Robert Riech Slobbers About Fairness

[CrusaderFrank]

Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery

 

[MikeK]

Who the heck are you to determine what is excessive?

Someone must do the thinking for you corporatist water-carriers who clearly aren't capable of governing yourselves in a manner which is capable of preserving democracy. You have this fanatical Libertarian idea that being American means absolutely no constraints on what you regard as your freedom. The following is one example of why your reasoning has been warped by right-wing propaganda.

The Second Amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms. Now that means weapons, doesn't it? But do you have a right to keep and bear a flame-thrower? Or an RPG? Or a Stinger missile? How about a 105mm Howitzer? The fact is some things are simply excessive and if allowed to exist would impose grave dangers to mainstream society, so someone had to determine what is excessive and recommend sensible controls.

The same situation exists with the nation's wealth resources. Too much money in the hands of individuals or small groups is redundant and represents a corrosive threat to our political structure. The United States is not a collection of autonomous individuals. It is an organized society which relies on the exercise of rules and regulations to facilitate its survival.

Do you starry eyed liberals not understand that the thing that made this country great wasn't a "fairness" doctrine where we all shared equally but was instead that the US offered more opportunities for those without wealth to create it for themselves and their loved ones then any other place on the planet? Why would we change that? And if we WERE going to change it then why would we copy countries that are now failing? That makes ZERO sense.

There is nothing wrong with wealth. But excessive wealth has a serious corrosive potential which must be controlled.

What never fails to amaze me is how most of you run-of-the-mill water-carriers for the super-rich don't have a pot to piss in and can't even conceive of more money than a few thousand dollars in a 401k account, yet you are ready to go to war to defend the right of some scheming sonofabitch to accumulate a fifty billion dollar fortune.

I don't care what Gordon Gekko said. Greed is not good. So wise up and try to understand what is best for your Country rather than for some greedy character whom you don't know and never will but who thinks of you as an ordinary zero to be exploited and ignored.

Last, try to understand that equitable is not the same as equal. Look them up.

 

[kiwiman127]

The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist

 

[MikeK]

Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery

America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.

 

[Listening]

Excessive wealth translates to excessive political power. It enables individuals and/or small groups to more effectively corrupt politicians and officials.

I am afraid I don't see it as a single dynamic.

This wealth has not only resulted in people getting richer at the top, but has also affected people in the middle class too.

To the extent they have lost touch with political happenings.

Corrupt politicians (as you like to call them) can only exist if we allow them to exist.

If you are suggesting that all that money buys votes....I would agree to the extent that people are stupid enough to be influenced by 30 second commercials and yard signs.

I don't blame the rich as much as I blame us.

 

[Oldstyle]

Who the heck are you to determine what is excessive?

Someone must do the thinking for you corporatist water-carriers who clearly aren't capable of governing yourselves in a manner which is capable of preserving democracy. You have this fanatical Libertarian idea that being American means absolutely no constraints on what you regard as your freedom. The following is one example of why your reasoning has been warped by right-wing propaganda.

The Second Amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms. Now that means weapons, doesn't it? But do you have a right to keep and bear a flame-thrower? Or an RPG? Or a Stinger missile? How about a 105mm Howitzer? The fact is some things are simply excessive and if allowed to exist would impose grave dangers to mainstream society, so someone had to determine what is excessive and recommend sensible controls.

The same situation exists with the nation's wealth resources. Too much money in the hands of individuals or small groups is redundant and represents a corrosive threat to our political structure. The United States is not a collection of autonomous individuals. It is an organized society which relies on the exercise of rules and regulations to facilitate its survival.

Do you starry eyed liberals not understand that the thing that made this country great wasn't a "fairness" doctrine where we all shared equally but was instead that the US offered more opportunities for those without wealth to create it for themselves and their loved ones then any other place on the planet? Why would we change that? And if we WERE going to change it then why would we copy countries that are now failing? That makes ZERO sense.

There is nothing wrong with wealth. But excessive wealth has a serious corrosive potential which must be controlled.

What never fails to amaze me is how most of you run-of-the-mill water-carriers for the super-rich don't have a pot to piss in and can't even conceive of more money than a few thousand dollars in a 401k account, yet you are ready to go to war to defend the right of some scheming sonofabitch to accumulate a fifty billion dollar fortune.

I don't care what Gordon Gekko said. Greed is not good. So wise up and try to understand what is best for your Country rather than for some greedy character whom you don't know and never will but who thinks of you as an ordinary zero to be exploited and ignored.

