|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Monetary Tsunami In America!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Too many people are coming in that are not fully educated and who do nothing more than stress our natural resources and our ability to earn a decent living. No, this is exactly backwards. The United States suffers from an underpopulation problem, where there aren't enough workers now to support the future Social Security needs of a large population glut of retiring Baby Boomers. A large influx of highly-motivated people with a desire to sell their labor in exchange for money is, in fact, precisely what we need. If you're referring specifically to illegal Mexican immigrants, it's a well-known finding of nearly every economic study that such immigrants don't depress wages, they actually increase wages for nearly everybody except their own cohort group - unskilled immigrant labor. For the most part, the only people illegal Mexican immigrants are competing against is other illegal Mexican immigrants, and the only wages additional Mexican immigrants drive down are the wages of other Mexican immigrants. Everybody else, particularly educated Americans, are enriched by the demand for goods and services these immigrants represent. It's a demand-driven recession, remember? Anything that increases demand for goods and services - like a group of immigrants who are going to spend money at the taco truck during their lunch break - serves to improve the economy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As the one map shows; there's plenty of money to spend. You didn't present a map that showed that "there was plenty of money to spend." And indeed, there's not plenty of money for people to spend because people, in aggregate, lost about a trillion dollars during the collapse of the housing bubble as home equity vanished.
American goods must be made more valuable; that happens on the production/selling end, not the consumer/buying end. This is meaningless double-talk. Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering my questions, Jon? Why are you trying so hard to mislead people about economic conditions in the United States?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
To me, it makes more sense to spend the money on making the jobs more attractive to legals instead of spending it to fence illegals out. Or to outlaw the jobs they do, obliging the companies, under penalty of law, to hire legals only. A job should be treated like any other commodity. If people don't want it, make it better, don't make it illegal to buy something else. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Or to outlaw the jobs they do, obliging the companies, under penalty of law, to hire legals only.
Typical leftist Buz, wanting Big Government to order private companies around. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering my questions, Jon? Why are you trying so hard to mislead people about economic conditions in the United States? So far you haven't asked any questions. You've only made the repeated claim that printing money and giving it to people will stimulate demand for U.S. made products, despite the fact that: 1) People like their money;2) People will try to get the most utility from their money; 3) This usually involves not buying useless, low-quality, overpriced, made-in-America crap It's really so simple. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1 |
The only other problem is overpopulation. Too many people are coming in that are not fully educated and who do nothing more than stress our natural resources and our ability to earn a decent living. Overpopulation is a global problem, not an American one. Immigration is not a real problem - it's only an issue for racists who what to keep the brown people out of White America (tm). Immigrants, even illegal ones, pay taxes. They pay sales tax every time they buy goods. They pay gasoline taxes every time they buy gas. They pay all the same fees and taxes that you or I do on public utilities, property tax, etc. Many even pay income tax, using fake or stolen identity info for their employers (only actual cash-only employers can really pay under the table, and those are mostly limited to day-laborers and private residents hiring maids or gardeners; nowadays you need identity documents to cash a check and to file tax info for your employees and avoid an IRS audit, so illegal immigrants get paid and file taxes just like the rest of us, the only difference being their identities are false - the money still goes to the right places). Illegal immigration has never ever been a problem for the reasons the media and especially the Republicans screech about. Illegal immigration isn't a threat to the US - it's a threat to the illegal workers, who are exploited by their employers under the threat of deportation providing the pressure to avoid seeking legal assistance. They don't "take" jobs from anyone. Immigrants come here seeking jobs that are available, not jobs that are filled. Since the economic downturn started, there has been a mass exodus of illegal immigrants because of the sudden drop in work available for the jobs they tend to fill, like new home construction. It's a self-limiting problem when it comes to jobs - if there is work available, people will come, legally or illegally, to do it and get paid. When work dries up, lo and behold, immigrants don't have an incentive to come here. Unemployment for legal citizens is a far more complicated issue that isn't explained magically by "they took our jobs." It's not even just a matter of who is or isn't "willing" to do certain types of work. And when it comes to natural resources - what a silly thought. Illegal immigrants aren't the ones driving around in Humvees, and when they do have trucks, they tend to actually use them as designed, as opposed to idiot soccer moms and macho assholes who just like driving huge vehicles for no reason. The energy crisis in the US is one of political bullshit like opposition to new nuclear power plants and the deregulation of the energy industry, not because people are having too many kids or because too many immigrants come here. Immigrants help the economy. When there are jobs available, they come and work, and spend the money they earn, and pay taxes. Instead of stigmatizing them and setting them up for exploitation, we should embrace them, let them work and pay taxes and live here and spend money legally, with the same protections under the law that you and I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So far you haven't asked any questions. I've actually asked an abundance of questions, each one ignored by you. Let's recap:
Message 25quote: Message 46quote: I know you get it wrong a lot, Jon, so let me remind you - questions are the things that end in question marks ("?").
despite the fact that: 1) People like their money;2) People will try to get the most utility from their money; 3) This usually involves not buying useless, low-quality, overpriced, made-in-America crap None of these are facts. US manufacturing and production capacity has hardly been higher. 99% of the national income is spent domestically. And even if you walk into a Best Buy and buy a Japanese television, that's still a domestic expenditure. The money you spent pays salaries and wages for American workers. Buying foreign-manufactured goods domestically is a domestic expenditure, by definition.
It's really so simple. If it's so simple why are you having so much trouble with it? (That's another example of a question, Jon.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4739 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Crashfrog,
Could you elaborate? Which graphs are "deceptive", and in what way? Please be specific since you're accusing me of dishonesty and violating the forum guidelines. I was alluding to the graph of U.S. yearly inflation since 1900. I accuse you of no dishonesty, nor anyone, merely that inflation as defined in that graph (and as in Keynesian economics) does not directly correspond to the change in the value of the dollar.
If you gave every US citizen $1000, but legally obligated them to bury it in their backyard instead of spending or saving it, that would certainly be an increase in aggregate money but there isn't an economist in the world who would describe that as "inflation", because price levels wouldn't increase at all. I know of at least one: Richard Maybury. Even in as radical a case as you suggest, the persons burying it in their backyard would at least know it was there, and would possibly feel some sense of security from it, possibly leading to different spending and selling habits. But that is too radical a case to be pertinent to the discussion anyways.
That is quite correct, hence the "drop it from helicopters onto American citizens" aspect of my plan. It's a two-step plan, you see: 1) Print money;2) Drop it from helicopters onto US citizens so they can spend it. Try to keep both steps in mind, in your replies to me in the future. My statement was meant to demonstrate the irrelevance of the size of the money supply to the price of goods and services, not to demean you in anyway. Even in the case you suggest of dropping printed money from helicopters, the prices of goods and services fluctuate based upon other variables as well. While they do fluctuate based upon the size of the money supply, they do not correspond directly, their price being based also on international and global availability of raw materials, and on demand, which is based upon numerous variables. Yet inflation of the money supply does directly devalue the dollar. Yet the devaluing of the dollar does not directly correspond to the price of goods and services, though they will generally correspond to one another. As an example, the arbitrary price of oil can change by 100% in a matter of months (as we have seen), though the dollar may not have been devalued. Inflation of the money supply causes the devaluing of the dollar, which leads generally (but not at all directly) towards an increase in the cost of goods and services. While the short-term effects of drastic stimulus plans (such as your's) may be quite profitable, the long-term effects are devastating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I accuse you of no dishonesty, nor anyone, merely that inflation as defined in that graph (and as in Keynesian economics) does not directly correspond to the change in the value of the dollar. That's actually exactly what it corresponds to, and understand that it's a second-derivative graph of the rate of inflation. It absolutely is a graph of the rate of change in the value of a dollar. I don't know how you could get that so completely wrong. It's certainly not a graph of the number of dollars in circulation at that time, but I never claimed that it was, and anyway that's not what inflation is.
I know of at least one: Richard Maybury. Richard Maybury certainly doesn't.
But that is too radical a case to be pertinent to the discussion anyways. No, it's a very pertinent counterexample to your flawed notion that inflation is nothing more than an increase in aggregate dollars. That's absolutely not the case, and the counterexample of every American burying $1000 in de novo dollars proves it. You must admit that.
