<p>No, sometimes you need an investment. Activation energy. Not necessarily that of money, though that is useful. Of faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If my mother was fired from her defense industry job, I wouldn’t necessarily see it as a tragedy – perhaps the country spends too much on the defense budget anyway and it’s time to use her skills in a position that will contribute more to society." </p>
<p>If there is a market correction then new jobs replace old ones. Therefore, resulting in no net unemployment loss or double-digit GDP drop. Both are happening right now therefore this can not be a so-called “market correction”. </p>
<p>This is a recession. </p>
<p>There are also externalities affected by unemployment which exceeds the benefits due to removing inefficiencies. Perhaps it is inefficient for your mother to work in the defense industry. However, if you can’t afford college if she is unemployed then you not going to college is an additional externality. This is why we have unemployment protection and welfare. </p>
<p>If Ben Bernanke, one of the smartest economists in the US says it’s a recession then I’d trust him more than someone who might or might not have finished ECON 101.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is mutualism. For example, ants need sugar while aphids produce sugar but lack protection. However, this sort of cooperation takes eons to establish through natural selection and evolution. Humans can not wait this long. If I am a farmer I simply can’t just let anyone who doesn’t have a #2HB pencil to starve while waiting for a lucky person to stumble across my field looking for food. A biological system does that through natural selection. However, many species die in the process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the long-term labour supply = labour demand. I don’t know where you got the fact that there is “always” a job oversupply. Just think, imagine you’re a firm producing gadgets. You can produce 10/labour-hour. If you only have one person than in ten hours you can produce 100. If the demand is 120 then there is an oversupply. But, you can reduce that by increasing the price of the good. Therefore, reducing demand to 100 and still maintain a labour force of one. There’s no reason why a company facing excess demand over capacity will either not investment in more capital or increase prices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Difficult with protectionism.</p>
<p>Of course there’s a recession. The post title is purely rhetorical. Geez… <em>rolleyes</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I say that’s why we have financial aid.</p>
<p>no guys it’s cool, the recession will end if we just have a little faith</p>
<p>Indeed it will.</p>
<p>Remember, the money supply is essentially a social contract. The cultural aspect of the economy is just as important as anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>which covers only the cost of college which does nothing for your poor unemployed mother back home. for a lot of students this would mean dropping out temporarily (or permanently) to help support the family. unemployment and welfare are not the same as financial aid and that you so easily conflate them is very telling.</p>
<p>I didn’t conflate them.</p>
<p>I’ve received food stamps before, TANF, the works. </p>
<p>I generally prefer subsidies over outright handouts. It provides affordability while introducing a nominal marginal cost term into the economic calculations of the recipients – it makes for much more efficient welfare spending. Instead of TV dinners you buy rice at 0.80 dollars per dry pound. (That’s market price, not subsidy price.) With the right products, you can (healthily) feed a whole family for 2 dollars a meal. Now, just toss in the subsidies.</p>
<p>In Singapore this scheme is called “workfare”.</p>
<p>“If there is a market correction then new jobs replace old ones. Therefore, resulting in no net unemployment loss or double-digit GDP drop. Both are happening right now therefore this can not be a so-called “market correction”.”</p>
<p>I disagree. A recession of any type is a market correction. New jobs don’t replace old ones instantaneously. It’s a process that takes time.</p>
<p>^^ Well it’s sort of like breaking chemical bonds, to borrow an analogy. It requires the activation energy of pulling workers out of inefficient positions before you can see the exothermic result of reassigning them elsewhere. Of course, this is a time-dependent process. But one made quicker and more efficient by better forms of organisation. Economic catalysts, so to speak.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, the analogy between ecological systems and economic systems doesn’t make an analogy between organisms and humans. The unit individual at the ecological level is the selfish gene. The unit individual at the economic level is homo economicus. </p>
<p>Also, evolution doesn’t require species death. It just requires organismal mortality. (Think about it.) Whenever homo economicus decides not to buy a product or service, he is tossing a decision tree branch out the window. ==> meme death. (or at least lack of meme propagation.) Through the sum actions of individual actors, the economy evolves, just like through the sum actions of selfish genes, an ecological system evolves.</p>
<p>Remember, natural selection is about who can propagate most. “Survival of the fittest” was the phrase coined by Darwin’s disparager. In the same way, economic actions and sociocultural entities called memes are being selected for.</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>Now it is Bedtime…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try a closed system, not the open system of a single business.</p>
<p>Where does the demand come from? What fuels the demand? It is external. You have an open system. And you also stop hiring workers because they are more useful somewhere else. Open system. Demand is finite because at some certain supply, other products start being more useful in terms of MB/MC than your product. Open system.</p>
<p>But on a <em>global</em> scale, taking into account the entire closed system, there will always be more jobs than workers. From two simple axioms: human want is infinite. Resources and productivity are finite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i don’t understand what you’re getting at here. are you saying if i was receiving financial aid and food stamps i would buy tv dinners instead of rice? </p>
<p>also you entirely missed my point, which was that financial aid only covers the cost of studies which leaves the newly unemployed parent well and screwed. </p>
<p>i’m glad you’ve got such a superiority complex but it’s time to realize that just because something worked for you doesn’t mean it’s going to work for everyone.</p>
<p>Question to the OP:</p>
<p>How the hell do you have a gf?</p>
<p>No, I’m saying that outright handouts, as opposed to subsidies, tend to make for a less efficient welfare system. Singapore has a pretty efficient welfare system, a subsidised national healthcare program for low-income families working alongside (not against) the private sector, a streamlined bureaucracy.</p>
<p>Also, if you give 250 dollars a month in foodstamps to a family say, the family feels compelled to spend all of it next month (cuz there is no “rollover”). But if you give them a large (80-95%) subsidy (with limits), they will feel pressured to save (while being able to afford to prop themselves until the next real job).</p>
<p>It works out for 4.5 million people. Say what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so for the highly intelligent and strong willed. Its just that most people happen to be to be too weak to survive in these harsh times.</p>
<p>“Not so for the highly intelligent and strong willed. Its just that most people happen to be to be too weak to survive in these harsh times.”</p>
<p>do you have a job? how much does it pay? are you in college?</p>
<p>This entire thread is ridiculous. I’d like to know one thing: What is the point of discussing YOUR economic plan when you’re not a leading, trusted economist?</p>
<p>You’re in college, so…your economic plan may be legitimate at some point, but it’s not legitimate now. You should feel content and satisfied to reside in your non-recession bubble, sealed off from reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, you have a mindset of a central planner.</p>
<p>Shame on you, you ****ing (big government) socialist.</p>
<p>lol @ the fact the “socialist” is a dirty word</p>