Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[FireIceTalon]

A political scientist studied a few regimes considered to be Fascist, and found 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

I would say most or all of these are pretty accurate, though it may not be limited to just these things. Nor do I think a nation has to have all these properties to be fascist. From a Marxist perspective, fascism is "Capitalism in decay" (though to me personally, it seems more like capitalism on steroids), and usually occurs when a Capitalist nation goes into a severe economic crisis - it is essentially a common result when capitalism breaks down. The ruling class sees its interests threatened, and it responds by making the state more heavy-handed and brutal, creating more austerity for the lower classes, and xenophobia and racism become very strong elements defining the nationalism of the country. In times of crisis, radical leftist politics like anarchism and communism increase in popularity, but fascism does even more so usually because it is reactionary rather than revolutionary. But most importantly, the ruling class under capitalism has a sort of "cultural hegemony", and it becomes more pronounced under fascism - thus why many people easily buy into the propaganda and emotions of a charismatic and powerful orator. That, and it is much easier to blame "other" groups of people for the crisis, than it is to recognize the shortcomings of capitalism or fascism itself even.

The U.S. has, to at least some degree, elements of ALL 14 of those characteristics. Hmmm.....

[kandrathe]

All quite beside the point. Do you have any evidence or theory to defend the central argument, that as incomes rise, people will simply become unemployed, rather than shifting their labour to other sectors? That real prices are rising, not falling? Which is the equivalent of saying people are getting poorer and poorer, year in and year out? Because this all sounds crazy to me, completely at odds with even the most basic empirical facts about economic growth.

Well sure. First, I will apologize in advance for presenting cheddar for our resident rabid anarcho-marxist. He fails to see that ancient ideological fallacies remain fallacies.

I would disagree in part with what Bolty said, in that yes certain production efficiency has impacted the consumer price. We've not experienced the expected price deflation in response to multiplicative increases in productivity. Our monetary policy precludes the possibility of deflation, and uses productivity as a means of moderating inflation. All the benefits are structured for owners/producers, and not consumers/employees.

Let's look at some historical charts then.

a) Labor participation rate.
b) Savings Rates vs Household debt
c) Inflation Rate
d) Real GDP

In a way, I'm worried that Martin Ford is correct. That the pace of technological change is displacing workers faster than the economy can absorb and reinvent the need for them. I have some issues with the idea that there is a monolithic 1% that dominate the 99%, but essentially the idea is correct that "workers" have not benefited in compensation at the same rate as the GDP has grown (mostly due to increases in productivity).

I think part of the problem is our tradition of an industrial 40 hour work week, and that we must go serve 45 years in the factory from 8-5 M-F, with 3 weeks off per year -- to earn an average living wage. Then, at about 65 you get taken care of until you die.

I don't want to be that bird in the gilded cage, whether that cage be managed by an oligarchy, government, or a collusion of both (through the banking system). To me, this doesn't seem to be freedom. Once I become dependent on the good will of whomever for my sustenance, I lose any hope of free will -- other than to choose to starve, freeze, and die of exposure.

It's not all bleak though. I think that the future will be more like what my cousin does, who scours her local area for collectible "artifacts" that she sells on e-bay. Through the WWW we have been brought the tools to engage in P2P worldwide commerce. It's just us older folks who don't quite get it yet.

[FireIceTalon]

First, I will apologize in advance for presenting cheddar for our resident rabid anarcho-marxist. He fails to see that ancient ideological fallacies remain fallacies.

Pfff. Except it is YOU that is driven by ideology to begin with. I view things through historical material facts, not idealism.

Then again, Capitalists are very good at creating their own fabricated history to define THEIR universe, independent of the one that REALLY exists and has occurred.

Also, trying to slur me by labeling my politics (inaccurately at that) only displays your ignorance. Anarcho-Communism is one of dozens of different tendencies among Marxists, and believe it or not, there are defining elements that within each that we disagree on, and these elements can make a big difference in our political views. Much in the same way Libertarians and Conservatives have their own factions. Perhaps you should do a little research first before throwing labels around recklessly, no offense.

