was the point of Hamilton, but I also noted that GS and others have been playing in speculative bubbles, but it has more to do with oil/energy than say all commodities.
But hamilton's point is how the ratio of the Dollar to the Euro doesn't account for the total rise in commodities...he is saying it's much more correlated to oil.
so he does call it investment, but I more amplified the speculation, because GS and others are moving into that, just like 2008, which truly was a speculative oil bubble.
So, maybe that clears up at least what I was trying to add
and also that I agree, you're right it does make sense to invest in commodities and my understanding is that by past terms the high of Gold was something like $1885, so it hasn't hit it's peak yet.
It's oil that I'm more pointing to. Also because Defazio and others have tried to get rid of the speculation on energy futures, market manipulation because energy is such a vital aspect of the entire economy and affects everything else.
This was actually one of the sources of the Public Works Administration's failure to create as many jobs as the WPA. Requiring return on projects limits the kind of projects you can do, and really increases the time between application and men on the job.
At the time, they called it "self-liquidating projects." The WPA didn't bother with self-liquidation and created millions more jobs than the PWA.
1. Minimum wage is too low. $13.9k a year is enough to keep 1 person out of poverty, but it's nowhere near enough to support a family. Paying a higher wage of $24k a year not only reduces unemployment, but it also has a huge impact on poverty rates.
2. Decentralization is a BAD, BAD idea. In addition to the problems that Oak points out, I'd direct people's attention to the historical example of CETA. CETA was locally planned and administered, and as a result, you got massive displacement effects - state and local governments strapped for cash fired or didn't hire regular public employees and used CETA workers to do the work instead for lower wages. This drastically reduced the net jobs effect, and turned unions from a political ally to a political opponent of jobs programs.
The success of the WPA was precisely that they did the opposite: sponsors had to apply for their projects, and the WPA officially forbade WPA money to go to any project that would normally be done - forcing sponsors to come up with projects that would generate new jobs, rather than just redistributing existing jobs.
I would also note that the WPA operated 50 state and hundreds of local branch offices in order to get close to where the people lived - but the Federal government was in charge of these local branches. It helped cull the corruption problems that the CWA ran into.
I'm not sure why 2.5x is the right number. After all, historically speaking, the WPA worked out to wages + 20%. Keep in mind, these figures don't include state + local contributions in terms of land, materials, and the like.
Regarding the profit margins of the WPA and public works more generally, I think it is possible to do an accounting like this, given that: A. the vast majority of the WPA's employees were engaged in construction, and B. we have some good stats in the Final Report of the WPA. I think you could do a cost-benefit analysis or something like it if you could do some figuring to work out estimates for miles of road, schools, airports, etc. I just don't have the expertise to do it. (A CBA was done for the CCC, I believe, but the two programs involved very different products) Incidentally, if there's anyone out there interested in doing this, I'd be really interested in collaboration - it would help my research enormously.
China trashing out monetary policies are like a drug pusher trashing a junkie.
We couldn't be devaluing our currency if China wasn't helping. What's more, China has willingly fixed its currency to the dollar for over a year now, so they should be pointing a finger at themselves for devaluing their own currency (not to mention their stimulus and loan policies, which are even larger and more risky than ours).
How can gold be in a "bubble" if it is merely doing what all the other commodities are doing?
Doesn't it make a bunch more sense to blame it all on a dollar devaluation rather than a commodity bubble?
It's a logical fallacy to say that because commodity prices are up faster than the dollar is down against the euro, that means that commodities are in a bubble. The logical fallacy here is that the euro is somehow static.
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that the dollar is simply falling faster than the euro is?
There is quantitative easing (aka competitive devaluation, aka monetization) everywhere, in every corner of the world. The world is being flooded with paper money.
It only makes sense that invetors would flee to commodities (aka real things).
I’ll try that format thing. But, understand I came of age with note cards and dreaming of someday owning an I.B.M electric typewriter. This computer thing is a mountain to climb. I think HTML, and my hands get clammy.
But, I will try.
with the Obama Administration. I guess it's too much to have real demand created by employing people and re-establishing link between wages and productivity. Nah, that would be too bold. And piss-off his Wall Street benefactors.
And it would require that financial conglomerates/financial oligarchy experience some pain. And Washington elite don't want to cause any pain to them and piss off their meal ticket.
The reality is home prices are too high for the average, never ending, shrinking paycheck and wages. So, anything that acknowledges that....they don't want to do it. It means deflating the housing bubble and it means major losses for MBS and mortgage holders.
i.e. such a move would put housing prices down, extensively, but also put prices more in line with what people really can afford.
Can't say that I am. Great find by the NY Times, however. To quote scholar and activist Mushon Zer-Aviv in "Interface As Conflict of Ideologies":
"I see the crisis of democracy as an interface problem. When groups of power can interface with governance through finance the idea of equal representation is broken. The current political system in the US that allow for political lobbying and fundraising for candidates has created an interface for corruption (not rendered as such for its legality)."
Right now we have our own "private" system, where companies deny full time hours and there is no additional pay. They do this to deny full time benefits as well as wage increases.
That sounds like a much better idea. That way at least the skill sets are not lost.
One attitude in the U.S. that simply has to cease, is this entire view of workers as disposable diapers.
They don't seem to care or get that workers are the company, they are the skills and expertise.
They seem to believe that they can import, or offshore outsource or whatever....that there is an unlimited supply of labor, fully trained...they don't have to do a damn thing.
Meanwhile China looks like the U.S. 20 years ago in terms of activity and growth....and skills and the U.S. is more and more looking like a 3rd world country.
How long do they believe Americans will remember these advanced skills? How long before they realize that younger workers need experience to obtain those skills?
Doesn't it seem like if it's really stupid policy, America will enact it and anything that is common sense or practical, you can be sure it will not happen?
and that has a lot to do with the Kurzabeit program. It's short time work. Basically, the idea is that firms cut work hours.
So let's say that you are a firm. You employ 10 workers at 40 hrs a week. That's 400 hrs work time.
The economy goes south, and now you only have the orders to support 280 hours work time. In America that would most often mean that you would lay off 3 workers, and keep the other 7 on full time.
In Germany, what they do is cut the workweek down from 40 hours to 28 hours. The government covers (with as I understand it, matching money from the firm) 12 hours of pay. So everyone stays on the job. Skills are quickly lost when layoffs occur, but keeping people on the job prevents a macroeconomic shock, and primes the economy for the recovery.
There is no down time needed to recover skills, like when you layoff, and them have to bring new people up to speed when the recovery occurs.
It's an ertzatz Keynesianism. Taming the business cycle, so that the process is creative, while leading to less destruction.
But can I make a request to format your links. Over on the right hand side of EP is the user guide, which shows you the HTML code to format a link.
Also, you can lick on the rich text editor link, below the post body and have a GUI which has little formatting buttons to help you. If you hover your mouse over each button, it will tell you what it is.
was the point of Hamilton, but I also noted that GS and others have been playing in speculative bubbles, but it has more to do with oil/energy than say all commodities.
But hamilton's point is how the ratio of the Dollar to the Euro doesn't account for the total rise in commodities...he is saying it's much more correlated to oil.
so he does call it investment, but I more amplified the speculation, because GS and others are moving into that, just like 2008, which truly was a speculative oil bubble.
So, maybe that clears up at least what I was trying to add
and also that I agree, you're right it does make sense to invest in commodities and my understanding is that by past terms the high of Gold was something like $1885, so it hasn't hit it's peak yet.
It's oil that I'm more pointing to. Also because Defazio and others have tried to get rid of the speculation on energy futures, market manipulation because energy is such a vital aspect of the entire economy and affects everything else.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68045-pelosi-switches-to-jobs
If Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are moving on jobs, that's a good sign that something will happen.
On the other hand, folks like us, Wray, and Krugman are rather on the left edge of the Overton window.
My main hope is that the spur of re-election will loosen things up somewhat.
This was actually one of the sources of the Public Works Administration's failure to create as many jobs as the WPA. Requiring return on projects limits the kind of projects you can do, and really increases the time between application and men on the job.
At the time, they called it "self-liquidating projects." The WPA didn't bother with self-liquidation and created millions more jobs than the PWA.
I do think it needs some alteration:
1. Minimum wage is too low. $13.9k a year is enough to keep 1 person out of poverty, but it's nowhere near enough to support a family. Paying a higher wage of $24k a year not only reduces unemployment, but it also has a huge impact on poverty rates.
2. Decentralization is a BAD, BAD idea. In addition to the problems that Oak points out, I'd direct people's attention to the historical example of CETA. CETA was locally planned and administered, and as a result, you got massive displacement effects - state and local governments strapped for cash fired or didn't hire regular public employees and used CETA workers to do the work instead for lower wages. This drastically reduced the net jobs effect, and turned unions from a political ally to a political opponent of jobs programs.
The success of the WPA was precisely that they did the opposite: sponsors had to apply for their projects, and the WPA officially forbade WPA money to go to any project that would normally be done - forcing sponsors to come up with projects that would generate new jobs, rather than just redistributing existing jobs.
I would also note that the WPA operated 50 state and hundreds of local branch offices in order to get close to where the people lived - but the Federal government was in charge of these local branches. It helped cull the corruption problems that the CWA ran into.
I'm not sure why 2.5x is the right number. After all, historically speaking, the WPA worked out to wages + 20%. Keep in mind, these figures don't include state + local contributions in terms of land, materials, and the like.
Regarding the profit margins of the WPA and public works more generally, I think it is possible to do an accounting like this, given that: A. the vast majority of the WPA's employees were engaged in construction, and B. we have some good stats in the Final Report of the WPA. I think you could do a cost-benefit analysis or something like it if you could do some figuring to work out estimates for miles of road, schools, airports, etc. I just don't have the expertise to do it. (A CBA was done for the CCC, I believe, but the two programs involved very different products) Incidentally, if there's anyone out there interested in doing this, I'd be really interested in collaboration - it would help my research enormously.
