Reality Check wrote:thomasglee wrote:
If you'll notice, I used "future tense", indicating what I expect to see, and what I "assume" they will seek, in the future. I never stated that the jobs have moved back. That will take time.
I am not sure the entire discussion above about manufacturing jobs returning to the United States has been about the future only.
But I do agree with your statement above "that (it) will take time" to see manufacturing jobs actually return to the Unites States ( and they have not returned in any meaningful way yet), but it will also likely take a break down in the global trading system, or a total collapse of the difference in wages between the developing world and the United States for a significant move of manufacturing jobs back to the United States to occur.
The later being something along the lines of a return to a subsistence existence for a large proportion of the American people.
China is not the only low wage location for manufacturing and as long as the global trading system functions and all Americans enjoy such high standards of living, manufacturing jobs will not return to the United States in any significant number. Even those on food stamps and in public housing in the United States are wealthy compared to a subsistence farmer in the developing world.
I personally believe a break down in the trading systems as a result of a crisis war being more likely, but both could happen.
Trevor wrote:Course, we might make a different decision after the end of WWIII. We've made a similar mistake that Russia did with Germany: our debt and technology have helped build the military that China is eventually going to turn on us.
In fact, in the case discussed, the very measures which the dominant "macro-economic" theory has recommended as a remedy for unemployment, namely the increase of aggregate demand, have become a cause of a very extensive misallocation of resources which is likely to make later large-scale unemployment inevitable. The continuous injection of additional amounts of money at points of the economic system where it creates a temporary demand which must cease when the increase of the quantity of money stops or slows down, together with the expectation of a continuing rise of prices, draws labour and other resources into employments which can last only so long as the increase of the quantity of money continues at the same rate - or perhaps even only so long as it continues to accelerate at a given rate. What this policy has produced is not so much a level of employment that could not have been brought about in other ways, as a distribution of employment which cannot be indefinitely maintained and which after some time can be maintained only by a rate of inflation which would rapidly lead to a disorganisation of all economic activity. The fact is that by a mistaken theoretical view we have been led into a precarious position in which we cannot prevent substantial unemployment from re-appearing; not because, as this view is sometimes misrepresented, this unemployment is deliberately brought about as a means to combat inflation, but because it is now bound to occur as a deeply regrettable but inescapable consequence of the mistaken policies of the past as soon as inflation ceases to accelerate.
Higgenbotham wrote:As I've quoted, Bernanke has stated that ZIRP is the route to "maximum employment", in his words. It isn't, but it may be the route to maximum employment of the baby boomers right now.
Higgenbotham wrote:On the other hand, if the budget is balanced next year and the excess $1.5 trillion disappears, then my assumption would be that no matter how good Yahoo's CEO is, there will be no possible way to turn Yahoo around.
The next morning Jürgen Ligi, the country’s finance minister since 2009, had to comment on them at a press conference. “Maybe the style can be argued,” he tells me. “For example, the reaction was really sensitive, blaming Krugman, but the general idea was right. Krugman was clearly wrong. He clearly doesn’t understand differences of choices between America and in a small economy. By a Nobelist, it was a shame.”
aedens wrote:This slow rate of progress, or lack of progress, was due to two reasons-to the remarkable absence of important technical improvements and to the failure of capital to accumulate.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest