What is really the culprit of our economy

[georgephillip]

How can anyone say Mexican are good for Americas economy, when more than half they make here goes to Mexico.

Froggy:

Mexicans are Americans, too.

As long as US capital and corn are free to migrate south, those Americans who are displaced will have little choice about their migration patterns.

 

[georgephillip]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

Capitalism that is highly regulated for reasons other than to protect individual rights and/or that is highly taxed beyond what is necessary to protect those individual rights isn't really capitalism. But it is true that the more government authoritarianism and the more socialism that is infused into it, the more ineffecive and stagnant it will become.

 

[MIPS]

Hello to All:

I am a retired Sgt. Major of 28 years and have pretty much seen it all on both sides of the political spectrum and have come to the conclusion that both are seriously flawed pretty much to the point of no return. This includes liberals and conservatives. Neither can work effectively in our current political and economic state. As a matter of fact, conservative and liberal policies have had their chances over the past 50 years or so

Thanks Doc, as a fellow veteran I thank you for your service, one question though, which economic viewpoint worked BEFORE the last "50 years" to make the United States the largest, most prosperous economy in the recorded history of mankind ? would you consider it mostly "conservative" or mostly "liberal" ?

Adam Smith wants to know .....

 

[antagon]

this is a fallacy, fox - fundamentally fallacious fodder . we discussed adam smith the other day. him and his enlightenment contemporaries not only shaped the politics of the US, but the economics. the 'american system' envisaged by one of the greatest american economists, alex hamilton, was the basis for how we fostered the growth of the country in the first hundred years of our existence. our forward thinking in this regard has, indeed, been systematic and by no means incidental. it has been decidedly determined by the US government from its inception, heavy-handedly employing government-directed mixed economic practices for the entire span of the republic. this is simply history, fox. we would have been toast by 1812 without it.

find that history. there's more method than chaos, more discipline than freedom behind the US economy.

and, no, the negative consequences are vastly eclipsed by those positive outcomes such that decades on, cumulatively, the US is the worlds biggest, most dynamic economy. show some pride.

You're going to have to show that it is fallacious with more than just not wanting it to be true. You and I will continue to disagree on Adam Smith and the sort of influence he had with the Founders. The Founders did not often provide sources for convictions or concepts they held, and while it is probable that Smith was read by both Jefferson and Madison, there is no way to know what impact he may have had re government, taxes, etc. A careful reading of Wealth of Nations, however, suggests that Smith was less anti-government than were any of the Founders.

"The USA was not designed on a 'system' of any kind, capitalistic or otherwise." that is the fallacy which i'm referring to. your contention that our economy hasn't always been under government direction is not fitting with history. it does not reflect that since our founding, the congress has debated and legislated the obligations enumerated it by the constitution with the aim of affecting our economic prosperity. the freedoms you are endeared to, like capitalism, were always complimented by roles that the government played in the economy. certainly, these roles were not limited to the limitation of involvement, rather, particularly in the founding governments, we find heavy-handed public/private construction of the american economy.

perhaps its your that's asserted on the basis of a desire that it is true. mine is based on US legislative history: alexander hamilton, an economist, set forward the vision for US tariff protectionism, debt consolidation, infrastructure development, government services - pro-business policy - which can be argued was crucial to getting the republic off the ground. the congress adopted these principals and history recorded them:

the tariff acts of 1789, 1790, and 1792. the postal svc, the coinage act and the national bank charter, the jay treaty (1795(??))...

hamilton wasn't alone, of course. jefferson and madison, not being economists, favored heavier-handed tariffs to affect our protectionist fledgling economy.

in the end, i dont see how it can be argued that the US took a laissez-faire approach to economics under the betsy ross.

with the politics of 'anti-government' aside - which i attribute to french-republican and home-brewed sentiments - the economics which the US adopted is decidedly scotch enlightenment. it only tests the waters, however. there is some clear connection to elizabethan merchantilism at play, and rightfully so. quite contrary to anti-government policy, the federalists, at least felt they could not afford to ship industry to wolves in britain and france without commensurate support. our navy and the coast guard (the revenue cutters, 1790) demonstrate the nature of the concerns raised by the quasi-war and intermittent conflict with england which we rightfully opposed with public/private merchant protection.

