services. They have a really high tax rate but they still manage to top the charts on how content the population are.

If, as you say, a system like that will never work and is preposterous then how come it's working so well for them?

The poster probably meant it would never work here and I agree, no bloody way would I be prepared to pay more taxes, given the "value" (insert rolleyes there) for money we get. To be wasted on the likes of the below?! LOL

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/temple-bar-culture-chief-gets-secret-payoff-29831324.html

Tiddlypeeps

Idbatterim wrote: »

Germany up until now, and only as a compromise to form the new coalition...

http://www.thelocal.de/20131121/germany-to-introduce-minimum-wage

Is there a reason they are introducing a minimum wage if it is working so well for them?

Qualitymark

Idbatterim wrote: »

The poster probably meant it would never work here and I agree, no bloody way would I be prepared to pay more taxes, given the "value" (insert rolleyes there) for money we get. To be wasted on the likes of the below?! LOL

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/temple-bar-culture-chief-gets-secret-payoff-29831324.html

Yes yes yes yes and yes again, Idbatterim: the unfair payments to buddy-boys in Ireland is without any question the worst thing we do.

Idbatterim

Is there a reason they are introducing a minimum wage if it is working so well for them?

the proposed junior party are insisting on it, what effect it will have remains to be seen... There is a reason they are one of the world powerhouse economies. Below you can see the a conflict now between Liebherr and some of its Irish employees, I dont know why they bother...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1211/492324-liebherr/

Tiddlypeeps

Idbatterim wrote: »

the proposed junior party are insisting on it, what effect it will have remains to be seen... There is a reason they are one of the world powerhouse economies. Below you can see the a conflict now between Liebherr and some of its Irish employees, I dont know why they bother...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1211/492324-liebherr/

They aren't just proposing the change for the craic tho. I don't know much about the German economy or Germany in general but if people are pushing for this change then there is an issue that they are hoping this change will correct.

Any idea what that issue is? Are there a large number of people being assisted by the state because their wages aren't enough? If so are a large portion of those jobs in companies that would otherwise be able to afford to pay higher wages?

I don't know the answer to those questions but if it is yes then that's quite likely the reason they are pushing for the change.

Idbatterim

murpaph would probably have a good idea about this, will pm him later and see if he knows...

Qualitymark

From Wikepedia (I know, I know, but it's interesting) - the section on Germany in the article about minimum wages in different countries:

None (no minimum wage at the moment, this means); except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Minimum wage is often set by collective bargaining agreements in other sectors of the economy and enforceable by law.
The law states that paying a worker an "immoral wage" is illegal. There is no general consensus what constitutes "immoral" payment. One judge at a court in Krefeld, Germany, ruled that a cashier at a supermarket has to earn the equivalent of approximately 7USD per hour. The federal courts in Germany ruled that any wage lower than 75% of the average wage or salary for a specific occupation constitutes illegal payment. However, since there is no well defined legal minimum wage as of February 2013, courts are usually the ones who have the final say and will only rule for individual cases.

And this, from the Atlantic is also interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/why-germanys-proposed-minimum-wage-could-be-good-news-for-europe/281905/

Economists might also welcome a German minimum wage as a rare chance to observe a real-life economics experiment. Proponents of the minimum wage, both inside and outside of Germany, think that more generous pay will boost German consumers’ spending power, which will lead to them pulling in more imports from the rest of Europe. This could bring about the longed-for rebalancing of the German economy away from exports and towards domestic consumption and investment. But Merkel’s party, German business leaders and some analysts warn that a minimum wage will instead hurt employment and stoke inflation.

We shall see…