Last, try to understand that equitable is not the same as equal. Look them up.

First of all you know nothing about me so please don't make assumptions that you do...it simply makes you look ignorant. I don't "carry water" for billionaires...I carry water for the system and country that has produced more billionaires than anywhere on earth. Your notion that someone else should have the power to limit what any of us can achieve runs counter to what made this country great.

Secondly...Gordon Gekko is a fictional character created by a liberal director to portray what "he" saw as the greed inherent in Wall Street. Gordon Gekko does not exist...he does not know me or you or anyone else nor does he "think" of us. He is a figment of Oliver Stone's imagination.

 

[Oldstyle]

The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist

Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.

 

[MikeK]

The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist

Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.

It is easily verifiable that the reason why corporations are able to suppress competitive emergence and why well-positioned individuals are able to amass grossly excessive accumulations of personal wealth is not simply regulations but selectively imposed regulations and, more importantly, the progression of de-regulation that began with Ronald Reagan and was evidenced early-on by the ruinous Savings & Loan scam. That should have been the harbinger of what could come of the removal of regulations in the areas of business and finance which had stabilzed our economy and ensured the fluid circulation of the Nation's wealth resource throughout the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. But it didn't wake us up. Instead we went full steam ahead with Reaganomics -- and here we are.

So your notion that regulations, per se, are responsible for impeding business start-ups ignores the glaring fact that all of our economic problems, including that one, are the consequence of selective regulation and de-regulation, which is the presumptive consequence of bribery of our legislators by well-positioned individuals and business interests. And I'm not laying it all at the Republicans' feet because one of the most recent examples of damaging deregulation was the repeal of Glass-Steagal by Bill Clinton. One can only wonder how much he was paid for unlocking that door.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Fairness isn't inconsistent with growth; it's essential to it. The only way the economy can grow and create more jobs is if prosperity is more widely shared. "

This is a quote from Robert Reich's column that Listening posted and linked to in the OP. Seems to me that our periods of greatest economic growth and job creation were also the times when income inequality were the greatest. And our periods of recession and slow growth/job creation were also the times when "fairness" was greater. Kind of puts the lie to Reich's statement.

IMHO, economic growth/job creation RESULT in more shared prosperity, rather than the other way around. It is true that in such times the higher income folks get a greater % of the new wealth, mostly cuz they were the ones that put up most of the investment capital, taking the risks that went with that. And that's not to say that under different economic conditions, such as the roaring 1990s with the irrational exuberance and animal spirits, that you can't raise tax rates and get away with it.

But not now. I think we better be concentrating on making the size of the pie bigger rather than who gets a bigger or smaller piece. I'd rather have more people working even if it means the rich guys are getting richer. I know of no instance anywhere in the world where a developed economy pulled itself out of bad times by redistributing wealth.

 

[daveman]

Why care who owns what? That's always baffled me.
It's when you learn to love and appreciate nothing that you've found true wealth.
Fucking crybabies.

The reason to be concerned about who owns what is inequitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is destabilizing and ultimately destructive to democracy.

Wealth is power. Excessive wealth is excessive power. Accumulation of excessive wealth should not be permitted.

Who decides what's excessive? Lazy retards shitting in a park in NYC?

 

[daveman]

Hey if the Libs feel that the government doesn't have enough money to spend
they can always pay more when tax time comes around.
Nobody is stopping them.

No way. They're only generous with other people's money.

 

[Katzndogz]

Fairness and equality are polar opposites of progress and growth.

 

[kiwiman127]

The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist

Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.

First of all Oldstyle, thanks and kudos for putting in the effort to read the article I linked.
Yes, the article is before Obama assumed office but in fact the trend has continued so therefore the basics of the article hold true. The trend is actually something that has been happening for decades, therefore does your theory of over-regulation apply as we have had both Dem and GOP administrations and congresses. who would be pro or anti regulation? I'd say somewhat and is a factor among factors.
I can't even say that it's an issue that government can solve as I view it as something that brews from the private sector and it coincides with the flat wage growth and the growth of the inequality between the wealthy and everyone else.
Does it have something to do with the ever growing cost of education which is pricing itself out of reach for many Americans? I think in a sense, yes. Look at the graph I attached. Also, I remember when having a BA/BS degree and intelligent hard work, guaranteed a person an opportunity a great chance of climbing the ladder to success. Now you need more education, more degrees.
Again, I think this is an issue that the private sector and the educational sector need to address. Not having a viable unward mobility environment only contributes to the US becoming less competitive on the world stage.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Seems to me that our periods of greatest economic growth and job creation were also the times when income inequality were the greatest. And our periods of recession and slow growth/job creation were also the times when "fairness" was greater.

