So wage raises will be offset by increases in prices so no gain there. Old debt does get cheaper I agree, but those who have saved rather than borrowed are penalised. Is this fair?The best way, in my opinion, is through wage increases. Yes, we are talking about an inflationary effect here, the cost living will go up, but the cost of (old) debt will decrease.
Again, why would people save money when inflation will penalise them for doing so?I am talking about an environment where people will save capital (for future investment, for real productivity growth) rather than borrow it into existence through new debt.
I believe it's because they consume more than they can afford to. The earnings can't cover their expectations.
A person from a less rich economy would love to have his lifestyle. Decent job and enough time off to play hurling, football and go mountain biking. In the far East they'll work 7 days a week without having a living standard near the mechanics.
People are living longer so wealth is not being transferred as early and housing stock is not being released as early as previously. Obviously there's not much we can do about that but it's a major cause.
I get the credit expansion part, but can you provide a reference for the wage restraint part? I'm not interested in something that shows what the wage rates are, but that we have a system built on wage restraint.The system we have is built on wage restraint and credit expansion.
I have a book on my bookcase called Civilization that I am about to read ("Purple, I'll post what I think) and he identifies the 6 areas that have contributed to the West's success being: competition, science, the rule of law, consumerism, modern medicine, and the work ethic. You could argue that labour laws fall under the "rule of law", however I believe he is talking about law & order in the general sense (I'll confirm when I get to that chapter). So, if you could provide something to back up your assertion that would be welcomed.Thats why we develop Labour laws, permitting rest breaks, days off with pay etc. In the main western societies flourished relative to the rest of the world.
So wage raises will be offset by increases in prices so no gain there. Old debt does get cheaper I agree, but those who have saved rather than borrowed are penalised. Is this fair?
Interest rates will rise.
Perhaps not to the same extent though. Remember governments have the largest debts of all so it would not really be in the ECB's interest pushing governments over the edge due to increasing their rates.
I get the credit expansion part, but can you provide a reference for the wage restraint part? I'm not interested in something that shows what the wage rates are, but that we have a system built on wage restraint.
I'm against QE as I've mentioned before. As you have said it may have been a useful tool in the emergency we had, but it's sell-by date is long goneAbsolutely, it is a precarious situation. So we can continue with the QE and hope the 'wealth effect' kicks in and drives demand through more borrowing
we can borrow heavily (or for sake of argument), the surplus nations of Europe, Germany, Netherlands etc can start spending aggressively to drive demand (tearing up fiscal pact).
I prefer latter option. The debt is unsustainable. Either countries start to default, or it is reduced by inflation. Wage increases are inflationary.
By all means it could be a good option for other countries, but not for Ireland.
Typically wage moderation is the term more commonly used. Nothing wrong with it, it is a good thing, but in the face of unfettered corporate profits fuelled by credit expansion, it has created a mountain of debt, private debt and state debt.
That is the point, profits, while they are good thing, are unlimited, not taxed enough, and end up in excessively large tranches in the control of too few. The system facilitates this and we in the developed world fawn at the wealth of
Perhaps, but for it to take hold, countries like Germany cannot sit infinitely behind a fiscal pact of 3%. While I understand the sentiment of prudence, it is not always wise. There are times to spend aggressively and other times to restrain.
The 3% fiscal deficit limit is an arbitrary figure. Perhaps a rolling average 3% deficit would be more realistic, say over a seven year business cycle?
Anyway, I'm off to take the kids out for dinner & ice-cream. Chat to y'all later!
TheBigShort Would Like an increase from whoever he/she is employed by he/she thinks he/she is worth it so lets have it if the employer can find the money
Im saying that wages need to rise in general terms, in Ireland, Europe, US.
Like this;
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1124/834168-lidl-to-raise-pay-for-its-british-staff/
A little more would be a fine thing...TheBigShort I know that.I know you have no problem with our tax system taking a little more at the top rate so some can filter d own to people who work just as hard if not harder on low income creating new wealth.Some times you can be creating new wealth on low margins.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?