Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Burton - "Welfare keeps the economy ticking"
Options
Comments
-
No, I'm drawing out implications that I don't think you've thought out. You don't use the word retail, but you imply that consumer expenditure can stimulate employment. That's what you say, hereKyussBishop wrote: »I didn't say anything about domestic retailers (I'm pretty sure the word 'retail' didn't pop up in my posts at all, so not sure where you're pulling that from), you are trying to put words in my mouth.
The whole point is that consumer expenditure doesn't connect to the domestic economy (or, at least, not that strongly). Very little of any extra you spend in Tesco will end up available to Irish entities to repay debts.KyussBishop wrote: »<...> because private debt has grown so large, that it is suppressing peoples spending power, and that is suppressing aggregate demand, meaning less profits in the private sector, and thus greater unemployment.<...>
You've missed the point completely. If you are a small open economy, the state of global demand is of less importance that if you're a major economy. Now, that's not to say trading conditions are easy. Just that it's a feasible strategy.KyussBishop wrote: »That's great, except we're not the only country trying to increase exports right now, and everyone is trying to reduce imports - that, trying to recover through exports when nobody wants them, is an economically illiterate policy.
Whereas, a small open economy trying a general demand stimulous is (as you might put it) an economically illiterate policy, as the money just flows abroad.0 -
No, I've pointed out that private debt is the problem. Reducing the problem of private debt through getting more money into the private sector, and into workers hands through wages (much of it from the temporary employment program), helps resolve the private debt problem, thus stimulating aggregate demand as consumer spending power is freed up, and that helps boost profits in private business, and eventually helps private business hire more people (to soak workers up out of the temporary job program).GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »No, I'm drawing out implications that I don't think you've thought out. You don't use the word retail, but you imply that consumer expenditure can stimulate employment. That's what you say, here
You have to take all of what I say together, not pick out parts of it in isolation, and use that to try and straw-man me, into positions I don't hold.
Nobody wants more of our exports. It doesn't matter if we have less to make up for in exports than Germany or the rest of Europe, when nobody wants more, because they are trying to import less.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »You've missed the point completely. If you are a small open economy, the state of global demand is of less importance that if you're a major economy. Now, that's not to say trading conditions are easy. Just that it's a feasible strategy.
Whereas, a small open economy trying a general demand stimulous is (as you might put it) an economically illiterate policy, as the money just flows abroad.
Who are we going to export to? Everyone else is trying to import less, and export more.
You know what zero-sum means, right? The world can't recover economically, by everyone increasing exports all at once.
World Exports - World Imports = 0. It has to sum to zero (thus the term 'zero-sum' game).0 -
This doesn't happen (or, at least, doesn't happen enough to make it worth the candle), and that's where your analysis falls down.KyussBishop wrote: »<...> stimulating aggregate demand as consumer spending power is freed up, and that helps boost profits in private business, and eventually helps private business hire more people <...>
I've already explained what's wrong with this statement.KyussBishop wrote: »<...> Nobody wants more of our exports. <...>
Actually, Earth has a trade surplus with MarsKyussBishop wrote: »<...> World Exports - World Imports = 0. It has to sum to zero (thus the term 'zero-sum' game).
More seriously, the point is (as I've said) international trade happens because mutual gains are possible. It's actually not a zero sum game.http://www.economist.com/node/21538100
if you add up all countries' reported current-account transactions (exports minus imports of goods and services, net investment income, workers' remittances and other transfers), the world exported $331 billion more than it imported in 2010, according to the IMF's World Economic Outlook. The fund forecasts that the global current-account surplus will rise to almost $700 billion by 2014.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I haven't seen anybody lately, able to present arguments against money creation that aren't 100% political, by asserting political misuse of the ability - that has nothing to do with economics.
The assertion that there is no useful public work that anyone can do is a completely unbacked one - countries all over Europe have been dismantling parts of their public services since the crisis began (giving immediate opportunities for restoring employment there), and there is practically no limit to the amount of infrastructural upgrades that can be done all over Europe, or the level of research and technological development that can be done.
The claim that people would be unwilling to work in such a program as well, is as unbacked as the claim that unemployment is so high because people don't want to work - there is no indication at all that people are unwilling to work.
If all you can personally think of are grossly inefficient ways of employing people in temporary public employment, that is just a failure of imagination on your part, and amounts to a straw-man; it comes off more as making up examples you know are false, just so you can sneer at the concept, and remain eternally 'unconvinced'.
