What do you want your economy to do

[Rshermr]

What I want:

For the government to enforce a Constitutionally valid Rule of Law, regulatory and tax systems, evenly and fairly applied to everyone equally.

Then, I want everyone to be left alone to freely participate (or not) in the economy in whatever opportunities his or her talents, skills, knowledge, ambition, life situation, and luck (yes luck) provide.

Period.

Perfect. Then monopoly power, outsourcing, and the elimination of jobs through automation are of no concern to you. Re education of the working class is not of any interest. And you do not give a damn why other countries are doing much better than we in the current environment. Got it. Another vote for a good run at a Libertarian style of economy.

 

[boedicca]

What I want:

For the government to enforce a Constitutionally valid Rule of Law, regulatory and tax systems, evenly and fairly applied to everyone equally.

Then, I want everyone to be left alone to freely participate (or not) in the economy in whatever opportunities his or her talents, skills, knowledge, ambition, life situation, and luck (yes luck) provide.

Period.

Perfect. Then monopoly power, outsourcing, and the elimination of jobs through automation are of no concern to you. Re education of the working class is not of any interest. And you do not give a damn why other countries are doing much better than we in the current environment. Got it. Another vote for a good run at a Libertarian style of economy.

The strawmen false choices in your post are so numerous that one match will ignite them all: you are an economic illiterate.


The two choices are not anarchy vs. government control. The broader the span of civil society, the better off everyone is. History demonstrates this to those who care to be informed. Government infantalization of citizens, which destroys their ability to contribute to Civil Society, actually enables all the Horrible Things you erroneously attribute to Civil People exercising their natural right of liberty.

 

[akelch]

There were regulated monopolies. But beyond that, there are no true monopolies. They are illegal, obviously. So, it would be a bit hard to name a true monopoly that got that way without gov assistance. Regulated monopolies are those that you would not want to be multiple companies, ie, for the good of the country. So, you really did not want multiple water companies, each digging up the roads competing for business in a single town. And so forth.

But, there are many companies with monopoly power. Verizon, now in the cell phone, and land line, industry. The result of buying up smaller phone companies. Exxon has lots of monopoly power, along with the other oil companies. Etc, etc. They did not need gov help to get where they wanted to go, except for political favors to allow them to bypass antitrust legislation, get drilling rights, that sort of thing. Assuming a completely free marketplace, with no government regulation, Exxon or BP or Conoco would be by now a single monopoly. All they need to do is buy out the other companies.

So, what I am saying is that the only reason that there are not more monopolies is because of the gov. Or said another way, because of us. We did not want monopolies. We set up the laws, through our representatives in government, to prevent that. Sherman Anti Trust act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. If you believe in no gov intervention, then you probably are a follower of the Chicago economic theory, founded and led by Milton Freedman, and supported by the Libertarian economics views, and by some very wealthy businessmen.

Because of government we have monopolies like the Federal Reserve which effects everyone including our government.

You are misguided if you think government intervention creates competition and helps to "spread the wealth" of the market place.
It does just the opposite.

The federal reserve???? You may want to go to Wikipedia to get a better idea of what the fed is. It is not a monopoly, but a body set up to regulate finance in this country. Sounds like you do not much like it. You may want to look and see what happened before it was created. Not that I think it is perfect, by any stretch. But if you like unregulated financial systems, then you may want to wonder why Jefferson was so dead set against unregulated banking.

But, if you are looking at monopoly, then you would be looking at B of A, Chase, and the others. The share of deposites held by the largest 5 banks in this country has grown from 9% in 1984 to 40% in 2009. Completely as a result of banks gobbling up banks. And remember, banks have to get regulatory approval to buy other banks. What do you expect will happen if those regulations were either loosened or removed, as many in congress want??

So, the great depression ocured as banks failed. The great recession of 2008 occured as financial organizations failed. We saved banks useing taxpayer money, because banks failed. If it were not for the fact that banks have become so large, those things would not have happened. So, do you still suggest that unregulated finance is the way to move forward. Or should finance be regulated???

