Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Remember that housing bubble?

The housing bubble was caused by eliminating good government banking regulations like Glass Steigel. While passing regulations that are a pile of crap that encouraged risky lending. Then on top of that you banking executives that behave like crooks ala JP Morgan Chase and trick investors into buying what were supposed to be A1 mortgages that were really a garbage heap but the crooks got away with it.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
I want to say while I am in favor of raising the minimum wage I think it is a bandaid for negative consequences of globalization and free trade. Minimum wage jobs are becoming careers because the jobs aren't here.

Minimum wage and low wages jobs are supposed to be the jobs people can work their way to school on (in fact students used graduate college with no debt back in the 60s and 70s) not have do for their career.

Wowowowo look at the irony here, you have to agree. Globalization=Cheap labour and production. Your cure for that? To INCREASE the price of labour here? thats non-sensical
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Spending was great in 2004 was it not? Spending without adding any Labour or Capital will not affect the economy in the Long run.


My point is that we want to be increasing labour and increasing economic freedom, more economically free you are the richer you are (INCLUDING the "poor"), that involves the freedom to sell your labour at the rate which you want, and firms should be able to offer at the rate they want. No one is forcing you to work at McDonalds, and Mcdonalds sees your CURRENT skills are only worth (or even worse: not even) a low wage.

So you think the companies wielding more power to hire people at lower wages is a good thing? Trust me, as there are fewer and fewer companies that own more and more in this country, they would be very happy to weild that power and the workers would be completely screwed. As it stands, as me and Chicago have been saying on this thread, the government is subsidising businesses these days because there is no requirement for them to pay a fair wage to their employees and taxpayers pick up the difference. Meanwhile, the comapanies who are receiving the cheap labor continue to get richer and richer on the backs of their employees.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
So you think the companies wielding more power to hire people at lower wages is a good thing? Trust me, as there are fewer and fewer companies that own more and more in this country, they would be very happy to weild that power and the workers would be completely screwed. As it stands, as me and Chicago have been saying on this thread, the government is subsidising businesses these days because there is no requirement for them to pay a fair wage to their employees and taxpayers pick up the difference. Meanwhile, the comapanies who are receiving the cheap labor continue to get richer and richer on the backs of their employees.

Companies have not power over free people. Companies also want the best workers, so they compete as well, price are set by the market (and rather well) in the rest of the labour market, your well intentioned intervention would hurt both sides
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Companies have not power over free people. Companies also want the best workers, so they compete as well, price are set by the market (and rather well) in the rest of the labour market, your well intentioned intervention would hurt both sides

Sounds like you are advocating a return to the Guilded Age. I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that companies would pay their employees the lowest amount they could get away with. And you are right, people don't have to work for that company ... they can go on welfare because they can't possibly feed their families any other way. So, this discussion has come full circle.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Spending was great in 2004 was it not? Spending without adding any Labour or Capital will not affect the economy in the Long run.


My point is that we want to be increasing labour and increasing economic freedom, more economically free you are the richer you are (INCLUDING the "poor"), that involves the freedom to sell your labour at the rate which you want, and firms should be able to offer at the rate they want. No one is forcing you to work at McDonalds, and Mcdonalds sees your CURRENT skills are only worth (or even worse: not even) a low wage.

You are referring to Milton Friedman's economic theory. Which basically says that the free market is always right. Yes I would say that is true assuming no one company or companies get to large, and consumer have easy access to honest information. Right now we got 5 or fewer companies controlling 90 percent of every major market, that is not a free market economy. We in US need to go back to enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The other area Friedman's theories fall apart is terms of areas of the commons were there are natural monopolies. For instance there isn't always a lot of choice terms where people get there electricity sometimes it is bad regulation other but most time it is that there just aren't a lot of power plants in any one state or area. If government doesn't regulate the cost prices could go through the roof.

The other area with Friedman doesn't take into account is the externality costs. If total economic freedom allows a company to dump poison chemicals into a local lake, or river and we drink that water and we get all kinds of cancers, and illness as a result of their practices we the people have to pay the external cost, in this case environmental and health cost. The polluter isn't paying that cost, the external cost is not included in the price. The local community ends up paying that external cost down the road. So you need regulation to say either 1) we are not going allow those externalities to exist or 2) you are going to do what we do with tobacco and put a tax on that external cost.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
You are referring to Milton Friedman's economic theory. Which basically says that the free market is always right. Yes I would say that is true assuming no one company or companies get to large, and consumer have easy access to honest information. Right now we got 5 or fewer companies controlling 90 percent of every major market, that is not a free market economy. We in US need to go back to enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The other area Friedman's theories fall apart is terms of areas of the commons were there are natural monopolies. For instance there isn't always a lot of choice terms where people get there electricity sometimes it is bad regulation other but most time it is that there just aren't a lot of power plants in any one state or area. If government doesn't regulate the cost prices could go through the roof.

The other area with Friedman doesn't take into account is the externality costs. If total economic freedom allows a company to dump poison chemicals into a local lake, or river and we drink that water and we get all kinds of cancers, and illness as a result of their practices we the people have to pay the external cost, in this case environmental and health cost. The polluter isn't paying that cost, the external cost is not included in the price. The local community ends up paying that external cost down the road. So you need regulation to say either 1) we are not going allow those externalities to exist or 2) you are going to do what we do with tobacco and put a tax on that external cost.

Ive seen Milton say multiple times that pollution affects third parties and thus some intervention is acceptable.
I know nothing of antitrust laws and their effects.
Oligopolys are the best outcome, but they wont be any better with more government intertwinning.

Good post though, might i recommend more milton?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Or we could pull a Reagan and cut taxes then hire a million more federal workers (mostly for defense) anyway.

And that was appropriate given the time and circumstances (Cold War). Hiring 2 MILLION federal workers right now, while running huge deficits and a $17 trillion debt is economic suicide.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The housing bubble was caused by eliminating good government banking regulations like Glass Steigel. While passing regulations that are a pile of crap that encouraged risky lending. Then on top of that you banking executives that behave like crooks ala JP Morgan Chase and trick investors into buying what were supposed to be A1 mortgages that were really a garbage heap but the crooks got away with it.

What world do you live in? Honestly I sit here and scratch my head at where you come up with this stuff. The housing bubble has been discussed here many times: the shitshow of 2008 came from government forcing banks to issue loans to people who couldn't afford mortgages and shouldn't have been owning homes. All started with the Community Reinvestment Act.

The housing bubble was a direct result of government regulation, not the elimination of government regulation.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
What world do you live in? Honestly I sit here and scratch my head at where you come up with this stuff. The housing bubble has been discussed here many times: the shitshow of 2008 came from government forcing banks to issue loans to people who couldn't afford mortgages and shouldn't have been owning homes. All started with the Community Reinvestment Act.

The housing bubble was a direct result of government regulation, not the elimination of government regulation.

It was both.

The lack of clearing house and regulation in the derivative markets played a just as big of a role as loose lending created by government direction.
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races.

In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly. They are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.

One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.

“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side.”

Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, “Absolutely.”

Also, 100% of the IRS targeting scandal has focused on conservative groups.
 

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
Because giving everyone a hundred grand is insane. It is not about everyone being rich. It is about people who work full time having what Teddy Roosevelt defined as a living wages.

If you decrease demand too much yes you will have a labor shortage which means higher wages. However prices will skyrocket because companies can keep up the demand. Right now are economy is not close to its output potential we got a large supply of workers available to work. Of course there is a limit. This is supply and demand Econ 101 stuff. Demand is what drives the economy but too much demand will cause a rise in prices.

Edit: Would like to add the minimum wage is not going to dramatically increases prices. Walmart can cover a 12 dollar an hour wage by raising prices 1 percent.

That's one theory...ok. But historically that theory has been proven to have issues with reality over time.

Try listening to the Supply-Side argument with an open mind.

1. The key to stimulating an economy out of recession is to stimulate production, not aggregate demand. You should read up more on Say's Law.

2. The Keynesianism multiplier has been overstated time and time again and in the longer term such policies haven't worked. (See Japan)

3. Paradox of thrift? One of his pillars doesn't even apply in today's world of international trade. Both you and 41 mention how we dole out money here incurring debt only to spend it on overseas goods (another reason for the lower multiplier indicated above). In the long run it will only bring us more debt without the anticipated increase in demand for domestically produced goods.

As a result, our federal policies of driving demand has been making the rest of the world (net exporters) rich while making us poorer.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
Let 's say I come to your door and offer to mow your lawn for $25. But you know that I mowed your neighbors lawn earlier for $20. Now, all things being equal (i.e. same size lawn) is there any reason that you would not demand that I give you the same $20 price I gave your neighbor? Even if I gave you a song and dance about how $20 doesn't buy as much as it used to, and why shouldn't I be paid more for doing the same job, the same way? Then I accuse you of being greedy and insensitive for not wanting to help improve my lot in life. What do you do? According the liberal logic on this thread, you fork over the extra $5 so you can feel good about yourself. If you are a conservative, you tell me to get lost and call up the high school kid down the street who will do the job for $15. Neither respose is really wrong in the absolute sense, but one does make more economic sense.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Let 's say I come to your door and offer to mow your lawn for $25. But you know that I mowed your neighbors lawn earlier for $20. Now, all things being equal (i.e. same size lawn) is there any reason that you would not demand that I give you the same $20 price I gave your neighbor? Even if I gave you a song and dance about how $20 doesn't buy as much as it used to, and why shouldn't I be paid more for doing the same job, the same way? Then I accuse you of being greedy and insensitive for not wanting to help improve my lot in life. What do you do? According the liberal logic on this thread, you fork over the extra $5 so you can feel good about yourself. If you are a conservative, you tell me to get lost and call up the high school kid down the street who will do the job for $15. Neither respose is really wrong in the absolute sense, but one does make more economic sense.

