[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?

Your reasoning also proves that featherbedding makes a wealthier economy. If a product results in higher profits, then we must employ more people to make the same product. That means more workers with money in their pocket.

Whereas featherbedding means more people have incomes (temporarily), it also means productivity decreases. More people to produce same. Decreased productivity means more jobs lost in this industry and in other industries. But that loss of jobs is not obvious when using sound byte logic.

Reality: how do we create more jobs? We make the same product with less people every year. How if we are laying off workers? Because more productivity in any one industry means more new products from that industry, more sales and markets, and other new industries. All create many more productive jobs. Sound byte logic concludes otherwise.

Demonstrated is whether one uses common sense without experience (then assume less workers mean less jobs), OR takes a larger (and more complex) perspective to see the bigger picture. What creates more productive jobs? Doing every job with less people every year. What is the only thing that does that? Innovation.

Do we smash more windows to create a wealthier and more productive economy? Yes, when using Rush Limbaugh logic - common sense without experience and fundamental knowledge. If we suddenly have windows that never need replacement (innovation), then the glazier does new jobs that actually are productive - such as manufacturing windows that don't break. But that means the glazier must also keep getting educated. Why? Innovation means constant change - constant learning - another factor that sound byte logic both ignores and fears.

That change results in more wealth, more jobs, better standards of living, more new products and industries, etc for everyone.

Why does Rush Limbaugh logic disagree? Because Rush Limbaugh logic is based in fear of change - the status quo - no innovation. When the glazier is no longer needed, then resources are now available to develop other innovations. Notice the perspective. Don't view economics from the workers perspective. That would be silly and futile. View the bigger picture - the only thing that matters - the product.

The only way to make a wealthier economy is (and has always been) doing same work with less people, eliminating a need for jobs that maintain the status quo, and create jobs that result in something useful. What is the fundamental principle that underlies all these 'wealth creating' functions? Innovation. Innovation is not created by war or by glaziers replacing existing windows. Both jobs mean more money moving - but fewer products created. That is called inflation. Inflation means more temporary jobs today with a much larger loss of jobs tomorrow. Both jobs also mean more stifled innovation.

What I have posted contradicts sound byte economics because the real world is more complex. Sound byte economics spins wars as good for the economy - using the same spin that also proved Saddam had WMDs.

What "can jump-start the economy"? Wars? Of course not. Innovation does that. Others so little appreciate innovation as to instead credit war. If it takes a war to create innovation, then the economy has a cancerous problem with bean counters stifling innovation.

Why does it take a new gun to invent a disk drive? It does not. But sound byte logic spins such myths for the same reasons that people believe featherbedding creates more wealth. Guns result in spin off technologies such as disk drives only where spin rationalizes it.

Those who can be convinced that more guns mean disk drives are the same mentalities that Rush Limbaugh preaches to. People who know only by using sound byte logic - the 'I feel this is true' logic. The real world is more complex. 'I feel this is true' logic proves that both featherbedding and wars are productive. Neither advances mankind in direct contradiction to hype and spin.

The only thing that creates wealth for that glazier is innovation. The resulting productivity increase means fewer workers make the same product. That means more jobs for everyone. Spin reasoning cannot deal with such complex realities. Spin reasoning therefore proclaims wars and featherbedding as good for the economy.