+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11315
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 16
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Money  (Read 5787 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18001
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Money
« Reply #555 on: January 11, 2019, 04:59:32 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The following comments tell the hard truths that the article they reference gets exactly backwards. Powell, like all the U.S. Oligarchy front people at the Fed, has always been a double talking, ex nihilo money (i.e. counterfeiting) liar.

Quote
monkjo
Yeah...all that QE and "free" money created the illusion of prosperity and profitability for corporations with deep enough pockets to get those large low interest cash infusions for buybacks and such.

It's scary that the "masters of our destiny"  don't seem to grasp the concept of equilibrium.  If you put your thumb on the scale, it's not gonna stay down after you remove your thumb just because you want it to!

tictawk
There IS a finite point to how high the Fed can pump this market via its open market operations, QE etc.  It has probably been reached last year.  Now its only a question of how high this secondary rally can go.  Dow 26,000?  Nasdaq 7000 (fib .618) are possible targets.  Does Powell have the balls to make the hard choices to tame the monster they have created?  I think not and the market knows it.  That's why just the market rallied based merely on the moderating talk from Powell.  Every one of these Fed chiefs are unprincipled, double talking fraudsters who do not care that their policies have resulted in impoverishing the masses at the lower end of the economic spectrum.  When the buying power of the medium of exchange (the dollar) is destroyed, it destroys those living on the margin.  This is THE REASON we are seeing tent cities mushrooming all over America as costs rise and the poor cannot afford basic necessities.

    shiekurbootie
    Those that MUST own 401k's are the hostages.  The Fed is the guard with the gun.

    The removal of defined benefit retirement plans, including all federal gov't civilians, has caused wild ride on Wall St.

    Citizens have few options other than the company offered 401k (or similar) plan.

    The stock market goes up- Citizens feel comfortable or rich!

    The stock market goes down-Mental depression and the realization that it was all a scam....

by Tyler Durden Fri, 01/11/2019 - 15:13

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18001
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Money
« Reply #556 on: January 11, 2019, 07:27:24 pm »
China Leads the Way in Eradicating Extreme Poverty

January 10, 2019

Greatest contribution to global poverty reduction has come from China says Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Story Transcript

MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. Iím Marc Steiner, itís great to have you all with us once again.

Weíre watching intense struggles taking place between the United States and China. Thereís a lot under that weíre not seeing. And we see the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, arrested in Canada. We hear of tariff battles going on, what do they really mean? Stock market crashing, is that connected? Then, we see other reports about plummeting poverty around the world. But that too seems to be wrapped up in China in ways that we donít take a deep understanding of. But beneath of that is another reality, that the world is in the middle of a war over globalization. And some of the things we do not want to tackle, like most of the poverty that has been wiped out in the world has taken place where? China.

And mostly lost on debates of angst over trade and jobs and the rise of the right wing populists in the world is that the fastest growing economy on the planet is China. And itís pulling all along with it parts of Asia and the developing world as China positions itself as the greatest importer of the worldís goods, which weíll explore. And the left seems to have little response, which will also explore. So what do we make of all this and what this reality says, and what does China bring to the world and what does this say about the former state capitalism that seems to be showing itself to be the strongest among many others? What are we misjudging here, and what does it portend for neoliberalism and the future, both politically and economically?

Weíll find out as much as we can. Joining us today from Washington, DC is Mark Weisbrot. Mark is codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of the book Failed: What the Experts Got Wrong About the Global Economy. And Mark, welcome back to The Real News. Good to have you with us.

MARK WEISBROT: Thanks, Marc. Good to be with you.

MARC STEINER: Thereís so much here. So let me just start with kind of a popular idea here. So we see Trump constantly thumping the table, his Tweets I should say, that we have to have tariffs, that we have to cut off China, we have to battle them and keep jobs in America, even though thatís not happening. So we see this battle around globalization promoted by Trump, and many other things, the notion workers are losing jobs, which they are. So whatís the reality between the Trumpian bellicoseness and the reality weíre facing?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, first of all, you see one response from the people who are defending the globalization of the last few decades, in the media here especially, is that theyíre willing to concede that for most workers here, globalization has been a loss in the United States and in the rich countries. But they say, well, what about the more than a billion people in the world who have benefited from their globalization? And this is one of the defenses. Itís not the main one, but itís an appeal to liberals, to people who care about the rest of the world. They say you canít disrupt this kind of global order. And thatís not to say that Trump is doing anything positive with his random tariffs and just creating distractions all the time. But they do defend the global economic order in this way, so I think itís important we have an understanding of what globalization has really looked like for the poorest people in the world.

Now, one of the things that you see in the news and in these arguments is that extreme poverty, which the World Bank measures as $1.90 a day, people living on $1.90 a day in 2011 with purchasing power parity dollars, and that has dropped. In the last 25 years, itís fallen by 1.16 billion people, and of course in percentage terms the drop looks even more. But if you look at where that happened, the net decline in the number of extremely poor people has mostly been in China. Two thirds, thatís 65 percent of it, has been in China. And so, if you take China out of the picture, you have very little reduction in net poverty.

And then, of course, even for that other third that wasnít Chinese people coming out of extreme poverty, that other third was also helped a lot by China in the 21st century especially, because China became the largest economy in the world and it started importing more and more from Africa and from Latin America and from other countries, other developing countries. And so, many of the people who were pulled out of poverty in those countries, that other third of the net poverty reduction, was also a result of China. So when all of these people you see in the media, including President Obama in 2016 made this argument as well at the United Nations, and theyíre praising the globalization that they have brought to the world, their kind of neoliberal globalization, theyíre really talking about the success of China and not the success of their brand of globalization, because that was very, very different from the policies produced by China.

MARC STEINER: So they must know this reality, right?

MARK WEISBROT: Oh, yeah. I mean, you can put any economist in the country who knows anything about this and theyíre not going to disagree with any of it. These are World Bank statistics, World Bank data, IMF data, and nobody really disagrees on it. And they will all say this, they just wonít say it unless you ask them.

MARC STEINER: So if thatís the case Ė well letís take a step back for a moment. So we know that China, I mean it has a different system than most Western countries, as weíve talked about earlier; controlling the banking system, their own exchange rate, state owned enterprises, as opposed to corporations kind of controlling politics, their politics controls the corporations in China. So how does that factor into all this in terms of what China is able to do, the West cannot, and why neoliberal democracies in the West are having such a difficult time coming to grips with all of this?

MARK WEISBROT: Well throughout this period, since 1980, theyíve increased their per capita income 17 times. No country in the history of the world has ever done anything even comparable to that, even though their economy is slowing now, but as you mentioned, still about the fastest in the world at six and a half percent annual growth. And so, they were able to control investment and make sure that even the foreign investment that came into the country, and this is one of the things that Trump complains about, there are restrictions on it and they make sure, through most of this period at least, they made sure that the foreign investment fit in with their development plans.

The government controls the central bank, and thatís very important. And the reforms that the neoliberal globalization then, the U.S. and the IMF and the World Bank, which are controlled by the U.S. in most of the world, they push it completely differently, they want the central bank to be independent of the government, to be unaccountable, like our Federal Reserve is mostly unaccountable and theyíve caused almost all of the recessions in the post-World War II period and are likely to cause the next one. So these are advantages for China in that first, they didnít follow the neoliberal globalization that the United States pushed all over the world, and that enabled them, for example, to transition smoothly, with very fast growth, from a planned economy to a more mixed economy of both market and planning.

Whereas if you look at what happened to Russia and the Eastern European countries, they went through a terrible collapse and a Great Depression in Russia. From 1992 to 1996, they had something comparable to our Great Depression, they didnít really start to recover till í98. And so, they went through terrible transitions that cost them a lot in terms of poverty and life expectancy and other social indicators. And thatís been the pattern, by the way, for most low and middle income countries between 1980 and 2000. That period in particular was a very bad one for the vast majority of developing countries as compared to prior years.

MARC STEINER: One of the things I think about this is the New Yearís message that came out of China, from the leaders of China, was that ďweíre a 5000 year old civilization, the West canít tell us what to do, we know what weíre doing.Ē So the question is, in many ways what youíre describing here is a state system that has adopted huge portions of capitalism inside their system but controlling it, while the Wild West version of neoliberalism is kind of falling apart on some levels around the world, or the countries at least they invested in are falling apart. So this sets up an interesting debate I donít think most people have had about whatís really a war here in terms of systems and what theyíre saying to the world. China clearly wants to make a profit. Theyíve clearly got huge influence in Africa and Latin America now, growing every day, so I think thatís something that we have not explored at all in terms of what the planetís really facing.