So yoooouuuurrrr THAT GUY in the neighborhood, huh?
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a3IWq3CXHyc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
That's one theory...ok. But historically that theory has been proven to have issues with reality over time.

Try listening to the Supply-Side argument with an open mind.

1. The key to stimulating an economy out of recession is to stimulate production, not aggregate demand. You should read up more on Say's Law.

2. The Keynesianism multiplier has been overstated time and time again and in the longer term such policies haven't worked. (See Japan)

3. Paradox of thrift? One of his pillars doesn't even apply in today's world of international trade. Both you and 41 mention how we dole out money here incurring debt only to spend it on overseas goods (another reason for the lower multiplier indicated above). In the long run it will only bring us more debt without the anticipated increase in demand for domestically produced goods.

As a result, our federal policies of driving demand has been making the rest of the world (net exporters) rich while making us poorer.

Supply side doesn't do crap for the wages of working people. Show me a supply side country with low income inequality. It is good for corporate profits though.

Also our trade policies are completely insane because they are so one sided. Even if you buy free trade what we have is not free trade. These we slap a 2-3 percent tariff on stuff from China then China puts a 20 percent VAT on our stuff.

Personally I'd think we should go back to protectionalism for things we have the cabality of producing here in the Unitied States. We can still keep barriers down for natural resources we don't have (or not enough of) as well as the things we don't have the supply chain to manufacture. Any revenue we gain on import taxes can go back to the population with lower taxes. So even if certain things cost more we can offset that with those tax cuts. Plus wages might start rising with productivity again. Right now we are in global race to the bottom in terms of wages.
 
Last edited:

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Supply side doesn't do crap for the wages of working people. Show me a supply side country with low income inequality. It is good for corporate profits though.

Also our trade policies are completely insane because they are so one sided. Even if you buy free trade what we have is not free trade. These we slap a 2-3 percent tariff on stuff from China then China puts a 20 percent VAT on our stuff.

Personally I'd think we should go back to protectionalism for things we have the cabality of producing here in the Unitied States. We can still keep barriers down for natural resources we don't have (or not enough of) as well as the things we don't have the supply chain to manufacture. Any revenue we gain on import taxes can go back to the population with lower taxes. So even if certain things cost more we can offset that with those tax cuts. Plus wages might start rising with productivity again. Right now we are in global race to the bottom in terms of wages
.

Hahahahahaha looks like someone doesnt know their Econ 101 stuff. Free trade helps all and protectionalism will only reduce your exports in response. Expect this to be my final post responding to you, Free trade is one of the only accepted policies by everyone.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Hahahahahaha looks like someone doesnt know their Econ 101 stuff. Free trade helps all and protectionalism will only reduce your exports in response. Expect this to be my final post responding to you, Free trade is one of the only accepted policies by everyone.

How would protectionist trade policies reduce our exports? I assume you think other countries will go to protectionist on all US in response but they pretty much already do they just replaced tariffs with value added taxes. The world has been much declared a trade war against the United States a war that even though we have no interest in fighting is happening.

So you think a race to the bottom in terms of wages is a good thing? Because the multinational corporation will always look to the lowest common denominator. Free trade would be great if every country in the world paid high wages and high environmental standards. It be nice to have mechanisms in place that force a world wide race to the top not to the bottom.

I don't get the fascination with corporate and share holder profits when over 90% of the population is wage earners. If you just look the data higher corporate profits clearly don't translate into high wages if anything they are a little bit inversely related.

I'm sure there is something I'm missing on this and I am more than happy for some to clue me in on how exactly free trade is going to help wage earners. I don't buy this everything cost less; I just bought some new shoes made by New Balance which makes their shoes in Maine at a price that was very competitive with Nike and some these companies that manufacture in Asia.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I don't get the fascination with corporate and share holder profits when over 90% of the population is wage earners. If you just look the data higher corporate profits clearly don't translate into high wages if anything they are a little bit inversely related.

The shareholders and the wage-earners are the same people, as long as the wage earners can be bothered to save a few dollars a month. The mutual funds contained in your 401(k), IRA, and pension are primarily composed of equity holdings (i.e. shares of stock). If people want a "piece of that pie," they need to say "no" to car leases they can't afford, big-screen TVs in the bathroom, and iPads for their six-year-olds. The fact that people have horrible saving habits is their own fault.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387

Good lets replace Obamacare with Medicare for All. Then middle class people can buy a supplemental insurance to fill in the coverage gaps. It would actually be a huge economic stimulus.

