How do artificially HIGHER WAGES and "JOB CREATION" benefit the economy?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Everyone seems to agree, especially the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders crusaders, that we need more "job creation" and higher wages. (Even NPR's "Marketplace" daily laments the lack of "wage growth" in the economy, though it mostly tells the truth about the damage Trump is inflicting.)

And millions of idiot voters swarm to the polls and vote for these demagogues to reward them for telling the ignorant masses the garbage they want to hear -- and then launching trade policies to enact this garbage, thus forcing 300+ million U.S. consumers to pay higher prices.

Why? Why do so many idiots believe this makes the economy, or us, the public, better off?

Not only are the "jobs" created by driving up the prices we will have to pay, but also by driving up the national debt, or the annual budget deficits, which now, under Trump's "job-creation" math, are approaching to twice as high as they were in the last Obama years. And the Trump idiots don't want to hear a peep about it. All they want is to hear the same "job-creation" and "growth" rhetoric and babble, again and again, and obsess on the GDP "growth" numbers, much of which can easily be driven up artificially high, with more waste and higher debt.


So the basic question is:

Why are the HIGHER WAGES and "JOB CREATION" beneficial to the economy? I.e., to the whole population, to us all, when we have to pay for it with higher consumer prices and higher future taxes to pay for today's increased borrowing?

Where's the net benefit?

E.g., those "jobs" -- or as mealy-mouthed Bernie likes to say: "good-paying jobs, good-paying jobs" like he's slurping down oatmeal as he speaks ----- What's the benefit to the country when those "jobs" -- now to be done by red-blooded Americans -- produce no more value than before when they were done in China?

I.e., NO EXTRA PRODUCTION than before, the same production or quantity, but now at higher cost than before, and thus higher prices to consumers?

Where's the gain for the country, when we have nothing extra produced, but HIGHER PRICES TO PAY for it? How can that be anything but a NET LOSS to the whole country?

This is the TRUMP - SANDERS economic policy we're talking about here. Both of them want to drive up prices for 300 million U.S. consumers in order to "create" these costly "good-paying jobs" which produce no gain for the country. And Trump is enacting this bone-headed economics demagoguery right now, slowly driving up the prices all of us will have to pay.

So if you voted for Trump or Sanders in 2016, you're in favor of this snake-oil economics.

Why? Tell us why you think this "job creation" and higher wages demagoguery is good for the country.

Even if you're right that we gain a net increase in total "jobs" in the economy -- still, what is the net gain for us all? Right now the evidence shows a net LOSS of jobs, but you could argue that in the long run, if we keep doing this for another 20 years, reducing our trade with China and other countries, we can create more of these "good-paying jobs" in the U.S. No one can disprove that. It may be true that if we drive up consumer prices high enough, over a long-enough period, we'll eventually "create" a few million net extra "jobs" for the U.S. by forcing companies to "bring the jobs back" at much higher cost of production than previously. No one can disprove this theory.

(And of course Trump's "job-creation" includes driving away the undocumented immigrant workers and driving down labor supply, also contributing to higher prices we pay and reducing our living standard.)

What can't be denied is that these extra "jobs" will cost all Americans higher prices and lower standard of living, in the short- and long-term.

Why is that good?f

Why is it desirable to drive down the standard of living for 300 million Americans, including most of the poor, in order to provide a few million of these "good-paying jobs" to a select group of U.S. wage-earners?

What is the net gain?

And if you can't say what net gain there is, why do you keep voting for these blowhards and encouraging this "job-creation" and "good-paying jobs" babble? Why do most or all the pundits keep spewing out this incoherent pig-slop? To whom are they spewing it out? Who are the mindless idiots who keep slurping it up?

 

[bilby]

Why should we care about what's beneficial to the economy?

I care about what's beneficial to the people. If that happens to include a strong economy, then that's great - but a society should seek to benefit the people within it, not some proxy measures that concentrate on a single aspect of life to the exclusion of all else.

Your entire screed is based on a misconception about what goals are desirable - whether or not it is correct in regards to how the economy is affected by various things, you still need to demonstrate that this monomaniacal focus on 'the economy' rather then 'the people' is a sensible approach to take (hint: it's not).

A lower standard of living for the wealthiest 90% of people may well be a very desirable thing, if it enables a higher standard of living for the least wealthy 10%.

The measure of societal success is the standard of living of its poorest member.

 

[barbos]

Why should we care about what's beneficial to the economy?

I care about what's beneficial to the people. If that happens to include a strong economy, then that's great - but a society should seek to benefit the people within it, not some proxy measures that concentrate on a single aspect of life to the exclusion of all else.

