Target Stores Announce Many Closures..or "How to Squeeze Middle Class to Your Own Fiscal Death"

[Dad2three]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 

[Dad2three]

Ignorant OP.

Target's problems are that they fucked up their merchandising.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Of course it could be the dwindling consuming power of the unemployed...nah...couldn't be THAT..

Consumer confidence is rising. Consumption spending is rising. The economy is getting better.

The retail industry's problems are structural. For 20 years, retail square footage grew faster than spending, which was untentable in the long run. Then, along came the Internet which started to eat away at bricks and mortar sales. That led to overcapacity and inevitable store closures. This has been an issue for years.

Target's problems are well known. Target was known as an innovative retailer, offering quality and interesting products at reasonable prices. But they promoted a guy to CEO who focused on cost-cutting, and they wound up diminishing their inventory and damaging their brand.

NOT that THIS had ANYTHING to do with it the last 20+ years right?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

So do you support Target? I don't, my wife likes them, I like mom and pop shops, I pay more but I am keeping the money nearby.

I see where your logic is going here. However, most of the businesses my bank-friend says are tanking while these big chains also go under or "cut back so the 1% can still live the life they're accustomed to" are the smaller mom and pop stores. This isn't a reorganization of the economy. It's the death of it to everyone..

You can only hold 99% of the wealth at the top 1% for so long before the beast falls to its knees, never to rise again..

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.




Do free markets need an umpire as ascribed by Milton Friedman: "But we cannot rely on custom or conscious alone to interpret and enforce the rules; we need an umpire. These then are the basic role of government in a free society; to provide a means where we can modify rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who otherwise would not play the game."

 

[Ringel05]

I'm sorry, where did you go to school? The Karl Marx Occupy Wall Street school of "Business"?
I like your "nogo", how does it feel being a cyber terrorist?

No, there is a happy medium between communism and malignant capitalism. Canada for example, allows mechanized industry, but it must have a certain percentage of the jobs to human beings. Apparently they learned in kindergarten that if you squeeze the middle class into beggars, then nobody buys your products. Robots don't buy products. Who do you sell your cars to if nobody has a job?

This isn't rocket science.

Sane capitalism recognizes who its customers are and how they get their money to buy the products the business produces.

Socialism, well managed, is the best deterrent to communism.

Good luck finding it or any other man made economic system well managed.........

The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?

Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yeah, I'm sure they all got in a smoked filled room and said: "How can we fuck over the poor"

Newsflash: Marxism kills job and business.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sorry, where did you go to school? The Karl Marx Occupy Wall Street school of "Business"?
I like your "nogo", how does it feel being a cyber terrorist?

No, there is a happy medium between communism and malignant capitalism. Canada for example, allows mechanized industry, but it must have a certain percentage of the jobs to human beings. Apparently they learned in kindergarten that if you squeeze the middle class into beggars, then nobody buys your products. Robots don't buy products. Who do you sell your cars to if nobody has a job?

This isn't rocket science.

Sane capitalism recognizes who its customers are and how they get their money to buy the products the business produces.

Socialism, well managed, is the best deterrent to communism.

Good luck finding it or any other man made economic system well managed.........

The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?

Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.

lol

"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.


.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, I'm sure they all got in a smoked filled room and said: "How can we fuck over the poor"

Newsflash: Marxism kills job and business.

"Yeah, I'm sure they all got in a smoked filled room and said: "How can we fuck over the poor"

Kinda

 

[BluesLegend]

Wait, just yesterday you libs were telling us how awesome the Obama economy is.

In comparison to Dubya/GOP's 'job creator' economy? lol

BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH lmao!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are stupid and lie, there's no debate here

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Lord yes... The Recovery is ON!

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: Target decides not to close any stores after Obama told them not to worry his economy is awesome!

 

[Ringel05]

No, there is a happy medium between communism and malignant capitalism. Canada for example, allows mechanized industry, but it must have a certain percentage of the jobs to human beings. Apparently they learned in kindergarten that if you squeeze the middle class into beggars, then nobody buys your products. Robots don't buy products. Who do you sell your cars to if nobody has a job?

This isn't rocket science.

Sane capitalism recognizes who its customers are and how they get their money to buy the products the business produces.

Socialism, well managed, is the best deterrent to communism.