In late 2008 Roubini predicted unemployment to peak at 9%.
Now, at 10.2% he's predicting a peak at 11%.
I think Roubini is about to be proven to be an optimist again.
China trashing out monetary policies are like a drug pusher trashing a junkie.
We couldn't be devaluing our currency if China wasn't helping. What's more, China has willingly fixed its currency to the dollar for over a year now, so they should be pointing a finger at themselves for devaluing their own currency (not to mention their stimulus and loan policies, which are even larger and more risky than ours).
How can gold be in a "bubble" if it is merely doing what all the other commodities are doing?
Doesn't it make a bunch more sense to blame it all on a dollar devaluation rather than a commodity bubble?
It's a logical fallacy to say that because commodity prices are up faster than the dollar is down against the euro, that means that commodities are in a bubble. The logical fallacy here is that the euro is somehow static.
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that the dollar is simply falling faster than the euro is?
There is quantitative easing (aka competitive devaluation, aka monetization) everywhere, in every corner of the world. The world is being flooded with paper money.
It only makes sense that invetors would flee to commodities (aka real things).
Robert,
Thank you for your kind words and advice.
I’ll try that format thing. But, understand I came of age with note cards and dreaming of someday owning an I.B.M electric typewriter. This computer thing is a mountain to climb. I think HTML, and my hands get clammy.
But, I will try.
with the Obama Administration. I guess it's too much to have real demand created by employing people and re-establishing link between wages and productivity. Nah, that would be too bold. And piss-off his Wall Street benefactors.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
And it would require that financial conglomerates/financial oligarchy experience some pain. And Washington elite don't want to cause any pain to them and piss off their meal ticket.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
The reality is home prices are too high for the average, never ending, shrinking paycheck and wages. So, anything that acknowledges that....they don't want to do it. It means deflating the housing bubble and it means major losses for MBS and mortgage holders.
i.e. such a move would put housing prices down, extensively, but also put prices more in line with what people really can afford.
My 2¢
Let's get serious about this foreclosure problems and fix the horrible current modification loan program of the Obama Administration.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Can't say that I am. Great find by the NY Times, however. To quote scholar and activist Mushon Zer-Aviv in "Interface As Conflict of Ideologies":
"I see the crisis of democracy as an interface problem. When groups of power can interface with governance through finance the idea of equal representation is broken. The current political system in the US that allow for political lobbying and fundraising for candidates has created an interface for corruption (not rendered as such for its legality)."
plan to make loans to unemployed home owners and use TARP funds to do it.
How about a plain freeze? Sounds more economical, what the Italians did.
Right now we have our own "private" system, where companies deny full time hours and there is no additional pay. They do this to deny full time benefits as well as wage increases.
That sounds like a much better idea. That way at least the skill sets are not lost.
One attitude in the U.S. that simply has to cease, is this entire view of workers as disposable diapers.
They don't seem to care or get that workers are the company, they are the skills and expertise.
They seem to believe that they can import, or offshore outsource or whatever....that there is an unlimited supply of labor, fully trained...they don't have to do a damn thing.
Meanwhile China looks like the U.S. 20 years ago in terms of activity and growth....and skills and the U.S. is more and more looking like a 3rd world country.
How long do they believe Americans will remember these advanced skills? How long before they realize that younger workers need experience to obtain those skills?
Doesn't it seem like if it's really stupid policy, America will enact it and anything that is common sense or practical, you can be sure it will not happen?
and that has a lot to do with the Kurzabeit program. It's short time work. Basically, the idea is that firms cut work hours.
So let's say that you are a firm. You employ 10 workers at 40 hrs a week. That's 400 hrs work time.
The economy goes south, and now you only have the orders to support 280 hours work time. In America that would most often mean that you would lay off 3 workers, and keep the other 7 on full time.
In Germany, what they do is cut the workweek down from 40 hours to 28 hours. The government covers (with as I understand it, matching money from the firm) 12 hours of pay. So everyone stays on the job. Skills are quickly lost when layoffs occur, but keeping people on the job prevents a macroeconomic shock, and primes the economy for the recovery.
There is no down time needed to recover skills, like when you layoff, and them have to bring new people up to speed when the recovery occurs.
It's an ertzatz Keynesianism. Taming the business cycle, so that the process is creative, while leading to less destruction.
But can I make a request to format your links. Over on the right hand side of EP is the user guide, which shows you the HTML code to format a link.
Also, you can lick on the rich text editor link, below the post body and have a GUI which has little formatting buttons to help you. If you hover your mouse over each button, it will tell you what it is.
Nice find!
I agree with Rebel, EU is way more aggressive and taking action plus they did quite a bit to help their workers, unlike the U.S.
Pages