Economics Thread

[T-Dub]

2 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

Okay, some links, then I'll write in notepad and come back to paste.

 

On High-Wage Doctrine:

Unions, the High-Wage Doctrine, and Employment - Lowell E. Gallaway (pdf)

 

By our bootstraps: Origins and effects of the high-wage doctrine and the minimum wage - Taylor and Selgin (download the pdf)

 

HAWB 1800s - The Doctrine of High Wages - How America Was Built - NBBooks (I have read this guy for decades, trusted source)

 

Buy This Book:

America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy - Michael Hudson

 

Hudson, on this topic, condensed by AI (Perplexity--which I occasionally use because it lists the sources):

 

Search query: "high wage doctrine" + "michael hudson"

 

 

 

 

 

Before diving in here, how does all this mesh with the ability of international corporations to pay some kid in (eg) Bangladesh to sew together Nike sneakers for $1 a day? When I've delved into this before there was an awful lot of talk about the decline of widget factories, sourcing of metals for the widgets, widget unions & such but not so much that prison labor can be forced to make widgets for next to nothing.  The cost is only paying off whoever controls said prisons.

 

To put it another way, I don't want us to compete with Chinese political prison slave labor.  Although we already have plenty of prison labor manufacturing going on with US corporations as it is, and people are happy enough to buy from them.  I've since come to the conclusion that all the hand-wringing about such things, much like our Constitution, is just that.  People generally care about the Constitution as it affects them, but when it comes to protecting anyone else it's so much paper.  Same goes for consumerism - we don't want to work in sweatshops ourselves, but if there's a deal on Temu we don't think about why the product is so cheap there, or maybe more accurately we know but honestly don't care.  We'll espouse all sorts of ethics & morals until it requires the slightest inconvenience to ourselves, like paying 3 cents more a pound for bananas.  Dirt floors aren't good enough for the banana pickers? Send in the tanks.

 

This stuff underpins a lot of the argument for tariffs, but if we put a 10% tariff on widgets then Widgets Inc will simply charge us 10% more at the widget shop.  Further, if that 10% tariff is removed, Widget Inc are not going to reduce their prices by 10%.  We're seeing this now where the COVID "supply chain issue" price increases remain long after such issues were resolved.

 

I guess since we're talking about the models in which these arguments are framed?  If we started openly pulling the gold teeth out of immigrants in detention camps and selling it by the ounce on HSC I'm beginning to suspect it would sell just fine.  In other words there's this assumed foundation of morality and human rights that seem to underpin a lot of this & I'm not seeing much evidence to support it right now.  It's been obvious to me for a very long time that our way of living and consumerist lifestyle was & is untenable.  Now I'm seeing the things people are willing to accept to support it just a little bit longer.

 

FWIW I'm not trying to wave away these sources and information so much as establish a basis for understanding them.

 

 

[Jamie_B]

I was watching Breaking Points, and Krystal Ball made what I thought was a good point. Doing tariffs would be one thing if they were also doing things to increase people's living standards so that the tariffs would be a minor inconvenience rather than something that would increase prices for people living paycheck to paycheck already. If they increased the minimum wage (and wages for everyone but the 1% across the board) or guaranteed healthcare or anything that would improve people's lives, then you could do the tariffs and repatriation. Most people would not be bothered, but when you supposedly got elected to "lower the price of eggs" then have a Treasury Secretary who doesn't want to raise the minimum wage or a health care plan that was supposed to be coming in days back in 2016 that has turned into "concepts of a plan" all your doing is stressing the pocketbooks of people who are already stressed. In theory, I can agree with some protectionism, but this isn't going to help anyone.

[T-Dub]

5 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

I was watching Breaking Points, and Krystal Ball made what I thought was a good point. Doing tariffs would be one thing if they were also doing things to increase people's living standards so that the tariffs would be a minor inconvenience rather than something that would increase prices for people living paycheck to paycheck already. If they increased the minimum wage (and wages for everyone but the 1% across the board) or guaranteed healthcare or anything that would improve people's lives, then you could do the tariffs and repatriation. Most people would not be bothered, but when you supposedly got elected to "lower the price of eggs" then have a Treasury Secretary who doesn't want to raise the minimum wage or a health care plan that was supposed to be coming in days back in 2016 that has turned into "concepts of a plan" all your doing is stressing the pocketbooks of people who are already stressed. In theory, I can agree with some protectionism, but this isn't going to help anyone.

 

 

They'll be auctioning off the Smithsonian's collections at this rate.  Just a gang of thieves, which was painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

 

All Hail Emperor Musk

[Jamie_B]

5 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

Okay, some links, then I'll write in notepad and come back to paste.

