People of color will be the new majority by 2042 (w/ Video)

Jun 03, 2011 by Deborah Braconnier weblog

PolicyLink, an American research institute which works to advance social and economic equity within the United States has released their new report titled Prosperity 2050. The report shows how, over the next 30 years, the face of America will be changing.

The report is illustrated by a map titled The Map of America’s Tomorrow and looks at decade by decade predictions of the changing face of the American population. Caucasians will no longer be the majority. African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos and Asians will account for more than 50 percent of the population.

PolicyLink was founded in 1999 and works on the mission of Lifting Up What Works. They believe that those individuals that are facing the hardest challenges, mainly the low-income and colored communities, are the most important in finding and creating solutions. In areas such as jobs, public schools, and affordable housing, PolicyLink believes that equity must be behind all federal, state, and local policies.

PolicyLink’s CEO and founder, Angela Glover Blackwell, said that the study and the map show that the success and the future of the United States will depend on the success of people of color. She believes that equitable policies, in light of this new information, will become an economic imperative more so than a moral one. The current discrepancies of social status and wealth between the different demographics could be detrimental to the future of the United States.

The faces of America’s children are changing and many believe that the still white majority population and the political leaders do not see themselves in these new faces. While policies are looking at slashing Medicaid and cutting education budgets, the future generations of Americans are paying the price. The hope of this study and its information is to promote the idea of just and fair inclusion. The next generation of Americans needs to be supported and encouraged, regardless of their skin color. Economists and community leaders are now seeing this idea of equity is no longer a moral battle. It will become imperative in order for America to succeed on an economic level.

Explore further: What can 14th century Venice teach us about Ebola and other emerging threats?

More information: www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIX… ty_is_the_Answer.htm

Related Stories

Kids' savings, college success linked

Apr 26, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence supporting the link between savings and college success is growing. Three studies out of the Center for Social Development (CSD) at the Brown School at Washington University in St. ...

American seniors living longer on less, study

Jan 28, 2009

Older Americans have experienced huge, negative financial shifts that now make it more difficult to enter retirement with sustainable economic security, a new study finds. Seventy-eight percent of all senior households are ...

New study finds racial wealth gap quadrupled since mid-1980s

May 17, 2010

The wealth gap between white and African-American families increased more than four times between 1984-2007, and middle-income white households now own far more wealth than high-income African Americans, according to an analysis ...

Recommended for you

Orphaned children can do just as well in institutions

3 hours ago

The removal of institutions or group homes will not lead to better child well-being and could even worsen outcomes for some orphaned and separated children, according to new findings from a three-year study across five low- ...

User comments : 100

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 03, 2011
"Advancing social and economic equity," advancing through what, time? 'They' will never relive the glories of the past or of their past. 'They' are disadvantaged for their own reasons and will always be so. Welcome to the future, you failures.

All men are created equal, after that it's up to individual effort.

Atlas is shrugging. Retire. Strike! If you moochers can't then ask yo'sefs why?
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (62) Jun 03, 2011
Atlas jerks! Whack it! Splooge on those moochers!

You're a disgrace Doug, a pitiful little racist old man.
rocketscience08
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
Doug is an ignorant fool...to put it nicely.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (57) Jun 03, 2011
Check out this post he made: http://www.physor...comments

He calls Mexicans "terrorists" for shitting on our crops. Seriously. It'd be funny if he weren't serious.
Physmet
2.4 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2011
What are equitable policies? It sounds like they want more money for education and Medicaid. Hmm, the increase in funds turned towards education over the past couple of decades far outstrips cost of living, while we simultaneously are concerned about the decrease of good education. What does that tell you about where all these increased educational funds are going? And, spend even MORE of our paycheck on healthcare? Good grief, it takes a massive hit out of our paychecks already. But, I guess if it helps the disadvantaged who would otherwise be tomorrows geniuses...

I was going to continue, but found this article, which says similar things, but way better than I could: http://blog.herit...-budget/
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (71) Jun 03, 2011
Obama's healthcare plan didn't go far enough because he capitulated to Republican lunacy. A single payer system (Medicare for everyone) would be cheaper because it would not be done for profit. Most of what you pay to insurance companies ends up in their pockets. They are for profit businesses. Not everything should be done for profit. Healthcare is one of these things.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
In capitalism, there are winners and loosers, that is its basic tenet. Now, healthcare is not an area where loosers (in a sense of people unable to pay for healthcare) can be tolerated, IMHO. Thats why there surely is something more needed.

On the other hand, single payer system is not the only solution, it is more like the ultimate socialist system. How about a hybrid? A public insurance company competing with private insurance companies, along with mandatory minimum coverages set by law for all of them. This would allow the best of both worlds, IMHO.

http://en.wikiped...e_option
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (55) Jun 03, 2011
Nevermind
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
In general, Shot, that's what a single-payer system is. Everybody is covered, but if you want to buy your own insurance as a supplement or full replacement, you are free to do so, and good luck finding a cheaper option.

