Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (37332)	9/23/2009 6:42:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Huh? "The Feudal Years", may not be precisely defined, but Britain was desperately poor then compared to modern countries, and for much of that time wasn't even particularly wealthy compared to contemporary countries, at least not to the point of standing out ahead of the other European nations. It became wealthier later on, esp. with the industrial revolution (which happened in England first so Britain became the wealthiest nation on the planet). As for the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries they where very good for the average, or even the typical or median American (the later two avoiding the "Bill Gates walks in to the room and now the average person is a billionaire" issue), up until the 30s (at which point it might no longer be considered early 20th century). Also "wealth" does not equal "wealth for just the few", it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it. Wealth and income are what are important, jobs in the broad sense of the term are meaningless. Everyone can do some useless work and in theory get paid (presumably by the government) some pittance to do it, and than we have "full employment" even "zero unemployment", but that hardly means things are good. Jobs are a means to an end (or multiple ends) more than they are an end. "Preserving jobs" means creating economic stagnation. Would you have 90% still working on the farm or ranch? Should we restore the jobs of elevator operators, manual telephone circuit connectors, and door to door ice deliverers? Of course not, eliminating the need for such jobs freed resources to create more wealth, to the benefit of Americans of all types and wealth levels, not just the already rich.

To: RMF who wrote (37332)	9/25/2009 3:53:19 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Productivity, or if you want "productive jobs", is the key point, not simply jobs. Productivity is doing more with the same or less. ---- Reportedly, while traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep unemployment low. If they used tractors, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic. "Then why don’t you give them spoons?" Friedman inquired. It was quintessential Friedman: Employment doesn’t make us wealthy — production does. mackinac.org ------- If Friedman is too far from your political and ideological ideas (not that who makes such a statement determines the reality of the statement but some people heavily discount statements by people they disagree with), how about a couple of liberal economists Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run its almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker. - Paul Krugman Ultimately long run economic growth is the most important aspect of how an economy performs...Policies that accelerate innovation or that boost investment to raise capital intensity accelerate economic growth - J. Bradford DeLong