You sound like a young fellow. Your arguments are theoretical and naive. When Farmer Pudsey (post 85) tried to (re)attach you to the real world
you didn't really engage with his objections. Your theory, if it's worth that title, is ridiculous. In the first instance because you say it starts with convincing the EU to adopt the strategy; they have far more to be doing than engaging in that kind of utopianism.
Another point is you assume those without 'work' are 'doing nothing'. That the unemployed represent a huge resource capable of being used productively. Imo the welfare payments system represents the most efficient way the State can deal with this segment of the population. Fas and CWS etc only go to confirm this. And it's costing us a fortune each year.
Your 'scheme' reminds me of an old FF (George Colley) pre election promise to have a Buy Irish campaign (advertsing) to convert 3% of consumer spending from imports to home produced stuff. Pie in the sky.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You are wrong, I've already explained this:
The private sector does not want these unemployed workers, because private debt has grown so large, that it is suppressing peoples spending power, and that is suppressing aggregate demand, meaning less profits in the private sector, and thus greater unemployment.
So the problem is a mix of private debt, and unemployment (which prevents people from being able to earn enough to get out of debt), therefore the solution to unemployment is to (surprise) give people jobs, so they can earn money and pay down their debts, which over time gives them more money to spend (due to less money going into debt, and due to wages from their job), which increases aggregate demand over time, which pumps up the private sector (more profits, more private sector jobs), causing the private sector to reabsorb people out of the temporary jobs program, until the program ends altogether.
Then you have 100% recovery - the temporary jobs program, is an automatic stabilizer that helps to resolve all the issues of: private debt, unemployment, aggregate demand shortfall, private sector slowdowns etc..
The temporary jobs program, solves all of the 'real' issues; it in fact, gives the private sector the money it needs, to solve those issues by itself - allowing 'the markets' to do their magic.
Hi KyussBishop, you mention that the problem is a mix of debt and unemployment and suggest a solution. My issue with this is that the solution does not tackle any of the reasons for the high unemployment. It is not merely private debt and a suppression of domestic demand that caused the high unemployment rate. In fact Ireland could theoretically have a low unemployment rate with low domestic demand if everyone worked in export related business. This is illustrated by our rise in exports at a time of low domestic demand.
Sending people on work problems does not tackle any of the issues many multinational companies listed when they relocated from Ireland.
High Rents
High Rates
High Electricity costs
High Insurance costs
High wage costs
You could give everyone a job and it would be horribly inefficient and in reality very similar to a Communist Command Economy. Spectacular failure guaranteed.
The current rates of welfare surpass minimum wage jobs and in some cases surpass the average industrial wage. Taxing people at the higher end is not a solution either. If you keep taxing "the wealthy" to feed the welfare you end up with, yes, a form of quasi communism where everyone earns a similar amount. Why should a family on welfare have the same standard of living as a working family or a family with people in higher powered jobs?
I`d like if people woke up to the reality of what is happening around them. Welfare is not a solution and neither is increasing the minimum wage like Burton suggested. She is either a top class idiot or evil. What I consider evil is keeping people hooked on welfare so that she doesn`t lose her voting base. These "socialists" would rather have people with no hope than opportunity because if they can get free of their addiction to welfare she will lose their vote.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, you're taking isolated parts of my position to knock down, when you need to consider everything as one.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »This doesn't happen (or, at least, doesn't happen enough to make it worth the candle), and that's where your analysis falls down. I've already explained what's wrong with this statement.
Actually, Earth has a trade surplus with MarsMore seriously, the point is (as I've said) international trade happens because mutual gains are possible. It's actually not a zero sum game.
Giving workers more money (through work), so they can deleverage debt and have more to spend - how will that, increased consumer spending, not stimulate demand? (once the reduction of private debt reaches a tipping point)
You haven't explained at all how we're supposed to resolve the problem of nobody wanting more of our exports, and the fact that we are competing with the rest of the world to increase our exports (making it highly unlikely for us to find anyone who wants more of our exports).
While the world having a reported trade surplus is pretty amusing, the world actually doesn't have a trade surplus or trade deficit at all - that is caused by inaccurate statistics; here is an article backing everything I've said on that:
http://www.businessinsider.com/global-trade-surpluses-and-deficits-2012-80 -
You haven't even bothered addressing arguments, you've just lurched straight into ad-hominem - the first blindingly obvious sign of bad faith in argument, followed by the rest of the predictable trite that usually comes after.Good loser wrote: »You sound like a young fellow. Your arguments are theoretical and naive. When Farmer Pudsey (post 85) tried to (re)attach you to the real world
you didn't really engage with his objections. Your theory, if it's worth that title, is ridiculous. In the first instance because you say it starts with convincing the EU to adopt the strategy; they have far more to be doing than engaging in that kind of utopianism.
