Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm.Obamanomics is better than Reaganomics even if wages are stagnant under the former because ... I dunno, because Republicans are to blame for whatever economic indicators might suggest Obamanomic isn't working so well? Snidely implying that I am saying that Republicans are to blame for any and every poor economic indicator, does not effectively add to your argument.
I can’t seem to reply to Bryan’s points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of “spam”.
Must be a message from God that Bryan is right… or perhaps that I shouldn’t waste my time responding to his posts.
I can't seem to reply to Bryan's points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of "spam".It may be due to problems with links you provide. We've had discussions about this in the past: if a link doesn't work, try splitting it up so someone can enter it manually, or a link shortener like bit.ly. (They will provide you with shortened links). If you don't have any links, then the spam filter may be keying off of words you are using in the post. Try rewording. Unfortunately the spam filter is a black box so I have no idea how it works. Also the forum software does sometimes just have glitches, particularly with some browsers. (I think IE seemed to be problematic for Occam, IIRC).
Blaming falling wages on Obama? Hmmm.Obamanomics is better than Reaganomics even if wages are stagnant under the former because ... I dunno, because Republicans are to blame for whatever economic indicators might suggest Obamanomic isn't working so well? Snidely implying that I am saying that Republicans are to blame for any and every poor economic indicator, does not effectively add to your argument. What's my argument? My argument is that your argument looks weak because it's ignoring inconvenient truth. You can address the weakness or dismiss it by saying that pointing it out doesn't strengthen my argument. I'd prefer you address the weakness. How are the results of Obamanomics better than Reagonomics with real wages and unemployment figured in?
I have a question.
What are Obamanomics?
Isn’t Obamanomics just a largely unchanged continuation of Bush Economic Policy?
What are some specific Obama economic policies?
Last I heard Wall St. was doing well. I’m assuming that is because of the largely unchanged economic policies of George Bush.
Obama or the next President is not going to be able to create jobs of any significance until legislation is passed that
has a protectionist tinge to it.
Bryan mentions “innovation”. What innovation? Business and Money innovation?
What do you predict is going to be the next innovation that creates millions of jobs that last until retirement?
The main job creator in this country since 1880 or so was manufacturing.
That’s gone.
What innovation is going to bring millions of jobs?
The only innovation I have seen in the past 20 years is businesses “innovating” their workforces overseas
and importing foreign made goods by the Ocean full!
NAFTA and CAFTA and SAFTA, to name a few! That’s innovation. That’s why we have a trade deficit!
That’s why we have millions of unemployed people!
Oh, it’s not you say? Then what innovation is going to put millions of people back to good paying jobs that last until retirement?
I have a question. What are Obamanomics?Pretty sure he's talking to you, TimB. Oh, wait. There's this:
Bryan mentions “innovation". What innovation? Business and Money innovation?All kinds. Innovation that stimulates buying. The latest popular Apple toy. Flat screen televisions. The new car everyone needs. Cost-effective renewable energy (the kind that competes effectively without subsidies).
What do you predict is going to be the next innovation that creates millions of jobs that last until retirement?I predict that an Idaho entrepreneur will develop a zombie theme park that will draw millions of tourists annually to the greater Boise area. Just kidding. I'm not the Amazing Criswell, and it is my belief that innovation is largely unpredictable. You can't count on it. You can't make it happen by throwing money at it, even though the availability of capital encourages it. Yet at the same time, if you don't get innovation a less robust economy results. Entrepreneurs are always trying to guess at or develop the next big thing. Some succeed and make money. Others fail and lose money. We owe the existence of a robust economy to the successful ones.
The main job creator in this country since 1880 or so was manufacturing.Right, and that's not going to be the case except in cases where the domestic labor force is, on balance, more cost-effective than in foreign countries. One strategy nations use to deal with the loss of labor jobs is to boost the presence of higher job skills in the general population. President Obama talks about that one quite a bit. Unfortunately students in the U.S. are more interested in cultural studies degrees than in engineering or the like. A degree in cultural studies does little to sustain the presence of domestic manufacturing.
I have a question. What are Obamanomics?Pretty sure he's talking to you, TimB. No, I'll take all comers. Go with it Bry.
