Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

[uscitizen]

Free Market Definition | Investopedia

Definition of 'Free Market'


Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A free market is a market where the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand, rather than by governmental regulation.[1] A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, where price, supply or demand are subject to regulation or direct control by government. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.

Yep and there is no such place on earth.

Not any more there is not, no. Nor is there any capitalism.

Never was. God made man god demanded tribute/sacrifice/taxes from man.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Bullshit, the free market has existed in the past. In several times, under several conditions. Go read a history book. Even still, you don't get to change the definition of economic terminology to suit your false belief that one has never existed, nor could it.

That's pure bullshit.

I'm not changing any definition. I'm using the definition YOU provided - which says its IDEALIZED.

You're using ONE definiton I provided out of several and also cherry picking a word to try to make your case. You also falsely claim "no free market has ever existed, nor could". Which is patently false. To no ones surprise.

Its not false. The definition you supplied says a completely free market is IDEALIZED.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There's nothing in a free market that says there are no unions.

Unions are legal entities of labour, just as corporations are legal entities of capital.

it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism. And unions should not be in the public sector, as they extort taxpayers and destroy competitive bidding on contracts. Even FDR agreed with that.

Unions are part of capitalism. Union workers don't "extort" money from their employers anymore than my ISP "extorts" money from me when they raise their rates. If I don't want it at that price there's no one forcing me to buy it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There's nothing in a free market that says there are no unions.

Unions are legal entities of labour, just as corporations are legal entities of capital.

dear, in a free market you don't need the Wagner Act and Taft Hartley etc etc to violently force business to recognize unions, bargain with them, allow them on their property, not fire them etc etc etc.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalists a have fucking field day, in terms of net, when the middle class has more disposable income.

well yes dear the more potential customers the better but no human being on earth ever disagreed so why mention it??

 

[Koios]

Capitalists a have fucking field day, in terms of net, when the middle class has more disposable income.

well yes dear the more potential customers the better but no human being on earth ever disagreed so why mention it??

I was respnding to this, honey bunches:

"it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unions are part of capitalism.

Then why all the Federal legislation to impose unions on capitalism???
Maybe you meant to say they are part of capitalism after soviet liberals violently force them on capitalism??

Union workers don't "extort" money from their employers anymore than my ISP "extorts" money from me when they raise their rates.

too stupid but 1000% liberal!! You can go to any ISP you want. An employer cant go to any workforce it wants. It must, by liberal soviet law, bargain with its union!!!

If I don't want it at that price there's no one forcing me to buy it.

dumb!! Get it now???

 

[Toro]

There's nothing in a free market that says there are no unions.

Unions are legal entities of labour, just as corporations are legal entities of capital.

it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism. And unions should not be in the public sector, as they extort taxpayers and destroy competitive bidding on contracts. Even FDR agreed with that.

I generally agree with you on public service unions. I don't agree that unions are generally bad for capitalism. I think they are agnostic for capitalism, with some positives and some negatives.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

with some positives and some negatives.

and your examples are???????????????

 

[Rshermr]

Unions are part of capitalism.

Then why all the Federal legislation to impose unions on capitalism???
Maybe you meant to say they are part of capitalism after soviet liberals violently force them on capitalism??

Union workers don't "extort" money from their employers anymore than my ISP "extorts" money from me when they raise their rates.

too stupid but 1000% liberal!! You can go to any ISP you want. An employer cant go to any workforce it wants. It must, by liberal soviet law, bargain with its union!!!

If I don't want it at that price there's no one forcing me to buy it.

dumb!! Get it now???

Well, I don't get it specifically now. I have known for a long time that you are dumb.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unions are part of capitalism.

Then why all the Federal legislation to impose unions on capitalism???
Maybe you meant to say they are part of capitalism after soviet liberals violently force them on capitalism??



too stupid but 1000% liberal!! You can go to any ISP you want. An employer cant go to any workforce it wants. It must, by liberal soviet law, bargain with its union!!!

If I don't want it at that price there's no one forcing me to buy it.

dumb!! Get it now???

Well, I don't get it specifically now. I have known for a long time that you are dumb.

liberal reduced to personal attack because he knows he lacks the IQ for substance!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism."

exactly why are they good or bad??

 

[Koios]

There's nothing in a free market that says there are no unions.

Unions are legal entities of labour, just as corporations are legal entities of capital.

it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism. And unions should not be in the public sector, as they extort taxpayers and destroy competitive bidding on contracts. Even FDR agreed with that.

