Posts by Harold Martin10

There aren't any real signs pointing toward a global economic meltdown. Now, things might look a bit different here in America—but we certainly aren't headed back to the Stone Age.

nimbleharbor10 said:Sweden essentially operates on a universal basic income model. If someone finds themselves without a job, the state provides housing, food, healthcare, and enough cash to maintain a decent standard of living. Without those safety nets in place, you'd be seeing blood in the streets.

I already laid it out for you: automation is only implemented if it results in actual cost savings.
To put it simply, if today's economy pays out a billion dollars in wages, and then half those jobs are automated, that automated 50% isn't going to command more than that initial billion—it'll actually cost less, say 750 million. Furthermore, there's a high probability that a significant chunk of those savings will leak out of the country to some other advanced economy that sells the robots.

If the workforce was pulling in a billion before, and now they're only pulling in 750 million after automation kicks in, please explain to me how they are supposed to pay for those imaginary services that are meant to replace the automated roles?

I am telling you plainly: automation presents massive social challenges.

This whole conversation about the social programs in Sweden—honestly, if we were looking at how things work here in the States, it would actually make sense to:
Actually, Sweden’s unemployment rate is sitting at 30%, not 7%—can you believe that?
Imagine if we didn't have those highly advanced, fully automated nations—think places like Japan, Australia, or South Korea—where the social safety net isn't the main focus, yet you don't see unemployment or civil unrest and revolutions breaking out. Wouldn't that be something?

If that example I shared is tripping you up... here is how the gears actually turn. Let’s say, before automation, workers were bringing in $1 billion. After things get automated, they’re bringing in $750 million—but keep in mind, the product quality is higher and the total volume of production has jumped too. From that surplus, say $150 million gets funneled straight into R&D—which, in turn, means companies start hiring a whole new wave of highly skilled specialists. Then, maybe $100 million goes toward executive bonuses or luxury spending—and wouldn't that increased demand for luxury goods just open up even more jobs elsewhere? On top of all that, the actual cost of the product starts to drop. It’s a cycle, really.

People who find themselves laid off usually have a bit of a safety net provided by the state—it’s actually quite similar to how things work here in the States. You get unemployment benefits for a set period, and if you don't land a new role quickly, you eventually transition onto social assistance, which isn't exactly a fortune, but it keeps you afloat while you figure out your next move. Most people end up using that time to retrain or pick up new skills. It seems like moving between different types of service jobs is relatively seamless, especially when you consider how much the economic landscape has shifted over the last century. I mean, only about 30% of the workforce is tied up in agriculture or manufacturing these days, yet unemployment stays remarkably low despite all those massive structural changes, doesn't it?

hollowhawk412 made a pretty great point—he was saying that over in Germany, they’d probably have one guy dedicated just to unscrewing a lightbulb and another specific person just to screw it back in. And even then? They’d still be sitting there with incredibly low unemployment rates. It makes you wonder—if we were to go ahead and dismantle every bit of technology we actually have, would we even end up with unemployment again? It's an interesting thought, isn't it?

CrniloOdSipe said:The guy in the video—the one who laid out his theories in his book, claiming "robots will steal your jobs, but that’s actually a good thing"—argues that technological progress is essentially just funneling everything into IT while systematically wiping out almost every other sector. He’s basically challenging the standard economic theory that new situations inevitably create new roles. Apparently, so far, none of the "mainstream" economists have been able to give him a solid rebuttal. Not just empty buzzwords, but a real, concrete counter-argument.

It doesn't necessarily mean we're seeing an explosion of *brand new professions*, though—it might just be that certain existing roles expand because higher production levels require more people, even if the labor per unit drops.

Think about it: how many people were eating out regularly a century ago compared to today? Or look at personal trainers—how many people could afford or access one back then versus now?

Besides, if you look at the data, the unemployment rate in the US in 2007 was pretty much identical to what it was in 1927. A massive amount of jobs simply vanished in that hundred-year gap.

nimbleharbor10 said:The logic holds up because there is a fundamental ceiling to what a single laborer, salesperson, or driver can accomplish. A human being can only produce a finite amount of work within a given timeframe, and that specific manual or interpersonal labor isn't something you can simply replicate with technology—at least, not until the moment you actually do, which effectively renders the human element obsolete anyway.

You actually need fewer designers nowadays. Honestly, you need far fewer workers than we see today because, by the very nature of the industry, a small handful of top-tier talent will inevitably capture 99% of the market share, leaving everyone else to fight over the scraps. It is exactly what we are seeing right now with the app development market.
The demand for engineers will continue to rise, and frankly, it always has, but the reality is that most of the population lacks both the capacity and the drive to pursue that kind of work. We see an endless influx of service workers and retail clerks, yet the actual technical expertise required to sustain a modern economy remains increasingly scarce because people simply aren't willing to put in the effort.
The chef you’re talking about is essentially a food designer, whereas the role of a server or a waiter is much more questionable. When I bought my last car online, the value added by the guy at the dealership—the one I eventually paid and took delivery from—was absolutely zero; he might as well have been a robot for all the good he did. It's a similar story with servers. Unless we are discussing highly specialized, high-end hospitality, a machine could easily step in and replace them without anyone noticing.

As much as you might believe that technical expertise and specialized skill sets are the ultimate keys to success in any industry, you are fundamentally mistaken if you think new job openings in any country will ever materialize in sufficient numbers to offset the ones being lost.
The trajectory of increasing automation points toward one inevitable outcome: escalating unemployment. Only a complete fool would swap out a hundred workers for a single robot that actually ends up costing more than the human staff it replaced. When you look at the math, replacing N number of jobs through automation won't actually result in cost savings equal to the wages of those N employees. Even if there are any savings at all, that surplus isn't going to be distributed among the remaining workforce; instead, it will be concentrated into the hands of a tiny, elite minority.

This relentless drive toward task automation is essentially driving a wedge into the very heart of our capitalist economy, leading us straight toward self-cannibalization. Unless we manage to engineer a solution that breaks free from this rigid neoliberal mindset—something like a guaranteed universal basic income—we are looking at a predictable descent into widespread poverty, followed inevitably by civil unrest and violent revolutions.

Look, take Sweden for example—they have about 70% of their workforce in service roles now. I'd bet anything that the economic structure looked completely different fifty years ago, yet I don't see any bloody revolutions or massive civil unrest happening there.

I think you might be missing the bigger picture of how economics actually works. If those few remaining employees end up with more disposable income, they'll be able to afford more services and luxuries, which in turn creates even more new jobs.

By your logic, developed nations should already be drowning in high unemployment, but in reality, it's quite the opposite.

Thomas Anderson6 said:Even though this is off-topic...
that is precisely the issue. We spend the bulk of the budget irrationally, yet "stimulating consumption" is treated as if it's the citizens and corporations spending, rather than the government itself. A budget is a cash box that must be balanced; it should always be designed starting with projected revenue, then adjusting expenditures accordingly. Here, we do the exact opposite—which explains the results.

Try planning your own household budget by deciding what you want to spend first and then trying to scramble for the income to cover it—do you see the flaw in that logic?

Regarding filling the coffers, I believe lower taxes would yield a better budget in the medium and long term—it's an empirical fact. Try convincing me otherwise. Just look at the USA: under this current administration, we see increased tax pressure and discipline (which is fine, no argument there), but what’s the result? The deficit is skyrocketing. Why? The drop in business activity outweighs the tax hikes, causing revenue to plummet. That should be obvious to any economist with a high school education.
Without recovering consumption and boosting business activity, there is no progress. Furthermore, heavy tax pressure kills entrepreneurial spirit—who is going to build anything if the state takes everything and leaves you with nothing?
Ultimately, you're looking at a vicious cycle and a government that lacks both vision and the political courage to act...

Thomas Anderson6, I'm actually on the same page as you here—I'm just asking the question: who gets the axe? And really, who can pull that off when even a tiny percentage cut triggers a massive political meltdown?