[...]

Someone told you that and you believe it. But the fact is the most prosperous and productive period in our history were the decades between the 40s and the 80s, a time when the union movement and regulations imposed by The New Deal had achieved an equitable (not "equal") redistribution of the Nation's wealth resources, giving rise to the American Middle Class.

Then came Reaganomics and here we are.

The facts are readily available via Google. But there are none so blind as they who will not see.

 

[Katzndogz]

A lot happened between the 40s and 80s. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society happened. The rise of an ever more demanding welfare class happened and that started the decline. Increasingly potent street drug happened right along with an acceptance of those drugs and calls for legalization. A human tsunami of illegal aliens happened right along with some societal acceptance that they are somehow beneficial because even leeches have some value.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Fairness and equality are polar opposites of progress and growth.

Like always you are wrong
More inequality results in lower economic growth

IMF: Income inequality is terrible for economic growth - The Washington Post
^A 10 percentile decrease in inequalities results in the economy period between recessions 50% larger.
^Large inequalities’ helps create financial crashes

Economist's View: Inequality "Has Deep Pernicious Effects"
^Living near richer people results in consumption habits that are inefficient such as purchasing more jewelry and other non-living standard increasing goods

Growth that is centered around poor to middle class citizens is more efficient then growth center around rich people because rich people speculate in CDO's, and other markets while poor people spend on demand orientated goods, also rich people compete for goods whose supply is arbitrary limited for example first class seats, expensive restaurants, and beach front property.

Economic Issues 1 -- Growth in East Asia
^The success of the Asian Tigers can be attributed to a good primary education system and low income inequality.

http://www.ijeronline.com/documents/volumes/Vol 2 issue 5/ijer20110205SO(2).pdf
^Regressional statistical models and empirical evidence form several studies conclude that increases in income inequality lower GDP growth. Partly due to an inability for the larger poorer population from being able to invest

Study: Income Inequality Kills Economic Growth | Mother Jones
^Empirical study looking at Asia, and Latin America finds that upticks in income inequality resulted in less GPD growth. This can be partly explained by an increase in debt/speculative economic growth rather than income/demand growth.
^A 10% decrease in inequality results in a 50% longer growth spell

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
^IMF Chappeons of austerity conclude that more inequality leads to less sustained growth

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that are pure luxury instead of goods that increase wellbeing. For example a poor person who sees an influx in income will more likely spend that income on healthcare, healthier food, or other goods that have investment returns, while a rich person is more likely to get jewelry, or private jets.

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that have productive constraints.
For example a poor person who sees an influx in income is more likely to purchase basic goods like clothes, food, or appliances whose production can be increased easily via more labor harvesting, while a rich person is more likely to buy collectable items, beach front properties, or wines from a special region all goods whose production cannot be increases purely by increases labor or harvesting.

 

[starcraftzzz]

A lot happened between the 40s and 80s. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society happened. The rise of an ever more demanding welfare class happened and that started the decline. Increasingly potent street drug happened right along with an acceptance of those drugs and calls for legalization. A human tsunami of illegal aliens happened right along with some societal acceptance that they are somehow beneficial because even leeches have some value.

Poverty went from around 50% to 12%. Economic growth per capital was 50% higher from 1934-1980 then afterwards. Amazing that you think that is a decline.

 

[Oldstyle]

The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility.
Who cares about their children's future? If people do, then they should have some concern about the every growing inequality. The more economic inequality, the less upwards mobility. As a matter of fact, European's have more upwards mobility than the US? And we invented the American Dream!
Read this article from the Conservative The Economist.

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend | The Economist

Interesting article, Kiwiman...but I'll point out some major flaws in it's conclusions. First of all it was written BEFORE Barack Obama's rather remarkable ascent to the Presidency which in and of itself shoots a huge hole in the author's contention that upward mobility is in fact dead in this country. Secondly, it points out an increasing divide between the haves and the have not's but doesn't delve into WHY that might be taking place. I would make the argument that our country is so over regulated at this point that the opportunities that were there for upward mobility 40 years ago are simply not there today. Progressives for some reason think that the answer is MORE regulation, which is actually a formula for the locking out of people looking to start a business of their own. One of the reasons that big corporations are seizing more and more power and control in this country isn't because they are allowed to amass more wealth but that their natural competition...the thing that would normally counterbalance them...the ambitious start up business...faces a mountain of regulations that they need to comply with in order to exist. To be blunt...they don't get out of the starting gate because they're forced to jump through so many regulatory hoops that they can't start and if those businesses don't start then you aren't going to GET upward mobility.