I can't seem to reply to Bryan's points in individual posts, my attempts are resulting in lost posts due to indications of "spam".It may be due to problems with links you provide. We've had discussions about this in the past: if a link doesn't work, try splitting it up so someone can enter it manually, or a link shortener like bit.ly. (They will provide you with shortened links). If you don't have any links, then the spam filter may be keying off of words you are using in the post. Try rewording. Unfortunately the spam filter is a black box so I have no idea how it works. Also the forum software does sometimes just have glitches, particularly with some browsers. (I think IE seemed to be problematic for Occam, IIRC). I had a link so that must have been the problem.
I have a question. What are Obamanomics? Isn't Obamanomics just a largely unchanged continuation of Bush Economic Policy? What are some specific Obama economic policies?...(I have the same problems as you re: Obama's lack of effective action to curb abuses by the financial industry.) "Obamanomics" is a subtle dig at Obama's economic successes and lack thereof. It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve). If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.) Obama's economic policies, like most of his policies, are pragmatic rather than ideological. See the American Jobs Act proposed two years ago but never voted on by Congress. According to independent analysis, it "would have created 1.9 million jobs and boosted growth by two percent if passed when originally introduced". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-frederica-wilson/american-jobs-act_b_3639181.html It appears to me that the Tea Partisan/Republican controlled House will never allow any meaningful job promotion legislation, as long as there is a chance that Obama may get credit for any positive economic gains. Far from being the far left winger he is made out to be (perhaps because of advocating tax increases on those who are doing well) Obama has proposed and signed into law significant cuts in spending. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending Spending under Obama has grown 1.4% annually (lowest rate since Eisenhower) compared to well over 8% annually under Reagan. (An irony of Obamanomics is that Obama has pushed for reasoned spending cuts during a recession, yet he is known to many Americans as a Socialist threat.) Reaganomics had the advantage of Reagan being "the Great Communicator". He was facile in promoting his simplistic jingoistic and disingenuous economic message. (Perhaps because that is the only kind of message most Americans take the time to process.) Obama OTOH is stymied often times by his pragmatism which can be a complex approach, indeed, sort of like the real world. Reagan just had to say "Cut taxes and the economy will grow". Of course he failed to say "Increase spending and the economy will grow." Though he did dramatically increase spending. And he did not try to explain the intricacies of when cutting taxes may enhance revenue and when cutting taxes will probably not (according to the Laffer Curve, upon which Reaganomics is purportedly based).
"Obamanomics" is a subtle dig at Obama's economic successes and lack thereof. It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve). If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.)There's not much doubt the "Laffer Curve" is legit. The problem is figuring out where it bends and how and whether it changes as conditions change. But the economics of Reagan goes back much further than the Laffer curve, including the ideas of Hayek (Hayek won a Nobel Prize for economics just as did Keynes before him).
Obama's economic policies, like most of his policies, are pragmatic rather than ideological.Hmmm. I doubt that. On the surface, the stimulus package is straight Keynesianism. But looking at the details its boilerplate liberalism once you get past some tax cuts. I'll grant that I'd have little problem with working on infrastructure projects if the projects were actually ready to go (Keynesian stimulus is supposed to short term stuff, not an ongoing program), but most of the infrastructure stuff was fixing old things rather than building new things that help spur innovation. Obama blew the rest of his election honeymoon popularity on health care reform. Businesses have (wisely) focused on how to deal with that law instead of focusing on growth and innovation. The focus on health care damaged the recovery and moved us closer to a slow-growth/high unemployment European economy.
See the American Jobs Act proposed two years ago but never voted on by Congress. According to independent analysis, it "would have created 1.9 million jobs and boosted growth by two percent if passed when originally introduced". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-frederica-wilson/american-jobs-act_b_3639181.htmlGrowth based on Keynesian models. The reality of the results of the 2009 stimulus bill ought to inject some doubt into the accuracy of those models.
It appears to me that the Tea Partisan/Republican controlled House will never allow any meaningful job promotion legislation, as long as there is a chance that Obama may get credit for any positive economic gains.We spiked the budget way up high for two years and couldn't get the unemployment rate much under 8 percent. You want to keep doing that until it finally works? Even most Keynesians regard accumulated debt as a potentially huge economic problem (Paul Krugman's one of the exceptions). But Krugman's condemned the administration's policies as an epic failure. Europe's Keynesians were deficit and debt hawks. Not that they succeeded in instituting any kind of "austerity" that solved their looming fiscal crises coming on the backs of their welfare states.
