neo classical economics- looked good on paper

[dblack]

the documentary specifically addresses neo liberal economics major flaw. Its on youtube for free. full length documentary.

I'll check it out. I did watch the preview last night, and IIRC it didn't really address neo-classical economics as much as the bankster bailouts and foreign policy.

 

[dblack]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.

Actually, I said that. And it happens all the time. Ask Apple enthusiasts whether they gave their money to Steve Jobs voluntarily, or not. Every time we spend our money freely, we're expressing our values and choosing to reward those who fulfill our needs and desires.

 

[editec]

Yup.

The fundamental flaw in our FORMERLY CAPITALIST system begins at the FEDERAL RESERVE.

AFter that its pretty simple,

Shit rolls downhill.

The ULTRARIGHT in America has been pointing out this problem for at least 40 year that I know of.

The ULTRALEFT likewise.


Why don't ya'll already know this?

Because as much as you love (or hate) your guns, as much as you love or hate gays, as much as you love or hate OBAMA, or BUSH, REAGAN or CLINTON, most of you are NOT paying attention to the things that truly matter to the MASTERS.

ECONOMICS.


What part of no matter how much wealth you can create through hard work and invention, you will never have more than the CLASS OF PEOPLE who can LITERALLY INVENT MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR AND LEND IT TO EVERYONE ELSE (GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED) AT INTEREST

 

[Iceweasel]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

I think there are lots of ways you can back up that statement. We can cite many examples of profit derived from collusion with government as well as outright fraud and theft. And we should strive to eliminate them. The problem with the point of view expressed by the OP is that it assumes all income inequality above a certain level is unjustly earned, which strikes me as ridiculous.

I'm against cronyism between big business and government, probably as much as anyone here. But that doesn't support: "If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen."

 

[Iceweasel]

Thats his trademark around here sadly Whats even sadder is: he isn't alone. Getting a con to provide an even tangentially agreeable source is like pulling teeth around here.




thats the point of the OP. READ IT!!!

There is > one form of capitalism. The current sham model, which COINCIDENTALLY favors the owners of Washington D.C, is neo classical

I didn't get that our of the OP. What I read was justification for abandoning economic freedom. To put it bluntly, if we, as a society, want to give most of our wealth to a few people, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

did you watch the documentary or are you like The Rabbi & Iceweasel talking out of ignorance of the OP? The documentary specifically outlines neo classical econs obvious fallacy\ies.

Sorry asshole. I did see the one, apparently a month before you. I pointed out your shear stupidity in using a state run Putin megaphone to lecture us on capitalism. That isn't just stupid. It's a special kind of stupid we don't get to see everyday, even here.

 

[Iceweasel]

You assume that we as a people DO want to give our wealth to a few. I think not. If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen.

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.

I quoted it. You cut it out for some reason. Nor am I the one that said people may want to give their wealth to a few. You are very confused indeed. Here, take another swing at it, you said: "If we did, it would not require billions of bucks spent by the far right to convince people to allow it to happen."

 

[Rshermr]

Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.

Actually, I said that. And it happens all the time. Ask Apple enthusiasts whether they gave their money to Steve Jobs voluntarily, or not. Every time we spend our money freely, we're expressing our values and choosing to reward those who fulfill our needs and desires.

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist. Capitalists want economic advantage. That would be in the form of MONOPOLY POWER. In the ivory tower world, you pay for a product and the result is hiring of more employees at a agreed upon wage. No monopoly power. Now, remove yourself from the ivory tower world, and assume that Exxon needs more workers to meet demand. So, you as a worker go to exxon and try to negotiate the wage you are worth. And you find, immediatly, that you will work at the wage exxon offers or you will not work at all. And that wage has been dropping, in real dollar terms, for DECADES. AND, in additon, exxon has joined together with other corporations to exert their power to gain tax breaks. They pay no taxes at all, or nearly so. Which, of course, makes their earnings even higher, and requires the other less well off (middle class) to pay more of the tax burden.
And so the cycle goes on. Since the middle class now has less of the economic pie, and the exxons have more of it, the middle class buys LESS. Which means aggregate demand is decreased. Which means less is sold. Which means fewer employees are needed. Which means salaries decrease. And DAMN, it looks a bit like the problems of the great depression. OR OF TODAY.
Now, about that idea that people are deciding to see that a few get most of the income. I think I would call that, technically, bullshit.