The fundamental concepts the Founders gave us have indeed served us well and did create the most free, most innovative, most creative, more forward looking, most accomplished, and most successful economy on Earth. I appreciate that as much as any American could and there is nobody more proud of what that American was and can be than me. And I think my experience with reading and understanding the history would probably be found adequate by most.

your history holds that the US economy was not deliberately laid around contemporary economic principles. is your history of US economic policy adequate in light of that?

I also have watched the deterioration occur over the decades as government has inserted itself into more and more of the American economy, culture, and social structures. I am not blind to the cumulative negative consequences directly related to that, not the least of which we now now arrived at the point our national credit rating will likely be downgraded and we are limiting opportunities and racking up debt sufficiently to deny much of the American dream to our children and grandchildren even to the fourth and fifith generations.

You may think things are still just hunky dory and our government is just great. That's your prerogative, but man oh man I hope we haven't sold a whole lot of the blinders I think you would have to be wearing to believe that.

i know that from a solidly partisan, self-righteous perspective, anyone not buying your estimate of modern economics looks like they have blinders on. anyone who doesn't relinquish understanding of how monetary economies work, seems like they believe everything is honky-dory, even amid the worst recession of our lives. from your perspective, having polished up history to your liking, the policies which our government adopted in the 18th century would be adequate to accommodate the challenges of the 19th century, the 20th century, or today. on this we agree: the framers established a constitution to enable the adaptation of economic and other policies of the day so that innovation in economics could be adapted to innovation in our economy.

that you criticize these innovations without a demonstration of understanding their mechanism, rather, attributing their method to their side-effects makes your contentions frail.

can you cite a 21st century economy which works as you'd have ours? can you cite the framers' intent to leave the US economy to its own devices, or without government determination?

where i place my pride is that concepts like the american dream you'd mentioned were espoused amid the great depression, realized en masse when the national debt tipped the scales at 115% of GDP after the war. i'm proud that we are free and all, but i'm proudest that we produce the most enterprising and optimistic among pessimists who claim our families are doomed for generations.

 

[antagon]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

what say you of the implications of GP's mechanism at play in the US economy, specifically?

 

[editec]

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was assumed the machine would free humanity from the need to work, and subsistence (food and shelter) would become a birth right.

Anybody think we're there yet?

We're a damned sight closer than we were in 1900.

But no, of course not.

We're not facing the same kind of technological revolution we were, though.

When Americans left the farms, they left to work in a cash economy in factories.

What is happening in this FREE TRADE and Digital revolution is that the jobs are leaving, either due to offshoing of manufacturing or advances in tecnology that create efficiencies, and there ARE NO JOBS for people.

So while in the aggregate there may be more wealth, there is no way for many people to take part in the creation of (and get their share of) this wealth.

We need as radical a social scientific evolution as we have had radical changes in the way we produce this wealth.

Otherwise the entire world is going to end up with a very small percentage of the population living in affluence, while the vast majority of people live in squalor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

what say you of the implications of GP's mechanism at play in the US economy, specifically?

If by GP you mean GeorgePhillip, I have seen his prognosis before and I don't buy it as an absolute.

His prognosis is certainly true if the big money capitalists use their greater economic power to deprive others of free and open access to markets and opportunity. In the USA system, however, we have a Constitution that charges the government to protect and defend unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the Constitution, as it was intended, is enforced, the big money capitalists will be restrained from depriving others of opportunity to become big money capitalists if they have the insight, incentive, and ability to do that.

Bottom line: If we protect the people's rights while allowing unfettered capitalism to exist, there are no external limitations put on anybody as to what he or she can aspire to accomplish.