I generally agree with you on public service unions. I don't agree that unions are generally bad for capitalism. I think they are agnostic for capitalism, with some positives and some negatives.

Nope. All positive, including folks whose employer is our government, who are not indentured servants nor property of the state. They're workers, with every right we have, and the exact same obligations under our tax code.

The thing that Conservatives, and even many Liberals, fail to grasp, despite it's obvious truth in a Consumer Economy, which is what the USA is: our value is not in what we do; it's in what we buy.

Robert Riech, easily the most-eminent political economist of our generation, wrote a book recently, in which he advocated all Americans get a minimum of $50,000. Those not working get it all; those working and making less would be supplimented. Those making more, are already there, and get nothing. But everyone can consume at a $50 grand a year level, at a minimum, exploding the market. Novel concept, which I'm not in complete agreement with, since I think it borders on a level that might disincentivize too great a percentage of our workforce. But the economics are incredibly sound.

Consider the problem with poverty: needs not being served, when we have a market based entirely on meeting needs. Consumer need, is the lifeblood of businesses. And the more doing so, increases the effects of supply and demand, making the market more free market-like. When markets contract, businesses seek policies that diminish the effects of supply and demand, to create more profit from what they have, rather than going after market opportunity. This effect, is sometimes called, metaphorically, looking for rembrandts in the attic. And it leads to rent-seeking, as we call it in economics, where larger pieces of what's there are taken, by government mandate / policies, driving prices up for consumers, without adding value or production. Not a good thing.

And we do things now, trying to help grow consumption: credit is loosened, or like now, we borrow from our future retirement (2% drop in payroll taxes) to get us spending more today. Also, tax credits and rebates move us to buy stuff, from those who have it to sell and can influence policy, i.e. GE with expensive lightbulbs that save energy, but really don't cost justify for typical consumers. So EPA pays rebates to retailers, who take it off the price, letting you buy up to four, for 20% of the cost.

So looking at the poor and unemployed, in that light: need not being served. You'll see that empowering them, so they can meet their need, is a huge boom to those who serve the need, and drive the economy and jobs forward. And rather that $50 K for everyone, I'd advocate immediate upping of the Minimum Wage to around $12 / hour, and get welfare, SSI and UI recipients to something near to that level, but so close as to be equal: circa $9 / hr / x40 / x 52 ... just under $19 K a year.

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all, far better than simply a few union workers, principally in public service sector jobs, boosting only slightly, and not by much, the prevailing wage ... which in aggregate, has been moving backward most of the last 1/3 century.

 

[Koios]

^^^^^

That answer your question:

exactly why are they good or bad??

?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

^^^^^

That answer your question:

exactly why are they good or bad??

?

what is "that"????????????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all,

So why not just pass a law that we all get $100/hour. Why waste time with the messy protracted union battles??

IF you can't answer you must admit to being a low IQ liberal. Sorry

 

[Koios]

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all,

So why not just pass a law that we all get $100/hour. Why waste time with the messy protracted union battles??

IF you can't answer you must admit to being a low IQ liberal. Sorry

Because, a) that's an absurd extreme and does not disprove what was suggested. It's akin to saying "why not drown me?" when your doctor suggests you need to drink more water. It's retarded, and thus apt in your case, and; b) no precendent. We've never raised it by more than 80+% before, which we did once to great success, lowering inflation and unemployment. Thus I advocate no more than an 80% increase at this time.

 

[Koios]

^^^^^

That answer your question:

exactly why are they good or bad??

?

what is "that"????????????????????????

It's stuff you cannot possibly grasp since it was written by someone with, at minimum, a 60 point advantage on you from IQ standpoint.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

^^^^^

That answer your question:

?

what is "that"????????????????????????

It's stuff you cannot possibly grasp since it was written by someone with, at minimum, a 60 point advantage on you from IQ standpoint.

exactly why are unions good or bad?? How will you learn if your are afraid to try???

 

[Koios]

what is "that"????????????????????????

It's stuff you cannot possibly grasp since it was written by someone with, at minimum, a 60 point advantage on you from IQ standpoint.

exactly why are unions good or bad?? How will you learn if your are afraid to try???

They increase the prevailing wage, thus creating upward pressure on all worker's wages.

Looking at it in reverse, if wages for public sector workers are cut in half, the prevailing wage drops, making your value in the worker supply and demand equasion less. You fuck them, you fuck yourself. You raise them up, you benefit yourself. A fact, which you are too stupid to grasp.