Your entire screed is based on a misconception about what goals are desirable - whether or not it is correct in regards to how the economy is affected by various things, you still need to demonstrate that this monomaniacal focus on 'the economy' rather then 'the people' is a sensible approach to take (hint: it's not).

A lower standard of living for the wealthiest 90% of people may well be a very desirable thing, if it enables a higher standard of living for the least wealthy 10%.

The measure of societal success is the standard of living of its poorest member.

View attachment 17772

I agree and I myself have been against stupid metrics being used. But both sides are using them. Even most economists are essentially blind to the notions that the economy is not the end of it all.

 

[untermensche]

There are several ways to look at the human activity that creates an "economy".

It can be thought of an being done in the service of the "economy".

Or it can be thought of as being done in the service of people.

Serving the "economy" as opposed to using the "economy" to serve the most people is stupidity.

Just putting money into the hands of people that spend it helps the economy greatly.

Just give people with little money some cash and the economy will improve.

The more people you just hand it to, as long as they spend it, the better.

The economy is the flow of money.

The more people involved the better.

Hoarding great sums of money and hiding it out of the country is very bad for an economy.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"The People" -- all 300 million of them -- are made WORSE off by the Trump-Sanders "good-paying jobs"-for-the-rabble crusade.

Why should we care about what's beneficial to the economy?

I care about what's beneficial to the people.

"The economy" IS all the people, all 300+ million consumers, who are made worse off by the "job creation" and "good-paying jobs" which Trump and Sanders babble about.

If that happens to include a strong economy, then that's great . . .

It automatically includes a strong economy, because a "strong economy" IS all the people, all 300+ million consumers, who are made worse off by Bernie's and Trump's "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" babble nonsense.

. . . - but a society should seek to benefit the people within it, not some proxy measures that concentrate on a single aspect of life to the exclusion of all else.

You mean like Trump and Sanders, who narrowly concentrate on "good-paying jobs" for factory workers which 300+ consumers will have to pay for with higher prices and higher taxes.

Yes, Trump and Sanders should quit concentrating on factory jobs, like the Soviet Union did, and instead ask what's best for 300 million consumers. And stop pandering to the idiots who worship factories and coal mines.

Your entire screed is based on a misconception about what goals are desirable - whether or not it is correct in regards to how the economy is affected by various things, . . .

The desirable goal of serving the 300+ million consumers and taxpayers is adversely affected by the higher prices and higher federal deficits Trump's economy is going to cost us. Isn't the entire population a large enough collective to be concerned for, whose welfare we should consider? instead of the narrow focus of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on factory jobs which don't serve any broad need, but only the interests of a select few?

What is so sacred about these factory "jobs" that you think they are more important than the welfare of the 300 million Americans who have to pay for them?

. . . you still need to demonstrate that this monomaniacal focus on 'the economy' rather then 'the people' is a sensible approach to take (hint: it's not).

So you think factory "jobs" for a few million uncompetitive job-seekers is more sensible than meeting the interests of the 300+ million Americans, including the poor, who have to pay for them? Why are those factory jobs so sacred to you? Why do you worship artificial factories for the sake of factories, which produce no value except as babysitting slots to put the rabble into? Why can't you shake loose from your emotional attachment to these sacred factories? Why do you equate them to "the people"? as though Trump's artificial factory jobs = "the people"? They don't. Rather, they are a COST to the people, making the people worse off.

A lower standard of living for the wealthiest 90% of people may well be a very desirable thing, if it enables a higher standard of living for the least wealthy 10%.

(You're wrong that these artificial factory jobs benefit the bottom 10%. No, these artificial "jobs" are for middle-class workers, union members -- auto workers, steel workers, etc. -- already well-taken-care-of compared to the bottom 10% -- which is why unions lobby so hard to "bring back" these factory jobs, to raise the living standard of these already-well-off workers, in about the middle of the economic totem pole.)

But let's say that it's for the bottom 10%, as you falsely assume. Even if so, how is it a "higher standard of living" for that bottom 10% to be placed into useless factory "jobs" where no one needs them? Why do you disdain them so much that you think they're good for nothing except to be deposited in these unnecessary factory "jobs"? Why do you pretend to sympathize with them, when in reality you hold them in contempt, thinking that they are so worthless?

Why don't you admit what you really think they are -- worthless scum? Why else would you insist on depositing them someplace where we don't need them? Obviously you consider them as useless rabble to be put someplace to keep them out of mischief.

The measure of societal success is the standard of living of its poorest member.

(Again, it's not for the "poorest" that these artificial jobs are being created. Rather, it's middle-income workers who will occupy these factory babysitting slots your heroes Trump and Sanders are creating.)

But let's assume it's for the "poorest" of the poor that Trump and Sanders want these factory job babysitting slots.

How is their true standard of living improved by placing them into these babysitting slots where they're not needed, even if they're paid a "living wage"? You are INSULTING them by putting them there, and also making many other poor people worse off who will have to pay the cost of putting these perceived scum into your factory babysitting slots (or coal-mining etc. babysitting slots).

How can you call it the "measure of societal success" to waste people's lives putting them into factories where no one needs them -- even if you do pay them a "living wage" to keep them pacified -- and make 300 million people pay the cost for this warehousing?

Do you really think these poorest of the poor are really that dangerous and worthless and rotten?

 

[TV and credit cards]

If keeping production costs down only means the company gets to sit on a pile of cash, what good is it doing anyone?

The problem is greed. If government was committed to serving the people in a sincere manner and showed the people all the good things it can do, we might just find contentment in less stressful lives rather than seeking it in the endless pursuit of more and more shit.

We should seek to achieve a happy medium, a point of balance where no one suffers, no one goes without the basics. An individual's talent and intellect will make that person's life easier and more comfortable but it should never do so to the suffering of others.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why should we care about what's beneficial to the economy?

I care about what's beneficial to the people. If that happens to include a strong economy, then that's great - but a society should seek to benefit the people within it, not some proxy measures that concentrate on a single aspect of life to the exclusion of all else.

Your entire screed is based on a misconception about what goals are desirable - whether or not it is correct in regards to how the economy is affected by various things, you still need to demonstrate that this monomaniacal focus on 'the economy' rather then 'the people' is a sensible approach to take (hint: it's not).

A lower standard of living for the wealthiest 90% of people may well be a very desirable thing, if it enables a higher standard of living for the least wealthy 10%.

The measure of societal success is the standard of living of its poorest member.

View attachment 17772

Well, the reason why we care that the economy is strong is that a strong economy doesn't require as much outside inputs (government stimulus) as a weaker economy. Where I differ from Lumen... is that I think that a strong economy can pay higher wages and benefits to it's workers. In fact, we generally see that the strongest economies usually pay the highest wages.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How do the Trump-Sanders phony factory "jobs" serve "the people"?

What is "the end" of all the factory jobs the Sanders/Trump voters want to create?

Why should we care about what's beneficial to the economy?

I care about what's beneficial to the people.

I agree and I myself have been against stupid metrics being used.

By "metrics" do you mean the unemployment rate? used by both Trump and Sanders to prove that we need to transfer millions of jobs from China to the U.S.?

Or by "metrics" do you mean the trade deficit numbers? which trade deficit no one has ever proved causes any harm to the economy? i.e., to "the people"? By "metrics" do you mean the formula which says that for every 1 percent higher trade deficit we lose another million jobs (or whatever the silly number is)?

But both sides are using them. Even most economists are essentially blind to the notions that the economy is not the end of it all.

What does "the end of it all" mean?

The best answer given so far by anyone is that of the utilitarians: The greatest good for the greatest number.

But this phrase too is rejected by many. So there is no agreed philosophy on what is "the end" or what's the point of it all.

How do you figure the Trump and Sanders fanatics are promoting "the end of it all"? or "the people"? They think they're making things better by promoting millions of factory jobs, which they worship as some kind of babysitting slots to put the rabble into.

Those who voted for Trump and Sanders seem to think "the end of it all" is to remove these rabble from the streets by putting them into factory jobs (babysitting slots) to keep them out of mischief.

How is "the end of it all" served by bringing back millions of factory jobs from China where that production has been done more efficiently than in the U.S.? What is accomplished, or what is made better, by transferring that production to the U.S.? What's made different except to increase the cost of it and thus the cost to consumers?

(Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the net total number of jobs is increased. unemployment reduced, by transferring all those factories to the U.S.)

How does it serve "the end of it all" to make 300 million consumers pay higher prices and thus reduce their standard of living? including most of the poor, who will pay higher prices and whose living standard will be reduced by Trump's artificial factory jobs?

How does making millions of poor people even poorer promote "the end of it all"?

 

[DBT]

A fair and decent economic model should be geared to benefit all citizens.

Income distribution should be a reflection of that aim....and not be a matter of 'benefiting the economy' - which appears to be a euphemism for 'benefiting those at the top of the heap'

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's obvious that no one wants to answer the original question:

How do artificially higher wages and "job creation" benefit "the people"? i.e., the "good-paying jobs" Bernie Sanders babbles about (Babbling Bernie), i.e., the factory jobs to be brought back from China, like Trump is doing. How do these artificial factory jobs benefit the country?

