Friday, March 19, 2010

Misc. Dweebs

HEY, RUTHERFORD! – you wanna sincerely exchange a viewpoint or two? Here’ are a couple to chew on …

1) I’m sure that even YOU can accept the notion that in a healthy economy, there is some kind of a balance between SUPPLY and DEMAND. For the past 30 years (since your namesake was President), the pendulum has been getting pushed exclusively towards the SUPPLY side. Now, for the most part, DEMAND is collapsing – GLOBALLY!, because the people who comprise the greatest global market for consumer goods are systematically being put out of their jobs and their homes.

2) The whole concept of the “Ownership” society is beginning to collapse, as the investor class (e. g., YOU!) sits by the pool waiting for your dividend checks. You demand GROWTH, above all, from your investments. THAT is why, for the past 30 years, productivity has increased annually while wages have flattened.

Ever hear of a guy named Henry Ford, Ron? I have some grudging respect for the racist bastard, because he knew something about how to SUSTAIN a business by taking the LONG view. Ford recognized that if he paid his workers enough that they could afford to buy the products produce in the factories they worked in, he’d CREATE a market for himself. Do you think the 9-year-olds in Singapore that BUILT your 48″ Plasma display & 3 GHz computer are making enough to buy those items? Do you think they can even DREAM of making that much?

Enjoy your private little “micro-economy” while it lasts, Ronny-boy. It’s all gonna come tumbling down around your ears, far sooner than you expect. Don’t be lookin’ in here for a soft place to land when it does.
Sure, why not a "sincere exchange of viewpoints"? But so far I have not seen any and your talking points don't help your cause.

1. Not sure what straw man argument you want to pursue but I am clearly a Keynesian and more specifically a "structuralist Neo-Keynsian".
2. You don't know me, so I understand the labeling is much easier than addressing issues. While I have shifted more of my equities to higher paying dividends, that was mostly to diversify my holdings and to pick some less volatile stocks in the mix.

2a. Fordism as described by Liberals is vacuous at best. He paid them an amount above the prevailing wage to ensure the highest quality workers in the industry. If he had been building Aircraft carriers would he have paid his workers each enough to afford one also. Just ridiculous to tie work output to consumption.

2b. You do understand that Singapore is a HIC and there are no 9 year olds in sweat shops??? Right? or did Thom say something today on that subject.

3. It may collapse but since I have been reading the same for decades then I will not hold my breath waiting for it to happen. As long as the Demos and Obama do not mess with the economy and create structural rigidities in our economy then our economy will adapt as it has always done before.

godknows
says carry on...
Highlights on the Show…March 15 – 19, 201

Well Ron if that’s how you feel about pass then read bills, join me in calling for the repeal of every piece of legislation that the Republicans passed in the middle of the night mere hours (or less) after putting their gregarious bills on the table.

BTW, how long do you have to sit and think before coming up with your (dubious) zingers… looks like at least a 1/2 hour to me. Do you have to call someone to get ideas?

O brother.
Do you have something in specific to point to or just vacuous innuendos? Anytime I missed that affected 1/7th of the economy? The one time that {I remember} the Republicans working so hard to get something passed "in the night" was ANWR and that never did pass even when using the same techniques Pelosi is using now.

Timing now. You really do not have a life. I actually thought the next 1/2 I would look for and read the bills...

godknows
all

mstaggerlee March 19th, 2010, 10:04 am

@wRONg Rutherford, re:”Just ridiculous to tie work output to consumption.”

I’ve been working on the bleeding edge of the electronics industry for the past 33 years, creating non-consumer products that make most people’s eyes glaze over when they ask me “What do you do?” You ARE correct that nobody here gets paid well enough to buy our products – then again, nobody who works here would WANT one … kinda like an Aircraft Carrier. However, pretty much everyone who works here IS paid well enough to buy a 3 GHz computer or a 48″ Plasma TV … if they do want one.

So – your statement, copied above, seems to indicate a belief that wages (consumption) should NOT be tied to productivity (work output). Enlighten us fools in here then, Professor, to what SHOULD wages be connected?
Most excellent, now resorting to juvenile name calling, right?
Great for you. Hardly the case in believing that wages should not be tied to productivity but it is beyond that also. Fordism does not in fact hold to the productivity to wages and wants to somehow include output as a factor {the tangible end product}. That I find ridiculous. Aircraft carriers was just a simple example but wide body aircraft or high rise buildings or any number of "products" that the average person could not afford even if they were a "bankster" {sic}. And those that support the Fordism of the worker should be able to afford his product produced like the concept that tiddly wink workers can only afford their output?

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home