And in terms of funding a single-payer system, I'd prefer to have it partially paid for by something other than a payroll tax, and run a deficit to pay for the rest. How much of a deficit the program can run without being inflationary is determined by how much covering everyone's health care increases overall productivity.
KaiKonn
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 03, 2011
Are you kidding me? Does anyone else see this as exactly what it is? A blatent advertisment for socialism? What ever happened to individual effort? Doug is not a racist, he's simply tired of all the excuses put forth by people who don't want to do for themselves, and seek to take from those who are willing to put forth the effort. He's not racist, and neither am I. The media, and it's sheep are the ones that have slapped the label of "racist" on anyone that says they're tired of people taking what they've worked hard to earn. Well, I'm sick of it too! If you want my money, come and take it. I'll be waiting at my front door for you..... Clinging to my gun and my religion (whatever that may be).
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 03, 2011
Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits (lets off Sherbert) and Guns and the Truth.
Physmet
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 03, 2011
In socialism, everyone is a loser. It's been tried in many countries over the centuries. While we are sure that everyone would even out to a nice middle class, the reality appears to be that everyone is poor. Capitalism at least encourages innovation and allows you to reap the rewards of your efforts. For instance, the owner of the company I work for (who is a pain in the butt), has a multi-million dollar company, but he started with $100. With some vision, and gumption, and the willingness to take a risk, he has succeeded. Capitalism allows for this. Socialism tries to take more and more of what successful people work for and feed it back to those who aren't. I love the idea of healthcare for all, but there's not one country that does it and the majority are happy with it. By the way, my wife has rheumatoid arthritis and we couldn't get her health insurance for years - and I'm still against socialized medicine.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 03, 2011
If you don't want to contribute to a society, you should not be able to benefit from that society. You conservatives seems to be under the misapprehension that you can make money through hard work. Individual effort is only good for producing real goods and resources. No private individual ever creates a single dollar, unless he's counterfeiting. But your back-asswards thinking values dollars over real goods and services. If a government taxes you, it's taking a piece of paper or some digital numbers away from you, something that is in itself worthless that you only care about because you could have traded that worthless thing for real goods and services. But you fail to realize that by sacrificing that worthless piece of paper or digital number to the government, you and everybody else gains access to real goods and services you would not have had otherwise, and which makes the further production of real goods and services easier and cheaper.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 03, 2011
govt is taking a piece of paper or some digital numbers away from you,


Good first step in recognizing that the govt TAKES your money.
But the money it takes represents your work, in the physics sense, and the value you added creating wealth.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 03, 2011
The best hybrid govt funding is with a voucher. Food stamps are vouchers and are limited to certain produces.
Sweden uses vouchers to pay for k-12 schools. Parents have a choice where to send their children.
Some states subsidize housing with vouchers.
No democrat/socialist plan has addressed the issue of COST. The ONLY way to control costs is with competition and consumer choice, aka free markets.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2011
The only thing money represents is whatever the economy as a whole says it represents. Holding a stock of money only represents your ability to pay your taxes (which can only be paid in dollars) and trade that stock for a stock of real resources. The only reason other people are willing to trade you their real resources for your worthless piece of paper is because they require other real resources they don't possess and need to get money so they can purchase those other real resources, or because they have to pay their taxes. Fundamentally, if the government didn't levy taxes in dollars, nobody would have any incentive to use them as a medium of exchange as opposed to any other medium of exchange. Private issuance of the medium of exchange introduces inefficiencies in determining exchange rates when there is currency competition, and when one currency eventually wins out, as market forces dictate it will,the private issuer has every incentive to manipulate that currency for profit.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2011
, if the government didn't levy taxes in dollars, nobody would have any incentive to use them as a medium of exchange as opposed to any other medium of exchange.

Yes, they would as long as those dollars can be readily traded.
Govts inflate their currency lowering its value, which is happening now, driving many to gold which cannot be devalued.
krundoloss
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
I think we as humans have completely short-circuited evolution, because there is no survival of the fittest anymore, everyone survives, globally. There are a few things that correct this imbalance: War, Disease, and lack of resources. We should expect these things in the coming years, we are overpopulated and the smartest of us reproduce much too slowly. Will we evolve into better or lesser beings? Who is to say.

Oh yeah, and democracy is a doomed system. Too much bickering, you cant get anything done. The higher population countries know this, we are learning it the hard way.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2011
No, they wouldn't, because they are inherently worthless, like all mediums of exchange. Even gold used to be inherently worthless, the only thing it was ever good for was making pretty things, until somebody figured out how to make electronic circuits out of it, and it made a decent medium of exchange because its production was more or less tied to overall economic productivity. Gold is no longer a good medium of exchange because as overall productivity increased exponentially since industrialization, gold production did not. This makes gold as a medium of exchange deflationary, stifling growth.

