For the Capitalists on USMB.

[Oddball]

Do you trust the market totally to regulate itself?

More so than the overdressed mobsters -most of whom haven't produced a dollar's worth if added value for the general economy in their entire adult lives- who've been meddling in markets, under the guise of "regulating" them, for the last century or so.

Please see: Chapter 10, "Why the Worst get on Top" in Hayelk's masterpiece "The Road to Serfdom".

Are you wealthy?

Nowhere near it.

I'm working on my second million because I gave up on the first.

If not, what are your chances of obtaining wealth, and how would you obtain that wealth?

As good as they've ever been...Probably real estate.

What would mean success for you in your own life?

A condo in Alta, one in the Dominican Republic, a decent light twin aircraft to fly between the two, and the financial wherewithal to support them and that lifestyle.

Like Lex Luthor said...My needs are small.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'd say my chances of becoming wealthy are the same as anybodies so long as I work hard in life.

That's perhaps one of the most critical flaws of the proponents of capitalism on this board and elsewhere: utopianism. The reality that equality of opportunity as manifested through the "American Dream" is effectively nonexistent is too often ignored. Consultation of empirical evidence will shatter this illusion, of course. And an example of legitimate empirical evidence would be Gangl's Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics. Consider the abstract:

As income mobility over time serves to offset income inequality existing at any point in time, cross-national differences in social stratification are preferably assessed from data on average incomes over an extended period of time. Hence, this article uses longitudinal income data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the European Community Household Panel to reassess the received empirical evidence. Even discounting the impact of income mobility, however, the United States continues to exhibit the highest level of permanent income inequality in this particular sample of industrial countries. In addition, older workers and individuals at the bottom of the income distribution have faced significantly worse income prospects than common in many European countries.

Additional supplementation by Corak's Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross-Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility also provides insightful analysis.

In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.

 

[Oddball]

That's perhaps one of the most critical flaws of the proponents of capitalism on this board and elsewhere: utopianism. The reality that equality of opportunity as manifested through the "American Dream" is effectively nonexistent is too often ignored. Consultation of empirical evidence will shatter this illusion, of course. And an example of legitimate empirical evidence would be Gangl's Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics. Consider the abstract:

yaddayaddayammeryammer

You can prove anything you want with statistics and pointy-headed ivory tower empirical studies.

Why don't you knock it off with all them negative waves??

Why don't you say something positive and righteous, for a change??

 

[Agnapostate]

You can prove anything you want with statistics and pointy-headed ivory tower empirical studies.

Why don't you knock it off with all them negative waves??

Why don't you say something positive and righteous, for a change??

Because I'm not one to indulge in anti-intellectualism and continued support of irrational dogma despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Oddball]

Because I'm not one to indulge in anti-intellectualism and continued support of irrational dogma despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

Liar.

Your overly verbose and chin-stoking ivory tower "intellectual" crapola is as anti-intellectual as it gets.

Real thinkers get their hands dirty out in the real world...Where we see the data and results in our hands, rather than sitting around giving one another awards and "peer reviews" that don't add up to a popcorn fart.

GOD, how I hate phony fucks!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

IT is outsourcing because the government is forcing contracts made with specific companies onto the private companies.

Do you have anything to back that up?

Bill Gates says its because there aren't enough skilled IT people in the US to fill the role.

I don't buy his excuse either, because IBM and Microsoft have lowered their IT staffs wages recently. If there was a demand for IT people like they say, those people would quit and go find better jobs. There are no jobs. So Bill Gates is a liar.

When the Robber Baron's took over this country in 1913, they gave away half their fortunes to charity. That's because they knew they stood to make billions, so who cares about millions. And plus it was a great PR move.

Yeah, because now all the US IT prof. are using schooling to get their jobs instead of skill. But many other companies are often blind sided by the contracts the government has with MS, forcing them to go outside the country since they are not MS "certified". I didn't give the only reason, but one that demonstrates how "regulation" is hurting our country.

