...............We've left the morphine induced stupor state and are now solidly in "heroine" (debt) addicted territory. Here's proof, every time the Fed announces they will soon raise rates by a measly one quarter of one percent(0.25) the markets raise a temper tantrum.
Yes, the rest of the developed world is in recession, and I do believe the U.S. is much closer to the next recession than not and all this is happening at a time when interest rates are already at zero. Never in our history has the US entered a recession when rates were this low and this spells serious trouble for the financial system going forward. This is why the Federal Reserve would like to start the normalizing "rate" process and have at least one, albeit small, rate increase to fight an economic contraction. Now, with rates at zero, the Fed has next to ZERO ammo to combat the next economic contraction. Some European Central Banks have recently cut rates into the negative. This will be politically impossible in the US, because of the upcoming Presidential election. So, this ultimately leaves QE as the last tool in the Fed’s arsenal to address an economic contraction. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it is clear that "wealth inequality" has become one of the big issues for the election. With numerous MSM outlets catching on to the fact that QE exacerbates this, the Fed’s hands are effectively tied, IMHO.-- Modified on 11/12/2015 1:55:22 PM
-- Modified on 11/12/2015 3:33:41 PM
While most Republican candidates, last night at the debates, voiced opposition to an increase in the minimum wage, a good portion of their base, in battleground states, do not seem to feel the same. I suspect there may be some major flipflopping going on very soon. 
...and still get support from Wall Street and various other business people that are bribing them. What the GOP establishment doesn't get is that both the right and the left still blames Wall Street (and the political establishment) for destroying the economy back in 2007. People across the board, right, left and center support a $15 minimum wage because they know it would hurt Wall Street where it hurts most. Their pocket books. Raising taxes on the rich is also a big political winner. Everyone, right, left and center supports it. The only ones who don't are the rich. If the Dems want to get people to the polls, then they need to run on taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Republicans would vote for them if they did this. Republicans will NOT vote for them if they just piss and moan about equal pay, black lives matter and gun control.
is that the public school system can't stop churning out uneducated, incompetent, useless, won't amount to shit kids. So your solution, even though you didn't say it, is that we as a society need to take care of these people from cradle to grave.
Just on principle, I REFUSE to give some socially awkward bad skin 17 year old kid $15 an hour to work at Target.
Don't you think we need to come up with better solutions when we have adults with a family working a minimum job. But I guess giving them a so-called living wage, throw in an earned income tax credit, subsidizing housing, free health care, the new proposed government MyIRA savings program, and some other free stuff, and we can look the other way without feeling too much guilt.
"is that the public school system can't stop churning out uneducated, incompetent, useless, won't amount to shit kids. So your solution, even though you didn't say it, is that we as a society need to take care of these people from cradle to grave."
As opposed to coddling the obnoxiously wealthy by making it legal for them to hire wage slaves?
" Just on principle, I REFUSE to give some socially awkward bad skin 17 year old kid $15 an hour to work at Target."
Sure, because, in *principle*, you'd prefer Target to have the ability to rob that 17 year old kid blind. Mind you, at $15 an hour, that 17 year old would STILL be robbed blind, it just wouldn't be quite so obnoxious.
It's simple, Saint. When you have so much increased productivity you get more supply. Do you, or do you not want these products sold? If you don't increase aggregate demand, then you just get another debt bubble and a repeat of 2007. Is that what you want? If not, then somehow manage to live with the idea of paying minimum wage workers $15 an hour.
My first job was at McDonald's I got paid $4.25 an hour. That was fucking 20 years ago now, and today minimum wage is only fucking $7.25 an hour. This is why we've had one bubble and crash after another. Not everyone can be a corporate executive. You still need people to scrub toilets, to sweep streets, to haul your garbage away and to make your hamburgers. Somebody's gotta do it. And if somebody's gotta do it, then you pay them enough money so they don't have to steal your car stereo so they can pawn it to buy groceries. It's common sense.