 

On High-Wage Doctrine:

Unions, the High-Wage Doctrine, and Employment - Lowell E. Gallaway (pdf)

 

By our bootstraps: Origins and effects of the high-wage doctrine and the minimum wage - Taylor and Selgin (download the pdf)

 

HAWB 1800s - The Doctrine of High Wages - How America Was Built - NBBooks (I have read this guy for decades, trusted source)

 

Buy This Book:

America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy - Michael Hudson

 

Hudson, on this topic, condensed by AI (Perplexity--which I occasionally use because it lists the sources):

 

Search query: "high wage doctrine" + "michael hudson"

 

 

 

 

I will for sure read these, that high-wage doctrine stuff I've come across some of the ideas, but never heard it put into a doctrine. Just quickly going over that Perplexity link makes so much sense to me.

[Homer_Rice]

3 hours ago, T-Dub said:

Before diving in here...

By all means, dive in.

 

I haven't started rewriting yet, it'll be tomorrow. For now, just consider these links as substrate. I plan to talk about some of your concerns. One hint: note the difference between the first two links and the third one.

 

And buy the book. The worst thing that can happen is you'll be exposed to some history that you won't find in a classroom. Hudson, btw, did his PhD. dissertation on Erasmus Peshine Smith. That's a person you may have never heard of, but his was close to Seward, tied in with the Carey "Vespers" crowd, and took the American System to Japan.

 

Be patient. I'll get to this when I can.

[Homer_Rice]

28 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

I will for sure read these, that high-wage doctrine stuff I've come across some of the ideas, but never heard it put into a doctrine. Just quickly going over that Perplexity link makes so much sense to me.

Use NBBooks article as a can opener for further research.

[T-Dub]

4 minutes ago, Homer_Rice said:

By all means, dive in.

 

I haven't started rewriting yet, it'll be tomorrow. For now, just consider these links as substrate. I plan to talk about some of your concerns. One hint: note the difference between the first two links and the third one.

 

And buy the book. The worst thing that can happen is you'll be exposed to some history that you won't find in a classroom. Hudson, btw, did his PhD. dissertation on Erasmus Peshine Smith. That's a person you may have never heard of, but his was close to Seward, tied in with the Carey "Vespers" crowd, and took the American System to Japan.

 

Be patient. I'll get to this when I can.

 

Yeah I'll keep an eye out.  The canals are pretty interesting to me in their own right.

[Homer_Rice]

On 2/1/2025 at 11:29 AM, Montana Bengal said:

@Homer_Rice and @Jamie_B  Have either of you come across a good explanation why Trump wants to impose?  I know what he says and what the misunderstanding his supporters repeat, but I'm trying to understand what they real drive is.  My guess is that this is more of a Project 2025 push and less about Trump deeply understanding the how/why.

 This is Montana's question.

 

Here are two more links:

 

Why Did the Roosevelt Administration Think Cartels, Higher Wages, and Shorter Workweeks Would Promote Recovery from the Great Depression?

 

Michael Hudson on the American School of Political Economy

 

 

[Homer_Rice]

I don't think you can be a neo-mercantilist when your country is dominated by neoliberalism. And, despite Trump's faint echoes resembling neo-mercantilists of the past, I think you are right, Montana, in that he has some (misplaced, imo) faith in his shotgun use of tariffs. But overall, one cannot accomplish much without a strong industrial policy--and that goes against the anti-industrial, post-industrial, financialized capitalism that has slow overtaken this economy since the early 60s.

 

Now, Biden attempted a form of industrial policy and some think that Trump, despite all the bombast, is more or less going to do the same, with some variations of emphasis. (Trump is less green than Biden and more divergent on energy in general, imo.) I think that Trump's admin is more antiglobalist at heart than Biden, who is a globalist at heart. (Forget Biden's last Eisenhower-ish speech, that was just opportunistic bullshit from a guy who spent 50 years as a water-carrier for the financiers and oligarchs who dominate this modern period.)

 

In general, and I think this a good thing, there has been more recent talk across these two admins about the need for an industrial policy, especially for national security and somewhat for IT tech. I personally think that this is a move in the right direction. But I still think that the purposes for modern industrial policy are not well-defined, and even if it were, the system we now exist within is almost impossible to change. Not only have supply-chain and other physical processes been adapted to globalization for decades now--and that cannot be changed so swiftly--but also our current culture is essentially dominated by a neoliberal and financialized outlook that dominates our society today--and that's not only a bad thing, it is what will take us into fascism in the long term. (And some think not-so-long.) T-Dubs legitimate litany of complaints more or less dance around these trends without naming them.

 

So, what would a good industrial policy look like? How would we bring it into being? And first, what makes for a healthy economy?

 

Broadly speaking, a healthy economy would distinguish between productive and non-productive activity, with a rough dividing line being a general consensus on what is good and what is bad activity. For example, the physical production of goods versus the worst excesses of speculation and financialization. And our laws would have to be written towards this end. (Many laws once did, in many cases, reflect this discrimination, for example Glass-Steagall of 1933.)

 

A healthy economy would have the tendency to not only reproduce itself at an improved physical level (i.e. the introduction of new technology across most sectors), but it would do so while simultaneously improving the standard of living for its constituents. And these improvements would consist of not only higher wage rates, but also global and tangible material benefits for all people (i.e. universal health care.)

 

To emphasize: Justly earned surplus/profits for the corporations and concrete material benefits for the population. At the same time. This, instead of a world in which the terms "enshittification" and "shrinkflation" have common use.

 

Now, what kinds of industrial policy projects could satisfy these requirements? It's easy to think of some no-brainers.

 

--A rebuild of sewage and water infrastructure for virtually the entire nation.

--A completely redone electrical grid.

--A modernized and completely redone railroad transportation system. This is for freight, passanger could benefit from the upgrade. Go high-speed, hell go maglev. Modernize switching stations at hubs and speed up freight along the lines of our ports using the latest technology.

There are plenty more, but just think of these three for the moment. They would require huge investment, a lot of jobs, and, by necessity, an upgrade in the educational requirements to fill said jobs--everything from engineers to grunt labor.

 

None of this is beyond out imagination. We'd have to re-write some laws to make companies more inclined to take on the investments that 30-40 year development projects require. And the government would be wise to emit (not borrow) the funds necessary to take this huge jobs to completion.

 

And tariffs might have a place within such an environment, as one of the tools to direct investment to the appropriate places.

 

But it ain't gonna happen under neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and broligarchys. It would require a modern resurrection of how this country was originally build in the 19th century--particularly that stuff that almost no one is taught about, with any seriousness, today.

More to come: talk about the links, wages, Chinese EVs and tariffs, and maybe some lost American history. Sorry, T-Dub, no canals, but please buy and read Ron Shaw's book.

[Jamie_B]

A line that always struck me from the documentary "Inside Job' that kind of hints at what you are talking about Homer.

 

 

 

[Shebengal]

I don't know if this is the right page to put this.

 

Again, I am no expert in cryptocurrency. All I know is that you can't use it to buy a house in Ohio because it's not considered good funds. But I think I know why the orange troll is so hot for cryptocurrency.

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/

 

As usual, Trump makes money in a multitude of ways from this and the little guy gets screwed. Shocking!!!

[T-Dub]

7 hours ago, Shebengal said:

I don't know if this is the right page to put this.

 

Again, I am no expert in cryptocurrency. All I know is that you can't use it to buy a house in Ohio because it's not considered good funds. But I think I know why the orange troll is so hot for cryptocurrency.

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/

 

As usual, Trump makes money in a multitude of ways from this and the little guy gets screwed. Shocking!!!

 

 

It's a great way to launder money or evade taxes.  If someone was for some mysterious reason sitting on a whole lot of it they'd do well to drive up the value as much as possible.

[Jamie_B]

On 2/1/2025 at 11:29 AM, Montana Bengal said:

@Homer_Rice and @Jamie_B  Have either of you come across a good explanation why Trump wants to impose?  I know what he says and what the misunderstanding his supporters repeat, but I'm trying to understand what they real drive is.  My guess is that this is more of a Project 2025 push and less about Trump deeply understanding the how/why.

 

 

 

@Montana Bengal this is what I was looking for that i couldn't remember. Curtis Yarvin wants a sort of techo fuedalism. His ideas are pretty dark.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/183971/jd-vance-weird-terrifying-techno-authoritarian-ideas

[|Montana Bengal|]

Thanks @Homer_Rice and @Jamie_B.  Lots of reading ahead for me!  I appreciate both of you providing this.

[Shebengal]

3 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

 

@Montana Bengal this is what I was looking for that i couldn't remember. Curtis Yarvin wants a sort of techo fuedalism. His ideas are pretty dark.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/183971/jd-vance-weird-terrifying-techno-authoritarian-ideas

That is some seriously scary stuff. 

 

Big corporation money just needs to get out of politics on both sides. But, we all know that won't happen. 