 

[Avorysuds]

Vote Repub so we can deregulate more & the banksters can get the OTHER 20% of the wealth. The Hank Paulsons of the world need your help in crushing the last vestiges of a middle-class in this once great nation

Vote Democrat so we can bail out bankers and the rich while giving then 100% tax breaks.

Thanks Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup.

The fundamental flaw in our FORMERLY CAPITALIST system begins at the FEDERAL RESERVE.

AFter that its pretty simple,

Shit rolls downhill.

The ULTRARIGHT in America has been pointing out this problem for at least 40 year that I know of.

The ULTRALEFT likewise.


Why don't ya'll already know this?

Because as much as you love (or hate) your guns, as much as you love or hate gays, as much as you love or hate OBAMA, or BUSH, REAGAN or CLINTON, most of you are NOT paying attention to the things that truly matter to the MASTERS.

ECONOMICS.


What part of no matter how much wealth you can create through hard work and invention, you will never have more than the CLASS OF PEOPLE who can LITERALLY INVENT MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR AND LEND IT TO EVERYONE ELSE (GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED) AT INTEREST

you will never have more than the CLASS OF PEOPLE who can LITERALLY INVENT MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR AND LEND IT TO EVERYONE ELSE (GOVERNMENTS INCLUDED) AT INTEREST

Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo and the small town bank up the street cannot create money out of thin air. The only bank that can is the Federal Reserve.

 

[The Rabbi]

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.

Actually, I said that. And it happens all the time. Ask Apple enthusiasts whether they gave their money to Steve Jobs voluntarily, or not. Every time we spend our money freely, we're expressing our values and choosing to reward those who fulfill our needs and desires.

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist. Capitalists want economic advantage. That would be in the form of MONOPOLY POWER. In the ivory tower world, you pay for a product and the result is hiring of more employees at a agreed upon wage. No monopoly power. Now, remove yourself from the ivory tower world, and assume that Exxon needs more workers to meet demand. So, you as a worker go to exxon and try to negotiate the wage you are worth. And you find, immediatly, that you will work at the wage exxon offers or you will not work at all. And that wage has been dropping, in real dollar terms, for DECADES. AND, in additon, exxon has joined together with other corporations to exert their power to gain tax breaks. They pay no taxes at all, or nearly so. Which, of course, makes their earnings even higher, and requires the other less well off (middle class) to pay more of the tax burden.
And so the cycle goes on. Since the middle class now has less of the economic pie, and the exxons have more of it, the middle class buys LESS. Which means aggregate demand is decreased. Which means less is sold. Which means fewer employees are needed. Which means salaries decrease. And DAMN, it looks a bit like the problems of the great depression. OR OF TODAY.
Now, about that idea that people are deciding to see that a few get most of the income. I think I would call that, technically, bullshit.

^^Applies to above post.

 

[dblack]

Back what up??? You stated that people may want to give their wealth to a few. That, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. It requires YOU to show that they do want to do so. You made the statement, you prove it. Jesus.

Actually, I said that. And it happens all the time. Ask Apple enthusiasts whether they gave their money to Steve Jobs voluntarily, or not. Every time we spend our money freely, we're expressing our values and choosing to reward those who fulfill our needs and desires.

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist.

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?

Now, about that idea that people are deciding to see that a few get most of the income. I think I would call that, technically, bullshit.

That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, I said that. And it happens all the time. Ask Apple enthusiasts whether they gave their money to Steve Jobs voluntarily, or not. Every time we spend our money freely, we're expressing our values and choosing to reward those who fulfill our needs and desires.

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist.

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?

Now, about that idea that people are deciding to see that a few get most of the income. I think I would call that, technically, bullshit.

That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

No one that I am aware of is suggesting what conservatives say liberals are, which is that income levels should be equal. No one. But the great disperity is a problem, without much doubt, in the minds of most. And yes, much of that is due to the monopoly power of corporations. Which you seem not to want to believe.
The problem is not simple. It is money in politics, it is monopoly power of corporations, it is the lack of increases in earnings of those other than the top 1%. If you prefer to not believe it, and to not educate yourself on what is being said on both sides of the issue, that is your right. But it simply makes you ignorant. The majority of economists, and particularly the majority of impartial economists, believe that the problem of income inequality is a major issue.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is. And for me, it is not dependent on economic system. I could care less if it is socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or what. As long as people are the best off under the system that they live and work within. And what economists are saying is not that we need to move toward any specific system, but that we need to consider the issues of income inequality. If you would rather not, then fine. Stay ignorant. Your call.