The real struggle isn't what happens ten years down the road if we cut taxes; the problem is what happens in the next month or two. If you try to cut spending from the broader population, they'll be the first ones screaming at you to stop cutting.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Of course you have to kickstart spending, because let's be real, how does everyone sitting on their hands actually help production? And the money will materialize through tax cuts, so there's no need to go running for a loan. 😁

The minority is what fills the treasury, while the majority draws from it. If you look at it that way, the small group funding the budget is technically wealthier on average. So, you basically take from the broad base of people—retirees, those on social programs, etc.—and leave it to the "capitalists" (small business owners and entrepreneurs).

It doesn't really feel like that's what people mean when they talk about "stimulating consumption" here in the USA. Usually, when someone mentions stimulating consumption, they imply that the general public should have more money in their pockets, not less.

And regarding that second point—when exactly is this money supposed to appear, and where is it coming from to pay for salaries, pensions, social benefits, and interest on the debt in the meantime? Are you suggesting the budget would be healthier if the government just slashed taxes? If that were actually a viable solution, I'm pretty sure both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party would have done it by now.

The reality is, there isn't any real saving happening in the USA or in Greece—not in any country facing a debt crisis, for that matter, because all these nations still spend far more than they bring in.

The thing is, neither the citizens nor the politicians in those stupid states really made much of a fuss about it. I mean, looking at the short term—it was honestly a lot less painful for them than any other option they could have picked.

Absolutely. If we had a more organized country—lower taxes, better business conditions, you name it—we’d actually see those low interest rates on our national debt.

Let's be real here: would anyone on this forum actually lend their savings to the government for less than 5% a year? Personally, I know I wouldn't—not after watching how every single government has handled things over the last 15 years.

Hannah Alvarez2 said:Hey there,

This is my first time jumping into the econ threads, and honestly, I’ll be the first to admit—I don't know much about this stuff. It’s pretty much all Greek to me.
So, I was scrolling through some news on CNN (yeah, yeah, I know, it can be a total circus), and they were talking about how Japan’s national debt is sitting at 200% of their GDP. We just saw all that chaos unfold in the USA because of massive debt levels, and let's face it—half of Europe, including us, is basically living in a state of debt slavery right now.

My big question is: who actually owns all this debt? Which institutions are we beholden to? And who really holds the keys to the kingdom when it comes to ownership?

Are you talking about public debt? Well, it belongs to whoever buys it—which ranges from millions of small-scale investors through bond funds and banks, all the way up to the massive institutional players.

Sure, Japan has a high level of external debt, but they stay on top of their payments quite consistently.

It’s easy to get spooked by those massive numbers, but generally speaking, a country's citizens' financial assets will outweigh its total external debt.

You could look at it like this: maybe 40% of people are savers, while the other 60% are either breaking even or living on credit. That 60%, plus the government, effectively owes money to the savers.

dustyheron5 said:The Euro exchange rate? That’s easy—just your standard summer-to-fall fluctuations. What I actually find baffling is why Mr. debil is leaning so heavily into Dollar-denominated debt. We are part of the European Union, and the Federal Reserve isn't exactly playing games while we push toward full integration... yet here we are, looking at plans to take on at least $1.5 to $2.0 billion more in USD at interest rates between 6.5% and 6.75%.

It’s almost ironic—Mr. debil and his circle used to mock everyday people for taking out loans in Swiss Francs—even though most folks aren't currency experts (unlike our dear leader, apparently)—and now they're pulling the exact same stunt. It makes you wonder how the Federal Reserve is supposed to defend both the Euro and the Dollar against the local currency all at once.

I'll grab some popcorn and settle in for this show.🙂

It's true that the €/$ pair has been relatively steady lately, but don't let that fool you—it could easily slide to 1.20 or even lower within a year or two. But then again, why should Slavek care? He’s heading out the door once this term is up anyway.

hollowhawk412 said:I mean, how on earth do you nationalize something that you literally codified into law yourself?

The sheer arrogance involved in denying how much politics dictates entrepreneurship is truly staggering...
Most of the time, they pull it off through regulatory red tape....

I’m not pointing fingers at you specifically, but there are plenty of examples out there...

True market behavior would be letting that 5% be handed over to individuals to use however they see fit...

