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.
In what circumstances is government needed?
.
There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.
How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality .
The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality ". Why do were those things omitted?
.
I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.
Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest.
I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.
You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.
I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.
We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.
There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.
How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality .
The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality ". Why do were those things omitted?
.
Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality .
The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality ". Why do were those things omitted?
.
Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
Good grief, our education system sucks.
Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness is the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?
.
The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone. That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all. People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.
The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance. Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now. In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.
When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer. Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.
If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat. These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now. Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?
The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed. Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation. The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal. Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US. If production can be outsourced, it has been.
It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here. This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers. Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution. For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?
What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place. Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening. These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.
There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs". Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family. Those are the jobs that have been lost. And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.
Which conservative made the point that the left wants all income the same? The point is that the government is in no position to decide who should make what. It's impossible. They would have to know all the details of every business all the time.The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone. That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all. People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.
You are only examining the aspects that suits the agenda. Bear in mind also that companies are multi-national like never before. McDonalds are in Japan, Russia, hell probably Antartica, now too. Corporations also have their hands in many pies and own many other businesses.The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance. Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now. In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.
The middle class helped vote in those that put those programs in place so don't blame Walmart for the tax hit. The average full time employee makes $25,000 a year. That's more than I made some years running a business more than full time, including the risk and stress, after expenses.When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer. Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.
Why should the middle class subsidize anyone else, period?If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat. These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now. Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?
Yep, because Americans won't pay $600 for an electronic doodad made by a US union worker when they can buy the one from China for $200. The corporation that follows your thinking disappears and has no employees.The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed. Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation. The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal. Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US. If production can be outsourced, it has been.
Big government and Americans voting with their dollars are the culprit. I'm sad to see it, I'd love to buy an American made TV for example. But there are none. Who's to blame? RCA? Magnavox? Or is it Japan's fault?... low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family. Those are the jobs that have been lost. And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.
I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.
Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.
I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.
You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.
I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.
We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.
I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.
You contradicted yourself but don't realize it. Put down the Marxist Manifesto and open up an espresso stand, you'll learn much more about how the real world works.I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict." By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term. The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.
You contradicted yourself but don't realize it. Put down the Marxist Manifesto and open up an espresso stand, you'll learn much more about how the real world works.I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.
Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
Good grief, our education system sucks.
Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness is the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?
.
lol you dropped that line of reasoning pretty fast.
If you feel compelled to complain about how Obamacare is infringing on your rights you do that more effectively in one of the many threads about Obamacare.
Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.
There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.lol
If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict." By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term. The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.
No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
[Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.
[There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
[For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
Do you have any proof of that statement?No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.
There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.lol
If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.
Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.
All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.lol
If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.
I am not misusing the term but for some reason you can't get past it.
Here look at this.
See how one goes from the upper left to the bottom right. Now see how one goes from the bottom left to the upper right. See how they are different?
That difference is what I am talking about.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict." By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term. The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.
No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
"Conflict" would include an argument about who takes out the garbage. You only use it because it's vague. "Coercion" is a more precise term. Everyone agrees that "coercion" should be banned from human relations, but I doubt anyone would claim we should make arguments illegal.
There is no "coercion" involved in market exchanges. Only government can legally use coercion.
That's a fundamental principle of economics. What your saying is that buying and selling is evil somehow.
[There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
As I said, the word "conflict" is vague. That's why you use it. There is no coercion in the market. Any discussion of "conflict" is just meaningless blather.
[For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
More meaningless blather. People dying of thirst in the dessert aren't relevant to economics.
