**** Work

[Mato]

You lost me. Can you clarify?

You're the relationship expert who's never kissed a girl.

You believe yourself to be an economic genius when you've never generated a dime out of wealth within said economy.

Claims of expertise from verifiable losers within a field are laughable, at best.

 

[X3CyO]

I like that song

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't understand how money works.

Money spent is not money burnt. Money circulates through an economy. This is why Ben Bernanke "spent 7 trillion dollars" to save us from a 2nd great depression in 2009.

He and every other great economist knows that such seemingly aggressive government deficit spending can be useful for growing the economy (or in this particular case, saving the economy from complete collapse). I should add that Bernanke had the courage to do this despite knowing that no non-economist would understand his reasoning and that he'd be criticized and misunderstood by 99% of the population as a "wall street crony for bailing out the rich" for generations to come. He saved the middle and lower classes from total poverty and despair, he did what he knew was right--his legacy and reputation be damned--and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

The U.S. economy produces $17 trillion in GDP annually and that number will continue to rise. So $12 trillion a year for a large basic income for every citizen is actually doable, not that I think that's necessarily an optimal amount. Just saying: your analysis is way off.

This goes beyond bait

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Yes, Fiat money is an abstraction of wealth. That abstraction makes paper a good representation of value, if that piece of paper backed by something of value. Gold has served that role until the US and its accomplices changed the rules. Fiat money now is mere abstraction. It serves the US well, as it uses the US dollar for trade, where it obtains goods. Other nations get paid in a currency that has little worth except that it is also backed by a military power that can project its gangster power with heavy weapons. Ghadafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq stands as an example to the world to think twice before questioning the almighty dollar.

Russia and China are laying the groundwork for shifting the world's reliance on the US dollar. It is a long time coming.

The world never has been reliant on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. citizens are reliant on the U.S. dollar, and for good reason: it's efficient.

What's inefficient is the dogma spread forth by neoliberals that says, "the government must tax in order to spend." This has been a far more devastating lie than anything you'll ever find Ray Peat criticizing in nutrition science, biology, physiology, etc. It's led to the suffocation of the poor, the total destruction of the middle class, skyrocketing wealth inequality, slowed economic growth as well as needless recessions and depressions, not to mention a toxic culture of people that are increasingly fearful, competitive, physically sick/addicted and psychologically unstable.

It very well should be done. To put the world back to thinking that debt accumulation is not a policy not a practice nor a habit that instills good character. This thinking has put the US into a collision course between conservatives and liberals. Liberals rely on a continuation of living beyond one's means to provide an illusory safety net for the unemployed and unproductive masses. This is a throwback to Nero and his fiddle, and the masses he panders to, and stands as an instance of Rome's decay.

Private debt accumulation in America has been a problem for decades. In fact, right now, we're in the worst private debt crisis in the history of capitalism. But you'll never hear politicians talk about it. Why do you think that is?

Because it would force neoliberals to admit that such private debt has been directly caused by federal government austerity. In the same way that estrogen as it relates to human health has been worshiped by doctors despite all evidence to the contrary, government austerity as it relates to economic health has been worshiped by neoliberal economists for more than half a century now (Keynes' work was bastardized by neoliberals and only the post-keynesian economists are accurately portraying his ideas).

 

[yerrag]

The world never has been reliant on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. citizens are reliant on the U.S. dollar, and for good reason: it's efficient.

If not the US dollar, what has the world been reliant on? Ever heard of dollar reserves? Petrodollars?

What's inefficient is the dogma spread forth by neoliberals that says, "the government must tax in order to spend." This has been a far more devastating lie than anything you'll ever find Ray Peat criticizing in nutrition science, biology, physiology, etc. It's led to the suffocation of the poor, the total destruction of the middle class, skyrocketing wealth inequality, slowed economic growth as well as needless recessions and depressions, not to mention a toxic culture of people that are increasingly fearful, competitive, physically sick/addicted and psychologically unstable.

What has efficiency got to do with that dogma? If that statement is a lie, what isn't? That the government need not tax to spend? I'm having to parse your meaning. Do you mean that that dogma has led to excessive taxation? And that has less to unwise spending? And that it has led to an inefficient use of funds?

Private debt accumulation in America has been a problem for decades. In fact, right now, we're in the worst private debt crisis in the history of capitalism. But you'll never hear politicians talk about it. Why do you think that is?

Because it would force neoliberals to admit that such private debt has been directly caused by federal government austerity. In the same way that estrogen as it relates to human health has been worshiped by doctors despite all evidence to the contrary, government austerity as it relates to economic health has been worshiped by neoliberal economists for more than half a century now (Keynes' work was bastardized by neoliberals and only the post-keynesian economists are accurately portraying his ideas).

Private debt accumulation is definitely a problem. But to blame it on federal government austerity? Are you saying the government has to spend more? I see that your admiration of Keynes shows that the trillions of dollars of government debt is not a matter of concern. Is printing more money and spending them for dole-outs the way to erase private debt? That way, students get free college education and don't ever need to incur student debt? Whatever happened to the idea of capital accumulation? How did it get waylaid by the idea of debt accumulation?

 

[snowboard111]

The world never has been reliant on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. citizens are reliant on the U.S. dollar, and for good reason: it's efficient.

I think you have a LOT of reading to do...

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

If not the US dollar, what has the world been reliant on? Ever heard of dollar reserves? Petrodollars?

It depends where one lives. In the U.S., we're reliant on dollars because it makes sense to have a sovereign currency which the federal government can print/tax in order to stabilize aggregate demand/stabilize inflation. This isn't possible with competing currencies--booms and busts are inevitable, as well as deflationary spirals (which result in depressions and long and unnecessary periods of suboptimal growth).

What has efficiency got to do with that dogma?

Think about how Ray Peat describes glucose and energy metabolism in comparison to most medical doctors. Think of it as a loose metaphor to the way post-keynesians view the macro economy compared to most economists.

If that statement is a lie, what isn't? That the government need not tax to spend? I'm having to parse your meaning. Do you mean that that dogma has led to excessive taxation? And that has less to unwise spending? And that it has led to an inefficient use of funds?

The government need not tax to spend. In fact, the government can and should cut taxes and spend right now, given our current economic conditions. The government is not a household. It can lower the interest rate to 0% on its own debt for as long as it wants. Literally the only thing stopping it from doing this is dogmatic politicians and a dogmatic populace. It is, again, exactly like the medical industry needlessly poisoning people with anti-depressants, statins, etc. It's just ignorance compounding upon ignorance.

Private debt accumulation is definitely a problem. But to blame it on federal government austerity? Are you saying the government has to spend more? I see that your admiration of Keynes shows that the trillions of dollars of government debt is not a matter of concern. Is printing more money and spending them for dole-outs the way to erase private debt? That way, students get free college education and don't ever need to incur student debt?

Private debt and public debt are very, very different. And public debt at a state or municipal level is very different than public debt at a federal level. And public debt incurred by a country that can't issue its own currency is very different than public debt incurred by a country that can issue its own currency (e.g. the U.S.).

The only debt that is healthy for an economy is public debt incurred at a federal level by a government which issues its own currency. Private debt and public debt (except at the federal level) is as toxic to a nation's economy as PUFA to the human body.

We are currently in a private debt bubble bigger than the world has ever seen, thanks to a student loan bubble, a mortgage bubble, a credit card bubble, completely unnecessary over-taxation, and completely unnecessary federal government under-spending (on UBI, job-guarantee programs, programming and math skills education programs, etc.). It's a catastrophic under-allocation of resources that future generations will be astonished by.

Whatever happened to the idea of capital accumulation? How did it get waylaid by the idea of debt accumulation?

I'm saying the government needs to spend more, and it needs to spend a lot more. And it needs to cut taxes while it does so. This will result in tremendously more capital accumulation. When the federal government cuts taxes and spends (deficit spending), it increases the private sector's ability to save. This is understood by very few people unfortunately. People laugh at it, just like they laugh at Dr. Peat's views on, say, sugar.

 

[Mr. God of Cars]

I've read the article and I still don't get it: how to receive incomes without working. If we wouldn't work, then how would we get food for health? Would we have to live ancestral life (hunting animals and collecting fruits?). I think there's a real question that needs to be answered: who makes and controls the money?

 

[yerrag]

It depends where one lives. In the U.S., we're reliant on dollars because it makes sense to have a sovereign currency which the federal government can print/tax in order to stabilize aggregate demand/stabilize inflation. This isn't possible with competing currencies--booms and busts are inevitable, as well as deflationary spirals (which result in depressions and long and unnecessary periods of suboptimal growth).



Think about how Ray Peat describes glucose and energy metabolism in comparison to most medical doctors. Think of it as a loose metaphor to the way post-keynesians view the macro economy compared to most economists.



The government need not tax to spend. In fact, the government can and should cut taxes and spend right now, given our current economic conditions. The government is not a household. It can lower the interest rate to 0% on its own debt for as long as it wants. Literally the only thing stopping it from doing this is dogmatic politicians and a dogmatic populace. It is, again, exactly like the medical industry needlessly poisoning people with anti-depressants, statins, etc. It's just ignorance compounding upon ignorance.



Private debt and public debt are very, very different. And public debt at a state or municipal level is very different than public debt at a federal level. And public debt incurred by a country that can't issue its own currency is very different than public debt incurred by a country that can issue its own currency (e.g. the U.S.).

The only debt that is healthy for an economy is public debt incurred at a federal level by a government which issues its own currency. Private debt and public debt (except at the federal level) is as toxic to a nation's economy as PUFA to the human body.

We are currently in a private debt bubble bigger than the world has ever seen, thanks to a student loan bubble, a mortgage bubble, a credit card bubble, completely unnecessary over-taxation, and completely unnecessary federal government under-spending (on UBI, job-guarantee programs, programming and math skills education programs, etc.). It's a catastrophic under-allocation of resources that future generations will be astonished by.



I'm saying the government needs to spend more, and it needs to spend a lot more. And it needs to cut taxes while it does so. This will result in tremendously more capital accumulation. This is because when the federal government cuts taxes and spends (deficit spending), it increases the private sector's ability to save. This is understood by very few people unfortunately. People laugh at it, just like they laugh at Dr. Peat's views on, say, sugar.

I'm sorry to disappoint you. Your belief system on the area of economics is the one that isn't built on sound thinking. First of all, it mocks the very idea of saving, and instead replaces this virtue with the idea that spending beyond one's means is good. What works in a household extends all the way to a city, a state, to a country, and to civilization, in general. Like Peat's thinking, it is a coherent whole.

The exception you allude to, to the power of the US government to print money, and then to spend at will, with the argument that it has the license to create this debt, in order to restore the economy to soundness, and thus make the country go back to accumulating capital and wealth, is as asinine as the medical establishment's dogmas. As sure as the medical establishment created the US healthcare and insurance crisis, it will just lead the US to a country hollowed out of its vitality. Heck, this country can't stop talking its way to one, just one, high speed train, while China is not just building, but already using a network of high speed trains. It's because the Ivy League elites has made a mockery of economics, and continues to enshrine Keynesian economics, instead of refuting it, and keeps creating a deeper hole. The same Ivy libtards.

It is going down Armaggedon, by not owning up to its mistakes. The problem is that it's not easy, with all the rationalizing employed by debt economics, to prove they are wrong, as the world economy floats and feeds on this illusion, until a breaking point comes about, and when that happens, they will be like Hillary, blamimg someone else for this catastrophe. I'm very sure it will be the people who advocate savings they will blame.

This is where the Pied Piper meets the Emperor with No Clothes.

 

[kyle]

Work is part of being human. Our natural condition is an imperfect world and the majority of our life should be spent to create improvement.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

I'm sorry to disappoint you. Your belief system on the area of economics is the one that isn't built on sound thinking. First of all, it mocks the very idea of saving, and instead replaces this virtue with the idea that spending beyond one's means is good. What works in a household extends all the way to a city, a state, to a country, and to civilization, in general. Like Peat's thinking, it is a coherent whole.

Nope, wrong. Totally wrong. You don't understand macroeconomics. Households and municipalities can't control the interest rate on their debt--the federal government can. Households and municipalities can't print money--the federal government can. To say all debt is the same is like saying carbs = protein = fat because they're all calories. Even that comparison is being generous.

The exception you allude to, to the power of the US government to print money, and then to spend at will, with the argument that it has the license to create this debt, in order to restore the economy to soundness, and thus make the country go back to accumulating capital and wealth, is as asinine as the medical establishment's dogmas. As sure as the medical establishment created the US healthcare and insurance crisis, it will just lead the US to a country hollowed out of its vitality. Heck, this country can't stop talking its way to one, just one, high speed train, while China is not just building, but already using a network of high speed trains. It's because the Ivy League elites has made a mockery of economics, and continues to enshrine Keynesian economics, instead of refuting it, and keeps creating a deeper whole. The same Ivy libtards.

Again, you're very wrong here. I've already been clear that what is called "Keynesian economics" today in fact has no basis in what Keynes himself wrote. Post-Keynesians (this is a small minority of Keynesians) are the only ones who are staying even remotely true to his ideas.

Federal government savings literally crowds out private savings. Yes, it actually has the opposite effect of what people think, because people mistakenly believe the federal government is like their local/state government. They're failing to realize that, unlike the U.S. government, their local/state governments do not control the currency in which their debts are paid, nor do they control the interest rate on their debts.

I can't be any clearer on this point. If you don't get it, you'll never understand what an optimally functioning economy would look like.

It is going down Armaggedon, by not owning up to its mistakes. The problem is that it's not easy, with all the rationalizing employed by debt economics, to prove they are wrong, as the world economy floats and feeds on this illusion, until a breaking point comes about, and when that happens, they will be like Hillary, blamimg someone else for this catastrophe. I'm very sure it will be the people who advocate savings they will blame.

The people who advocate "balancing the federal budget" and other federal government austerity measures are, whether they realize it or not, advocating suffocating the middle class as well as the entire economy, eroding private savings, and ultimately destroying any hope of American prosperity.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

I've read the article and I still don't get it: how to receive incomes without working. If we wouldn't work, then how would we get food for health? Would we have to live ancestral life (hunting animals and collecting fruits?). I think there's a real question that needs to be answered: who makes and controls the money?

You may have read it but you failed to understand it. The author isn't against work, he's against the protestant work ethic, which has distorted work to the point where most of today's work (especially low wage work) is neither valuable nor freely chosen.

 

[Jarman]

So if OP stops working, how does he pay for food, rent and electricity? Is he going to get them for free? Farmers has to work to grow food and apartment owner has to work to invest and maintain apartments. Somebody has to work, even if it's not the OP. If OP lives off grid and completely cuts off from society, he still has to hunt or grow crops to survive. That's still work. The only way OP can not work and get food and shelter if he inherits a lot of money from his parents or grandparents, which they worked on their entire life. Or the OP relies on government handouts, which is taken from other citizens who work and pay their taxes. I don't think anyone can avoid working even if it's not for huge corporations.

 

[Jarman]

You may have read it but you failed to understand it. The author isn't against work, he's against the protestant work ethic, which has distorted work to the point where most of today's work (especially low wage work) is neither valuable nor freely chosen.

Pretty sure you can freely choose to walk away from job if you don't like it. In slavery, they can't leave and if they don't work they're physically tortured until death. We don't live in that era anymore

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

So if OP stops working, how does he pay for food, rent and electricity? Is he going to get them for free? Farmers has to work to grow food and apartment owner has to work to invest and maintain apartments. Somebody has to work, even if it's not the OP. If OP lives off grid and completely cuts off from society, he still has to hunt or grow crops to survive. That's still work. The only way OP can not work and get food and shelter if he inherits a lot of money from his parents or grandparents, which they worked on their entire life. Or the OP relies on government handouts, which is taken from other citizens who work and pay their taxes. I don't think anyone can avoid working even if it's not for huge corporations.

I'll post the exact same thing I posted above: The author isn't against work, he's against the protestant work ethic, which has distorted work to the point where most of today's work (especially low wage work) is neither valuable nor freely chosen.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Pretty sure you can freely choose to walk away from job if you don't like it. In slavery, they can't leave and if they don't work they're physically tortured until death. We don't live in that era anymore

There are tons of people who can't, as you put it, "freely choose to walk away from a job if they don't like it." I don't know where you got that idea--have you never have met low IQ, lower class people that are stuck in dead end jobs?

 

[Jarman]

Well, if we're talking about me personally, I'll never have to work another day in my life.

But that's a luxury many don't have. That is, there are tons of people who can't, as you put it, "freely choose to walk away from a job if they don't like it." I don't know where you got that idea--have you never have met low IQ, lower class people?

My grandpa-father were. My grandpa was poor as f*** but he saved enough money for my father to attend college and became a doctor. Now my dad makes good money and supports our family. Note that I'm not American so the tuition cost isn't ridiculous. My dad keeps reminding him how being poor made him want to get out of it and be successful. I get that life lesson everyday.

If they can't walk away because they feel that they don't have the options, that's BS. That's all in their head making excuses.

 

[yerrag]

Nope, wrong. Totally wrong. You don't understand macroeconomics.

If macroeconomics is the way you understand it, yes, I don't and don't want to understand it.

They're failing to realize that, unlike the U.S. government, their local/state governments do not control the currency in which their debts are paid, nor do they control the interest rate on their debts.

The US government is actually the biggest thief. It reneged during Nixon's presidency on pegging its currency to the amount of gold reserves it hold. To get away from its obligations. And that was a good forty years. Ago. The US government, instead of reducing its obligations, keep adding to its debt. I guess there's truth to the saying "One good round deserves another."

I can't be any clearer on this point. If you don't get it, you'll never understand what an optimally functioning economy would look like.

Before fiat money was conceived by the bankers, the world economy was functioning. Can't say fiat money and US printing money wantonly ever made things better. In fact, it got worse. Still, academics and an author can't see it. I suggest you hold off on printing your book "Poverty Cured."

The people who advocate "balancing the federal budget" and other federal government austerity measures are, whether they realize it or not, advocating suffocating the middle class as well as the entire economy, eroding private savings, and ultimately destroying any hope of American prosperity.

You're the only one advocating this, other than the politicians who just don't want to tell the electorate the burden of truth. Kicking the can down the road is all you can do.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

My grandpa-father were. My grandpa was poor as f*** but he saved enough money for my father to attend college and became a doctor. Now my dad makes good money and supports our family. Note that I'm not American so the tuition cost isn't ridiculous. My dad keeps reminding him how being poor made him want to get out of it and be successful. I get that life lesson everyday.

If they can't walk away because they feel that they don't have the options, that's BS. That's all in their head making excuses.

If you're saying "anyone who's poor and stuck in a dead end job is just making excuses," you're discriminating against at least a solid chunk of the poor who actually have lower cognitive capacities than your grandpa and father. This is just as bad as being racist in my opinion.

 

[Jarman]

If you're saying "anyone who's poor and stuck in a dead end job is just making excuses," you're discriminating against at least a solid chunk of the poor who actually have lower cognitive capacities than your grandpa and father. This is just as bad as being racist in my opinion.

WTF you're reading way to much out of it. Why are Americans associating everything with racism? Way oversensitive