Outstanding article must read.

[fkbsuhites]

The trajectory to the bottom will not change until individual values change.

Look at all the posts on ET this year looking for tips and tricks. Full of kids trying to be "trader" and get rich quick.

The way we elect public officials has to change. Look at the health care bill. A much needed overhaul mired in committee of senators that represent less than 1% of the population.

We have the village idiots in parts of the country no one knows exists electing the same representative forever. With seniority these representatives end up with the most power in congress.

Then we're stuck with these village idiots dictating policy because they chair the powerful committees. This has to change.

Policy making has to be wrested away from those who put a flag on their lapel and scream USA while defrauding everyone around them.

 

[nutmeg]

We have the village idiots in parts of the country no one knows exists electing the same representative forever. With seniority these representatives end up with the most power in congress.
------------------------

You have a valid point but does it matter if we re elect them or not the "losers" end up being "appointed" to some other unelected patronage position.

 

[GS19]

bidask is right on, the big profits go to those who build thousands of products overseas not the few who do R&D.

GS

 

[PnL Rally]

Quote from piezoe:

It is no secret that there are no longer enough U.S. citizens going into science and engineering graduate programs to satisfy the demand. These disciplines require too much dedicated study for the income one can earn upon graduation compared with say degrees in finance, business, or medicine. The result is that many of our top science and engineering programs are populated with foreign students who are willing to put in the necessary hard work.

Consequently, if you want to hire only "Americans" for some of these highly technical jobs you will end up with a low level of competence or else have to pay considerably higher salaries to attract good American students into these fields. I don't think American corporations are ready to do that.

I left science and went into trading when I saw how low the salaries were. Most of my classmates that were also interested in basic science went for business jobs for the same reason. I recently learned that foreign post-docs working in the U.S. don't have to pay taxes on their stipends like an American post-doc would. Americans won't go into science and engineering until the incentives are there.

 

[RiceRocket]

We don't need more central planning and social engineering to fix this economy. We need government to become small business friendly. Make startup funds easier to get, lower taxes for small business owners..etc. Small business is the main job provider in the US economy.

 

[Vikesha]

Warren Buffett said, America is going to pull out of this one, because of natural way of American people to be innovative. Couldn't find an article, i think it was in NY Times couple months ago. I really do believe in it.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from Anaconda:

You're a proven idiot who spewing nonsense because it is too much stress on your tiny brain to actually think.

Great Depression was not caused by protectionism but by a rampant growth of money supply and subsequent sharp contraction of it.

Protectionism, contrary to the academics, does work and has worked. Like USA during the Industrialization era and Japan during its boom years, as well as currently. Protecting the nation's manufacturing base is key.

You again, with your great wisdom! Never said protectionism cause the Great Depression, but it certainly hurt the cause. Have you ever taken an economics course? Protectionism is an incredibly terrible thing for an economy. Or perhaps you know more than most if not all world leaders and economists. Protectionism will greatly increase costs. Here, I will start you off with some basic reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

"Virtually all modern day economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits, and that it impedes economic growth.[2][3] Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once famously stated that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."[4]

You can continue to embarrass yourself if you want, but I'd recommend you stop posting.

 

[jordanf]

Quote from Daal:

With all due respect nitro, your argument is a bit flawled. Your terrible scenario where robots produce everything and everybody loses their job is actually excellent for the world. Lets say bots start to farm, manufacture, perform surgeries, clean, etc. This would lead to a tremendous growth in output(after all that is the only case where most people would lose their jobs), what would happen to prices in this situation?MV = PQ, this is equivalent to P = MV/Q, Q is output, the more output the less the price. Everything will be massively cheap, we are talking bums on the street being able to afford health care.

You are assuming constant M. Historically, government/central bank response to increases in Q has always been to increase M at a pace such that P is always increasing. I don't see why that would change?

 

[Anaconda]

Quote from Kassz007:

You again, with your great wisdom! Never said protectionism cause the Great Depression, but it certainly hurt the cause. Have you ever taken an economics course? Protectionism is an incredibly terrible thing for an economy. Or perhaps you know more than most if not all world leaders and economists. Protectionism will greatly increase costs. Here, I will start you off with some basic reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

"Virtually all modern day economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits, and that it impedes economic growth.[2][3] Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once famously stated that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."[4]

You can continue to embarrass yourself if you want, but I'd recommend you stop posting.

Little boy, you continue proving that you have no ability to think, just spew what others say.

I don't let economists make up my mind, I look at history & current reality. USA experienced its biggest growth under protectionism. So did Japan. It's not about restricting other nations from trading, it's about supporting your own industrial base so you can produce goods that worth something. But what would you know about producing, you're a loser occupying your parents' basement.

 

[Daal]

Quote from jordanf:

You are assuming constant M. Historically, government/central bank response to increases in Q has always been to increase M at a pace such that P is always increasing. I don't see why that would change?

This would not be important, the central bank can affect nominal levels on REAL terms the adjustment would occur regardless of money printing(your income could go up 1000x fold in a massive money printing but prices of rice only up 100x due bots planting rice like hell)