"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of pros

[boedicca]

JB labors under the illusion that nothing has changed for decades. Given the wide variety of freely available information on the internets, the average consumer has much more information to hold merchants accountable.

He also disregards the reality that many of the problems he attributes to free markets and capitalism were actually the result of government enabled cronyism.

 

[rightwinger]

Hmmmm...look who is engaging in class warfare now

The majority of Americans fall into the class of people you attack in this post. They are people who graduated High School, joined the military, have sellable job skills but find they are being offered less and less for those skills.

Your "let them eat cake" attitude makes me sick

Feeling locked out of the American Dream?

Communists are stupid.

So are people who continue to support economic policies that lock them out

 

[JBeukema]

JB labors under the illusion that nothing has changed for decades.

Fail. I've lamented many of the changed of the last few decades numerous times.

Given the wide variety of freely available information on the internets, the average consumer has much more information to hold merchants accountable.

And with a few supercorps controlling it all, you have zero power or options to do much about it.

Monsanto, for example, which now has the legal authority to effectively steal a man's farm if his neighbor's seed is blown by the wind and lands on his land.

And who, because they now legally own corn for all intents and purposes, effectively control the production and cost nearly all food products made in the U.S. today.

Official Food, Inc. Movie Site - Hungry For Change?

He also disregards the reality that many of the problems he attributes to free markets and capitalism were actually the result of government enabled cronyism.

Fascism is the aim of capitalism. They cannot be separated. This has been true ever[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071"] since corporations first began using States' militaries to protect their profits[/ame]- a practice that continues to this day (see: Iraq, Kuwait)- and became governments themselves in order to more efficiently exploit the working man (see: colonialism). Today they have evolved to operate across the borders of nation-states, making themselves the new governments of the world. ([ame]http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1371416[/ame])

 

[boedicca]

If you really think that Fascism is the ultimate aim of Capitalism, then you understand neither.

 

[daveman]

Feeling locked out of the American Dream?

Communists are stupid.

A brilliant refutation.

Let me try.


Capitalists are retarded.

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

The first are stupid because, like every leftist Utopian scheme, Communism utterly fails to take into account human nature. People are clannish. We work to secure ourselves and our family and our neighborhood. You and your family and neighborhood? That's up to you. YOU take care of them...I've got my own to worry about.

They're also stupid because history has shown time and again that Communism is an utter failure. It can only spread at gunpoint. Hey, if it was so awesome, people would accept it on their own, wouldn't they? American Communists are stupid because they think, "Yeah, it didn't work anywhere before because the US never LET it work! When we're in charge, it'll work GREAT!" No, Comrade, it didn't work anywhere before because it's doomed to failure from the start.

The second group is stupid because they think they can control it. And if they think they can control it without shedding buckets of blood, they're doubly stupid.

Communists are stupid. It's as simple as that.

By the way...which group are you in? Are you a wide-eyed believer, or are you looking for a way to run the joint?

 

[Trajan]

I think reasonable people who are 'productive' have no qualms with helping the helpless, the clueless? No, I don't think so, the rest can speak for themselves.

 

[daveman]

Feeling locked out of the American Dream?

Communists are stupid.

So are people who continue to support economic policies that lock them out

Which particular The Man is holding you down?

Nobody's locked you out. Get off your ass and get to work. You can be as successful as the people you envy -- you just don't want to work for it.

 

[JBeukema]

Communists are stupid.

A brilliant refutation.

Let me try.


Capitalists are retarded.

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

 

[Londoner]

The OP subscribes to a narrative which is seductive: if you tax the productive in order to reward the unproductive, you will incentivize failure -- you will undermine the very productivity which provides jobs, innovation, and rising living standards for all.

This has been the dominant narrative since Reagan.

Here's the problem. It ignores the era of America's greatest economic growth, the late postwar years from 1950-1973, a time when the government made sure that middle class compensation (wages, benefits, & standard-of-living increases) was tied to overall economic growth. Meaning: when productivity increased and more money was made, the government ensured that workers got a corresponding increase of pay/benefits so that they could buy what they were producing. Gains in productivity were tied to gains in compensation -- ensuring that demand would always be strong enough to drive the economy. When people spend more, jobs are added. When they don't have money to spend, jobs are lost.

Here is the pre-Reagan narrative: the American economy thrives not when the producers have the maximum amount the nation's wealth, but when the middle class is solvent enough to buy what it produces. If too much money is concentrated in too few hands, and the middle class does not have enough to spend, the economy will die [Again: the economy only works when people have the money to buy things]

Which is why during the postwar years the government focused on middle class buying power - aka "demand". The theory: the more money the middle class has to spend, the more jobs/innovation/investment the producers will add in order to capture that demand.