 

[georgephillip]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

Capitalism that is highly regulated for reasons other than to protect individual rights and/or that is highly taxed beyond what is necessary to protect those individual rights isn't really capitalism. But it is true that the more government authoritarianism and the more socialism that is infused into it, the more ineffecive and stagnant it will become.

I should have written effective demand.

Most humans on this planet live on less than $2/day and that's after subsistence agriculture has become economically impossible for most of them.

Even in the US, labor and consumers are paying the lion's share of taxes leaving little left for personal consumption of goods and services.

Henry Ford saw the need to pay his workers a living wage.
Today's FIRE sector doesn't.

 

[georgephillip]

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was assumed the machine would free humanity from the need to work, and subsistence (food and shelter) would become a birth right.

Anybody think we're there yet?

We're a damned sight closer than we were in 1900.

But no, of course not.

We're not facing the same kind of technological revolution we were, though.

When Americans left the farms, they left to work in a cash economy in factories.

What is happening in this FREE TRADE and Digital revolution is that the jobs are leaving, either due to offshoing of manufacturing or advances in tecnology that create efficiencies, and there ARE NO JOBS for people.

So while in the aggregate there may be more wealth, there is no way for many people to take part in the creation of (and get their share of) this wealth.

We need as radical a social scientific evolution as we have had radical changes in the way we produce this wealth.

Otherwise the entire world is going to end up with a very small percentage of the population living in affluence, while the vast majority of people live in squalor.

There's a radical solution that I've (temporarily) lost the source of that goes something like this:

Instead of viewing the gap between Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Income as a void to be filled with private debt, consider that gap's potential to pay every citizen of this country an annual stipend of about $12,000 regardless of whether the citizen is employed or not....?

In the 1930s a Scottish economist (whose name escapes me) gained a world wide following advocating something like what I've just (tried) to articulate.

Possibly one of the first social costs of such a system would require the lifestyles of billionaires and millionaires to join the dinosaurs?

 

[Foxfyre]

Along with unsustainable levels of debt there seems to be another culprit hiding in our economy. It's one every critic of capitalism since Marx has raised: In its mature phase capitalism falls into a stagnation-financialization trap of its own making.

Monopoly or corporate capitalism is widely believe (among Marxists) to be the third stage of capitalism following competitive capitalism and the mercantilism Adam Smith documented.

In its third stage capitalism accumulates too much money in too few hands.

Those few on the receiving end of economic surplus (surplus value) want enlarged profits and wealth only to discover the relative deprivation of the other 90% of the population which is the inverse of this growing surplus.

Growing excess capacity and shrinking demand then shut down new capital formation and the "new normal" is stagnation for the overall economy.

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

Capitalism that is highly regulated for reasons other than to protect individual rights and/or that is highly taxed beyond what is necessary to protect those individual rights isn't really capitalism. But it is true that the more government authoritarianism and the more socialism that is infused into it, the more ineffecive and stagnant it will become.

I should have written effective demand.

Most humans on this planet live on less than $2/day and that's after subsistence agriculture has become economically impossible for most of them.

Even in the US, labor and consumers are paying the lion's share of taxes leaving little left for personal consumption of goods and services.

Henry Ford saw the need to pay his workers a living wage.
Today's FIRE sector doesn't.

But no large numbers of humans anywhere are subsisting on less than $2/day where there are free markets and where property rights and other human rights are recognized and protected.

This is the factor that must always be included in whatever formula is used to assess wealth vs poverty.

 

[Foxfyre]

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was assumed the machine would free humanity from the need to work, and subsistence (food and shelter) would become a birth right.

Anybody think we're there yet?

We're a damned sight closer than we were in 1900.

But no, of course not.

We're not facing the same kind of technological revolution we were, though.

When Americans left the farms, they left to work in a cash economy in factories.

What is happening in this FREE TRADE and Digital revolution is that the jobs are leaving, either due to offshoing of manufacturing or advances in tecnology that create efficiencies, and there ARE NO JOBS for people.

So while in the aggregate there may be more wealth, there is no way for many people to take part in the creation of (and get their share of) this wealth.

We need as radical a social scientific evolution as we have had radical changes in the way we produce this wealth.

Otherwise the entire world is going to end up with a very small percentage of the population living in affluence, while the vast majority of people live in squalor.

There's a radical solution that I've (temporarily) lost the source of that goes something like this:

Instead of viewing the gap between Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Income as a void to be filled with private debt, consider that gap's potential to pay every citizen of this country an annual stipend of about $12,000 regardless of whether the citizen is employed or not....?

In the 1930s a Scottish economist (whose name escapes me) gained a world wide following advocating something like what I've just (tried) to articulate.

Possibly one of the first social costs of such a system would require the lifestyles of billionaires and millionaires to join the dinosaurs?

The other equation is the reality of human nature. Where is the $12,000 stipend going to come from? We're actually doing quite a bit better than that with our poor in the USA, but so far we have not presumed to cap income either and are not yet punishing success to the extent many people won't strive for it. (The President does appear to be working to further punish success.)

Once you artificially make everybody equal in income, human nature will kick in. And invariably there will be those perfectly willing to be served by others since they won't be required to be productive in order to share in the benefits. And invariably there will be those who will resent being taken advantage of and who will balk at doing the work when others are not expected to do so and more especially when there is no reward for doing so. The few who will be productive regardless are never enough to support all the rest.

And it won't take long for there not to be sufficient income to pay that $12k stipend.

 

[antagon]

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

what say you of the implications of GP's mechanism at play in the US economy, specifically?

If by GP you mean GeorgePhillip, I have seen his prognosis before and I don't buy it as an absolute.

His prognosis is certainly true if the big money capitalists use their greater economic power to deprive others of free and open access to markets and opportunity. In the USA system, however, we have a Constitution that charges the government to protect and defend unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the Constitution, as it was intended, is enforced, the big money capitalists will be restrained from depriving others of opportunity to become big money capitalists if they have the insight, incentive, and ability to do that.

Bottom line: If we protect the people's rights while allowing unfettered capitalism to exist, there are no external limitations put on anybody as to what he or she can aspire to accomplish.

yeah, george p. i'm with you there, fox. i don't believe that there's much at all in the US in the way of a preoccupation among the haves with doing in the have-nots. this is a figment of the have-not simplex. i wont even put my thoughts on that as kindly as you have

what i think he is talking about here is different: the shrinking demand which capitalism will inevitably create, given only your protection of rights role played by a third party. if businesses succeed in affecting efficiency by way of better utilization of labor, the labor market will shrink in its proportion to produce. the labor market is the demand base for the system in one where no other demand is empowered. this shrinking demand, regardless of your observation that the population is ticking up billions every decade, will result in deflation and further reduction of production and labor, and demand - a cycle. that is what GP's latest post points to.

this is perhaps the biggest force behind unemployment and participation in the social welfare state and prison state. looking at these participation rates since the late 70s tells the story.

 

[antagon]

How do get 'shrinking demand' when the world population is increasing by a billion people every decade or less now?

Capitalism that is highly regulated for reasons other than to protect individual rights and/or that is highly taxed beyond what is necessary to protect those individual rights isn't really capitalism. But it is true that the more government authoritarianism and the more socialism that is infused into it, the more ineffecive and stagnant it will become.

I should have written effective demand.

Most humans on this planet live on less than $2/day and that's after subsistence agriculture has become economically impossible for most of them.

Even in the US, labor and consumers are paying the lion's share of taxes leaving little left for personal consumption of goods and services.

Henry Ford saw the need to pay his workers a living wage.
Today's FIRE sector doesn't.

But no large numbers of humans anywhere are subsisting on less than $2/day where there are free markets and where property rights and other human rights are recognized and protected.

This is the factor that must always be included in whatever formula is used to assess wealth vs poverty.

this is why i tied the implications to developed economies; the ten billion per decade population growth will be heavily biased to the $2 states, after all.

