Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Robert Reich on Income Inequality

JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.

So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He's absolutely right that the point in time when increases in worker productivity stopped correlating with increases in worker compensation was during the early 1970s. 1971 to be exact. Not only that, but the minimum wage increased faster than inflation almost every time it was increased prior to 1971, and slower than inflation almost every time it was increased after 1971 (to the point that it is about $2/hour lower now than it was 40 years ago). So what changed? Inflation did. In 1971, the link between the value of the dollar and the price of gold was abolished, and the average rate of inflation has averaged more than twice as high since 1971 as it was in the 2 decades prior to 1971. Since wages are stickier than the prices of most goods and services, they adjust more slowly to inflation, and wages simply have not been able to keep up.

Of course, nowhere on his list is "stop inflating the currency", so his list of 10 ideas are mostly pop-liberal BS that will do nothing to stop lower and middle income Americans from continuing to lose purchasing power due to inflation. Yes, investing in education and infrastructure are great, but since the % of the federal budget going towards retirees has increased from roughly 5% in the 1950s (the "golden era" of government investment in the economy according to a lot of liberals) to roughly 1/3 of the federal budget, the amount of society's resources that we can afford to put towards those things is going to be lower, because we're blowing more of our resources taking care of people who will never work again no matter how much money and resources we invest in their care. Making social security taxes progressive (or at least not regressive) will help a little bit with the distribution of wealth, but will do nothing to stop the growing drain on our world's resources. Since the biggest problems facing us over the next century are climate change, desertification, and deforestation due to our large and growing consumption of natural resources, a tax change that will slightly improve resource distribution while making the vast majority of people think it's more affordable to continue using up more and more of our resources on our growing retired population (and steadily destroying the Earth's ability to sustain life in the process, since none of those people are contributing anything to our ability to solve those problems) will probably accelerate our environment's decline.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.

Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:33:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

The "free market" is a bunch of ideological nonsense, and no, it has not worked every time it has tried. The type of anarchy you would want can be found in Somalia.

The fact of the matter is, and Robert Reich actually wrote about this today oddly enough, is that markets are not merely a function of human nature, but are subject to rules and regulations set by legislatures such that they cannot exist without the "heavy hand of government."

Essentially what you're suggesting is we should simply deregulate, I presume lower tax rates even further, and remove government from the equation -- all of which have never worked, and even the past decade has shown us are what got us into this mess. For goodness' sake, your policies are the reason things are so bad, and why we even need wealth redistribution.

When it comes down to it, a "free market" has never existed, can never exist, and will never exist. You're suggesting that companies and individuals can compete on an equal playing field and all industries are perfect competition, but that's wrong. You're suggesting that people are rational actors, and you would be wrong -- financial panics every single decade in the 1800s, 1929, 1986, and 2008 disprove this thesis, and lend credence to Hymen Minsky's papers suggesting that the financial system, if left unchecked, will endogenously implode.

Worst of all, though, you're suggesting that people start at the same place, have access to the same, perfect information, and are equal in bargaining leverage. That is simply wrong.

What we actually needed is regulated capitalism. An unchecked financial system is what got us into this mess and what even threatens the economy again to this day. That includes, but is not limited to, significantly higher taxes on the affluent, more regulations (capital requirements, downsizing "too big to fail," etc.), higher inflation expectations, and more fiscal stimulus. Why? Because it's actually worked, whereas your nonsense never has. And while you're waiting for the invisible hand to do its stuff -- which it won't, by the way -- people are actually suffering, while bankers, the connected, and the affluent continue to profit off the hierarchical system that you've created.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:36:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The "free market" is a bunch of ideological nonsense, "

Oh but Robert Riche and his wealth redistribution ideas are not.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:57:14 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
He's absolutely right that the point in time when increases in worker productivity stopped correlating with increases in worker compensation was during the early 1970s. 1971 to be exact. Not only that, but the minimum wage increased faster than inflation almost every time it was increased prior to 1971, and slower than inflation almost every time it was increased after 1971 (to the point that it is about $2/hour lower now than it was 40 years ago). So what changed? Inflation did. In 1971, the link between the value of the dollar and the price of gold was abolished, and the average rate of inflation has averaged more than twice as high since 1971 as it was in the 2 decades prior to 1971. Since wages are stickier than the prices of most goods and services, they adjust more slowly to inflation, and wages simply have not been able to keep up.

Of course, nowhere on his list is "stop inflating the currency", so his list of 10 ideas are mostly pop-liberal BS that will do nothing to stop lower and middle income Americans from continuing to lose purchasing power due to inflation. Yes, investing in education and infrastructure are great, but since the % of the federal budget going towards retirees has increased from roughly 5% in the 1950s (the "golden era" of government investment in the economy according to a lot of liberals) to roughly 1/3 of the federal budget, the amount of society's resources that we can afford to put towards those things is going to be lower, because we're blowing more of our resources taking care of people who will never work again no matter how much money and resources we invest in their care. Making social security taxes progressive (or at least not regressive) will help a little bit with the distribution of wealth, but will do nothing to stop the growing drain on our world's resources. Since the biggest problems facing us over the next century are climate change, desertification, and deforestation due to our large and growing consumption of natural resources, a tax change that will slightly improve resource distribution while making the vast majority of people think it's more affordable to continue using up more and more of our resources on our growing retired population (and steadily destroying the Earth's ability to sustain life in the process, since none of those people are contributing anything to our ability to solve those problems) will probably accelerate our environment's decline.

Just a few things to respond to here:

1. First, the Social Security numbers you've offered to not obtain. From SSA.gov (http://www.ssa.gov...):

" As a percentage of total federal expenditures, in 2002 Social Security benefits were approximately 22.6% of federal expenditures. As a percentage of federal outlays, Social Security benefits have ranged from a low of 0.22% (during World War II) to a high of 23.2% in 2001."

2. You're perpetuating a lie about "inflating the currency." There are a number of figures I could bring up, but I think the most pertinent is the M2 aggregate relative to the PCE index. The M2 aggregate increased by about 300% since the crisis, but the PCE stayed flat. "Inflating the currency" amid zero bound interest rates is an apparition, and stunningly enough, we'd benefit from more inflation right now. The gold standard was utterly inconsequential to any form of "rise in inflation," nor was it a cause of stagflation of the 70s, nor is there evidence that wages are stickier than prices.

3. I completely agree with you on the threat of climate change.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 4:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:36:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
"The "free market" is a bunch of ideological nonsense, "

Oh but Robert Riche and his wealth redistribution ideas are not.

His ideas have been tried and have worked, whereas yours haven't.

So, yes, that would be correct.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:08:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:39:10 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Just a few things to respond to here:

1. First, the Social Security numbers you've offered to not obtain. From SSA.gov (http://www.ssa.gov...):

" As a percentage of total federal expenditures, in 2002 Social Security benefits were approximately 22.6% of federal expenditures. As a percentage of federal outlays, Social Security benefits have ranged from a low of 0.22% (during World War II) to a high of 23.2% in 2001."

Plus Medicare, which is roughly another 10-15% of the federal budget. So my claim that spending on retirees is roughly 1/3 of the federal budget is correct.

2. You're perpetuating a lie about "inflating the currency." There are a number of figures I could bring up, but I think the most pertinent is the M2 aggregate relative to the PCE index. The M2 aggregate increased by about 300% since the crisis, but the PCE stayed flat. "Inflating the currency" amid zero bound interest rates is an apparition, and stunningly enough, we'd benefit from more inflation right now. The gold standard was utterly inconsequential to any form of "rise in inflation," nor was it a cause of stagflation of the 70s, nor is there evidence that wages are stickier than prices.

The minimum wage increased faster than inflation almost every time it was increased up until 1971. Nearly every increase since has not been enough to account for inflation, let alone increases in worker productivity. So at the very least, the minimum wage is stickier than the price of goods and services.

Gas prices change daily, supermarkets change their prices at least weekly, and in general when a company wants to raise prices, they can simply raise prices, and while it may cost them a few customers if their competitors don't, inflation creates an environment where it is bad for business not to increase prices. Most workers get a raise once a year, if they get one at all, and they have to get their employer's permission to get a raise, or find a new employer, both of which take time. Therefore, you would expect some lag between the it takes for inflation to increase the price of goods and services (especially things like gas and food that people are already used to seeing fluctuate).