The reason our currency is inflating now is because conservatives insist it be spent in the wrong places. Instead of stimulating spending, which stimulates production and negates the inflationary effects of the new money, conservatives insist insist it be spent to stimulate investment. But increased investment without increased spending means commodity and asset price inflation
dompee
3.3 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
wow I feel like I just switched back and forth from fox news to cnn....however all of you are missing the big picture....Obamacare ha! Socialism ha! Capitalism ha! If you still believe this country is run by our President and Congress time to take a closer look next time the ring in the bell for the stockmarket, look whos standing behind the person ringing the bell, next time one of our reps does a speech or even Obama, take a look @ who standing next to him behind him, 99% of the public has no clue who those ppl are....i'll give you a hint and then do yourselves a favor and try to come up with your own thoughts, do some research!!! This country is and has been run by the central banking system for decades those mystery ppl standing in the shadows behind our "leaders" take a look @ what companies they run, only one reason why this country is in shambles and it's the central banking system, everything begins and ends with their word not Obama's it may come out of his mouth but....
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
The best hybrid govt funding is with a voucher. Food stamps are vouchers and are limited to certain produces.
Sweden uses vouchers to pay for k-12 schools. Parents have a choice where to send their children.
Some states subsidize housing with vouchers.
No democrat/socialist plan has addressed the issue of COST. The ONLY way to control costs is with competition and consumer choice, aka free markets.

Healthy markets, free markets are not healthy.
kaasinees
3.6 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
, if the government didn't levy taxes in dollars, nobody would have any incentive to use them as a medium of exchange as opposed to any other medium of exchange.

Yes, they would as long as those dollars can be readily traded.
Govts inflate their currency lowering its value, which is happening now, driving many to gold which cannot be devalued.

Nonsense, gold doesnt have a constant value. Think about technology where gold can be replaced with better alternatives. Supply/Demand will change the price of gold all the time.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
Well, he does have something of a point. Until somebody found a productive use for gold, gold couldn't be devalued because it was intrinsically worthless. You can't devalue something that's not worth anything in the first place. You can overvalue it, however, which is the mistake conservatives make regarding both gold and dollars, all the time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Jun 03, 2011
The best hybrid govt funding is with a voucher. Food stamps are vouchers and are limited to certain produces.
Sweden uses vouchers to pay for k-12 schools. Parents have a choice where to send their children.
Some states subsidize housing with vouchers.
No democrat/socialist plan has addressed the issue of COST. The ONLY way to control costs is with competition and consumer choice, aka free markets.

Healthy markets, free markets are not healthy.

Only free markets are healthy markets.
Gold doesn't corrode and requires labor and energy to dig out and process. So it has those production costs rolled into its value.
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2011
The best hybrid govt funding is with a voucher. Food stamps are vouchers and are limited to certain produces.
Sweden uses vouchers to pay for k-12 schools. Parents have a choice where to send their children.
Some states subsidize housing with vouchers.
No democrat/socialist plan has addressed the issue of COST. The ONLY way to control costs is with competition and consumer choice, aka free markets.

Healthy markets, free markets are not healthy.

Only free markets are healthy markets.
Gold doesn't corrode and requires labor and energy to dig out and process. So it has those production costs rolled into its value.

Nonsense. What if half the world decides gold is worth crap anymore? Mines will close. There's a dozen reason any resource fluctuates values that is just to unstable to use as a base of currency. Value of gold would also be very regional, think people who like gold jewelry, think about industries that use gold etc. but for most people its nothing.
Bigblumpkin36
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
I guess we will have to pay more taxes for all them people on wellfare considering how they already sit around and collect (their) wellfare checks and have obese children. Its a virus not rasicim
ShotmanMaslo
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
"The reason our currency is inflating now is because conservatives insist it be spent in the wrong places. Instead of stimulating spending, which stimulates production and negates the inflationary effects of the new money, conservatives insist insist it be spent to stimulate investment. But increased investment without increased spending means commodity and asset price inflation"

What?? You got it exactly opposite. Stimulating spending without investment increases inflation (more money pursuing the ame amount of goods). This nis not followed by increase in production to offfset the inflation.
Stimulating spending on investment initially also increases inflation, but then the investment starts porducing more goods and ratio of money to goods lowers, thus less inflation in the end.

If your theory was right we could all print lots of money, spend it on beer and no inflation would result.
Bigblumpkin36
3 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
Gold has many unique properties as an conductive metal and is used in just about everything, kind of like petroleom, but i get your point
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (59) Jun 03, 2011
I guess we will have to pay more taxes for all them people on wellfare considering how they already sit around and collect (their) wellfare checks and have obese children. Its a virus not rasicim


Look up white privilege you stupid, racist person. Just because you don't understand what a racist is doesn't mean you aren't one.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2011
As for the topic - conservatives are right that abuse of the welafre system should be swiftly dealt with (welfare moms, etc) and also that huge influx of illegal immigrants through leaky southern border is suicidal. The solution is weflare and free healthcare and education, but good welfare system (such as NIT, not current mess) and only for the legal citizens.
FrankHerbert
1.2 / 5 (59) Jun 03, 2011
"Welfare moms, etc" are a 'conservative' myth.
Bigblumpkin36
2 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
I guess we will have to pay more taxes for all them people on wellfare considering how they already sit around and collect (their) wellfare checks and have obese children. Its a virus not rasicim


Look up white privilege you stupid, racist person. Just because you don't understand what a racist is doesn't mean you aren't one.


