So you want better paying jobs?

[Boss]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Tariffs are socialist. They are taxes designed to protect labor and restrict individual choice by squeezing out foreign competition. That's why labor unions support tariffs pretty much everywhere.

Yet, this is what Donald Trump proposes. And his "conservative" supporters cheer him on.

Toto, you're an idiot... tariffs are not socialist. As I predicted in post #339, this is about the point in this argument where the useful idiots start making things "socialist" that aren't.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and/or social control of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

There is nothing about the application of tariffs which fits this criteria. Socialists love to muddy the water and make people think everything is socialist. Either you are an idiot who believes this is true or you're a dishonest liar who knows it isn't true. Which are you, Toto?

 

[Correll]

Don't compound your dishonesty.

I made a point you could not refute so you ran.

I would be happy to discuss the morality of Capitalism vs Communism, vs Socialism anytime.

But not when it is a dodge to avoid acknowledging the vast Wealth Creation that is on the plus side of the Capitalistic US system.

you keep missing the point about socialism. it requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a price.

in other words, we are simply not moral enough to a god, to be able to benefit from divine intervention in a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

WTF are you talking about and how does it relate to what we were talking about before, ie Wealth Creation?

capital wealth creation is not the Only form of creation of wealth.

I did not claim that it was.

Do I take it you are done with this conversation, because it did not go the way you wanted it to?

n other words, we are simply not moral enough to a god, to be able to benefit from divine intervention in a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

No other words. Nothing I said can reasonable be interpreted as that.

You were actually engaging in real dialog, until I challenged you and you could not defend Socialism.

Now, you are wandering off into surreal imagery in order to try to distract from that simple fact.

 

[Friends]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

[Correll]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

No, they spend/spent less on their military because they knew they could depend the US to take up the slack, asshole freeloaders.

Their formal public debt might be slightly better than ours, but that does not mean they are sustainable, especially as that does not include unfunded liabilities such as future pensions.

 

[Boss]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

Yes, new age Democrat Socialists are very proud of the Scandinavian Socialist democracies. They are very often used as examples comparing with the US. The problem is, these systems do not work in diverse and populated large nations. There are a variety of reasons.

 

[Toro]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Tariffs are socialist. They are taxes designed to protect labor and restrict individual choice by squeezing out foreign competition. That's why labor unions support tariffs pretty much everywhere.

Yet, this is what Donald Trump proposes. And his "conservative" supporters cheer him on.

Toto, you're an idiot... tariffs are not socialist. As I predicted in post #339, this is about the point in this argument where the useful idiots start making things "socialist" that aren't.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership and/or social control of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

There is nothing about the application of tariffs which fits this criteria. Socialists love to muddy the water and make people think everything is socialist. Either you are an idiot who believes this is true or you're a dishonest liar who knows it isn't true. Which are you, Toto?

Yes they are, you ignorant moron.

Tariffs are taxes used by statists, i.e. socialists, to protect jobs in their own country. Unions LOVE tariffs. They are discredited by economists because economists know that they destroy wealth and jobs.

Tariffs are a tool primarily used around the world by the left.

You should have taken a class in economics, you mindless tax-hiking leftist.

Nobody who says they are for free enterprise and liberty can they say they are for tariffs, which are taxes that reduce individual choice and freedom.

Trumptards are morons.

 

[Boss]

Tariffs are a tool primarily used around the world by the left.

You should have taken a class in economics, you mindless tax-hiking leftist.

Nobody who says they are for free enterprise and liberty can they say they are for tariffs, which are taxes that reduce individual choice and freedom.

I can't argue that in some instances this is true. I never argued that tariffs were some glorious and perfect thing that solves all the world problems and makes life wonderful for everybody. Certainly they can be exploitative and used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people.

If you want to say they are a "tax" that's fine, but they are a tax being applied to countries who subjugate their people with slave wages, and I'm okay with that. We can't compete as free market capitalists, with countries ruled by dictators who work their people like slaves. The dictator with the slave workers is always going to be able to make his widgets cheaper, sell them cheaper and make more profit than us, a country trying to pay people fairly and give them some kind of decent standard of life. So... IF we are going to trade with these people, we have to impose tariffs to make it fair for our people.... unless we're going to be subjugated into slaves working for our government... that's the only other way we can compete.

 

[Friends]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

No, they spend/spent less on their military because they knew they could depend the US to take up the slack, asshole freeloaders.

Their formal public debt might be slightly better than ours, but that does not mean they are sustainable, especially as that does not include unfunded liabilities such as future pensions.

If one does not like a policy one can always say that at some time in the future it will prove to be unsustainable.

----------

The happiest countries in the world, according to neuroscientists, statisticians, and economists.

Business Insider April 23, 2015

An international team of economists, neuroscientists, and statisticians just released their third World Happiness Report, which measures well-being in countries around the world to help guide public policy.

Switzerland topped the list of the happiest nations, and all of the top eight countries were in the global north. Switzerland was followed by Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
New world happiness report 2015 - Business Insider

----------

Of these countries, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden have recognizably Social Democratic economies.

 

[Correll]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

No, they spend/spent less on their military because they knew they could depend the US to take up the slack, asshole freeloaders.

Their formal public debt might be slightly better than ours, but that does not mean they are sustainable, especially as that does not include unfunded liabilities such as future pensions.

If one does not like a policy one can always say that at some time in the future it will prove to be unsustainable.

----------

The happiest countries in the world, according to neuroscientists, statisticians, and economists.
...

Mmm, I know a lot of liberals use the term that way.

Me? I am actually using it's real meaning.