And since the average upper manager or board member pays more attention to inflation, monetary policy, etc. than the average worker, the average business will know that it has to react to inflation sooner than the average worker. Even if workers did have perfect knowledge, inflation still changes the power dynamic between workers and employers; having to argue for a raise every single year, year after year, just to break even on purchasing power with where you were a year ago puts a lot of strain on the labor movement. It's one of many factors that has helped break down organized labor.

And yes, inflation did increase significantly after 1971 compared to pre-1971. http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

For serious, you liberals and your love of inflation is the most ridiculously counterproductive meme you all collectively seem to have fallen for, and I just don't understand why. The minimal effect it has on helping people with debts is overshadowed by the fact that it encourages people to go deeper in debt by more than it alleviates their debts (assuming that banks don't adjust their interest rates to compensate for inflation anyway).

3. I completely agree with you on the threat of climate change.

Whew! But do you understand what it means in terms of resource consumption? Do you realize that not only is the world's agriculture sector contributing more to greenhouse gas emissions than the transportation or energy sectors, but that our agricultural practices have also reduced the environment's ability to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by more than the amount we add every year due to fossil fuel use? That even without fossil fuels, we would still be destroying the Earth more quickly than technology is figuring out how to fix it? That even the bare minimum of socialism, attempting to guarantee that all the world's 7 billion people are adequately fed according to Western standards, would hasten that downward environmental spiral? Do you realize that we are past the Malthusian point where the burden placed on our world by humanity's consumption of resources exceeds technology's ability to mitigate that damage? Global climate change is evidence that Malthusian theory on population growth was correct. We have more people than our current environment and technological ability to safely exploit that environment can afford, and you want to guarantee that all those people have the ability to use up even more resources than they're using up now, even if they're not contributing to society's resources? Socialism is suicide for the entire planet.
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:16:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

Welllllllllllll... cent for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:26:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:08:50 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:39:10 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Just a few things to respond to here:

1. First, the Social Security numbers you've offered to not obtain. From SSA.gov (http://www.ssa.gov...):

" As a percentage of total federal expenditures, in 2002 Social Security benefits were approximately 22.6% of federal expenditures. As a percentage of federal outlays, Social Security benefits have ranged from a low of 0.22% (during World War II) to a high of 23.2% in 2001."

Plus Medicare, which is roughly another 10-15% of the federal budget. So my claim that spending on retirees is roughly 1/3 of the federal budget is correct.

I didn't question that. I questioned how large it was historically, a figure which you got embarrassingly wrong.

2. You're perpetuating a lie about "inflating the currency." There are a number of figures I could bring up, but I think the most pertinent is the M2 aggregate relative to the PCE index. The M2 aggregate increased by about 300% since the crisis, but the PCE stayed flat. "Inflating the currency" amid zero bound interest rates is an apparition, and stunningly enough, we'd benefit from more inflation right now. The gold standard was utterly inconsequential to any form of "rise in inflation," nor was it a cause of stagflation of the 70s, nor is there evidence that wages are stickier than prices.

The minimum wage increased faster than inflation almost every time it was increased up until 1971. Nearly every increase since has not been enough to account for inflation, let alone increases in worker productivity. So at the very least, the minimum wage is stickier than the price of goods and services.

You didn't say the minimum wage is stickier, but wages generally speaking are stickier. You're quite right that the minimum wage has lagged inflation, but that's because it hasn't been pegged to inflation. "Inflating the currency" is not the issue here.

Gas prices change daily, supermarkets change their prices at least weekly, and in general when a company wants to raise prices, they can simply raise prices, and while it may cost them a few customers if their competitors don't, inflation creates an environment where it is bad for business not to increase prices. Most workers get a raise once a year, if they get one at all, and they have to get their employer's permission to get a raise, or find a new employer, both of which take time. Therefore, you would expect some lag between the it takes for inflation to increase the price of goods and services (especially things like gas and food that people are already used to seeing fluctuate).

Let me back up and tackle gas and supermarket prices.

When you say "inflating the currency," you're speaking of the Fed's QE. I'd hate to break it to you, but food and gas prices are not within the Fed's reach. Both are extremely volatile and not accounted for in any estimate of core inflation.

If it means anything, gas prices just fell quite a lot, but global demand is the cause, not "inflating the currency."

You're again right that workers don't much get a raise, at least during a recession. But there's a reason for this: prices are sticky and have hardly moved. In fact, in spite of what the inflationistas have been predicted, food prices have flatlined, meaning that wages, by nature, are going to flatline.

