4 ms·

Do we live to serve the economy, or does the economy work to serve human beings?

by meric 10y ago

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
This is entangled, so both. And "serve" has connotations of power, which isn't necessary.
- meric 10y ago
  When politicians say we must do X or Y to get everyone jobs to "boost the economy", they lose sight of the point of jobs, enact policies which destroy well paying middle class jobs to produce a large quantity of jobs no one really wants to do, thinking quantity can substitute for quality. In this case, they voluntarily give up our power so we can "serve" the economy or GDP, even though no such power relationship ought to exist.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    But all they have is quantity. The only thing actually quantifiable in quality is the Likert (1-5) scale stuff marketers use. If it's not quantifiable, how can you even talk seriously about it? Isn't this the flaw in the thing? Politicians need GDP growth because of how government is financed. This isn't foolish nor power-hungry. It's just more or less a fact. And turn this on it's head - somewhere, a guy/gal is making something you don't even know you'll need yet, who you have never met. That's the thing least about power I ever did hear. Specifically, jobs-as-political-fodder is ensconced into law in the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1979, which lays on the Fed the dual mandate of currency stability and employment. If it is oppressive, it certainly wasn't anticipated to be that; quite the opposite.
    - meric 10y ago
      I agree with everything, and I do think it has turned out to be oppressive. Inflation is forced onto people to erode their wealth, to ensure they all work, and prevent their ability to accrue savings. The low interest rate ceiling is an asset transfer from labor to capital, removing the ladder that lets people with low wealth climb up in financial status. There is more oppression with the Fed in control of the financial markets, than without.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
It should be the latter, but what mostly happens is the former. Whenever you go to work to earn money for your bread; whenever you adjust your price to equalize supply and demand; whenever you change a product to make it more profitable - you're serving the economy. Single humans and single companies (hell, even most countries) are too weak to dictate how the market works.
- meric 10y ago
  That's why we have taxes so people who do not receive enough compensation for working have enough to live too. I think it's important to keep in mind money isn't the end goal when we go to work. We work to live. And if we can live without working, it is a choice we can take.

Do we live to serve the economy, or does the economy work to serve human beings?

by meric 10y ago

Do we live to serve the economy, or does the economy work to serve human beings?

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

This is entangled, so both. And "serve" has connotations of power, which isn't necessary.

meric 10y ago
When politicians say we must do X or Y to get everyone jobs to "boost the economy", they lose sight of the point of jobs, enact policies which destroy well paying middle class jobs to produce a large quantity of jobs no one really wants to do, thinking quantity can substitute for quality. In this case, they voluntarily give up our power so we can "serve" the economy or GDP, even though no such power relationship ought to exist.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  But all they have is quantity. The only thing actually quantifiable in quality is the Likert (1-5) scale stuff marketers use. If it's not quantifiable, how can you even talk seriously about it? Isn't this the flaw in the thing? Politicians need GDP growth because of how government is financed. This isn't foolish nor power-hungry. It's just more or less a fact. And turn this on it's head - somewhere, a guy/gal is making something you don't even know you'll need yet, who you have never met. That's the thing least about power I ever did hear. Specifically, jobs-as-political-fodder is ensconced into law in the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1979, which lays on the Fed the dual mandate of currency stability and employment. If it is oppressive, it certainly wasn't anticipated to be that; quite the opposite.
  - meric 10y ago
    I agree with everything, and I do think it has turned out to be oppressive. Inflation is forced onto people to erode their wealth, to ensure they all work, and prevent their ability to accrue savings. The low interest rate ceiling is an asset transfer from labor to capital, removing the ladder that lets people with low wealth climb up in financial status. There is more oppression with the Fed in control of the financial markets, than without.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

It should be the latter, but what mostly happens is the former. Whenever you go to work to earn money for your bread; whenever you adjust your price to equalize supply and demand; whenever you change a product to make it more profitable - you're serving the economy. Single humans and single companies (hell, even most countries) are too weak to dictate how the market works.

meric 10y ago
That's why we have taxes so people who do not receive enough compensation for working have enough to live too. I think it's important to keep in mind money isn't the end goal when we go to work. We work to live. And if we can live without working, it is a choice we can take.