[Jester]

This is a pretty interesting discussion here. I'm wondering what you mean, Jester, when you say that incomes are rising. It's been my understanding that historical income rise in the US is mostly due to an increasing number of women who enter the workforce, and that per person, incomes have actually been going down (adjusting for inflation). The real gain in income has actually come from the reduction in price for almost all common goods. Essentially, food is much cheaper than it was decades ago. Same with clothing, "basic" appliances, and so on. This naturally increases the buying power of every dollar earned, so in that sense, incomes have been rising.

I agree with you that in that sense - how much "stuff" can be purchased in exchange for an hour of "work" - incomes have been rising. What is puzzling to me is, in what other sense does one mean the term "income," and in what sense could they be falling?

Real incomes are defined by the relationship between wages and prices. All that matters is the ratio - there is no sense in which everyone can be "richer" unless they can buy more goods with their riches.

Personal annual incomes have been flatlined since 2000 - but hours worked has plummeted. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USAAHWEP . More is being made with less work time - confirming the prediction, I suppose, but since the US was already way over most OECD countries in hours worked, it's really just becoming more like France or Germany.

But why is everything cheaper? With food, advances in farming technology have most certainly made production and distribution of food cheaper. A solid theory as to the cause of the obesity crisis in the US is the drastic reduction of food prices over the last few decades, but I suppose that's a separate discussion. With clothing, appliances, and other expenses, it could be argued that the cheaper prices are due entirely to the exploitation of foreign economies (e.g. China) for cheap labor combined with low distribution costs (transport).

China (and lots of countries) are a part of this story. The drop in transportation and distribution costs due to containerization, information technology, and so forth are large. But the real key is that 1.2 billion people are making 30x per person today as they were 100 years ago, and 15x what they were 34 years ago. (And keeping their currency conveniently low, so that they consume less of it than they make, and hoard safe investments instead. But that's another story.)

What happens when the cheap sources of labor around the world dry up? What happens when the "Western" countries can't find 3rd world countries to abuse anymore?

While low-end manufacturing jobs are crap, they're largely better than what they replace. When "western countries" run out of cheap labour, then those poor countries we used to "exploit" will be wealthy - just like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used to be poor manufacturers, and are now rich. (Indeed, just like England, only further back.)

It does seem reasonable (at least to me, who is by no means an economist) that the world can reach a point eventually where due to productivity increases and automation, there is literally nothing for most of the population to do. Maybe we'll all just play World of Warcraft all day.

There are two outcomes here, one you seem to be presenting, and one Kandrathe is. They are similar in some ways, but totally at odds in some very key respects.

1) We become so good at making everything that nobody does any work, and everyone is rich (by today's standards).

2) We become so good at making everything that nobody has any work, and nearly everyone is poor (by today's standards) except for an owner-elite.

I think 1 is not only plausible, it's what our own society looks like from the vantage point of the 18th century. Shorter hours, more service jobs, longer lives, more amazing stuff to buy, less toil required to buy it. I think 2 is deeply mistaken, and would be like a medieval peasant imagining his village without the farmers employed, and thinking that's what 2012 will be like.

-Jester

[Jester]

I would disagree in part with what Bolty said, in that yes certain production efficiency has impacted the consumer price. We've not experienced the expected price deflation in response to multiplicative increases in productivity. Our monetary policy precludes the possibility of deflation, and uses productivity as a means of moderating inflation. All the benefits are structured for owners/producers, and not consumers/employees.

Except that wage increases are negotiated with inflation in mind, and that inflation has been mild and predictable since the Volcker shock. That's what the whole theory of rational expectations is about - inflation only matters if you can't see it coming. Otherwise, it's no more relevant than multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same number - it changes nothing.

And yes, we have seen multiplicative declines in prices of goods. Holding performance constant, what's the price of a television today, compared with the 1950s? A toaster? A cellular phone? A computer? A car? There's no comparison. I can buy more computing power than was available to the whole US government in the 1940s on my student budget. I can buy a car that outperforms every car in the 1950s for a fraction of the real price. I can buy a TV that's five times the area and a thousand times the image quality for far cheaper. Cell phones didn't even exist, and yet now, they're everywhere, have more computing power than 1980s computers, and are so cheap they're even widely owned in the third world.

Let's look at some historical charts then.

a) Labor participation rate.
b) Savings Rates vs Household debt
c) Inflation Rate
d) Real GDP

Real income up, year on year? Check. Labour force participation down? Yes, we're still in the great recession, and that graph only goes back to 2002. But as I pointed out to Bolty, rather amazing that GDP was barely dented, even as employment went so far down! I think solving the employment problem is priority one (way, way, way above taming non-existent inflation), but it's still reflective of remarkable productivity gain.

In a way, I'm worried that Martin Ford is correct. That the pace of technological change is displacing workers faster than the economy can absorb and reinvent the need for them. I have some issues with the idea that there is a monolithic 1% that dominate the 99%, but essentially the idea is correct that "workers" have not benefited in compensation at the same rate as the GDP has grown (mostly due to increases in productivity).

Marx said the same thing 160 years ago. He was wrong then, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Ford is wrong now.

The big factor for work and wages has been globalization. Low-skill workers in the developed world compete with rising-skill workers in the developing world, and not just China. That suppresses their wages, which will continue until the third world catches up, or they get some education (my preferred solution...) I think this is a fantastic thing, overall - I'd much rather see the world's poorest get richer, and first world wages stagnate, than the opposite.

I think part of the problem is our tradition of an industrial 40 hour work week, and that we must go serve 45 years in the factory from 8-5 M-F, with 3 weeks off per year -- to earn an average living wage. Then, at about 65 you get taken care of until you die.

I don't want to be that bird in the gilded cage, whether that cage be managed by an oligarchy, government, or a collusion of both (through the banking system). To me, this doesn't seem to be freedom.

Freedom and income are not the same, so maybe they do trade against one another. So long as the US does not accept a more vigorous system of social security, universal health care, education, and so on, people will continue to work longer and harder than their European counterparts, in order to buy that which the state provides in Europe. That's a preference choice - if you'd rather work more, and think that's important for freedom, that's fine.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Except that wage increases are negotiated with inflation in mind, and that inflation has been mild and predictable since the Volcker shock. That's what the whole theory of rational expectations is about - inflation only matters if you can't see it coming. Otherwise, it's no more relevant than multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same number - it changes nothing.

Well, but that is not what I'm trying to point out. Our monetary system does not allow deflation -- the fed manipulates the economy to keep the CPI consistent. So, while the price of manufactured goods decreases, yes, something else needs to increase to remove that benefit. Often, that means devaluing the currency. The natural trade off for high productivity would be lower prices, and yes, we see some of it due to many factors (e.g. cost of off shore labor, robotics, etc.). I'm suggesting that Government gets in the way in trying to control for a predictable 3% inflation rate. This causes distortions, that accumulate and eventually adjust, often catastrophically.

And, here is a further discussion of the "Luddite Fallacy" at the Economist.

[Jester]

Our monetary system does not allow deflation -- the fed manipulates the economy to keep the CPI consistent. So, while the price of manufactured goods decreases, yes, something else needs to increase to remove that benefit. Often, that means devaluing the currency. The natural trade off for high productivity would be lower prices, and yes, we see some of it due to many factors (e.g. cost of off shore labor, robotics, etc.). I'm suggesting that Government gets in the way in trying to control for a predictable 3% inflation rate. This causes distortions, that accumulate and eventually adjust, often catastrophically.

