Wally great points but I don’t think people really like the extreme tone and complicated language. Most voters don’t follow politics so a clear simple message is essential.

Ah, I think people are more than capable of understanding macro economics if it’s explained properly. Our ruling elites have been delivering clear and simple and simple messages in relation to the economy such as “balance the books” and “live within your means” for decades. The simplicity of those slogans disguises the fact that they are utterly wrong and self serving.

Here’s a thought. An increase in of the minimum wage does not increase productivity, at best it increases spending power. An increase in the number of people working increases productivity AND spending power, because there are more people working and more people earning. So if you were going to choose one, which would you choose?

Andrew,

It’s not a really binary choice between the two. An increase in the minimum wage will increase spending power and aggregate demand. The increased aggregate demand will result in extra jobs to meet that demand and so productive output will rise. The macro economy is circular and should be managed to create full employment for maximum productivity.

Trying to put it more simply….

Those labour ‘costs’ that these SFA macro economics clowns talk about are the exact same monies needed for people to buy their products….

Productivity hasn’t much to do with this.

The SFA’s ‘argument’ is a purely individual business approach. They will try and take whatever productivity gains there are, and take them first as profits for themselves, usually hoarding the money or pushing up existing asset prices, eg property and land. Same with labour costs – either reducing wages, or simply not increasing them in line with inflation.

This is bad news for the macro economy – it stifles aggregate demand as they all try and do the same.

This is why business people make the worst macro economists – they are incapable of thinking about the circular nature of the whole economy. (Tho’ it must be said most mainstream economists are equally incapable, trained thru’ a process of intellectual fraud, going back decades.)

Unfortunately, business people, thru’ their wealth and corrupt Capital owners in the political system, have most influence in macro economic policy.

All this does is enrich themselves in economies that operate way under total capacity with high unemployment, taking all the productivity gains for themselves, and more besides, off the Labour class.

IE a system that works for the Capital owning minority in society, and impoverishes or stagnates the incomes everybody else.

Fortunately, more citizens are waking up to the fact that ‘democracy’ – operating in the interests of the (always labour class) majority – has rarely, if ever delivered its promise.

Increasingly, people are ignoring the mainstream media that perpetuates this micro-founded macro economics drivel and realising that the minority elites have been running things pretty much the same as they did before universal vote elections, a century or so ago. In their interests exclusively.

Technology and industrial advancement needed an increasingly educated mass workforce, and that investment was best served by people living longer & healthier to apply their skills. That’s the only reason we have been conceded such benefits.

Notice how the rise of Chinese and Asian manufacturing reduced such skilled labour needs in Europe, US etc in the last decade or so. It’s no coincidence that the numbers of the impoverished under class in our societies have risen in tandem. But the rich have become immensely richer.

It’s all been a political choice – no ‘natural’ constraints – driven by the interests of the top few percent, ignoring everyone else.

Some business are on the up and others surviving …. My guess is this is not the same group of businesses that were reported on!!!