News that makes you say WTF! (17 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

I wouldn't say that inflation is needed per se, but that it is a by-product of other positive developments or policies. To relinquish these policies simply out of fear of inflation would be detrimental to a huge variety of other areas; employment, growth, etc. That's not to say that it can't have positive effects as well, such as providing incentives to spend and invest, but promoting inflation as an end in itself would in most situations be ridiculous. The dangers inflation poses however are very often simply exaggerated, it's only really a problem if wages don't rise adequately (as with minimum wagein the US) or it gets really out of bounds and hyperinflation ensues. What's far more damaging of course is deflation, which can ruin a whole economy and is very difficult to get out of once it has started to run its course.

Every economy needs deflation, it's simply part of the business cycle. To stop it or "level it off" with cheap money policies does nothing to help in the long run, especially when you're in the US and you already have limited investment in producing real goods and new job opportunities other than flipping burgers.

Speaking of flipping burgers, those are unskilled jobs and paying them more only means the costs are passed to the consumer, so once again it's a zero-sum game and a massive circle jerk of idiocy.

What, then, is it supposed to be exactly?

- - - Updated - - -



It's not that you need it as such, it's that you can't stop it even if you tried to. It's just how a market works. You'll always have inflation.

No, that's not how a market is supposed to work. You shouldn't be printing money endlessly to support government spending and wall street bankers. Eventually your currency will be worthless.

To answer the question, we "need" inflation to cover bad wall street bets, a terribly poor economy, and a political class that have special interests to serve.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hust]

About the flipping burgers part

 

[Seven]

No, that's not how a market is supposed to work. You shouldn't be printing money endlessly to support government spending and wall street bankers. Eventually your currency will be worthless.

To answer the question, we "need" inflation to cover bad wall street bets, a terribly poor economy, and a political class that have special interests to serve.

Printing money is only one part of inflation IMO though. And I wasn't really talking about that part either. What I was referring to is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built-in_inflation. The way the market works today, this is unavoidable.

 

[ZoSo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-bed-wants-woman-in.html?ito=social-facebook

wat, nah that doesn't happen BS

 

[Seven]

It's weird how women have this incessant need to compete with other women.

 

[ZoSo]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...-head-transplant/story-fn5fsgyc-1227301771920

somehow I don't think it's gonna work lol

true WTF

 

[Fred]

Every economy needs deflation, it's simply part of the business cycle. To stop it or "level it off" with cheap money policies does nothing to help in the long run, especially when you're in the US and you already have limited investment in producing real goods and new job opportunities other than flipping burgers.

Speaking of flipping burgers, those are unskilled jobs and paying them more only means the costs are passed to the consumer, so once again it's a zero-sum game and a massive circle jerk of idiocy.



No, that's not how a market is supposed to work. You shouldn't be printing money endlessly to support government spending and wall street bankers. Eventually your currency will be worthless.

To answer the question, we "need" inflation to cover bad wall street bets, a terribly poor economy, and a political class that have special interests to serve.

I agree, and the same could be said of minimum wage. If you impose a minimum wage on an economy, the additional cost of labor will no doubt be passed on to customers, and/or organizations will cut jobs. I hate nothing more than policies/regulation that is passed to make us feel better about ourselves, while having no tangible benefit to society.

 

[Seven]

I agree, and the same could be said of minimum wage. If you impose a minimum wage on an economy, the additional cost of labor will no doubt be passed on to customers, and/or organizations will cut jobs. I hate nothing more than policies/regulation that is passed to make us feel better about ourselves, while having no tangible benefit to society.

That's great and all, but there are only a couple of meaningful jobs out there. Insurance agents for example don't really work all that much. In terms of efficiency their job could probably be done in about 5 hours. We have long stopped equating pay with labour, it's just a matter of time before we finally acknowledge that much and change our society as a whole.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

That's great and all, but there are only a couple of meaningful jobs out there. Insurance agents for example don't really work all that much. In terms of efficiency their job could probably be done in about 5 hours. We have long stopped equating pay with labour, it's just a matter of time before we finally acknowledge that much and change our society as a whole.

what? every little expense in a publicly traded company has to be justified and inefficiencies drive its stock down, if your input outweighs your output you're out the door quicker than you can say 'inflation'

 

[Seven]

what? every little expense in a publicly traded company has to be justified and inefficiencies drive its stock down, if your input outweighs your output you're out the door quicker than you can say 'inflation'

Yeah.. I'm afraid that's blatantly untrue. They measure the output of their employees, sure. But it's all crap. 95% of the desk jobs out there are 2 hours of actual work per day. Having lots of employees also makes companies powerful, so there is a much darker reason they employ so many people.

This complete disconnect between the jobs people do and any meaningful result is starting to hurt is. It's an evolution that has been ongoing for quite some time, but right now we decide if we really do want to employ these people or just go down the basic income route. I vote for the latter.

Also, the fact that you have working self driving cars, but somehow self driving trucks are not in production right now tells you everything you need to know really.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Yeah.. I'm afraid that's blatantly untrue. They measure the output of their employees, sure. But it's all crap. 95% of the desk jobs out there are 2 hours of actual work per day. Having lots of employees also makes companies powerful, so there is a much darker reason they employ so many people.

output is not hourly but rather dollar wise, and your assessment is seasonal, job business goes through fluctuations for most, evens up eventually. also insurance agents are salaried and not hourly. Actually the more employees you have the less attractive you are to investors.

 

[Seven]

output is not hourly but rather dollar wise, and your assessment is seasonal job business go through fluctuations for most, evens up eventually. also insurance agents are salaried and not hourly. Actually the more employees you have the less attractive you are to investors.

