Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???

Before Bernie Sanders maybe

Hey, georgephillip, we cited the same article!

I noticed Zombie_Pundit
I'm tempted to point out "great minds think alike"
But, I won't

 

[Chris]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Interesting... I tried to start a thread on the 1986 tax bubble when I first arrived on this forum. I got reppies for it, but no responses. The distorted 1980s logic went something like this:
"If we're going to tax capital gains as income, then the middle income brackets must have a higher tax rate than the higher income brackets".
I would love it if someone could explain that 1980s tax bubble to me. Because I still don't understand the logic behind that thing.

The reason I bring it up is the last time we taxed capital gains as income, the middle class wound up with a higher tax rate.

If I am in any way misreading the infamous tax bubble, please explain it to me. I am not so proud that I cannot learn new things.

 

[Andylusion]

And of course there is a desire for profit. Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.

All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit. If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand. Profit.

I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.

You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities.

In a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love. Profit pits each person in a community against each other for the sake of personal gain. Competition exists for each job, and for each winner, there are dozens of losers.
In fact, the primary reason society has dismal people and dismal situations is the profit motive. In seeking and attaining great amounts of wealth the rich have learned it's profitable to hoard money, thus failing to circulate it from whence it came: society. Profit does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of land, resources, labor, time and energy of all contributors in society, a global society now. Without each working part there is no profit generated. And in capitalism, the people who decide what to do with the profits is about 20-30 people, meaning, as is obvious, they pay themselves handsomely as if they were gods an "masters of the universe."

This is the pinnacle of profit: demagoguery. And without shame too: Are ?masters of the universe? born or bred? - FT.com

But I suspect you refuse to listen to obvious conclusions about profit. Instead let me reference the fact that all the great teachings of the last 4,000 years has taught that selfish pursuits (profit) is the root of all evil.

The Bible teaches "the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil." In many modern versions, "the love of money" is actually replaced by the word "profit."

The Buddha taught to end desire to attain satisfaction.

The Tao teaches this in verse 19:

Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom
and the people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit
and there will be no thieves.

All of these are superficial outward forms alone;
they are not sufficient in themselves.
Just stay at the centre of the circle
and let all things take their course.

It is more important to see the simplicity,
to realise one’s true nature,
to cast off selfishness and temper desire.

Profit is not virtuous. The desire to amass wealth is a vice. All world religions have taught this exact truth and yet a modern religiosity has challenged that called capitalism. W see the global results: unimaginable luxury for a few while the majority struggle to pay their bills and survive. Constant war because war is profitable and massive rates of incarceration because it too is profitable. Rampant drug abuse is a good thing because it fuels the industries of rehabilitations, methadone, pharmaceuticals like oxycotin, the police and prisons and the companies who supply the prison population. This is a vision of a society that is dystopian for the majority and utopian for a few.

No, I didn't say, or suggest anything you just blathered on about. Saying "All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.", does not mean "self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue". Nor does 'profit' mean a desire to simply amass wealth.

Then you made up crap.

"the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil."

Not true. The Bible does not say "profit". "love of money" does not equal "profit".

1 Timothy 6 NIV
The Bible hub, contains 19 of the most widely recognized translations. Not one says 'profit'. Not even one. Why? Because if you go get the Orthodox Jewish translation, the Greek words used, specifically describe the 'desire' or 'coveting' money.

In other words, making profit is not wrong. Not according to this verse. You desiring, or coveting the money others have earned... is.

Don't try and pretend the Bible is on your side of this argument. It isn't. In fact, the Bible condemns you. Moving on.

There are many people who profit from what they do, and they are not tied down to a love of money.

Go read "Winner Never Cheat". Go read Alex Spanos, "Sharing the Wealth". There are hundreds of examples, of people who engaged in profit throughout their whole lives, and were not tied down by the love of money.

Rick Baker created a company, and does so to make a profit. He also does so because Timely Medical Alternatives, his company, saves lives.

Profit and positive beneficial motives are not mutually exclusive. And truth is, in a Capitalist system, they are nearly symbiotic. The whole reason a company is profitable, is because it is beneficial. The only exceptions would be government run programs and companies, and companies dependent on government.

I don't care at all what Buddha or Tao taught. Or anyone else for that matter. Nifty, but irrelevant to me.