 

[georgephillip]

what say you of the implications of GP's mechanism at play in the US economy, specifically?

If by GP you mean GeorgePhillip, I have seen his prognosis before and I don't buy it as an absolute.

His prognosis is certainly true if the big money capitalists use their greater economic power to deprive others of free and open access to markets and opportunity. In the USA system, however, we have a Constitution that charges the government to protect and defend unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the Constitution, as it was intended, is enforced, the big money capitalists will be restrained from depriving others of opportunity to become big money capitalists if they have the insight, incentive, and ability to do that.

Bottom line: If we protect the people's rights while allowing unfettered capitalism to exist, there are no external limitations put on anybody as to what he or she can aspire to accomplish.

yeah, george p. i'm with you there, fox. i don't believe that there's much at all in the US in the way of a preoccupation among the haves with doing in the have-nots. this is a figment of the have-not simplex. i wont even put my thoughts on that as kindly as you have

what i think he is talking about here is different: the shrinking demand which capitalism will inevitably create, given only your protection of rights role played by a third party. if businesses succeed in affecting efficiency by way of better utilization of labor, the labor market will shrink in its proportion to produce. the labor market is the demand base for the system in one where no other demand is empowered. this shrinking demand, regardless of your observation that the population is ticking up billions every decade, will result in deflation and further reduction of production and labor, and demand - a cycle. that is what GP's latest post points to.

this is perhaps the biggest force behind unemployment and participation in the social welfare state and prison state. looking at these participation rates since the late 70s tells the story.

The 70s are a good place to start. Some of the comparisons are almost meaningless today since they've been mentioned so often. In 1970 the average CEO made $25 for every dollar made by the average employee.

Today the average CEO to employee pay ratio is around $500 to $1.

Those Americans with the highest income averaged about $3 million a year in 1970.
They average about $23 million/year today.

In the first full year of our Great Recession workers lost an average of 25% off their 401ks while during the same time period the richest 400 Americans increased their wealth by $30 billion, bringing their combined wealth to $1.57 trillion.

This amount is greater than the combined net worth of 50% of all Americans.

Four hundred people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.

I agree the majority of the haves in this society do not obsess on "doing in" the have-nots.

But there is an aristocracy among the haves that want it all.

When they are finished plundering the lower rungs of the economic ladder, they will loot the five and six figure annual earners with the same empathy they display for those earning minimum wage.

Some people can not stop stealing for the same reason sharks can't stop swimming.
They will die.
And they know it.

Amped Status

 

[Neubarth]

Gross stupidity is not an excuse for posting total nonsense on this forum. Get the hell out of here if you are going to confuse everybody with your insane gibberish.

A political system is not an economic system. A political system can embrace an economic system. A political system and outside conditions can corrupt an economic system as happened to Germany once it was in a World War.

You said you did months and months of research for a college thesis on your combining of politics with economics as one entity. What fucking idiot college would take a paper like that? There is no reputable university or college in the world that would allow you to submit a paper that would allow you to claim that German nationalism was an economic policy.

Socialism remains socialism. It is a very well thought out but simple economic system that serves a large part of Europe quite well. It varies from country to country Hitler took the initiative to work with Big Business to put people to work. Seeing how well Hitler's cooperation with the major industries of his country worked, that is still the policy in the German and Scandinavian countries to this day. It is also used to a lesser degree in France and Italy. It is amazing what can be accomplished when government does not take an adversarial position against the large corporations in that country. Krupp Stahl is a perfect example.

You can try to deny it all you want, but you would just be dishonest. I keep on seeing a lot of that on this forum from idiots who do not know what they are talking about. Just spouting for spouting sake.

Your rabid defense of Nazism, even to the point of ORDERING me out of here, says volumes. You can try to smooth it over by claiming Nazism equaled Socialism 'till pigs fly, which is what defenders of the Reich historically have done. The fact remains (the HISTORICAL FACTS) that Hitler abolished the workers party that he endeared at the beginning of his career. He continued to use the NAME of the National Socialist Party, which was only a facade after he bastardized it to fit his own agenda.

