sheila

The Economic Recovery That Isn't

studiophototrope, I have serious questions to your comment.
If businesses finally reach equilibrium with much smaller workforces, and the job losses slow to a stop, how does the very slow growth support the nation's needs? How does our nation manage the millions of unemployed and potentially needy families? What do we do with these people that can't consume and possibly can't afford the basics of life?
Just wanting to know....


On Oct 04 09:47 AM studiophototrope wrote:

> >> Those who do cling to the absurd belief that, absent exponential
> productivity gains, the economy can expand while workers are being
> laid off will undergo a massive test of their convictions now that
> it's clear the employment picture is bleak. <<
>
> And those who gravitate to view points on the edges, rather than
> understanding that what takes place usually is somewhere near the
> middle, subject themselves to not being taken seriously.
>
> You write as if the economy can't expand once the lay offs stop but
> hiring doesn't resume.
> Can the economy expand without workers being laid off but minus a
> renewal of large scale hiring? The answer is yes, slowly.
>
> At some point workers will stop getting laid off and concurrently
> companies will find their equilibrium point. From there, they don't
> go on a hiring rampage and create the unnecessary/duplicate jobs
> that needed to be cut during the contraction, but rather, they manage
> their workforce relative to the economic cycle. The economy grows
> slower, but it grows, as "capitalism and free markets" work out the
> excesses. That should be cheering you up, no?
>
> The current economic statistics are difficult to interpret correctly
> because they are contradictory on so many levels. Growth in some
> areas, contraction in others demonstrates a changing, evolving worldwide
> business environment and economy. Cherry picking stats to support
> a position should be reserved for those who follow sports.
>
> I would think being the "free market" guy you are, you would have
> at least considered that US businesses are capable of managing their
> employment rolls not only when the economy contracts or expands,
> but also when it grows slowly. No one is happy with the large number
> of people still losing their jobs, but isn't the free market, cutting
> the fat, tightening the belt stage what free market capitalists have
> been recommending since this began? Now that the markets are doing
> their thing, it's suddenly become proof of fundamental flaws??<br/>
>
> I'm not sure if you aware, but there are colors that exist between
> black and white.
>
> Best regards
> Louis

Inflation May Be the Solution

Dear inthemoney,
People don't accept it. It just has ever thus been so.
It is much easier for dependent authorities to jail little people for crimes. They don't have $$$lawyers, lobbyists, and organizations (media,bloggers, and host of non-profits) and powerful business/political allies, to lead their defense and claims of innocence. Occasionally, a biggie will fall, when one of the allies has been burnt by their behavior, or if there is absolutely no other political way out. The penalty will be light. The well connected Madoff expected only 12 years! He must have harmed quite a number of the elite to get the sentence he so justly deserves, even thought it isn't over yet (appeals).
I gave you thumbs up...surely goodness and justice have some place in this world, or so I too would like to believe.


On Sep 11 10:01 AM inthemoney wrote:

> Inflation is the same as abandoining a contract, only the contract
> is not between the private parties but between the government and
> the people.
> Regardless of whether it is or it is not the right thing to do short
> term, what is the cost long-term of willful betrayl of its part of
> the contract by the government? Inflation is stealing from the common
> man to pay for the government's excesses.
> Why do people quietly accept stealing as a viable solution in the
> financial markets while put people in jail for stealing of goods
> and services?