Have you ever been to the south side of Chicago or projects of Philly they are all on wellfare and i love black booty
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (56) Jun 03, 2011
Have you ever been to rural Pennsylvania? They're all white and many of them are actual welfare frauds. Does that bother you or only when it's someone from Chicago or Philly, from somewhere that fits your racist worldview?

You know if you don't want to be called a racist I suggest you just don't speak. It's obvious you don't truly understand the concept of racism and though you may not mean harm (not sure of this) you say some blatantly racist things and you deserve to be called out on it. Change or go away.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
Government spending targeted to increase private spending can only cause inflation if the production of real resources is already maxed out. Otherwise, the increase in demand will promote an increase in production as businesses compete with one another to meet that increased demand.

Government spending targeted towards investment always creates price volatility and inflation in assets and commodities unless spending is increasing, giving investors a sign of which markets to invest in, and how much. When spending is not increasing, investors have no indicators which markets should be invested in, so they "go fishing" in commodities and assets hoping they can get lucky gambling on pricing fluctuation.

This is what I mean when I say that you conservatives have things back-asswards. Increased spending creates growth, not inflation, as long as there is room for growth. Increased investment only creates growth when spending is increasing, otherwise, stagflation.
Bigblumpkin36
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
Sorry Dick tater i guess their is white trash too
Skultch
5 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
I understand the welfare cheats hit us on an emotional level. The question is, how outraged should we be? What is the percentage of people who are actually gaming the system with no intention to work? If it's less than 5 percent, that is hardly surprising, as there is always a ~5 percent of the people creating 90 percent of the harm, in any area of study. (pulled out my ass, but you get the point)

How big is this problem to the economy, really? Compare it to banking and housing (banking) losses. Who really deserves our outrage?

Let's keep some perspective. If you don't, your opinion is less than worthless; it's destructive.
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (55) Jun 03, 2011
Couldn't have said it better Skultch.
harryhill
not rated yet Jun 03, 2011
Hmmm for me that would mean the 'tables' would be turned.
I am now at the age that I am 'going out at the right time'.
Good luck to those later.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
What if half the world decides gold is worth crap anymore? Mines will close.

Sure.
Gold has been used for money for thousands of years for many reasons and those reasons have not changed.
And govts have been trying to inflate the money supply, even gold based systems, for thousands of years.
Govts initially started stamping out gold coins as an assurance of the quantity of gold in the coin. Most did not have the tools to test and verify the weight and purity of a piece of gold and depended upon the govt.
Of course the Spanish discovery of gold in the Americas demonstrated how inflation works, even with gold.
Golds value is based upon its scarcity and difficulty in producing large quantities quickly. Just the opposite of paper money.
If govts control the paper and virtual money in circulation it can be just as stable, or more stable as gold. But the temptation for govts to steal from their people is too great so they inflate.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
Gold was used as money primarily because it has no intrinsic value. It looks pretty when more or less pure and polished. That's about it. The costs of producing a thing and the relative scarcity of that thing (gold's not that scarce really, most people I know own at least a little bit) do NOT determine the value of that thing. I could spend a million dollars building some completely useless but unique piece of crap, and if I can't get anybody to buy that piece of crap, then the value of that piece of crap I spent a million dollars building is zero.

And American gold and silver was not the cause of inflation in European in the 16th-17th centuries, as that gold and silver had not yet reached the European mints and been spent by their governments.
http://www.physor...rly.html
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
The only way a government can "steal from its people" is if it spends money buying real goods and resources that would otherwise have been bought by private households. This can only happen if the sector of the economy that produces real goods and resources is incapable of producing more real resources to meet both what the government wants to buy and what the private sector wants to buy. If the productive sector is capable of growing its productive capacity to meet both public and private demand, then private individuals benefit in the form of more jobs, higher wages, and more real resources circulating in the economy. But the productive sector will not increase its capacity to produce on its own. It will only do so in response to increased spending, more people, whether private individuals or government officials, buying more things.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2011
I never understood the "supply-side" theory of stimulus. It seems to assume that if there is something, anything, to buy, most people WILL buy it. That makes no sense to me.

I also don't understand why we have engineered our economy to be completely dependent on growth. Last time I checked, we don't have infinite resources. Maybe with 90 percent solar power efficiency that would make more sense.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
"Say you work a day in 1975. You get paid $50 for your day's work. If you save $10, that money represents 20% of that day. It is preserved for you...for as long as you can keep it. Put it in a bank. Collect interest. Let the interest compound. And twenty years later, you can still enjoy the fruits of that day's labour.

And that is what is so nasty about inflation. It robs us not only of money...but of the past...and the future. Our lives are emptied out by it...like a liquor store cash register cleaned out by a hold-up man."
http://www.dailyr...7/07/23/
When the govt prints more money it devalues the money you have stealing its value.
Supply-side stimulus promotes investment in the capital that creates wealth. Entropy destroys that capital which is why depreciation was created. China and Korea have new steal factories that are more efficient. Capital investment improves efficiency and creates new products: whale oil, kerosene, light bulbs..
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2011
Gold was used for money because of its intrinsic properties. It's color was unique. It did not corrode and it was easy to refine and process, and difficult to counterfeit.
And it was rare and still is rare.

Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
"When the govt prints more money it devalues the money you have stealing its value."

This is only true if the government spends its money in non-productive ways, i.e. propping up capital investment. If the government spends its money in such a way that the economy responds by increasing production, no inflation occurs. For example, for every dollar that is spent on unemployment benefits, one dollar and sixty cents worth of real goods and services are created in response. So even if the government prints that dollar (deficit funds unemployment benefits and monetizes the debt), the ratio of money to real resources in the economy falls, i.e., deflation. But if the government deficit spends by giving a tax cut of a dollar to speculators, less than a quarter's worth of real goods and service are created in response to that spending. Now the ratio of money to goods is larger than it was before, i.e. inflation. Where the government spends its money matters. Where it taxes matters too.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
For example, for every dollar that is spent on unemployment benefits, one dollar and sixty cents worth of real goods and services are created in response.


Wow, then let's increase the number of people out of work and the economy will BOOM!
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
Regarding inflation:
http://fee.org/wp...onib.pdf

"Inflation means too much money. The way to prevent inflation is to close down the money factory."
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
You really don't understand causality, do you marjon? By increasing and extending unemployment benefits, the recipients of those dollars spend them on groceries, gasoline and rent. The recipients of those payments use those dollars to pay for wages, resupply, and their own groceries, gasoline and rent. Owners of grocery stores and gas stations and such hire more people and buy more raw resources to process to sell to all those people buying, increasing the number of jobs in the economy and the amount of real resources available for sale. Raising and extending unemployment benefits reduces the unemployment rate overall.

You really do value dollars over anything else, don't you marjon? You're already incapable of making the distinction between the unemployed and unemployment benefits.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2011
That all depends upon the source of unemployment 'benefits'. If, as intended, those funds are from prepaid insurance from those who are employed, and they are limited in duration, they can be of benefit. It's a 'rainy day' fund.
But now, they funds are coming direct redistribution from the state and they are practically unlimited discouraging a return to work.

Drinking your own urine will keep you alive for a few days if you don't have any water to drink, but it will eventually kill you.

Your theory of unemployment 'benefits' is no different.

I understand causality quite well. Free markets and hard work create wealth. That wealth must exist first before private unemployment insurance can exist and even before the govt can confiscate any of that wealth to redistribute.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2011
"It should further be noted that the laurates note that more generous unemployment benefits will increase "frictional unemployment" as the unemployed will put less effort into finding a new job. That means that more generous unemployment benefits will increase unemployment even if wages are completely rigid. And it also means that even in a recession, as long as there are any job openings, increased unemployment benefits will increase unemployment."
http://www.csmoni...-for-now
PS3
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
No problem for America.Its a fact the more inbred of same weakens and hybrids are stronger.
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2011
Gold was used for money because of its intrinsic properties. It's color was unique. It did not corrode and it was easy to refine and process, and difficult to counterfeit.
And it was rare and still is rare.

Dont forget that Gold is maluable too.
ShotmanMaslo
1.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
Thrasymachus - If your theory was right, we could all print all the money we want, buy consumption goods and no inflation would result. That is clearly not the case. If everyone print a billion dollars in the basement and spent it on beer, the inflation would kill the economy.

More money pursuing the goods = inflation (prices increase). Thats basic market economy 101. If I was a manufacturer and suddenly demand increased twofold, I would certainly increase the price, BEFORE I increased the production of additional goods.

Now I agree with you that unproductive investment such as financial mumbo-jumbo is bad. But spending new money on simple consumption is even worse, not only it inflates currency, but wastes precious resources for pointless consumerism - Earth is not infinite. Eternal growth economy you seem to advocate cannot be long-term sustainable.

Also, to dispute that generous unemployment benefits discourage people from working is devoid of any logic. Of course they do.
ShotmanMaslo
1.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2011
You really don't understand causality, do you marjon? By increasing and extending unemployment benefits, the recipients of those dollars spend them on groceries, gasoline and rent. The recipients of those payments use those dollars to pay for wages, resupply, and their own groceries, gasoline and rent.


The only thing this will achieve is that demand for groceries, gasoline etc. will rise, and demand for goods that would be bought by taxpayers that the money was taken from will be smaller. There is no free lunch. In addition to that, incentive to work will be lowered by higher welfare. The end effect would be the same, or higher unemployment.

Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
Inflation is not about adding money to an economy. Inflation and deflation are about changes in the ratio of money to the value of real goods and services available for sale in the economy. If the amount of money in the economy increases, and the value of goods and services available for sale in the economy increases at the same pace, no inflation occurs because the overall ratio of money to goods remains unchanged.

Growth is not about using up more stuff, it's about making more and more valuable things for the same or lower relative cost of inputs as you had before. Economic growth in a roughly stable population is better for the environment than a non-growing economy with a growing population. When people can afford them, they tend to buy the products that tend to reduce their overall burden of natural resources. Wealthy folks buy wind and solar-power generators for their houses and organic food for their dinner.