Why do the Sanders and Trump voters/crusaders not want to answer this question?

Why did they vote for these asshole demagogues if they don't have the honesty to explain the need for the factory jobs being promised (and which Trump is beginning to bring back, e.g., steel and auto production jobs, meaning the products will start costing more and thus drive up the prices to consumers)?

What is sacred about these jobs that they must be paid for by imposing higher prices onto 300 million consumers?

So then everyone agrees that the "good-paying jobs" and "job-creation" babble is just demagoguery to win votes from idiots, not a formula to make "the people" better off.

 

[untermensche]

Some think that in order to have an "economy" there must be winners and losers.

It is a primitive mentality.

Many suffer because of this sick mentality.

 

[Underseer]

Everyone seems to agree, especially the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders crusaders, that we need more "job creation" and higher wages. (Even NPR's "Marketplace" daily laments the lack of "wage growth" in the economy, though it mostly tells the truth about the damage Trump is inflicting.)

And millions of idiot voters swarm to the polls and vote for these demagogues to reward them for telling the ignorant masses the garbage they want to hear -- and then launching trade policies to enact this garbage, thus forcing 300+ million U.S. consumers to pay higher prices.

Why? Why do so many idiots believe this makes the economy, or us, the public, better off?

Not only are the "jobs" created by driving up the prices we will have to pay, but also by driving up the national debt, or the annual budget deficits, which now, under Trump's "job-creation" math, are approaching to twice as high as they were in the last Obama years. And the Trump idiots don't want to hear a peep about it. All they want is to hear the same "job-creation" and "growth" rhetoric and babble, again and again, and obsess on the GDP "growth" numbers, much of which can easily be driven up artificially high, with more waste and higher debt.


So the basic question is:

Why are the HIGHER WAGES and "JOB CREATION" beneficial to the economy? I.e., to the whole population, to us all, when we have to pay for it with higher consumer prices and higher future taxes to pay for today's increased borrowing?

Where's the net benefit?

E.g., those "jobs" -- or as mealy-mouthed Bernie likes to say: "good-paying jobs, good-paying jobs" like he's slurping down oatmeal as he speaks ----- What's the benefit to the country when those "jobs" -- now to be done by red-blooded Americans -- produce no more value than before when they were done in China?

I.e., NO EXTRA PRODUCTION than before, the same production or quantity, but now at higher cost than before, and thus higher prices to consumers?

Where's the gain for the country, when we have nothing extra produced, but HIGHER PRICES TO PAY for it? How can that be anything but a NET LOSS to the whole country?

This is the TRUMP - SANDERS economic policy we're talking about here. Both of them want to drive up prices for 300 million U.S. consumers in order to "create" these costly "good-paying jobs" which produce no gain for the country. And Trump is enacting this bone-headed economics demagoguery right now, slowly driving up the prices all of us will have to pay.

So if you voted for Trump or Sanders in 2016, you're in favor of this snake-oil economics.

Why? Tell us why you think this "job creation" and higher wages demagoguery is good for the country.

Even if you're right that we gain a net increase in total "jobs" in the economy -- still, what is the net gain for us all? Right now the evidence shows a net LOSS of jobs, but you could argue that in the long run, if we keep doing this for another 20 years, reducing our trade with China and other countries, we can create more of these "good-paying jobs" in the U.S. No one can disprove that. It may be true that if we drive up consumer prices high enough, over a long-enough period, we'll eventually "create" a few million net extra "jobs" for the U.S. by forcing companies to "bring the jobs back" at much higher cost of production than previously. No one can disprove this theory.

(And of course Trump's "job-creation" includes driving away the undocumented immigrant workers and driving down labor supply, also contributing to higher prices we pay and reducing our living standard.)

What can't be denied is that these extra "jobs" will cost all Americans higher prices and lower standard of living, in the short- and long-term.

Why is that good?f

Why is it desirable to drive down the standard of living for 300 million Americans, including most of the poor, in order to provide a few million of these "good-paying jobs" to a select group of U.S. wage-earners?

What is the net gain?

And if you can't say what net gain there is, why do you keep voting for these blowhards and encouraging this "job-creation" and "good-paying jobs" babble? Why do most or all the pundits keep spewing out this incoherent pig-slop? To whom are they spewing it out? Who are the mindless idiots who keep slurping it up?

Fuck Neoliberalism
According to neoliberalism, if you "do job creation things," then the magic of the free market will trickle good, high-paying jobs all over the serfs in the middle and lower classes. Of course "do job creation things" all involve doing things that benefit the very wealthy and large corporations.

Let's not forget: ever since Clinton, the Democratic establishment is made up of right-of-center neoliberals with very similar economic policies to the Republicans. When you vote between Democrats and Republicans, you're choosing between moderate neoliberal economic policies and extremist neoliberal economic policies. Thus, we have had uninterrupted Trickle-On economics in this country since Reagan.

During this entire time, the economic elites have been doing better and better, while most of the rest of the country is stagnating such that our wages are not keeping up with the cost of living so well.

We now have a growing phenomenon of homeless people with full time jobs. Back in the 1970s (before Reagan), you could support yourself with any minimum wage job. You didn't necessarily live well, but you could support yourself without help from government programs like food stamps. Now we have security guards and janitors living out of their cars (in silicon valley, most blue collar workers are living out of their cars).

But you're completely wrong about the other side of the equation.

Raising wages does improve the economy.


Raising Wages and the Economy
You'd have to be blinded by ideology to fail to see it.

Because of conservative economic policies, the total disposable income of the population has been going down as our wages stagnate relative to the cost of living. That means every year, fewer and fewer dollars are available to purchase the products made by corporations.

According to your understanding, the fact that corporations are spending less and less on wages (relative to the cost of living) every year, this means that corporations should get more and more profits, which in turn leads to a stronger economy, right? Well, we've been having your ideal conditions: the money corporations spend on wages goes down every year relative to inflation, and yet companies keep going out of business and the economy keeps contracting.

You are confused because you think that the elites are all that matter. If the elites do better, then everyone is doing better because those dirty serfs don't matter, right? And if the elites do worse, that means everyone is doing worse because again, no one cares about those stupid dirty serfs.

Here's the thing: every time minimum wage is increase, there's a boom in the economy.

This is particularly ironic with restaurant owners, since they are often the ones fighting hardest to keep minimum wage down in local governments. When families have to tighten their belts because their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living, the first thing they do is go out to eat less often. So every time restaurants fight local government to keep wages down, they're the ones to take the negative hit first.

Conversely, when minimum wage is raised, people have more disposable income, and the first thing people do when they get more money to spend is go out to eat more often. Thus, when minimum wage is raised, it's usually the restaurants that feel the benefits first.

When minimum wage is increased, it doesn't just mean more spending money for burger flippers. This affects wages across the board for everyone except maybe for people with 6-figure salaries. We're not just talking about restaurant employees having more disposable income, but just about anyone who works for a paycheck.

Individual Businesses vs the Whole Economy
I think the problem people get is that they can't think on a macroscopic scale. They pick a specific example, and try to extrapolate from there.

Let's say that one individual business raises their wages, and no one else in the economy does. What happens to the bottom line of that one business? Obviously, that one business is going to earn less profit. Or at least that should be the case. Oddly, there are lots of cases where that doesn't happen, but let's not deal with that for now.

So if raising wages in one business leads to less profits, then that must mean raising wages for all businesses must cause a reduction in profit for the entire economy, right? This is a  fallacy of composition. What's true of the parts isn't necessarily true for the whole. You can look at actual economic data for places that have raised minimum wages and see what I'm talking about.

See, when one business raises their wages, nothing else in the economy changes. The people buying products from that business don't necessarily have more money to spend, but the business itself is spending more money, thus it gets lower profits.

But if all of the businesses raise their wages, then a large portion of the economy has more money to buy things, which in turn means certain businesses will need to buy more of the things they need to do business, which in turn means those businesses are buying more stuff from other businesses. Yes, every business is spending more money on their own employees, but their customers also have more disposable income, which in most cases means more disposable income for customers which means more sales for most (but not all) businesses. If everyone has to spend more money on employees, that's balanced out by having a large number of customers with more money to spend.

Again, look at the economic results of places that have raised minimum wage and you'll see what I'm talking about. The positive gains will generally show up in businesses such as restaurants first.


Conclusion
Right now, in America, wages have stagnated relative to the cost of living such that every year, more and more of the money we make has to be spent on simply keeping ourselves and our families alive. That means less money to spend on restaurants, less money to spend on going out to the movies, less money to spend on home theater systems, etc. Suppressing wages provides a temporary benefit to the economic elites who own lots of stocks, but it hurts everyone else, including businesses in the long run.

And that's what's happening right now. We're in another race to the bottom just like the crash that preceded the Great Depression, only this time the crash is happening much slower because that mean ol' FDR put in place may mechanisms that were intended to prevent another race to the bottom, and the Republicans and establishment Democrats have not yet succeeded in dismantling all of those mechanisms.

Neoliberalism isn't capitalist. If anything, it's anticapitalist. Feudal economies always end the same way: with a very small number of very rich people, and everyone else living in abject poverty. Capitalism as we know it can't survive that. People need disposable income so that they can buy miniature latte machines for the kitchen and big screen televisions for the family room.

Every year, the total disposable income of the population is going down, and the executives of many of the corporations hurt by this are spending money to bribe politicians to make the disposable income of the population go down even faster.

We can return to the FDR policies that built the middle class that made the economy we knew possible, or we can continue dismantling the middle class until no one is left who can afford to buy the products made by all those corporations, and they can switch to selling things to Europe and China. Oh, who am I kidding. Avoiding economic collapse would require millions of Republican voters to admit that they are wrong about Trickle On economics, and we all know that will never happen.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's obvious that no one wants to answer the original question:

How do artificially higher wages and "job creation" benefit "the people"? i.e., the "good-paying jobs" Bernie Sanders babbles about (Babbling Bernie), i.e., the factory jobs to be brought back from China, like Trump is doing. How do these artificial factory jobs benefit the country?

Why do the Sanders and Trump voters/crusaders not want to answer this question?

Why did they vote for these asshole demagogues if they don't have the honesty to explain the need for the factory jobs being promised (and which Trump is beginning to bring back, e.g., steel and auto production jobs, meaning the products will start costing more and thus drive up the prices to consumers)?

What is sacred about these jobs that they must be paid for by imposing higher prices onto 300 million consumers?

So then everyone agrees that the "good-paying jobs" and "job-creation" babble is just demagoguery to win votes from idiots, not a formula to make "the people" better off.

I reject the premise that higher wages set by law or collective bargaining are "artificial".

With that in mind, the answer is that two thirds of the economy consists of consumer spending. Higher wages, more spending, more consumption, more investment.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

good for "the economy" = good for "the people"

There are several ways to look at the human activity that creates an "economy".

It can be thought of as being done in the service of the "economy".

Or it can be thought of as being done in the service of people.

It's both. The human productive activity is done in the service of "the economy" AND "the people" -- because "the economy" and "the people" are about the same. That is, whatever is serving "the economy" is also serving "the people" who make up the economy. I.e., it's serving their economic needs/wants.

Serving the "economy" as opposed to using the "economy" to serve the most people is stupidity.

But those are the same, and thus not "opposed" to each other. When you "serve the economy" you are using the "economy" to serve the people in the economy, or you are manipulating "the economy" to make it serve the people in it. So there's nothing wrong with "serving the economy." It essentially means the same as serving "the people," or serving their economic interests.

Just putting money into the hands of people that spend it helps the economy greatly.

Not if it causes inflation. And not if that money was taken away from someone else who earned it.

And not if that money is a subsidy to produce unneeded factories in order to provide unnecessary factory jobs, like Trump and Sanders want.

So there are many forms of "putting money into the hands of people that spend it" which will make "the people" worse off and reduce the general living standard, including that of poor people who have to pay the cost for it.

It depends on who you took that money away from in order to put it into the hands of those who spend it. If you took that money away from consumers, by forcing them to pay higher prices, in order to promote artificially-higher wages, or to create artificial factories, then it does not "greatly" benefit the economy, but harms it. I.e., it makes people worse off.

Putting more money into the economy to increase the spending can make sense if the point of it is to offset deflation, i.e., to bring the inflation rate back up to 0 rather than let it remain at -2% or -3%. But equally important as the inflation level is the degree of fluctuation, which should be kept low, so there's no sudden rise or fall in the price level.

Just give people with little money some cash and the economy will improve.

Probably not. But even if this would improve the economy, it's not what Trump and Sanders want, because the people they would give cash to are middle-class workers, like steel workers and auto workers, who are not people with little money. How much money is "little money"? Presumably this means below average, like in the bottom 20% or 10% of income-earners, which is not who Sanders and Trump are pandering to with their obsession to "bring back the factories" from China.

The factory jobs to come back from China will pay better than $50,000 per year, which is why they're bad for the economy, i.e., for the people, because in order to pay the much higher labor cost those companies will have to increase their prices to consumers, i.e., to 300+ million Americans, the whole U.S. population. The economy does not "improve" when the cost of living increases to all the population.

The more people you just hand it to, as long as they spend it, the better.

No, this seems based on the economic dogma that the economy needs to have increased demand, which might be caused by putting more money into people's pockets for them to spend.

But all that does is cause inflation, thus higher prices, and thus lower value of the money = lower spending power = lower living standard and thus cancelling any benefit to those to whom the money is handed. So, it may be a benefit to the particular people the money was handed to but only at the cost to others who did not get money handed to them, because the ones not getting this money then suffer the higher prices and lower spending power than they had before.

So it only makes some richer, who got the money handed out, at the expense of others who are made poorer, because their money is now worth less than before.

The economy is the flow of money.

The more people involved the better.

Perhaps. If it means more extended trade is always better, whereas limiting trade, like protectionism, reduces the number of buyers and sellers, and reduces the competition. So, more total participants is always better, extending the "market" to include all possible players, and also the maximum possible competition. I.e., the opposite of the Sanders-Trump philosophy of limiting foreign trade, reducing the imports in order to create more domestic "jobs" for the rabble, thus increasing prices and reducing the general living standard.

So, more GLOBALISM is always better. And if there are other intelligent beings in the universe who could join, the market should be extended to them also, to include ALL possible participants -- buyers and sellers -- no matter who or where they are, or what they are.

Hoarding great sums of money and hiding it out of the country is very bad for an economy.

No, that has little effect, because if the total quantity of money decreases, then the prices also decrease, so there's no net change in the transactions. However, it's bad for there to be sudden changes in the amount of money, causing sudden inflation or deflation, and thus disruption of business due to the instability and unpredictability.

But if the "hoarding" is a gradual process over time, it is not bad for the economy.

 

[RVonse]

Lumpenproletariat, do you really think most of the population of the US is better off after the free trading days (post Reagan) than it was before that time? The best years of the US (1952-1970) were also the same years when the US had no globalism and high unionism. And extreme wealth disparity only took hold post Reagan globalism years to levels not seen since the 1920's.

Protectionism, high tax rates for the weslthy, and strong unions are good for the country and the middle class in general. You can argue otherwise but the proof is in our own history for everyone to see.

And keeping your crybabies happy is also more important than you realize. Because the crybabies are going to elect someone even more radical than Trump next time if their lives dont start to improve in the near future.

 

[untermensche]

It's both. The human productive activity is done in the service of "the economy" AND "the people" -- because "the economy" and "the people" are about the same. That is, whatever is serving "the economy" is also serving "the people" who make up the economy. I.e., it's serving their economic needs/wants.

This is naive child-like thinking.

The "economy" does better when more people are poorer and more desperate.

The " economy" is things like stock prices and return on investment. These rise when people in general become more desperate and are willing to accept less for their labor.

The "economy" has NOTHING to do with the general standard of living of most people.

No connection what-so-ever.

What has caused a rise in the standard of living for people in general has been the work of unions.

And it was always fought against by the capitalist masters.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Lumpenproletariat, do you really think most of the population of the US is better off after the free trading days (post Reagan) than it was before that time? The best years of the US (1952-1970) were also the same years when the US had no globalism and high unionism. And extreme wealth disparity only took hold post Reagan globalism years to levels not seen since the 1920's.

Protectionism, high tax rates for the weslthy, and strong unions are good for the country and the middle class in general. You can argue otherwise but the proof is in our own history for everyone to see.

And keeping your crybabies happy is also more important than you realize. Because the crybabies are going to elect someone even more radical than Trump next time if their lives dont start to improve in the near future.

There was plenty of globalism in the 1950s! But it was all one-way globalism. The US manufactured everything because most of the world's economies and manufacturing base was destroyed by WW2. BTW: how do define "proof"? You claim that anti-globalism harms the middle class. well, where's your evidence? Linky???

 

[untermensche]

Globalism is not one thing. It has no general definition.

There can be globalism to try to help developing nations or the globalism that exists. Vulture globalism, where weaker nations are exploited and stolen from by the larger nations.

Globalism where dictatorial regimes are supported if they control resources.

In the 50's it was US economic Imperialism. The US invested to serve itself, not the people in foreign nations.

 

[bilby]

Lumpenproletariat, do you really think most of the population of the US is better off after the free trading days (post Reagan) than it was before that time? The best years of the US (1952-1970) were also the same years when the US had no globalism and high unionism. And extreme wealth disparity only took hold post Reagan globalism years to levels not seen since the 1920's.

Protectionism, high tax rates for the weslthy, and strong unions are good for the country and the middle class in general. You can argue otherwise but the proof is in our own history for everyone to see.

And keeping your crybabies happy is also more important than you realize. Because the crybabies are going to elect someone even more radical than Trump next time if their lives dont start to improve in the near future.

There was plenty of globalism in the 1950s! But it was all one-way globalism. The US manufactured everything because most of the world's economies and manufacturing base was destroyed by WW2. BTW: how do define "proof"? You claim that anti-globalism harms the middle class. well, where's your evidence? Linky???