You know, in Mexico kidnapping rich people is a cottage industry. Is that really the country you want to live in? If not, then raise the fucking minimum wage. Companies will still be profitable at $15 an hour, if not more so then they already are today. Corporate profits can't keep increasing if everyone but the rich are fucking broke.
Simply fold it in half, and that's all that doubling the minimum wage will do.
Until toilet scrubbers, hamburger flippers and pimply teen aged kids working at Target learn a skill more in demand than what a trained monkey can perform, their relative worth to the economy will remain where it is.
Unless of course we scrap the entire economic system which has long been the envy of the rest of the world (the wall we are talking about building is to keep people out, not in) and go to outright socialism that's just the way things are going to be. A grown ass man working flipping hamburgers should be spending his time learning a skill, not joining a union.
Willy opened up about not really understanding how the markets work. He was willing to learn. He asked questions. I remember telling him about Apple, Google, Amazon. Just imagine if he took the bait and invested just a little. Who am I fooling?
and that it's simply much easier to be the grasshopper than the ant.
Maybe he's onto something, why bust your ass to make a success out of yourself when you can simply declare the rich owe you a living and tax them until "there are rich no more"???
Of course once you have taxed the rich into oblivion and you still haven't fixed anything, I suppose the middle class comes next on your hit list until you end up with a workers paradise like Venezuela or Cuba.
At least it sure seemed like it could have been those two.
First question, $15 immediately, or increase to $15 over a agreed to period of time? If so, how long?
$15 = a living wage! The Progressive words. So what do I get in return? Everything is negotiable right? Is the war on poverty almost over? Can we get rid of the earned income tax credit? How SNAP, subsidize housing. I can give you a fairly long list of social programs. I need you to be specific.
Re the 17 year old kid.........Hopefully I don't want that kid to get too comfortable. I don't want him comfortable @ $15. I want that kid to realize there is something better than a shit job at Target.
P.S. You missed my original point. Liberals think $15 an hour, along with taxing the rich, is the ANSWER for income inequality. Pretty shallow, don't you think? You might want to come up with some real transformative ideas versus $15 bucks an hour.
As opposed to coddling the obnoxiously wealthy by making it legal for them to hire wage slaves?
" Just on principle, I REFUSE to give some socially awkward bad skin 17 year old kid $15 an hour to work at Target."
Sure, because, in *principle*, you'd prefer Target to have the ability to rob that 17 year old kid blind. Mind you, at $15 an hour, that 17 year old would STILL be robbed blind, it just wouldn't be quite so obnoxious.
It's simple, Saint. When you have so much increased productivity you get more supply. Do you, or do you not want these products sold? If you don't increase aggregate demand, then you just get another debt bubble and a repeat of 2007. Is that what you want? If not, then somehow manage to live with the idea of paying minimum wage workers $15 an hour.
My first job was at McDonald's I got paid $4.25 an hour. That was fucking 20 years ago now, and today minimum wage is only fucking $7.25 an hour. This is why we've had one bubble and crash after another. Not everyone can be a corporate executive. You still need people to scrub toilets, to sweep streets, to haul your garbage away and to make your hamburgers. Somebody's gotta do it. And if somebody's gotta do it, then you pay them enough money so they don't have to steal your car stereo so they can pawn it to buy groceries. It's common sense.
You know, in Mexico kidnapping rich people is a cottage industry. Is that really the country you want to live in? If not, then raise the fucking minimum wage. Companies will still be profitable at $15 an hour, if not more so then they already are today. Corporate profits can't keep increasing if everyone but the rich are fucking broke.
No more financial crashes. No more bubble after bubble. No more the entire economic system plunging off a cliff, and then pissing and moaning why the entire country want to see bankers sent to the gallows.
This isn't very hard to grasp. Everything that is produced must be consumed (or it becomes a loss to the business) We have increased productivity (i.e. supply) dramatically over the last 30 years. Wages (i.e. demand) has remained nearly flat. What do you think the consequences of this would be? The answer is simple. 2007.
You said it yourself, Saint. The problem is that there isn't enough aggregate demand. So, raise the fucking minimum wage. Look, all I'm proposing here is that instead of minimum wage workers being robbed of three quarters of the value of their labor, that instead they only get robbed of half the value of their labor.
You end this endless cycle of one bubble and crash after another by stabilizing the market. You stabilize the market by raising the minimum wage. Plain and simple.
Yes, the increase should be fazed in, probably over a period of 2 years, in increments.
You can call them economic cycles or business cycles, but the economy goes through an expansion and contraction on a fairly regular basis. You will still have the potential for bubbles. A minimum wage increase will not stop another tech bubble, housing bubble, or stock bubble.
With respect to what I get in return, you really don't get the idea of negotiation do you? Let's see if you know how to compromise. What you said sounds like something from the Anarchist Gazette, especially the labor part, but I don't want a bunch of liberal ethereal crap. I want something real, just like the $15. So what do I get in return?
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP runs about 24%. Obama increased by about 4-5%. $15 an hour, a living wage is what you guys call it, should eliminate and/or dramatically reduce the need for various social programs.
Quid pro quo willy. Start negotiating....what do I get?
This isn't very hard to grasp. Everything that is produced must be consumed (or it becomes a loss to the business) We have increased productivity (i.e. supply) dramatically over the last 30 years. Wages (i.e. demand) has remained nearly flat. What do you think the consequences of this would be? The answer is simple. 2007.
You said it yourself, Saint. The problem is that there isn't enough aggregate demand. So, raise the fucking minimum wage. Look, all I'm proposing here is that instead of minimum wage workers being robbed of three quarters of the value of their labor, that instead they only get robbed of half the value of their labor.
You end this endless cycle of one bubble and crash after another by stabilizing the market. You stabilize the market by raising the minimum wage. Plain and simple.
Yes, the increase should be fazed in, probably over a period of 2 years, in increments.
You mean the monopolization of the means of production by private interests for a profit? Yeh, I get it. Yes, the market goes through expansions and contractions. Ever asked yourself what causes them? How do contractions differ today, vs the mid 20th century vs the late 19th century? Get back to me when you've looked into it.
Let's be clear. Raising the minimum wage increases government spending by exactly zero dollars. The minimum wage is not an entitlement program. It's regulation on business. It costs you nothing. But it will have an indirect impact on government spending. The first thing that would happen would be a drastic reduction in food stamp participation. You'd have fewer people on various welfare programs if you raised the minimum wage. Not just at the federal level, but the state and local level as well.
I used to drive a cab when I was in my 20's. The county subsidized free cab rides for people who had jobs, but were still poor. Too poor to buy their own car. The only people who ever used these subsidies were employees at Wal-Mart. Who knows how many little gov't programs there are like this that exist solely to help certain companies pay their workers shit wages. Basically, the tax payer is footing the bill so companies like Wal-Mart don't have to
...........are polling well and giving establishment candidates and leaders, in BOTH parties, nightmares. The only thing selling politically these days is economic populism and Trump has smartly tapped into this anger. We are told the economy is doing gangbusters, but only for the top 5% who own most of the assets. So far in 2015, we've had a record number of mergers, this will work wonders for employment, right? Also, in this environment of speculative financial excess we have companies financially "engineering" their earnings to look good by doing share buy backs, while also taking on more debt to pay higher dividends to shareholders. All this occurring because of the "easy money" policies of our Federal Reserve, while our middle class and especially our elderly citizens have been screwed over several times. I cannot imagine the carnage that will ensue when the Federal Reserve is left with no other choice but to remove all this monetary "heroine". In the mean time we have very little spending on the productive side of our economy which includes R&D, manufacturing, infrastructure building etc, that will hire more workers. Yup, I see ALL this ending really well with massive layoffs down the road. I pity the POTUS who will inherit this mess when it all falls apart, because we are well and truly forked.