Just so we're clear, the people getting hit hardest here are the workers. They’re the ones putting the most skin in the game, yet the money that should be staying in their pockets is being diverted to patch up holes in a bloated, inefficient federal budget.

The whole social-bureaucratic state model has taken on this twisted, almost perverse shape—where hard work is essentially penalized while idleness gets rewarded. As long as the system keeps functioning this way, how can we ever expect the economy to truly bounce back?

Arthur Fowler83 said:So, I guess when Washington, D.C. and Brussels strip away a nation's sovereignty, it's perfectly fine—but the moment you try to claw back that lost autonomy, suddenly it's "populism."
Interesting perspective.
Are you perhaps a journalist?
☕

Well, if you're achieving those goals by robbing your own citizens and racking up debt under terrible terms, then yeah—that's definitely populism.

No, I'm not a journalist.

Arthur Fowler83 said:It isn't populism.
The actual populists were the Canadian socialists who borrowed from anyone and everyone they could find while they held power. Sure, they managed to temporarily boost living standards and fund a few projects, but they were essentially political puppets dancing for the European Union and the IMF. When they couldn't handle the fallout of the crisis and those massive debts they piled up, the people finally had enough and voted them out in 2010, choosing a capable leader who was then left to clean up their mess.
Viktor Orbán realized that you can't have sovereign policy while being beholden to the IMF, so he moved as fast as possible to settle those debts. He actually succeeded recently, even if it meant taking on more expensive loans from non-political creditors.
There’s nothing populist about it. It's simply the only realistic way to get one of many political nooses off his neck.

I know the mainstream media loves to slap the "populist" label on any attempt at sovereign policymaking, but you really have to think for yourself.

Our society—and specifically our media—has spent years teaching us that it's perfectly normal for politicians to ignore what the public actually wants. Naturally, as soon as someone actually dares to listen to the people, the attacks start immediately.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that's the reality here in America.

That's a bit like saying the Republican Party were populists and the Democratic Party weren't just because they aren't the Republicans.

Nationalizing pension funds and swapping out cheap debt for expensive debt just to score points with the crowd? That is pure populism, plain and simple.

Arthur Fowler83 said:It’s an undeniable reality that the average Canadian and American currently share a similar—and equally underwhelming—standard of living.
The catch is that our standard of living is essentially an artificial construct, built on a foundation of massive debt, reckless borrowing, political subservience, and the fire sale of state assets. We’re watching our quality of life erode day by day. The debts are coming due, the economic policies are a mess, and whenever any significant political decision needs to be made, we have to look to Brussels for permission.

On the flip side, the current Canadian situation feels temporary; in a few years, they might actually see upward mobility. Viktor Orbán could have easily handed his people a quick boost through cheap IMF loans—exactly how the Canadian socialists did it previously—but he chose not to because the man is not a mere populist.
He refused to let the IMF tie his hands and dictate how to run the country. He’d rather take on more expensive credit if necessary than sacrifice the sovereignty to make his own decisions. By sticking to his own policy and implementing smart economic measures, he aims to improve his people's lives in the long run without having globalist powers holding a leash around his neck.
While our politicians are busy liquidating state assets, Orbán is busy acquiring companies that are vital to the economy, which indirectly bolsters his ability to act independently on the political stage.

In other words, their car is slowly but surely making its way uphill.
Our car is accelerating rapidly, but in the wrong direction... right until the moment we hit a massive ravine.
The difference is that the Republican Party is driving their car.
Ours is being driven by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, which makes for an excellent choice if you're looking to fly headfirst into a ditch.

http://www.realdeal.hu/20130517/hung...forint-slumps/

So, he basically swapped out cheap debt for more expensive debt. Plus, he nationalized pension funds just to plug the holes in the budget. So, no—he's definitely not a populist, right? 🙂

If you just nationalize the pension funds here in America, you’ll see growth regardless of whether you actually implement "reforms"—honestly, even Šuker could have pulled that off, and I think even Sanders had the idea at one point. Pushing for an IMF bailout is nothing more than a populist stunt, especially since Canada is simultaneously racking up debt with other, much more expensive foreign creditors.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:What’s your actual take on this country? Do you truly see it as your homeland, or do you just view it as some entity that popped up after the old nation vanished back in the day?

How do you even justify calling this place home when its whole vibe feels openly hostile toward our heritage? Is it just pure sentimentality talking, or does the name on the map actually matter to you?

I mean, what could have possibly happened in 2000 to make America just disappear?

Back when I was in high school, I was definitely one of those people who felt the world was fundamentally unfair. In my case, it was a mix of feeling undervalued and seeing others get ahead way too easily. I wouldn't say I was actually jealous—I was pretty content with my own life—but I just couldn't wrap my head around why one person's work could be valued at 100 times more than someone else's. At the time, I didn't really grasp how capital functions or why the right allocation of resources is so vital to the whole system. Now that I've grown up and understand those mechanics, that sense of injustice has pretty much vanished.

Justin Patel8 said:The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

I don't think this is nonsense at all! Honestly, big business prefers a powerful government over a weak one—they can lean on the state for subsidies or massive bailouts, and they certainly have the deep pockets needed to hire lobbyists who can dismantle high regulatory hurdles that specifically target them.

On the flip side, small business owners just don't have the muscle or the cash for that kind of game. That's why it's so much harder for them to navigate a system full of red tape, find the capital to scale up production, or get any help when a crisis hits—the state basically just lets them sink.

If we had less government regulation, the economy would probably be way more dynamic. You'd see more major players failing and more small startups rising to take their place. But, of course, the people currently sitting at the top aren't exactly thrilled by that prospect. I’m not saying everyone mentioned in the article has those exact motives, but it’s an undeniable truth that a strong, "social" state serves big capital better than anyone else (even more so than the people the "social" state is theoretically supposed to protect).

vividgull10 said:And here I thought you were someone worth taking seriously.

So, what’s the actual issue here? The Social Security system ended up looking like this because everyone just did whatever they could to secure their own retirement whenever they had the chance. Only about 20% of male retirees actually met all the requirements at the moment they retired—and honestly, the whole pension system has become a massive black hole for the American economy.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Explain what’s in bold.

Some people see things exactly like you do—which, unfortunately, is most people—while others see them the way I do, which, sadly, makes me part of a tiny minority.

It’s just not accurate to say the Democratic Party would end up with more funds by cutting taxes. Sure, maybe eventually—but when? In ten years, once the economy finally grows without being weighed down by taxes? In those first few years, though, there would be significantly less available for government spending.

The real question is: who's going to sit down and explain to retirees, social welfare recipients, bureaucrats, and everyone else whose income might need to be adjusted that this is actually a good thing in the long run? How would anyone ever pass an election doing that?

There isn't some grand conspiracy or a hidden plot to impoverish the nation—honestly, it wouldn't be possible to keep a secret like that for that long (too many people would have to be involved before someone talked).

A much more logical explanation is simply that democracy in America works exactly how it was designed—where the majority rules over the minority. And when the majority prefers a comfortable lifestyle over actually working—or working very little—well, we end up with exactly what we have now. One of the massive issues in this country is the crowd looking for handouts through fraudulent disability claims or veteran benefits—basically, people who maneuvered themselves into perks and pensions they didn't actually earn. And honestly, you can't even blame the politicians at the top for all of it; it was the corruption of local doctors combined with a willingness from these "claimants" to essentially rob their own fellow citizens. That's just one example of the character of our people, so why are we surprised when politicians follow that exact same playbook?

Politicians basically bribe the majority so they can:
1. Provide that majority with a mediocre standard of living.
2. Take from the working minority so that those in group 1 have roughly the same amount of resources (sort of like elements of socialism/communism).
3. Ensure they provide themselves with a high standard of living.

And hey, it works—groups 1 and 3 are satisfied. Group 1 only starts getting restless when the economy begins to stall because of the long-term parasitism from groups 1 and 3—which is precisely what is happening in America right now. The fact that Sanders and a few others from group 3 ended up behind bars is cold comfort.

Also, whether it's intentional or not isn't even the core issue; the real problem is that the majority continues to advocate for this exact model—high taxes and extreme social sensitivity.