My statement was meant to demonstrate the irrelevance of the size of the money supply to the price of goods and services, not to demean you in anyway. Your statement absolutely does not demonstrate the irrelevance of the size of the money supply; it demonstrates the absolute relevance of who gets and spends the money. Dollars given to and being spent by Iraqi potentates stimulates the Iraqi economy. Dollars given to and being spent by US citizens stimulates the US economy.
Even in the case you suggest of dropping printed money from helicopters, the prices of goods and services fluctuate based upon other variables as well. I never claimed that they did not. Supply and demand determines the price of goods and services - that's economics 101 material. But, many people - even people who have taken economics 101 - don't understand supply and demand.
While they do fluctuate based upon the size of the money supply Goods and services don't fluctuate based on the size of the money supply in any respect. I don't understand how you keep getting these things so completely wrong. Do you actually have any money, Sac? Have you ever actually used it to purchase goods and services? Perhaps you simply did so with your eyes and ears closed: shop owners aren't consulting tables of that day's total amount of money to determine the price of that day's goods and services. They're consulting the demand for their goods and services relative to the supply. Supply and demand determine the price of goods and services. Full stop. Normally, when production is as high as it can get and then the money supply increases, prices increase (and inflation occurs) because more money chases the same amount of goods and services; demand increases relative to supply and therefore prices increase. But in a demand-driven recession, there's a substantial production surplus. Goods are being produced and not sold; people are willing to provide services but nobody is interested. Under that situation, supply is elastic and an increase in demand - driven, perhaps, by a government program to helicopter-drop a windfall of money on US citizens, so that they are now flush with cash and ready to spend - will produce an increase in supply as goods leave warehouses and service providers come off unemployment. The recession comes to an end, the "slack" in the production side is taken up, and you stop printing money and dropping it from helicopters so inflation is avoided. It's really not complicated, and it's not at all inflationary.
Yet the devaluing of the dollar does not directly correspond to the price of goods and services, though they will generally correspond to one another. Utterly wrong, since the value of a dollar by definition is how much it can buy. It's amazing how utterly wrong you are about economics. Where did you study economics? Not having done so is no excuse; I've not ever taken a single economics class but here I am, absolutely schooling you. It's just not that complicated.
While the short-term effects of drastic stimulus plans (such as your's) may be quite profitable, the long-term effects are devastating. I'm not proposing a long-term plan. I'm not proposing long-term helicopter drops of new money that go on long after the production surplus has been exceeded, the slack has been taken up, the recession has ended, and employment is back to normal. That would be inflationary because once you had production as high as it can reasonably go, more money is chasing the same amount of goods. But I'm not suggesting that. My plan isn't helicopter drops forever that spiral inflation out of control, like Brazil in the 90's. My plan is helicopter drops that end right when the recession does, that end when production slack is taken up. As a result my plan is completely and utterly non-inflationary because it doesn't decrease the value of the dollar to any extent. It's just that simple. The way my plan avoids inflation is by stopping as soon as inflation would start. We have about 1-2 trillion dollars to print to get us up to that point, because that's how much money disappeared from the US economy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Where else would they spend it? Well, obviously, anywhere other than the U.S. Where else would 'where else' be? Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DrJones* writes: Or to outlaw the jobs they do, obliging the companies, under penalty of law, to hire legals only.
Typical leftist Buz, wanting Big Government to order private companies around. How is it leftist for government to obligate companies to obey the law by not hiring illegals, aiding and abetting their illegal status? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
How is it leftist for government to obligate companies to obey the law by not hiring illegals
So you want Big Government to tell private businesses who they can and cannot hire? Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
DrJones* writes: How is it leftist for government to obligate companies to obey the law by not hiring illegals
So want Big Government to tell private businesses who they can and cannot hire? I do, my trade has been over-run with cheap labor. What would be wrong with enforcing our immigration laws. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
fearandloathing writes:
Your immigration laws are, in a sense, designed to be broken because there's a huge demand for cheap labour. As long as the demand is there, prohibition won't stop people from buying the product. What would be wrong with enforcing our immigration laws. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What would be wrong with enforcing our immigration laws. Besides the fact that they're unfair, racist, deeply punitive, counterproductive, and meant to stop a "problem" that doesn't exist (supposed economic "losses" from low-skill immigration)?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024