Another point is you assume those without 'work' are 'doing nothing'. That the unemployed represent a huge resource capable of being used productively. Imo the welfare payments system represents the most efficient way the State can deal with this segment of the population. Fas and CWS etc only go to confirm this. And it's costing us a fortune each year.
Your 'scheme' reminds me of an old FF (George Colley) pre election promise to have a Buy Irish campaign (advertsing) to convert 3% of consumer spending from imports to home produced stuff. Pie in the sky.
The policies I describe, are not based in theory they are based on basic accounting rules, which are factually true as mathematical statements (and just amount to tracking on a balance sheet, where money goes in the economy).
Again, as predicted in the first line of the very post you quote here, your arguments against my economic views are almost entirely political or just unbacked assertions, ignoring the economics altogether.
That you think/assert that paying people to sit around doing nothing (completely wasting their labour potential), is the most efficient and productive use of money, rather than paying them to work (to actually do something productive and use their labour potential), says all that needs to be known about your own economic views.0 -
I mentioned a lot more than that - you are going back in circles here over what I already addressed.Deleted User wrote: »Hi KyussBishop, you mention that the problem is a mix of debt and unemployment and suggest a solution. My issue with this is that the solution does not tackle any of the reasons for the high unemployment.
It is not merely private debt and a suppression of domestic demand that caused the high unemployment rate. In fact Ireland could theoretically have a low unemployment rate with low domestic demand if everyone worked in export related business. This is illustrated by our rise in exports at a time of low domestic demand.
Sending people on work problems does not tackle any of the issues many multinational companies listed when they relocated from Ireland.
High Rents
High Rates
High Electricity costs
High Insurance costs
High wage costs
You could give everyone a job and it would be horribly inefficient and in reality very similar to a Communist Command Economy. Spectacular failure guaranteed.
The current rates of welfare surpass minimum wage jobs and in some cases surpass the average industrial wage. Taxing people at the higher end is not a solution either. If you keep taxing "the wealthy" to feed the welfare you end up with, yes, a form of quasi communism where everyone earns a similar amount. Why should a family on welfare have the same standard of living as a working family or a family with people in higher powered jobs?
I`d like if people woke up to the reality of what is happening around them. Welfare is not a solution and neither is increasing the minimum wage like Burton suggested. She is either a top class idiot or evil. What I consider evil is keeping people hooked on welfare so that she doesn`t lose her voting base. These "socialists" would rather have people with no hope than opportunity because if they can get free of their addiction to welfare she will lose their vote.
The problems are all intermixed and there is no one 'root' problem to be fixed, but many different problems that need to be fixed, with the solution I put forward tackling many of them at once, setting us on the path to recovery.
Your assertion that I am ignoring some (undisclosed) 'root' problem, is without any backing at all.
None of the problems you list there, block the utilization of my solution for solving the unemployment and output gap (among other) issues; many of them are separate problems worth resolving in their own right.
That you predictably jump to the Communist label once again, when you don't appear to understand what Communism is, or what a command economy is, or in general - the difference between a public job and Communism (which makes it rather surprising you don't think we're all Communists already) - that shows bad faith in argument once again, because you know that is a nonsense strawman.
You are also straw-manning me once again, saying I want to fund all of this through taxes, when I've already explained the three ways of funding this: 1: taxes (and why I think they are bad), 2: Centralized EU debt (where idle/unproductive savings, can be encouraged to invest in government/EU debt, for public spending), and 3: Money creation (where spending is a matter of keeping inflation targets in check, and managing the EU-wide trade balance - which is easy, because most of the resources needed can be found within the EU).
You're also talking about Welfare again even though I'm talking about a program that vastly reduces the need for welfare? You don't seem to be reading or making an attempt to reply in good faith to my posts here, so I'm going to stop replying to you.
There is also a complete lack of economic arguments here - just assertions "that will be inefficient/Communist/a-failure/not-solving-(undisclosed)-root-problems"; there is little point debating with the same repeated assertions, when you just ignore everything said and (appear) to reply in bad faith.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Again, you're taking isolated parts of my position to knock down, when you need to consider everything as one.
