I know, as already stated, the original theory and that is NOT what India implemented and is NOT what you are promoting and these globalist, welfare state people you are linking to are promoting.
I'm not getting very amused that you somehow think I just do not understand, when I more than understand.
How many times, do I have to repeat, the idea of the WPA, CCC, even Voc rehab are all based on these sorts of principles and that all worked, whereas, this globalist agenda you keep linking to.....is NOT the same and also will not work. The closest implementation currently to what these grand "social engineers" are prophesying is India.
You never respond to the fact I am pointing out these very serious flaws and additionally this hidden "social engineering" globalist, and it's actually labor arbitrage in disguise agenda! It's just this continual promotion of some sort of philosophy regardless of the economic realities, which is the anti-thesis of what EP is about.
NREGA is fraught with corruption, disaster, forced migrations, that isn't helping their national economy or even the people, long term.
One needs to write proof with statistics, results, graphs, instead of linking to some agenda from some other group that really, by the numbers, does not add up.
Or...trying to claim your friendly neighborhood content police just doesn't understand (ahem).
the idea of the site is to get the genera public to look at the actual numbers, the theory, the statistics instead of rhetoric and vague generalities. It is content vs. whatever the label is on the can. It is specifics vs. descriptions.
So, what is the issue with the pensions and as far as teachers go, I have no idea, I just know it's quite insane that working STEM who lost their jobs are not immediately hired, period, absolute, as teachers when they are the ones who really do know STEM and thus could actually teach it. That's it from me on this stuff.
On embedding youtubes, it really is a copy/paste. You just copy the embedding code in the little box, you might set the width (this site is 525 max) or size of the video screen and then paste.
If you edit your post you'll see what I mean. You do quite well with HTML, and honestly embedding youtubes (as long as the site itself supports it, which this one does), is way easier than you think.
The pensions stuff I've researched in great detail, and that's where the econ comes in (I do an analysis of public vs. private sector wages and benefits) - in part 2. Sorry, otherwise the piece gets waay too long.
In this section, I think the political economy comes in the concept of the yardstick. Ultimately, the question is why our response is to say "gee I wish I had one of those public pensions" instead of "I'm going to organize to get a decent pension!" or "Let's organize politically to make Social Security livable!"
I get the populist thing - this is just my own perspective. I see myself as both a populist and a progressive (and a lot of the better elements of big-P Progressivism came out of big-P Populism).
then, folks, EP is an economics blog, not a union site per say.
this post is highly political, so how about focusing in on the complaints being presented and what is the issue with the pensions.
My only thought was gee I wish I had one of those public pensions, because most of America is screwed yet the public sector seems to have kept their benefits (at least in comparison to the private sector).
Again, the focus of EP is economics, so what's the economics of these arguments that are going on?
Remember, this site is not a Democratic site. It is also not a "Progressive" site per say. It is non-partisan and it is labeled Populist to distinguish it from jumping on various policies that are more political than based in sound economics, cause/effect, results. I think about the only thing we have in common on that score is a heavy focus on the national economic interest and the U.S. work force health, interests, so we are focused on how policy affects the every man/woman and the middle class instead of what is good for Wall Street or MNCs and so forth.
So, if there is a motto on EP it's probably stop screwing the little guy, the average American, the working stiff and a belief that really doesn't help the national economy or America to do such things.
The main instrument of such a policy is the creation of an infinitely elastic demand for labor at a floor or minimum wage that does not depend upon long- and short-run profit expectations of business. Since only government can divorce the offering of employment from the profitability of hiring workers, the infinitely elastic demand for labor must be created by government
He is talking about government as ELR. The theory is much more than what you think it is. Prof. L. Randall Wray, a student of Minsky's, addressed this more in his book "Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability" and a Levy Institute article I can't link to because site is down.
This ELR doesn't call for 'make work' jobs and doesn't advocate "no requirements, conditions and performance metrics."
Thank you for this explanation. I just saw a commercial to stop the CFPA. I'm a small business owner and their commercial scared me until I came across your blog. It is so sickening and frustrating how misleading these misconstrued information blasting commercials can be. Someone should start a website donotstopcfpa.com to inform people as their lying website comes up first.
A lot of the money goes to supporting existing services, and a lot of it goes into retention of existing workers, and the fact that we're talking about jobs that pay more like $50-60k a year means that it's more expensive than my model, but it's a step in the right direction.
Do you honestly believe I do not know Minksy's theory?
I am saying the link and the policies being promoted WILL NOT WORK and I'm saying that from the theory itself.
No, you cannot provide a job to all with no requirements, conditions and performance metrics. I'm sorry, it just does not work that way. You reduce the value of work to welfare.
How many times must I go over this? YOU MUST have these requirements which is why the CCC, WPA and so on did work and why this type of mentality does not work and I've pointed to India repeatedly as a version of what you promote...it's a disaster. It's led to the same issues I said, massive forced migrations going on, bureaucracy, corruption...
and if you read their agenda, these people, it's more like India's program, which is a disaster and it's even worse than that. These people are those "social engineers", globalists, who could care less about the laws of labor econ.... As previously stated, there must be requirements, performance requirements, for a job which violates the "guarantee" clause of it, one could call it a "limited warranty" to modify the concept instead of a blanket absolute, then ....it can work.
That is not what is currently being pushed by the link Rebel keeps doing and as also previously stated, we're not a social engineering site, being the liberal elite who look at the peasants and come up with a grand plan....we are an economics site.
As for good economics - I am not sure you understand the economics of it. Hyman Minsky's book "Stabilizing An Unstable Economy" addresses it at length and with tables, graphs, charts and formulas. But besides that since when does "graphs or charts" determine whether a theory works.
Just because politics is screwed up doesn't mean that alternative policies should not be raised. And I will continue to do so despite what the consensus says.
Employer of Last Resort (ELR) will help workers much more than two parties bickering over extensions of unemployment benefits. We can continue to drown in the mistakes neoliberal and bastard Keynesian policies or we can provide real change. ELR says that if economy is not operating at full employment that government should provide every eligible person who is willing and able to work a job at a certain living wage.
What the article is talking about has legal and historical precedence. It's talking about the Right to Work.
Historically this idea was the basis of the June Days Revolt in Paris, 1848. I wrote about it here.
(Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and UBS AG were among more than a dozen Wall Street firms involved in a conspiracy to pay below-market interest rates to U.S. state and local governments on investments, according to documents filed in a U.S. Justice Department criminal antitrust case.
A government list of previously unidentified “co- conspirators” contains more than two dozen bankers at firms also including Bank of America Corp., Bear Stearns Cos., Societe Generale, two of General Electric Co.’s financial businesses and Salomon Smith Barney, the former unit of Citigroup Inc., according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on March 24.
This tax season will be kind to Bank of America and Wells Fargo: It appears that neither bank will have to pay federal income taxes for 2009.
Bank of America probably won't pay federal taxes because it lost money in the U.S. for the year. Wells Fargo was profitable, but can write down its tax bill because of losses at Wachovia, which it rescued from a near collapse.
That job guarantee and the actual link, we've already been there, done that and proved that does not stand solid to good economics, wish it were so, but it is not, esp. the site you're linking to, repeatedly. And you can tell, you'll see no graphs or charts because it does not work, not the way they want to do such a thing.
We cannot even get good health care reform or any real action on jobs as it is. Why continue to promote something that doesn't add up by the numbers and theory when we have so much that does and that we cannot even get voted on out of committee never mind passed? Some, you cannot even get it introduced into a bill by anyone.
Why focus on an agenda that isn't going to really help U.S. workers.
But since political courage is out of style it will be. This will continue to happen every few months. GOP will continue to blame the unemployed for their problems. Democrats will be piss in their pants.
I've been getting confused as to when the great "shove 'em under the rug, they don't count anymore" exodus to make the official unemployment numbers "improve" was going to happen!
I thought there was a total extension until 12-2010, so I guess I am wrong.
Yeah, so nice of Zombie Bank JP Morgan Chase to chastise handouts which obviously makes people lazy bums.
I'll rush through putting out part 2 so we can get more of the econ meat.
I know, as already stated, the original theory and that is NOT what India implemented and is NOT what you are promoting and these globalist, welfare state people you are linking to are promoting.
I'm not getting very amused that you somehow think I just do not understand, when I more than understand.
How many times, do I have to repeat, the idea of the WPA, CCC, even Voc rehab are all based on these sorts of principles and that all worked, whereas, this globalist agenda you keep linking to.....is NOT the same and also will not work. The closest implementation currently to what these grand "social engineers" are prophesying is India.
You never respond to the fact I am pointing out these very serious flaws and additionally this hidden "social engineering" globalist, and it's actually labor arbitrage in disguise agenda! It's just this continual promotion of some sort of philosophy regardless of the economic realities, which is the anti-thesis of what EP is about.
NREGA is fraught with corruption, disaster, forced migrations, that isn't helping their national economy or even the people, long term.
One needs to write proof with statistics, results, graphs, instead of linking to some agenda from some other group that really, by the numbers, does not add up.
Or...trying to claim your friendly neighborhood content police just doesn't understand (ahem).
killed by the coming unfunded define benefit plans of government workers.
How true Robert, "My only thought was gee I wish I had one of those public pensions".
There is a guy I know that retired last year at 105% of salary. How can that be?
The majority are funding those lucky few. They get more capital the average guy gets less capital
the idea of the site is to get the genera public to look at the actual numbers, the theory, the statistics instead of rhetoric and vague generalities. It is content vs. whatever the label is on the can. It is specifics vs. descriptions.
So, what is the issue with the pensions and as far as teachers go, I have no idea, I just know it's quite insane that working STEM who lost their jobs are not immediately hired, period, absolute, as teachers when they are the ones who really do know STEM and thus could actually teach it. That's it from me on this stuff.
On embedding youtubes, it really is a copy/paste. You just copy the embedding code in the little box, you might set the width (this site is 525 max) or size of the video screen and then paste.
If you edit your post you'll see what I mean. You do quite well with HTML, and honestly embedding youtubes (as long as the site itself supports it, which this one does), is way easier than you think.
I'm really not very good with html and the like.
The pensions stuff I've researched in great detail, and that's where the econ comes in (I do an analysis of public vs. private sector wages and benefits) - in part 2. Sorry, otherwise the piece gets waay too long.
In this section, I think the political economy comes in the concept of the yardstick. Ultimately, the question is why our response is to say "gee I wish I had one of those public pensions" instead of "I'm going to organize to get a decent pension!" or "Let's organize politically to make Social Security livable!"
I get the populist thing - this is just my own perspective. I see myself as both a populist and a progressive (and a lot of the better elements of big-P Progressivism came out of big-P Populism).
then, folks, EP is an economics blog, not a union site per say.
this post is highly political, so how about focusing in on the complaints being presented and what is the issue with the pensions.
My only thought was gee I wish I had one of those public pensions, because most of America is screwed yet the public sector seems to have kept their benefits (at least in comparison to the private sector).
Again, the focus of EP is economics, so what's the economics of these arguments that are going on?
Remember, this site is not a Democratic site. It is also not a "Progressive" site per say. It is non-partisan and it is labeled Populist to distinguish it from jumping on various policies that are more political than based in sound economics, cause/effect, results. I think about the only thing we have in common on that score is a heavy focus on the national economic interest and the U.S. work force health, interests, so we are focused on how policy affects the every man/woman and the middle class instead of what is good for Wall Street or MNCs and so forth.
So, if there is a motto on EP it's probably stop screwing the little guy, the average American, the working stiff and a belief that really doesn't help the national economy or America to do such things.
He is talking about government as ELR. The theory is much more than what you think it is. Prof. L. Randall Wray, a student of Minsky's, addressed this more in his book "Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability" and a Levy Institute article I can't link to because site is down.