Far from being the far left winger he is made out to be (perhaps because of advocating tax increases on those who are doing well) Obama has proposed and signed into law significant cuts in spending. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending Spending under Obama has grown 1.4% annually (lowest rate since Eisenhower) compared to well over 8% annually under Reagan. (An irony of Obamanomics is that Obama has pushed for reasoned spending cuts during a recession, yet he is known to many Americans as a Socialist threat.)You've been bamboozled on this one. Measuring Obama's budget increases by annualized increase is very misleading. It's misleading because the increase during his administration is frontloaded and backloaded (spending programs that don't really take off until later). FY2009 was sky high and according to budget tradition goes on Bush's record. But 2009 was an anomaly. A huge hunk of that spending came in the form of loans to various financial institutions and the vast bulk of it has been paid back over time. The repaid money counts as "negative spending" that makes subsequent budgets appear smaller than they are. You get a much more accurate picture of spending by averaging the overall increase by four-year terms. Even putting all the 2009 spending on Bush, Obama's spending increase is (narrowly) the highest rate since Eisenhower. Think about that annualized rate. Double spending in your first year, cut that increase down by half the next year and then cut down to the original level for the next two years and you end up with a miniscule annualized rate (about 17 percent annually). But the truth is you spent a bunch. Play with some numbers experimentally and you'll quickly see what I mean.
All kinds. Innovation that stimulates buying. The latest popular Apple toy. Flat screen televisions. The new car everyone needs. Cost-effective renewable energy (the kind that competes effectively without subsidies).What's holding innovation back right now like you claimed? Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy? They're probably made with subsidies. But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour. Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and "innovative".
I predict that an Idaho entrepreneur will develop a zombie theme park that will draw millions of tourists annually to the greater Boise area. Just kidding. I'm not the Amazing Criswell, and it is my belief that innovation is largely unpredictable. You can't count on it. You can't make it happen by throwing money at it, even though the availability of capital encourages it. Yet at the same time, if you don't get innovation a less robust economy results. Entrepreneurs are always trying to guess at or develop the next big thing. Some succeed and make money. Others fail and lose money. We owe the existence of a robust economy to the successful ones.From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn't then innovation could raise us up out of this recession. I guess I was wrong.
Right, and that's not going to be the case except in cases where the domestic labor force is, on balance, more cost-effective than in foreign countries. One strategy nations use to deal with the loss of labor jobs is to boost the presence of higher job skills in the general population. President Obama talks about that one quite a bit. Unfortunately students in the U.S. are more interested in cultural studies degrees than in engineering or the like. A degree in cultural studies does little to sustain the presence of domestic manufacturing.I will have to get back to this last paragraph. Gotta go. Some interesting points.
What's holding innovation back right now like you claimed?http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/
Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy? They're probably made with subsidies.Yes, the Chinese subsidize their solar panels, and we offer subsidies to those who purchase and use them.
But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour. Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and "innovative".Subsidies don't count as much of an innovation. China gives up a portion of its benefit from selling solar panels by subsidizing them. We double the foolishness by subsidizing purchases from China's subsidized market. But it's not that bad an idea to buy Chinese on solar panels if you're getting a good value. I'm hearing that China's efforts to make its products cheaply have resulted in a flawed product that goes bad prematurely. Bad products aren't worth as much as good products. So, in answer to your question, buy Chinese solar panels if and only if you're getting a good value. Take advantage of their subsidies. The drawback comes from the fact that solar power is also subsidized in the U.S. If solar power was more cost-effective then the picture would change (the innovation we're waiting on is a superior system for storing the energy).
From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn't then innovation could raise us up out of this recession. I guess I was wrong.Maybe you didn't do such a great job of framing your question. You asked me to predict the next big innovation. The answer is different if you ask what smothers innovation.
What's holding innovation back right now like you claimed?http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/ Where does this go? Can you answer my question without a link? What's holding back innovation? The innovation you said you can't predict or make sense of. What's holding back that innovation?