I didn't mean brokers, rather people who work in the insurance industry and do desk jobs for the big insurers, my bad.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I didn't mean brokers, rather people who work in the insurance industry and do desk jobs for the big insurers, my bad.

what we need is a good world war on the real though you have brought up the sector imo that has progressed the least over the last century: transportation.

 

[Seven]

what we need is a good world war on the real though you have brought up the sector imo that has progressed the least over the last century: transportation.

Over the last century, yes. But it will change a lot in a decade. If it doesn't, that will only be because of legislation and people with other interests than the public. Once it becomes clear that you no longer have fatal traffic accidents with self driving cars, they will become ubiquitous regardless of attempts to stop them. And at that point the way we have structured our society will change.

 

[Dostoevsky]

what we need is a good world war

That was always the solution for the US and their deficit.

 

[Fred]

Yeah.. I'm afraid that's blatantly untrue. They measure the output of their employees, sure. But it's all crap. 95% of the desk jobs out there are 2 hours of actual work per day. Having lots of employees also makes companies powerful, so there is a much darker reason they employ so many people.

This complete disconnect between the jobs people do and any meaningful result is starting to hurt is. It's an evolution that has been ongoing for quite some time, but right now we decide if we really do want to employ these people or just go down the basic income route. I vote for the latter.

Also, the fact that you have working self driving cars, but somehow self driving trucks are not in production right now tells you everything you need to know really.

I don't think that's true at all. Any company that would bear the unnecessary cost of employing people it didn't need would be driven out of the market by competitors who are more efficient and can get the same work done at a lower cost. I work in hr, and let me tell you something, the job analysis, job design projects most organizations conduct periodically is precisely to find out what kind of jobs/employees are no longer necessary for an organizations operations. Unless its a governmental entity/non profit , no organization would ever pay an employee more than his output is worth.

 

[Seven]

I don't think that's true at all. Any company that would bear the unnecessary cost of employing people it didn't need would be driven out of the market by competitors who are more efficient and can get the same work done at a lower cost. I work in hr, and let me tell you something, the job analysis, job design projects most organizations conduct periodically is precisely to find out what kind of jobs/employees are no longer necessary for an organizations operations. Unless its a governmental entity/non profit , no organization would ever pay an employee more than his output is worth.

Your last sentence is something else though. I'm not saying they overpay them. I say they work two hours a day. And even if they do work more it's a bullshit job anyway. Not to say your job is useless, but the enormous rise of hr jobs is significant really. We're always creating jobs out of thin air instead of acknowledging that maybe working less is the way to go.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Your last sentence is something else though. I'm not saying they overpay them. I say they work two hours a day. And even if they do work more it's a bullshit job anyway. Not to say your job is useless, but the enormous rise of hr jobs is significant really. We're always creating jobs out of thin air instead of acknowledging that maybe working less is the way to go.

WTF go watch the game

 

[Martin]

WTF go watch the game

yes, dad :|

 

[Bjerknes]

Printing money is only one part of inflation IMO though. And I wasn't really talking about that part either. What I was referring to is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built-in_inflation. The way the market works today, this is unavoidable.

Oh, well yes, under this onslaught of Keynesianism it's an unavoidable fact in the marketplace. Of course everyone expects inflation to persist in the future when costs continue to rise in spite of weak economic growth. That's why Keynesian policies don't work, they create self-perpetuating inflation from all angles of the economy. Recession possible? Print money. Worried about inflation? Increase the minimum wage. Have too much debt? Issue more to pay the interest. See how that works?

So yes, it is indeed unavoidable when tenured nitwit professors get together with wall street bankers to create economic policy.

I agree, and the same could be said of minimum wage. If you impose a minimum wage on an economy, the additional cost of labor will no doubt be passed on to customers, and/or organizations will cut jobs. I hate nothing more than policies/regulation that is passed to make us feel better about ourselves, while having no tangible benefit to society.

Indeed, and you're right, businesses will cut jobs. Right now we have more people out of the labor force than in 50 years. It's pretty simple -- increase wages above the market clearing equilibrium, and naturally job losses will rise. So not only do you create self-perpetuating inflation, you also do it in an environment of lower demand.

How stupid is that?

what? every little expense in a publicly traded company has to be justified and inefficiencies drive its stock down, if your input outweighs your output you're out the door quicker than you can say 'inflation'

Yeah.. I'm afraid that's blatantly untrue. They measure the output of their employees, sure. But it's all crap. 95% of the desk jobs out there are 2 hours of actual work per day. Having lots of employees also makes companies powerful, so there is a much darker reason they employ so many people.

This complete disconnect between the jobs people do and any meaningful result is starting to hurt is. It's an evolution that has been ongoing for quite some time, but right now we decide if we really do want to employ these people or just go down the basic income route. I vote for the latter.

Also, the fact that you have working self driving cars, but somehow self driving trucks are not in production right now tells you everything you need to know really.

I disagree, unless you're referring to companies who only participate in government contract work. Then I would agree. I know several folks who make 90K a year and only put in two hours of hard work each day just because they are paid by their fucking government contract. One is as dumb as a box of rocks! But outside of this worthless government industry, publicly traded firms are driven to cut costs anywhere and everywhere. I have several employees under my team and all actually do put in 8 hours of constant work every single day. If volumes decrease substantially on a consistent basis, then jobs will be eliminated. This happens daily around the globe in real industry.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that's true at all. Any company that would bear the unnecessary cost of employing people it didn't need would be driven out of the market by competitors who are more efficient and can get the same work done at a lower cost. I work in hr, and let me tell you something, the job analysis, job design projects most organizations conduct periodically is precisely to find out what kind of jobs/employees are no longer necessary for an organizations operations. Unless its a governmental entity/non profit , no organization would ever pay an employee more than his output is worth.

Yup.