A few days ago a reporter was interviewing an economist on the PBS Newshour.
The economist was talking about how much the regular worker has benefited by corporations.
Had I been the interviewer, I would have had to strongly refrain myself from asking: “Do you really believe that?”
The duty of a reporter of course is to only accurately convey and not interpret what is said.
In this case the reporter could have said “Could you repeat this so that I am sure that I have it correct.”
The economist might have sensed that what he said was considered preposterous, that he was being had but he would have to reply so as not to seem impolite.
Economists make a mountain out of a mole hill. Not to be trite but yet true. They have their niche and want to keep their easy money.
Everyone knows that a few reap the wealth from the labor if those with the skills who work for so little.
Real economists are those who for instance grow tomatoes that are part of our food supply. They have to know how many to grow that can be sold. Although some overages can be canned or made into sauce, even that has to sell before the expiration date. Any more than that will rot.
Another case are those who build automobiles. If they make too many and can’t sell them before the next year’s model comes out, they are stuck with them.
These are the real economists.
One problem with the proposed trade agreement is that there would be a huge number of huge freighters and huge cargo planes belching huge amounts of pollution.
There would be a number of unrealized transportation and dockworker’s jobs but we can live with that. Ecologically, we all would benefit.
There will always be the trade regarding things we don’t produce. We don’t grow coffee or tea here.
We import it and export what others don’t have. That makes the most sense.
Out of curiosity, I wonder how many freighter loads of coffee beans we use each year.
There are definitely many people out there who pick coffee beans and tea leaves.
What does have to be corrected is that corporations need to work for us instead of how it is now. As it stands, the wealth of our labor is being hidden offshore: an intent to defraud. What do they plan to do with that money anyway? Are they that insecure?
Technology and robotics are eliminating many jobs and this will increase.
A 32-hour week would do these days. The hourly rates and salaries would have to be such that one could at least make ends meet.
The fifth weekday should be used for education.
A case is that after so many generations the coal miners in such places as West Virginia will have to learn new trades as a result of solar energy development.
All of the foregoing is economics. Not worthless intangibles.
We have to develop an inclusive society.
A three-day work week will some day ‘do the job.’
Charles Samek
Mineola
