Nor should it
2 Likes
You mean like this one in the UK
Outcomes are still worse. This is just one of the programs listed on their site for housing…
Translation: I am lazy as fuck and don’t like authority.
Where is your law degree from?
You have a job that literally produces nothing and is in fact likely a detriment to society (like most stock/bond/ finance speculators). You contribute nothing to GDP (which you adamantly preach about that it should go up via increased production) yet you can’t even fathom what it takes to produce a hard good. You are lower on the totem pole than “influencers”. At least they usually try to at least provide entertainment or impart some knowledge. You mooch off the strength of the US economy by literally betting for or against it depending on the bets (oh sorry - trades) you make everyday while at the same time rooting for the model to fail. And then you have the audacity to call me a D-bag and a toddler?
I bet you’re the male version of the trigglypuff meme
I’m not holding your hand like in the past. Actually read the entire exchange and do your absolute best to follow along.
Start here where you claim the U.S. is “terribly embarrassing” because 552,800 people are homeless and it’s “All brought to you by the wonderful world of capitalism”
Also, pointing out these countries have more social programs (refuting your post) doesn’t imply the programs are at fault, but I understand logic is difficult for you.
Great let’s start manufacturing F-35s in mass. You know, for more employment and maximization of production.
A demand existed and/or was created through innovation.
Bro has never looked at a P&L in his entire life.
This dude thinks there’s a magic money printer that can just go brrrrr anytime we want and has the audacity to insult someone else’s understanding of economics. Has no concept of PPP. Has no concept of velocity of money. Has absolutely no understand of macro economics, but here we are.
You only like MMT because it’s toddler-like economics.
Google is free.
2 Likes
I don’t work this program but on other DoD major acquisitions and just one of the projects I work on and design supports and is supported by over 600 suppliers in 46 different states.
That’s a lot of jobs I am helping to provide unlike the resident day trader.
1 Like
Don’t forget all the fun stuff you can mount on the pylons.
And what is the reason for this?
Maybe this is geography specific. The girl next door, got a job at Lowe’s for $16+change an hour and was ecstatic. The manager was/is a personal friend and she had plenty of experience-as she worked there before.
Don’t have to unless you deny this actually happened in the chart. Further what inventions happened to increase this production?
Looks like production continued to increase at about the rate it had been, while “real wages” stagnated at about the time the U.S. abandoned the gold standard. That sure is strange.
The gold-standard was abandoned in 1971.
Is that your reason for stagnant wages and increased production? Where all the gains went.
Thanks. Check out the years(that’s the X-axis…the one that looks like the road and not the light poles).
This is not representative of a step change increase nor does it prove anything about increasing production leading to better economic outcomes. The increase in production can easily be explained by automation of many processes too. Wage stagnation is a separate issue.
There are a limited number of chickens…decimated further by avian flu.
1 Like
I was at a MALs just before a squadron got the F-35s. They’re things of beauty (awful expensive, though).
Certainly is. We should ramp up production and I guess sell to every country in the world for the economies sake. Once demand on earth dries up maybe we can see them to aliens, ie, whatever it takes to maximize output.
2 Likes
It really doesn’t make a difference. The money was created it just went to the upper class. Whether the gold-standard existed or not, productivity and an increase in profit was made.
There are a lot of factors lumped into this generalized chart. But a big one, when you see the lines diverge, there was a large increase in the labor supply. 51% of the population started filtering into the workforce.
What? C’mon man!
From Investopedia Why Are the Factors of Production Important to Economic Growth?
When Ford introduced the assembly line, productivity moved up, correct? Were more profits made? Did those gains just go to the upper crust of society?
Is this? You don’t think a step change increase is rightfully doable here, with the upper trajectory in production?
No it does not directly, only if you believe increased production leads to greater profit. Then you can come to the conclusion. The better outcome was mostly enjoyed by the elite.
A lot of the gains were the fact that the common man could now afford a car.
2 Likes
The conclusion you made cannot be inferred from the chart you posted. Also, every chart you have posted here shows a linear increase in production. Like most who don’t understand statistics, you saw a pretty graph and inferred the conclusion you wanted out of it. Also, once you understand enough math you realize anyone can manipulate data to make it say whatever the hell they want it to. I don’t interpret any graph until I can see exactly what the authors did to the data set.
Do you even know what a step change is?
This curve you posted will become asymptotic as production becomes resource constrained. Also interesting to note that they indexed this curve off pretty much exactly when the gold standard was taken away. Before then the lines were trending together. So from that I could infer (albeit it’s likely wrong) that going to a fiat currency actually caused the issue you are attempting to highlight here. So it appears that the solution that issuing more money not tied to real assets led to this decline in growth of worker “real income” (to use their term). Therefore it invalidates the core idea of MMT that money can be issued at will to bring these two curves back in line and close the income inequality gap.
Again, real resources are not unlimited, be that manpower, raw materials, logistics limitations (see the issues at California ports during the pandemic) or fuel or chickens or…
You can’t make more chickens out of thin air.
4 Likes
People who have never produced, don’t understand production.
4 Likes