Please link to some evidence which shows wages today are higher than they were three years ago. Mia, you didn't read the article I linked to by economist Paul Craig Roberts. Below is a passage quoted from the article, and I put the points which destroy your argument in bold: "The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the real wages and salaries of US civilian workers are below those of 5 years ago. It could not be otherwise with US corporations offshoring good jobs in order to reduce labor costs and, thereby, to convert wages once paid to Americans into multi-million dollar bonuses paid to CEOs and other top management." So, the paragraph I copy/paste from Robert's article shows that what you're saying is not true, because this article was written in August of this year, which means that our wages have fallen for the last five years. While you may personally have seen your own wages increase over the last three years, the BLS shows that the wages of Americans in general have fallen. Again, this is a sign of a bad economy, especially when you consider inflation and the debt bubble.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a couple of econ books and learn the fundamentals before taking positions. I can't convince you; you have to educate yourself. Good luck.
This argument is weak and invalid. You have not stated why I'm wrong, or why the position I hold is wrong. The only thing you tell me to do is go pick up some books on economics. If you're going to debate me, avoid taking the easy way out and explain why my views are wrong before everyone here in this forum. The funny thing is, Crazy Rob did the exact same thing you just did yesterday. It gives your arguments no validity. I have linked to a paper written by a respected economist and former member of the treasury. My views come from him, as well as Ron Paul, a respected expert in the Austrian School of economics. When you tell me to go read a book on economics, what you're really telling me to do is go read a book on Keynesian economics. But both Keynesian economics and Austrian Economics can't both be right. One has to be wrong. Time will tell which one, but due to the fact that our current system is failing, and it is based on Keynesian economics, I would be willing to bet that the Austrian School is superior. In my previous post, I stated a fact. I said that the BLS shows that real American wages for workers have fallen over the last five years. This statement came from an economist and former high ranking government official. If you disagree with me, please prove why I'm wrong. If you cannot, then it means that your arguments have no merit.
I guess I just do not spend enough time reading propaganda. I'm living in the hear and now, and I was living in the hear and now 3 years ago.... Seeing is believing... If Roberts wrote a book that said the earth was flat, would you believe it?
You're confusing propaganda with fact. He stated in the article that the BLS(Bureau of Labor Statistics, which comes from the government), shows that the real wages of Americans have fallen for the last five years. Now, is it right or wrong? How is it propaganda? He is just stating the facts. No, I wouldn't believe Paul Craig Roberts if he wrote a book saying the Earth is flat, because number one, it has been proven that the Earth is not flat, and number two, Paul Craig Roberts is not a geologist, so he would not be qualified to make a statement like in a field he is not trained in. He is trained as an economist, and he has made a factual statement about the U.S. economy which is based on facts from non other than the U.S. Government.
That was not an argument; it was a suggestion. Context is very important when you're interpreting a text. You are wrongly accusing me of the fallacy of appeal to authority. The Friedman quote was in response to this comment in the previous page: "But I truly wonder who the people are, and from what background and means they come from that argue that..." I gave an example and substantiated my position. Economcis is not as simple as that; no school of economic thought is superior to another, and it is comments such as this one that leads me to insist you on picking up an econ book. I have discredited neither marginalism nor Ron Paul. Some of my views are consistent with the Vienna School in that I support the free market system. However, I also discern that laissez-fair capitalism is impractical. I do not subscribe to Keynesian Economics; I merely advocate the functional aspects of the theory. You must be confusing Mia's claim with mine, but I will still substantiate Friedman's claim since that was a part of my post: Income Per Capita
This article links to the BLS and shows that real weekly wages fell from 1974 until the present:http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff120606.html I'm not sure why there is such a difference in the numbers here. This link takes you to a graph which shows a negative savings rate for 2006:http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm The DSR(Debt Service Ratio) from the Fed shows that Americans are spending a large amount of their disposable income repaying their debts:http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/ If wages have continued to increase, why do Americans seem to be borrowing more than ever? If there wages were high, why not use the money out of their own pocket?
R2G, how do you reconcile using Friedman in this argument, and then the fact that Friedman and Paul were friends, and Friedman endorsed him in Congress, where he relentlessly attacked the FED? I just want you to know that you can't have it both ways. Friedman spent much of his career attacking your hero, Keynes. And for good reason. Keynes was wonderful at abstract theory, not so hot at practical economics.
Friedman criticizes the Fed, but he also credits the Fed for stabilizing the economy from the '80s and on. I also criticize the Fed, especially the way they deal with primary dealers, but I criticize those who are intellectually dishonest about the Fed as well. You see the latter more here because so many of you are unfamiliar with basic economics. Just because I am for countercyclical fiscal policy, Keynes is my hero? What a puerile way of using ad hominem argument. Keynes played an important roll in getting the US out of the Great Depression while the Fed stood idly and did nothing. Keynes also predicted that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles will lead to World War 2. He was also successful as a currency trader. Man, he was so impractical.
And yet, you haven't criticized my posts on the FED in this thread. I suppose you don't find them "intellectually dishonest". It's because they are not. And you know it. You're always going about Keynes and Keynesian economics. Keynes role was to help promote the New Deal and the welfare state. He was all for government intervention, which frankly is Unconstitutional and UnAmerican. Keynes was also for the failed Bretton Woods. The same system that Mises predicted would fail. The problem with Keynes, and pseduo-economic intellectuals is that you fail to see value in the economy. Unless it is artificially created at the top. And this sort of interventionism is why we have a bankrupt welfare state today. Because the money is not accountable to the economy, and neither is the policy.
I guess I just have to take one look at my kids playroom, and compare that to what I had... My buck buys more than it ever did!
Alot of that is to do with cheap imported crap that toys are now a days I remember when I was in school, items were much more expensive than they are now. Almost all of them being tech related, or imported. Everything else for the most part is more expensive. Remember hearing the stories about how much microwaves used to cost and or tvs!
Most of the stuff I have from when I was young said made in China on it even then... The first Microwave we got cost around $600. I think my parents got loan for it. Our first VCR was around the same.. Microwaves are around 50 bucks or less now... Volume helps... Both those products were relatively new at the time, and both were generally imported as well... Used to be everything was made in Japan... Now it seems to be China... Either way, my buck buys more now than it ever has. Especially if you consider how devalued it is...
Of which I agree with you, the only problem is it appears the dollar buys more on non essential garbage and not the essentials such as food, medicine, housing, etc. Some areas it does buy more, more toys and crap, other areas it buys far, far less.
True, but those savings in one area, leave more for money spent in other areas.. Hey, it could be worse... Wouldn't it be nice if the US could just make up a new currency and lets say, create a fax value, then tout their currency as superior --- a the while claiming the dollar is inferior... Gee, wonder if that has ever happened before..... EURO>....