Elites, Right Wing ones especially, want unemployment

Post Reply New Topic

This recent article helps make my case that the Elite, particularly the plutocracy and the right wing, wants unemployment.

Will 8% Unemployment be the new normal in Canada?

Some interesting selections include

Note how it is assumed that the Bank of Canada can choose to increase unemployment and often does, or decides to allow it to drop... or, as usually, chooses not to do this. Does this not prove that unemployment is a policy choice? If it is a policy choice, is it not unfair to blame unemployed people for the existence of unemployment?

This is from the Globe and Mail's Report on Business.

Elitist capitalists want a segment of the population to be unemployed so there is always a pool of cheap labor to exploit.

Elitist Marxists want everyone employed, but the masses to be equally impoverished so nobody can challenge their control.

Which of the two have your better interests at heart?

I'm a marxist and i want everyone to work as little as possible for as much money as possible.

Is anyone going to point out that the Phillips Curve is useless as a policy tool?

That's like pointing out that Voodoo economics is worthless as policy. Sure, it's true, but there's always going to be a pretty sizable chunk that don't listen. Actually, I'm pretty sure the Phillips Curve crew hangs out with the Voodoo economics group.

Eh, I just regard the Phillips curve as a proposition that can be debated. It has always been a statistical relation not predicted by economic logic. However, the notion of the long run phillips curve is sufficient for many to have great worry about it. I would bet that a lot of economists just take it for granted.

Most economists I have met think the best unemployment rate is between 4-6%. If it goes too much lower than that, it creates an inflationary problem that must then be contended with. Though economics is not my best area.

Any 2-dimensional economic model is useless, but the Phillips Curve probably does take the cake in that respect. Obviously there's something more going on with unemployment than the inflation rate...

[For those who don't know what the Phillips Curve is... it's an economic model (a really bad one) that "shows the relationship" between unemployment and inflation. It's curved similar to the function y=1/x^2, and it says that lower inflation = high unemployment. However, during the stagflation of the 70s, inflation was high and unemployment was high. So it pretty much proved the model to be worthless.]

NAIRU is a load of garbage as well. The only reason we can't have full employment is because of economic inefficiencies, and because there will always be some people who are in between jobs just by sheer probability. Trying to "aim" to make unemployment some magical number is just idiotic. There is no magic number. The goal should be to reduce inefficiencies, and the unemployment rate will go down on its own.

This is the conventional wisdom of the past 30 years, one not shared in the time immediately before. Such is enforced as a matter of policy. Thus, the decision is made to sacrifice people in order to fight inflation. The morality of this certainly is a matter ignored but that's what happens.

I think right wingers just want government out of everything, I believe there more for states rights (wich i dont have a problem with) and of the notion of survival of the fittest, when it comes to individuals. (wich is funny since most of them hate darwinism)

Anyways, I like republicans and have many online friends who are so, and we get along great.

Introducing a 35 hour working week would be a good start.

Actually, with increased productivity through computers, and very reduced prices for things manufactured in China, we could produce all that we need with just a small proportion of the population actually employed. Probably enforcing a reduced retirement age would take care of things. The only problem is that funding for retirement programs generally derives from payroll taxes. Reduced employment means reduced payroll taxes, which makes it increasingly difficult to support the non-working population. We need different means of supporting the non-working population.

Exactly, no extreme is good. I do lean to the right though, so I'm a much bigger believer in capitalism than socialism. It doesn't mean I believe in completely unregulated capitalism or no government intervention at all. That would be anarchy.

They manage to retire at 60 in France and only work for 35 hours. We need more progressive taxation and to close down all tax havens for the rich.

If you were a Marxist you would advocate doing away with money and the withering away of the State.

ruveyn

Not necessarily. Aneurin Bevan was a marxist and he created the "big government" NHS. Theres a root difference between marxist and leninist.