That is one of the excuses/reasons they give. Doesn't mean I believe them. If you look at all the facts, it seems that they are lying and doing it so they can pay lower wages.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for richous reasons or for $? You can never prove they went in for money, but they sure made a lot of money.

And you right wingers always have answers. Not good ones, but you got answers.

You understand that democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to bending over for corporations, but you refuse to admit that corporations are working against us. Isn't that having it both ways?

PS. So you have no articles/websites backing up what you are saying? Then I call bullshit. You can't, because you are making it up. I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

 

[American Horse]

I'm kinda bored with the other threads right now, so I'd like to start a little debate over here in economics:

If you are a capitalist, please answer these questions:

quote: Do you trust the market totally to regulate itself?
Yes. My own greatest losses were as a result of government regulation. Most regulation is probably ok. I recognize that even most that regulated me and cost me opportunities were probably good ones, and if played well, levelled the playing field; But…..(for preserving continuity; see below)

Are you wealthy?
In personal intangible assets like health and skills, yes, in gross dollars no.
Only in the past couple of decades were we able to channel some of our income into secure investments, the most secure being bank CDs.

If not, what are your chances of obtaining wealth, and how would you obtain that wealth?
(Note: I’ve repositioned the answer to this question - To Below: But&#8230

If you are wealthy, how did you get there?
After less than a year of coming out of the Marine Corps in 1964, and only because I’d learned to live frugally in the Corps, I was able to add a few bucks to my accumulated-leave-separation money.

In 1965 My bride and I found a half acre rural property and buying it loan free used it as a 20% down payment to build a new 900-sq. ft. home. We improved it and sold it 3 years later for a profit, building a new home on a nicer wooded lot in a subdivision. Three years later we repeated that and by 1975 when we sold our third home we had banked $50,000. That was not an insignificant amount in 1975.

Earlier in ’72 I’d quit my job as a junior engineer at Westinghouse and began spec building homes on 7-lots I’d developed from a nice rural piece of acreage.

In ‘75 with the $50,000 in hand from our last home my wife and I looked around for a larger piece of land to develop into estate sized lots for large homes. Over the next 40 years we would develop 200 acres into about 130 lots, both building on them and selling them on the open market

If not, what are your chances of obtaining wealth, and how would you obtain that wealth?
(Note: I’ve repositioned the answer to this question - From above: But&#8230 I/we would never have really been “wealthy” but the value/salability of the balance of our land was grossly regulated away.

Consider a regulation (by the EPA and enforced by a state environment agency) that calls any ditch that is dry 99% of the time a part of the “Waters of [The Mississippi]”, and because the floor of the ditch is in a state of erosion it is determined that the flora-and-fauna supported by that ditch must be protected, never mind the commonness or ubiquitousness of the flora and fauna, (edit) and the fact that the 'ditch' was 20 miles from the nearest water flowing in a continuous stream.

That determination reduced the potential sale value of that acreage almost exactly in half.

What would mean success for you in your own life?
At this advanced age it would be to able to continue to do a moderate amount now of what I did during my entire career so as to be able to stay as sharp as possible, and remain independent, which is the greatest challenge in elder years. Success would be to see my son (or any one elses son/daughter) find the same pleasure in his (their) work that I found in mine. To a large extent his (their) “success” will be determined by the ability to cope with the system of regulations being put into force by politicians out of control.

Do opportunities like what I experienced exist today? I think so....if a person "follows their heart tempered" with sound business judgement as to the reality of their ideas.

I.E. right now there should be opportunities for people to advance ahead of the pack in construction projects aimed at reducing high energy costs to the consumer of their product.

 

[DiamondDave]

Do you trust the market totally to regulate itself?
For the most part yes. Investors and consumers will make a company pay for bad practices. I do not believe in governmental bailouts or corporate welfare. (Hell, I do not believe in any sort of governmental welfare handouts)

Are you wealthy?
I am not wealthy but I live well. Before my divorce i would have probably retired at 50 or 55. Now, it will be a while longer.

