The Fed (hisshiss,spitspit) Controlling USA Growth

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-fed-s-interest-rate-hike-will-prevent-people-from-getting-jobs   "The decision to raise interest rates was a conscious decision to slow the rate of economic growth and job creation. It will raise interest rates that people pay on credit cards, car loans, home mortgages and other types of debt. It will also raise the cost of borrowing for businesses looking to invest and state and local governments borrowing for infrastructure." Dean Baker talked about the Housing Bubble in 2003. It didn't come to government atten. publicly until 2006 and again 2008. I would NOT poo-poo this guy. He certainly save us money and stress

Anyone in the Mood for a Hiroshima/Nagasaki Debate?

  • I'll start:
  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.  Hiroshima was a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the headquarters in charge of defending the southern half of Japan from invasion.  Nagasaki was an industrial center with huge weapons factories.
  • The A-bombs were dropped at the height of the most brutal war in human history.  Japan did not offer to surrender until after both A-bombs had been dropped.
  • Anyone have a rebuttal?
  • Sorry about the bullet points.  It was the best way to force the system to format my text appropriately and not jumble everything into a single run-on paragraph.

Is it time for another Luddite movement?

I was happy to see that Microsoft's lord and master had a thing or two to say about robotization. He thinks that it should be taxed. There's a kinda sorta debate beginning in some sectors examining the effects of robotization. Literally millions of jobs have been lost to automization of industrial jobs, we're approaching even the robotization of transportation.   Many industries have moved abroad to seek cheaper labour - but the cheaper alternative for many is to mechanize the production of products - and even services. All for the sake of saving money and increasing profits.   But at one point or another so many jobs will be lost that millions will have nowhere to go to find a livelyhood. The entire basis of capitalism is likely to fail at this point - if you have cheap production but the market has no means to buy your production, what's the fucking point?   Some politicos and unions (certainly not over there) are speaking of "minimum pay" for everyone, regardless if they work or not. More sensible (IMO) ideas are on the line of making robots (or better said, the companies that use them) pay social security. Say, on the basis of, for example, if a robot replaces 15 workers, it should pay the social security-unemployment-workers' comp-etc. of 15 workers.   It certainly would make companies think thrice before replacing workers with machines - and if it still made economic sense for them, well, the unemployed workers would at least make a living and provide a market for robot-manufactured/provided goods and services.   The alternative, which the economic powers-that-be will likely choose, will be to go for the short-term profits, come what may. Which, of course, will eventually lead to revolution.   Never expect capitalism to think ahead or to be altruist. Only the VERY wealthy (Carnegie, Gates, Ford, et al) can step back and see the future.   But something has to give at one point, don't you agree?