I see this argued a lot by Americans; But while it's possibly true of the early '50s, it's not true of the late '50s, the '60s and the '70s. By that time, the parts of Europe most damaged by war had the world's most modern factories, and were out competing American factories with their pre-war machinery.

Having to start from scratch meant that everything was new; Not only the machinery, but even the layouts of the factories and their supporting infrastructure.

From the '60s through to the '80s, German and Japanese goods were so ubiquitous in English stores that people would joke that we would have been better off if we had lost the war. Certainly we might have been better off if the Luftwaffe had done a more thorough job of destroying English factories, like the RAF and USAAF had done to German ones.

In the 1990s I worked in a number of factories in England that were still using some machinery built before the First World War, much less the second.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Reducing the cost of production is fundamentally beneficial to "the economy" (to "the people").

How can lower cost of production for the same output ever be anything but GOOD for the economy?

If keeping production costs down only means the company gets to sit on a pile of cash, what . . .

It doesn't "only" mean that. It means the company increases production and sells its products at lower prices to consumers. It does this out of profit motive, wanting to make more money, which it does by serving consumers better.

Whereas if its production cost is higher -- because it has to produce in the U.S. where costs are higher -- then it produces less and charges higher prices to consumers. Again driven by profit motive and greed, as all buyers and sellers are greedy, wanting the most they can get at the lowest cost.

. . . what good is it doing anyone?

You mean in your imaginary scenario where the company just sits on its profit ("pile of cash")? i.e., the profit gained from lower cost, meaning that it does nothing with this money?

In the real world there's no such thing. However, if we pretend that the company gets all its profit into cash and then buries this cash in a hole somewhere, so it's not invested or spent or deposited in the bank -- nothing but sits in the hole, then what? It remains there indefinitely, meaning it's taken out of circulation. In which case there is a deflationary effect on the economy (less total money circulating), and the price level decreases slightly (unnoticeable for only one company doing this). So with this reduced price level, while everyone's income remains the same, everyone's living standard increases slightly, as incomes remained steady but some prices fell slightly.

So even if the company does NOTHING with its profit-cash but only sits on it, there is still a benefit to all the people from this company having saved on production cost. Because the outcome from this cost-saving is that the incomes remain the same but the prices decrease slightly, making everyone slightly richer than before the cost-savings.

The prices decrease slightly because of the less money circulating, but nothing happened to reduce the total production. Instead what happened is that the company which saved on cost put that money out of circulation, making a slight sacrifice in its own consumption, which it puts off until some future time when it finally spends or invests that money it sat on. But in the meantime, society -- the economy, all the people buying and selling -- enjoys the benefit, with a slight increase in purchasing power (too small to be measurable, if it's only this one company sitting on its "pile of cash"), gained by that company saving on cost and not spending that savings for now, but just sitting on it.

The problem is greed.

No, the "greed" in this case, where the company sits on its profit without spending or investing it, turns out to benefit society, so there's no "problem" here. There's no way that the cost savings can be a "problem" for society, for "the people" buying and selling. Cost savings is ALWAYS good for the economy, as long as it's the same production taking place at the lower cost. There is no scenario where this is not beneficial to the economy, i.e., to the people. Nothing can ever go wrong if a producer finds a way to reduce the cost but still produce the same output for consumers. Such cost-saving is ALWAYS A WIN-WIN -- we're all made better off by it.

Is that "greed"? If so, then let's have more of it. As long as it makes us better off, how is it a "problem" (regardless what you call it)?

If government was committed to serving the people in a sincere manner and showed the people all the good things it can do, we might . . .

Of course it should do "good things" -- but what would that be? It's not to "bring back the factories" from China so we can put American rabble into makework factory jobs as Trump and Sanders want to do.

There's probably not much agreement in our society about what are "all the good things" the government can do.

. . . we might just find contentment in less stressful lives rather than seeking it in the endless pursuit of more and more shit.

You can choose to sit around and meditate if you want, or contemplate your navel, while someone else seeks "more and more shit" to pursue. A healthy "economy" allows both, without dictating to anyone how to find contentment.

We should seek to achieve a happy medium, a point of balance where no one suffers, no one goes without the basics. An individual's talent and intellect will make that person's life easier and more comfortable but it should never do so to the suffering of others.

And one way to reduce suffering is to encourage lower cost of production, not higher cost as Trump-Sanders economics does by forcing production to be done in the U.S. where the costs are higher.

Another way to reduce suffering is to allow companies to hire immigrant labor = lower labor cost = higher living standard, rather than cracking down on the undocumented workers, which drives up the labor cost = higher prices = lower living standard = more suffering.