Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Republican 'merry Christmas' to unemployed? 'Bah, Humbug!'

Dec 8, 2003 8:28PM PST
No Christmas cheer for the unemployed.
(New York times login "speakeasy;" password, "speakeasygang")

"Citing the improving economy, Republicans decided Monday against extending federal unemployment benefits before Congress leaves for the year. Democrats said it would mean a joyless Christmas for tens of thousands of jobless Americans." (from GOP Does Not Extend Jobless Benefits)

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: So why exactly are YOU not applauding this?
Dec 9, 2003 12:15PM PST

Hi, Ed.

>>Don't you think spending additional money on additional "emergency benefits" so those benefitting could purchase CHRISTMAS gifts would be active endorsement of a religion by the government?<<
Sarcasm doesn't become you (though it's typical). There's no need to cite Christmas -- just cite "to avoid reduced retail activity over the key holiday buying season." I wouldn't necessarily extend the program for another year, btw -- I'd probably extend it for three or four months, until we know whether the recovery generates more jobs HERE, and not just in China and India.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


>> each of which could fund the extensions of unemployment benefits for their own citizens<<
Not hardly, since unlike the Feds, they have to balance their budgets.

- Collapse -
Why not cite it ? After all, the article did...
Dec 10, 2003 6:07AM PST

and again Christmas is a Christian holiday. To non-Christians it is pretty much the same as any other time of the year so why should there be exceptions unless the Government is willing to spend additional monies for a Religious Purpose.

You can't have it both ways Dave although you try.

- Collapse -
It's created.
Dec 9, 2003 9:57AM PST

Unemployment is something CREATED by a government. A government is able to avoid unemployment if it wants to. But since capitalism is based upon competition, unemployment is a necessary factor. Without unemployment there is no competition on the labor market and the entire system will fall apart.

- Collapse -
WRONG Charlie
Dec 9, 2003 10:45AM PST

No, full employment without regard to the economics is government created, make work, not always a bad thing, but not good as a default stance. I'd like to see people getting government aid do something for it. Even just picking up trash down a mile of highway. Single parents of preschool age are a different problem. And so are those too infirm to do much.

As regarding -

"Without unemployment there is no competition on the labor market and the entire system will fall apart."

Like the idea of a working communism did Charlie? Same difference in theory, no competition. In fact, desperate struggle to survive for most under it.

Sorry Charlie, I don't support cradle to grave cocooning by the government any more than I do total nonregulation of all markets.

The USA is not totally socialist, or communism (in theory, ideal is very alturistic, practical is lousy). It started as a capitalistic society, has developed some socialistic properties. And I don't necessarily think that is all bad. It's the balence between capitalistic and socialistic positions that is hard to find.

Each side insists on yanking things their way "just a wee bit more".

Sheesh, I don't have the answers, but giving away any incentive to work isn't the answer. And refusing to help someone besides your brother and next door neighbor isn't it either.

Sheesh, why do I even bother.

roger

- Collapse -
Re: It's created.
Dec 9, 2003 10:08PM PST

Hi, Charlie.

I agree with Roger (surprise!) In a capitalist system, unemployment is primarily caused by the business cycle; except in a sever, long-lasting downturn (e.g., the great Depression), governments role is to stimulate the economy to shorten the downturn while cushioning the blow to those affected. Unfortunately, the current administration favors the rich and powerful over the needy -- if this were the Titanic, Bush's approach to loading the lifeboats would be "women and children last -- they have less power!"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: It's created.
Dec 9, 2003 10:33PM PST

Hi Dave,

I respect the fact that you agree with Roger and it is no surprise to me at all! But I wonder, what causes the business cycles?

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re: It's created.
Dec 10, 2003 7:01AM PST

"what causes the business cycles"

Watch out for the black helicopters Charlie.

Wink

roger

- Collapse -
NT - Could you please expound that Roger?
Dec 10, 2003 9:46AM PST

`?

- Collapse -
Black Helicopters? a reference to an old stereotype
Dec 11, 2003 7:00AM PST

I remember the reference more than the time and place. The image of a rather extreme self reliant type that distrust everything about the government. There were often satires of the character type.

Several years ago there were many who believed that black helicopters were special ops who came to deal with people the government wanted silenced. Or that the government wanted to disappear because those individuals had "learned" that the government was doing secret projects, etc.

There were also associations with UFO sightings and claimed coverups. The copters were supposely always around after UFO crashes and stuff, hauling away evidence, covering up, etc.

In other words, if learn the truth of the secret government, a black helicopter will probaby come to take you away in secret, another unsolved missing person.

Just try a google on "black helicopters", you'll find all sorts of hits.

roger

- Collapse -
Thanks for the explanation!
Dec 11, 2003 8:00PM PST

No, it's not a question of distrust in this case. I am talking about the unemployment and the "cycles" independently of what government it is. It is, IMO, caused by different actors; government, enterprises etc. So when we talk about unemployment for example, I think we have to keep in mind that it is nothing that just happens out of nature, but is created by these. It is in their power to avoid it if the desire is there. But as I stated before, capitalism cannot work without a certain level unemployment. Now, they have managed to keep people "happy" by giving them welfare for example. In that way the people do not need to uprise against the system. But when they have reached the level where they only have their bones, that's when a change will take place.
Marx talks, AAMOF, about letting Capitalism go as far as possible in order to have the people to uprise.
The middle and upper class are very eager to give toys and money to charity organizations these days. And this is another trick to stop the uprising of the poorest class in the country. If you look at Latin America, you can see that people go out and try to overthrow their governments many times simply because they don't even have the basic needs. There are many examples of this, and in that sense Marx was right. I am just talking about Marx as a philosopher and an analyst of the Capitalist society and not his solutions to the problems that Capitalism is suffering from.

- Collapse -
Re:Thanks for the explanation!
Dec 16, 2003 8:03AM PST

In your post titled 'It's created', quote-

'Unemployment is something CREATED by a government.'

That and your mention of secret government above the visible one made me assume that you blamed government for the business cycles too.


'..,nothing that just happens out of nature, but is created by these. It is in their power to avoid it if the desire is there...'

This implies that someone wants people to be out of work. I think you're implying in a round about way that businesses want unemployment to make it easier to manage their workers with threats of replacing them.

'The middle and upper class are very eager to give toys and money to charity organizations these days. And this is another trick to stop the uprising of the poorest class in the country.'

So now everyone giving to charity organizations is trying to keep a group of people poor and downtrodden hmmmm?

'Marx talks, AAMOF, about letting Capitalism go as far as possible in order to have the people to uprise.'

So Marx advocates letting conditions by his standards deteriote until people are force to uprise instead of helping them to begin with?

roger

- Collapse -
The consequences of pure capitalism...
Dec 16, 2003 6:20PM PST
"This implies that someone wants people to be out of work. I think you're implying in a round about way that businesses want unemployment to make it easier to manage their workers with threats of replacing them." - Roger SE

Not only the threat of replacing them, but a way of keeping the wages down in order to increase their profits and consequently the profits of the stock holders, mainly those with enormous amounts invested.

"So now everyone giving to charity organizations is trying to keep a group of people poor and downtrodden hmmmm?" - Roger SE

There certainly are those who are concious about the fact that it is better to have a certain percentage of the population at the bottom of the society. But it is mainly the government and its "financial sponsors" who are the ones asking people to do it instead of fixing the problem themself, due to factors previously explained.

So Marx advocates letting conditions by his standards deteriote until people are force to uprise instead of helping them to begin with? - Roger SE

So you also realize that the pure capitalism leads to extreme poverty?
- Collapse -
CORRECTION!
Dec 16, 2003 6:54PM PST

I quoted Roger NC and nobody else. Sorry Roger!

- Collapse -
Re:Thanks for the explanation!
Dec 18, 2003 9:09AM PST

"So you also realize that the pure capitalism leads to extreme poverty?"

How do you get that from this -

"So Marx advocates letting conditions by his standards deteriote until people are force to uprise instead of helping them to begin with? - Roger SE"

Anyway, I don't know if I understand pure capitalism, but it probably would have problems.

Pure communism won't work, because of human nature. Not only because some will steal from the communal belongs, but because people will not put forth the extra efforted needed if there is no reward. Just to be all you can be ain't gonna to cut it if trying harder doesn't get you something. It may be unpleasant to face, but if we don't get some personal reward for doing something, even if intangible, we're not likely to be very work very hard at it.

That's a fact, Charlie. Even with occasional impulses of a "higher nature", humans are basically selfish. Not necessarily extremely so, but selfish. So pure alturism or pure communism won't work any better than the corrupted communism.

roger

- Collapse -
The flow of money creates business cycles.
Dec 10, 2003 1:09PM PST

If a government has a trillion dollars total and it sits in a bank and never leaves it, then there is no economy. If the trillion dollars are distributed among the populace by various means then it fuels growth and the flow of money goes to producers who in turn pay their workers and stockholders and the cycles continue, sometimes with it weighted more on one side, sometimes more on the other. When money is tight, interest rates too high, the government distributes more money. If it distributes too much you get inflation from the expanded money supply. When there is too much money in the economy causing price inflation the government raises taxes to slow the borrowing, increase the value of money so prices stop rising and to cool the economy a bit. You can also have a credit induced inflation where the money supply artificially expands

Right now there is too much money in the economy due to the Reserve's continual lowering of interest rates, fewer demands for dollars and interest rates are at all time lows which is good for the younger people still in the job market with a wage, but the older people are receiving less on their retirement investments which is now fueling a rise in Social Security and government supported health care needs at the present time. This is part of what's precipitating the latest Medicare bill on their behalf.

In my opinion, they need to tighten the money up a bit, have interest rates slowly increase about two points so that retirees could earn at least 5% on Certificates of Deposit. This would increase the burden on the working people, cause some price increases of products, but also relieve some of the burden on the elderly and their dwindling returns on their lifetime savings.

Greenspan unfortunately went thru the inflation years of the 70's and seems deathly afraid of it coming back and has gone too far the other way. People who have savings need a way to make a decent return on them and 3% per jumbo CD for 24 month commit is just not giving a decent enough return to retirees. When you realize this and then also realize that in an often desperate effort to find greater return on their money that retirees have made risky investments in the stock market at a time they may have decreasing intellectual acumen to deal with it, then you can see a problem growing for the future care of them when they lose those savings. This has happened already several times in the last decade. One thing seniors should never do is buy any stock on margin, but pay themselves for the whole stock so if the value drops they aren't forced into selling some stock at a discount to cover margin calls. Mutual funds are the most risky investment seniors should ever make with retirement funds.

Business growth isn't everything in an economy. If they can get money too cheaply and use it to expand too quickly, then those who should have received more funds from the lending of their money lose and the business will eventually lose when it has overgrown it's future diminished market. Unless the flow of money is kept fairly even things will slow down and stagnate. A business can switch from selling stock to help them over rough spots and instead borrow money. A decent return on savings is just as important as keeping price inflation in check. Greenspan needs to find a better balance that doesn't just take business needs into account since business is only one aspect of the overall economy.

- Collapse -
So...
Dec 11, 2003 2:59AM PST

what you say James is that the cycles ARE created whether it is by ideology or need...

- Collapse -
"women and children last"...
Dec 10, 2003 6:20AM PST

Wrong again Dave it would hopefully be Liberals and Progressives last--they provide nothing and demand much.