-- Modified on 11/12/2015 11:18:25 AM
It's more like morphine actually and was necessary to get us through the pain of the recession/housing/banking bust. This cheap money SHOULD have led to a very weak dollar, hyper inflation but higher exports. The problem is, we no longer live in a vacuum. With Europe tanking worse than us and the Chinese continuing to manipulate their currency without this easy money and low interest rates we'd already be in the $25 TRILLION range in debt. Just look how strong the dollar is today, can you imagine just how strong it would be with interest rates in the "normal" range.
For the clueless among us, a strong dollar has some very unwanted consequence, not the least of which is making our goods more expensive in comparison to others, this is partially why China is kicking our ass. The interest we pay on the debt would make any hope of ever balancing the budget if we allow interest rates to rise. Every one percent rise in rates translates into a 180 BILLION dollar annual increase in our debt service.
You are right that this is going to end badly, but isn't better the patient develops a drug dependency rather than dying on the operating table?
...............We've left the morphine induced stupor state and are now solidly in "heroine" (debt) addicted territory. Here's proof, every time the Fed announces they will soon raise rates by a measly one quarter of one percent(0.25) the markets raise a temper tantrum.
Yes, the rest of the developed world is in recession, and I do believe the U.S. is much closer to the next recession than not and all this is happening at a time when interest rates are already at zero. Never in our history has the US entered a recession when rates were this low and this spells serious trouble for the financial system going forward. This is why the Federal Reserve would like to start the normalizing "rate" process and have at least one, albeit small, rate increase to fight an economic contraction.
Now, with rates at zero, the Fed has next to ZERO ammo to combat the next economic contraction. Some European Central Banks have recently cut rates into the negative. This will be politically impossible in the US, because of the upcoming Presidential election. So, this ultimately leaves QE as the last tool in the Fed’s arsenal to address an economic contraction. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it is clear that "wealth inequality" has become one of the big issues for the election. With numerous MSM outlets catching on to the fact that QE exacerbates this, the Fed’s hands are effectively tied, IMHO.
-- Modified on 11/12/2015 1:55:22 PM
-- Modified on 11/12/2015 3:33:41 PM
and that was the beauty of QE to begin with, Bernanke had ZERO bullets left to fight with, so he grabbed a knife. I can't imagine anyone with even the slightest grasp of economics can disagree with you on that part of your argument.
What you seem to forget is the fact that interest rates have been at effectively zero for quite some time now. None of this is new, and it's why I call it morphine addiction, rather than heroin. Without QE the markets would have crashed a long time ago, with QE markets are still likely to crash but the Fed managed to keep us above water for a few years longer and as long as we are above water there is always the hope (no matter how slim) that we can figure a way out.
QE was a horrible solution to the problem, but the facts are the alternatives were worse.
One last thing, the markets don't have a hissy fit over a measly quarter point bump in interest rates, they have a hissy fit over the prospect that the fed is going to shift policy and start a series of rate hikes that will put the Dow back into the quadruple digits. Thank goodness heavy handed Greenspan is gone. I am not much of a fan of Yellen, but she's a thousand times better than the "genius" Alan Greenspan.
The longer we tread water under these circumstances, the worse things will be when they do throw us the anchor. What steps taken in the past 7 to 8 years have done anything to turn the next downturn into a landing instead of another crash vastly larger than the last one? Things should have been allowed to fail. They would have been regulated failures. Things would have been terrible, but we would presently be on our way towards a stable future not one doomed to be blacker than ever.
You can't blame the Fed for the fact that the time was squandered without fixing any of the underlying problems.
There is one thing the next POTUS might do to give a real jumpstart to the economy and quite frankly I think Trump is the only one who might get it done and that is to repatriate the trillions of dollars parked offshore. That would be real money that could be used for real investment in this country. I say let the money come back tax free, or at a no more than 10% tax rate as it would be "found money" that was never coming home anyways, but with the one huge, nonnegotiable caveat, and that is the money has to be actually put to work in this country and not simply put into stock buybacks that do nothing for the economy. Now THAT would have an impact.