ShotmanMaslo
1.5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
"If the amount of money in the economy increases, and the value of goods and services available for sale in the economy increases at the same pace, no inflation occurs because the overall ratio of money to goods remains unchanged."

I agree. But this is never the case with printing money and spending it on simple consumption. This is only the case with printing money for INVESTMENT. Buying beer, groceries and gasoline is not investment. Buying factories, powerplants, infrastructure or research is investment. Basically buying things (means of production) that eventually produce more wealth in real products, goods or services, than their initial price - this then negates the initial inflation.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2011
Inflation is all about adding money to the economy.

You know Somalia has a stable money supply and no inflation because the govt does not control the money. Anyone can print the paper currency used in Somalia. They only accept one denomination note and its value is the cost to print the note.
DPRK or Iran can counterfeit 100USD at a very small cost per unit and receive a high net return for their cheap money. That can't occur in Somalia. Of course counterfeiters need to be careful they don't flood the market with their bills, even if they are so good they are accepted as legitimate as their value will fall as supply increases. Or, as has happened around the world, people will refuse to accept 100USD bills.
When govts have the monopoly on supply, they have every incentive to inflate its value. Creating money supply out of thin air is very low cost to the govt yet reaps tremendous rewards for state power.
Increasing the debt limit increases inflation.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
The insidiousness of inflation:
In 1984, my starting salary was $28K. In 2011, the inflation adjusted value is $61K.
So for my 27 years of experience, my real annual increases have only been ~2%.
No one seems to mind the deflation with high tech products. $100 buys more memory today than yesterday. $100 buys more house today than 10 years ago.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (54) Jun 04, 2011
A sovereign citizen fundamentally misunderstands economics. Go figure.
Foolish1
not rated yet Jun 04, 2011
Ah yes the future. That which everyone tries but always manages to fail miserably to predict.

Some have predicted machine intelligence singularity would occur around 2042... Would their conclusions even be relevant in a hypothetical world where "dead labor" can sustain and improve the world better than the smartest human?

I think people really need to sit down and think long and hard about what they want the future to be before the future decides for them.

There is a difference in helping everyone to succeed because you care vs doing so because your economy depends on it. As the future marches on this distinction I predict will become increasingly important.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
If you hate socialism stop driving on publicly funded roads. If you hate socialism hire your own security and don't rely on the cops. If you hate socialism hire your own fire department. If you hate socialism cancel your health insurance after all it's group risk. If you hate socialism don't take medicare or social security when you retire. If you hate socialism... I can go on and on.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Socialism is govt control of private property.
Roads are supposed to be paid for with user fees: gas taxes, etc.
Protection of private property is one legitimate function of govt. Police and fire protection fall into that category, but it is not a requirement that a govt provide that service.
Insurance is not socialistic, but force Ponzi schemes like SS and Medicare are socialistic. I paid in and want my money out of them. I support ending these programs as now conceived.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
white majority population

Otto is i/16th native american, who are ?% european from way way back. Nobody knows ultimately where anybody comes from.
Roads are supposed to be paid for with user fees: gas taxes, etc.
And since machines are wearing them out I suggest we demand that machines pay to maintain them! Pay the machines for the work that they do and tax the hell out of them. Lets see them complain about it. A much greater % of their income can go to taxes because, well, they have no free time. And they dont have any holidays.
Inflation is all about adding money to the economy.
Inflation is about more consumers chasing fewer goods. Its about malthusian overpopulation driven by the aggressive reproduction mandates of organized RELIGION. Without religions pops could stabilize and there would be no inflation, no business cycles, no market crashes, etc
Sean_W
1.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
Deviating from the topic of whether we should give Marxism one more chance, the article is relatively accurate in the details but completely wrong.

These "non-white" faces in school in 2040 will have no idea they are not "white". They will have one or more Hispanic parents & grandparents (same with Asian - east and south east - and others) but they will also have Anglo-white family, speak only English (except for the newcomers) Think they are "white" and half of them will grow up to vote Republican and be called racist by the other half.

The big red and orange map colours are helpful for demographers but they distract from the reallity on the ground. There are lots of tricks to make it seem like the tendencies of assimilation over 3 generations is different today than ever before but they don't hold water. Leftists hold out false hope to minorities that they will just inherit America and it's wealth so they won't notice that this never gets them anywhere except working for the elite.
Sean_W
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2011
Populists also hold out the "majority people of color" theory to make whites worry about losing status.

Those "people of color" will be white, English and American. They will complain about immigrants and vote for people who promise to lower their taxes and bring pork to their towns.
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2011
Investment follows spending, not the other way around. If you're an investor looking to make a return on your money, the first things you'll look for are markets where spending is increasing. Subsidizing consumption will only cause inflation if the market whose consumption is subsidized cannot increase production to meet the increased demand. This can only occur when all available resources, including labor are being used. In other words, unless there is zero unemployment, subsidizing consumption is not inflationary.

Subsidizing investment, on the other hand is always inflationary regardless of the capacity of the economy to grow. This is because increasing the dollars available for investment does not increase spending. Without increased spending to serve as an indicator of where investment dollars should go, investors are likely to repurchase bonds which does nothing productive, or speculate in assets and commodities, which also does nothing productive.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Populists also hold out the "majority people of color" theory to make whites worry about losing status.

Those "people of color" will be white, English and American. They will complain about immigrants and vote for people who promise to lower their taxes and bring pork to their towns.
You are naive. And soon enough you will be dead and forgotten, like the people who would think that so much of what we do and think now is absolute decrepitude.

@thrashnuts
http://en.wikiped...d_demand

-I suppose if you ever actually quoted someone or offered references instaed of just making things up like you knew what you were talking about, people outside your little buttrubber group might take you a little more seriously. Seriously.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2011
Neither supply nor demand is fixed otto. If supply increases at the same rate as demand, prices do not change. Increasing demand only raises prices when supply cannot be increased at the same rate. Conservative economists think it will because they use a model of the macroeconomy that assumes full capacity utilization. They believe that the only way to make room for an economy to grow is to invest in increasing capacity. But investors will only invest in increasing capacity if there is demand for increased production. If there is no demand for that increased production because consumers are incapable of spending any more than they are, then investors will not pay to increase capacity.

In other words, even if conservatives were right that the economy is operating at full productive capacity, subsidizing investment is dumb because investors won't have any market indicators of what capacity to increase. But the economy is not operating at full capacity with nearly 10% unemployment
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Investment follows spending, not the other way around.

Who was spending money on smart phones before the investors invested?

How does non-existent spending on new, innovative products guide investment?
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
New, innovated products replace older versions. Spending on the older versions is an accurate market indicator of future spending on newly innovated products. Nobody invests in creating a new product unless they have reason to believe that consumers will spend money to buy it.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2011
Nobody invests in creating a new product unless they have reason to believe that consumers will spend money to buy it.

Duh!
But that's NOT what you said.
How can non-existent spending in a non-existing industry motivate investment?
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2011
Whole new industries are not created overnight. When they are created, they replace older industries. Personal computers, for example, replaced typewriters and adding machines. When you've got a brand new product that promises to open up a brand new industry, investors will look at spending in the markets for products your new product promises to replace. There is no such thing as non-existent spending and non-existent industry. There is always some spending and some production going on that your new innovation promises to replace.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2011
Neither supply nor demand is fixed otto. If supply increases at the same rate as demand, prices do not change.
-Is this what you are trying to say? (from my posted source which you didn't read):

"The four basic laws of supply and demand are:
1. If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and quantity.
2. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and quantity.
3. If supply increases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.
4. If supply decreases and demand remains unchanged, then it leads to higher price and lower quantity."

-It's a whole lot easier and a lot less pretentious if you use a legitimate source instead of trying to make something up yourself. Also more complete, more informed, more respectful, etc. IMHO.

Even marjon tends to back up his/her militia-speak with research and links to stormfront and such.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (52) Jun 04, 2011
Otto do you know Marjon's stormfront account? I'd like to see what he says when he's around his own kind.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
Otto do you know Marjon's stormfront account? I'd like to see what he says when he's around his own kind.

Why don't you tell us about Marjon's stormfront account so we all will know.
rwinners
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2011
Hmm.. the author needs to define his/her definition of color. I doubt that Black will accept Hispanic as 'people of color' and I doubt that Hispanics will accept that definition.
So, the whole argument is moot, except for the white anglo saxons, who won't ever accept either of the others as part of 'them'.
No majority!
And if the truth be known, all of us decended from a group of homo-whatever that existed about 65K years ago in what is now known as the middle east. All their predecessors, where ever them might have existed on the planet had perished.
Don't know what color those people, in number estimated to be less than 100K, were. Don't care to even guess... but I am partial to warm skinned women!
rwinners
5 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2011
In America, those who do not concentrate their efforts in accumulating wealth are at a significant disadvantage. In a system where money is power, those who hold the concentration of power offer for election to those who do not hold the power candidates of their own choosing. There is a word for that political system: Oligarchy
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Money is ALWAYS always power.
But when candidates can significantly outspend opponents and still loose, money is no guarantee of success in the USA.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Otto do you know Marjon's stormfront account? I'd like to see what he says when he's around his own kind.

Why don't you tell us about Marjon's stormfront account so we all will know.
Hey I'm just saying that marjon seeks valid info in unorthodox places just like otto does. Even knowing how sites like stormfront present lies can be very informative. I'm sure storefront contains useful facts. Perhaps marjon would like to check out this site for utility:
http://homepage.s...ose.html

Money makes you weak, makes you stupid. Money is dirt. Who needs it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Correction:

Money has power.
But when candidates can significantly outspend opponents and still loose, money is no guarantee of success in the USA.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Otto do you know Marjon's stormfront account? I'd like to see what he says when he's around his own kind.

What is 'stormfront'?
rwinners
not rated yet Jun 05, 2011
"Money has power."
Thanks for the correction. The ultimate power is one of life or death. But money does come a close second.
These two change places, depending on circumstances, in all societies at one time or another.
rwinners
not rated yet Jun 05, 2011
The problem is that accumulation of money is not limited. Those with enough greed for it will pursue power through out their lives and then pass it along to their children... who many have no idea what to do with it and blunder very badly in their political coniving.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Money has power.
So does a grenade. But its of little benefit to you if it goes off in your pocket. Power is useless and dangerous unless you know how to use it of course.
What is 'stormfront'?
Haha. Marjon pretends not to know how to use google again, like when otto said FOAD. We were so much younger then. We're older than that now (otto is anyways.)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
The problem is that accumulation of money is not limited. Those with enough greed for it will pursue power through out their lives and then pass it along to their children... who many have no idea what to do with it and blunder very badly in their political coniving.

Like the Kennedy family?
It's interesting that most in the USA who earn great wealth don't feel the desire for political power.
In the USA, one can desire and achieve political power and then acquire great wealth, like the Clintons or Obama.
ikook
5 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2011
"It's interesting that most in the USA who earn great wealth don't feel the desire for political power."

They do. They buy it.
rwinners
not rated yet Jun 05, 2011
Where do you live, ikook? The people in the US with a lot of money own the politicians. They don't have to go to work every day!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Bill Gates didn't own any politicians until he was forced to buy some to protect Microsoft from being attacked by the US government in the late 1990s.
The US govt, along with most govts, are protection rackets.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2011
"Does anyone else see this as exactly what it is? A blatent advertisment for socialism?" - KaiKon

Yes we do. Socialism is good for you, and the war on Socialism in America is why America is dying.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
"What is 'stormfront'?" - RyggTard

Your favorite organization of course.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
"Nearly 500 companies, trade associations, unions and other groups reported lobbying on Dodd-Frank during the first quarter of this year -- almost as many that lobbied during all of 2009, the year U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced the legislation. OpenSecrets, run by the Center for Responsive Politics, didn't put a dollar figure to the lobbying."
Financial firms that lobbied the federal government most on mortgage issues during the last decade also piled on the most risk, fueling a housing boom that eventually collapsed. They also had a greater chance of getting taxpayer money when the economy foundered, three economists at the International Monetary Fund said."
http://www.terrad...999.html
Dodd reachieved special rates and Frank's boyfriend is employed by Fannie.
Those 'progressives' are not corrupt? But it's not their fault is it? Poor babies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
I had never heard of 'stormfront' until it was mentioned here by 'progressives'.
It doesn't surprise me that the 'progressives' here would frequents sites like 'stormfront'.
They are soooo 'tolerant'.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2011
Value of gold would also be very regional, think people who like gold jewelry, think about industries that use gold etc. but for most people its not


To expand on the gold/currency issue. People give different values to money and gold, basically making basing currency on gold useless.
I can only think of one way that will turn out to be useful, that is in Africa, i think they have a lot of resources like gold that could be mined up. Maybe that is why people are waging war there now? They are scared that they will build a unified Africa with a strong currency because they have lots of gold compared to other countries. I think that the world isnt waiting for a muslim world economy. And it is strange that they started building central banks at those places. Its all about control. Do you really think the elite care about dictators/oil? They are just a bonus and an excuse. This conspiracy actually makes sense :)
rwinners
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2011
About gold: It has been used as a store of value since the time it was first discovered. Why? Because it is lustrous, ductile and practically indestructable. And it is quite rare. All the gold in existence on the planet can easily fit into a box 30' on a side.
Gold's value does fluctuate in currencies, depending upon the current condition of the currency. Right now, currencies are falling into disfavor vs gold due to monitization of government debt.
Wolfenstein
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
Human homogenisation, does any one not see that this "melting" pot as multi culturalism calls it is actually a loss of diversity among humans and is a bad thing?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
Human homogenisation, does any one not see that this "melting" pot as multi culturalism calls it is actually a loss of diversity among humans and is a bad thing?


If you look do a survey of feral dogs, after a generation or two they all begin to return to their roots.
The genetics are still their and will be expressed when needed.
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (50) Jul 31, 2011

If you look do a survey of feral dogs, after a generation or two they all begin to return to their roots.


WTF is this supposed to mean?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Infinite diversity from infinite combinations.
Live long and prosper.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
People give different values to money and gold, basically making basing currency on gold useless.

Basing currency on gold requires a govt to create a 'standard'.
What's wrong with a currency of gold, silver, or other commodity types?
e-gold has been trying to do this. The only real issue with gold is making sure any script representing gold, or other commodity, is truly backed by that commodity and there has been no inflation of that script.
The only standards of measure needed are the gram and purity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Human homogenisation, does any one not see that this "melting" pot as multi culturalism calls it is actually a loss of diversity among humans and is a bad thing?
Multiculturalism is the state of different cultures living amidst one another while maintaining their separate and distinct identities. A 'melting pot' implies genetic mixing with the intent of adding more variation and therefore strength to a species. It also counters divergence - that is, the propensity of any species toward speciation, which in humans is expressed as tribalism or nationalism.

This tendency is fatal to the modern human civilization in that it adds to the perception of 'we're different from you'. This leads to isolationism, antagonism, and conflict.