If not, what are your chances of obtaining wealth, and how would you obtain that wealth?
I am not TOO fixated on wealth. All I want is a paid off house, some $$ set aside for kids and enough of an income off of savings and investments to pay bills.

If you are wealthy, how did you get there?
I got where I am thru pure effort and gumption. I took no hand outs. I worked my way out of poverty. I advanced my skills and made myself an appealing asset for employers. I have adapted as times have changed and I will continue to adapt.

What would mean success for you in your own life?
Just being comfortable in a paid off house with happy kids and enough money saved up to travel a bit and relax the rest of the time.

 

[editec]

Of course I turst the market to regulate itself.

In exactly the same way I trust the mafia to regulate itself.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you trust the market totally to regulate itself?
For the most part yes. Investors and consumers will make a company pay for bad practices. I do not believe in governmental bailouts or corporate welfare. (Hell, I do not believe in any sort of governmental welfare handouts)

Are you wealthy?
I am not wealthy but I live well. Before my divorce i would have probably retired at 50 or 55. Now, it will be a while longer.

If not, what are your chances of obtaining wealth, and how would you obtain that wealth?
I am not TOO fixated on wealth. All I want is a paid off house, some $$ set aside for kids and enough of an income off of savings and investments to pay bills.

If you are wealthy, how did you get there?
I got where I am thru pure effort and gumption. I took no hand outs. I worked my way out of poverty. I advanced my skills and made myself an appealing asset for employers. I have adapted as times have changed and I will continue to adapt.

What would mean success for you in your own life?
Just being comfortable in a paid off house with happy kids and enough money saved up to travel a bit and relax the rest of the time.

The stock market tanking didn't push off your retirement at all?

 

[DiamondDave]

Of course I turst the market to regulate itself.

In exactly the same way I trust the mafia to regulate itself.

Ahem... the mafia is inherently criminal in nature... business, is not

But nice try

 

[sealybobo]

Of course I turst the market to regulate itself.

In exactly the same way I trust the mafia to regulate itself.

Ahem... the mafia is inherently criminal in nature... business, is not

But nice try

Business is not?

Kramer admitted that Wallstreet lied to him.

And even Kramer is full of shit. He lied to us!!!

They knew the market was crashing. They predatory loaned. They cooked their books. They send lobbyists to washington to bribe the politicians. They launch wars for profit.

JP Morgan & Rockafellor were monopolistic RUTHLESS men. Ever here the term Robber Baron? They brake anti trust laws. They gouge us.

The Credit card companies charge 30% and more. Back when the Feds went after the mafia for loansharking, do you know what rate the mob was charging that was considered loansharking? 20%!!!!!!!!

You see the politicians as being the problem. I see corporations being the root of the problem. But because they are important and employ us all, they get away with it, and you defend them. They are criminal. And some of the criminal shit they do is legal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course I turst the market to regulate itself.

In exactly the same way I trust the mafia to regulate itself.

Ahem... the mafia is inherently criminal in nature... business, is not

But nice try

Business is not?

Kramer admitted that Wallstreet lied to him.

And even Kramer is full of shit. He lied to us!!!

They knew the market was crashing. They predatory loaned. They cooked their books. They send lobbyists to washington to bribe the politicians. They launch wars for profit.

JP Morgan & Rockafellor were monopolistic RUTHLESS men. Ever here the term Robber Baron? They brake anti trust laws. They gouge us.

The Credit card companies charge 30% and more. Back when the Feds went after the mafia for loansharking, do you know what rate the mob was charging that was considered loansharking? 20%!!!!!!!!

You see the politicians as being the problem. I see corporations being the root of the problem. But because they are important and employ us all, they get away with it, and you defend them. They are criminal. And some of the criminal shit they do is legal.

Anti-Trust laws are nonsense, sealy. True robber-barons are those who are given subsidies from the government so that they're able to maintain high prices and crush competition in that way.