Honestly, your diagnosis of the problem is spot-on and we agree. Your diagnosis of the cause is hopelessly lost.

Not to mention, you're ignoring the implicit good that inflation does: higher inflation is consistent with higher nominal GDP, it erodes nominally denominated debt burdens, shrinks the nominal debt: GDP ratio and removes pressure on interest rates, etc.

And since the average upper manager or board member pays more attention to inflation, monetary policy, etc. than the average worker, the average business will know that it has to react to inflation sooner than the average worker. Even if workers did have perfect knowledge, inflation still changes the power dynamic between workers and employers; having to argue for a raise every single year, year after year, just to break even on purchasing power with where you were a year ago puts a lot of strain on the labor movement. It's one of many factors that has helped break down organized labor.

I don't disagree with anything here, but the fact of the matter is, there is no inflation. I've been asking the goldbugs for years where it is, and they can't produce it.

Not to mention, if there were inflation, that would be consistent with higher growth levels, more bargaining leverage for employees, etc. This is what the entire Philip's Curve is based on -- and no, don't fire back with "staflation is a refutation of the Philip's Curve!" because it's more complex than that.

Here are the facts: the inflation rate has been below the Fed's two percent target. In spite of that, they've already been tapering by about 10 billion per month.

And yes, inflation did increase significantly after 1971 compared to pre-1971. http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

First of all, that's apples to orange since the dollar was pegged to gold.

Second, you're disregarding the oil crisis, stagflation of the 70s, etc. You can't just oversimplify this issue as you are doing.

For serious, you liberals and your love of inflation is the most ridiculously counterproductive meme you all collectively seem to have fallen for, and I just don't understand why. The minimal effect it has on helping people with debts is overshadowed by the fact that it encourages people to go deeper in debt by more than it alleviates their debts (assuming that banks don't adjust their interest rates to compensate for inflation anyway).

This is the second time you've overgeneralized "you liberals." It really makes you look like an uninformed novice, and I'd suggest you stop it.

And, well, absolutely nothing you said here is true other than the fact that inflation stimulates investment -- thus "going more into debt." But you should know, if you know anything about economics, that going deeper into debt amid a recession is actually necessary.

3. I completely agree with you on the threat of climate change.
[Insert Rant here]

And that was a...giant rant on climate change.

Yes, of course I understand its ramifications. But how in the world you can tie that to "socialism" is beyond me. The only "socialism" is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Otherwise, the "free market" has been having a hell of a time with a virtually unregulated energy sector.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 1:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:26:24 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
I didn't question that. I questioned how large it was historically, a figure which you got embarrassingly wrong.

Uh, I said it was roughly 5% of federal spending during the 1950s. You posted a link saying it was less than 1% of federal spending during WWII, which was during the early 1940s.

You didn't say the minimum wage is stickier, but wages generally speaking are stickier. You're quite right that the minimum wage has lagged inflation, but that's because it hasn't been pegged to inflation. "Inflating the currency" is not the issue here.

The minimum wage is a type of wage. It raises based on pressure from workers and its purchasing power is depleted by inflation like any other wage. You say it isn't pegged to inflation like anyone else's wages are pegged to inflation. The minimum wage and wages generally are stickier, and neither is tied to inflation.

[a bunch of BS]

I'm talking about a decades long trend, and you're talking about the last couple years. Try to keep up.

Not to mention, you're ignoring the implicit good that inflation does: higher inflation is consistent with higher nominal GDP, it erodes nominally denominated debt burdens, shrinks the nominal debt: GDP ratio and removes pressure on interest rates, etc.

Inflation encourages people to go further into debt by discouraging savings and making immediate spending more cost effective. That increase in debt leaves people more burdened over the long run by more than the amount that inflation shrinks debt. Inflation doesn't cause GDP growth by increasing the availability of goods and services, technology does that, but because inflation erodes the purchasing power of most of its workers and requires them to work more, and erodes savings which encourages people to spend more, it brings economic activity out of the informal, non-monetary economy and into the formal, monetary economy. For example, compared to 1971, a much higher percentage of parents with children work, a higher percentage of our overall adult population works today than worked at any point from the end of WWII until 1971 despite the recession and growing retired and prison populations, and both childcare and expenditures on food away from home have increased because people work more and have to pay other people to do things like cook and watch their kids. That increased GDP doesn't mean people are better off because of inflation (that would be technology's fault). It means people are working more and spending more money because of inflation. If your ideal world is a world where everyone works formally for pay because they have to whether they want to and whether or not it's really the most efficient choice, congratulations, you've found your magic bullet.