Is it ok if we buy the Chinese made Solar panels for renewable energy? They're probably made with subsidies. Bryan- Yes, the Chinese subsidize their solar panels, and we offer subsidies to those who purchase and use them.I'm confused. You don't like American subsidies, but you are willing to buy Chinese Subsidized Solar Panels? Because you just previously said "renewable energy, as long as it isn't subsidized".
But the good news is they are made with workers who get paid $3.oo an hour. Do you think we should find an innovative way to get people to make solar panels here in the US for $3.oo an hour? That way we can be competitive and "innovative". Bryan- Subsidies don't count as much of an innovation.Great! What counts as an innovation? And again; how is this innovation that is being smothered going to uplift the economy that you are so disappointed with? And you didn't even touch upon the question here.
From your earlier posts I thought you had insightful ideas on why innovation is being smothered under Obama and how if it wasn't then innovation could raise us up out of this recession. I guess I was wrong. Bryan- Maybe you didn't do such a great job of framing your question. You asked me to predict the next big innovation. The answer is different if you ask what smothers innovation.I asked you two different questions Bryan. Keep up and switch gears! If you would like I can go back and cite the 2 questions contained in 2 adjoining posts. The first question had a follow up comment/question. Hence 2 questions. Please just request and I'll be happy to point them out for you. Do you still wish to take a crack at the question: "What's smothering innovation?", or would you like to further obfuscate? Try not to post another reply that leads to another post in this thread.
"Obamanomics" is a subtle dig at Obama's economic successes and lack thereof. It is, however, IMO, superior to Reaganomics in that it has not been transformed into a simplistic dogmatic ideology (one disingenuously based on an unproven theoretical formula, i.e. the Laffer Curve). If you look closely at all at the Laffer Curve, you will see that it could just as well be used to justify tax increases, in order to optimize revenue, even now, should some Huckster wish to do so.)There's not much doubt the "Laffer Curve" is legit. The problem is figuring out where it bends and how and whether it changes as conditions change. But the economics of Reagan goes back much further than the Laffer curve, including the ideas of Hayek (Hayek won a Nobel Prize for economics just as did Keynes before him). What Reagan espoused about Reaganomics (and what his disciples, since, dogmatically believe they are following) is quite different from the economic policies that were in reality put in place during his administration. Reaganomics quickly turned Keynesian. "...(1) a penchant for continuing deficits, (2) a devotion to fiat paper money and at least moderate inflation, (3) adherence to increased government spending, and (4) an eternal fondness for higher taxes, to lower deficits a wee bit, but more importantly, to inflict some bracing pain on the greedy, selfish, and short-sighted American public. The Reagan Administration managed to institutionalize these goodies, seemingly permanently on the American scene." (italics mine) http://mises.ca/posts/articles/the-death-of-reaganomics-keynesian-redux/ Was the Great Communicator a Great Bamboozler? It seems so.
What's holding innovation back right now like you claimed?http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/186804/ Where does this go? It goes to centerforinquiry.net, where I already answered the question. The link goes directly to my post. You should refuse to click it on principle or something.
Can you answer my question without a link? What's holding back innovation?I've already answered the question in this thread in my own words. I've taken the trouble to point out exactly where. It would be rude for you to expect more than that.
I'm confused. You don't like American subsidies, but you are willing to buy Chinese Subsidized Solar Panels?Sure, if it's a good value. The Chinese subsidy hurts China. They're taking the risk that selling for under market value will allow them to corner the market. When a company sells something for less than its market value it's smart to buy it.
Because you just previously said "renewable energy, as long as it isn't subsidized".Right, that's talking about the necessity of subsidies to even make solar competitive against other energy sources. As long as solar energy is itself subsidized ("Install solar panels for your home and receive a $300 annual tax break!") it's not competitive on a level playing field. That affects whether the Chinese solar panels represent a good value.
I asked you two different questions Bryan. Keep up and switch gears! If you would like I can go back and cite the 2 questions contained in 2 adjoining posts.I answered both questions, as it happens. Cite it all you like.
Do you still wish to take a crack at the question: "What's smothering innovation?", or would you like to further obfuscate? Try not to post another reply that leads to another post in this thread.If you think it's obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you. It's obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I'm obfuscating by answering with the link. It's pathetic on your part is what it is.
Bryan-If you think it's obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you. It's obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I'm obfuscating by answering with the link. It's pathetic on your part is what it is.No, I did click the link. It took me to a post 2 pages ago that was a foot long. Plus the argument about uncertainty being a reason for hampered innovation is ridiculous. That's the whole idea behind innovation. It rises above any obstacles "perceived" or otherwise. I'm sure if somebody had the cure for colon cancer it would be out now. I'd like to know more about innovations you feel are being hampered by this so called economic downturn. The only downturn is unemployment. And that is from off-shoring innovation. Every corporation is sitting on large cash reserves right now. Wall St is doing great! Sounds like a rich environment for innovation. In fact in the history of our Nation's economy, I don't remember ever reading about the times when innovation was low or hampered due to uncertainty or Taxes. Ever! Perhaps you can cite some previous examples when innovation was hampered or low in bad times, or good times. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how innovation will bring about jobs. In general terms...I'm not asking for predictions. But I suppose I'm jumping ahead. This will inevitably lead to you explaining how people don't like to hire in times of uncertainty and low-innovation too.
Why did you ask "Where does this go?" if you already knew where it went?Bryan-If you think it's obfuscation to offer you a link to an earlier post in this thread where I had already specifically answered your question then I choose poorly by bothering to answer you. It's obfuscation for you to refuse to click the link and claim that I'm obfuscating by answering with the link. It's pathetic on your part is what it is.No, I did click the link. It took me to a post 2 pages ago that was a foot long.
Plus the argument about uncertainty being a reason for hampered innovation is ridiculous. That's the whole idea behind innovation. It rises above any obstacles "perceived" or otherwise.If your business is focused on the nightmare scenario of filling out 1099 forms for nearly every vendor it deals with you can't devote the same amount of time to the next innovation that expands the companies' services. You'll lose capital and time, and in addition you'll have some concerns about the timing of future rollouts because of changes to business taxes and other business costs (like healthcare coverage). It's not ridiculous. It makes good sense if you think about it.
I'm sure if somebody had the cure for colon cancer it would be out now.I mentioned a cure for colon cancer in dealing with the issue of whether an innovator's motives should affect his compensation. Your reply here makes zero sense in that context.
I'd like to know more about innovations you feel are being hampered by this so called economic downturn.I'd like to know why you call it a "so called" economic downturn. But chasing down a rabbit trail every 10 seconds isn't going to get us anywhere. You should stick with development of your argument that uncertainty doesn't hamper innovation. I've got plenty of arguments why it does.
The only downturn is unemployment. And that is from off-shoring innovation.GDP's well below traditional norms for a(n American) recovery. And if you're correct then off-shoring innovation can't stop innovation. It'll force even more of it to compensate for the uncertainty of who will take the place of the offshored innovators. You make some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. And I've seen quite a few.
Every corporation is sitting on large cash reserves right now. Wall St is doing great! Sounds like a rich environment for innovation.Okay, so we're innovating up a storm right now. No, but really, if corporations are sitting on large cash reserves right now then why aren't they spending it by investing it on new ideas that will make them more money?
In fact in the history of our Nation's economy, I don't remember ever reading about the times when innovation was low or hampered due to uncertainty or Taxes. Ever! Perhaps you can cite some previous examples when innovation was hampered or low in bad times, or good times.Certainty regarding the regulatory climate was the idea behind President Harding's "normalcy" campaign theme. It's a theme that President Coolidge perpetuated (after Harding died in office) to a huge economic boom, during which his administration focused on paying down the debt left over from WW1. Hoover was an activist president who returned the nation to high deficit spending in order to fight the recession that followed the crash of '29.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how innovation will bring about jobs.For the second time, when innovators come up with things people want and need people buy the things they want and need. And most of them do productive work in order to obtain the money to buy such things. It's an utterly simple concept.
But I suppose I'm jumping ahead. This will inevitably lead to you explaining how people don't like to hire in times of uncertainty and low-innovation too.Who would need an explanation for something so obvious? You? Recent hiring in the U.S. is predominantly part-time workers, which is not the norm. Coincidence, you think? http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/05/30/us-gdp-growth-at-2-4-in-second-estimate-for-q1-2013/
Why did you ask "Where does this go?" if you already knew where it went?Because it went nowhere in substance.
If your business is focused on the nightmare scenario of filling out 1099 forms for nearly every vendor it deals with you can't devote the same amount of time to the next innovation that expands the companies' services. You'll lose capital and time, and in addition you'll have some concerns about the timing of future rollouts because of changes to business taxes and other business costs (like healthcare coverage). It's not ridiculous. It makes good sense if you think about it.No way because you'll have people to fill out those forms. That's what scheduling is for so there will be time to take care of all that stuff. No businessperson sits around and frets about tax changes. This little scenario is infantile. I've seen it debunked many times before.
I mentioned a cure for colon cancer in dealing with the issue of whether an innovator's motives should affect his compensation. Your reply here makes zero sense in that context.Yeah and now I'm using the scenario to illustrate that innovation moves ahead in any circumstance.
I'd like to know why you call it a "so called" economic downturn. But chasing down a rabbit trail every 10 seconds isn't going to get us anywhere. You should stick with development of your argument that uncertainty doesn't hamper innovation. I've got plenty of arguments why it does.There is no uncertainty. Innovation is happening right now. You have plenty of arguments why it does, yet you can't provide any examples of it happening. Ever. New restaurants are opening. New Phones are coming out. New cars are being designed. New roads are being built. Textbooks are being updated and printed. My Windows receives updates. Boeing is designing new planes. A private rocketship just delivered supplies to the space station. I can keep going on and on!!
GDP's well below traditional norms for a(n American) recovery.Yeah, there's currently nothing to prop up the big hole left by all the manufacturing jobs that left the country. If a country stops making things by a large percentage, then GDP goes down. A tech bubble, and an artificial Housing/Banking Market did a great job of masking the hole for 20 years or so. Plus Wars.
Okay, so we're innovating up a storm right now. No, but really, if corporations are sitting on large cash reserves right now then why aren't they spending it by investing it on new ideas that will make them more money?They are. I've said that all along. That's why Wall St. is doing great too. Why do you keep saying corporations and businesses are not investing in innovation? Of course they are! If IBM, GE, or GM didn't invest in innovation or new ideas they would go out of business. I want to know where you get this idea of uncertainty? Does this whole Congress/Shutdown thing got you on pins and needles?
Certainty regarding the regulatory climate was the idea behind President Harding's "normalcy" campaign theme. It's a theme that President Coolidge perpetuated (after Harding died in office) to a huge economic boom, during which his administration focused on paying down the debt left over from WW1. Hoover was an activist president who returned the nation to high deficit spending in order to fight the recession that followed the crash of '29.Wow! Another one of your irrelevant historical asides. I asked you when in history was innovation ever hampered or stopped.
For the second time, when innovators come up with things people want and need people buy the things they want and need. And most of them do productive work in order to obtain the money to buy such things. It's an utterly simple concept.But there isn't enough people to buy those innovations because poverty is at levels we haven't seen in a long time. So innovation is just fine. Wealth disparity and income distribution is all out of whack. That would also explain one of the reasons why GDP is low. Lot's of people have low wage jobs that don't allow them to take full advantage of all the innovations available. Innovations are increasingly becoming available only to the wealthy.
Who would need an explanation for something so obvious? You? Recent hiring in the U.S. is predominantly part-time workers, which is not the norm.No that's the new norm. We get most of our manufactured goods from overseas now. We just need people here to work part-time working at Wal-Mart to sell the imported goods and at Burger King to feed all of the part-time workers. Wal-Mart...#1 employer in the US! 95% or more of Wal-Mart's goods are imported.
Here’s a great example of innovation Bryan:
I just read an article in USA Today that stated Taco Bell added 15,000 new jobs because of the success of it’s new Doritos Loco Tacos.
Sounds like innovation to me.
That can be found by doing a search of the 10 largest US employers.
That’s Wal-Mart, who pays horrendous wages in relation to their profit margins. And employs many Part-time workers.
McDonalds same thing!
Yum Brands(Taco Bell, KFC,) same thing!
Target-same thing.
And UPS, who also employs a large workforce of part-time workers.
IBM is on there, they are innovators! They have good paying jobs.
So combining retail and Fast food, we can see that that may well constitute half or more of all US jobs.
Retail and Fast Food…not exactly big GDP boosters!