Good luck finding it or any other man made economic system well managed.........

The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?

Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.

lol

"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.


.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.

 

[gipper]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Government is primarily the cause...and yet you want more government.

 

[candycorn]

I thought that closing big box stores helps the mom and pop industry? Why do liberals try to have it both ways?

332-206...only one way to look at it.

Look who got back from a fork run. BTW, first response trolling completely off topic? That's sad even for you.

Just rubbing your nose in it (again).

I was here on post 31...so gee, you're wrong again (imagine our collective shock).

It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.

332-206...

Quite a lame showing by the GOP.

 

[Dad2three]

Wait, just yesterday you libs were telling us how awesome the Obama economy is.

In comparison to Dubya/GOP's 'job creator' economy? lol

BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH lmao!

Yeah because Prez's policy doesn't matter in right wing world, except Reagan's 17 year miracle, lol

 

[BluesLegend]

Wait, just yesterday you libs were telling us how awesome the Obama economy is.

In comparison to Dubya/GOP's 'job creator' economy? lol

BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH lmao!

Yeah because Prez's policy doesn't matter in right wing world, except Reagan's 17 year miracle, lol

Awe, you mad bro?

 

[Dad2three]

Socialism, well managed, is the best deterrent to communism.

Good luck finding it or any other man made economic system well managed.........

The US did pretty well post WW2 to 1980. Most of old Europe does well too. Weird it's when unfettered capitalism, or as close as it has come to it, is tried, there are only a few winners, kinda like the game monopoly?

Unfettered capitalism only helps those who are Machiavellian enough to succeed that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies, social liberalism is what many on the left practice, it found it's way into our political landscape during the Great Depression.

lol

"that's why our founding fathers believed in finding a balance as advocated by Classical Liberalism, not neo-classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, (the modern equivalent of neo-classical). Basically government only regulates the free market as is needed to prevent cheating, theft and monopolies,"

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution.


.... If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

I made the distinction between Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same. Actually unrestrained capitalism resurfaced in the late 1800s and as your article said in the (late) 70s to a degree but no where near as bad as it was under the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. Don't rely on single articles to make a point when concerning economics, there are multiple schools of thought and interpretations of economic history.
Also the US has changed dramatically since the 1700s where most people what today we call "cottage industry" was king, the industrial revolution brought about unrestrained capitalism, the great depression legitimized the labor movement. Changes in world economics post WWII eventually lead to global competition US business was slow to react to causing some serious changes in how business is done. Then people discovered they could get rich with the stock market and unrestrained investment capitalism took off finally culminating in the housing bust of 2008. It will take some time for the wheels to turn back in the other direction but turn it will when people here finally get fed up enough. Whether that will stop or slow our downward spiral is yet to be seen but I doubt it.

We have the same inequality today, with the share of incomes going to the top 1% as they did in the robber baron days!

"Classical Liberalism and Neo-classicalism (Libertarianism), they are not the same."


Not much difference. Those fighting American school economic system, mainly the Jacksonian's, (Tea parties closest links) weren't in favor of Gov't involvement at ANY nature at the federal levels


Yes, the financialization of America since Reaganomics (Friedman, Greenspan, Etc) where bigger is ALWAYS better, hasn't hurt US at all right?

 

[Dad2three]

Wait, just yesterday you libs were telling us how awesome the Obama economy is.

In comparison to Dubya/GOP's 'job creator' economy? lol

BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH lmao!

Yeah because Prez's policy doesn't matter in right wing world, except Reagan's 17 year miracle, lol

Awe, you mad bro?

About what, the MYTHS the right posits as truth? lol

 

[Dad2three]

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Government is primarily the cause...and yet you want more government.

Sure. ONE nation EVER to use libertarian philosophy? lol

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

 

[Dad2three]

I thought that closing big box stores helps the mom and pop industry? Why do liberals try to have it both ways?

332-206...only one way to look at it.

Look who got back from a fork run. BTW, first response trolling completely off topic? That's sad even for you.

Just rubbing your nose in it (again).

I was here on post 31...so gee, you're wrong again (imagine our collective shock).

It's called trolling, dude....Consider that my public service announcement for the day. And if you come back with more lameness, don't expect a response.

332-206...

Quite a lame showing by the GOP.

'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010

According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans


The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party




GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

GOP Memo Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority