Joker wrote:
TM wrote:
What do you expect when the majority of "rescue" efforts by governments have been done in such a way that it by nature benefits those who are heavily invested in capital markets.
That is very true how ever the wealthy will denie such things.
Either way that would be the result. Even if you were to distribute money through government projects in a Keynesian strategy, the main benefactors would be the people who sell things (own stores etc) not the people who buy things (consumers). It seems to me that many economic theories haven't adequately been updated to account for a modern global marketplace. Cutting taxes in the US in the 1950s would have promoted job growth because there was already a growing demand and there were few if any places the jobs could be outsourced to. However, in a modern economy with American tax rules, it makes a hell of a lot more financial sense to build a factory in China for both international export and satisfaction of the domestic market.
The sooner people realize that manufacturing is extremely vulnerable to cost of labor and furthermore that labor costs are the main current factor in manufacturing they will start to come around to the fact that the only way to ensure that jobs stay in a country is to have those jobs be tied to that area through natural resources or infrastructure that is expensive to rebuild/move or where the product cannot be more effectively shipped to its consumer.
Construction of nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and other such products lead to the establishment of a labor demand within that specific area. Production of trinkets, cars and so on can be outsourced.