Contrast this with the Reagan years (1980-present), where the dominant focus is not middle class buying power, but lowering the costs (taxes and regulations) of the suppliers ("Supply Side Economics"). Under this strategy middle class compensation is actually lowered in order to give capital cheaper operating conditions (cheaper labor costs). Indeed, over the past 30 years we have created a global system designed to give capital the mobility to constantly move to the cheapest labor market.

One effect of this is that the middle class started to lose buying power -- they no longer had as much money to buy things and drive the American economy. How did Reaganomics make up for this demand shortfall? Credit! The American credit industry exploded in the 80s in order to supplement the weakened buying power of the middle class, which middle class, like their political leaders, became a nation of deficit spenders. Put another way: rather than paying the middle class sufficient wages to buy things and keep the economy afloat, the Suppliers would now loan them the money.

What happens when you use debt to fuel demand for 30 years? You eventually break the bank. What happens when you break the bank? You bail out the suppliers, and foreclose on the borrowers. Why did we bail out the crooked suppliers who knowingly securitized garbage and loaded the system with risk which they knew would blow up? We bailed out the suppliers because the suppliers run government. Their donations fund elections and staff government

When too much money gets stuck in too few hands -- when trillions are spread over a narrow class of suppliers and the middle class must borrow to survive -- the economy eventually dies. [No economy can survive if there isn't sufficient buying power spread across a wide swath of consumers] Moreover, when the middle class doesn't have real money to spend, the suppliers have no incentive to invest in the real economy: there is no demand to capture - there is no reason to add jobs or innovate.

The original poster has told us a very old, tired narrative. He doesn't understand that Reaganomics (adopted by both parties) lead to an over-concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the suppliers, while simultaneously choking middle class buying power. When you give cheap labor to capital, one consequence is that labor doesn't have enough buying power to buy what it produces. This is a structural flaw that is never included in the narrative told by the original poster.

 

[washamericom]

The OP subscribes to a narrative which is seductive: if you tax the productive in order to reward the unproductive, you will incentivize failure -- you will undermine the very productivity which provides jobs, innovation, and rising living standards for all.

This has been the dominant narrative since Reagan.

Here's the problem. It ignores the era of America's greatest economic growth, the late postwar years from 1950-1973, a time when the government made sure that middle class compensation (wages, benefits, & standard-of-living increases) was tied to overall economic growth. Meaning: when productivity increased and more money was made, the government ensured that workers got a corresponding increase of pay/benefits so that they could buy what they were producing. Gains in productivity were tied to gains in compensation -- ensuring that demand would always be strong enough to drive the economy. When people spend more, jobs are added. When they don't have money to spend, jobs are lost.

Here is pre-Reagan narrative: the American economy thrives not when the producers have the maximum amount the nation's wealth, but when the middle class is solvent enough to buy what it produces. If too much money is concentrated in too few hands, and the middle class does not have enough to spend, the economy will die [Again: the economy only works when people have the money to buy things]

Which is why during the postwar years the government focused on middle class buying power - aka "demand". The theory: the more money the middle class has to spend, the more jobs/innovation/investment the producers will have to add in order to capture that demand.

Contrast this with the Reagan years (1980-present), where the dominant focus is not middle class buying power, but lowering the costs (taxes and regulations) of the suppliers ("Supply Side Economics"). Under this strategy middle class compensation is actually lowered in order to give capital cheaper operating conditions (cheaper labor costs). Indeed, over the past 30 years we have created a global system designed to give capital the mobility to constantly move to the cheapest labor market.

One effect of this is that the middle class started to lose buying power -- they no longer had as much money to buy things and drive the American economy. How did Reaganomics make up for this demand shortfall? Credit! The American credit industry exploded in the 80s in order to supplement the weakened buying power of the middle class, which middle class, like their political leaders, became a nation of deficit spenders. Put another way: rather than paying the middle class sufficient wages to buy things and keep the economy afloat, the Suppliers would now loan them the money.

What happens when you use debt to fuel demand for 30 years? You eventually break the bank. What happens when you break the bank? You bail out the suppliers, and foreclose on the borrowers. Why did we bail out the crooked suppliers who knowingly securitized garbage and loaded the system with risk which they knew would blow up? We bailed out the suppliers because the suppliers run government. Their donations fund elections and staff government

When too much money gets stuck in too few hands -- when trillions are spread over a narrow class of suppliers and the middle class must borrow to survive -- the economy eventually dies. And since the middle class doesn't have real money to spend, the suppliers have no incentive to invest in the real economy: there is no demand to capture - there is no reason to add jobs or innovate.