Giving workers more money (through work), so they can deleverage debt and have more to spend - how will that, increased consumer spending, not stimulate demand? (once the reduction of private debt reaches a tipping point)
You haven't explained at all how we're supposed to resolve the problem of nobody wanting more of our exports, and the fact that we are competing with the rest of the world to increase our exports (making it highly unlikely for us to find anyone who wants more of our exports).
While the world having a reported trade surplus is pretty amusing, the world actually doesn't have a trade surplus or trade deficit at all - that is caused by inaccurate statistics; here is an article backing everything I've said on that:
http://www.businessinsider.com/global-trade-surpluses-and-deficits-2012-8
You are simply robbing peter to pay paul. It is a zero sum game. Taxing one person to give to another does not generate income. It doesn`t even get rid of any debt unless you make welfare pay out specifically to those with debt or vary rates based on how indebted people are. This is not what welfare is for.
People are buying our exports and will buy if they are cheaper. They will also buy more as the world economy recovers. Our exports aren`t doing as badly as our domestic economy.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You are simply robbing peter to pay paul. It is a zero sum game. Taxing one person to give to another does not generate income. It doesn`t even get rid of any debt unless you make welfare pay out specifically to those with debt or vary rates based on how indebted people are. This is not what welfare is for.
People are buying our exports and will buy if they are cheaper. They will also buy more as the world economy recovers. Our exports aren`t doing as badly as our domestic economy.
You can't cheapen your exports when you have no control of your currency.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, there is a way - you try to destroy wage levels in your local economy, and decimate peoples quality of living (and might as well destroy unions, workers rights, and labour power in general while you're at it - makes it so much easier), to achieve 'internal devaluation', where you basically deliberately implode your own economy with austerity; austerity aimed at the least well off, low-earning workers producing the exports (since that's the most 'efficient' way to do internal devaluation, is to kill wages right where it will give exports the biggest boost).clairefontaine wrote: »You can't cheapen your exports when you have no control of your currency.
When that just makes your economy worse by 1: decimating aggregate demand even further (due to lower wages), 2: increasing the cost of living for the least well off (due to lower wages as percentage of cost of living), 3: increasing real debt burdens (as a percentage of earnings), 4: increasing cost of imported consumables - like oil (as a percentage of earnings), and 5: just...destroying your economy; when that doesn't work, just keep on doing it anyway with the promise that "recovery is just around the corner".
This is pretty much the plan in place at the moment, for getting out of the crisis. It's basically powerful actors in the worldwide banking/financial industry, among with many wealthy corrupt corporate folk, and their intricate well-funded think-tank propaganda networks (that help them exert great control over politics, academia and the media), committing economic and class warfare against the world (particularly the least well off in the world).0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I haven't seen anybody lately, able to present arguments against money creation that aren't 100% political, by asserting political misuse of the ability - that has nothing to do with economics.
The assertion that there is no useful public work that anyone can do is a completely unbacked one - countries all over Europe have been dismantling parts of their public services since the crisis began (giving immediate opportunities for restoring employment there), and there is practically no limit to the amount of infrastructural upgrades that can be done all over Europe, or the level of research and technological development that can be done.
The claim that people would be unwilling to work in such a program as well, is as unbacked as the claim that unemployment is so high because people don't want to work - there is no indication at all that people are unwilling to work.
If all you can personally think of are grossly inefficient ways of employing people in temporary public employment, that is just a failure of imagination on your part, and amounts to a straw-man; it comes off more as making up examples you know are false, just so you can sneer at the concept, and remain eternally 'unconvinced'.
Kyruss I do not sneer but rather I see no way it will work. You talk about public works on all these threads that you bring up the money creation lark. You talk about public works but give no examples. We have 400K unemployed another few 100K receiving carers, disability and single parents allowance. Any public works scheme would require capital expenditure.
Angel Merkel, the troika and the European Commission and the is not going allow us to print (create) money. So do you espouse that we leave the EU. with our new money that we pay for these public works what can we buy. within a year we would be like Zimbabwe to get a loaf of bread if you could get it would require a barrow of paper. Every body would be trading in dollars sterling or Euro.
You mention that part of my argument is political this is called reality I am not in the business of discussing an economic theory that has no practical application. In theory there is no reason that we could not design feather wings and fly but I would not be doing it off the cliffs of Moher.
We have not dismantled our public services rather they have become unviable due to there cost. The HSE and the health is a case in point. I wonder if everybody gave up paying health Insurance would doctors and Insurance fees drop however it require a collective will that is not politically possible so I will not waste time espousing a theory that will not be accepted or possible to implement.