Cal Nurses Association did a study on the economic effects of Medicare for all:
http://nurses.3cdn.net/c6fb9a313be501086e_1vm6y1duy.pdf

It would mean higher wages from for employees because insurance is essentially part of salary.

It would also means billions more in profits for corporations because they wouldn't be contributed to health insurance plans.

Plus there would be huge savings on administration cost. Medicare as 3% administration cost, while even defenders of the private insurance industry acknowledge administration cost is at least 17%.

Bottom line it frees up huge sums of money for other sectors of the economy. Plus are no sliding scale Obamacare subsidies that discourage work.

Finally it would end the master to serf relationship of employee and employer. It would lead to a huge boom in entrepreneurship because people would be free to go out and take the risk of starting their own business right the fear of medical disaster or facing a high cost individual insurance market.

I think there is a conservative case for national healthcare:

Less burden on corporations

Less burden on entrepreneurship

More freedom in the economy

It wouldn't take no thousands of pages in regulations. All it would take is to simply is a simple bill that eliminates the eligibility age for Medicare, and new taxes that reflect the cost of premiums. Since Medicare has gaps in its coverage so alot of middle class Americans will certainly purchase fairly cheep supplemental insurance; so everyone gets something and people have the option of tweaking there insurance to fit there needs.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
The shareholders and the wage-earners are the same people, as long as the wage earners can be bothered to save a few dollars a month. The mutual funds contained in your 401(k), IRA, and pension are primarily composed of equity holdings (i.e. shares of stock). If people want a "piece of that pie," they need to say "no" to car leases they can't afford, big-screen TVs in the bathroom, and iPads for their six-year-olds. The fact that people have horrible saving habits is their own fault.

This has some merit and I do agree about bad consumer spending habits.

However if I may play devils advocate. If wage earners made more they could afford to save in 401ks and such. Also if CEO to worker pay ratio was still 30 to 1 and 400 to 1 the rich me much more careful with speculative trading; because what we saw from WWII to 1980 when the rich had ultra high taxes was pretty steady GDP growth, unemployment fluctuated up and down because somewhat but it never really got out of hand. Also coincidentally during the 1920s the top rate was than today and what we had a big boom and a huge crash. Similarly we had a crash in 82 after a dramatic tax increase. We also came back with a big boom in mid 80s, and mid to late 90s. However one could argue that steady growth is alot better than a boom and bust cycle.

One could argue that if wages were higher that a greater portion of stock would be owned by working people and that you wouldn't see also this speculative trading that can lead to a market crash.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
This has some merit and I do agree about bad consumer spending habits.

However if I may play devils advocate. If wage earners made more they could afford to save in 401ks and such. Also if CEO to worker pay ratio was still 30 to 1 and 400 to 1 the rich me much more careful with speculative trading; because what we saw from WWII to 1980 when the rich had ultra high taxes was pretty steady GDP growth, unemployment fluctuated up and down because somewhat but it never really got out of hand. Also coincidentally during the 1920s the top rate was than today and what we had a big boom and a huge crash. Similarly we had a crash in 82 after a dramatic tax increase. We also came back with a big boom in mid 80s, and mid to late 90s. However one could argue that steady growth is alot better than a boom and bust cycle.

One could argue that if wages were higher that a greater portion of stock would be owned by working people and that you wouldn't see also this speculative trading that can lead to a market crash.

I'll counter with this argument. If CEOs and whatnot WEREN'T paid such astronomical sums, then the drive to become a CEO wouldn't be as great, competition for those positions would drop, and the "best and the brightest" might not be the people leading these companies. Business leadership quality would decline and the companies would go downhill, forcing even deeper cuts to wages.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I'll counter with this argument. If CEOs and whatnot WEREN'T paid such astronomical sums, then the drive to become a CEO wouldn't be as great, competition for those positions would drop, and the "best and the brightest" might not be the people leading these companies. Business leadership quality would decline and the companies would go downhill, forcing even deeper cuts to wages.

With lower and middle class wealth stagnant or worse over the last decade, and income inequality growing rapidly since the Great Recession, the "trickle down" justification for outrageous executive compensation is weaker than ever. They earn obscene salaries because they're crucial to maintaining the growth of stock portfolios for the wealthy, not because of any real benefit they're providing to society as a whole.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
With lower and middle class wealth stagnant or worse over the last decade, and income inequality growing rapidly since the Great Recession, the "trickle down" justification for outrageous executive compensation is weaker than ever. They earn obscene salaries because they're crucial to maintaining the growth of stock portfolios for the wealthy, not because of any real benefit they're providing to society as a whole.

"Income inequality" doesn't scare me. I'd rather have a chance at greatness than guaranteed mediocrity.
 
Top