The Obama hate bandwagon

I'm more in agreement with you than DingoSean. Don't get me wrong.

I'm guessing that the 2 centuries referred to are the 19th and 20th. First off, I'm not arguing that our workers can't be paid the highest wages, I'm saying that manufacturing in the US will not occur on the scale it once did. We can both agree that Ford had a HUGE advantage over his competitors. As far as I know, manufacturing today is a level playing field in terms of technology. As long as other nations retain the use of cheap labor, an advantage which we don't have, they will keep the industrial jobs.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that lowering taxes stimulates the economy and over-regulation hinders it. Just look at Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs to attempt to end the depression. They increased American morale, but did nothing to help the financial situation, other than restore the banks. Although the economic policies of which you speak do create jobs, I believe that the jobs they create will not be entirely in the manufacturing sector.

The shift away from American manufacturing occurred in the post-60s USA, but if I recall correctly most of it happened after the end of the Cold War. Because of the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s, more Americans began to receive college degrees and reject the domestic ideals of the 50s. A factory job was no longer desirable. Consequently, we shipped manufacturing jobs overseas.

New economic policies would create jobs, but the ratio of jobs created for college-educated workers to jobs for uneducated workers would be greater than in the past. Unless foreign nations have a larger college-educated population and more pro-business policies than the US, new US economic policies would be effective in creating both manual and intellectual jobs. In the short term, the US will not become the manufacturing capitol of the world. In the long term it may, but not before a transitionary period where both skilled and unskilled jobs are created.

I hope you can understand.

As I was saying before, you're too focused on the numbers sometimes.

anyway thats my take on this shit.

ironic

"........bankers have a “special obligation” to maintain the “integrity, dignity and reputation” of the central bank........."  - such a novel idea !!!


I read across some text from wikipedia and the official Mises website to refresh myself and thought I would just give my opinion.

His work is very analytical, the theory of price and indexing/value of capital in the socialist system brought up some very valid and interesting points. In a socialist economy, the incentive to efficiently allocate resources can be lacking, meaning that growth is not as explosive as in a free market capitalist system, and can succumb very easily to poor state authority (see stalin/russia).

I also agree with his argument, "money is demanded for its usefulness in purchasing other goods, rather than for its own sake and that any unsound credit expansion causes business cycles". Very true. Unsound credit is a threat to the free market capitalist system.

However, the basis of his entire economic school of though sat upon a very distinct set of (extreme) philosophical theories regarding human nature. Mises thought that all people were naturally egoistic, cold hearted animals that acted only in self interest. Even giving people complements, donating to charities, helping the poor, all of those acts ultimately full a personal sense of fulfillment and self interest.

Here is a quote from his work "Human Action".

"The captain is the consumer…the consumers determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities…They are merciless egoistic bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction…In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people…Capitalists…can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers… In the conduct of their business affairs they must be unfeeling and stony-hearted because the consumers, their bosses, are themselves unfeeling and stony-hearted."

If you agree with that theory of human nature, you would have a hard time not finding Von Mesis's theories as music to the ears. Philosophy is a very important area of study, you end up learning a great deal about yourself.

"Professor von Mises has a splendid analytical mind and an admirable passion for liberty; but as a student of human nature he is worse than null and as a debater he is of Hyde Park standard"

This piece of criticism, although slightly personal and unfounded, is one that I tend to agree with. I mean, the guy worked until he was 87, "he does a normal day's work in two hours, always has a clear desk and time to talk about anything. I came to know him as one of the best educated and informed men I have ever known". Clearly he learned from a young age (and engraved it in his mind) that he needed to be in the game for himself in order to succeed in life. His economic theory seems to simply be composed of hard analysis, but coupled with a direct and subjective reflection of his living options (as is everyone else's thought patterns from the moment they are born, [there goes my philosophical stance on human nature]). Im sure he is a great guy though, personality wise. I liked Bush as a person, just not as the leader of a country.

"Professor von Mises has a splendid analytical mind and an admirable passion for liberty; but as a student of human nature he is worse than null and as a debater he is of Hyde Park standard"

I would still be very interested in examining his books. His analysis is very interesting to read (Very reflective of Woozy's style of argument) and regardless will give you yet another perspective to look into economic thought from, which is very important. Although it is a great deal of work and time, never stop seeking knowledge, being open to ideas and opinions is essential when developing a socioeconomic view.


Mind you, the research I have done of his economic theory consists of a few textbook pages, and wikipedia article, and a few blurbs from his "official website", so this classifies as a personal speculation, at best.

We need loosen our grip on dead economists. Seriously. We need to be more critical of what is happening right now, the free market system has changed in ways that Keynes, Freedman, Mises, smith, recardo, marx etc. could not have even began to imagine. The game has changed, This is not the 30s or the 60s.


/verbal diarrhea
inb4 TL;DR
#procrastinating
>implying I am even slightly knowledgeable about philosophy and economics
>implying anybody will care about this.

Obama is not the problem.... he is just in the hotseat.

The problem lies in handing over all the power to the banks and big buisness when the U.S came off the gold standard. The money circulating in the States is based on nothing tangible, just abstract value given to it by the banks.

Consider Facebook as a great example. The IPO was elevated by the Morgan Stanley, Jp Morgan, Goldmann Sachs and promoted like it was the next coming. They overvalued it to make some quick cash, netting millions of dollars in the process. However Facebook is being criticized as having no viable buisness model and currently cannot come close to sustaining that kind of IPO....Basically it is a bunch of hot air that some bankers decided to allocate with some gnarly financial value and exploited it. Some people got really rich while other lost their savings.

What is wrong with America?

Boeing. They continue to lay off workers despite the far that they made a net profit of 20% more than last year (and last year wasn't too shabby release of new plane and all). In addition they were given subsidies of 5.3 billion, including a 2.2 billion dollar tax break. Moreover a decent chunk of their production where military contracts. How can a government pay a company to make things, subsidize their production and let them replace local jobs with outsourced labor? Man if I got an increase of 20% net income I know I would have to pay more taxes, but the biggest aerospace company gets a tax break...while moving production to southern China? It is a slap in the face....especially to 2,160 workers in Whichita. A city that spent incedently 43 million of taxpayer dollars on a training facility to provide our dearest friend Boeing with skilled and motivated workers.