[Jamie_B]

1 minute ago, Shebengal said:

That is some seriously scary stuff. 

 

Big corporation money just needs to get out of politics on both sides. But, we all know that won't happen. 

 

The worst SCOTUS decision made in recent years is Citizens United. It needs to be reversed 

[|Montana Bengal|]

47 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

The worst SCOTUS decision made in recent years is Citizens United. It needs to be reversed 

 

I miss those days.  Used to be very little political advertising in the state.  Election season was almost tolerable.

[Homer_Rice]

On 2/5/2025 at 11:38 AM, Jamie_B said:

A line that always struck me from the documentary "Inside Job' that kind of hints at what you are talking about Homer.

Actually, most financial "engineers" are parasites looting the economy, not only adding no value to the economy, but actually detracting and diverting resources from the real economy.

[Homer_Rice]

10 hours ago, Montana Bengal said:

Thanks @Homer_Rice and @Jamie_B.  Lots of reading ahead for me!  I appreciate both of you providing this.

Thanks, Montana. I have one more lap to make on this topic. I still haven't driven home what I think is the most important point of my little diatribe.

[Jamie_B]

Just now, Homer_Rice said:

Actually, most financial "engineers" are parasites looting the economy, not only adding no value to the economy, but actually detracting and diverting resources from the real economy.

 

Completely agree. 

[Homer_Rice]

On the Links: If you have read them, you have already noted the sharp demarcation between the .PDFs and the HAWB and Hudson links.

 

The PDFs all perform a sleight of hand. After the obligatory nod to Henry Ford, they narrow the inquiry to the relation between High Wages and unemployment as a matter of classical economic doctrine, along with implications for inflation and the minimum wage. Further it is stated that the "High Wage Doctrine" originates in the early 20th century, and finally they conclude, naturally, that high wages are bad, bad, bad. No surprise here as they are all quasi-libertarian articles. And this sort of thinking remains the conventional wisdom today; all you have to do is look out the window and notice corporate downward pressure on wages ever since the remains of the New Deal petered out in the 60s. Note also what doesn't get mentioned with respect to unemployment and inflation: War and the rise in speculative practices and financialization which have gradually taken over our economy.

 

The NBBooks and Hudson links are fresh air in comparison. They locate discussions about wages in the 19th century and even going back as far back as Ben Franklin around the time of the Revolution.

 

So, like, WTF, man?!!?!?!

 

A big chunk of your actual economic history is not taught, and whenever there are oblique references, they are generally glossed over. The opposition to conventional wisdom economics is always Marx and the socialist tradition but if you look at Marx closely, you'll notice that he resides within the conventional tradition of Smith Ricardo, et al... . And you'll also notice that Marx(ists) opposed guys like Carey and List and the whole tradition that Hudson refers to, including the "Institutionalists" of the late 19th century (whom are also given short shrift in US classrooms and academic literature in general.

 

Now, you all are well aware of the recent years smashing of labor in contrast to the explosion of money (I won't call it wealth) that has gone upward to shareholders, etc... Not to mention buybacks, not to mention the bailout of the Too Big To Fail banks in 2008-9. And there are lots of other examples of this systematized divergent behavior over the past few decades.

 

The game is rigged. I know it, you know it, we all know it. But, it seems we are powerless to stop it. Why is that? I have my own thoughts on that and you should develop your own (beyond simply whining and complaining.) If you truly care about all this, do the work. Not superficially, but in-depth. Train the next generation of kids to be able to solve these serious problems because, unfortunately, right now, they are fucked and not wise enough to do anything or to be anything more than victims. And that's how the fascists win.

 

Now, Trump and his crowd are pretty crude people. And the Dems are supposedly more civil and sophisticated. And there are some genuine differences in policy outlooks between the two parties. But. But. But.

 

When it comes to economic policy and the structure of neoliberalism underpinning the last 50+ years, there is no significant difference. Neither have any real interest beyond shifting the deckchairs around on the Titanic. For example, look at policy towards China and note that both sides of the aisle are worried about their growth and power. And it is true that China has taken, in the last few decades, more people out of poverty and into reasonable economic lifestyles than any other nation in the history of humanity. Think about the effort that that required. And the principles underlying that effort.

 

One thing China is really good at are EVs. They make 'em good, they make 'em inexpensive, and they want to export them everywhere. And yet, Europe and the US have placed high tariffs on Chinese EVs. Prohibitive tariffs. Now, that might be a good thing, IF, the US and Europe were committed to building similar quality, similarly priced EVs within their own nation-states. That, in itself, would be a nice economic bump, as well as many high wage jobs.

 

But it isn't happening. Not merely because we view China as an economic enemy--mostly because they are doing a modern version of the same shit that build this country in the 19th century. But also because the elites in this country are so tied to imperial principles that they have finally resorted to looting their own people, squeezing out every last penny and vestige of hope for many folks.

 

It's a service economy. It's a post-industrial economy. AI is gonna save us. And on and on.

 

Feed the people. Teach the people. Keep the people healthy.

 

Learn your history and draw the appropriate lessons. And then act on them.

 

[Homer_Rice]

Okay, now I'm done.

[T-Dub]

On 2/5/2025 at 9:03 AM, Homer_Rice said:

T-Dubs legitimate litany of complaints more or less dance around these trends without naming them.

 

 

Not trying to be cute - honestly don't have the words for it all.  Consumerism, exponential growth, prosperity gospel..  None of those quite do it, culturally.  Enshittification and shrinkflation are symptoms.  As I read further I see people modeling it, tracing the outlines, and that's helpful, but...

 

At some level, isn't that all beating around the bush as well?  Is it not simply avarice, in the end?  We worship money above all else.  This comic parody of a rich man must be a godly man, because money = virtue in our society.

 

You touched on improving rail infrastructure - something I'm all for myself.  Our transcontinental railroad was achieved through land grants & the whole process rife with corruption.  Yet, it got done, and everyone (indigenous aside) benefited from it.  How do we accomplish a version 2.0 without the land to grant while also eliminating the corruption? Further, does any major US corporation exist without greasing the palms of some politician or another?  Which one is not dependent on grants, subsidies, tax breaks & so on that are all quid pro quo? All the tariffs in the world won't protect universal graft as a standard of doing business in this country.  They might allow us to compete while still having weekends, breathable air, or drinkable water (some places), or without oil slicks covering our beaches & so on..  But if our leaders don't care about any of those things, then what is it we're trying to protect other than their ability to get infinitely richer?  Why should I care about improving mass transportation if I can take a private jet cross-country for dinner?

 

Is this system something we should be trying to protect at all?  If we're going back to Ben Franklin..  Our economy (if not all of them, honestly) was founded on the basis of exploiting an enslaved underclass.  The slavery was abolished (for-profit prisons aside) yet that dependency remains.  Is it even worth preserving, or is what we're seeing now the end result of a rot that's been here from the start?

 

Quote

 Sorry, T-Dub, no canals, but please buy and read Ron Shaw's book.

 

I'll try the library first, but I intend to, thanks.

[Homer_Rice]

I'll pass along the best professorial advice I ever got from my early days as a wannabe scholar:

 

"Good questions. If you really care you'll do the work."

[claptonrocks]

6 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

Not trying to be cute - honestly don't have the words for it all.  Consumerism, exponential growth, prosperity gospel..  None of those quite do it, culturally.  Enshittification and shrinkflation are symptoms.  As I read further I see people modeling it, tracing the outlines, and that's helpful, but...

 

At some level, isn't that all beating around the bush as well?  Is it not simply avarice, in the end?  We worship money above all else.  This comic parody of a rich man must be a godly man, because money = virtue in our society.

 

You touched on improving rail infrastructure - something I'm all for myself.  Our transcontinental railroad was achieved through land grants & the whole process rife with corruption.  Yet, it got done, and everyone (indigenous aside) benefited from it.  How do we accomplish a version 2.0 without the land to grant while also eliminating the corruption? Further, does any major US corporation exist without greasing the palms of some politician or another?  Which one is not dependent on grants, subsidies, tax breaks & so on that are all quid pro quo? All the tariffs in the world won't protect universal graft as a standard of doing business in this country.  They might allow us to compete while still having weekends, breathable air, or drinkable water (some places), or without oil slicks covering our beaches & so on..  But if our leaders don't care about any of those things, then what is it we're trying to protect other than their ability to get infinitely richer?  Why should I care about improving mass transportation if I can take a private jet cross-country for dinner?

 

Is this system something we should be trying to protect at all?  If we're going back to Ben Franklin..  Our economy (if not all of them, honestly) was founded on the basis of exploiting an enslaved underclass.  The slavery was abolished (for-profit prisons aside) yet that dependency remains.  Is it even worth preserving, or is what we're seeing now the end result of a rot that's been here from the start?

 

 

I'll try the library first, but I intend to, thanks.

Wonderful reading Homer .

Sharp mind you have..

 

Will not argue aside that Musk is finding wasted agencies and billions of dollars .

Won't you agree that's good for the country?