Republicans are in trouble

[Dragon]

I'd be more than happy to respond to your nonsense, Dragon.

Thank you.

First of all if the government removes capital from the top earners, those top earners cannot use that capital to create jobs. That hurts all those below them in the economic pyramid.

Your assumption here, which is incorrect, is that just because capital CAN be used to create jobs, it WILL be used to create jobs. In fact, that is only true to the extent that consumer demand exists for the products or services which those jobs would produce and bring to market. Otherwise, there is no return likely on the investment and it will not be made. To the extent that capital exceeds this threshold (and it ALWAYS does to some degree), it may be taken in taxes without any damage to the economy and even, depending on what the government does with the money, most of the time with a net economic benefit.

Jobs are created by the private sector.

Jobs may also be created by the public sector. So unless you mean no more by this than the bare statement, i.e. unless you had no intention to imply an "only" before "created," you are mistaken here as well.

Consumers cannot consume until someone MAKES something to consume. A business person has to decide that there is a potential demand for a product or service...invest capital in order to produce that product or provide that service...and then cross their fingers that they've figured correctly and that consumers will purchase their good or their service. Consumers are not the job makers. Jobs are made by the person that risks capital in hopes of making a profit.

Your first sentence is true, but trivial, and you are drawing a false conclusion from it. Consumption cannot pre-exist production, but demand does and must. That is, there must be money in circulation, and desire to buy (at least potentially), or no production will ever take place at all. A business person does not make that decision that goods or services may be profitably sold in a vacuum or as a wild guess. Either the product or service is already established and on the market, or else it's a new and innovative product. In the latter case, the business person is only likely to make the investment and take the risk to the extent there is money out there to be spent, which he can reasonably hope to divert from other purchases based on a perceived need or desire for the innovative product. If unemployment is high and most people are broke, there is no way that demand will exist for the new product no matter how desirable it is, and business is less likely to take a risk.

Investment in job-creating ventures is ALWAYS driven by consumer demand.

If we were to raise our top marginal tax rate to 90% what little growth we are experiencing would vanish like a puff of smoke in a stiff breeze and we would instantly go back into a severe double dip recession.

Why, then, did we not experience prosperity vanishing like a puff of smoke when we HAD top marginal tax rates that high?

Suppose that, in addition to the tax, we also enacted a complete dollar-for-dollar deduction for all investment in manufacturing or services that created jobs, but NOT for investment in financial instruments or other money-shuffling schemes that produce no real wealth? Would that not drive into productive investments capital that is now being unproductively invested, in order for people to avoid paying such high tax rates?

You have to lower the top to lift the bottom? Come on, that's ridiculous.

No, it's not. The reason, again, goes back to consumer demand, or more precisely the ratio between demand and productivity. Which is dependent on the ratio between wages and productivity. If wages don't keep pace with productivity, then the ability of the economy to absorb what is produced declines and eventually causes production to fall and the loss of jobs, which causes a loss of general prosperity. But if wages DO keep pace with productivity, that causes a drop in profit margins (because costs of business are increased with higher wages) which reduces income gains at the top.

We can either encourage the amassing of great wealth on the part of a few individuals at the top of the tree, OR we can encourage widespread prosperity and a strong middle class. But we can't do both, because those ends are conflicting.

As for when pay rises? Pay rises when business is good and there is competition for the best workers.

That's not always the case, and moreover it's not always the case that when business is good there is competition for the best workers. Or even when there is, that still isn't enough for full employment. It's not enough for the BEST workers to be decently paid; in order to have a healthy economy it must be the case that ALL workers are decently paid, while the best workers are better paid still.

It really helps to go back to the period when our economy was strongest -- 1942-1973 -- and look at how things were done then. Many of the factors that conservative economics insists are bad for the economy (high taxes on the rich, government regulation, strong labor unions) were in place in those days, and the economy far outperformed what it has done since those factors were changed.

You seem to think that if you just legislated pay raises for everyone that the economy would take off.

I didn't say that, did I? I believe in more market-based solutions for the most part, such as encouraging the formation of labor unions, and then allowing the increased bargaining power of labor to keep wages high, rather than having some bureaucrat impose high wages by fiat. I make an exception at the bottom because of the extreme difficulty of organizing very low-paid work, so I approve of minimum-waqe laws, but would not like to see the government dictate wages at all levels of the economy directly. I believe there are better ways -- which are still, nonetheless, liberal ways.

Employers will always pay employees more when they risk losing those employees to someone who WILL pay them more. That's how the free enterprise system works. If I have a great employee who's incredibly productive and I DON'T compensate him or her? I run the very real risk of losing them to my competition.

This is true, but while it can have an impact on differential pay for different employers WITHIN the overall labor market, it has no effect on the labor-market baseline. You are not going to be able to arbitrarily pay someone less than market scale, or indeed you risk losing him to someone who will pay more. However, that factor does nothing to raise the share overall going to labor as compared to capital, and the imbalances we see today in that are what is hurting our economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The government cannot 'help' the middle class by taking away assets from the top earners.

Yes, it can.

Like it or not, these are the job creators.

No, they're not. Consumers are the job creators. The rich are just the middlemen.



No, it doesn't. Our economy was at its best when the top marginal tax rate was above 90%.



Yes, it can. See just above.



Lifting the bottom is impossible without lowering the top.



That's certainly not the best way, at least not by itself.

The bottom is lifted by education, training and skill improvement.

That helps, although "entitlements and giveaways" are necessary to accomplish it. On top of education and training, though, we also need unions. Otherwise, pay will not rise to match productivity.

It doesn't matter if a worker is a manual laborer. He or she can always learn to do their job better and more efficiently. This makes that worker more valuable to the employer and thus that employer will be more likely to reward that worker with higher wages.

Employers do not pay workers either what they can, or what they are worth. Employers pay workers what they have to. If the worker learns to do the job more efficiently, and does not have the bargaining power that comes with either a union or a labor shortage, the employer will simply take advantage of the improved productivity, pocketing all of the gains. Only if he must will he pay a reasonable share of those gains to the worker producing them.

Typical lib rhetorical denial.
No it isn't. Yes it is. No it won't....
Ok, can you supply examples which refute decades of economic history?
I am not going to discuss this with you. You are of the progressive/socialist elite that believes government should control all commerce and all wealth. You believe in the zero sum game.
You are a slave to union propaganda.
Unions are on their way out. Private sector unions have been defeated. Now the attack is on the public worker unions.
7% of all private sector workers are union. 20% of public sector workers are union.
We do not NEED a middleman to tell employers what to do with THEIR business.
What you union thugs refuse to acknowledge is that unions are businesses. And as such operate in their own self interest. Have you ever seen a poor union delegate? They all make tons of money. Off the back of the workers.
Here's a story of how unions throw workers under the bus. And how the workers, mostly minority people are taken advantage of by the union bosses....
Note...this is from a socialist website.
Union-Busters Close Stella D'Oro Factory
The workers had the opportunity to keep their jobs at somewhat lower pay and slightly more costly benefits. 90% of a loaf is better than no loaf...
The union expected the company to cave. I watched the documentary on HBO about this. Unions.......

 

[Chris]

The Republicans have run out of bullets.

The tide has turned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Republicans have run out of bullets.

The tide has turned.

Chris has moved to the great plain of denial. I hear it's a great place to live with peace within yourself for thinking the thing's they do while they are in reality that they hope will happen. It's when people like Chris leave the great plain of denial an re-enter Reality they become agitated and desperate and lie to others in hopes of getting back to the great plain of denial.

 

[zonly1]

Honestly, this is Obama's election to lose. The economy is already showing signs of improving. GDP is up over 2.5%, unemployment will be down below 9%, corporations are making earnings hand over fist... and the best candidate the Republicans have to show us is Mitt Romney, who has an opinion based upon what day of the week and what direction the wind is blowing.

A 3rd party candidate like Ron Paul will only split the Republican vote.

Honestly, all Obama has to do is just maintain the course and hope that nothing absolutely horrible happens in the next year and that the economy continues to, even if slowly, improve.

The American people do not like Obama. He is cold, aloof, distant, rarely shows personality, his economy policies have increased our national debt by over $3 trillion, our federal deficit each year is over $1 trillion... but at least they know they can trust him. He's taken out Ghadaffi, Osama, the guy in Yemen... we are SAFER today, then we were 4 years ago.

Romney is a flip-flopper. The American people will not be able to trust him and the American people would rather vote for someone they trust vs. someone they like. All Obama has to do is stay the course, hope that no scandals arise, make a few speeches, beat Romney in a debate or two and promise Israel that they can launch their attack on Iran in December 2012.

