Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.
First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
Your quote of his assertion is the reason that after attaining an MBA with a major in economics I took the next step, the study of Psychology to the Ed.S level. Human behavior characteristics form the basis for economics. Androw is correct, without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed.And of course there is a desire for profit. Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit. If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand. Profit!
There has been no worker owned experiment. You are confusing propaganda for truth. Communism was a word that appealed to the Russian working class to support Bolsheviks and soon after the US picked up on that term and taught you to fear it.
Please if you're going to make claims socialism and marxism have been tried, first you have to define what those terms mean and then show historical circumstances where those ideas were applied. You cannot show where they applied because none exist. No experiments in the last century+ have been one where the workers controlled the means to production. It has consistently remained in the hands of a few.
wish we could point to examples of how good/evil scary concepts like socialism are but we have no examples. A "state socialist" model (which is a oxymoron) like in Denmark and the social safety net in the US are examples that pure unregulated capitalism is untenable and too heinous to operate a functioning society. Thus you need to redistribute wealth in order to keep society functioning.
In psychology you must know the idea that people perceive what they want out of situations. That interpretation dims ones ability to see events objectively and unless one tries to extricate themselves from personal bias they will consistently perceive the world how they like and no fact or event can change it. Do you aim to be objective?
Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.Argument from incredulityNew construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
You can't look at the cost of construction, and determine the market value of the home.
You just said that they couldn't know that!Are you seriously telling me, that you believe that companies build homes for a higher price, than what the house would be worth on the market?
The market could go bust and they would cease construction to minimize their losses or they would build specialty homes. That's just two possibilities.Following that logic, can you explain how a housing construction company would stay in business following that model?
Now this is an interesting question, Androw. Finally, Androw has something constructive to add.And are you seriously suggesting that you believe that regardless, such a cost, should be added to housing price index even though the house in question has never been on the market?
Then I should encourage others to quote me until you learn how logic works.If not for you [gnarlylove] quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.
Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.
Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.
The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals of Marxism" simply do not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
...
A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals of Marxism" simply do not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals of Marxism" simply do not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
"Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
"Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.
Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
"Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
"Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
"We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
Empty claims. Zero evidence.
The crash was caused by sub-prime loans. We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s. The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives. Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped. Prices dropped first. Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
This indicates there was a price bubble. Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
In other words, what you said was wrong.
Politicians from both major parties who depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements did their parts in creating the crisis, but it was private bankers resorting to an epidemic of control accounting fraud (80% by lenders) that were the biggest culprits in The Mess.Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
Power hungry politicians trying to buy votes caused a crisis then pointed fingers at businesses rather than accept the blame for their own actions. Then they appeal to the greed and wealth envy of their minions to pound the message home.
Yep, business as usual.
The current Administration then did its part by not prosecuting a single major financial figure in the greatest looting of the US economy since the Great Depression.
"The Mess
The economy was at risk of a deep recession after the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000; this situation was compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks that followed in 2001. In response, central banks around the world tried to stimulate the economy. They created capital liquidity through a reduction in interest rates.
"In turn, investors sought higher returns through riskier investments. Lenders took on greater risks too, and approved subprime mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit.
Consumer demand drove the housing bubble to all-time highs in the summer of 2005, which ultimately collapsed in August of 2006. (For an in-depth discussion of these events, see The Fuel That Fed The Subprime Meltdown.)
"The end result of these key events was increased foreclosure activity, large lenders and hedge funds declaring bankruptcy, and fears regarding further decreases in economic growth and consumer spending.
"So who's to blame? Let's take a look at the key players
Biggest Culprit: The Lenders
Most of the blame should be pointed at the mortgage originators (lenders) for creating these problems. It was the lenders who ultimately lent funds to people with poor credit and a high risk of default. (To learn more about subprime lending, see Subprime Is Often Subpar.)
Who Is To Blame For The Subprime Crisis?
I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
"Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
"Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.
There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
Your opponent is using the "fallacy of the single cause" as a rhetorical device to blame the "evil progressives" for "everything bad".The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
Empty claims. Zero evidence.
The crash was caused by sub-prime loans. We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s. The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives. Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped. Prices dropped first. Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
This indicates there was a price bubble. Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
In other words, what you said was wrong.
How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
Before Bernie Sanders maybeBut are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
It wasn't the housing market.
"Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
"Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
"We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???
I am, sadly, able to believe that. As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism? Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:
"Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
"Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.
There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
Before Bernie Sanders maybeBut are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?
"Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
"Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
"We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???
I wish I had acquired the education that might allow me to give an adequate answer to your question. My formative years took place during the great compression, from about 1945 to 1970. In the mid '70s a single wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain an six year-old Chevy. Today, a single minimum wage job would put me under a bridge with a shopping cart and food stamps. I know our country resorted to slavery and genocide during its formative era, and sometimes it seems to me the former is making a comeback, of sorts. I'm not really sure if capitalism is even able to supply an adequate number of jobs for people today. If its private sector can't accomplish this fundamental economic task, the only option I see is for the public sector to step in the way it did with the New Deal.I am, sadly, able to believe that. As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism? Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