And no, it is simply not true that profit pits people against each other. Profit is mutually beneficial. Lack of profit, is what pits people against each other.

Let's say for example that there is a completely selfish, completely greedy person, who happens to be extremely wealthy and has tons of resources. Without a profit motive, why would he share any of what he has with anyone else? Well he wouldn't.

The reason a super wealth rich person, shares what they have with everyone else, is because of the profit motive.

Look at the history of the Soviet Union. Communist party leaders had yachts, private resorts, stores of food only available to government officials, homes and land for personal use, money and wealth..... all kept to themselves. None for the masses under the Communist system.

Why? Because there was no profit in selling stuff to the people, so they didn't.

When those same government run enterprises were privatized, the first thing they did was start selling to the public at a profit.

Same is true in Pre-78 China. You claim that profit doesn't have to be the motivation for opening a lemonade stand.

So why didn't the Chinese prior to 1978, do that? Where were all the Chinese trying to be altruistic? Where was the "desires to service the community"? Didn't the Chinese prior to 78, want "a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love"?

People were starving to death in China. Entire communities lived on less than $2 a day! Where were all those people with "desires to service the community" who wanted "a warm and cherished community the people embrace in gratitude and love"! WHERE WAS IT?!

But guess what happened after 78, when China allowed people to make a profit, and openly encourages Chinese to "get rich"? All of sudden, stores opened up, food shops opened, and people started getting food.

Why? Profit.

Take Shuanghui International. Shuanghui, was created by a local government in 1958. Producing pork products, it was a net exporter of pork.

Now think about that.... why were they exporting food, during the years of mass starvation? People could barely get rice, and here they were exporting meat products outside China.

Why? Profit. They could profit from selling outside China. Not inside China. They had a socialist system, and no profit.

Then in 1984, after the 78 Chinese liberalization process was well underway, the company was privatized, and profit was legal. Today they have 13 processing facilities. 60 thousand employees, now have jobs because of profit. The company is now a net importer of food products, with over $200 Million dollars worth of imported pork from the US, which benefits us in export sales, and benefits them in now feeding their domestic population.... because of profit.

They have even purchased Smithfield Foods, for a mere $4.7 Billion dollars of direct investment into the US economy. The plan to increase production, and employment, specifically to increase exports of pork to China..... all because of profit.

See here's the difference between us. You have all these made up fantasies, built around your own personal definition of what is morally right and wrong.

I don't really care about any of your moral arguments, but it's just your opinion of what is moral. It's not based on anything other than what you believe is right and wrong in your head, and those who agree with your opinion.

But that's just you, and those like you. Everyone else who disagrees with your opinion of morals and right and wrong, are just as valid.

So all your 'moral arguments' to me are irrelevant.

I'm not looking at this from some sort of philosophical debate. I'm looking at this from the perspective of how the world works. How does reality work? Not how 'should' it work. How it 'should' work is irrelevant.

In my moral judgement, no one should ever murder or harm or steal, or anything bad. Thus no one should ever need police. No one should ever need to defend themselves. And that's morally right!

Now when I compare how I think the world should work, verses how it really is, I have two options. I can be bitter, and complain, and demand everyone change, and write 3-page essays on how my views are correct.... Or I can accept this is how reality is. People do bad things. Thus we need police, and to defend ourselves, and laws.

Same is true of you, and your made up utopian vision. Wouldn't it be great if everyone just worked together in that workers paradise you mentioned? Wouldn't it be great if those Chinese in pre-78 China opened up the lemonade stand, and gave everyone food for the benefit of society, and loving embrace and blaw blaw blaw?

But welcome to reality. Without profit, people don't do things. Without profit, everyone lives on less than $2 a day. Without profit, massive starvation while exporting food to other countries. Without profit, impoverishment and misery is the standard of the land.

This is reality. Everyone that has pushed for your utopian view, has resulted in hellish nightmare. That's simply how it is.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

And of course there is a desire for profit. Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.

All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit. If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand. Profit.

I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.

You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities.

In a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love. Profit pits each person in a community against each other for the sake of personal gain. Competition exists for each job, and for each winner, there are dozens of losers.
In fact, the primary reason society has dismal people and dismal situations is the profit motive. In seeking and attaining great amounts of wealth the rich have learned it's profitable to hoard money, thus failing to circulate it from whence it came: society. Profit does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of land, resources, labor, time and energy of all contributors in society, a global society now. Without each working part there is no profit generated. And in capitalism, the people who decide what to do with the profits is about 20-30 people, meaning, as is obvious, they pay themselves handsomely as if they were gods an "masters of the universe."

