Jerome Powell the Federal Reserve Chair says: Economy As We Know It Is *OVER* - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15140095
Jerome Powell the Federal Reserve Chair says: The Economy As We Know It Is OVER.
Nov 29, 2020

The Young Turks

Jerome Powell says the economy as we know it is over. That the US economy will be massively different after the vaccine lets the nation recover. That many more jobs will have been replaced by automation. That the resulting displaced workers will need Gov. assistance to survive.
(5.5 Min.)



.
IMHO, this is the last thing that should be happening in the face of the coming global crisis that will be caused by ACC, aka AGW. Replacing human labor with machines that are powered by electricity that will have to be generated by natural gas fired power plants is just dumb.
.
#15140123
The pandemic - and our reaction to it - has hugely accelerated some long-term trends that have been present from the 1990s onwards. These trends include greater automation, permanently high unemployment, a shift to on-line buying, increased working from home rather than going to an office, and so on. These changes are now irreversible.
#15140127
Potemkin wrote:The pandemic - and our reaction to it - has hugely accelerated some long-term trends that have been present from the 1990s onwards. These trends include greater automation, permanently high unemployment, a shift to on-line buying, increased working from home rather than going to an office, and so on. These changes are now irreversible.

I can see your point and I'm not disagreeing.
However, if unemployment remains at 20% of working age people then there will be hell too pay.
If wages remain so low that working at 50% of the jobs full-time means you can't marry and live in abject poverty, then there will be hell to pay.
These problems MUST be fixed.
.
#15140128
Potemkin wrote:The pandemic - and our reaction to it - has hugely accelerated some long-term trends that have been present from the 1990s onwards. These trends include greater automation, permanently high unemployment, a shift to on-line buying, increased working from home rather than going to an office, and so on. These changes are now irreversible.

Same things were said when steam engine came out in early 1900s. People always tend to think that their times are unique but it is not. Each time we had greater productivity and greater wealth as a whole of societies. Technology is our friend.

Masses won't go unemployed. New jobs lines will arise. Markets adjust themselves.
#15140129
That the Covid-19 viral pandemic has disrupted sections of the economy and, at the same time, increased the rate of change in such areas as working from home is, I should think, a ;given' -- a starting point of agreement for further dialog.

In the United States of America, with our unusual attitude toward government [Ed.: not to mention democracy,] the transition may well be more painful than in any number of advanced democracies. We can see that being played out in discussions regarding the use of federal funding for any number of purposes.


Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
#15140130
Steve_American wrote:I can see your point and I'm not disagreeing.
However, if unemployment remains at 20% of working age people then there will be hell too pay.
If wages remain so low that working at 50% of the jobs full-time means you can't marry and live in abject poverty, then there will be hell to pay.
These problems MUST be fixed.
.


Did you read Potemkins response. These things can't be fixed. They are habits that we were doing anyway which have now been accelerated and as such are unlikely to change back now. Shops now will only exist in budget form or food outlets. The days of spending a day out in your local shopping centre is over.

Wages will rely on the minimum wage, which in the UK at least is the only thing that has stopped stagnation since Blair (what trickle down effect!) and unemployment will rely on government initiative programmes like FDRs new deal. If we are to believe Trudeau and this is a time for a great reset, then we shouldn't be trying to preserve what has failed, but create something that will work for everyone anyway. And in my opinion that can only mean significantly higher taxes on the rich and a redistribution of wealth by intervention to the poor.
#15140135
B0ycey wrote:
Did you [Steve_American] read Potemkins response. These things can't be fixed. They are habits that we were doing anyway which have now been accelerated and as such are unlikely to change back now. Shops now will only exist in budget form or food outlets. The days of spending a day out in your local shopping centre is over.

Wages will rely on the minimum wage, which in the UK at least is the only thing that has stopped stagnation since Blair (what trickle down effect!) and unemployment will rely on government initiative programmes like FDRs new deal. If we are to believe Trudeau and this is a time for a great reset, then we shouldn't be trying to preserve what has failed, but create something that will work for everyone anyway. And in my opinion that can only mean significantly higher taxes on the rich and a redistribution of wealth by intervention to the poor.

Yes, I did.
I wrote, "However, if unemployment remains at 20% of working age people then there will be hell too pay.
If wages remain so low that working at 50% of the jobs full-time means you can't marry and live in abject poverty, then there will be hell to pay.
These problems MUST be fixed."

If Trudeau's time for/of a great reset does not happen then there will be hell to pay. I just picked 2 points there above, unemployment and low wages. There are others. Your point about FDR is right on. He changed things in the sorts of way I'm calling for.

What I said is that people have reached the end of the rope. If they are not rescued expect them to march in the streets by the millions. Millions. Expect, general strikes and traffic blockages. Real men who are starving do not kill themselves or lie down in their bed to die. They act to right the wrongs that are making them starve in a land of plenty. You can "piss down the necks of real men and claim that is is raining" only for so long, and then they act. Starving men have little to lose. [So, "hell to pay".]
.
#15140496
The Young Turks wrote:...the US economy will be massively different after the vaccine...


Likewise, the US economy was massively different after the Irish Potato famines.

With all the starving refugees, the US (and Canada!) were able to build canals to help us all "connect." Finally, a "use" was found for all those starving people coming from Ireland (though 90% of them died en route_oops)

Perhaps this current TOP-DOWN "reset" will be similar to that one.

Another example is how North American railroad corporations lead a "reset" for all the First Nations, who were judged to be "useless" to the European money economy.

Dictators often accuse groups of being "useless" before genociding them, because if you want to kill your dog, you must convince people it has rabies. And if you want to kill millions of humans, you must convince a lot of movers and shakers of their uselessness.

But in the elite's evaluation of other people's usefullness, what is their criteria? Useful to whom?


Yuval Noah Harari: Workplace Automation & the "Useless Class"

#15140536
As Istanbuller stated, it won't create an end to the economy. It'll create a metamorphosis. The American workforce is already centered around the service industry and not the goods industry. All this will do is push the needle a bit further. It'll mean that the people who want to skip college or some kind of technical training to just slave in the hot sun for a wage will get left by the wayside and either adapt or die off.
#15140687
Goranhammer wrote:As Istanbuller stated, it won't create an end to the economy. It'll create a metamorphosis. The American workforce is already centered around the service industry and not the goods industry. All this will do is push the needle a bit further. It'll mean that the people who want to skip college or some kind of technical training to just slave in the hot sun for a wage will get left by the wayside and either adapt or die off.

Are you a Christian? Christ would not just let people "die off" if there was resources to help them. MMT rejects the use of a UBI [except now in this emergency], it calls for a socially useful job working for the common good. As long as the resources to feed and house, etc. these workers what is the harm? they will have money to spend, they will buy stuff they will contribute to the local economy and do some socially useful work. Why is this bad?
Do some math, if 20 M people have these jobs and earn $20/hr. for 40 hr/week X 52 weeks =$41K/yr X 20 M = $820 B/yr. less all the money we already spend to support unemployed people (food stamps, UE insurance, etc.). Just recently, Trimp gave tax cuts to the rich of almost that much per year, IIRC.
The US claims to be "the greatest, richest nation the world has ever known", and you say it should just let the useless people die off. So it isn't lack of food or anything, it is a lack of willingness by heartless econ. people like you to help that is the problem.
.
#15140688
Steve_American wrote:Are you a Christian? Christ would not just let people "die off" if there was resources to help them. MMT rejects the use of a UBI [except now in this emergency], it calls for a socially useful job working for the common good. As long as the resources to feed and house, etc. these workers what is the harm? they will have money to spend, they will buy stuff they will contribute to the local economy and do some socially useful work. Why is this bad?
Do some math, if 20 M people have these jobs and earn $20/hr. for 40 hr/week X 52 weeks =$41K/yr X 20 M = $820 B/yr. less all the money we already spend to support unemployed people (food stamps, UE insurance, etc.). Just recently, Trimp gave tax cuts to the rich of almost that much per year, IIRC.
The US claims to be "the greatest, richest nation the world has ever known", and you say it should just let the useless people die off. So it isn't lack of food or anything, it is a lack of willingness by heartless econ. people like you to help that is the problem.
.


Why is it that socialists hate religion, but can't wait to invoke the name of Jesus to preach the banes of capitalism. To answer your question, yes I am a Christian, but I don't prescribe to that brand of doctrine.

Also, your comparison is flawed because the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Secondly, you do know that half of all Americans are actually tax-negative, right? This means that they get back more in tax credits (mainly EITC and CTC) than they ever pay in. Your comparison basically implied that 20 million people get all their money taxed to the point that they take home no paycheck. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your analogy, but it's wildly misconstrued.

You can't cut taxes on those who don't pay them in the first place. That's just redistribution - part of the socialist hell that America is moving toward, much to my chagrin.
#15140713
Goranhammer wrote:
Why is it that socialists hate religion, but can't wait to invoke the name of Jesus to preach the banes of capitalism. To answer your question, yes I am a Christian, but I don't prescribe to that brand of doctrine.

Also, your comparison is flawed because the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Secondly, you do know that half of all Americans are actually tax-negative, right? This means that they get back more in tax credits (mainly EITC and CTC) than they ever pay in. Your comparison basically implied that 20 million people get all their money taxed to the point that they take home no paycheck. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your analogy, but it's wildly misconstrued.

You can't cut taxes on those who don't pay them in the first place. That's just redistribution - part of the socialist hell that America is moving toward, much to my chagrin.

About the part I highlighted --- what is it with capitalists from red states? Redistribution is also when the blue states pay more in Federal taxes than they get back from Fed. spending into their state, while red states are the opposite getting more Fed. spending than they pay in Fed. taxes. Why is it fine when it is a the state level, but terrible socialism when it is at a personal level.

And another thing. I bet you that you meant income taxes, not their total of all Fed. taxes. FICA takes a big chunk out of the poor and there are no deductions. Every dollar is taxed.

My example of 20 M needing jobs is just that. That after the pandemic is gone, there *may* be as many as 20 M who will not be able to find a full time job in the private economy. And it is not because they are lazy, it will be because the corps. have automated their job away. I heard the even burger flippers can be automated.
.
#15140844
Steve_American wrote:About the part I highlighted --- what is it with capitalists from red states? Redistribution is also when the blue states pay more in Federal taxes than they get back from Fed. spending into their state, while red states are the opposite getting more Fed. spending than they pay in Fed. taxes. Why is it fine when it is a the state level, but terrible socialism when it is at a personal level.

And another thing. I bet you that you meant income taxes, not their total of all Fed. taxes. FICA takes a big chunk out of the poor and there are no deductions. Every dollar is taxed.

My example of 20 M needing jobs is just that. That after the pandemic is gone, there *may* be as many as 20 M who will not be able to find a full time job in the private economy. And it is not because they are lazy, it will be because the corps. have automated their job away. I heard the even burger flippers can be automated.
.


FICA is less of a tax and more of an investment. It's not like people pay FICA all their lives and receive nothing from it. It helps them with medical bills at a time in their lives when, in the private sector, they're all but uninsurable. Therefore, I don't count that in the mix.
#15140854
Goranhammer wrote:You can't cut taxes on those who don't pay them in the first place. That's just redistribution - part of the socialist hell that America is moving toward, much to my chagrin.


Wealth creation is by labour put in. The need for monetary distribution is due to the contradiction of capitalism. That is because you pay to exist and the deck is stacked in favour to the land owner and those who inherited production.

Basically what I am saying is that those who actually create the wealth pay back the dividend in rent and taxation to those who don't due to the existence of private property who then pay some of their surplus labor gains back in tax that was not earned. It's an contradictive loop that favours the rich more than the poor and has created the wealth divide we see today. Marx went into great deal on this issue in Das Kapital.

The conclusion is the proletariat actually pays more tax in terms of labour done then they ever get back in return and your point is moot.
#15140859
B0ycey wrote:Wealth creation is by labour put in. The need for monetary distribution is due to the contradiction of capitalism. That is because you pay to exist and the deck is stacked in favour to the land owner and those who inherited production.

Basically what I am saying is that those who actually create the wealth pay back the dividend in rent and taxation to those who don't due to the existence of private property who then pay some of their surplus labor gains back in tax that was not earned. It's an contradictive loop that favours the rich more than the poor and has created the wealth divide we see today. Marx went into great deal on this issue in Das Kapital.

The conclusion is the proletariat actually pays more tax in terms of labour done then they ever get back in return and your point is moot.


I've read Das Kapital (not recently). Some of it is well-stated, while some is a joke.

Actually, yours is moot because labor is not a currency. The results of that labor, however, is. It's imbalanced because the result of differentiated labor is imbalanced. That's one of the biggest gripes I had with Marx. Just because something exists, it does not mean it has value.

America is arguably the most economically mobile country in the world. All of today's shotcallers are not the same as they were at this point 100 years ago. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, and the Astors have moved aside for the Waltons, the Bezoses, the Gateses, etc. The idea that you weren't born into uber-wealth so the deck is impossibly stacked against you is lazy, defeatist bullshit spewed by those without the intelligence, drive, or ambition to go out and actually do shit with their lives, but find it easier to brood in a dark corner and point the finger at anyone but themselves.
#15140871
Goranhammer wrote:As Istanbuller stated, it won't create an end to the economy. It'll create a metamorphosis. The American workforce is already centered around the service industry and not the goods industry. All this will do is push the needle a bit further. It'll mean that the people who want to skip college or some kind of technical training to just slave in the hot sun for a wage will get left by the wayside and either adapt or die off.

Because food production (in the hot sun) is less important than the video games we play at our desktop jobs?
#15140898
Goranhammer wrote:I've read Das Kapital (not recently). Some of it is well-stated, while some is a joke.

Actually, yours is moot because labor is not a currency. The results of that labor, however, is. It's imbalanced because the result of differentiated labor is imbalanced. That's one of the biggest gripes I had with Marx. Just because something exists, it does not mean it has value.


Well labor isn't a currency. It is a form of wealth. Or more specifically a form that creates wealth. And over production and supply and demand in regard to price is an issue of capitalism. The item, whether it makes a profit or not is still worth something (value) in any case.

America is arguably the most economically mobile country in the world. All of today's shotcallers are not the same as they were at this point 100 years ago. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, and the Astors have moved aside for the Waltons, the Bezoses, the Gateses, etc. The idea that you weren't born into uber-wealth so the deck is impossibly stacked against you is lazy, defeatist bullshit spewed by those without the intelligence, drive, or ambition to go out and actually do shit with their lives, but find it easier to brood in a dark corner and point the finger at anyone but themselves.


I hadn't made the distinction of innovation, which is a form of labor in any case. We were discussing tax contribution, which most of it can be understood and explained by labor and surplus labor or inheritance. That is to say that because the tax doesn't come out of the proletariat wage package, doesn't mean it didn't come from his labor. Wealth distribution is the only thing that keeps the proletariat from understanding their class distinction FYI and rebelling against a system that basically steals from their labor. Without welfare they would have revolted by now. Remember that the next time you laud your idol Kardashian for being born into money and being put onto reality TV so they can profit on make-up that someone else makes and sells on their behalf.
#15140899
QatzelOk wrote:Because food production (in the hot sun) is less important than the video games we play at our desktop jobs?


Don't ask questions you don't wish answered. :lol: If I wasn't on PoFo I'd probably be playing spades until some project comes along my desk.

The main difference is that computer programming/design is more lucrative work than picking fruit. This is why socialism fails. If it's tougher to be a doctor than a janitor, why shouldn't the pay reflect it?
#15140900
Well economies have forever been changing, and yes automation will replace many jobs. Yet there are many many jobs that will be and are now available.
There is a massive shortage of trade professionals, there is a massive shortage of craftsmen and artisans. As automation becomes more robust human nature will want items made by hand, these items will be at an ever higher premium. So mother fuckers learn to plumb or learn to code, either way working on the assembly line is not a career.
#15140901
B0ycey wrote:Well labor isn't a currency. It is a form of wealth. Or more specifically a form that creates wealth. And over production and supply and demand in regard to price is an issue of capitalism. The item, whether it makes a profit or not is still worth something (value) in any case.


What the fuck? Currency DETERMINES wealth.

And no. it's not. If I build a spaceship made out of popsicle sticks, it has no intrinsic value unless someone determines it as such by giving an amount of money for its possession.

I hadn't made the distinction of innovation, which is a form of labor in any case. We were discussing tax contribution, which most of it can be understood and explained by labor and surplus labor or inheritance. That is to say that because the tax doesn't come out of the proletariat wage package, doesn't mean it didn't come from his labor. Wealth distribution is the only thing that keeps the proletariat from understanding their class distinction FYI and rebelling against a system that basically steals from their labor. Without welfare they would have revolted by now. Remember that the next time you laud your idol Kardashian for being born into money and being put onto reality TV so they can profit on make-up that someone else makes and sells on their behalf.


The bourgeoisie do not "steal" labor. They provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for that labor. The answer isn't to revolt. It's to renegotiate. This is why socialism fails as well - it's always trying to bargain from a position of weakness. And instead of strengthening that position, they just turn violent.

If you don't believe your labor is worth as much as someone else does, find another to exchange that labor for, or improve your own labor to encourage more compensation for it.

Socialism: Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

And PLEASE don't do the Kardashian thing. She's rich because there's profit in her....I dunno, whatever.

As long as stupid people exist, there are some who can use capitalism to its advantage.
Atheism is Evil

@Potemkin I do not think that moral relativism[…]

Where does Canada get the Biontech/Pfizer, Moder[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/17[…]

March 6, Friday A skirmish on the White River,[…]