You question my assertion that a large section of the unemployed would be unwilling to take part. Yet I cannot question your ascertain that they would.
just a few questions
What public works would you envisage
Would you recommend that we leave the EU
This printed (created) money what should it be spend on
Any person not accepting a job should they be left starve
What would happen if business refused to accept this printed money0 -
Well everyone earning in excess E10,500 pays the USC, but I suppose there is a semantic argument that this is not a 'tax.'
It certainly feels like a tax!
A person earning the minimum wage of €8.65 working 39 hours per week for 52 weeks per year earns €17,542.
They would have deductions of USC = €547, PRSI = 0 and PAYE = €208. Altogether the deductions are €755, leaving a net weekly income of €323 (instead of €337 gross per week). So, they are making contributions of €14 per week to the state.
This is a tax rate of 4.15%.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »You can't cheapen your exports when you have no control of your currency.
Reducing any of the following will cheapen our exports: Rents, Rates, Electricity costs, Insurance costs, wage costs. All the things the multinationals cite when relocating.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Actually, there is a way - you try to destroy wage levels in your local economy, and decimate peoples quality of living (and might as well destroy unions, workers rights, and labour power in general while you're at it - makes it so much easier), to achieve 'internal devaluation', where you basically deliberately implode your own economy with austerity; austerity aimed at the least well off, low-earning workers producing the exports (since that's the most 'efficient' way to do internal devaluation, is to kill wages right where it will give exports the biggest boost).
One perfect example to show the flaw in your logic: Reforming upward only rents would cheaper exports and the cost of living and doing business. No need to decimate the quality of life or destroy unions.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »That you predictably jump to the Communist label once again, when you don't appear to understand what Communism is, or what a command economy is, or in general - the difference between a public job and Communism (which makes it rather surprising you don't think we're all Communists already) - that shows bad faith in argument once again, because you know that is a nonsense strawman.
For the second time, Quasi Communism is the term I used.0 -
No, I just need to repeat why your following statement is wrong.KyussBishop wrote: »Again, you're taking isolated parts of my position to knock down, when you need to consider everything as one.
Because Irish consumer spending has a very high import content - so it would stimulate demand for imports, and the benefit of that will be experienced by countries we import from.KyussBishop wrote: »<....> how will that, increased consumer spending, not stimulate demand? <....>
I very much have addressed this, when I saidKyussBishop wrote: »You haven't explained at all how we're supposed to resolve the problem of nobody wanting more of our exports, and the fact that we are competing with the rest of the world to increase our exports (making it highly unlikely for us to find anyone who wants more of our exports).
As I've also already saidGCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »The advantage of being a small open economy is that, unlike Germany, we don't have to worry so much about the general state of global demand. A significant increase in our exports would be negligible in world trade terms. If our strategy is simply to become competitive, that can succeed even during a global recession.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »<...>that's not to say trading conditions are easy. Just that it's a feasible strategy.
Whereas, a small open economy trying a general demand stimulous is (as you might put it) an economically illiterate policy, as the money just flows abroad.
My first point (which is the one directly relevant to Ireland) is that article says nothing about the case of a small open economy. The point about an SOE is that increasing exports is a feasible strategy, even at a time of falling demand. It's not surprising that the SOE concept is absent from the article - it seems to be from a US publication.KyussBishop wrote: »While the world having a reported trade surplus is pretty amusing, the world actually doesn't have a trade surplus or trade deficit at all - that is caused by inaccurate statistics; here is an article backing everything I've said on that:
http://www.businessinsider.com/global-trade-surpluses-and-deficits-2012-8
The second issue is the article is ignorant of the gains from international trade. If international trade was a zero-sum game, it wouldn't happen. You'll find the basic insight set out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Actually, there is a way - you try to destroy wage levels in your local economy, and decimate peoples quality of living (and might as well destroy unions, workers rights, and labour power in general while you're at it - makes it so much easier), to achieve 'internal devaluation', where you basically deliberately implode your own economy with austerity; austerity aimed at the least well off, low-earning workers producing the exports (since that's the most 'efficient' way to do internal devaluation, is to kill wages right where it will give exports the biggest boost).
When that just makes your economy worse by 1: decimating aggregate demand even further (due to lower wages), 2: increasing the cost of living for the least well off (due to lower wages as percentage of cost of living), 3: increasing real debt burdens (as a percentage of earnings), 4: increasing cost of imported consumables - like oil (as a percentage of earnings), and 5: just...destroying your economy; when that doesn't work, just keep on doing it anyway with the promise that "recovery is just around the corner".
