Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.

As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.

Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.

There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.

As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.

On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.

Again, the irony.....

The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.

When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie not Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.

Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.

 

[Iceweasel]

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

Individuals ARE the market.

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.

We influence foreign government a great deal with money. It's called foreign aid. Corporations fail or change when people stop voting with their dollars. Government takes longer to change since has no competition or profits to meet. And apparently little regard for its' shareholders since everything is backwards.

Instead of the way it was formed, government for the people has become people for the government. We work and exist to feed the ever growing government do manage us in increasing detail.

Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?

 

[P@triot]

The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".

It wasn't "magic" you fuck'n buffoon. Steve Jobs was driven to succeed. It took ungodly hours, tremendous effort, and many failures.

It's so irritating listening to asshat, worthless, couch-potatoe losers like you claim that someone else's success was "luck", or "magic", or "fortune" simply because you're not willing to acknowledge your own failures and lack of effort.

 

[Bombur]

The middle class is a government tree?

Huh?

Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.

If people can't afford goods, demand goes down. So does business. The better the economy, the more money goes around and people increase buying. The economy doesn't simply exist on its' own accord.
Huh?

Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO.

You have a lot of arrogance I see. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what your business experience is. Obviously it's zilch. You don't know what you're talking about.

We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.

I think billionaires know more about what helps them.

You are right about the slowest economic recovery in recent times? More people unemployed today than when Obama took office. Most new jobs are part time and liberals overlook that detail to make their idiotic theories look good. Dishonesty and arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge and results. You couldn't run a one man hot dog stand with your economic understanding. Lecture someone else.

You really don't know what I am talking about do you?

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.

It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you.

It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.

On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.

On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.

This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand.

One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?

 

[Bombur]

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

Individuals ARE the market.

lol

BTW I am not giving the government guys the pass. If anything I am clearly demanding that those government guys make different decisions.

 

[P@triot]

Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.

There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.

As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.

On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.

Again, the irony.....

The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.

When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie not Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.

Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are not "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.

You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's not what matters.

What matters is how much control they have over you. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.

 

[Bombur]

Again, the irony.....

The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.

When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie not Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.

Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are not "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.

You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's not what matters.

What matters is how much control they have over you. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.

 

[P@triot]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

No, it doesn't. Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism. Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge. Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.

That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.

Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.

I'll claim "otherwise" right here and now. And while you might accuse me of being "politically naïve", I can assure you that you are economically naïve.

Government can only give something to someone when it takes it from someone else. That is not healthy (there's a reason your mother taught you not to steal). Every dime the federal government takes for socialism is a dime removed from a productive member of society who is an innovator or producer in some capacity. And every dime the federal government gives for socialism is a dime given to an unproductive member of society who is being subsidized to not produce anything of value to the market, to the country, and to society. That is a problem.

True capitalism does not mean anarchy. We can have true capitalism and still have proper, effective regulations which make sense to ensure ethical practices. Furthermore, in this day and age of technology, 24x7 news, and social media - regulations are required less than ever since intense public pressure can consume and devastate a corporation in the blink of an eye. Just ask Target - which is currently experiencing a P.R. nightmare over their inability to protect their customers credit cards and information. And that wasn't even the result of something devious by that organization.

 

[P@triot]

Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already.

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are not "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.

You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's not what matters.

What matters is how much control they have over you. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.

The fact that you can't even articulate what was "cuckoo" about what I just stated kind of says it all.

The reality is, you know I'm right (but apparently not mature enough to admit it?). Like all liberals, you're entire focus has been on control. You're furious that you can't control the free market and corporations.

 

[Bombur]

I will take you more seriously when you take yourself more seriously.

I am ok with you barking away. Your name is fitting.

 

[Iceweasel]

You really don't know what I am talking about do you?

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

Supporting a smaller more efficient government isn't anti-government. We need a government. It should limit itself to why it was formed, to provide for national security with a military, take care of infrastructure police, fire, EMS, food safety, environmental oversight, etc. The things business can't do.

As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.

It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you.

No, the lower the cost the better for the customer. It's called competition, I provide a good product at a reasonable price and he decides to shop with me.

The lowest cost often is not the best deal and the smart buyer knows it. Employees need to be payed enough to keep them around, or they look elsewhere. The worse the economy, the less opportunity for them and the less there is to pay. Many companies drop to part timers or eliminate jobs. How does that help the economy?

It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.

No, my job is not to maximize profit because that guarentees someone will come along and "steal" my customer. It's a balancing act and it's something all sucessfull business owners do.

Demand happens when people decide it's worth it. They, not some external force, dictate pricing. The problem with government, like with the ACA health care scam is that it attempts to price services with no control over actual costs. Governments can't set prices effectively, they are too top heavy, beaurocratic, slow and unmotivated to do so. It makes a difference when your ass and your employees asses are on the line, vs a government lackey that gets payed the same no matter the outcome.