MARK WEISBROT: Yeah, there are a lot of differences. I mean, for example, China invests in Africa, they invest in Latin America, they invest a lot of countries, but they donít use the World Bank or the IMF to try and tell those countries what their macroeconomic policies should be. So for most developing countries, itís a better deal to get investment from China than it would be, for example, from U.S. corporations, or to get loans, for example, from the World Bank and the IMF which have these conditions attached to them. So thereís a difference in their foreign economic policy. But there are just many, many differences between them. Obviously, the Chinese model is Ė there are many things that are not perfect with it or not right in that it wouldnít apply, for example, to the United States, to a developed country, many elements of it.

But nonetheless, as a developing country itís obviously been an enormous success. And you canít attribute it to the globalization that all of the defenders of Washington-sponsored globalization are referring to. They promoted very opposite policies; the privatization of state-owned enterprises all over the developing world, the liberalization, deregulation of the financial sector and financial services, all kinds of deregulation of the labor market to weaken unions, and all the things that they promoted. Also, in many countries they redistributed income upward as well. And China, of course, has also had an increase in inequality thatís quite large, but their growth was so rapid that it was able to pull seven to eight hundred million people out of poverty.

MARC STEINER: So in the time that we have here, I mean I think itíd be important to explore just how we judge economies. And one of the things that we never take into account is this idea of purchasing power parity and judging economies that way and how we really adjust our view of how economies are doing. So talk a bit about that and what that kind of masks.

MARK WEISBROT: Yeah, thatís kind of important because in the news, they often say that Chinaís going to become bigger than the U.S. economy in X years, and thatís using an exchange rate measure. So they just take the Chinese economy in its own currency and they measure it in dollars at the exchange rate between the renminbi and the dollar. And thatís one measure of the two economies, but itís not the one that most economists use for most international comparisons. Most economists would use for most purposes whatís called purchasing power parity, which adjusts for prices between the two countries. So this is very important for example for military power, because it doesnít cost as much to train a pilot and build a plane in China as it does in the United States.

So if you adjust for prices in this way, and the IMF has this measure on their website and you can see it in other places, the Chinese economy is already 25 percent bigger than the economy of the United States. And in 2023, itís going to be one and a half times the size of the United States. And in the next decade, in ten years or so, itíll be twice as big as the United States. And thatís going to be a very different world. And for people who, and there are a lot of people like this in the foreign policy establishment, they want to have an arms race with China, a country thatís twice the size of us, thatís going to be extremely costly, not even really feasible. We had an arms race with the Soviet Union when it was a quarter the size of our economy and it was costly.

So this is something that we should be thinking about. And itís very hard to say these things here the United States now when Chinaís being portrayed as an enemy, but we should take account of these facts that all economists know.

MARC STEINER: Well, Iíd love to pick up on that point and do a great deal more the next time. Mark Weisbrot, I always appreciate your views here and your company at The Real News, thank you so much for joining us today.

MARK WEISBROT: Thank you.

MARC STEINER: And Iím Marc Steiner, here for The Real News Network. Take care.

https://therealnews.com/stories/china-leads-the-way-in-eradicating-extreme-poverty
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18001
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Money
« Reply #557 on: January 12, 2019, 05:00:03 pm »
January 11, 2019

SNIPPET:

Quote
JACQ JONES: 👍 It is in the best interests of any business to ensure that their employees are able to meet their own basic needs. This is also a matter of ethics for me. I may be old fashioned, but I believe that I should not be relying on government subsidies to stay in business. If I am paying my employees at a level where they are relying on food stamps to eat and Section 8 for housing, the government is picking up the tab on my substandard wages. Thatís not an ethical business; thatís stealing from the taxpayers.

Read or view:


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
January 23, 2019, 11:43:01 am

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 08:51:55 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 06:56:39 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 07:05:57 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 12:31:46 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 06:10:10 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 02:12:44 pm

Money by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 05:00:03 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 02:42:21 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 12:29:46 pm