Right Wingers say the Rich/Wealthy create Jobs ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Right Wingers say the Rich/Wealthy create Jobs well years ago during the Dark Ages or the MiddleAges the Lords created Jobs in the Feudal System or during Slavery the Slave Owners created Jobs for the Slaves during the time when there were no Trade Unions or when Labor/Labour Unions were first started with many Strikes one could say the Poor Workers should of liked the Wage Slavery and the Exploitation because the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists create Jobs for the Poor. I don't understand why Right Wingers think the Working Class should praise the Rich for Job Creation ?

The lifestyle of peasants in Medieval England (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Year%207.htm) was extremely hard and harsh. Many worked as farmers (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_farming1.htm) in fields owned by the lords (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/feudal.htm) and their lives were controlled by the farming year (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_farming.htm). Certain jobs had to be done at certain times of the year. Their lives were harsh but there were few rebellions due to a harsh system of law and order (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_law_and_order.htm).

The peasants were at the bottom of the Feudal System (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/feudal.htm) and had to obey their local lord to whom they had sworn an oath of obedience on the Bible. Because they had sworn an oath to their lord, it was taken for granted that they had sworn a similar oath to the duke, earl or baron who owned that lord’s property.
The position of the peasant was made clear by Jean Froissart when he wrote:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_peasants.htm

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Manifesto
of the Communist Party

1848

I -- BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS [1] (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#c1r1)

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Frequently Asked Questions

Author: membership Cmte (http://www.yclusa.org/article/author/view/562)

Organizing, communists, and the YCL

Q: Do communists believe in god? Do they outlaw religion?


A: Some communists believe in god, some don't. Gus Hall, the former chair of the CPUSA says, "Our fight is not with God, but with capitalists." Freedom of religion would continue under communism--as long as the organized religion does not seek to destroy the system and replace it with capitalism or any other earlier system (such as slavery or feudalism).

http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1445/1/278/

[Judicator]

It really depends on what you mean by "creating jobs." Why should anyone be credited with creating jobs when they are just responding to market forces that induce them to work or to hire someone?

[Apoi_Viitor]

The rich do create jobs. In fact, in a capitalist society they are pretty much the only ones with that ability, seeing as they own the means of production.

[Rafiq]

Yes, they do, and what of it?

Slave owners created humans into slaves, yes? Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[RGacky3]

The rich do create jobs. In fact, in a capitalist society they are pretty much the only ones with that ability, seeing as they own the means of production.


No, consumers create jobs, Capitalist and the rich are just middlemen that take a cut.

[Rafiq]

What came first (in capitalism), the capitalist or the consumer?

The capitalist.

Therefore the capitalist creates jobs, you don't have to argue with that.

[RGacky3]

No the consumer came first, in capitalism, but thats kind of a stupid question, its like what came first the chicken or the egg.

No one started a company without first checking to see if there was demand for the product.

[Bardo]

The rich do create jobs. In fact, in a capitalist society they are pretty much the only ones with that ability, seeing as they own the means of production.

There are also government/public sector jobs. The same people fighting for tax cuts on the grounds that it will produce more jobs and get more people working tend to be the same people that fight for spending reduction, ie- job cuts.

[Wired]

This is only a relevant argument in favour of the rich and ruling class if you believe that the system that we live in today ought to stay exactly as it is (and even then its a pretty weak defence of what is a slave driving oligarchy).

[Dr Mindbender]

Individuals do not create jobs. Wealthy individuals create the illusion they are creating jobs solely through merit of owning the means of production. That issue however, is easilly remedied.

Its hypocritical to say the rich create jobs because they are perhaps more culpable for destroying jobs. People's livliehoods are destroyed daily through behind closed doors dealings, cutbacks and shoddy business practices (eg. the news of the world phone hacking). The era of 'jobs for life' is gone.

Jobs are created and sustained through human need. The difference with socialised employment is that it would actually be institutionalised and protected.

[Judicator]

Individuals do not create jobs. Wealthy individuals create the illusion they are creating jobs solely through merit of owning the means of production. That issue however, is easilly remedied.

Its hypocritical to say the rich create jobs because they are perhaps more culpable for destroying jobs. People's livliehoods are destroyed daily through behind closed doors dealings, cutbacks and shoddy business practices (eg. the news of the world phone hacking). The era of 'jobs for life' is gone.

Jobs are created and sustained through human need. The difference with socialised employment is that it would actually be institutionalised and protected.

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one? If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?

