Well, I'd ask you to prove your point using links to unbiased facts/statistics...but we both know you are allergic to them so those that believe you will have to go on the same thing that major religions ask their followers to go on...'a leap of faith'. Pass. Nor can I produce stats to prove mine - for I am not aware of a modern government to have tried it 'my way'. But since the 'bloated government' model has been steadily running America into the ground for decades (generations?). I would say it's high time for a try at letting the masses run their own lives and take far gteater responsibility forctheir own actions for a while.
Modern capitalism exists because of government; from the creation of markets (see the use of protectionism) to an understanding of how its prone to economic crisis (e.g. see just need cost-plus pricing and a tendency towards market concentration; both the norm as described by anyone who understands firm organisation) A low powered attempt. Keynesianism is clearly a vibrant political economy school of thought; that can't be questioned. That partially reflects its ability to understand empirical phenomena, from Keynes' appreciation of behavioural economics to the post-Keynesian output into understanding the labour market. However, it also reflects the desire of capitalists to reproduce profits.
You continue to be quite innocent of how econometric analysis operates. Its easy, however, to show the tendency towards economic crisis and the need for interventionism. See, for example, the early work by Sherman (1977, Monopoly Power and Stagflation, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 11, pp 269-284). He goes through US history and demonstrates the consistency of price movements with the post-Keynesian approach. And of course the stabilising effects of fiscal policy is observed in numerous analysis, such as the US's use of the military sector as a counter-cyclical mechanism You peddle utopian prance in order to avoid economic reality. Its bland in its predictability
The day the government realizes that it doesn't create and sustain permanent jobs, but merely allows an environment in which these situations are possible, is the day we gain permanent jobs. Its that simple
The problem is that, due to the median voter, the government isn't prepared to do enough to allow that environment: from inefficiently low minimum wages to a macroeconomic policy that threatens the double-dip
They won't invest. They don't have any cash-paying customers and can make more money being unproductive anyway. Obama is just the excuse du jour.
So you think minimum wage jobs drive this economy? Minimum job increases drive small businesses out of business. Minimum wage jobs are for part time workers and students. All you have to do to allow an environment that allows job creation to surge is to decrease corporate taxes (yes, those evil corporations that apparently hire no normal people), decrease taxes on small businesses, decrease regulations on small businesses (i.e. Obama care), tax cuts for jobs created in the US, etc. It could go on and on, and not include minimum wage jobs or bogus government stimulation for ONLY state and federal workers that already get way too much in pensions for jobs that could be done by a private company way more efficiently.
You'd have to assume perfect competition to derive that conclusion. As you consider actual labour markets you necessarily appreciate that minimum wages will reduce market failure and can increase employment (and therefore SME opportunities)
How about simply: 1. Banks not let people live beyond their means by borrowing too easily (e.g. the housing market bubble) 2. Eliminate entities which have the ability to legally counterfeit on a grand scale (e.g. minting and the Fed) 3. Make it wayyyy easier to attain marketable knowledge-most universities make it unnecessarily financially and otherwise burdensome to attain marketable knowledge, with their allocation of money towards on-campus restaurants and paying professors $100,000 a year to teach essentially non-marketable subjects such as "creative writing" and "women's studies" and whatnot. EDIT: public schooling for children is very unnecessarily expensive to taxpayers. 4. End corporate-governmental meddling If we just follow those 4 improvements (as a world, not just the U.S.), then we'll see what economic development really is.
I haven't thought about this thread in a long time. I don't think the republican plan has changed much. I hope it can work. The more I see the more complicated things seem.
And who decides what is marketable. Subjective prejudices? Can you show that the economic return from these subjects are zero?
The only way people should be paid $100,000 to do anything is if it's given to them voluntarily, rather than by tax dollars. And the market (if it were prominent) would determine what is marketable.
You haven't responded to my question. Can you show that the economic return from these subjects are zero? If you can't you're not actually referring to the market, but your subjective opinion of the importance of these subjects
If the average net ten-year return on investment for a given degree is greater than minimum wage, then it could be considered to be a marketable degree. If the average graduate doesn't earn enough to pay back the cost of the degree and still take in at least minimum wage, the degree is not a good fiscal investment. That doesn't mean that the person couldn't or shouldn't get the degree out of interest, it just means that they should accept the fact that they won't make any more money with the degree than without it and taxpayers shouldn't help pay for the degree at all.
I referred to economic return. That would necessarily have to take into account costs and benefits (e.g. 3 years of education is 3 years of lost potential wages). Its a reference to the human capital model which, rather than making subjective comment over the value of specific degrees, provides a means to demonstrate the economic value objectively
It will be very hard to create a true objective economic measurement of the value of a degree, but that is no surprise because it is very hard to create an objective measurement of anything economic. If you change the timeframe, it will be impossible for any degree to measure up. If you disregard the lost income, the degree gets stronger. If you subtract any scholarships or grants, the degree gets more economical. Even so, some kind of an economic measurement needs to be developed and considered before any government money is used to pay for degrees.
That's not true. Its not a difficult empirical proposition to measure economic rents. Its basic investment analysis after all.
But a great deal of the result depends on factors such as time range, lost wages, potential versus average future income, type of degree, etc. If I try to decide if a degree is worthwhile and I only compare the money I could earn working for four years with the cost of the degree, working will win every time. If I compare income over a lifetime with no degree versus income over a lifetime with a random bachelor's degree, the degree will win every time because the averages are so broad. Or consider comparing a degree that is useful everywhere, such as human resource management, with a degree that is only useful in certain areas, like a degree in fashion design. They may both have an equal average pay after graduation, but fashion designers are likely only able to find jobs in areas with very high costs of living, so the overall benefit of that salary is lower than someone working HR in a less expensive area. The factors and variables involved vary greatly and make a fair analysis very difficult.
IMO jobs won't come back until people have money to spend on goods/services. i.e. allowing a corp. to retain more money will not create a job if there in no demand for their service -pretty simple. Anyway my 2c 1. possible an okay idea. we've been told many don't pay it anyway so whats the difference. 2. too vague, most regulations are important. Don't we all want a best practice for food processing and service? Or work saftly best practices? and similar. R's like this one because they are climate change deniers and are interested in some few getting rich with world wide externalities. 3. How are things unfair as it (I'm not saying they arn't, I just don't know)? A related (and throubling) topic is outsourcing professional work such as engineering etc. to other countries. As one CEO said "Not because they are cheaper, but because they are smarter". It's been said that the most valuable resources, for the first time, is no longer anything found in the ground but the smarts of the surrounding population. The US is far behind in education at all levels and it will shortly take this country off the map.
