ACF Mike, <<in what way do you doubt the total manufacturing job losses in China since 1995?>>
I do not doubt the fact, and if you read my post, you will realize that I am saying ‘the workers laid off were never really doing manufacturing, or never should have been in a factory, and were in fact on social welfare, just that they had to report to a "unit" for 8 hours per day’.
I have been visiting Chinese factories of all types and ownership since the early 1980s, and have seen the "welfare workers" playing chess in the warehouses and workshop corners during a workday, day after day.
So, suppose I tell you there has been a decrease in the number of secret policemen in Russia, you should simply think, "so what", as opposed to conclude that overall crime has decreased in Russia.
Let us keep this simple, again, "the workers laid off were not working to begin with and therefore is not relevant to manufacturing employment count, since they could just as well have been counted as chess players".
What you should think is that there is a sharp decrease in the number of chess players in China since 1995.
<<You don't like the answer, so let's disregard the inconvenient data. The jobs lost in Chinese state-owned enterprises were not "real" jobs, after all. Hmmm.>>
I believe the difference between Facts and Truth is Understanding.
<<>>The headline fact that 'industrial employment is decreasing' merely indicate that manufacturing deflation has a long way to go, and thus FED reflation has same way to go, else deflation of asset prices win<<
Steady, Jay. That statement is practically an unqualified endorsement of current Fed policy.>>
Good luck. Fighting manufacturing deflation with fiat printing so as to boost asset inflation is an interesting approach, making savers poor and debtors hollow, and all looking for the next fix. Why had not folks throughout history think of this approach before?
They had :0)
This time, in the current variation, J6P, on what we already agreed to be stagnant pay, borrows ever more when he still can, so as to pay for higher education, healthcare and tax bills, directly, and lawyers and insurance companies, indirectly, even as he gets his meagre savings diluted. Soon, to face higher imported goods cost, then stare at originally planned retirement day, when his house equity implodes.
What doesn't work in this picture? We shall see and find out;0)
Chugs, Jay |