Before you get a big head, and call someone misguided, open your mind a little. Do you think that you pay $4 per gallon because of unregulated competition??? Do you think that gas costs four times as much to produce today as it did in the 1980's??? Have you noticed who controls the supply of oil, and influences the demand for oil? Have you noticed that the demand for oil is inelastic??? And that somehow, gas prices increase just until the public starts to demand government help, then drops part way back down until the public breaths a sigh of relief, then increase again, and decrease again, in a ratchet process. Do you think this is market driven?? Do you believe that trading in gas, by entities that never take delivery of a drop, is a market driven concept??

The concept that monopolies are created by the gov is very naive. Basically, it is a political concept that has no real validity in the real world. Remember, with the exception of Natural Monopolies, those controlled by the gov, monopolies are basically illegal. With few exceptions. If you remove those legal restrictions, you would have greater monopoly power, and more monopolies. Plain and simple. Because it is the natural result of competition. Companies buy companies to gain market share. Complete market share is the ultimate prize, and would be attainable without gov intervention. And, read what I say carefully. I am not saying that all industries tend to complete monopoly. Many do not. But nearly all tend toward monopoly power and oligopoly, if not true monopoly.

Ed's statement about IBM is an example where monopoly power did not work in a particular area. For instance, the desktop component of IBM failed, for technical and legal reasons. They just were not too smart. But their core business, mainframe computers, was and still is largely a monopoly.

Microsoft has not won all areas in the tech world. But you may want to look back at companies like WordPerfect and Lotus123, and try to understand why they ended up failing. It was, clearly, the monopoly power of Microsoft that killed them and many more companies along the way.

You have a skewed view of the marketplace and the role Government plays.

About the Fed. Why is it that only one bank can create our money? Who gave them that power? Who owns the Fed? Why are they out of the jurisdiction of congress?

So they control our currency. They control the interest rates. They can create depressions and market bubbles at will.....how is this not a monopoly? And why do they not have competition?

I would go as far as to say they control our government.

 

[akelch]

Plus, oil prices are rising because of inflation....again the Feds responsibility.

 

[Dot Com]

With automation, and mergers and acquisitions, and outsourcing, workers are getting squeezed. Managers are getting squeezed. But the Top Management are getting richer and richer. Fewer companies mean fewer jobs. Outsourcing means fewer jobs here. And Automation continues to replace workers with machines.

So, under laisses-faire competition, what is the result?? Fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that exist and lower earnings for workers.

Lower costs and higher profits for corporations.

Mergers and acquisitions mean higher prices and higher profits again, for corporations.

So, the result is a two tier economy, and population. The very few very wealthy. And the very many and very poor workers. That ends up being the end result, without intervention, of Laisses Faire competition. Along with a few middle wealth people, accountants and lawyers, and other professionals. But, all are scrambling for a very few jobs.

On the road to libertarianism. Not quite there, but pretty well committed. So what happens next?? It will not be pleasant, but people will not put up with it. There may be violent revolt. Or it may be a slow healing, over decades, under nonviolent revolution. But revolution it will be. Because people will not live that way.

Any great IDEAS?? Cause you, and I, will NOT like the result. Nor will the cons on this site, though they will not believe they are not part of the chosen ones. Ever here of Somalia???

Its the end result that Randians seem to want. GOP voters don't seem to ever question their party's stances either

 

[Rshermr]

So, Akelch, I really was hoping for a rational discussion, not a political one. Your statements are becoming more and more obviously political. But, lets address them:

You have a skewed view of the marketplace and the role Government plays.

Look, you keep saying that. Looks like your opinion. Good for you. But your opinion is kind of like an ass hole. Everyone has one. But without information, opinions are really a waste of time. And you seem to lack any information to back up what you say.

About the Fed. Why is it that only one bank can create our money? Who gave them that power? Who owns the Fed? Why are they out of the jurisdiction of congress?

See what I mean. Before you criticize something, try to understand something about it. Only they can create money because that is the way we, through our representatives in congress, wanted it when the Fed was created in about 1913. Who created the Fed?? See above. Congress gave them that power. We own them, as they are a public entity. And they are out of the jurisdiction of congress as far as day to day decesions because we did not want a large amount of political influence in the affairs of the central bank.

So they control our currency.

Depends on what you mean by control. They can add to or subtract from the total currency in the US. that is about it.

They control the interest rates.

They set short term interest rates, on which most interest rates are based. Yes. [

They can create depressions and market bubbles at will.

Really?? Is this what you believe?? Perhaps you have some proof? Because, you see, they are tasked with stabalizing the economy, NOT creating depressions. I have to say, this particular statement strikes me as political, and without merit.
...

how is this not a monopoly?

I guess you could call it a monopoly, but among people of ration, you would find yourself lonesome. Again, you are making a political accusation, with no basis in reality. Unless you think that they have some product that they are selling us. Which they do not. They are a public REGULATORY agency. You really need to take an hour on the web to study the fed before making these accusations. Makes you look ignorant.

And why do they not have competition?

See above. And because, if you think about it, having two agencies of this kind would be really, really stupid. And destructive. Again, you are simply making political arguments. They look to be from the Libertarian side of the political/economic spectrum.

I would go as far as to say they control our government.

Again, opinion. They regulate financial areas of our country. But again, your statement is political. You show no proof of an obviously political and nonsensical statement.

 

[Rshermr]

Plus, oil prices are rising because of inflation....again the Feds responsibility.

Perhaps you have some proof of that completely ignorant statement.

 

[S.J.]

Plus, oil prices are rising because of inflation....again the Feds responsibility.

Perhaps you have some proof of that completely ignorant statement.

Inflating the money supply (printing money) reduces the purchasing power, resulting in higher prices. This is basic economics.

 

[Rshermr]

What I want:

For the government to enforce a Constitutionally valid Rule of Law, regulatory and tax systems, evenly and fairly applied to everyone equally.

Then, I want everyone to be left alone to freely participate (or not) in the economy in whatever opportunities his or her talents, skills, knowledge, ambition, life situation, and luck (yes luck) provide.

Period.

Perfect. Then monopoly power, outsourcing, and the elimination of jobs through automation are of no concern to you. Re education of the working class is not of any interest. And you do not give a damn why other countries are doing much better than we in the current environment. Got it. Another vote for a good run at a Libertarian style of economy.

The strawmen false choices in your post are so numerous that one match will ignite them all: you are an economic illiterate.


The two choices are not anarchy vs. government control. The broader the span of civil society, the better off everyone is. History demonstrates this to those who care to be informed. Government infantalization of citizens, which destroys their ability to contribute to Civil Society, actually enables all the Horrible Things you erroneously attribute to Civil People exercising their natural right of liberty.

Nor did I suggest they did. What I did suggest was that it may be worth talking about alternatives. You seem to have none. Except get out of the way and let the market system act. I suggest you may want to define market system. Because I would suggest that it does not work and has not worked for many years.

 

[Rshermr]

Plus, oil prices are rising because of inflation....again the Feds responsibility.

Perhaps you have some proof of that completely ignorant statement.

Inflating the money supply (printing money) reduces the purchasing power, resulting in higher prices. This is basic economics.

Right. And you think that is responsible for todays gas prices??? Got proof, or just another statement out of your ass???

 

[S.J.]

Perhaps you have some proof of that completely ignorant statement.

Inflating the money supply (printing money) reduces the purchasing power, resulting in higher prices. This is basic economics.

Right. And you think that is responsible for todays gas prices??? Got proof, or just another statement out of your ass???

Quantitative easing is one of Obama's policies. So was banning offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar, and rejecting the Keystone pipeline (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Inflating the money supply (printing money) reduces the purchasing power, resulting in higher prices. This is basic economics.

Right. And you think that is responsible for todays gas prices??? Got proof, or just another statement out of your ass???

Quantitative easing is one of Obama's policies. So was banning offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar, and rejecting the Keystone pipeline (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Another of BO's policies was to make business taxes the highest in the world thus driving companies, jobs, and profits off-shore!

Liberals are nut case schizophrenics, they hate business like good little socialists and so want to always tax and strangle it more and more, but at the same time they know they need to stimulate business because people need jobs!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I suggest you may want to define market system. Because I would suggest that it does not work and has not worked for many years.

too stupid but 1000% liberal!!! China just went from en masse slow starvation to free market riches virtually over night and a libturd concludes the market does not work??

See why we say liberalism is based on pure ignorance?? Is any other conclusion possible???

 

[Rshermr]

Inflating the money supply (printing money) reduces the purchasing power, resulting in higher prices. This is basic economics.

Right. And you think that is responsible for todays gas prices??? Got proof, or just another statement out of your ass???

Quantitative easing is one of Obama's policies. So was banning offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar, and rejecting the Keystone pipeline (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Wow. What a profound post, SJ. So, you want to try to explain why you think that QE had any measureable effect on gas prices. Start it out with a link, because your opinion is wortheless. And you will not find one that is impartial, because that is a stupid premis.
Then there is banning of offshore drilling, which has not happened (except some minor amount during the BP oil spill). And Anwar oil is insignificant. So, with these two, you are talking about SUPPLY of crude. You may want to look at that issue, dipshit, because supply has been UP during most of Obamas admin, as a result of a net increase in oil site availability. Got that. Put it in your puny little mind, cause it is going to come back in a few minutes, and I do not want to have to explain it again.

Then there is the statement you made about Obama "rejecting the Keystone pipeline". Afraid that never happened, dipshit. That would be a lie on your part. The Keystone Pipeline is on track, going forward, and the pipeline company is quite happy with progress. You see, my poor ignorant con tool, there is already excess pipeline capacity to service transport needs for some time. About 1/3 of current capacity is unused.


So, here is the issue. As I mentioned, oil supplies are UP. Oil demand is DOWN. So, you should be patting Obama on the back. And gas prices should have been going down for some time. But they went up, and then down again recently. But are projected to go back up.
So, me great economic expert. Want to explain why oil prices are up when supply is up and demand is down. Because, in a market system, that should never, ever happen. (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

 

[S.J.]

Right. And you think that is responsible for todays gas prices??? Got proof, or just another statement out of your ass???

Quantitative easing is one of Obama's policies. So was banning offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar, and rejecting the Keystone pipeline (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Wow. What a profound post, SJ. So, you want to try to explain why you think that QE had any measureable effect on gas prices. Start it out with a link, because your opinion is wortheless. And you will not find one that is impartial, because that is a stupid premis.
Then there is banning of offshore drilling, which has not happened (except some minor amount during the BP oil spill). And Anwar oil is insignificant. So, with these two, you are talking about SUPPLY of crude. You may want to look at that issue, dipshit, because supply has been UP during most of Obamas admin, as a result of a net increase in oil site availability. Got that. Put it in your puny little mind, cause it is going to come back in a few minutes, and I do not want to have to explain it again.

Then there is the statement you made about Obama "rejecting the Keystone pipeline". Afraid that never happened, dipshit. That would be a lie on your part. The Keystone Pipeline is on track, going forward, and the pipeline company is quite happy with progress. You see, my poor ignorant con tool, there is already excess pipeline capacity to service transport needs for some time. About 1/3 of current capacity is unused.


So, here is the issue. As I mentioned, oil supplies are UP. Oil demand is DOWN. So, you should be patting Obama on the back. And gas prices should have been going down for some time. But they went up, and then down again recently. But are projected to go back up.
So, me great economic expert. Want to explain why oil prices are up when supply is up and demand is down. Because, in a market system, that should never, ever happen. (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Nice try, asshole. Try getting an education first, then we'll talk, boy.

 

[Rshermr]

Quantitative easing is one of Obama's policies. So was banning offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar, and rejecting the Keystone pipeline (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Wow. What a profound post, SJ. So, you want to try to explain why you think that QE had any measureable effect on gas prices. Start it out with a link, because your opinion is wortheless. And you will not find one that is impartial, because that is a stupid premis.
Then there is banning of offshore drilling, which has not happened (except some minor amount during the BP oil spill). And Anwar oil is insignificant. So, with these two, you are talking about SUPPLY of crude. You may want to look at that issue, dipshit, because supply has been UP during most of Obamas admin, as a result of a net increase in oil site availability. Got that. Put it in your puny little mind, cause it is going to come back in a few minutes, and I do not want to have to explain it again.

Then there is the statement you made about Obama "rejecting the Keystone pipeline". Afraid that never happened, dipshit. That would be a lie on your part. The Keystone Pipeline is on track, going forward, and the pipeline company is quite happy with progress. You see, my poor ignorant con tool, there is already excess pipeline capacity to service transport needs for some time. About 1/3 of current capacity is unused.


So, here is the issue. As I mentioned, oil supplies are UP. Oil demand is DOWN. So, you should be patting Obama on the back. And gas prices should have been going down for some time. But they went up, and then down again recently. But are projected to go back up.
So, me great economic expert. Want to explain why oil prices are up when supply is up and demand is down. Because, in a market system, that should never, ever happen. (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Nice try, asshole. Try getting an education first, then we'll talk, boy.

Ah. Got it SJ. You just had your supposed economic points stuffed back down your throat, and you are totally unable to respond with anything proving what you said. Because you lied. And got caught. So, now having shown your inability to discus economic issues, you can only resort to personal attack. Funny.
I have the education. You have shown a total inability to discus economic issues. Just conservative dogma. Nothing else. You are a sad case, dipshit. I was pretty sure you would run, so no surprise. bye bye. (Should you man up and want another crack at me, cmon back. I will be happy to spank you again)

 

[S.J.]

Wow. What a profound post, SJ. So, you want to try to explain why you think that QE had any measureable effect on gas prices. Start it out with a link, because your opinion is wortheless. And you will not find one that is impartial, because that is a stupid premis.
Then there is banning of offshore drilling, which has not happened (except some minor amount during the BP oil spill). And Anwar oil is insignificant. So, with these two, you are talking about SUPPLY of crude. You may want to look at that issue, dipshit, because supply has been UP during most of Obamas admin, as a result of a net increase in oil site availability. Got that. Put it in your puny little mind, cause it is going to come back in a few minutes, and I do not want to have to explain it again.

Then there is the statement you made about Obama "rejecting the Keystone pipeline". Afraid that never happened, dipshit. That would be a lie on your part. The Keystone Pipeline is on track, going forward, and the pipeline company is quite happy with progress. You see, my poor ignorant con tool, there is already excess pipeline capacity to service transport needs for some time. About 1/3 of current capacity is unused.


So, here is the issue. As I mentioned, oil supplies are UP. Oil demand is DOWN. So, you should be patting Obama on the back. And gas prices should have been going down for some time. But they went up, and then down again recently. But are projected to go back up.
So, me great economic expert. Want to explain why oil prices are up when supply is up and demand is down. Because, in a market system, that should never, ever happen. (not that a moron like you would understand any of it).

Nice try, asshole. Try getting an education first, then we'll talk, boy.

Ah. Got it SJ. You just had your supposed economic points stuffed back down your throat, and you are totally unable to respond with anything proving what you said. Because you lied. And got caught. So, now having shown your inability to discus economic issues, you can only resort to personal attack. Funny.
I have the education. You have shown a total inability to discus economic issues. Just conservative dogma. Nothing else. You are a sad case, dipshit. I was pretty sure you would run, so no surprise. bye bye. (Should you man up and want another crack at me, cmon back. I will be happy to spank you again)

Just keep telling yourself that, moron. Flame baiting is all you have and everyone here knows it. So long, fool.

