LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont drink, either:)

we can stare at each other

you can call me

DUMB and RACIST

and I can call you

NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE (he who does not care):)
 
So TIMMAHs! off to Europe with a big blank check to ask, "How much will it cost the US taxpayer to keep the EU running through the end of next October, the first week of November?"




'Cause we're going to need a good-looking market!

:eek:
 
In Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An Empirical Study, the center finds that reducing the size of the federal regulatory budget by even modest amounts will have significant positive effects on both GDP and private sector growth.

“In particular,” the group says, “even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) would result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually.”

“On average,” the Phoenix Center says, “eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.” [Check out cartoons on the economy.]

“Our statistical analysis of historical data indicates that federal expenditures on regulatory activity have a significant impact on the size of the private-sector economy and private-sector employment,” says Dr. George S. Ford, chief economist of the Phoenix Center. “While the entire federal budget must be cut to address the deficit problem, the evidence indicates that reductions in the overall federal regulatory budget may substantially impact the growth of economic output and employment.”

The study is likely to be a bombshell. The recently concluded agreement on spending for Fiscal Year 2011 and the federal budget for 2012 proposed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan take on the issue of spending in a way that has many in the political class up in arms. The Phoenix Center study will only add much-needed fuel to the fire, which is already blazing.
Click to expand...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...tting-federal-regulations-lowers-unemployment
 
From 2004

The other major reason for the recent job loss in America is regulations. Today the cost of regulation is approaching $1 trillion, and still most of us continue to go on with our daily jobs unperturbed. Very few Americans understand how much $1 trillion is. Here is a good way to think about it: counting $1 a second, it would take more than 32,000 years to count $1 trillion.

To understand this gigantic cost of regulations, we need only to take a look at the Federal Registry, a book which lists all the federal laws and regulations. In 1950, it consisted of 9,500 pages; in 1970 it grew to 20,000 pages; in 1990 it went up to 50,000; and finally, in 2003 it contained a stunning 75,000 pages.

Regulations incur several different types of costs: the cost of creating the regulations (a political process in the case of laws, and an administrative process in the case of regulations), the cost of publishing the books that contain them (hundreds of thousands of copies so that we all may be able to access it, since ignoratio iuris non nocet [in English, "the ignorance of the law is no excuse"]), and finally, in enforcing the laws and regulations (thousands of government agencies employ hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs consist of seeing to it that we live by those regulations).

And let’s not forget the costs incurred by firms in complying with regulations: hiring lawyers that can read and make sense of the regulations and explaining them to those in charge, the labor costs of filling out thousands of forms and ensuring that forms are filed in proper ways with appropriate agencies, etc. And, of course, in addition to the federal regulations, businesses are also subject to state and municipal regulations, which add significantly to the total cost of regulations.

Many of these regulations may have been created with the best of intentions, but Mises’s theory of the dynamics of interventionism dictates that they will inevitably create undesirable, unintended consequences. In this case, those consequences are the destruction of American jobs. Regulations sometimes actually forbid potentially productive economic activities, and the jobs that would have existed in the absence of regulations never materialize. Other times, regulations will simply raise the costs of production. Companies must follow procedures and fill out forms, for which they may have to hire some people.

At first glance, it would appear that the regulations decrease unemployment, by creating demand for workers who can perform these tasks. But, by being forced to hire these people, companies will have to bear a higher cost while producing the same output as before. These workers are ultimately unproductive and wasteful, not adding anything to the total production but still increasing the cost. If businesses are facing relatively inelastic demand for their goods, they will raise the prices, forcing the consumers to bear the burden of higher costs. As explained above, these higher prices will lower the real wages of the workers, making them worse off.

This is a classic example of, in Frédéric Bastiat’s famous words, the difference between what is seen and what is not seen. People easily see the few jobs that are added as a result of the regulations, but they do not easily see all the jobs that are lost because workers will make lower real wages. These lower real wages will bring about lower incomes, resulting in less demand for the goods and services, and ultimately less employment by the businesses producing those goods and services.

The important thing to understand here is that regulations reduce labor productivity. They always create waste, both of labor and capital. (During this year’s meeting at Davos, Switzerland, about 1,400 business leaders from around the world put the government regulators as the biggest threat to their companies. Global terrorism, by the way, took the sixth place in assessing the usual threats to their businesses.)

The politicians anxious to do something should be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Add to the above examples complicated tax laws, increasing health care costs, a failed educational system producing diplomas instead of skills, and the picture is complete. American companies will opt for the greener pasture of less regulated, cheaper markets in Asia, Eastern Europe, and any other country in which governments decide to stay away from intervening in the markets.

In order to survive in the global economy many companies must move to a more hospitable environment. Companies that want to make profits must offer lower prices, and lower prices can only come from lower costs. Although lower costs may come from innovations and higher productivity, often they must come from cheaper labor or fewer regulations. The countries that offer one of those, or even both, advantages win in the global economy.

Intent on cutting costs, businesses outsource a lot of functions—employee compensation and benefits, accounting, customer complaints—to those countries in which they can achieve the same results with much lower cost. Those are the facts, and they have nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with discovering how to serve the customer cheaper and better.

American workers must realize that government interventions cannot help. In a globalized economy, the government’s "help" will only produce a ticking time-bomb. The American politicians and workers can continue to blame "free trade" and "greed" and whatever else they wish for their predicament, but the real culprit for the loss of jobs in America is still the government, its short-term-oriented economic policies, and its complete lack of economic understanding.
Click to expand...

Ivan Pongracic ic, Sr. teaches at Indiana Wesleyan University (Ivan.Pongracic@ indwes.edu).
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=499

Prescient...
 
People respond to incentives. When governments change incentives, people respond in ways that produce unintended results. The law of unintended consequences has come to the fore recently in a discussion over the legal status of unpaid internships. If you subscribe to Arts & Letters Daily, you probably saw a link to this piece, which reviews a recent book on unpaid internships. If you can look past the style that seems to be typical of articles and reviews that view the capitalist process as a plutocratic conspiracy, you see some very important points that remind me of an article I wrote a couple of years ago.

I expect that studies of the early 21st-century labor market will show that the rise of the unpaid internship is a direct consequence of labor market rules and regulations of which the minimum wage is only the most conspicuous example. The author–former Harper’s editor Roger D. Hodge–points out that unpaid internships have replaced summer jobs for a lot of teenagers and college students because a lot of summer jobs have simply disappeared. The reason for this is pretty straightforward. Labor market regulations make teenagers and college students prohibitively expensive to hire, which means that a lot of jobs that would otherwise exist have simply disappeared. In a recent article, I discussed new research by economists William Even and David Macpherson estimating that the 2007-2009 minimum wage increases caused more job losses than the recession among young African Americans.

At first, the fact that people are willing to work for a wage of $0 seems puzzling. When you recognize that jobs offer a lot more than wages, it becomes easier to understand. One of the benefits of having a job when you are young or when you are relatively unproductive is that it allows you to learn valuable skills that can translate into higher earnings in the future. There are a lot of things you can’t learn in school that you do learn by having a job. If you can’t get a paying job that allows you to learn these skills, an unpaid internship might be a viable option.

This raises the question of equal access to opportunity. As Hodge points out, prestigious internships almost invariably go to those who are well-to-do. The children of the relatively wealthy probably have the benefit of accumulated capital that will allow them to work for a wage of $0 for a while or even to invest heavily in competing for prestigious internships. The less fortunate among us are…not so fortunate.

We say that these are “unintended consequences,” but the history of labor market regulation and minimum wages has a dark side. As Thomas C. Leonard shows in his work on the intellectual climate of the Progressive Era, the disemployment effects of minimum wages and other interventions into the labor market were seen as desirable and intended consequences rather than undesirable and unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
http://blog.mises.org/17112/unpaid-internships-labor-legislation-and-inequality/
 
Segment on Behavioral Economics on C-Span right now.


he said, realizing this isn't an economic thread
 
JohnnySavage said:
Segment on Behavioral Economics on C-Span right now.


he said, realizing this isn't an economic thread
Click to expand...

I actually teach a class on

The Psychology of Economics and the Economics of Psychology

BTW, NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE (he who does not care)

TAXPROF: CBO Cherry Picks Data to Inflate Claims of Income Inequality.


Want the link?

Still eating the SNICK HERS bar?
 
I am getting tired of writing

NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE (he who does not care)

So maybe I will just write


The person who knows better (I think) yet feigns otherwise in the hopes of stumbling BUSYBODY. Hopes dashed. But NIGGERIZATION effective.


:eek:


Wait!


Thats even LONGER:rolleyes:

Hey

WHAT SHOULD I CALL YOU?

:confused:
 
busybody said:
I am getting tired of writing

NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE (he who does not care)

So maybe I will just write


The person who knows better (I think) yet feigns otherwise in the hopes of stumbling BUSYBODY. Hopes dashed. But NIGGERIZATION effective.


:eek:


Wait!


Thats even LONGER:rolleyes:

Hey

WHAT SHOULD I CALL YOU?

:confused:
Click to expand...


Sir..
 
busybody said:
I actually teach a class on

The Psychology of Economics and the Economics of Psychology

BTW, NIGGER SHITTER SAVAGE (he who does not care)

TAXPROF: CBO Cherry Picks Data to Inflate Claims of Income Inequality.


Want the link?

Still eating the SNICK HERS bar?
Click to expand...

It's why the opinions of long dead foreign economists don't matter much in real life
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
Remember those dire predictions of a "Recession in 2023-2024"? The White House does!
Replies
0
Views
322
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
445
John_von_Neumann
John_von_Neumann
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
9K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
bronzeage
bronzeage
Back
Top