The original poster has told us a very old, tired narrative. He doesn't understand that Reaganomics (adopted by both parties) lead to an over-concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the suppliers, while simultaneously choking middle class buying power. When you give cheap labor to capital, one consequence is that labor doesn't have enough buying power to buy what it produces. This is a structural flaw that Keynes (who was a capitalist) understood better than anyone. Point is: the middle class is too big to fail. Without their buying power, the American economy dies.

this is really good ! thanks

 

[JScott]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

Worked for Bush.

 

[FA_Q2]

A brilliant refutation.

Let me try.


Capitalists are retarded.

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

Except that it NEVER has. The fact of the matter is that ANY large scale economy that was based on communal ownership would require the channeling of resources from one place to another. Unless you are advocating that the entirety of society be dissolved into small communal farming cities the communist model fails utterly. It fails to take into account simple and basic tendencies of human nature. Whoever is in 'charge' of the moving of resources quickly becomes the people that are in charge of the entire economy and the rulers of that society. Government is not going to be 'dissolved' under any idiotic economic scheme. It will never happen and the idea that somehow communism is going to magically get rid of the need of governance is star eyed optimism at its best. You also ignor the fact that when things are taken to a large scale there are always going to be people that are looking at others saying 'I work harder than he does, why is he getting the free pas.' All this bullshit about that not being the average person and that most people would go out and give it their all no matter what is exactly that: BULLSHIT. Even in society today people do EXACTLY that. When performance is NOT the driving factor then laziness becomes the norm. That is one of the largest problems in government sector employees where the productivity approaches insanely low levels because productivity is nether an encouraged or rewarded trait. The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is GOVERNMENT. The entire puropse of our government is to provide that which we CANNOT provide for ourselves and protect us from those that we cannot protect ourselves from. That is not to say that government should feed us when we cannot buy food because even if we cannot afford it at that time it is still possible for you to provide that for yourself. What I mean is that things like defense, police and fire services are things that cannot be provided for on our own and are required for an operating society. On that same token, protections of your right from other foreign and domestic is another thing that the government is here to provide and that part the government has failed. Capitalism was never the problem, it is government providing for business instead of protecting the people from it that is. Laws today eliminate competition instead of foster it, reinforce monopolies and trap employees. Anyone that starts a small business today understands that regulations and laws make it almost impossible for a startup to compete and that other laws are propping up larger businesses. The bailouts and stimulus bills are excellent examples of this where the rights of individuals were bulldozed over in favor of ensuring that large businesses (and NOT their smaller counterparts) continued to exist. The issues here is not that capitalism is bad or that communism is the way to go but that government needs to get out of the businesses interests and start protecting the interests of citizens.

 

[rdean]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

But you can ruin the country by legislating the middle class into oblivion.

Let's all go apologize to BP.

 

[daveman]

A brilliant refutation.

Let me try.


Capitalists are retarded.

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

See? Communists are stupid. Communism seeks the dissolution of the capitalist state.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

 

[daveman]

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

Except that it NEVER has. The fact of the matter is that ANY large scale economy that was based on communal ownership would require the channeling of resources from one place to another. Unless you are advocating that the entirety of society be dissolved into small communal farming cities the communist model fails utterly. It fails to take into account simple and basic tendencies of human nature. Whoever is in 'charge' of the moving of resources quickly becomes the people that are in charge of the entire economy and the rulers of that society. Government is not going to be 'dissolved' under any idiotic economic scheme. It will never happen and the idea that somehow communism is going to magically get rid of the need of governance is star eyed optimism at its best. You also ignor the fact that when things are taken to a large scale there are always going to be people that are looking at others saying 'I work harder than he does, why is he getting the free pas.' All this bullshit about that not being the average person and that most people would go out and give it their all no matter what is exactly that: BULLSHIT. Even in society today people do EXACTLY that. When performance is NOT the driving factor then laziness becomes the norm. That is one of the largest problems in government sector employees where the productivity approaches insanely low levels because productivity is nether an encouraged or rewarded trait. The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is GOVERNMENT. The entire puropse of our government is to provide that which we CANNOT provide for ourselves and protect us from those that we cannot protect ourselves from. That is not to say that government should feed us when we cannot buy food because even if we cannot afford it at that time it is still possible for you to provide that for yourself. What I mean is that things like defense, police and fire services are things that cannot be provided for on our own and are required for an operating society. On that same token, protections of your right from other foreign and domestic is another thing that the government is here to provide and that part the government has failed. Capitalism was never the problem, it is government providing for business instead of protecting the people from it that is. Laws today eliminate competition instead of foster it, reinforce monopolies and trap employees. Anyone that starts a small business today understands that regulations and laws make it almost impossible for a startup to compete and that other laws are propping up larger businesses. The bailouts and stimulus bills are excellent examples of this where the rights of individuals were bulldozed over in favor of ensuring that large businesses (and NOT their smaller counterparts) continued to exist. The issues here is not that capitalism is bad or that communism is the way to go but that government needs to get out of the businesses interests and start protecting the interests of citizens.