I don't understand what you're accusing the Fed of doing. They create *nominal* inflation, not real inflation (AKA poverty). The *real* cost of manufactured goods (and almost everything else) decreases. Those are two totally different things. Nothing has to "increase to remove that benefit" - I don't know why that would be true, nor do I know what goal they would be pursuing in doing that. They try to avoid *nominal* deflation, because debt deflation is just about the worst thing that can happen to a country. Nobody wants another great depression. This is all straight out of Milton Friedman (and Anna Schwartz.)

Regardless, once again, in a world of rational expectations, the only people hurt by predictable, moderate inflation are people who are keeping cash in their mattress, or their piggy bank. Everyone else will bake inflation into their contracts (the bank's interest rate, their wage contracts, their sovereign bonds, their mortgages, everything), and the impact of monetary policy will, in the long run, be zero.

Nor does this singling out of the Fed make much sense to me. Every country, not just the US, is experiencing the same productivity gains, the same technological change, and yet, is not on the US dollar, and is not affected by Fed policy.

For instance, Switzerland has seen the same gains in manufacturing productivity, but the Swiss Franc is pretty much Ron Paul's ultimate fantasy, a currency backed by limitless vaults of gold. Whatever the Fed is doing to the US, Switzerland is definitely not. But is Switzerland seeing a completely different economic transformation than the US? Not really. Is their economy so different, being free of such "distortions"? No. A few sectors (banking) do better with a very strong, stable currency, and others (manufacturing) do slightly worse, but in the end, everyone adapts.

As for The Economist, what they are saying makes no sense to me. There were no massive technological changes from 2007 to 2012. We are not living in a radically different society from five years ago, when employment was fine. What changed is the crisis, which has nothing to do with automation, or any other such thing - the Luddite Fallacy is still fallacious. It has to do with widespread demand shortfall caused by massive credit de-leveraging. Everything we see today follows from that - high unemployment, tight credit, high prices for both gold and (safe) sovereign bonds. Any talk of "machines becoming workers" is pure science fiction. Even if I'm wrong, and by 2025 human labour is obsolete, I'm dead certain the 2008-2012 crisis has absolutely nothing to do with robot butlers taking our jobs.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Marx said the same thing 160 years ago. He was wrong then, and I'm pretty sure Mr. Ford is wrong now.
-Jester

False, very very false. Marx was in fact, very much in favor of technological advancement, and this is one of the reasons why he denounced the 'utopian socialists' that were born out of the French Revolution - they wanted a perfectly constructed agrarian society straight out of their heads, and nothing more. They were very much like the capitalists of today: very reactionary and living in a Idealistic dream world.

What he WASN'T in favor of, was the exploitation of man by man as a means of said technological advancement. "Communism deprives no man the right to appropriate the products of society, all that is deprives him of is the right to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations"

Workers in many developing nations struggle to put food on the table, what makes you think they can afford an education? The countries we "exploit" may get richer, but all that wealth goes straight to the top, it says absolutely NOTHING about how that wealth is distributed. Multi-nationals are reaping the benefits of Imperialism and outsourcing, not the working class. But as a Marxist, I am more concerned with who controls the means to production than I am material wealth or income. Lastly, workers of developed nations only compete with workers of developing nations because both live in a Capitalist framework that exploits and divides them along ethnic, cultural, or patriotic lines - the truth is, their class interests are one and the same, and diametrically antagonist to the multi-nationals that essentially own them.

[Jester]

"Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc."

-Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Chp. 1

Mechanization goes up, wages go down. The bourgeois reorganization of production creates tremendous wealth for the bourgeois, but poverty, oppression and alienation for the working class. These contradictions in material conditions lead to the inevitable conflict between classes, which then leads to revolution, and so on and so forth until the Communist New Jerusalem.

That about right? Or am I misreading the testaments?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

It isn't the machinery itself he is detesting, but rather the ownership of said machinery.

Marx was actually very fascinated by Capitalism, for all his critique of it, and if he truly disapproved of technological advancement, it would go without saying he would have preferred society to stay stagnant in the feudal era - but of course he didn't, and he regarded Capitalism as a historical triumph over the previous order. Capitalism was necessary from his view, to create the material conditions for Socialism. Marx was a humanist, and thus a Communist, which is in part where his critiques of Capitalism stem from. But yes, it would be pretty inaccurate to say he didn't favor the advancement of technology. That, and every Marxist worth his salt today is all for the advancement of technology also, I have never met one that isn't. What we deplore is the exploitation of one class and segment of society by another.

[Jester]

It isn't the machinery itself he is detesting, but rather the ownership of said machinery.

...

But yes, it would be pretty inaccurate to say he didn't favor the advancement of technology.

And if I'd said any of that, you'd be right to criticize me for it. But I didn't.

I claimed that Marx predicted that the replacement of workers by machinery would lead to the impoverishment and unemployment of workers. He did predict that. He was wrong.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Dude, he is speaking in the context of who owns the machinery. If the Bourgeois own the machinery, then yes, he is absolutely right and demonstrably so: there were many impoverished and unemployed workers back then, and there still are today. If the workers own the machines, it is a completely different ball game - because they have self-determination and are not subject to the will of a ruling class - goods would be created and distributed based on social need instead of profitability. It would seem silly to me for anyone to detest a machine anyways, since it is a inanimate object. The ruling class creates more machinery to drive wages down, but this only matters because the ruling class OWNS the machines (the means of production). It has nothing to do with the machines themselves, and everything to do with social relationships in relation to the machines.

[Jester]

Dude, he is speaking in the context of who owns the machinery. If the Bourgeois own the machinery, then yes, he is absolutely right and demonstrably so: there were many impoverished and unemployed workers back then, and there still are today. If the workers own the machines, it is a completely different ball game - because they have self-determination and are not subject to the will of a ruling class. It would seem silly to me for anyone to detest a machine anyways, since it is a inanimate object. The ruling class creates more machinery to drive wages down, but this only matters because the ruling class OWNS the means to production (the machines in this case). It has nothing to do with the machines themselves, and everything to do with private property ownership.

Do you still think you're arguing with something I've said? Because I can't see any trace of my own statement in there.

All I said was that Marx predicted the impoverishment of workers through mechanization. You can add "during capitalism" if it makes you happier.

What I care about is that he did predict it. And he was wrong. End of story.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

You are way over-simplifying the argument for your purposes. Marx was NOT against technological advancement. End of story.

We still have many impoverished workers in the world today, in Capitalism, just as we did in the 19th century - because capital exploits labor. So essentially, he was right regardless of his views on technology. Yes, working conditions and wages are better now than back then, but that has nothing to do with Capitalism getting better or becoming a more humane system (because rest assured, it isn't), and everything to do with the formation of Unions, social and labor movements, struggles, and yes, technological advances.

[Jester]

You are way over-simplifying the argument for your purposes. Marx was NOT against technological advancement. End of story.

Where you got the idea that I said "Marx was against technological advancement" or "Marx detests machinization" or something like that, I am without the first clue.

As I have emphasized several times now, I did not say any such thing. If that is your argument, it isn't an argument with me.

-Jester

[eppie]

You are way over-simplifying the argument for your purposes. Marx was NOT against technological advancement. End of story.

Where you got the idea that I said "Marx was against technological advancement" or "Marx detests machinization" or something like that, I am without the first clue.

As I have emphasized several times now, I did not say any such thing. If that is your argument, it isn't an argument with me.

-Jester

I happen to know for a fact that Marx was against the internet.

[Bolty]

I happen to know for a fact that Marx was against the internet.

Epic Rap Battles of History (link nsfw, language): Al Gore vs Karl Marx?

Some of those links kandrathe provided are frightening beyond measure. From the Zerohedge site:

A staggering 38% of workers between the ages of 45-54 have less than $10,000 of retirement savings and a mind boggling 29% of workers over 55 have less than ten grand in their retirement savings, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. It is no longer a matter of people deciding whether to save, it is a matter of saving or else living in abject poverty in their old age.

Guess who has two thumbs and is going to be paying for all those baby boomers and their lives of excess? This guy! *points to self*

I blame Tal.

[kandrathe]

A staggering 38% of workers between the ages of 45-54 have less than $10,000 of retirement savings and a mind boggling 29% of workers over 55 have less than ten grand in their retirement savings, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. It is no longer a matter of people deciding whether to save, it is a matter of saving or else living in abject poverty in their old age.

Absolutamundo. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2012...saving.pdf

I'll try to find a credible link to another potential nightmare... and this is why the national debt really matters. Currently we have about 3 workers for every retiree. By 2035 we'll be more like 2 workers for every retiree. So much for the great society pyramid scheme.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr10.pdf Page 10 --

"There were about 3.0 workers for every OASDI beneficiary in 2009. This
ratio had been extremely stable, remaining between 3.2 and 3.4 from 1974
through 2008, and is lower for 2009 due to the economic recession. The projected
future increase in the cost rate reflects a projected decline in the number
of covered workers per beneficiary. The ratio of workers to beneficiaries
is projected to decline, even as the economy recovers, because the workers of
the baby-boom generation are being replaced in the workforce by relatively
low-birth-rate generations. This ratio reaches 2.1 by 2035 when the baby boom
generation will have largely retired, with a further gradual decline
thereafter due to increasing longevity."

Or, a the Herald-Tribune has pictures -- http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.d...e=graphics

[kandrathe]

I don't understand what you're accusing the Fed of doing.

Enacting a monetary policy which persistently attempts to keep short-term real interest rates low that eventually will lead to high inflation and high nominal interest rates, with no permanent increases in the growth of output or decreases in unemployment. And, as I've said before, the published government rates are politically distorted.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat...ion-charts

I'm still seeing that the economy is trapped in boom bust cycles more related to the price of a barrel of oil. http://www.economist.com/node/21549941

Nor does this singling out of the Fed make much sense to me. Every country, not just the US, is experiencing the same productivity gains, the same technological change, and yet, is not on the US dollar, and is not affected by Fed policy.

Aye, globalization. In some respects we've been the 10 ton hammer, and all the ball peens have less impact. What has Switzerlands CPI looked like over the past decade? Are they in a depression?

[Jester]

Enacting a monetary policy which persistently attempts to keep short-term real interest rates low that eventually will lead to high inflation and high nominal interest rates, with no permanent increases in the growth of output or decreases in unemployment. And, as I've said before, the published government rates are politically distorted.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_dat...ion-charts

I think Krugman put it best. What's the price of a subscription to Shadowstats today? $175. What was the price 6 years ago? $175. Amazing how real prices go down by 10% ever year.

Shadowstats is rubbish. They have no useful contribution. Their "alternate" methodology is worse than useless, and leads to the crazy conclusion that the US has had sharply negative growth for a good 30 years, getting worse all the time, to the point where the US should be no richer than Chad. The BLS has offered a thorough debunking here. They exist to do nothing more than provide support for conspiracy theorists who want to think the government is cooking the books about everything.

If you want to construct alternate indices of inflation, the data is all available. The BLS is not hiding anything. Other organizations calculate inflation independently, and except for Shadowstats, they all line up approximately together: see the Billion Price Index, done with online scans. Are they all just politically cooked?

But, of course, some commentators are profoundly committed to two propositions: That things are vastly worse than they seem, and that the government is creating inflation. If one already believe those two things as articles of faith, then surely a website saying just that is attractive indeed - maybe attractive enough that they pay them for the data.

I'm still seeing that the economy is trapped in boom bust cycles more related to the price of a barrel of oil. http://www.economist.com/node/21549941

So, growth was high in 2008-2009, and should be slowing down now? Because that's what the graph tells me, if oil is what's driving all this...

What has Switzerlands CPI looked like over the past decade? Are they in a depression?

1) Very, very low inflation. Under 1% annually. Currently experiencing deflation. A central banker's wet dream.

2) Their economy is currently shrinking, and has been growing at well under 1% since the crisis.

-Jester