Again, so that you do not attack the straw man again, I am not suggesting pure equality is either good or possible. It is not. Nor is anyone else, if you would only read the information out there. Sociology, by the way, does not suggest that. Only nut cases who want to attack anyone that questions the capitalist ideal say that. The rest of the world is trying to find a combined system that WORKS for the people that work in the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no monopoly that is not granted by the government. Monopoly does not explain income disparity. Companies do not own the government.
Your entire premise is flawed. Your knowledge base sucks. And frankly you're a crap human being.

 

[dblack]

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist.

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?



That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:

Why should income inequality be under control? Who should control it, in your view?

The problem is not simple. It is money in politics ...

I agree to a point. The collusion of economic power and political power is the problem. But it goes both ways. We need to separate economic power and political power in much the same way we've separated religious power and political power.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is.

I'm not looking for 'economic perfection', I'm looking for economic freedom. We don't need government to tell us how to earn a living.

 

[Rshermr]

There is no monopoly that is not granted by the government. Monopoly does not explain income disparity. Companies do not own the government.
Your entire premise is flawed. Your knowledge base sucks. And frankly you're a crap human being.

Again proving his ignorance, there is Rabbi. I did not say monopolies, me boy. As you know. I said monopoly power. And yes, monopoly power exists. In private business, in government, in labor unions, and on and on. Really, Rabbi. Is it that you are that stupid. Or is it that your audience, other cons, are that stupid in your little pea brain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if you live in an ivory tower world where capitalism in it's pure form existed, that would be great. But pure capitalism does not exist.

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?



That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

No one that I am aware of is suggesting what conservatives say liberals are, which is that income levels should be equal. No one. But the great disperity is a problem, without much doubt, in the minds of most. And yes, much of that is due to the monopoly power of corporations. Which you seem not to want to believe.
The problem is not simple. It is money in politics, it is monopoly power of corporations, it is the lack of increases in earnings of those other than the top 1%. If you prefer to not believe it, and to not educate yourself on what is being said on both sides of the issue, that is your right. But it simply makes you ignorant. The majority of economists, and particularly the majority of impartial economists, believe that the problem of income inequality is a major issue.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is. And for me, it is not dependent on economic system. I could care less if it is socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or what. As long as people are the best off under the system that they live and work within. And what economists are saying is not that we need to move toward any specific system, but that we need to consider the issues of income inequality. If you would rather not, then fine. Stay ignorant. Your call.

Again, so that you do not attack the straw man again, I am not suggesting pure equality is either good or possible. It is not. Nor is anyone else, if you would only read the information out there. Sociology, by the way, does not suggest that. Only nut cases who want to attack anyone that questions the capitalist ideal say that. The rest of the world is trying to find a combined system that WORKS for the people that work in the economy.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth

How much of the income growth, coming out of a recession, is the proper amount for the top 1% to get? Why?

Please show all your work.

 

[Rshermr]

Dblack asks:

Why should income inequality be under control? Who should control it, in your view?

In needs to be at some level, or under control, to avoid a bad economy. I am not here to spend an hour educating anyone. You could read. A simple google search on the problems of income inequality would give you the reasons of economists. Or, you could consider reading a bit of what some of the above links took you to. I do not really believe you want an answer, however.
Who should control it? The same folks who have always controlled it. That would be the gov. Because, you see, in general private corporations could care less, except about the immediate revenue and profits of their corporations.

I agree to a point. The collusion of economic power and political power is the problem. But it goes both ways. We need to separate economic power and political power in much the same way we've separated religious power and political power.

To a point. What level of money controlling politics is ok with you???
It goes both ways??? Did you think that we need to worry about the gov controling private corporations??? Have an example??? Yes. We need to seperate economic power from political power. That is, we need to take money OUT of politics.
And we need to legislate that corporations are not people.

I'm not looking for 'economic perfection', I'm looking for economic freedom. We don't need government to tell us how to earn a living.