This ELR doesn't call for 'make work' jobs and doesn't advocate "no requirements, conditions and performance metrics."
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Thank you for this explanation. I just saw a commercial to stop the CFPA. I'm a small business owner and their commercial scared me until I came across your blog. It is so sickening and frustrating how misleading these misconstrued information blasting commercials can be. Someone should start a website donotstopcfpa.com to inform people as their lying website comes up first.
Anyway, thank you again.
A lot of the money goes to supporting existing services, and a lot of it goes into retention of existing workers, and the fact that we're talking about jobs that pay more like $50-60k a year means that it's more expensive than my model, but it's a step in the right direction.
I certainly see the two ideas as complementary.
Do you honestly believe I do not know Minksy's theory?
I am saying the link and the policies being promoted WILL NOT WORK and I'm saying that from the theory itself.
No, you cannot provide a job to all with no requirements, conditions and performance metrics. I'm sorry, it just does not work that way. You reduce the value of work to welfare.
How many times must I go over this? YOU MUST have these requirements which is why the CCC, WPA and so on did work and why this type of mentality does not work and I've pointed to India repeatedly as a version of what you promote...it's a disaster. It's led to the same issues I said, massive forced migrations going on, bureaucracy, corruption...
and if you read their agenda, these people, it's more like India's program, which is a disaster and it's even worse than that. These people are those "social engineers", globalists, who could care less about the laws of labor econ.... As previously stated, there must be requirements, performance requirements, for a job which violates the "guarantee" clause of it, one could call it a "limited warranty" to modify the concept instead of a blanket absolute, then ....it can work.
That is not what is currently being pushed by the link Rebel keeps doing and as also previously stated, we're not a social engineering site, being the liberal elite who look at the peasants and come up with a grand plan....we are an economics site.
As for good economics - I am not sure you understand the economics of it. Hyman Minsky's book "Stabilizing An Unstable Economy" addresses it at length and with tables, graphs, charts and formulas. But besides that since when does "graphs or charts" determine whether a theory works.
Just because politics is screwed up doesn't mean that alternative policies should not be raised. And I will continue to do so despite what the consensus says.
Employer of Last Resort (ELR) will help workers much more than two parties bickering over extensions of unemployment benefits. We can continue to drown in the mistakes neoliberal and bastard Keynesian policies or we can provide real change. ELR says that if economy is not operating at full employment that government should provide every eligible person who is willing and able to work a job at a certain living wage.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
What the article is talking about has legal and historical precedence. It's talking about the Right to Work.
Historically this idea was the basis of the June Days Revolt in Paris, 1848. I wrote about it here.
Add another line to JPM's rap sheet.
It isn't just JPM.
One more proof of the proliferation of global Corporate Fascism.
http://letthemfail.us/archives/3972
-WM
http://letthemfail.us
That job guarantee and the actual link, we've already been there, done that and proved that does not stand solid to good economics, wish it were so, but it is not, esp. the site you're linking to, repeatedly. And you can tell, you'll see no graphs or charts because it does not work, not the way they want to do such a thing.
We cannot even get good health care reform or any real action on jobs as it is. Why continue to promote something that doesn't add up by the numbers and theory when we have so much that does and that we cannot even get voted on out of committee never mind passed? Some, you cannot even get it introduced into a bill by anyone.
Why focus on an agenda that isn't going to really help U.S. workers.
But since political courage is out of style it will be. This will continue to happen every few months. GOP will continue to blame the unemployed for their problems. Democrats will be piss in their pants.
Just pass a direct jobs program plus a jobs guarantee and be done with it.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I've been getting confused as to when the great "shove 'em under the rug, they don't count anymore" exodus to make the official unemployment numbers "improve" was going to happen!
I thought there was a total extension until 12-2010, so I guess I am wrong.
Yeah, so nice of Zombie Bank JP Morgan Chase to chastise handouts which obviously makes people lazy bums.
I saw Congress pass an extension to 12-10 for unemployment, nation wide.
I haven't kept track of all of the extensions but I'm positive this recently passed.
Pages