First of all Oldstyle, thanks and kudos for putting in the effort to read the article I linked.
Yes, the article is before Obama assumed office but in fact the trend has continued so therefore the basics of the article hold true. The trend is actually something that has been happening for decades, therefore does your theory of over-regulation apply as we have had both Dem and GOP administrations and congresses. who would be pro or anti regulation? I'd say somewhat and is a factor among factors.
I can't even say that it's an issue that government can solve as I view it as something that brews from the private sector and it coincides with the flat wage growth and the growth of the inequality between the wealthy and everyone else.
Does it have something to do with the ever growing cost of education which is pricing itself out of reach for many Americans? I think in a sense, yes. Look at the graph I attached. Also, I remember when having a BA/BS degree and intelligent hard work, guaranteed a person an opportunity a great chance of climbing the ladder to success. Now you need more education, more degrees.
Again, I think this is an issue that the private sector and the educational sector need to address. Not having a viable unward mobility environment only contributes to the US becoming less competitive on the world stage.

With all due respect, Kiwi...the "trend" of wealthy people holding office has continued worldwide since politics began thousands of years ago. The fact that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have recently managed to become President of the United States, even though they both started from rather humble beginnings, tells me that the article's author doesn't prove his point.

As for my contention that over regulation by government has become a huge detriment to start-up businesses? The fact is that BOTH Republican and Democratic lawmakers love to add regulations to an already over regulated private sector. It isn't something that just one side does...both sides think that "their" regulations are going to make things better but in most cases their good intentions don't produce the results they sought. The fact is, many successful businesses that were created twenty, thirty or forty years ago would most likely NOT be created now because governmental regulation has made starting a business so complicated that it scares people away from making the attempt. The fewer start-ups you have, the less competition existing companies face and competition is what really fosters wage growth. If I'm the owner of a business I'm going to give my best employees a raise for one of two reasons generally...either to reward them for making the company more profits or to keep a competitor from luring them away. I'm not going to do so because of "income equality issues" because if I do then I'm not going to stay in business for very long because my competitors are going to kill me on costs. If you REALLY want to see wages go up then you need to increase the number of businesses that are hiring. THAT is what increases wages to the Middle Class, not some misguided notion that making wealthy people pay more in taxes will allow you to funnel more money to the poor.

As for the cost of education? At what point do we stop and ask what our "educators" have done to create this problem? I'll give you an example of the problem. In large part we pay public sector employees not on results but on the length of time they have been on the job and on the level of their education. You can be a mediocre teacher or manager yet continue to get raises because you've gone back to school to get a Masters or a Doctorate. Do those degrees necessarily make you a BETTER teacher or manager? That's debatable but the truth is, Kiwi...for the most part those teachers and managers don't care! They go back to school to get the additional degrees for the additional money that it brings them through the contracts that their unions have foisted upon the taxpayer...not for additional "knowledge". So we've got "institutions of higher learning" that are in essence diploma mills that move people through the system for a price simply because they need that piece of paper to get a pay increase. At the same time there's been a degree "inflation" that's taken place where an undergraduate degree now counts for as much as a high school diploma did back in the day and if you want a good paying job you now need to go to graduate school and spend tens of thousands of dollars. Have colleges done anything to keep costs lower? Let's be honest here...if educations are going to be "financed" with long term low interest loans supported by the taxpayer then what incentive have colleges HAD over the past forty years to lower costs? The answer to that is that they haven't had any incentive to keep costs lower...they've actually been given the ability to keep increasing the cost of college BECAUSE it's being supported by our student loan system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery

America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.

You're either a stupid fucking asshole or a liar, there's no third option

 

[starcraftzzz]

Because the government does not share prosperity, it only shares misery

America's prosperity was shared very nicely from the 40s through to the 80s, when the shift to Reaganomics altered the system and put an eventual end to shared prosperity. The end result of that intrusive tampering and deregulation is what we've seen in recent years -- the near collapse of our once-vibrant and flawlessly functioning economy and the misery of millions made homeless and impoverished.

You're either a stupid fucking asshole or a liar, there's no third option

Its alwys nice that GOPers think reality is a lie