 

[Rshermr]

Nice try, asshole. Try getting an education first, then we'll talk, boy.

Ah. Got it SJ. You just had your supposed economic points stuffed back down your throat, and you are totally unable to respond with anything proving what you said. Because you lied. And got caught. So, now having shown your inability to discus economic issues, you can only resort to personal attack. Funny.
I have the education. You have shown a total inability to discus economic issues. Just conservative dogma. Nothing else. You are a sad case, dipshit. I was pretty sure you would run, so no surprise. bye bye. (Should you man up and want another crack at me, cmon back. I will be happy to spank you again)

Just keep telling yourself that, moron. Flame baiting is all you have and everyone here knows it. So long, fool.

Sorry. Did you say something??? Hard to here you with your teeth kicked in.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Questions
1. Why are there no jobs?
2. Why do companies send jobs overseas?
3. Could it be that they can't find good workers here?

Answers
1. Because Slick Clinton and Junebug Bush completed the plan to destroy the blue collar middle class started by Don Regan, William Simon, and other corporate leaders who guided Bobblehead Reagan through eight years of fantasy and delusion to the delight of similarly inclined financial interests whose lobbyists bought and paid for presidents starting with Reagan. The only president in the period to turn on his corporate sponsors was Pap Bush, and they drove him out of office.

2. Because anti-American corporations have bought and paid for "enough" of congress to pay corporations a form of welfare to move US jobs offshore. Specific example: in 1995 the Republican "contract with America" offered my corporation nearly a million dollars to move a hundred US jobs to Latin America.

3. No one can be stupid enough to believe this. That isn't possible. When wages go up, qualified workers will be standing in line for the jobs. No question about that.

 

[asterism]

Uh, relative to manufacturing, you may want to take a look at Germany, where the manufacturing industries are doing very well.

What the issue is, in my mind, is what do we end up with. We see heavy pressure to decrease spending including on EDUCATION. And again, not every worker can or will become a software developer. And by the way, that is quickly being outsourced, primarily to INDIA. So, net net, corporations are doing well. The few at the top are getting richer and richer. Over recent years, the top 1% of income earners are receiving 93% of revenue growth. You should really check out this link, to understand.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, this is a symptom of what happens when jobs are fewer, and businesses are fewer and more monopolistic.

I'm sure the US would do just as well if our manufacturing sector was as small as Germany's.

This is what happens when a workforce is conditioned to be complacent and fails to adapt. I mostly blame the unions for this but I also blame increased access to lifetime government assistance.

The days of steady pay increases for doing the same low skill job for 20 years are over. It's a global economy and we'd better try to compete rather than isolate. It's the only way things will improve.

So, no concern about the economy then. Looks like you are fine with no jobs, most of the money going to the wealthy, and monopoly power. No concern at all about the middle class. Great.
Sorry, me boy, but you are wrong about Germany. It is a smaller manufacturing segment, but it is still very large. And that of the US has shrunk considerably. They handle things quite differently. Basically, they protect their manufacturing, and their workers. And the result has been way better than what we have experienced here.

What I see coming out of everyone is the the belief that we should just let things continue on continuing on. More and more wealth accumulation at the top. Continued shrinking of the middle class. Laisses-Faire economics forever. Maybe continued movement toward a Libertarian paradise???

I certainly am concerned, I just know that the protectionist union model doesn't work. Take a look at Germany's workforce. It's adaptable and market-driven, it doesn't have productivity limits (when the union tells workers to be less productive) and Germany's unions do not use violence and thuggery when they don't get their way. Nobody has to bribe anyone to "get into the union" in Germany.

Regardless, Germany's manufacturing sector is VERY small compared to the US. Their overall methods would not produce the same results on a mass scale.