"You must spread some Reputation around etc."

 

[Trajan]

Warren Buffet is in a higher tax bracket than his secretary, but even he doesn't think it's right that he ends up paying a lower net tax (after write-offs and such) rate than she does. I hardly think making him pay a more equal percentage would put him out of wealth and her in to prosperity.

This Warren Buffet MEME is a misleading CANARD.

Buffet has shielded the vast majority of his wealth from taxation - and has targeted it for donation to the GATES FOUNDATION when he dies. If he really believed that the government used such wealth and income more effectively than a private party, he would not avoid inheritance taxes on his billions. The same comment applies to the Gates Family.

Buffet would only have credibility if he had advocated for higher taxes when he himself was earning an income at the starting level for such taxes. As he didn't, he's a hypocrite.

He has his - and wishes to deny others the opportunity to succeed.

 

[Shmoogas B]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

That as a principle is very true. But there has to be some balance too. I think it's reasonable to help out people who are going through rough times and can't pay for their basic necessities. If you don't, realistically, it'll just lead to increased crime and chaos that will actually be bad for a nation. It's really all about balance--there are two sides to every coin.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can not have a prosperous society by letting the rich run roughshod over people through exploitation and oppression.

Was BP exploiting natural resources that belong to us all? You betcha.
Was Wall Street exploiting lax rules of credit to bundle securities in a way to hide worthless assets to collect commissions on junk? You betcha.

It is pretty simple about legislation. Behave yourself and be responsible to not only your company but your neighbors. You do not exist in a vacuum. If you heed that no new legislation will come.

Give examples of how you believe you are oppressed and exploited.
This oughta be good.
You lefty moonbats like to revert back to the same old buzzwords taught to you in those lib political campaign talking points.
"Wall Street". "Wealthy". "CEO". "Corporate".
Look genius. Without the few breaks companies do receive from government, there'd be no reason to operate here at all. The 35% confiscatory tax rate and the ridiculous regulations government slaps on business here makes the US a very difficult country to do business.
You are arguing shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

i knew abe lincoln ..... abe lincoln was a friend of mine, barrak obama, you are no abe lincoln...

well, no... but then again, Abe Lincoln wouldn't be a republican now.

but to the "point" of the thread... the middle class doesn't exist without protection and a society where businesses are unfettered looks like Dickens' England.

Or should we go back to the days of sweat shops so as not to somehow offend corporatists?

Why is it all or nothing? Why is any resistance of more government control today so often done by suggesting we want to return to a worse time?

The all or nothing straw man argument is ripped and read straight out of the liberal playbook.
These and other commonly heard phrases heard from libs are their campaign platforms and talking points.

 

[JBeukema]

I'll break it down for you, but you will refuse to accept it.

There are two types of people who advocate Communism:

1. Those who truly believe it's an effective socioeconomic platform for running a nation, and

2. Those who see it merely as a means to gain control of a nation's citizens and economy.

Fail. Communism seeks to achieve the dissolution of the nation-state.

In that regard, it's not unlike social libertarianism (libertarians who do not rail against the idea of two or more people working together to achieve a common goal and advocate the starvation of the old, the lame, and the injured).

Except that it NEVER has.

yes, it has. Just see the Federation of Egalitarian Communities

The fact of the matter is that ANY large scale economy that was based on communal ownership would require the channeling of resources from one place to another.

pure communism is necessarily a small-scale system, better suited to loose confederations than a federated republic. You know, given the whole dissolution of a central state, direct democracy, and the fact that is stresses 'local' ownership of the means of production and the commons by those who're actually close enough to use them.

You also ignor the fact that when things are taken to a large scale

See above. Anything 'large scale', I can guarantee you isn't communism. Communism, by its nature, is antagonistic to centralized authorities and vast federations.