Pretty much all of the First World has serious Debt problems with yearly deficits that as they are NOW make the current situation unsustainable, but they are only slated to grow drastically WORSE as our populations age.

This change looks as though it will be a permanent change.

Living on a credit card can be alot of fun. Until you go bankrupt. Then it is less fun.

 

[danielpalos]

i believe we could have better jobs by simply subsidizing labor with a form of minimum wage on an at-will basis as a form of unemployment compensation.

That way, capital can flow in the direction of improving productivity in those job sectors that need the most improvement short of simply increasing wages to attract qualified labor.

 

[danielpalos]

The Social Democracies of Scandinavia, Germany and Britain are not financially sustainable, and that is with the long history of indirect subsidy from the US carrying much of their defense burden.

Each of the Scandinavian Social Democracies have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States. Germany and Britain have more.

The World Factbook

These countries spent much less on their military forces than the United States because they did not think that a Soviet invasion was a realistic possibility. I agree with them. Also, they had the sense to avoid military adventures like our wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

No, they spend/spent less on their military because they knew they could depend the US to take up the slack, asshole freeloaders.

Their formal public debt might be slightly better than ours, but that does not mean they are sustainable, especially as that does not include unfunded liabilities such as future pensions.

If one does not like a policy one can always say that at some time in the future it will prove to be unsustainable.

----------

The happiest countries in the world, according to neuroscientists, statisticians, and economists.
...

Mmm, I know a lot of liberals use the term that way.

Me? I am actually using it's real meaning.

Pretty much all of the First World has serious Debt problems with yearly deficits that as they are NOW make the current situation unsustainable, but they are only slated to grow drastically WORSE as our populations age.

This change looks as though it will be a permanent change.

Living on a credit card can be alot of fun. Until you go bankrupt. Then it is less fun.

yet, we seem to be able to afford expensive wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of Commerce, well regulated.

and, the right Only seems to have a problem with all of our Socialism, when the least wealthy may benefit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

A system that allows bad management to slowly starve 120 million to death is a Nazi-like system. Moreover, a command economy cant ever manage well because the Nazi liberal commander would at best be a bad manager or guesser.

Capitalism succeeds wildly by comparison because it features millions of managers who succeed and fail by the millions on a very small scale before those who succeed can slowly grow, based on continuing success, to be very powerful economically while having absolutely no political power with which to harm people.

After East/West Germany and 132 other examples anyone who believes in a command economy would have to be described as very very stupid and liberal.

 

[danielpalos]

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

A system that allows bad management to slowly starve 120 million to death is a Nazi-like system. Moreover, a command economy cant ever manage well because the Nazi liberal commander would at best be a bad manager or guesser.

Capitalism succeeds wildly by comparison because it features millions of managers who succeed and fail by the millions on a very small scale before those who succeed can slowly grow, based on continuing success, to be very powerful economically while having absolutely no political power with which to harm people.

After East/West Germany and 132 other examples anyone who believes in a command economy would have to be described as very very stupid and liberal.

Bad management can be a known quantity under any form of socialism.

How can anyone anticipate a "market failure" under any form of Capitalism or be well positioned enough to be able to "hedge" for any potential market failure; such as occurred in 1929?

 

[Boss]

Bad management can be a known quantity under any form of socialism.

LMAO... Is that what they called it when Stalin had millions of dissenters executed? "Bad management?" Or when Mao lined capitalists up in front of an open ditch and put a bullet through their brain? ..."bad management!" Or how about when Pol Pot instigated the Killing Fields... was that "bad management" too?

Yeah.... it's that "bad management" thing that gives Socialism such a bad rap.

 

[danielpalos]

Bad management can be a known quantity under any form of socialism.

LMAO... Is that what they called it when Stalin had millions of dissenters executed? "Bad management?" Or when Mao lined capitalists up in front of an open ditch and put a bullet through their brain? ..."bad management!" Or how about when Pol Pot instigated the Killing Fields... was that "bad management" too?

Yeah.... it's that "bad management" thing that gives Socialism such a bad rap.

Yes; much like when capitalists claimed there was nothing to worry about, days before the market crash in 1929.

 

[Correll]

Bad management can be a known quantity under any form of socialism.

LMAO... Is that what they called it when Stalin had millions of dissenters executed? "Bad management?" Or when Mao lined capitalists up in front of an open ditch and put a bullet through their brain? ..."bad management!" Or how about when Pol Pot instigated the Killing Fields... was that "bad management" too?

Yeah.... it's that "bad management" thing that gives Socialism such a bad rap.

qquate
Yes; much like when capitalists claimed there was nothing to worry about, days before the market crash in 1929.

Buddy.

The Boom Bust cycle is a problem. Once that has been mitigated with regulation.

To try to equate that with Systematic Genocide and Oppression is fairly crazy.

 

[danielpalos]

i am not the one equating it; those on your side are. i know Bad management is a problem under any form of political-economy.

 

[Correll]

i am not the one equating it; those on your side are. i know Bad management is a problem under any form of political-economy.

No.

You are the one claiming that Genocide and Tyranny were nothing but "bad management" and thus to be lumped in with the Boom Bust Cycle of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

i am not the one equating it; those on your side are. i know Bad management is a problem under any form of political-economy.

No.

You are the one claiming that Genocide and Tyranny were nothing but "bad management" and thus to be lumped in with the Boom Bust Cycle of Capitalism.

Yes, they were; as was the Bad management of our Indian affairs even under our form of Capitalism even with the social bailout of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers with our supreme law of the land.

 

[Boss]

Bad management of our Indian affairs even under our form of Capitalism

No that was the "bad management" of Democrats.

So was slavery and segregation.