 

[sealybobo]

Ahem... the mafia is inherently criminal in nature... business, is not

But nice try

Business is not?

Kramer admitted that Wallstreet lied to him.

And even Kramer is full of shit. He lied to us!!!

They knew the market was crashing. They predatory loaned. They cooked their books. They send lobbyists to washington to bribe the politicians. They launch wars for profit.

JP Morgan & Rockafellor were monopolistic RUTHLESS men. Ever here the term Robber Baron? They brake anti trust laws. They gouge us.

The Credit card companies charge 30% and more. Back when the Feds went after the mafia for loansharking, do you know what rate the mob was charging that was considered loansharking? 20%!!!!!!!!

You see the politicians as being the problem. I see corporations being the root of the problem. But because they are important and employ us all, they get away with it, and you defend them. They are criminal. And some of the criminal shit they do is legal.

Anti-Trust laws are nonsense, sealy. True robber-barons are those who are given subsidies from the government so that they're able to maintain high prices and crush competition in that way.

What's the saying, "Some of the worst things that happen in Washington are legal".

I suspect the same goes for business. Like the offshore tax dodging that companies like Lehman Brothers found for their largest customers.

And I find it amazing that the very same firms that helped our corporations dodge paying their taxes, are the same ones that we are bailing out.

It was all on purpose. Hasn't been proven yet, and maybe never will be proven. Just like we have to accept that Bush made a mistake lying us into Iraq, when we know he did it on purpose.

They made too much money.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your overly verbose and chin-stoking ivory tower "intellectual" crapola is as anti-intellectual as it gets.

Real thinkers get their hands dirty out in the real world...Where we see the data and results in our hands, rather than sitting around giving one another awards and "peer reviews" that don't add up to a popcorn fart.

GOD, how I hate phony fucks!!!!

On the contrary, you resort to crude speculation based on anecdotal experiences, and assert that this is suitable evidence for policy formation, despite the fact that the widely varying spectrum of human experiences and behaviors prevents any such speculation. Considering that any given population is not usually homogenous to any great extent, only statistical evidence is truly suitable for policy formation.

 

[Oddball]

Are you involved in making anything tangible that someone else would want to buy, or do you just sequester yourself glad-handing with other academic stuffed shirts, congratulating one another on how brilliant you think you are??

 

[code1211]

Do you have anything to back that up?

Bill Gates says its because there aren't enough skilled IT people in the US to fill the role.

I don't buy his excuse either, because IBM and Microsoft have lowered their IT staffs wages recently. If there was a demand for IT people like they say, those people would quit and go find better jobs. There are no jobs. So Bill Gates is a liar.

When the Robber Baron's took over this country in 1913, they gave away half their fortunes to charity. That's because they knew they stood to make billions, so who cares about millions. And plus it was a great PR move.

Yeah, because now all the US IT prof. are using schooling to get their jobs instead of skill. But many other companies are often blind sided by the contracts the government has with MS, forcing them to go outside the country since they are not MS "certified". I didn't give the only reason, but one that demonstrates how "regulation" is hurting our country.

That is one of the excuses/reasons they give. Doesn't mean I believe them. If you look at all the facts, it seems that they are lying and doing it so they can pay lower wages.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for richous reasons or for $? You can never prove they went in for money, but they sure made a lot of money.

And you right wingers always have answers. Not good ones, but you got answers.

You understand that democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to bending over for corporations, but you refuse to admit that corporations are working against us. Isn't that having it both ways?

PS. So you have no articles/websites backing up what you are saying? Then I call bullshit. You can't, because you are making it up. I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

Admitting at the outset that paranoia does not mean that they aren't out to get you, the highlighted statement is parnoid. "...working against us."? Ridiculous. Corporations don't work against us any more than does the wind or the sunlight. They do what they do because that is what defines them. They cannot do anything else than what they do. It is what they are. Corporations exist to make money, increase value and pay dividends. If they don't do these things, they cease to exist.

What happens outside of these things, whether it is a completed product for sale or a serious pollution problem is just a by product of what they do.

Corporations create wealth, and whatever product they manufacture is only the means to this end. They employ people and through this fund communities, schools, individuals, governments and everything else that drives a society.

Eliminate all of the corporations on the planet and you will find a pretty bleak outlook for the average guy.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you involved in making anything tangible that someone else would want to buy, or do you just sequester yourself glad-handing with other academic stuffed shirts, congratulating one another on how brilliant you think you are??

He's right Dude. And if you make something, that makes you a manufacturer and that makes you labor. You need to get on the right team.

And he's also right that your experience running a little business does not make you qualified to run the country, just like McCain crashing a few airplanes and being tortured didn't make him commander and chief material.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, because now all the US IT prof. are using schooling to get their jobs instead of skill. But many other companies are often blind sided by the contracts the government has with MS, forcing them to go outside the country since they are not MS "certified". I didn't give the only reason, but one that demonstrates how "regulation" is hurting our country.

That is one of the excuses/reasons they give. Doesn't mean I believe them. If you look at all the facts, it seems that they are lying and doing it so they can pay lower wages.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for richous reasons or for $? You can never prove they went in for money, but they sure made a lot of money.

And you right wingers always have answers. Not good ones, but you got answers.

You understand that democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to bending over for corporations, but you refuse to admit that corporations are working against us. Isn't that having it both ways?

PS. So you have no articles/websites backing up what you are saying? Then I call bullshit. You can't, because you are making it up. I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

Admitting at the outset that paranoia does not mean that they aren't out to get you, the highlighted statement is parnoid. "...working against us."? Ridiculous. Corporations don't work against us any more than does the wind or the sunlight. They do what they do because that is what defines them. They cannot do anything else than what they do. It is what they are. Corporations exist to make money, increase value and pay dividends. If they don't do these things, they cease to exist.

What happens outside of these things, whether it is a completed product for sale or a serious pollution problem is just a by product of what they do.

Corporations create wealth, and whatever product they manufacture is only the means to this end. They employ people and through this fund communities, schools, individuals, governments and everything else that drives a society.

Eliminate all of the corporations on the planet and you will find a pretty bleak outlook for the average guy.

We have seen internal memo's documents from Greenspan, CEO's and Republicans admitting they like a certain amount of unemployment because it helps keep wages low.

They don't work against us? Well when they want to set up shop outside the country to save money and then sell us their goods?

GE made their light bulb employees sign a pledge that they would only use energy saving lightbulbs. Only one problem with that. The energy saving bulb plant is in China. So they signed a pledge to put themselves out of work.

And some corporations purposely avoid hiring Americans and then seak out IT professionals from India who cost much less.

I understand why they do these things. That's their job. That is why government is supposed to work for us to not allow them to go too far. But instead they work with the corporations because the corp's pay them.

So I don't blame the corporation. They'll do whatever they can to maximize profits. I blame the politicians and the people that defend their every move. Its ok, until it affects you.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, because now all the US IT prof. are using schooling to get their jobs instead of skill. But many other companies are often blind sided by the contracts the government has with MS, forcing them to go outside the country since they are not MS "certified". I didn't give the only reason, but one that demonstrates how "regulation" is hurting our country.

That is one of the excuses/reasons they give. Doesn't mean I believe them. If you look at all the facts, it seems that they are lying and doing it so they can pay lower wages.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq for richous reasons or for $? You can never prove they went in for money, but they sure made a lot of money.

And you right wingers always have answers. Not good ones, but you got answers.

You understand that democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to bending over for corporations, but you refuse to admit that corporations are working against us. Isn't that having it both ways?

PS. So you have no articles/websites backing up what you are saying? Then I call bullshit. You can't, because you are making it up. I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

Corporations create wealth, and whatever product they manufacture is only the means to this end. They employ people and through this fund communities, schools, individuals, governments and everything else that drives a society.

.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class