Jobs ReportPosted 6 years Ago

At 10/7/2014 6:54:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
And exogenous aggregate demand shortfalls can be solved through market clearing. However, if markets don't clear then you get a surplus of goods and labor. Labor surplus is the most rigid.


That's impossible at the zero lower bound. The self-correcting mechanism whereby prices and wages fall is destabilizing; nominal rates are pinned at zero, so any fall in the price level translates into a rise in real interest rates, which depresses output and inflation further, increases real rates again, etc. It's never-ending. Your neoclassical, "let markets clear" nonsense is USUALLY crap because it presupposes the autonomy of the market mechanism -- and this fictitious long run, truly, tells us just to do nothing and wait for market to clear, while eating all the pain in the short run, which we're perpetually stuck in any way -- but it doesn't even work right now by the textbook model.

Rigidities build during a recession, meaning that necessarily people will be laid off in lieu of having their money wages slashed,

Which is what I just stated, wage stickiness.


But you don't understand it, at all. You suggested we're moving toward a long-run equilibrium. I said, one, no we're not because wages would be FALLING, not flat, and two, that's impossible at the ZLB, anyway, because output and inflation would be rapidly falling. But they're not.

Agreed, that's what I mean through sticky wages, in which markets aren't clearing.

You completely misunderstood my point. I'm saying markets "clearing" is a theoretical fantasy that never takes place in the real world, and right now cannot happen at all.

If your argument is because an increased in aggregate demand causes greater GDP and thus higher wages, this is not necessarily the case. Lower levels of unemployment will increase GDP since more people working = higher GDP. If markets are clearing at lower wages then previously, this is only an indication that aggregate demand was too high previously not that you need to increase aggregate demand.


......so much to unpack here. You really don't understand economics.

Aggregate demand IS GDP. The terms are interchangeable. Granted, when we say AD we usually mean nominal GDP, and because real variables are hard to quantify, we often associate falling U3 with rising nominal growth because inflation generally moves upward in tandem with real growth.

No, that isn't my argument, but good job strawmanning it and demonstrating your lack of understanding. My argument is the basic Philips Curve: the economy improves, necessarily assymetries of bargaining leverage decline as demand for workers rises, there's necessarily more competition for labor amongst firms, wages rise. It's a dubious model at best in light of flat real wages from the 1980s on, but it's generally the textbook case following a deep recession. Pent-up wage deflation is a whole other issue, and I doubt you understand it enough to even make the case for it, but I assure you that it isn't happening; the best explanation is a flattening of the Philip's Curve.

Your argument is straight Hayekian, and it's utter bullcrap. First of all, get off your fixation on market perfection. It's a fantasy. You're suggesting that HIGHER AD pre-crisis leads to lower AD post-crisis. That's just a complete fantasy that only works in the Hayekian world where government "distortions" >>> malinvestment >> business cycle. Assymetries of bargaining leverage and lack of labor flows is what you really should be looking at.

Not really. Significant levels of layoffs would not be robust enough to instantly create unemployment.

Significant levels of layoffs IS unemployment. Unemployment only rose 20 basis points in 2007 immediately after the housing bubble burst because there wasn't a SIGNIFICANT amount of layoffs.

And a lot of the reasons employers prefer to layoff workers rather than cut pay are based on psychological reasons and business inefficiencies.

Which confirms what I said about downward nominal wage rigidity, though many of the reasons are structural: fixed contracts, union influence, etc.

But I'd also say that even when employees are laid-off, they don't have an understanding of what their real value is worth or be unwilling to accept a job for lower pay under these new economic conditions. I'lll see if I can find the source for this though.

Of course not, because people aren't rational actors and "real value" -- or MP of labor -- is a theoretical, neoclassical fantasy that doesn't exist in the real world.

Okay, so what? This means aggregate demand was high prerecession, but now long-term aggregate supply now reflects reflects precession aggregate demand.

Thank you for showing you COMPLETELY misunderstood everything I said. Are you actually conceding that LRAS would shift to the left to compensate for an AD shortfall? That the short run can undermine the long run? The second you do that, you concede to Keynes, and this debate is over.

Okay so we've established that wages aren't falling. But aggregate supply has been increasing

You just avoided responding to everything I just said, showing you that we're clearly NOWHERE near the NAIRU and therefore nowhere near markets "clearing."

I don't know how AS increasing means anything when you just conceded that LRAS shifted to the left as a result of a short-run AD shortfall. Yes, an AD shortfall leads to an excess in supply -- thank you for conceding that -- and naturally supply will adjust down under a perfect market mechanism. Increasing? That's impossible, unlikely, and untrue. It's also a completely irrelevant point. Are you at the point where you're just throwing crap at the wall and hoping it will stick?

The short run is when prices don't change at all. If we were stuck in the short run, then prices wouldn't be changing at all which clearly isn't the case. "Stickiness" is a gradient, and so is the "short-run" vs. "the long run". The short run and the long run are both interacting with one another at the same time.

The point I was responding to her regarded monetary policy and the long run, and the point I made was that the Fed cannot impact "long-run" growth because beyond the NAIRU rising AD just leads to higher inflation, but doesn't increase output.

The short run is when prices and wages are sticky. The long run is when prices and wages are perfectly flexible. The reason you can cite some sort of gradient -- which I buy, and which also undermines your dumb, neoclassical textbook argument -- is because the concepts are merely theoretical nonsense. Prices and wages are not flexible, and therefore we aren't in the long run. Your insinuation that prices don't change in the short run is patently absurd, as that suggests a constant level of inflation in the short run. Prices and wages do not adjust DOWNWARD -- which is the case right now.

God, read a textbook, man.
Forums Home > Economics

Jobs ReportPosted 6 years Ago

At 10/6/2014 11:43:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The job of monteray policy is to ensure low levels of unemployment which are the result of sticky wages.

Unemployment is not the result of sticky wages. It's the result of an exogenous aggregate-demand shortfall. Rigidities build during a recession, meaning that necessarily people will be laid off in lieu of having their money wages slashed, but the long-run condition in which wages fall to their equilibrium as a hallmark of "markets clearing" is simply false: markets may clear in a theoretical long-run position, but that position is far too elusive to adequately quantify. Moreover, rising, not falling, wages are consistent with declining cyclical unemployment. You're only considering a classical model where unwillingness to work at a prevailing wage unto itself is the chief cause of unemployment, but surely that's far from the truth. Consider diminishing marginal returns to labor, for instance, which leads to over-utilization of capacity.

If wages are falling and unemployment is decreasing, this is actually a good thing since it means the market is clearing. :

I've already explain why your market-clearing notion is overly simplistic and not reflective of the real world. Let me know address your misunderstanding of the data I pointed out. Money wages have not declined; they were flat last month, but have increased year-over-year at about 2 percent, whilst real wages have flat-lined. Even under your fictitious scenario, this is far from the case.

Moreover, if wages were actually falling, we'd already be in the long run, meaning we surpassed the NAIRU. Real wages have been flat for the entirety of the recovery. Had we surpassed the NAIRU then, not only would U3 stop declining -- it's declined FASTER than projections said it would -- but inflation would accelerate. But latest core PCE numbers as of July 2014 showed only a 10-basis point hike in core inflation to 1.6 percent. Under your thesis, inflation should be accelerating. In the long run wage rigidities dissipate, so increasing employment beyond its "efficient" level should have no effect on output because monetary policy has no long-run effects, but should dangerously drive up wages and prices as inflationary expectations rise ad infinitum.

The Feds isn't a main contributing factor to long-term economic growth. Efficient business practices, a strong labor forces, technology, and capital accumulation are the drivers of economic growth.

Yes, they are, but we're not in the "long run" yet. We're still stuck in the short run, and flat, "sticky" wages is the greatest indication of that.
Forums Home > Economics

Republican ValuesPosted 6 years Ago

At 9/30/2014 8:53:53 AM, TN05 wrote:
What is the issue with that? It is equal if you make everything one.


Then what is the point of your position? You stated that you want civil unions in lieu of marriage. The conventional case for that is that marriage is "sacred" -- note that church and state cannot ever legally intermingle. Now you're suggesting that we all ought to have civil unions, which would require changing every mention of marriage is federal law to "civil union." Why? Why not just broaden the definition of "marriage" such that it isn't discriminatory against people who are different from you?

A fetus is not part of your body, sorry.


This is such a dumb comment. A fetus in its earlier stages is not a person. It isn't sentient nor can it feel pain. The case for bodily autonomy is that a woman should have the right, before let's say the 20-week mark, to control what happens with her own body, meaning that if she doesn't want to exert the physical, emotional and financial strain of carrying that child to term, then she shouldn't. There are a variety of arguments for this position. First, that fetus, who is by all means not a human being, doesn't have any right to use her body if she doesn't will it. Second, back before Roe, women sought unsafe, back-alley abortions. Birth rates post-Roe were steady, so we know for a fact that women still were capable of getting abortions, but they were significantly less safe, both for her and for her fetus. As a pro-lifer, you should care about these things. Third, if she isn't able to care for a child, financially or otherwise -- and we know for a fact that the GOP would rather throw a bone to Exxon than to a starving family because they're so "pro-life" -- that child is going to grow up in obscene circumstances.

3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

This is a Democrat value too, m8.

This is a false equivalency that we see all too often these days when people, particularly in the mainstream press, want to equivocate, or in the case of Republicans who have nothing at all to offer to the table. No, some Democrats are against pot legalization, but many more Dems than Repubs are in favor. Legalizing pot doesn't exactly coincide with governance based on your magic book, in spite of the fact that the Bible never mentions it.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

u wot m8?

This isn't even properly structured. What in the world are you intending to say? I think this may be indicative of your intelligence level, based on your past posts.
Forums Home > Politics

California Yes means yes lawPosted 6 years Ago

At 9/30/2014 6:41:19 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

In Liberal America bed sleep on you!

This is just as dumb, if not dumber, than TN05's remarks for myriad reasons.

First, whilst responding to quite possibly the dumbest, most offensive remark I've ever seen on DDO, you opted not to repudiate it, but to bandwagon on it.

Second, the majority of Americans self-identify as conservative, not liberal. People who generally vote Democrat are less likely to use the term "liberal" because it's seen as politically toxic. Not to mention, post-1980s, the country has moved far to the left.

Third, you're referencing a joke made on some bogus late-night cartoon (I think it was Family Guy) that was made with respect to the USSR. Are you that ignorant that you would actually equate a desire to end sexual assault, which you should share if you possess any modicum of justice at all, with the actions of the USSR?
Forums Home > Politics

California Yes means yes lawPosted 6 years Ago

At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

You can't possibly be this stupid.

How in the world can you conflate the socially liberal stance, shared by libertarians as well, i.e., shared by anyone who doesn't want to oppose a theocracy (or anyone who knows anything at all about U.S. history of the Constitution), that people should be left to their own devices so long as they don't harm another, which necessarily includes their sexual lives, with this notion that we would tolerate sexual assault? That is positively ludicrous. Never before has anyone, be they liberal or conservative, used such asinine and poorly-thought-out reasoning to justify any act of violence. This shouldn't even be a political issue at all, and that you even bothered to bring in your bullsh1t political generalizations says quite a lot about you.

At risk of embarrassing yourself further, I urge you to retract your remark and apologize for your clear lack of understanding and insensitivity to a very serious issue of sexual assault.
Forums Home > Politics

Ignorance and Arrogance is a Dangerous MixPosted 6 years Ago

At 9/11/2014 8:34:10 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:20:44 PM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/11/2014 8:17:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
And rather explosive. I'm looking at you every single inhabitant of the religion forum.

Everyone is ignorant of something. I don't know anything about quantum mechanics and I cringe at advanced math. As to arrogance, well, everyone is arrogant about something. I think what you meant to say, and this is a sentiment I agree with, that ignorance that manifests itself as arrogance in a way to belittle people for their views on controversial questions such as God's existence which impact all of our lives is demonstrably negative. That I would agree with.

If you want to be pretentious about it

I thought I was being reasonable and agreeing with you.
Forums Home > Religion

Ignorance and Arrogance is a Dangerous MixPosted 6 years Ago

At 9/11/2014 8:17:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
And rather explosive. I'm looking at you every single inhabitant of the religion forum.

Everyone is ignorant of something. I don't know anything about quantum mechanics and I cringe at advanced math. As to arrogance, well, everyone is arrogant about something. I think what you meant to say, and this is a sentiment I agree with, that ignorance that manifests itself as arrogance in a way to belittle people for their views on controversial questions such as God's existence which impact all of our lives is demonstrably negative. That I would agree with.
Forums Home > Religion

Post Unvoted Debates HerePosted 6 years Ago

A very quick read: http://www.debate.org...
Forums Home > Debate.org

Big Issues: "Gun Rights" --> "Gun Control"?Posted 6 years Ago

At 9/9/2014 4:51:27 PM, Haroush wrote:
Columbine was because of Black market guns. Virginia Tech was because they didn't do the background checks they were supposed to do.


No, it was through the LEGAL gun-show loophole: https://www.vpc.org...

Adam Lanza was a failed background check as well. He was on psychiatric meds.. Hmm...


Incorrect. His mothers was a gun aficionado and legally purchased and was licensed the guns.

Aurora shooting, that was a failed background check.. That kid was on psychiatric meds.

Which is an argument for STRONGER background checks because it failed.

http://www.nydailynews.com...

How can anyone say we need anymore in depth background checks when law enforcement wasn't doing their job in the first place?

This is absurd. You're conceding that the reason these shootings took place is because the background checks were inadequate and using that as an argument for either keeping the system as it is or flat-out getting rid of background checks. The illogic and stupidity radiating from your post is positively breath-taking.

Also, I take it you concede on all other points, including the second post of yours I responded to.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Big Issues: "Gun Rights" --> "Gun Control"?Posted 6 years Ago

At 9/8/2014 12:38:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I have never had any success in getting liberals to separate the issues. Ask a liberal point blank, "Does an individual have a right to effective self-defense?" and there is never any response other than evasion.

That's a nonsensical extrapolation, and someone of your stature should know better than to make sweeping generalizations.

Let me answer your question: Yes. People DO have a right to self-defense.

Let me ask you a question now: What does that self-defense entail? I've asked many conservatives whether this right entails the unalienable right to own an automatic, or an Ozzie, or a tank. Some dodge the question entirely, others outright say "yes," and others who are more reasonable say "of course not." If you can agree with me that this right isn't absolute such that it should include automatic rifles, you've already conceded that absolutism is the wrong lens through which to view the issue of guns. As you do that, we're simply debating shades of gray, so your assertion that a liberal is categorically opposed to a right to self-defense is dubious at best, mendacious at worst.

The DC v Heller Supreme Court decision that struck down the DC gun ban was all about a right to effective self-defense.

Actually, it was about whether the right to bear arms was individual or collective, as it was interpreted as collective prior to Heller.

The Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed it. The right is to what is conventional for self-defense, so it's guns and not flame throwers. The bounds of regulation short of a total ban are still up for debate.

They are absolutely up for debate, which is why a sweeping generalization to the effect that liberals who may want assault rifles off the streets are opposed to a right to self-defense is irresponsible and flat wrong.
Forums Home > Debate.org

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.