That sounds like a call to abdicate the clear Christian mandate to seek justice in the world.The situation will become healthy when Christ returns, and not before.
We live in a world of fiat money. All money is created via credit. It will collapse, guaranteed. I don't think anybody really argues that. The goal of the government is to just stave off the inevitable for as long as possible.So when nearly everything is credit (our capital is slowly dying which is reflected in the super low interest rates) then the risk for 'investments' is masked. The investor doesn't know if it will be profitable, they just know all the indexes are going up. But a lot of that credit was used in consumption, stock buybacks are a very good example of consumption, the bonds the corps issue are then used to buy back stock, that's pure consumption it's not investing in new hardware, or employees or research and development.
The CEOS then make a lot of money through the financial engineering which is all based off of credit, not productivity.
FWIW, when I used the word productivity, I was not referring to crafting a widget for sale, but to doing something to earn ones income. There is certainly an argument to be made for those who work hard and work at something that yields profits (even if it's in the area of credit), as opposed to unskilled labor that is going to be less well compensated--or no labor at all.The CEOS then make a lot of money through the financial engineering which is all based off of credit, not productivity.
Well, it's not. I think of it as a sort of "think globally but act locally" sort of thing. Jesus himself said we will always have the poor with us. But I don't see that as instruction to not bother helping the poor. Rather, it is acknowledging that we are in a lost and fallen world, but we can still impact the part over which we have influence.That sounds like a call to abdicate the clear Christian mandate to seek justice in the world.
Well, it's not. I think of it as a sort of "think globally but act locally" sort of thing. Jesus himself said we will always have the poor with us. But I don't see that as instruction to not bother helping the poor. Rather, it is acknowledging that we are in a lost and fallen world, but we can still impact the part over which we have influence.
It gets a lot worse than that. If you have amazon prime, you can watch "Poverty Inc." for free. Check out the trailer on youtube.Yah personally I think it's better to create opportunities instead of creating programs to try and re-distribute the wealth. We're all so ensconced in decades long socialism we've lost sight of want real free markets look like, and the overall prosperity they bring.
As you said it's a fiat money system controlled by banks and finance. Government likes it that way because they can deficit spend ad infinitum, but we live in a real world with real limits. I guess the question is when do we actually hit those limits?
When I was a young man in the 60s, it was typical that a CEO made about ten times what the lowest paid full time worker in his company made. That seems to me to be not unfair.
They are "paid" this but did they really "earn" it?
There is an opportunity cost to any loan (i.e. credit), as the income that will be devoted to paying principal and interest in the future could have been devoted to some other use or investment.
So borrowing money to purchase a product or an asset now means foregoing some future purchase.
All assets are not equal, either. Some assets are riskier than others, with a less certain income stream or payoff. Borrowing to buy assets with predictable returns is one thing, buying assets with highly speculative returns is another; regardless of the eventual result of the investment, the borrower still has to pay interest on the debt, even if the speculative investment goes bust.
I was listening to an interview this afternoon with an economic analyst. He pointed out that when it comes to employment there is no longer a free market because the whole system is constructed to favour the rich and powerful. His own words were that the system is "completely incestuous".
I was listening to an interview this afternoon with an economic analyst. He pointed out that when it comes to employment there is no longer a free market because the whole system is constructed to favour the rich and powerful. His own words were that the system is "completely incestuous".
There are a lot of problems with unemployment numbers. This site shows how they used to count unemployment before they changed the formulas during Bill Clinton's presidency:
Alternate Unemployment Charts
It has been hovering around 23% since the crisis in 2009. Basically I think they only count people who are currently on unemployment compensation, once they drop off that they drop out of the statistics.
Things aren't as great as the media and .gov say they are.
I'm not saying ShadowStats is wrong, or isn't at least onto something worth considering, but it's important to understand that ShadowStats methods are questionable at best. From their explanation on their methodology:
"The ShadowStats number—a broad unemployment measure more in line with common experience—is my estimate. The approximation of the ShadowStats “long-term discouraged worker” category—those otherwise largely defined out of statistical existence in 1994—reflects proprietary modeling based on a variety of private and public surveying over the last two-plus decades. Beyond using the BLS U.6 estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS." (http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf , Pg8)
So, take their data with a grain of salt since their data is admitedly a "proprietary modeled estimate," and without that model, it's data, their survey methodology, etc.. there is no way to verify the legitimacy of their chart. As such, I wouldn't use them as evidence of anything. I do however think it's worth discussing the decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate, which is publicly available data from the BLS.
And those are 'bread winner jobs' correct? Also, do you happen to know what is the percentage of public workers in that figure? For instance fed, state, city employees would be what 15%?
So perhaps a civilian labor force participation rate of 48%?
You can probably find those here if nowhere else: Search Results | FRED | St. Louis Fed
It looks like federal workers are about 2.8mil or a little less than 1% of the pop. State and local were about 4.5%.
The LFPR is at about 63%. It's been declining since it's peak in around 1999 and it's anyone's theory why. It's probably largely due to the demographics of an aging population, but that may not be the only reason.
https://www.kansascityfed.org/OQpKY/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf
Demystifying the Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate by Steven Capolarello :: SSRN
What we know—and don’t know—about the declining labor force participation rate
Why labor force participation rates may not rise anytime soon - AEI
Today , 2 January 2018, it is 10:40 AM. By noon today the highest paid CEOs in the United States and Canada will already have earned more than you or I will make in the entire year.
What does this say about our society?
Is this a healthy situation?
Is this just?
How long will this continue?
Will this lead to a major political shake up or revolution?
I think you're envious. If you want to make a lot of money, then do what it takes to accomplish it. But don't complain about people more successful than yourself. Don't expect hand-outs, either.
I regard this post as sort of a mild ad hominem. I am retired and comfortable and have never envied the rich. I also have great respect for the entrepreneur, the inventor, the discoverer ---- all those who seek to understand and improve our world and our lot in it. They deserve generous compensation. The people who concern me are the greedy and the exploiters. No one deserves $100,000 a day (my annual pension is much less than that and I live very comfortably) and there are those who make much more than that. Back about 1960 the typical CEO made about ten times as much as his lowest paid full time employee. That seems fair. A thousand times as much is grossly excessive. Society has a way of rebalancing inequities but the cure can be as bad as the disease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?