I don't disagree with anything here, but the fact of the matter is, there is no inflation. I've been asking the goldbugs for years where it is, and they can't produce it.

You mean like this evidence I posted already? http://1.bp.blogspot.com... Showing that inflation has been higher since 1971 than it was prior? You literally asked for proof of inflation in response to a post where I provided you with proof of inflation.

Not to mention, if there were inflation, that would be consistent with higher growth levels, more bargaining leverage for employees, etc. This is what the entire Philip's Curve is based on -- and no, don't fire back with "staflation is a refutation of the Philip's Curve!" because it's more complex than that.

How do you have better bargaining levels when the system automatically cuts your purchasing power by at least 2% a year?

First of all, that's apples to orange since the dollar was pegged to gold.

Second, you're disregarding the oil crisis, stagflation of the 70s, etc. You can't just oversimplify this issue as you are doing.

Oh, so when there's solid evidence of higher inflation since 1971, that's oversimplified and apples to oranges. My point was that inflation has been higher since we removed the dollar-gold peg, and that the years that we've had higher inflation line up perfectly with the years that wages have not kept up with productivity increases. My evidence backs that up.

Yes, of course I understand its ramifications. But how in the world you can tie that to "socialism" is beyond me. The only "socialism" is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Otherwise, the "free market" has been having a hell of a time with a virtually unregulated energy sector.

Obviously you don't. Global climate change is being caused by massive resource usage. Capitalism limits the availability of resources to any particular individual based on their previous contributions to society, while socialism provides people with resources regardless of their ability to contribute to society. Consumption drives production, that unregulated energy sector isn't going to be causing any environmental damage that people don't pay it to cause because they want to consume resources, and it's going to cause that damage whether it's regulated or not. Capitalism at least has the decency to let those people who aren't contributing anything to society starve so the rest of us can survive. Socialism tries to save everybody today, even if it kills us all tomorrow. Those retirees and permanently disabled people that seem to think they're entitled to keep consuming and destroying our environment in the process despite not helping solve the problems their consumption creates are a drain on our economy and environment, one that will never pay off but will kill us faster.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 1:54:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 6:16:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

Welllllllllllll... cent for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!

I really don't think you know what capitalism is. You confuse corruption and govt cronyism with capitalism. It is clear by your responses. The only thing that can destroy capitalism is a failure to enforce the rule of law. In all cases you list the rule of law was broken. The SEC failing to do it's job via rampant corruption throughout the institution which still exists. But ya it's capitalism to blame, it's easier to blame capitalism than root out corruption and replace it with socialist wealth redistribution that will drag everyone down to the lowest possible living standard while the re distributors live in the lap of luxury saying do as I say not as I do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:16:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

Welllllllllllll... cent for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!

I really don't think you know what capitalism is. You confuse corruption and govt cronyism with capitalism. It is clear by your responses. The only thing that can destroy capitalism is a failure to enforce the rule of law. In all cases you list the rule of law was broken. The SEC failing to do it's job via rampant corruption throughout the institution which still exists. But ya it's capitalism to blame, it's easier to blame capitalism than root out corruption and replace it with socialist wealth redistribution that will drag everyone down to the lowest possible living standard while the re distributors live in the lap of luxury saying do as I say not as I do.

I don't even know how to respond to this since it is so wrong. How in God's name was creating a insurance product to help companies handle risk of default on these packaged mortgages against the law? You do realize that CDS are still a product that are legal to produce and purchase, right?

If you want to delude yourself that the 2008 crash was due to corruption go ahead, but you are completely and utterly wrong, not to mention incorrect.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 4:40:02 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:36:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
"The "free market" is a bunch of ideological nonsense, "

Oh but Robert Riche and his wealth redistribution ideas are not.

His ideas have been tried and have worked, whereas yours haven't.

So, yes, that would be correct.

Capitalism made the USA the richest most powerful nation on the planet. Read a history book. It is wealth redistribution and cronyism that has created all of the problems. So we will fix it by doing more of the same. Talk about the definition of insanity. Now if we re-instituted the rule of law and went back to capitalism the country would flourish again like it used to.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:00:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:16:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

Welllllllllllll... cent for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!

