Democrats feel it's the governments job to protect the people.
Republicans feel it's the governments job to protect corporations. Then that protection will "trickle down" and they will protect the people.
We need to cut the middleman.
It is the constitutionally appointed job of the government to defend our people from threats foreign and domestic to our freedom. If it won't do that, it is violating it's basic reason for existance.
I am for free trade with pretty much any nation that has an equivalent social cost to the US or greater social cost. That would put most of europe and the Anglosphere in that bracket with some other countries like Japan as wel.
But, government sponsored monopolies and GSE's that unfairly protect or compete due to taxpayer monies from foreign nations should have some form of duty put on them AFTER a thoughtful analysis is done of our own industry to find out were costs can be cut to do the job more efficiently. This helps protect citizens from prices raised by the greed of labor and opportunism of shareholders.
It's odd in a way. We cause our own inflation on both ends as a society. We demand better wages and investments but then gripe about the rising prices require to make both happen. Huh.. what an odd revelation. That explains the big government desire to control wages and profits. It fails miserably, but I now see the desire for the impossible.
Liberalism demands, for political reason, that 'trickle down' doesn't work. It is an utter lie, that it doesn't. Or they are even more disingenuous and state flatly that only the costs trickle down while the profits are caught and pulled out before they get to poor people. This is not true for what it does is abstracts the players and activities at convenient points. One must keep in mind that corporations are not just a few rich fat cats in the modern society, that sit and top like robber barons of old. A few may exist and be nearly ubiquitous in certain areas like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. These men, though akin to great white sharks of the financial world, are attended by hundreds and thousands of remorae living off the scraps of their actions.
But bigger than men like these, are hedge funds composed of millions of investors that are not wealthy but looking to maximize their frugal savings and climb higher away from poverty. BP has millions of British Pensioners being taken to the cleaners because their retirements are invested in that company heavily. Obama taking them to the cleaners harms them more than any Warren Buffet or George Soros (Now THERE'S a Robber Baron and deliberate market maniuplator)
But trickle down works very simply in this manner. I will use the best example I have from real life: Sturgeon Bay, WI which is the home of one of the few remaining American ship manufacturers. They subsist almost completely off of building massive freighters who ply the great lakes.
An American Steel company (yes there are a few left) is in need to expand. They have an opportunity to gain market share and become more stable. To do that, they need a new taconite carrier. Unfortunately, they do not have the capital on their own to buy the ship, so they must look to a bank for loans. The bank then looks at the plan the Steel Company offers on how to get the ship, and minimize costs to them by supplying much of the steel themselves. The bank decides this is a good investment for THEIR shareholders and members (which is composed of a few rich people and tens of thousands of poor/middle class) and if successful will expand their holdings. So they agree to give the Steel Company the loan.
Now notice. Although the benefit will be the heaviest to the few rich in that bank, you are also enriching the lives of the workers at the Steel Company by allowing them to make more work in which to supply the steel for that ship. Trickle down of a loan to the company from the bank, composed of a few rich and many middle class/poor people who will recieve a share of the profit in the future by returned payments. There is step one of how Trickle Down works.
Next, The steel company signs the contract with Sturgeon Bay Ship Manufacturing to build a bulk freighter. The Ship Co. goes into action to start manufacturing the freighter. Money begins coming into the local economy. If workers are laid off, they're hired back, the Ship company profits which helps their shareholders and investors.
Here is step TWO of Trickle down. Not only now do you see money flowing into the Ship builder, you have money ending up in the hands of hundreds of workers on both ends of this deal. These people, now are able to buy the needs of their lifes and support secondary non manufacturing businesses like gas stations, grocery stores and whatever else they are involved with and can now afford because they are working. Those supported local businesses can now go out and pay their employees as well as suppliers and then their investors as well. One steel contract has now profited millions of people in accordance to their proximity to the deal.
Then there is the Third step of this. All those other companies get to count the money spent on them from the steel deal in their coffers, increase their profit margin and thereby give a greater return to their financiers as well, be they individual investors or captains of industry.
What dishonest brokers in this conversation artificially assume is that somehow, only the wealthiest investors profit and ignore the vast memberships of investing groups and individuals who have less than 1000 shares and the like because they do not see a "SUBSTANTIAL" profit when in reality they profit at the same level commiserate with their involvement. Sure the average CD holder does not gain much from the deal off a 12 month 1000 dollar CD as compared to a rich investor who owns 20% of the bank's funds. This is not unfair. They both profit in accordance to the size of their involvement.
Nor does the profit pool in the hands of the management of the companies. They are paid in accordance of their contract for managing to be directly involved of making a good deal happen. There is nothing unfair with this. These people are effectively contractors hired to guide the company to profit and grow. If they succeed, they recieve bonuses, if they fail, often they are ousted and find it very hard to compete at such a high level again. Case in point... what's Michael Eisner running nowadays? I doubt it's a company as powerful as Disney. These are the apex of the pyramid and are due their profit. Anything you may feel about this is your own hang up, not economics and to go out of your way to harm this natural flow does nothing but harm the overall health of the economic deal. Deliberate impoverishment of these people only serves to drive them away from your control, and often stops the most talented from risking their fortunes on you. Now THERE's a trickle down cost no liberal wants to admit happens as well.
Corporations are made up of people. You cannot protect the people from them or the corporations from the people without harming both parties ultimately. You must protect both and enforce ethical rules of cooperation. Anti Fraud, weights and measures, consumer protection, labor protection, trade protection. All these things are the perview of government. The question is just like the Laffer curve states, finding the balance point for maximum freedom versus minimum government involvement for societal cost. Corporations/Labor/Government/Investment/Culture all factor in to this and what is healthiest for one, may be deleterious to others. So you tweak and pull, and find the most reasonable balance between the bunch. But biasing for one at the deference of the others hurts all ultimately and sooner or later, causes it's collapse.
I'm not going to get into the international aspects of the above deal at this time, right now I think it'd make it too complex for most to consider. Maybe in another post.