On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.

On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.

This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand.

One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?

You can't artificially set wages in the marketplace either. Government does but government doesn't make money, it spends it. Businesses need to make money and if people don't want to pay enough to pay a guy $15 an hour flipping burgers then they don't buy the burgers. Period. The business owner can't turn around a tax the community to make up the difference.

We've been through this experiment before with the same results. Big government stiffles business and the economy goes down. And you can't tax it back up to speed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.

Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.

All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.

Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

That's the problem with liberalism.
You think you're stickin' it to the man, you're really stickin' it to the workers.

 

[Contumacious]

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

In what circumstances is government needed?

.

 

[Bombur]

You really don't know what I am talking about do you?

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

Supporting a smaller more efficient government isn't anti-government. We need a government. It should limit itself to why it was formed, to provide for national security with a military, take care of infrastructure police, fire, EMS, food safety, environmental oversight, etc. The things business can't do.

As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.

It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you.

No, the lower the cost the better for the customer. It's called competition, I provide a good product at a reasonable price and he decides to shop with me.

The lowest cost often is not the best deal and the smart buyer knows it. Employees need to be payed enough to keep them around, or they look elsewhere. The worse the economy, the less opportunity for them and the less there is to pay. Many companies drop to part timers or eliminate jobs. How does that help the economy?

It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.

No, my job is not to maximize profit because that guarentees someone will come along and "steal" my customer. It's a balancing act and it's something all sucessfull business owners do.

Demand happens when people decide it's worth it. They, not some external force, dictate pricing. The problem with government, like with the ACA health care scam is that it attempts to price services with no control over actual costs. Governments can't set prices effectively, they are too top heavy, beaurocratic, slow and unmotivated to do so. It makes a difference when your ass and your employees asses are on the line, vs a government lackey that gets payed the same no matter the outcome.

On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.

On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.

This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand.

One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?

You can't artificially set wages in the marketplace either. Government does but government doesn't make money, it spends it. Businesses need to make money and if people don't want to pay enough to pay a guy $15 an hour flipping burgers then they don't buy the burgers. Period. The business owner can't turn around a tax the community to make up the difference.

We've been through this experiment before with the same results. Big government stiffles business and the economy goes down. And you can't tax it back up to speed.

I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.

In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.

A lot of your other comments get into you assuming a solution to the problem that I never suggested. The first step in this discussion is to establish a common understanding of how markets work and how different actors in the market try and maximize benefit to themselves.

I would also say that the act of maximizing profit should be about maximizing profit long term. You could also replace profit with benefit if you want but there is no getting around the fact that market economics is based on the premise that people act in their own self interest to maximize the benefit to them.

The point I was trying to make here is that you are subject to two larger markets(the labor market and the consumer/consumption market) and it in your direct interest to have different things happen in those markets. This direct interest is in conflict with the broader interest of the economy and ultimately the long term interest of the employer.

You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)

Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.

 

[Bombur]

Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.

Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.

All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.

Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

That's the problem with liberalism.
You think you're stickin' it to the man, you're really stickin' it to the workers.

Ohh there is no doubt that this can happen. So can the other side of the coin. Too much downward pressure on wages and economic stagnation can happen. We are living in an age where the problem is wage stagnation relative to productivity growth. We have seen such large increases in global production that global demand has fallen behind.

It is very hard to convince China that they need to increase wages more quickly but a lot of the world economy is relying on countries who focus on production shifting towards consumption and countries like the US who are focused on consumption and debt moving towards production and capital flows outward.

 

[Bombur]

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

In what circumstances is government needed?

.

There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.

When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.

From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.

I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.

 

[georgephillip]

Cut the crap. Human beings/human activity creates inequality. Some are smarter than others. Some work harder than others. Some make better choices. Some are selfish. Some are greedy. Some are lazy. Some are stupid. Some are lucky...some not. Inequality is. That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what. Pax vobiscum.

Which only works if god and heaven exist.
Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.

 

[georgephillip]

We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years. But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed. It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.

Do you consider tariffs a sign of free market capitalism?

"The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States.

"It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

"The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States (which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods) by putting a tax on them.

"The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.[1]

"The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.[2]

"The tariff marked the high point of US tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.[3]"

Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You think one tariff means it was socialist?

I think it means US manufacturing grew up behind tariffs just as the earlier free market capitalists in the UK did.

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking for GOP VOTERS- The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, the rest pays 21 per cent, and the richest AT LEAST triple their wealth while everyone else and the country goes to hell under Reaganist/Voodoo tax rates...

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[LogikAndReazon]

What those poor, disenfranchised , victimized, illiterates really need are totalitarian communist scumbags to come to their rescue !!! Hail Che Guevara !