I really don't think you know what capitalism is. You confuse corruption and govt cronyism with capitalism. It is clear by your responses. The only thing that can destroy capitalism is a failure to enforce the rule of law. In all cases you list the rule of law was broken. The SEC failing to do it's job via rampant corruption throughout the institution which still exists. But ya it's capitalism to blame, it's easier to blame capitalism than root out corruption and replace it with socialist wealth redistribution that will drag everyone down to the lowest possible living standard while the re distributors live in the lap of luxury saying do as I say not as I do.

I don't even know how to respond to this since it is so wrong. How in God's name was creating a insurance product to help companies handle risk of default on these packaged mortgages against the law? You do realize that CDS are still a product that are legal to produce and purchase, right?

If you want to delude yourself that the 2008 crash was due to corruption go ahead, but you are completely and utterly wrong, not to mention incorrect.

If it wasn't wrong why do you site it as being wrong in your previous post? If the SEC was doing it's job it would have seen what was going on and stopped it. Spinning the law is no different than breaking the law. The end results are the same. We agree to disagree. You want govt to control business, peoples incomes and who wins and who looses. I don't. End of story. I don't need to do anything other than look at the history of big govt and know what the end result will be . The individual loses, everyone standard of living plummets and individual liberties are eviscerated.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 5:10:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 4:47:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:00:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:54:19 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:16:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:22:49 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/15/2014 4:16:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:11:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:05:09 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:03:38 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:42:30 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:56:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

That man is an academic and has never created a dime of wealth in his entire life. He has never had to make a payroll, never had to meet a deadline, produce a product or service some one would buy or have to deal with all the staggering and costly federal regulations that cost small business billions of dollars each and every year. Most of which have no cost benefit what so ever. Robert Rich can take his economic theories and shove them strait up his ignorant azz. He would make a good ruling class stooge in a socialist/communist society. The only thing he understands is wealth redistribution, that is it. He could not create one dime of wealth in the private sector if his life depended on it. Giving useless theoretical lip service on economics on college campuses doesn't count. He doesn't have to produce anything, just publish or parish, that is all he does for a living. Stay tuned for his next ground breaking publication.


So instead of addressing Professor Reich's arguments, all of which are based on verifiable facts (whether you agree with his solutions is another thing), you're going to attack him because he happens to be an academic?

For the record, George W. Bush worked in the "private sector." How well did that serve him? He took his companies bankrupt, as did Donald Trump. Mitt Romney's company outsourced en masse.

Hey, what ever buddy, spread the wealth. Isn't like that's ever been tried. It such a new and fresh idea. It is sure to bring everyone to utopian levels of sub mediocrity with a ruling class of do as I say not as I do living in the lap of luxury jack booted stooges.

I'm sensing a great deal of snark, which obviously wasn't the intention of this thread.

Name one thing in this article that doesn't reek of wealth redistribution and jack booted crony capitalism.


Everything before "What we must do." Prior to that he's simply providing a factual account of what has happened over the past 30 or so years.

And it's interesting that you mention "wealth redistribution." Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes.

Case in point? I'm sure you're for tax cuts which is ipso facto wealth redistribution. I'm sure you have the same hypocritical flaw as most in the political right: you hate wealth redistribution unless it goes to your buddies, in which case you love it.

"Anytime the government taxes someone to spend on anything, it redistributes wealth -- whether it's subsidies for oil companies, or tax breaks for billionaires, or massive defense contractors. If you want to actually eliminate "wealth redistribution," the first thing you could do is eliminate corporate welfare and raise taxes."

Didn't I say let the free market work and it will take care of the problem. I am not in favor of any of that and never said I was. I favor free market capitalism, It works every time it is tried.

Welllllllllllll... cent for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!

I really don't think you know what capitalism is. You confuse corruption and govt cronyism with capitalism. It is clear by your responses. The only thing that can destroy capitalism is a failure to enforce the rule of law. In all cases you list the rule of law was broken. The SEC failing to do it's job via rampant corruption throughout the institution which still exists. But ya it's capitalism to blame, it's easier to blame capitalism than root out corruption and replace it with socialist wealth redistribution that will drag everyone down to the lowest possible living standard while the re distributors live in the lap of luxury saying do as I say not as I do.

