Saturday, February 26, 2011

How Things are, and How they should be

I possess a real problem with the stated causation here. Paul Krugman does more than hint that it remains the political clout of smaller, less population states which allows for greater stimulus to them, accounting for the more solid employment rates. There exists great difficulty in subscription to this Concept. Senators may be able to influence given amounts of Stimulus, but only at the behest of the Special Interests, never the relative size of their Electorate. I would enter a Statement that there is higher Profits in constructing Highways in rural areas than in congested Zones, greater Profits in constructing new Roadways rather than resurfacing older pavement, and the greater Profits come from elimination of extensive bridging in those Roadways. Rural paving also achieves much higher daily surfacing rates. The final comment must state that rural roadway construction requires far less Personnel, and much greater per unit use of Equipment. I would not blame or praise the smaller Populations of States for any such Awards.

One can join either side on whether Commodity price increase come from excess Stimulus, or from Supply Shortages. I personally think that Supply Shortages are present, but not for the reasons Most state. I think Government and Tax Cuts have made it too easy for Business and Mining to show high Profits. Most of the Commodity industry has found that they can maintain their Profit ratios with lower Production, and vastly reduced Labor and Equipment overuse. I believe (sincerely, for those Doubters out there) that Governments and Tax Writers have developed the wrong Business model, which far too many businesses have adopted. We have far too much Rent-Seeking in the Tax Cut and Stimulus industry today; all having nothing to do with Employment rates.

I finish today with this Post, which actually says little, unless One follows trend lines. The American economy continues to require greater education for Labor. This occurs when the extended education provides little direct Training for most personnel obtaining Work. I am going to sound Liberal here, but this means that Business and Industry are demanding their Labor force spend Four or More years outside the labor force, with a Cost to Labor of about $50k per year for the designated Individual who must foot this bill. This constitutes a Trap which costs the economy much Productive labor due to relative discrimination, and a vast pool of Debt for the financial world to draw Interest upon. I do not like the Trend, and could almost accept a Tax upon Employers to minimize their Demand for education, especially when coupled to the fact that vast amounts of Training Costs occasion due to Employment Upgrades from Staff. I will sound like a Socialist, but think that Workers have a Right to contention for Jobs matching their Skill level without discriminatory bias. lgl

No comments: