Full employment with all workers receiving a living wage is impossible in the United States (or most other societies for that matter) because of the power of renter interests to claim what others produce. This is the message being delivered by Joseph Stiglitz and a few other economists who actually understand the impact of rent-seeking privileges that exist under our systems of law and taxation. These perspectives fall outside of what most mainstream economists even consider in their work. Take, for example, the repeated reference to the "housing crash" of 2008. What crashed, in fact, were the credit-fueled and speculation-driven land markets within which housing belongs. What is the value of a housing unit? It is replacement cost, less depreciation. During periods of rising property prices, the actual value of existing housing units is in a constant state of decline; what is increasing are land prices. This is an insight that escapes the observation of most economists searching for the causes of cycles of boom and bust. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A. Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
So you stopped after your first economics class in university? Take Montreal for example. On the west of the island it has suburbs with some of the most expensive luxurious houses. Sure part of the housing price is in its cost and its depreciation, but part of its price is demand driven by the type of jobs in the area. Make all corporations move out from a city or foreclose and that 1 million $ house soon finds itself being worth 200k or less. I can buy a house in Detroit for 1,000$, yet I can bet you I could find arbitrage by selling it in parts. You also forgot that a house is an investment project with unequal cashflows as there's reinvestments going into it (from renovating a bathroom, or replacing the roof every 10-15 years) to which we have to recalculate depreciation and the Market value and carrying value. Which explains how we still have standing castles from the 800s AD, remove the refurbished castle and I bet you its land price gets a gigantic hit.
As someone who is a student, at home, listening to this and playing Battlefield 4, I can confirm from anecdotal evidence that younger people would rather play games (or in my case, as well as education on economics) than look for entry-level work (vast majority of opportunities in my areas) when they're over-qualified and under-valued in the jobs that they're likely to be working at. No blame politically in this comment, but the reality that you imagine (people deliberately not taking shitty jobs as leisure is more fun) is confirmed by most people I know, primarily myself.
Historians will be puzzled that this approach to economics lasted as long as it did before economists with some brains picked up Keynes again and got back to actually doing useful work.
Keynes also missed a major driver of modern economies because he dismissed the importance of land markets. He seemed not to understand that Ricardo's basic analysis of how rent arises and is taken by rentier interests was fully applicable to urban land markets as well as such abstract natural resources as the broadcast spectrum or even take-off and landing slots at airports.
This is brilliant research! But the way the camera is used is - to say the least - annoying. If he is showing an interesting chart (what was the case almost all the time) I want to see what he is talking about - not just see him talking!
The cluelessness on the academic and government levels can be summarized in the chart that he used. It starts in 1948. For some reason these supposed "experts" are only analyzing the most explosively energy intensive period in human history, a period when all factors converged (using energy) to create a unicorn global economy. Transportation, electrification, global military dominance and petroleum based food production. Information and "technology" are just a minor subset of this paradigm. Then they say, "What will the future bring?" Here's an idea, look at the ACTUAL past, not just the past 5 minutes, and ask the same questions. But then again they aren't talking about the actual future. They are only interested in the next 10 seconds. Every time over the next 30 years when you read or hear he word "unexpected" or "unprecedented" now you know why. They are just studying modern, post petroleum, Western history. This guy is fine. He will be dead when his grandchildren realize how myopic the entire system was.
Full employment with all workers receiving a living wage is impossible in the United States (or most other societies for that matter) because of the power of renter interests to claim what others produce. This is the message being delivered by Joseph Stiglitz and a few other economists who actually understand the impact of rent-seeking privileges that exist under our systems of law and taxation. These perspectives fall outside of what most mainstream economists even consider in their work. Take, for example, the repeated reference to the "housing crash" of 2008. What crashed, in fact, were the credit-fueled and speculation-driven land markets within which housing belongs. What is the value of a housing unit? It is replacement cost, less depreciation. During periods of rising property prices, the actual value of existing housing units is in a constant state of decline; what is increasing are land prices. This is an insight that escapes the observation of most economists searching for the causes of cycles of boom and bust.
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
So you stopped after your first economics class in university? Take Montreal for example. On the west of the island it has suburbs with some of the most expensive luxurious houses. Sure part of the housing price is in its cost and its depreciation, but part of its price is demand driven by the type of jobs in the area. Make all corporations move out from a city or foreclose and that 1 million $ house soon finds itself being worth 200k or less. I can buy a house in Detroit for 1,000$, yet I can bet you I could find arbitrage by selling it in parts. You also forgot that a house is an investment project with unequal cashflows as there's reinvestments going into it (from renovating a bathroom, or replacing the roof every 10-15 years) to which we have to recalculate depreciation and the Market value and carrying value. Which explains how we still have standing castles from the 800s AD, remove the refurbished castle and I bet you its land price gets a gigantic hit.
As someone who is a student, at home, listening to this and playing Battlefield 4, I can confirm from anecdotal evidence that younger people would rather play games (or in my case, as well as education on economics) than look for entry-level work (vast majority of opportunities in my areas) when they're over-qualified and under-valued in the jobs that they're likely to be working at.
No blame politically in this comment, but the reality that you imagine (people deliberately not taking shitty jobs as leisure is more fun) is confirmed by most people I know, primarily myself.
Historians will be puzzled that this approach to economics lasted as long as it did before economists with some brains picked up Keynes again and got back to actually doing useful work.
Keynes also missed a major driver of modern economies because he dismissed the importance of land markets. He seemed not to understand that Ricardo's basic analysis of how rent arises and is taken by rentier interests was fully applicable to urban land markets as well as such abstract natural resources as the broadcast spectrum or even take-off and landing slots at airports.
3%? We are talking about millions of human beings. Millions of households. Millions.
Who film this? Why not include the slide show?
Could it be a copyright issue?
Slides at www.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/slides/20160428_1830_understandingTheStagnationOfModernEconomies_sl.pdf
Why filming it on such a crappy angle? It's painful for the eye after watching the whole lecture...
Folks, you're at LSE !
This is brilliant research! But the way the camera is used is - to say the least - annoying. If he is showing an interesting chart (what was the case almost all the time) I want to see what he is talking about - not just see him talking!
That's the kind of people that shape our future folks! :)))
Such a Great DP work!
Give the man the Nobel prize ffs!
The cluelessness on the academic and government levels can be summarized in the chart that he used. It starts in 1948. For some reason these supposed "experts" are only analyzing the most explosively energy intensive period in human history, a period when all factors converged (using energy) to create a unicorn global economy. Transportation, electrification, global military dominance and petroleum based food production. Information and "technology" are just a minor subset of this paradigm. Then they say, "What will the future bring?" Here's an idea, look at the ACTUAL past, not just the past 5 minutes, and ask the same questions. But then again they aren't talking about the actual future. They are only interested in the next 10 seconds. Every time over the next 30 years when you read or hear he word "unexpected" or "unprecedented" now you know why. They are just studying modern, post petroleum, Western history. This guy is fine. He will be dead when his grandchildren realize how myopic the entire system was.