And by the way, I can think of NO college or university in America that would not accept a student's thesis, no matter what the topic (based on course material) and no matter what political leanings were contained therein. That is NOT the purpose of a thesis. So much for your educational background as a "historian" if you don't even know that. My thesis was for the course in European History, for which I received an A. Unfortunately, it can't be accessed by the Internet because that would require my retyping the whole thing.

Nuff said. I don't intend to debate someone like you. Next you'll be telling me the Holocaust had some noble purpose.

Lies, Lies and more lies from a twit like you.
You can lie all you want. All that makes you is a proven liar on this board. I have posted over and over that Nationalism (a political position) is not Socialism (an economic system). Pathological liars like you abound on this board. You do not have a clue about that which you write so you just lie all of the time.

You need to stop all of the blatant lying as is obvious to anybody who reads the two posts above. I recommend that you surrender the posting name that you have been using (I.e. get the hell out of here with all of those insane lies.) and come up with a new posting name with which you can resolve to tell the truth.

Totally insane lies like your gibberish above only detract from the board. You may have some of the low IQ idiots on this board baffled with the political party and economic system nonsense that you post, but no intelligent person would be that foolish.

Damn, you are dumb!

As regards the German labor front, look up what they stood for. It was Socialism in its purest form. Getting rid of the corrupt so called socialist organizations that did nothing for the German worker was a stroke of genius that needed to be done, just like we need to kill corruption in this country. I am not interested in Hitler's politics or his war activities as they were wrong. He advanced Socialism in his country and did a masterful job of protecting the workers. You, being seriously stupid, do not have a clue what socialism is. You do not know what the German Labor Front stood for and do not have a clue about what was happening in 1933-38.

 

[Neubarth]

Some exerpts:
China

China is now one of the most important markets for U.S. exports: in 2008, U.S. exports to China totaled $71.5 billion, a 9.5% increase of $16.2 billion from 2007. U.S. agricultural exports have increased dramatically, totaling $12.2 billion in 2009 and thus making China our fourth-largest agricultural export market. Leading categories include: soybeans ($7.3 billion), cotton ($1.6 billion), and hides and skins ($859 million).

Export growth continues to be a major driver of China's rapid economic growth. To increase exports, China has pursued policies such as fostering the rapid development of foreign-invested factories, which assemble imported components into consumer goods for export, and liberalizing trading rights. In its eleventh Five-Year Program, adopted in 2005, China placed greater emphasis on developing a consumer demand-driven economy to sustain economic growth and address global imbalances.

The United States is one of China's primary suppliers of power generating equipment, aircraft and parts, computers and industrial machinery, raw materials, and chemical and agricultural products. However, U.S. exporters continue to have concerns about fair market access due to strict testing and standards requirements for some imported products. In addition, a lack of transparency in the regulatory process makes it difficult for businesses to plan for changes in the domestic market structure.

In April 2009, the United States and China announced that the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) will continue to serve as the primary venue for the two countries to discuss trade issues. Under the Obama administration, the JCCT, which will be led by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk on the U.S. side and Vice Premier Wang Qishan on the Chinese side, will not only focus on discussing trade issues, but will also include broader issues such as healthcare and innovation and industrial policies.

Maggie you ignorant slut! There is no balance between the two. China sends us way more product than we send them. If we were to cut off exports of raw products to them, they would falter and come around to MY way of thinking real fast. Either China frees up the Yuan, or we refuse to trade with them. It is that simple. Within a week they would be agreeing with us.

You, because you are very stupid, want to continue to rape the American People. Get out of here Maggie. You are too fucking stupid to post on this board. It is stupid idiotic political decisions like yours that have screwed the American people already. Idiots like you are the reason why 30 million people who want jobs are unemployed in the United States today. Countries respect strength. They do not respect weakness.