This is pretty much the plan in place at the moment, for getting out of the crisis. It's basically powerful actors in the worldwide banking/financial industry, among with many wealthy corrupt corporate folk, and their intricate well-funded think-tank propaganda networks (that help them exert great control over politics, academia and the media), committing economic and class warfare against the world (particularly the least well off in the world).
I see now that ridiculous grand scheme of yours has a central thrust - the
preservation of workers' terms and conditions. These are to be left untouched. You should have the whole hearted backing of the union movement for that - and Joan Burton. Fat lot of good it will do anyone else.
[By the way isn't it high-earning workers produce most of the exports?]0 -
I've given plenty of examples going back half a year on this forum, but you deliberately ignore that because you don't care about the arguments, you only care about remaining eternally 'unconvinced'. You do sneer at it all the time - your posts are loaded with condescension, because you have more interest in rhetoric than honest argument.Farmer Pudsey wrote: »Kyruss I do not sneer but rather I see no way it will work. You talk about public works on all these threads that you bring up the money creation lark. You talk about public works but give no examples. We have 400K unemployed another few 100K receiving carers, disability and single parents allowance. Any public works scheme would require capital expenditure.
Angel Merkel, the troika and the European Commission and the is not going allow us to print (create) money. So do you espouse that we leave the EU. with our new money that we pay for these public works what can we buy. within a year we would be like Zimbabwe to get a loaf of bread if you could get it would require a barrow of paper. Every body would be trading in dollars sterling or Euro.
You mention that part of my argument is political this is called reality I am not in the business of discussing an economic theory that has no practical application. In theory there is no reason that we could not design feather wings and fly but I would not be doing it off the cliffs of Moher.
We have not dismantled our public services rather they have become unviable due to there cost. The HSE and the health is a case in point. I wonder if everybody gave up paying health Insurance would doctors and Insurance fees drop however it require a collective will that is not politically possible so I will not waste time espousing a theory that will not be accepted or possible to implement.
You question my assertion that a large section of the unemployed would be unwilling to take part. Yet I cannot question your ascertain that they would.
just a few questions
What public works would you envisage
Would you recommend that we leave the EU
This printed (created) money what should it be spend on
Any person not accepting a job should they be left starve
What would happen if business refused to accept this printed money
All of the arguments you present in your post here are 100% political, and are nothing to do with economics - you make the same arguments that have been continually rebutted endless times going back months, arguments where you don't care that they are fallacious (like the Zimbabwe hyperinflation assertion - again, asserting a political action will be taken, with no backing, to voluntarily destroy the economy).
That you make repeated arguments you know are fallacious, shows your dishonest intent, and primary desire to shut down and derail debate - don't expect me to engage with your questions demands, to let you steer the debate, when you have shown that kind of bad faith, and already show you are not open to convincing.0 -
I never said there were not other ways of reducing the cost of doing business, so you are knocking down (yet another) straw-man there.Deleted User wrote: »One perfect example to show the flaw in your logic: Reforming upward only rents would cheaper exports and the cost of living and doing business. No need to decimate the quality of life or destroy unions.
Go on then - provide a definition for 'quasi-communism'?Deleted User wrote: »For the second time, Quasi Communism is the term I used.
There is no readily available definition online, and I bet you will provide the most flexible definition possible, so you can manage to fit any vaguely-left policy you like under the term 'quasi-communism'.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »I've given plenty of examples going back half a year on this forum, but you deliberately ignore that because you don't care about the arguments, you only care about remaining eternally 'unconvinced'. You do sneer at it all the time - your posts are loaded with condescension, because you have more interest in rhetoric than honest argument.
All of the arguments you present in your post here are 100% political, and are nothing to do with economics - you make the same arguments that have been continually rebutted endless times going back months, arguments where you don't care that they are fallacious (like the Zimbabwe hyperinflation assertion - again, asserting a political action will be taken, with no backing, to voluntarily destroy the economy).
That you make repeated arguments you know are fallacious, shows your dishonest intent, and primary desire to shut down and derail debate - don't expect me to engage with your questions demands, to let you steer the debate, when you have shown that kind of bad faith, and already show you are not open to convincing.
Kyuss you are playing the man and not the ball in sporting terms. Answer the points at the end of my previous post.0 -
With the policy I am describing, we are not talking about Ireland, we are talking about Europe. The stimulus program I describe has to be undertaken at a European level, thus it has to be discussed in terms of Europe overall.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Because Irish consumer spending has a very high import content - so it would stimulate demand for imports, and the benefit of that will be experienced by countries we import from.