[Nox]

Yes, the rich/wealthy create jobs... Is that supposed to be a good thing? :confused:

[Revolutionair]

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one? If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?

You refuted Marxism in a single post. Well done.

http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/436139-Triforce%20of%20Wisdom/139/32/cookie_display.gif

Here's a cookie, now go back to mises.org.

[RichardAWilson]

Roflmao!!!

[jake williams]

Capitalist societies, as far as I know, are the only ones that have insisted that some part of the population be unemployed at all times. Capitalist states explicitly try to keep unemployment above 6% because anything else is felt to push up wages unreasonably. This isn't denied and is in some cases almost a matter of law. In this sense those who maintain capitalism are maintaining the only economic system which actively prevents people from being employed.

Within capitalist societies, though, who provides the jobs? Well, yes, in a sense, those who own the means of production are the only ones capable of "creating jobs", if "creating a job" is defined as providing capital for use, and wages, in exchange for the products of labour. But again, while capitalists are the only people who do this, they're also the only ones who don't do it; they are the only people who wilfully withhold capital when they demand higher rates of profit, something they're doing now

Thus capitalists are the only ones who create jobs, and the only ones who destroy them. If we get rid of the capitalists we can ourselves be the "creators of jobs", without making anyone unemployed. This capitalism cannot do, and its defenders do not advocate.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm willing to extend them the title of "job-creators" to the extend that jobs are something which I would like to abolish.

[Rafiq]

No the consumer came first, in capitalism, but thats kind of a stupid question, its like what came first the chicken or the egg.

No one started a company without first checking to see if there was demand for the product.

No, it's not a stupid question.

The property owner came first, Gacky, the captialist came first, before the consumer. It's not like some asshole just walked over to some factory and said "I say, I shall work very hard for money to purchase this wonderful factory" no, it never started out that way.

[Rafiq]

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one? If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?

Because Jobs are a natural right, i.e. capitalists NEED to hire people in order to survive.

Jobs are created through the need for Capitalists to produce, of course, regardless of who you were replying to said.

[Dr Mindbender]

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one?
The fact that the manager 'hired' the employee in the first place is neither here nor there. What is important, the matter remains is that the need was always in place therefore the need for someone to fulfill that role. The manager is only acting as a middleman.


If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?
because humans are creatures of habit. The difference with privatised employment is that its subject to the dynamics of free market. A socialised society is not going to sack someone if they are the person best suited for that role.

[RGacky3]

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one? If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?

We don't say they are destroying one, we say they are trying to maximise profits, which sometimes means firing someone who is contributing. Jobs are created by demand and destroyed by the profit motive, which sometimes means demand, other times means something else, such as technology.

Fact is, get rid of all the capitalists and reorganize society socialistically, you'd still have jobs, and you'd have a better society.


The property owner came first, Gacky, the captialist came first, before the consumer. It's not like some asshole just walked over to some factory and said "I say, I shall work very hard for money to purchase this wonderful factory" no, it never started out that way.

purchasing a factory is not consumption, purchasing the product the factory makes is consumption, NO ONE has ever made a factory, or bought one, without knowing there was a damand for what the factory will produce, that has not happened in the history of everything.

demand always comes first.


Because Jobs are a natural right, i.e. capitalists NEED to hire people in order to survive.

Jobs are created through the need for Capitalists to produce, of course, regardless of who you were replying to said.

Capitalists need to produce in order to make a profit, where do they get that profit? By selling to people, those people are the demand, they never higher unless they know that there is demand, so its the demand that creates the job.

[Kiev Communard]

Lol, if hiring someone doesn't count as creating a job, why should firing count as destroying one? If, as you claim later, jobs are created through human need, why aren't jobs destroyed by changes in human need?

That doesn't mean that the human needs cannot be satisfied without making "redundant" people unemployed and destitute.

[Judicator]

The fact that the manager 'hired' the employee in the first place is neither here nor there. What is important, the matter remains is that the need was always in place therefore the need for someone to fulfill that role. The manager is only acting as a middleman.

Right, so they are also the middleman when the worker is fired and thrown out on the street. Not the managers fault for destitution.


because humans are creatures of habit. The difference with privatised employment is that its subject to the dynamics of free market. A socialised society is not going to sack someone if they are the person best suited for that role.

A socialized society is going to make sacking anyone for any reason so difficult it retards economic growth.


That doesn't mean that the human needs cannot be satisfied without making "redundant" people unemployed and destitute.

If they are redundant, maybe they don't have to be destitute, but why would it ever to make sense to employ them in anything other than make-work jobs?


We don't say they are destroying one, we say they are trying to maximise profits, which sometimes means firing someone who is contributing. Jobs are created by demand and destroyed by the profit motive, which sometimes means demand, other times means something else, such as technology.

I was only pointing out the incoherence of the position that capitalists aren't responsible for job creation but are responsible for job destruction.

[RGacky3]

I was only pointing out the incoherence of the position that capitalists aren't responsible for job creation but are responsible for job destruction.

Capitalism destroys jobs.

[Judicator]

Capitalism destroys jobs.

How does it destroy them?

[RGacky3]

well, it requires constant profits, which means that if that is not mett by demand, you have to cut, meaning you cut costs, the first cuts generally to go are labor, thus it destroys jobs.

In a system that does not require purpetually higher profits you don't need that.

[Judicator]

well, it requires constant profits, which means that if that is not mett by demand, you have to cut, meaning you cut costs, the first cuts generally to go are labor, thus it destroys jobs.

In a system that does not require purpetually higher profits you don't need that.

Capitalism doesn't require constant profits...profits go up and down with the business cycle. Cuts go everywhere...R&D, labor, capex...why do you think it goes to labor.

There is 0 evidence for any requirement of forever increasing profits. The market risk premium was <10% in the 1950s and its still <10% now....

[Blackburn]

Capitalism doesn't require constant profits.

Tell that to the boss. See what he says.

You'll soon be looking for a new job.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism doesn't require constant profits...profits go up and down with the business cycle. Cuts go everywhere...R&D, labor, capex...why do you think it goes to labor.

There is 0 evidence for any requirement of forever increasing profits. The market risk premium was <10% in the 1950s and its still <10% now....

Actually it does, and any economist would tell you that, you need a 3%+ growth economy to have a healthy economy, and even more to cut unemployment. Firms are always competing for investment, and investment is only made for a higher return so firms are fighting for more and more profits.

The evidence is that when the economy stops growing it collapses .... This is pretty much to the T everytime. Competition creates enless need for growth in profits.

Also why cut labor? Because that is the most variable cost and as automation goes up you can cut more labor, (which ends up leading to a crash in the end anyway).

BTW, I did'nt say ever increasing profits, I said constant profits, meaning a constant surplus, which as the economy grows gets bigger and bigger.

[gendoikari]

The rich do create jobs. In fact, in a capitalist society they are pretty much the only ones with that ability, seeing as they own the means of production.

you have a point but giving them tax cuts doesn't mean they will create more of them, this has been prooven over and over.

[Troopa]

Rich companies create jobs. Not the CEO. The rich can only create jobs if they use the money to pay employees and not to pay for the installation of their in ground pool.

When tax cuts are discussed, we must consider HOW the money is being used, and if it is being used properly.

[syndicat]

Firms tend to always seek to reduce their wage bill per unit of output. This means that employers not only "create jobs", they are also working constantly to destroy them. The more employers can get people to work harder, do more in less time, speed them up, or replace them through re-organization or automation, they can reduce their wage bill and thus enhance profits.

Moreover, profits do not ensure that employers will hire. Right now the corporations in the USA are sitting on huge cash hoard. but they're not hiring, they've been paring employment down, forcing people to work harder, double up....because jobs are scarce and people are afraid of losing their job or unwilling to quit.

Profits enable employers to hire more managers, to get people to work harder, hire consultants on how to reorg work or automate to get rid of jobs, or how to move to areas of the world where cheap labor prevails...often highly repressive regimes as far as labor rights are concerned.

Right now wages have been driven down for 30 years, and the amount of disposable cash people have to spend is lower...and this is made worse by very high unemployment. this means people will buy less commodities. so markets are soft. if employers can't make sufficient profit by producing things because there isn't enough of a market, they won't hire people to do so. They'll look for speculative forms of investment of their cash...and then you get the kinds of bubbles that lead to financial panics and crashes.

so relatively low market demand means employers won't hire...won't create jobs...even tho profits are at historic highs.

so tax cuts won't create jobs. that's because tax cuts do two things. first, they merely create more profit by cutting business expenses. but as we've seen, profits will not necessarily lead to hiring. and, secondly, tax cuts force cuts in social spending, which reduces the social wage, reduces social services, causing more unemployment, and even less market demand since people will be even more in the situation of having inadequate disposable income.

[Ocean Seal]

Without the lord's consent, the serfs cannot till the fields. But who is more important, the serfs who produce or the lord who by nature of his position allows them to work. Keeping in mind that they could allow themselves to work without the lord.

[Veovis]

Successful companies create jobs, irrespective of who owns them. All things being equal, a collectively-owned business is just as capable of making jobs as a privately-owned company.

[NGNM85]

The elites are not job creators. The needs and wants of the public constitute the demand which guides production. At no point in this process does any law of physics, biology, etc., necessitate the usurption of the proceeds of said production by a parasitic class, who produce nothing.

[Judicator]

Tell that to the boss. See what he says.

You'll soon be looking for a new job.

I don't know why my boss would care about an ivory tower argument about capitalism.




Actually it does, and any economist would tell you that, you need a 3%+ growth economy to have a healthy economy, and even more to cut unemployment. Firms are always competing for investment, and investment is only made for a higher return so firms are fighting for more and more profits.


Japan has had 0 growth for the past 2 decades and they still have a stable government and capitalism...no collapse. Japan's unemployment rate is 5%. Growth is not and never has been a categorical requirement for capitalism to "work."


The evidence is that when the economy stops growing it collapses .... This is pretty much to the T everytime. Competition creates enless need for growth in profits.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "collapse?" When growth stops unexpectedly you get a recession, usually not a collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse). Even the great depression they classify as a contraction.



Also why cut labor? Because that is the most variable cost and as automation goes up you can cut more labor, (which ends up leading to a crash in the end anyway).


That's fine, I was only saying the cuts to labor occur in unison with cuts to other expenses.

[RGacky3]

Japan has had 0 growth for the past 2 decades and they still have a stable government and capitalism...no collapse. Japan's unemployment rate is 5%. Growth is not and never has been a categorical requirement for capitalism to "work."


Japan is the third largest economy, with a not so large population, but your wrong, 2010 had 4% GDP growth, but if Japan slowed down it would'nt be as big a problem considering the domestic economy is HUGE and they have a trade surplus, so they have grown enough to fit around for a while. But overall, my point stands, capitalism MUST grow, and every economist agrees.


Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "collapse?" When growth stops unexpectedly you get a recession, usually not a collapse (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse). Even the great depression they classify as a contraction.


You get a recession if the government saves capitalism, or seriously pumps enough money to facilitate growth, which is exactly the point, it needs growth anyway.

The great depression did'nt fix itself, WW2 and giant giant keynsian programs saved it.


That's fine, I was only saying the cuts to labor occur in unison with cuts to other expenses.

Ok ....

[AerodynamicOwl]

What came first (in capitalism), the capitalist or the consumer?

The capitalist.

Therefore the capitalist creates jobs, you don't have to argue with that.

Look at it like this. If there were 1000 capitalists, and all the capital in the world and no consumers/workers, nothing would get done. :)

[Judicator]

Look at it like this. If there were 1000 capitalists, and all the capital in the world and no consumers/workers, nothing would get done. :)

One capitalist would stuck it up and get a factory job and he could command a massive salary. The distinction between "capitalist" and "worker" is somewhat artificial, since everyone will work for the right price.


Japan is the third largest economy, with a not so large population, but your wrong, 2010 had 4% GDP growth, but if Japan slowed down it would'nt be as big a problem considering the domestic economy is HUGE and they have a trade surplus, so they have grown enough to fit around for a while. But overall, my point stands, capitalism MUST grow, and every economist agrees.



You get a recession if the government saves capitalism, or seriously pumps enough money to facilitate growth, which is exactly the point, it needs growth anyway.

The great depression did'nt fix itself, WW2 and giant giant keynsian programs saved it.



Ok ....

Japan's current GDP per capita is roughly where it was in 1994-1995.

You still haven't explained what you mean by collapse or provided historical examples.

[RGacky3]

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-131354791608227-Scott-Krisiloff.png (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-131354791608227-Scott-Krisiloff_origin.png)

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-131354794014617-Scott-Krisiloff.png (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-131354794014617-Scott-Krisiloff_origin.png)
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-13135479608007-Scott-Krisiloff.png (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/8/16/519115-13135479608007-Scott-Krisiloff_origin.png)

Japan's economy, was a healthy economy, with its dips and peaks, there was a drop by it by no means is anything compared to the crisis in the 30s or whats happening now. Keep in mind that Japans growth per capita grew rediculously out of proportion, which means of coarse it would come back down.

I've explained collapse, its when Capitalism cannot function anymore without a huge non market intervention. The Historical example is the 1930s, that needed a World War and Giant Keynsian reforms (and social-democratic reforms in europe) to get itself out.

[Judicator]

Japan's economy, was a healthy economy, with its dips and peaks, there was a drop by it by no means is anything compared to the crisis in the 30s or whats happening now. Keep in mind that Japans growth per capita grew rediculously out of proportion, which means of coarse it would come back down.

I've explained collapse, its when Capitalism cannot function anymore without a huge non market intervention. The Historical example is the 1930s, that needed a World War and Giant Keynsian reforms (and social-democratic reforms in europe) to get itself out.

Japanese urban housing/real estate prices dropped by ~50% at the end of the 80s. Per capita growth was out of proportion to what?

The great depression if it lasted longer would have meant that a lot of people would have remained poor for a longer period of time. This is different from capitalism not functioning.

[RGacky3]

Japanese urban housing/real estate prices dropped by ~50% at the end of the 80s. Per capita growth was out of proportion to what?


Out of proportion to a Normal growth rate, But hey look at the graphs, there may have been a housing bubble, but it did'nt cause a terrible collapse.


The great depression if it lasted longer would have meant that a lot of people would have remained poor for a longer period of time. This is different from capitalism not functioning.

It would have ment poor people remaining poor, more people becoming poor, a slow down of commerce, and ultimately a collapse.

[Judicator]

Out of proportion to a Normal growth rate, But hey look at the graphs, there may have been a housing bubble, but it did'nt cause a terrible collapse.


What's normal? They had large growth since the 60s...was there something special about 1989/90?



It would have ment poor people remaining poor, more people becoming poor, a slow down of commerce, and ultimately a collapse.


Commerce slows down and then speeds up again. No collapse.

[RGacky3]

What's normal? They had large growth since the 60s...was there something special about 1989/90?


Normal is from 3 to 5%, when your growing much much larger than your population along with a natural raise in living standards. WHat was special about 89 and the 90s was that the economy had outgrown itself and had to contract a bit.

BUT LOOK AT THE GRAPHS, it was'nt a crash at all.


Commerce slows down and then speeds up again. No collapse.

Actually no it does'nt, not uless you have a giant state intervention.

[Judicator]

Normal is from 3 to 5%, when your growing much much larger than your population along with a natural raise in living standards. WHat was special about 89 and the 90s was that the economy had outgrown itself and had to contract a bit.

BUT LOOK AT THE GRAPHS, it was'nt a crash at all.

It was a big correction and a large destruction of paper wealth. If you're just looking at GDP growth rate, Japan was fine. But look at the US, we're fine too, nothing even remotely close to the great depression: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp


Actually no it does'nt, not uless you have a giant state intervention.

There were plenty of bank runs and commodity bubbles and so forth before government got big enough to do anything and they didn't destroy the US economy. This was back when total government spending was <1% of GDP.

[RGacky3]

It was a big correction and a large destruction of paper wealth. If you're just looking at GDP growth rate, Japan was fine. But look at the US, we're fine too, nothing even remotely close to the great depression: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp)


About 16% real unemployment, wages stagnenet, plummeting of job security and dropping of living standards, no one seriously measures an economies health with GDP.


There were plenty of bank runs and commodity bubbles and so forth before government got big enough to do anything and they didn't destroy the US economy. This was back when total government spending was <1% of GDP.

Do you really want to go back to the times before FDR? FIrst of all Capitalism was'nt developed, so it had time and place to grow, Second of all, life was shit then for most people.

[Judicator]

About 16% real unemployment, wages stagnenet, plummeting of job security and dropping of living standards, no one seriously measures an economies health with GDP.

Then why are you linking GDP graphs?

Why do you say "collapse" when really you just mean high unemployment? Why does a "collapse" fail to appear in the GDP numbers?


Do you really want to go back to the times before FDR? FIrst of all Capitalism was'nt developed, so it had time and place to grow, Second of all, life was shit then for most people.

That was the only time where you can really look at how economies functioned without the spectre of big government intervention.

Time and place to grow? What are you talking about? Why do you think capitalism could function before on its own but can't now?

[Geiseric]

Why would you want to return to that phase of capitalism? I can't see why anybody short of a sociopath would want to return to such a regressive time... There's no reason for poverty when we have this kind of productive forces.

[Judicator]

Why would you want to return to that phase of capitalism? I can't see why anybody short of a sociopath would want to return to such a regressive time... There's no reason for poverty when we have this kind of productive forces.

Why would anyone want to return to one of the fastest periods of US economic growth in history?

[RGacky3]

Then why are you linking GDP graphs?


Because your the one saying the Japanese economy crashed, or had a major crisis, which it obviously did'nt.


Why do you say "collapse" when really you just mean high unemployment? Why does a "collapse" fail to appear in the GDP numbers?


I mean a number of things. unemployment, a surplus of production, falling profits, and so on.


That was the only time where you can really look at how economies functioned without the spectre of big government intervention.


Yeah .... and it SUCKED for most people.


Time and place to grow? What are you talking about? Why do you think capitalism could function before on its own but can't now?

Because there is'nt much place for it to grow natural, there are just so many new markets to tap.

[Judicator]

Because your the one saying the Japanese economy crashed, or had a major crisis, which it obviously did'nt.

You're saying GDP is an inaccurate measure of economic output, and you use it to support your claims. You can't have it both ways.



I mean a number of things. unemployment, a surplus of production, falling profits, and so on.


Oh, so just any economic contraction.



Yeah .... and it SUCKED for most people.


Because the whole country was much poorer than it is today. In 1870 our GDP per capita was $2500 in today's dollars, about that of Nigeria.



Because there is'nt much place for it to grow natural, there are just so many new markets to tap.


isn't much place for it to grow natural?

[RGacky3]

You're saying GDP is an inaccurate measure of economic output, and you use it to support your claims. You can't have it both ways.


No, I did'nt say GDP is an innaccurate measure of economic output, I said its bad measure of if an economy is healthy or not.

I used it to show that Japan did not have an economic crash or crisis or whatever, you said they did, show me.


Oh, so just any economic contraction.


Except each one gets worse and worse and they never get fixed (juts moved around), until we have the situation now, where there really is no moving it around and its worse to the point where you can't patch it up.


isn't much place for it to grow natural?

You need markets for natural econoimc growth, if you can't find markets of people wanting to buy commodities, goods or services, you have to invent markets, like mortgage securities or something (which ends up being a bubble).

A natural market means people with money wanting to buy goods and services. Natural growth is a growth in that.

[Judicator]

No, I did'nt say GDP is an innaccurate measure of economic output, I said its bad measure of if an economy is healthy or not.

I used it to show that Japan did not have an economic crash or crisis or whatever, you said they did, show me.


So then you're saying, based on the GDP graphs, that the US did not have an economic crash or crisis, just that the economy is unhealthy?



Except each one gets worse and worse and they never get fixed (juts moved around), until we have the situation now, where there really is no moving it around and its worse to the point where you can't patch it up.


But they don't get worse and worse. The great depression was worse than any subsequent economic crash. Each subsequent crisis is not necessarily worse than the prior ones, some are milder, some aren't.

Also, what do you mean "moved around?" When the great depression ended, where did it go?



You need markets for natural econoimc growth, if you can't find markets of people wanting to buy commodities, goods or services, you have to invent markets, like mortgage securities or something (which ends up being a bubble).

A natural market means people with money wanting to buy goods and services. Natural growth is a growth in that.


With productivity growth, people get richer. With their new wealth, they buy more stuff.

[RGacky3]

So then you're saying, based on the GDP graphs, that the US did not have an economic crash or crisis, just that the economy is unhealthy?


Jesus Christ, ok, I'll rephrase, SHOW ME THE JAPANESE ECONOMIC CRASH!!! And how they got out of it just with market solutions.


But they don't get worse and worse. The great depression was worse than any subsequent economic crash. Each subsequent crisis is not necessarily worse than the prior ones, some are milder, some aren't.

Also, what do you mean "moved around?" When the great depression ended, where did it go?


Each supsequent crash from the 1970s was worse, down to this one.

The great depression was not fixed naturally, it did'nt fix itself, it took a world war + massiave economic stimulous + basically the destruction of european economies allowing them to kind of start again and have new markets.

What I mean by moved around was like for example in the 70s you had strong labor, that was destroyed by crushing unions, then you have excess of capital, then it was financialized, now you have a problem of financialization of capitalism and the problems that comes with that, then you had a solution of bialouts and tax cuts, now you have a sovereign debt crisis.

All the while the working class is getting more and more screwed.


With productivity growth, people get richer. With their new wealth, they buy more stuff.

not necessarily, ONLY if that productivity is matched with equal demand, if productivity goes up, but wages do not, the poeple getting richer are not the people that are gonna buy enough new stuff to match the productivity, not even close.