I don't even know how to respond to this since it is so wrong. How in God's name was creating a insurance product to help companies handle risk of default on these packaged mortgages against the law? You do realize that CDS are still a product that are legal to produce and purchase, right?

If you want to delude yourself that the 2008 crash was due to corruption go ahead, but you are completely and utterly wrong, not to mention incorrect.

If it wasn't wrong why do you site it as being wrong in your previous post? If the SEC was doing it's job it would have seen what was going on and stopped it. Spinning the law is no different than breaking the law. The end results are the same. We agree to disagree. You want govt to control business, peoples incomes and who wins and who looses. I don't. End of story. I don't need to do anything other than look at the history of big govt and know what the end result will be . The individual loses, everyone standard of living plummets and individual liberties are eviscerated.

So let me get this right. You want more regulation from the SEC and more laws to regulate banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, and others who underwrite CDS's or bundle and sell mortgage backed securities.

Exactly who should join the ranks of the occupy wall street movement? It is funny that you are so ingrained in conservative rhetoric that you don't see that you are promoting further regulation on the financial markets rather than allowing free markets to flourish. You are advocating what you fear will result in the plummet of the standard of living. lol
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 5:55:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When did I ever say I wanted more regulation? I said enforce the rule law. There are already laws on the books from 50 years ago to stop the things you listed. You can't leverage money beyond a certain percentage of actual appraisable value. It is a failure to enforce the law, what friken part of that don't you understand. The mortgage bundling happened because the SEC did not do it's job and just turned it's eye the other way and didn't bother to do anything to check the actual appraisable values of the mortgages on not even one single trade, not one. Then they say "Oh we never saw it coming." They never saw it coming because they purposely didn't look. Corruption and pay offs as plain as day to anyone who cares to look deeper than their indoctrinated ideology. It was also compounded by corrupt politicians pressuring bankers through intimidation of auditing and bad publicity to give sub prime loans to people who could not afford to buy houses. So the banks say "we need a guarantee to give theses loans." What does Washington do, It buys up all the subprime loans at my expense the tax payer. Yes all very legal but also very unethical and corrupt. Spinning the law is no different than breaking the law, the results are the same. But when govt controls the money there is 0 accountability. With capitalism people lose jobs and wealth when they become corrupt and get caught assuming there is such a thing as ethics and the rule of law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:04:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

Do you honestly believe businesses are going to keep the same number of employees if the minimum wage is doubled (and possibly effectively increased more if unions happen)? Do you honestly believe a McDonald's franchise is going to pay three cashiers $15 an hour rather than invest in, say, automated checkouts? Keep in mind business owners need to make money too.

The vast majority of mom and pop stores can't pay all their employees $15 an hour, give them health benefits and everything else you want, and make any decent profit for themselves.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:09:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 6:04:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

Do you honestly believe businesses are going to keep the same number of employees if the minimum wage is doubled (and possibly effectively increased more if unions happen)? Do you honestly believe a McDonald's franchise is going to pay three cashiers $15 an hour rather than invest in, say, automated checkouts? Keep in mind business owners need to make money too.

The vast majority of mom and pop stores can't pay all their employees $15 an hour, give them health benefits and everything else you want, and make any decent profit for themselves.

Actually, there are studies saying that McDonalds would earn even more if it paid higher wages.

And the mom-and-pop shop argument is so tired and wrong. Most minimum wage workers work in large businesses, so this is a non-factor.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 6:21:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 6:09:02 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:04:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

Do you honestly believe businesses are going to keep the same number of employees if the minimum wage is doubled (and possibly effectively increased more if unions happen)? Do you honestly believe a McDonald's franchise is going to pay three cashiers $15 an hour rather than invest in, say, automated checkouts? Keep in mind business owners need to make money too.

The vast majority of mom and pop stores can't pay all their employees $15 an hour, give them health benefits and everything else you want, and make any decent profit for themselves.

Actually, there are studies saying that McDonalds would earn even more if it paid higher wages.

That's illogical. McDonald's as a whole only owns about 20% of restaurants - the rest are owned by franchise owners, who pay McDonald's rent (either base rent or a percentage of monthly sales) as well as a 4% royalty in monthly sales. The average fast food restaurant spends about 30 to 35% of it's income on labor. Doubling the minimum wage would undoubtedly significantly increase this total, which would require the franchise owner to either fire employees, increase prices, or both. Most franchises cannot afford to see their labor costs double.