I am not sure where you think anyone is of the belief that government is trying to tell us how to make a living. Have an example??

 

[Rshermr]

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?



That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

No one that I am aware of is suggesting what conservatives say liberals are, which is that income levels should be equal. No one. But the great disperity is a problem, without much doubt, in the minds of most. And yes, much of that is due to the monopoly power of corporations. Which you seem not to want to believe.
The problem is not simple. It is money in politics, it is monopoly power of corporations, it is the lack of increases in earnings of those other than the top 1%. If you prefer to not believe it, and to not educate yourself on what is being said on both sides of the issue, that is your right. But it simply makes you ignorant. The majority of economists, and particularly the majority of impartial economists, believe that the problem of income inequality is a major issue.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is. And for me, it is not dependent on economic system. I could care less if it is socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or what. As long as people are the best off under the system that they live and work within. And what economists are saying is not that we need to move toward any specific system, but that we need to consider the issues of income inequality. If you would rather not, then fine. Stay ignorant. Your call.

Again, so that you do not attack the straw man again, I am not suggesting pure equality is either good or possible. It is not. Nor is anyone else, if you would only read the information out there. Sociology, by the way, does not suggest that. Only nut cases who want to attack anyone that questions the capitalist ideal say that. The rest of the world is trying to find a combined system that WORKS for the people that work in the economy.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth

How much of the income growth, coming out of a recession, is the proper amount for the top 1% to get? Why?

Please show all you work.

Damned if I know. But I believe 93% to the upper 1% is too much. How about your, me boy. Probably not enough, eh.
So, I can go with you and the bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time with, all of which seem to think that heavy income redistribution toward the wealthy is a good deal. Or, I can go along with the economists, the vast majority of whom think the opposite. You and the bat shit crazy con web sites, or the economists. Uh, you loose. But then, that is just my opinion.
How would you suggest I show you ''all you work". And why? Are you paying for an education, or do you want it for free. God knows you could use one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:


No one that I am aware of is suggesting what conservatives say liberals are, which is that income levels should be equal. No one. But the great disperity is a problem, without much doubt, in the minds of most. And yes, much of that is due to the monopoly power of corporations. Which you seem not to want to believe.
The problem is not simple. It is money in politics, it is monopoly power of corporations, it is the lack of increases in earnings of those other than the top 1%. If you prefer to not believe it, and to not educate yourself on what is being said on both sides of the issue, that is your right. But it simply makes you ignorant. The majority of economists, and particularly the majority of impartial economists, believe that the problem of income inequality is a major issue.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is. And for me, it is not dependent on economic system. I could care less if it is socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or what. As long as people are the best off under the system that they live and work within. And what economists are saying is not that we need to move toward any specific system, but that we need to consider the issues of income inequality. If you would rather not, then fine. Stay ignorant. Your call.

Again, so that you do not attack the straw man again, I am not suggesting pure equality is either good or possible. It is not. Nor is anyone else, if you would only read the information out there. Sociology, by the way, does not suggest that. Only nut cases who want to attack anyone that questions the capitalist ideal say that. The rest of the world is trying to find a combined system that WORKS for the people that work in the economy.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth

How much of the income growth, coming out of a recession, is the proper amount for the top 1% to get? Why?

Please show all you work.

Damned if I know. But I believe 93% to the upper 1% is too much. How about your, me boy. Probably not enough, eh.
So, I can go with you and the bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time with, all of which seem to think that heavy income redistribution toward the wealthy is a good deal. Or, I can go along with the economists, the vast majority of whom think the opposite. You and the bat shit crazy con web sites, or the economists. Uh, you loose. But then, that is just my opinion.
How would you suggest I show you ''all you work". And why? Are you paying for an education, or do you want it for free. God knows you could use one.

Damned if I know.

No kidding.

But I believe 93% to the upper 1% is too much.

93% of what? Dig out the actual income growth dollar amount in 2010 and we can discuss what the proper amount should be.

all of which seem to think that heavy income redistribution toward the wealthy is a good deal.

We could discuss income growth in the richest county in the nation.
The one that you think is a good deal.

How would you suggest I show you ''all you work".

You would have to show actual number and use math, not your feelings.
There, there, don't cry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice how the computer company EXTRACTED money from the USMB Progs to allow them to post here!