Let see where do we start with the Kenyan transplant. Any suggestions from the cheap seat section?

 

[zonly1]

The Republicans have run out of bullets.

The tide has turned.

Hey dumas bernucklehead and obama have run out of bullets yet you're the type of sheeple who are sleazily fooled. It means that bernucklehead has followed the wrong path base on classroom theroy NOT business reality.

Try and review the econ fundamentals before you bloviate w/o consideration.

 

[editec]

The Rpublicans are in trouble?

Shit, dog, the whole forking nation is in trouble.

Indeed, WESTERN CIV itself is in serious trouble.

 

[Dragon]

Ok, can you supply examples which refute decades of economic history?

No need. Decades of economic history are on my side of the argument. Specifically:

1900-1940 -- per capita economic growth per year averaged 2.15%.

1940-1980 -- per capita economic growth per year averaged 4.62%.

1980-present -- per capita economic growth per year averaged (approximately) 2.11%.

In 1940-1980, top marginal taxes ranged from 70%-92%, unions were strong, the financial industry was tightly regulated. And under that situation, which supply-side economic theory says should result in disaster, economic growth outstripped the earlier and later decades, run according to principles that conservative economic theory says should work better, by MORE THAN TWO TO ONE.

That's history. It agrees with me, not you.

Once again, we see that reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Katzndogz]

If communism was going to work, it would have worked somewhere it's been tried. If socialism was going to work it would have worked somewhere it's been tried.

Surely if socialism was going to work at all Europe would not be collapsing under the weight of its societal demands.

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If communism was going to work, it would have worked somewhere it's been tried. If socialism was going to work it would have worked somewhere it's been tried.

Surely if socialism was going to work at all Europe would not be collapsing under the weight of its societal demands.

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

What people who support socialism are unaware of is that you still have inequality in socialism. You have the majority being ruled by the minority with no way of escape.

 

[editec]

If communism was going to work, it would have worked somewhere it's been tried. If socialism was going to work it would have worked somewhere it's been tried.

Surely if socialism was going to work at all Europe would not be collapsing under the weight of its societal demands.

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

What people who support socialism are unaware of is that you still have inequality in socialism. You have the majority being ruled by the minority with no way of escape.

There are not many people here who are proposing socialism as a system of government and economy.

There are a lot of people (who the clueless knownothing of USMB are calling socialist ) who believe in capitalism and democracy and the limited regulation both to insure that both SURVIVE the KLEPTOCRACY that currently controls our nation.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ask a leftist, they all expect that once the government has the power to seize the wealth of an individual they will, of course, redistribute that wealth exactly as they promised. Not a single leftist has any basis at all to base that belief. Or, they can riot! Use the same tactics as before! Yes, that will work. Then when they are flatted by tanks, they can cry about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

You really think obama has a snow balls chance in hell of winning? HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT WITH A WEAK ECONOMY THE RESIDING PRESIDENT IS NEVER RE-ELECTED. I would wait a few months before I made that claim. If the economy stay's in the shitter like it is unless he cheats Saddam has a better chance coming back to life then obma winning dog catch in bum fuck Egypt.

This premise is incorrect. A 2.5% increase of $14.5 trillion shows that our economy spent $362 billion more in our 3rd quarter than the previous quarter. We're not going to see 8's or 9's over here.

You are looking at it in the wrong way. What people notice is their wallets and how many people they know who are on short time or out of work. They notice all the people at the grocery store using those food stamp plastic cards. They notice that gas has not went down even though it was said gas would go down when Gadaffi gone. They really don't care about the GDP or dow or nasdk numbers they care about the numbers in their wallet. Those numbers are not in obamas favor.

You are counting on the rest of the American Citizens being as dumb as you are. We just aren't that dumb and willfully ignorant. We remember what President Obama inherited from Bush. And we remember what Bush inherited from Clinton.

Our President has accomplished much, even with the total enmity of the right wingnuts in Congress and out. After he is re-elected, and most of the wingnuts are dismissed by the people that have found them to be totally stupid, with a vacuous agenda, he will accomplish more.

 

[Old Rocks]

If communism was going to work, it would have worked somewhere it's been tried. If socialism was going to work it would have worked somewhere it's been tried.

Surely if socialism was going to work at all Europe would not be collapsing under the weight of its societal demands.

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

What people who support socialism are unaware of is that you still have inequality in socialism. You have the majority being ruled by the minority with no way of escape.

There are not many people here who are proposing socialism as a system of government and economy.

There are a lot of people (who the clueless knownothing of USMB are calling socialist ) who believe in capitalism and democracy and the limited regulation both to insure that both SURVIVE the KLEPTOCRACY that currently controls our nation.

Without watchful regulation, capitalism degrades into feudalism, where the top people believe they have the God given right to the fruits of the labor of everybody else without any compensation to the people that are producing the wealth.

Government at all levels has to be watched by those that are governed. There are people for whom even a little power is reason to exercise unreasonable enforcement of reasonable regulations and laws. Such must be removed from power, either by their superiors, in appointed positions, or by the voters, in elected positions.

Socialism and capitalism are tools that we use where applicable to create a productive and mobile society. Treating either as a religion to be applied in all cases results in disaster.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If communism was going to work, it would have worked somewhere it's been tried. If socialism was going to work it would have worked somewhere it's been tried.

Surely if socialism was going to work at all Europe would not be collapsing under the weight of its societal demands.

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

What people who support socialism are unaware of is that you still have inequality in socialism. You have the majority being ruled by the minority with no way of escape.

There are not many people here who are proposing socialism as a system of government and economy.

There are a lot of people (who the clueless knownothing of USMB are calling socialist ) who believe in capitalism and democracy and the limited regulation both to insure that both SURVIVE the KLEPTOCRACY that currently controls our nation.

Here's one example of someone who does not realize what he supports. Once you allow the government more control run more things that control your life you are support full blown socialism. in the end. it's just a matter of time.

 

[Dragon]

If communism was going to work [snip]

Why bring up a subject nobody is discussing, except to muddy the waters?

If taxing the rich to pay the poor for sloth would result in a more successful society California and New York would be at the top instead of nearing bankruptcy.

California and New York ARE at the top, or near it anyway. By household income, California ranks 9th among the states and New York ranks 15th. Of the states doing better than those two, i.e. top 8, all are liberal states except Alaska and Virginia. Alaska is pulled up by small population and oil revenue, and Virginia by its DC suburbs. The other 6 richest states are Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Among states that play the game by the rules you think works, well:

Texas ranks 25th
Florida, 38th
Tennessee, 44th
Oklahoma, 45th
Alabama, 46th
Kentucky, 47th
Arkansas, 48th
Mississippi, 50th

Once again, we see that reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Dragon]

Here's one example of someone who does not realize what he supports. Once you allow the government more control run more things that control your life you are support full blown socialism. in the end. it's just a matter of time.

Well, then you should have no trouble showing us at least one example of a country that has gone from economic liberalism to "full blown socialism," thus demonstrating the real-world existence of this slippery slope.

What's that? There is no such country, anywhere in the world? Well, glory be!

Once again, we see that reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ohhhhh That's why California hasn't got enough money to even fix its potholes!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's one example of someone who does not realize what he supports. Once you allow the government more control run more things that control your life you are support full blown socialism. in the end. it's just a matter of time.

Well, then you should have no trouble showing us at least one example of a country that has gone from economic liberalism to "full blown socialism," thus demonstrating the real-world existence of this slippery slope.

What's that? There is no such country, anywhere in the world? Well, glory be!

Once again, we see that reality has a liberal bias.

Did I say America has gone full blown socialism? Do you even know what socialism is?
Socialism is the economic system used by most dictatorships.

 

[Dragon]

Did I say America has gone full blown socialism?

No, but here's what you did say:

Once you allow the government more control run more things that control your life you are support full blown socialism. in the end. it's just a matter of time

Clearly, what you are saying is that if we implement any kind of economic liberalism, Euro-socialism, social democracy, etc. we will end up with full-blown socialism.

The reality, though, is there is not one single historical example of a country that has EVER evolved in this way. Not one European social democracy, not the U.S. when we had a similar system (1940s-1970s), not Japan, nobody. There is no evidence at all to support your contention that economic liberalism leads to full-blown socialism. It has never happened anywhere, and there is no reason to believe it ever will.

Do you even know what socialism is?

Better than you do, most likely. For example, this:

Socialism is the economic system used by most dictatorships.

Would not be a defining characteristic of socialism even if it were true. Which it isn't.