Once I become president, I will straighten this whole mess out. China will be kissing my butt in very short order.

 

[antagon]

If by GP you mean GeorgePhillip, I have seen his prognosis before and I don't buy it as an absolute.

His prognosis is certainly true if the big money capitalists use their greater economic power to deprive others of free and open access to markets and opportunity. In the USA system, however, we have a Constitution that charges the government to protect and defend unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the Constitution, as it was intended, is enforced, the big money capitalists will be restrained from depriving others of opportunity to become big money capitalists if they have the insight, incentive, and ability to do that.

Bottom line: If we protect the people's rights while allowing unfettered capitalism to exist, there are no external limitations put on anybody as to what he or she can aspire to accomplish.

yeah, george p. i'm with you there, fox. i don't believe that there's much at all in the US in the way of a preoccupation among the haves with doing in the have-nots. this is a figment of the have-not simplex. i wont even put my thoughts on that as kindly as you have

what i think he is talking about here is different: the shrinking demand which capitalism will inevitably create, given only your protection of rights role played by a third party. if businesses succeed in affecting efficiency by way of better utilization of labor, the labor market will shrink in its proportion to produce. the labor market is the demand base for the system in one where no other demand is empowered. this shrinking demand, regardless of your observation that the population is ticking up billions every decade, will result in deflation and further reduction of production and labor, and demand - a cycle. that is what GP's latest post points to.

this is perhaps the biggest force behind unemployment and participation in the social welfare state and prison state. looking at these participation rates since the late 70s tells the story.

The 70s are a good place to start. Some of the comparisons are almost meaningless today since they've been mentioned so often. In 1970 the average CEO made $25 for every dollar made by the average employee.

Today the average CEO to employee pay ratio is around $500 to $1.

Those Americans with the highest income averaged about $3 million a year in 1970.
They average about $23 million/year today.

In the first full year of our Great Recession workers lost an average of 25% off their 401ks while during the same time period the richest 400 Americans increased their wealth by $30 billion, bringing their combined wealth to $1.57 trillion.

This amount is greater than the combined net worth of 50% of all Americans.

Four hundred people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.

I agree the majority of the haves in this society do not obsess on "doing in" the have-nots.

But there is an aristocracy among the haves that want it all.

When they are finished plundering the lower rungs of the economic ladder, they will loot the five and six figure annual earners with the same empathy they display for those earning minimum wage.

Some people can not stop stealing for the same reason sharks can't stop swimming.
They will die.
And they know it.

Amped Status

despite your pointing out an unescapable force in modern capitalism which lends to unemployment, state dependence and an upward concentration of wealth in and of itself, you have returned to a conspiracy theory whereby all of that is brought about by evil intent.

setting aside the absurd and embracing the plausible, i would add that marketized investment and economic policies promoting it which the US adopted since the eighties has exacerbated these trends. most notable in this mechanism is the concept of chief exec pay. with less and less produce derived from labor and more and more from technologies of business management and of production and delivery, the human compensation has shifted decidedly in deference to the high profile management staff. this high profile combined with the simple-minded nature of investors and computers which mimick them, has overrated CEOs and other elements of business which often come at the cost of labor, quantitatively and qualitatively.

if you are intent on believing that everyone turns evil after their first mil, that is your prerogative, but as it blinds you to what larger trends are at play in the economy which are neither good nor evil, but which play substantial roles, your perspective wont be accurate, rather, a bit absurd.

 

[georgephillip]

Antagon:

I don't mean to imply everyone who earns their first million turns evil.
I'm aware there are millionaires who devote a greater percentage of their income and time to legitimate charity than I do.

I'm not so sure about those who are worth multiple millions at the moment of their birth.

And I don't think it matters much if the last name is Kennedy or Bush.
There are families who believe they collectively own this country and this planet.

Over thousands of years they've proven far more successful at starting wars than fighting wars, and they tend to be creditors and rentiers as opposed to debtors and renters.

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

 

[Neubarth]

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

Should everything default to government upon death?