quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And NONE of that counters what I've told you nor supports what you have claimed.

Read it. NONE of it supports your arguments.

quote:

"Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon" is the central tenet of Friedman's work. You can disagree with him if you like, but it's still his position. And it's why his economic philosophy is called Monetarism.

quote:

During the 1960s, he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate, e.g., by increasing aggregate demand, only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.

quote:

In other words trying to understand this problem is like trying to wrap your head around global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Why are so few people wealthy?

Well first, wealth is pretty common. 2 million more people become millionaires in 2013, and there are nearly 14 million millionaires globally, 4 million of them in the US.

And what is "wealthy"? I think a lot of posters here would feel wealthy without 1 million if they had annual incomes of $100,000 -- and 20% of Americans do. Or even $75,000. And the average US income is $51,000.

But second, it's because people tend to think in terms of dollars per hour, which severely limits their income ceilings, rather than focusing on ideas and service and how to leverage those to create a strong market for their market segment. The Puritan work ethic says "if you didn't sweat, you didn't earn it." So we toil over producing crafts, rather than leverage our talents.

I had someone complain once that his friend wanted to make beautiful hand-carved cutting boards, but he couldn't make a living at it, so doing what you love and earning money was, in his mind, bullshit. I gave this problem to my business class yesterday. After all, how many cutting boards can you make, and at what price? Without turning to mass-production, which wasn't an option in this case, what could he do? What about teaching a class in how to carve these boards? What could he get for that reasonably? I have a friend who collects old barn wood and turns it into high end one of a kind furniture pieces that he sells in Manhattan for thousands each. Could high end art boards sell? For what? How many could he do? How many could he sell -- not many, perhaps, but one a month? And he could still make a few regular boards a week for sale. They came up with a very doable $87,500/year for this guy -- couple boards a week, one high end board a month, a six week once-night-a-week class every two months.

They could have gone further -- record a class and he'd have a DVD he could sell on the Internet -- Say, $30, and with decent marketing -- a Google Ad and a web site, maybe just the videos instead of DVD product -- sold another ... what? 10 a week? 100? 1000? Even ten is an extra $15,000 a year, and he doesn't have to do anything more for it.

He could let his students sell their boards in his store or on his site for a commission -- another income stream, and they don't need to set up separate marketing. He could speak on finding and sharing your life's passion -- another marketing opportunity and income stream. He could write a book about his experiences -- especially good for marketing, and another income stream.

He could partner with other intriguing craftspeople too, for even more opportunities.

But if he does what most people do, he'll live a bitter life, just scraping by, complaining no one appreciates his talents, and that their just aren't good jobs for wood carvers. Or that the economy sucks. Or that government is strangling businesses. Or that big corporations are greedy and unethical. Whine whine whine whine.

That's why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

If you are making $100,000 USD a year, you are among the poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Contrast the above income scenarios with a worker making 2x the US minimum wage: his salary is $30,160.00 or $2,513.33 a month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

Global warming isn't that hard to understand, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (at its highest rate in 655,000 years, 97% of climatologists agree it is man made so not even worth debating) increases the production of methane at our hydrothermal vents and tectonic plate activity (which also has an effect on the earth's magnetic field but that's another story).
The methane gas released then traps heat in the atmosphere which creates a "greenhouse effect", this heat moves upward to the poles causing a melting of the polar ice caps...causing cold fronts to move southward. The mix of extreme heat (trapped in atmosphere which normally would be released beyond the ionosphere) combined with the cold fronts from the polar ice caps explains the increase in extreme weather.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Quite simply, however you want to measure it, "wealthy" means to be much better off than those around you.
It is a subjective and relative term and not measured by absolutes.
By definition, being "wealthy" will always be in the minority.


If you are earning $100 an hour and everyone else is only earning $12 an hour, you'd be considered 'wealthy'.
But, if most around you are earning $100 an hour, you aren't much different than most of those around you. Thus, you wouldn't be considered 'wealthy'.

You can't put an absolute figure on it because it is always relative to your surroundings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And NONE of that counters what I've told you nor supports what you have claimed.

Read it. NONE of it supports your arguments.

Except for the fact that what I highlight shows that Friedman himself was a proponent of inflation despite his one sentence in a span of decades of his life. He is best known for Keynes vs Friedman as any student of economics is very well aware. Except for the fact? It's not an issue in dispute. And I myself told you he's not a fan of Keynes. But that doesn't make him a supply sider -- and I've already cited him attacking it.
Your quote:

quote:

"Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon" is the central tenet of Friedman's work. You can disagree with him if you like, but it's still his position. And it's why his economic philosophy is called Monetarism.

REALITY:

quote:

During the 1960s, he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate, e.g., by increasing aggregate demand, only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.

Reality -- yup. He did that. And that quote is not some isolated instance--it's the most famous thing he said. And your own link earlier includes it.

Your assertion is as unrealistic as saying Einstein claimed conventional education methods limited the thought process and creativity of an individual, which is one single sentence that is in no way applicable to his entire life and the fact he was a PROFESSOR AT PRINCETON. Also I highlighted what Friedman's economic theory was which is not remotely in the realm of what you asserted so case in point but it was your call to pointlessly argue semantics with someone who knows this stuff fairly well. But it's not my job to translate plain English to you if you choose to remain in utter denial.
It's not my assertion -- it's the core of Friedman's work. If you think he's unrealistic, take it up with him. It's not "semantics," but simply reality. You're certainly not "someone who knows this stuff fairly well" -- you're clueless. And your "translations" aren't even on the same topic. Talk about denial! Geez.

quote:

In other words trying to understand this problem is like trying to wrap your head around global warming.

Global warming isn't that hard to understand, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (at its highest rate in 655,000 years, 97% of climatologists agree it is man made so not even worth debating) increases the production of methane at our hydrothermal vents and tectonic plate activity (which also has an effect on the earth's magnetic field but that's another story).
The methane gas released then traps heat in the atmosphere which creates a "greenhouse effect", this heat moves upward to the poles causing a melting of the polar ice caps...causing cold fronts to move southward. The mix of extreme heat (trapped in atmosphere which normally would be released beyond the ionosphere) combined with the cold fronts from the polar ice caps explains the increase in extreme weather.

quote:

http://www.academia.edu/1561057/Feasibility_of_Wireless_Power_Transmission

Far-field techniques can be achieved through microwave power transmission and LASER power transmission. However, the efficiency is low as of now ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your first paragraph is dead on. It's not that it's some impossible mountain, but that most people aren't interested in climbing it.

The rest of your musings circle around the first issue I raised -- people think in terms of dollars per hour via labor employment and not in terms of income streams and marketable skills. When I was a teen, when you couldn't get jobs, you mowed lawns, painted houses, and so forth. You essentially started a small business.