The entire European economy would be growing, and Europe is resource-rich, so there would be only a small selection of key resources that would have to be imported; Europe can easily manage this method (economically and resource-wise) of returning to recovery.
No...you haven't explained how to get the world to take more of our exports, than they would take from other countries also trying to export more as well, you have just said we don't have to export as much - nothing there solves our problem, when countries in general are looking to import less, and export more.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I very much have addressed this, when I saidAs I've also already said
It's like an adult and a child stuck in a desert dying of dehydration, but the kid is better off because he needs to find a smaller amount of water, even when there is none around; not a very useful 'advantage'.
World Exports - World Imports = 0. It sums to zero. When you see articles saying there is a $300 billion surplus, that is inaccurate statistics - that's why all the articles jokingly refer to trade with aliens and such.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »My first point (which is the one directly relevant to Ireland) is that article says nothing about the case of a small open economy. The point about an SOE is that increasing exports is a feasible strategy, even at a time of falling demand. It's not surprising that the SOE concept is absent from the article - it seems to be from a US publication.
The second issue is the article is ignorant of the gains from international trade. If international trade was a zero-sum game, it wouldn't happen. You'll find the basic insight set out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gains_from_trade
Not all of the world economies can export their way out of the crisis, because more countries need to increase imports to match, which isn't happening right now because everyone is trying to reduce imports and increase exports.
This is also actually a reason why imports are not a bad thing either: They assist the rest of the world in achieving recovery as well, which is why it would not be a bad thing for Europe overall to import more.
The increase in imports even balances out over time, because as the countries Europe imports from return to full economic capacity, their imports also increase and the trade balance between countries/regions recovers to what it was before the crisis.0 -
Yes, I'd like to see workers quality of life, and their share of 'wealth' preserved, especially as it seems to continually be getting sucked-away in an accelerating upward concentration of wealth, to make parasites in banking/finance rich, at the expense of the rest of society.Good loser wrote: »I see now that ridiculous grand scheme of yours has a central thrust - the
preservation of workers' terms and conditions. These are to be left untouched. You should have the whole hearted backing of the union movement for that - and Joan Burton. Fat lot of good it will do anyone else.
[By the way isn't it high-earning workers produce most of the exports?]
I don't care about protecting unions (especially corrupt semi-parasitic ones), or cozy bureaucratic politicians with inflated wages - I don't put an ideological blinker over my left or right eye, so that I'm blind either to private financial/corporate corruption (as most anti-government/free-market types seem to be), or to corruption in unions and government.0 -
Criticizing a poster for their methods of argument, and apparent dishonesty/bad-faith in argument, is perfectly acceptable - worthwhile debate would actually be impossible without it - it is not an ad-hominem, it is a valid criticism directly backed by the content of your posts.Farmer Pudsey wrote: »Kyuss you are playing the man and not the ball in sporting terms. Answer the points at the end of my previous post.0 -
Good loser wrote: »I see now that ridiculous grand scheme of yours has a central thrust - the
preservation of workers' terms and conditions. These are to be left untouched. You should have the whole hearted backing of the union movement for that - and Joan Burton. Fat lot of good it will do anyone else.
[By the way isn't it high-earning workers produce most of the exports?]
Who would the "rest of us be". Aren't most of us workers?0 -
Frank Lee Midere wrote: »Who would the "rest of us be". Aren't most of us workers?
Yeah, but workers don't all have access to the same rights, privileges and protections. Varying from some extremely protected elements of the public sector to self-employed contractors who are not even entitled to the same social welfare benefits as other workers earning the same money.0 -
This is not surprising coming from a Labour member.
Unfortunately, it seems that FG is the only party that is actually willing to cut the insane welfare spending.
All other parties realize high welfare is a great way to bribe voters, artificially prop-up the economy and keep vested interests happy.0 -
Yeah, but workers don't all have access to the same rights, privileges and protections. Varying from some extremely protected elements of the public sector to self-employed contractors who are not even entitled to the same social welfare benefits as other workers earning the same money.
Yes the self employment lack of social welfare is nuts. Maybe that reform might promote spending which is what KB is asking for.
But I am asking a guy who said "workers". If workers get poorer then consumers get poorer, stop purchasing, and more workers get laid off etc.
At least in the domestic economy that is what we are seeing.
