SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Business news summarized a MarketWatch article thusly: "One reason growth is not faster is because technology is helping customers more than companies." As a technocrat, I thought that was the whole idea.
"Two roads diverged," Robert Frost wrote in what is perhaps the most popular poem of all time, "The Road Not Taken." Frost's opening words keep playing in my head every time an economic indicator is released, a global macro forecast is revised, or financial markets take a tumble. In all cases, the bulls and the bears find enough ammunition to support their diametrically opposed views on the U.S. economy.
Rarely have two roads diverged so dramatically for so long. It took six years for mainstream economists to come around to the notion that no, this is not your grandfather's economy; and no, real economic growth isn't going to accelerate to 3% next year, the perennial forecast. Trend economic growth of 3% or 4% is a thing of the past, constrained as it is right now by anemic productivity and labor-force growth.
Even the 2.1% average growth [in] real gross domestic product since the Great Recession ended in June 2009 is a source of controversy. The economic bulls maintain that the price of information technology is being overstated, which means real GDP and productivity growth are being understated. For this group, the low level of both jobless claims and the unemployment rate is telling the true story of a robust economy that isn't being captured by the statisticians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @08:09AM
Still not convinced it has the importance Marx and Keynes attach to it,
Its not too hard to think about. If money does not move then people do not work. With no work people have no meaning to their life. That was their point. I personally disagree with their methods but that conclusion is sound. Marx idea was to seize control and cut out the middle man. But with no middle men you can not see the whole market only your small piece. It is why the USSR ended up with a central committee to make decisions. As the 'mob' does not always make the best choice. Just efficient ones. Keynes used the idea of deficit spending to try to fight the cycle. But you can not beat the cycle. You can only change the amplitude and the period to some extent. His ideas are considered 'progressive' but they end up creating a state controlled system. Because the gov ends up being the only one who has credit. They end up buying everything and becoming 'too big to fail'.
Mostly govs try to mess with the cycle. The vid I posted had 3 different waves all going at the same time. I think he oversimplified it and smashed it all into one 'market' just for demonstration. However, all markets have them. It mathematically must happen with or without credit. It is the nature of the market trying to find equilibrium. There are thousands of them all going on. They all interconnect with each other. For example raising min wage will change the number of viable jobs in the economy. It must, there is no wishing it will not. That in turn has an effect in lowering how much money is available to spend thus lowering the 'velocity'. If you guess right with the min wage you can make things worse or at best do nothing. Considering the amount of inflation the Fed has created for example the 15 an hour wage may be a 'do nothing' but creates a false sense of spending. Thus making people borrow more expecting to be able to pay it back. In turn actually 'creating' more money. But money that is not really backed by anything other than hope. They are all interconnected loan markets, job markets, bond markets, cash markets, credit markets, oil markets, mcdonalds jobs markets, lego toys markets, etc etc etc. You can twist the knob on different things and create shockwaves in unexpected areas as they all change what is going on.
All economists will talk about the velocity of money. As it a 'crude' way of measuring how well an economy is doing. Even in a pure communistic society you have a market. It is just not necessarily measured in monetary terms. But in terms of labor usually.
Also that 20trillion in debt exists because as American society we do not want to raise taxes, or take it from the rich. That leaves force (most people dont care right now), or printing it. So we print.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 01 2016, @08:58AM
I think that point is wrong. It conflates two meanings of "work":
The first one is what drives money going round. The second one is what gives your life meaning. If you are lucky, both are the same. But there are enough people who work at jobs they don't like not because it gives them meaning, but because it gives them money, and in their free time do things they get no money for, but which give meaning to their life. The only purpose of their job is to get the money that enables them to live and do the things they derive meaning from.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @08:38PM
Oh I do not disagree with your point. Mine was that is what the were saying.
Marx assumption was exactly like you said. The workers are empowered to do what is necessary and they are happy. But at some point someone has to slog thru the shit to fix the pump that is broken. That is not an enjoyable job in any means. But someone must do it. So you end up with others making decisions for you. It is why it eventually fails.
Keynes knew about the cycle. He assumed you can fix the game as it were to make sure work continues. The problem he did not realize is you could continue to kick the can down the road as it were for a long time. You just end up with a different group owning everything because they basically end up the sole user of credit. It is like the old saying. If I owe you 1000 bucks I have a problem If I owe you 1 billion dollars you have a problem.