And the mom-and-pop shop argument is so tired and wrong. Most minimum wage workers work in large businesses, so this is a non-factor.

It's not a non-factor. Would you like to see all of the mom and pop stores go out of business, making Walmart and it's type a de facto monopoly?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 8:47:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 6:21:36 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:09:02 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 6:04:51 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/13/2014 1:14:43 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Robert Reich had a piece in Salon defining the pervasive issue of wealth inequality, and proposing ten solutions for it. I think it was quite effective, and would love to hear some opinions on it.

The piece can be found here: http://www.salon.com...

Do you honestly believe businesses are going to keep the same number of employees if the minimum wage is doubled (and possibly effectively increased more if unions happen)? Do you honestly believe a McDonald's franchise is going to pay three cashiers $15 an hour rather than invest in, say, automated checkouts? Keep in mind business owners need to make money too.

The vast majority of mom and pop stores can't pay all their employees $15 an hour, give them health benefits and everything else you want, and make any decent profit for themselves.

Actually, there are studies saying that McDonalds would earn even more if it paid higher wages.

That's illogical. McDonald's as a whole only owns about 20% of restaurants - the rest are owned by franchise owners, who pay McDonald's rent (either base rent or a percentage of monthly sales) as well as a 4% royalty in monthly sales. The average fast food restaurant spends about 30 to 35% of it's income on labor. Doubling the minimum wage would undoubtedly significantly increase this total, which would require the franchise owner to either fire employees, increase prices, or both. Most franchises cannot afford to see their labor costs double.

And the mom-and-pop shop argument is so tired and wrong. Most minimum wage workers work in large businesses, so this is a non-factor.

It's not a non-factor. Would you like to see all of the mom and pop stores go out of business, making Walmart and it's type a de facto monopoly?

"Actually, there are studies saying" There are studies saying If I sht my pants some people will laugh at me and some will feel sorry for my.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 12:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For those who bemoan income inequality, I want to see a push from you to eliminate the loopholes that make the rich richer. Since, you know, having money work for you is why the richer get richer.

So, let's start by killing two birds with one stone, and eliminate a loophole as well.
Let's stop selling municipal and/or state bonds.

In case you are unaware, a bond is a debt, and cities/states sell these to finance projects they don't have capital for, such as roads, schools, stadiums, etc.
Also, the interest earned on these is NOT taxed by the feds, and in most, if not all states, it isn't taxed by them, either.
My work here is, finally, done.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 7:31:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 12:50:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For those who bemoan income inequality, I want to see a push from you to eliminate the loopholes that make the rich richer. Since, you know, having money work for you is why the richer get richer.

So, let's start by killing two birds with one stone, and eliminate a loophole as well.
Let's stop selling municipal and/or state bonds.

In case you are unaware, a bond is a debt, and cities/states sell these to finance projects they don't have capital for, such as roads, schools, stadiums, etc.
Also, the interest earned on these is NOT taxed by the feds, and in most, if not all states, it isn't taxed by them, either.

Right. Other than AJAM, I've never seen someone advocate more control or abolishment of the fed. They prop up the stock market, and only those with wealth own stocks, so it's essentially a wealthy-only stimulus.

And I've literally never seen someone who cares about income inequality advocate deregulation, when regulations are exactly what protect big businesses.

I'm going to be writing a longer critique of this article later today or tomorrow.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:26:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Welllllllllllll... cept for that one time when free market capitalism bundled mortgages in nice big packages so firms could buy them as investments, and free market capitalism created new product called a credit default swaps, a method to insure against debt type investments. Of course it was free market capitalism that did not rate the risk involved with cds and the underlining debt accurately, so free market capitalism pumped much money in originating riskier and riskier mortgages to keep up with demand for these bundled mortgages. Then after creating this inefficient market it was free market capitalism that burst the bubble it created. The greatest recession since the GD.

Go unfettered free markets!

Not this again.....typical dribble to say banks operated in an "unfettered free market" when the truth was they operated under a blanket of designed "unfettered" government bailouts at consumers expense. Do you really believe it was the mystical "unfettered free market" that bailed out those banks? Some risk there I tell ya.