Not too many people get Keynes. To me as an engineer it makes sense as it is merely a stabilizer - a form of negative feedback. Classical economics never seems to treat workers as consumers. Leading to all kind of absurdities. If I have time tomorrow I will explain these points - on a phone now - and why QE should work. I will also poor out a major flaw with QE which hasn't been mentioned.0 -
So long as we're all clear that independent Irish action is suicidal, and that the reported comments of Joan Burton are nonsensical, I'm happy.KyussBishop wrote: »The stimulus program I describe has to be undertaken at a European level, thus it has to be discussed in terms of Europe overall.
Again, I have precisely explained that a feasible strategy is based around competitiveness. I've several times said that, just because its feasible, doesn't mean its easy. I think folk cling to the whole stimulation thing because they want to believe there's some pain-free way out of all this. There isn't. If we want future prosperity, we need to sacrifice current consumption. End of.KyussBishop wrote: »No...you haven't explained how to get the world to take more of our exports, than they would take from other countries also trying to export more as well, you have just said we don't have to export as much - nothing there solves our problem, when countries in general are looking to import less, and export more.
Thank you for explaining that, as otherwise the significance of The Economist saying we've a trade surplus with Mars might be lost on us.KyussBishop wrote: »When you see articles saying there is a $300 billion surplus, that is inaccurate statistics - that's why all the articles jokingly refer to trade with aliens and such.
I can only repeat, once again, that international trade is only feasible because it isn't a zero sum game. I supplied a relevant link in my last post explaining this.KyussBishop wrote: »Not all of the world economies can export their way out of the crisis, because more countries need to increase imports to match, which isn't happening right now because everyone is trying to reduce imports and increase exports.0 -
Advertisement
-
Independent Irish action certainly has the potential to be highly damaging alright, but we don't know for sure yet, whether or not it will be more damaging to wait out the rest of the crisis within the Euro.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »So long as we're all clear that independent Irish action is suicidal, and that the reported comments of Joan Burton are nonsensical, I'm happy.
Hitting the 'eject' button and destroying the Euro, and taking the damage from that now, might be better for Europe overall, than another decade of high unemployment and potential stagnation (which might see the Euro self-destruct in the future anyway, forcing us to take that damage even after all the sacrifice).
If the Euro ends, we may well see our primary trading partners in Europe take alternative recovery policies, which boost their imports and allow us to sustainably boost our economy using my previously discussed methods (a lot like how it would happen within the Euro, with my policies, but less coordinated and with a big initial hit from Euro exit damage).
We would of course, be in a much worse position than with Europe sticking together and engaging in those policies EU-wide - that looks close to impossible now though, so we (and our politicians/governments) have to start looking at and talking about the alternatives, even if we're not sure we want them yet.
No you have not. You are ignoring that we are competing with the rest of the world (when everyone is already trying to export more than they import), many nations of which are happy to set the bar for valuation of their exports, at a much lower level than us, and thus out-compete us (which would force everyone into a 'race-to-the-bottom' in valuation of exports and general economic standards).GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Again, I have precisely explained that a feasible strategy is based around competitiveness. I've several times said that, just because its feasible, doesn't mean its easy. I think folk cling to the whole stimulation thing because they want to believe there's some pain-free way out of all this. There isn't. If we want future prosperity, we need to sacrifice current consumption. End of.
That is just not a sustainable way to seek recovery, because it depends on other countries sorting their own economies out, which most of them are not doing.
We have to sort our own economy out (preferably Europe as a whole), not rely on exports i.e. rely on the rest of the world sorting their economies out, so they can import more and absorb our exports.
I mean you're talking about increased imports as a bad thing, without realizing that someone (some nation or set of nations) must do this, in order for the remainder of the world to get a boost from exports (and ignoring that this inherently balances out, as the rest of the world recovers, resetting trade-balances to, mostly, pre-crisis levels).
If nations try to out-compete each other without this, all you get is internal-devaluation (plus some minor efficiency reforms), and decimation of developed economies - that's just crazy.
That you are inherently contradicting yourself here, recognizing that World Exports - World Imports = 0, i.e. sums to zero (because we can't trade with Mars..), yet you say it is not a zero sum game (when it certainly is when it comes to the balance sheets) - when you inherently contradict yourself like that, that makes me unsure whether you really do understand that it's not possible for the world to have a trade surplus.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Thank you for explaining that, as otherwise the significance of The Economist saying we've a trade surplus with Mars might be lost on us.
I can only repeat, once again, that international trade is only feasible because it isn't a zero sum game. I supplied a relevant link in my last post explaining this.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement