Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > The Unemployment Line

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2017, 12:57 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,137
Guaranteed Income as Quantitative Easing

Fact one: Top Tenth of 1 Percenters Reaps All the Riches (Bloomberg)

Fact two: What they are doing with all that money gives us the economy we've got. Anemic growth and low-wage jobs are it, going forward. The money goes into bidding up assets (the stock market) and government bonds (buying guaranteed income). To a large degree, the money becomes static, tied up in non-productive assets, and economically ineffective.

Fact three: Government keeps incurring debt because it can't tax enough to cover current needs. It can't tax enough because the political power of the top .1% prevents it. They don't want the government taking their money, when instead they can loan it to the government and get interest on it forever.

Fact four: desperate to promote increased economic growth, the Federal Reserve has undertaken a program of 'quantitative easing,' in which large amounts of money are created and made available as reserves to commercial banks, enabling them to increase loans and investment. The stimulative results of this program have been disappointing.

Fact five: increased demand from the consumer sector would be the most certain factor to produce increased economic growth. However, downward pressure on employment and wages from globalization and automation precludes robust earnings growth in the consumer sector. This downward-pressure on the consumer sector will only increase in the future.

Fact six: massive government support for consumer demand, in the form of guaranteed annual income for consumers, has bee proposed as a method of stimulating the economy and restoring satisfactory rates of growth. However, the cost is deemed too great, as it will remain politically impossible to raise taxes on the high-income sector to fund a 'transfer' of income. Funding with debt would likewise lead to a burgeoning debt that will be too expensive to service.

Proposal: end quantitative easing program for creation of bank reserves, and instead fund guaranteed annual incomes by creating the necessary money. As long as this funds creation is kept within necessary bounds, it will not result in hyper-inflation, even as the current quantitative-easing program has not proved to be inflationary. Like current quantitative easing, it will simply counterbalance the deflationary effect of the withdrawal of huge sums into the relatively economically-inert cash hordes of super-weathly individuals and their corporations.

This proposal should enjoy support from all sectors; the super-wealthy will both like that it does not require taxation of their income, and be gratified as, over time, increased growth adds multiple zeros the the number-scores that denote their status. Because the program will allow them to continue to 'reap all the riches,' and indeed, counts on it to provide the sink that counterbalances the money-creation. And of course, it will also provide the benefit of a better life to those no longer necessary to the economy.
__________________
If things don't go right, go left!

Last edited by donquixote99; 02-10-2017 at 01:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2017, 02:21 PM
CarlV's Avatar
CarlV CarlV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SF east bay
Posts: 4,455
That's not what they say on Fox News.


Carl
__________________
Russians who vote elect Republicans
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-10-2017, 02:55 PM
Tom Joad's Avatar
Tom Joad Tom Joad is offline
Persona non grata
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
I don't care what anybody says, due to dramatic increases in worker productivity we have a surplus of labor.

Robotics is going to make this surplus even more acute.

It's a wet dream for employers because they can dictate the terms of employment they want and the poor desperate for a job masses have to eat whatever shit sandwich they are offered.

The way I see it we have two options.

One is to create a shitload of non-jobs with the government.

The other is to pay people not to work, like we pay farmers not to grow shit in order to avoid surpluses.

I favor paying people not to work.

That's what I see the guaranteed income to be.
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2017, 03:02 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlV View Post
That's not what they say on Fox News.


Carl
I wouldn't know.
__________________
If things don't go right, go left!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-10-2017, 03:13 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Joad View Post
I don't care what anybody says, due to dramatic increases in worker productivity we have a surplus of labor.

Robotics is going to make this surplus even more acute.

It's a wet dream for employers because they can dictate the terms of employment they want and the poor desperate for a job masses have to eat whatever shit sandwich they are offered.

The way I see it we have two options.

One is to create a shitload of non-jobs with the government.

The other is to pay people not to work, like we pay farmers not to grow shit in order to avoid surpluses.

I favor paying people not to work.

That's what I see the guaranteed income to be.
Curious: what do you think will happen to the labor surplus and high productivity when we start paying people not to work?

Also, assuming this....um...interesting economic theory is put into place, and somehow supply meets demand in the labor market, how do you convince all those folks who are being paid not to work that they actually need to go back to work?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-10-2017, 03:31 PM
Tom Joad's Avatar
Tom Joad Tom Joad is offline
Persona non grata
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Curious: what do you think will happen to the labor surplus and high productivity when we start paying people not to work?

Also, assuming this....um...interesting economic theory is put into place, and somehow supply meets demand in the labor market, how do you convince all those folks who are being paid not to work that they actually need to go back to work?
You would get enough for basic necessities by not working. You work for the luxuries and frills.

Type A's like you will be happy to work to get more material stuff.

Type B's like me will be happy to just chill on the couch.

Which is what I have been doing for the past 9 years.
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Last edited by Tom Joad; 02-10-2017 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-10-2017, 04:26 PM
Oerets's Avatar
Oerets Oerets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 5,081
Place a tax on all the jobs replaced by automation. To be used in retraining or maintaining those displaced.
Go to a thee day and a half day workweek and increase vacation time. In order to employ more people.



Barney
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-10-2017, 04:34 PM
Tom Joad's Avatar
Tom Joad Tom Joad is offline
Persona non grata
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerets View Post
Go to a thee day and a half day workweek and increase vacation time. In order to employ more people.
Barney
Not a bad idea.

When I was a freshman in 1965 our economics 101 instructor told us that due to increases in worker productivity we would only have to work 20 hours a week by the time we were his age.

Well productivity kept increasing, but workers share of the proceeds didn't. The mega rich kept it all for themselves.

I place part of the reason on the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 90% down to what it is today. When it was 90% the rich had an incentive to share the wealth because if they didn't the government was going to take 90% of it. Today that's not true, so they keep it all for themselves.
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-10-2017, 05:06 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerets View Post
Place a tax on all the jobs replaced by automation. To be used in retraining or maintaining those displaced.
Go to a thee day and a half day workweek and increase vacation time. In order to employ more people.



Barney
...and watch those jobs go somewhere else where there is no tax on automation? It might get harder to tax somethibg when it disappears over time.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-10-2017, 05:16 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Joad View Post
You would get enough for basic necessities by not working. You work for the luxuries and frills.

Type A's like you will be happy to work to get more material stuff.

Type B's like me will be happy to just chill on the couch.

Which is what I have been doing for the past 9 years.
But since you're not producing anything of value that can be taxed, it won't take long for my Type A ability to purchase luxuries to be diminished so that the economy can continue to provide your Type B basic necessities. After a while we type A's will want you to be productive, because the economy can't afford you anymore. Couple that with some of my fellow type A's who might find the type B lifestyle gradually more appealing as time goes on, and you'll run out of enough type A's to keep things funded.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.