This is the pinnacle of profit: demagoguery. And without shame too: Are ?masters of the universe? born or bred? - FT.com

But I suspect you refuse to listen to obvious conclusions about profit. Instead let me reference the fact that all the great teachings of the last 4,000 years has taught that selfish pursuits (profit) is the root of all evil.

The Bible teaches "the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil." In many modern versions, "the love of money" is actually replaced by the word "profit."

The Buddha taught to end desire to attain satisfaction.

The Tao teaches this in verse 19:

Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom
and the people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit
and there will be no thieves.

All of these are superficial outward forms alone;
they are not sufficient in themselves.
Just stay at the centre of the circle
and let all things take their course.

It is more important to see the simplicity,
to realise one’s true nature,
to cast off selfishness and temper desire.

Profit is not virtuous. The desire to amass wealth is a vice. All world religions have taught this exact truth and yet a modern religiosity has challenged that called capitalism. W see the global results: unimaginable luxury for a few while the majority struggle to pay their bills and survive. Constant war because war is profitable and massive rates of incarceration because it too is profitable. Rampant drug abuse is a good thing because it fuels the industries of rehabilitations, methadone, pharmaceuticals like oxycotin, the police and prisons and the companies who supply the prison population. This is a vision of a society that is dystopian for the majority and utopian for a few.

Gnarlylove,
In that person's version of the Bible, Jesus says:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; unless the accused is a taxman, in which case USE A BAZOOKA!"
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's, but you assholes just lost this coin. With that Jesus pocketed the coin, and the people were amazed."

 

[Andylusion]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Raising the minimum wage always results in jobs lost. People earning one wage now, earn zero.

The minimum wage in 1941, was 30¢ per hour. Calculating inflation, that would be $4.80 today.

Unskilled low wage labor, was lower then, than today.

Further, the rich don't have 'money', they have assets. Warren Buffet, doesn't have billions in dollars. He actually only earns $100K. Most of wealth is in assets.

The amount of money collected from high taxes was actually far lower, than how much we're collecting in taxes today.

No evidence that shows higher top marginal taxes increase revenue. | ObjectoBot

There is so much evidence showing this, that you'd have to be a very ignorant person to not know.

Numbers are adjusted for inflation.

Higher tax rates, lower tax revenue.

Higher top marginal rate, lower tax revenue as a percent of GDP.

In fact, Bill Clinton's own team of economic advisers back in the early 90s, researched the effects of lowering tax rates in the 80s, and concluded the massive influx of money into the government, and the rebounding economy, were both directly related to Reagan lowering taxes.

Of course Clinton swept the report under the rug, and never mentioned it.

But the point is, you pretty much have to be completely ignorant to not know this. It's recorded is hundreds of places, from dozens of sources.

 

[dnsmith35]

What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?

Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Raising the minimum wage always results in jobs lost. People earning one wage now, earn zero.

Wild claim, no substantiation.

Further, the rich don't have 'money', they have assets. Warren Buffet, doesn't have billions in dollars. He actually only earns $100K. Most of wealth is in assets.

Are you including "liquid assets"? How do you know so much Warren Buffet's portfolio as to suggest he has zero liquid assets? And are you allowed to be sharing that very personal information with us? Or are you just making that up?
Doesn't matter. Assets are measured dollars which is why Buffet is called a Billionaire.

The amount of money collected from high taxes was actually far lower, than how much we're collecting in taxes today.

We all know the Laffer Curve
Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is so much evidence showing this, that you'd have to be a very ignorant person to not know.

You seem to be assuming that the Laffer Curve indicates that the lower the tax rate is, the higher the revenue. That is not what it says. You're supposed to use it to find the point of maximum revenue. You know, set its derivative to zero, check that you didn't stumble on any local maxima or worse yet, any minima.

In fact, Bill Clinton's own team of economic advisers back in the early 90s, researched the effects of lowering tax rates in the 80s, and concluded the massive influx of money into the government, and the rebounding economy, were both directly related to Reagan lowering taxes.

Of course Clinton swept the report under the rug, and never mentioned it.

Under the rug with the Foster murder weapon, right?

But the point is, you pretty much have to be completely ignorant to not know this. It's recorded is hundreds of places, from dozens of sources.

I think Chris knows the Laffer curve. Maybe it's you who needs a refresher.
Chris suggested we tax capital gains as income. Capital gains were taxed differently under Reagan (the champion of the Laffer curve) than they are now. Your hero Reagan taxed capital gains, dude.

So tell me, what are your thoughts on the Tax Reform Act of 1986?

 

[dnsmith35]

First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.

I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.

Can you provide that study?

Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.

In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?

Yes, I would like the minimum wage to go up, but we have really not discussed that issue. I have posted the link 4 or 5 times in the last few days, but here it is again. That you did not notice it speaks to your choosing not to read about facts.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Think maybe you'll read it this time?

 

[dnsmith35]

ADVENTURES IN CORRECTING THE LOGIC OF OTHERS

Tonight's Episode: Androw

Argument from incredulity
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.

You claimed "New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house."

You actually claimed that. And you defended your claim with "Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house."

Which is...
Argument from incredulity

You can't think of any other possibility, therefore no other possibility exists. Which is a fail.



Then why would you claim it was cheaper? You just said that new construction would always be cheaper. Now you say the value cannot be determined; ergo, new construction may not be cheaper.



You just said that they couldn't know that!


The market could go bust and they would cease construction to minimize their losses or they would build specialty homes. That's just two possibilities.
You claim there are none.


Now this is an interesting question, Androw. Finally, Androw has something constructive to add.
Let me help you to prove it without you appealing to your own authority.
Understanding The Case-Shiller Housing Index
House price index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well Done!

It only took you a few posts and twice as many ad hominems.

But we got there, people. We got there.

If not for you [gnarlylove] quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.

Then I should encourage others to quote me until you learn how logic works.

I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.

Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)

He has had the point all along. When do you expect to arrive? When discussing new construction the "appraisers" must look at the plans, the size of the house, where it is located, determine what similar new construction sold for then ESTIMATE its value so as to set a fair price. Having been in the real estate business while pursuing my graduate work it became that "appraisers" can be off either way as to the actual value of the house and the price at which it should be sold. Until about 1995 the "appraisers" mostly took the price to construct from the builder giving the builder huge profits in many cases. In the mid 90's our state's laws took the appraiser out of the brokerage business such that they could hold them responsible for more accurate estimates and insisted they complete a course in appraisal before getting their license. Things changed for the better toward the end of Clinton's term and we started to get appraisals which adhered to value.

 

[dnsmith35]

......

...

A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.

If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?

I choose to discuss the here and now. It doesn't matter what happened 100 years ago. Our government has taken over the role of the unions as to OSHA in spite of some failures, including coal mine disasters.

 

[dnsmith35]

Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.

LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.

Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.

The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't the housing market.

Horse manure! You have tried to make that stupid comment before. It was not right then and it certainly has not gotten more right.

 

[dnsmith35]

without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals of Marxism" simply do not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.

A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.

If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?

Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:

"Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.

"Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his family’s firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."

How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism

Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.

Still ate up with absurdities George? Huff Post, wow. Got any more left wing sources you want to post showing their opinion pieces?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.

Can you provide that study?

Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.

In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?

Yes, I would like the minimum wage to go up, but we have really not discussed that issue. I have posted the link 4 or 5 times in the last few days, but here it is again. That you did not notice it speaks to your choosing not to read about facts.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Okay, now that is a fantastic point. Global Trade does create US jobs, but not so directly. Jobs that were lost are just not coming back, and it is difficult for people to abandon their whole way of life (Detroit?).

I think we need to be very specific in the qualifiers of our claims.

Some basic questions:
Does outsourcing offset the job loss by creating an equal or greater number of the same jobs as those outsourced?
Does Global Trade, as an umbrella term that includes the freedom to outsource, provide new opportunities for job growth?
We have to make sure we carefully examine the data presented in any article attempting to answer such questions. here is an article advocating careful examination of the data:
Ralph Gomory: Does Outsourcing Create Jobs?

While this sounds impressive, it is probably wise to take a hard look at the data before attempting to reduce unemployment in the U.S. by advocating more outsourcing.​

What the article to which I link lacks is an assessment of other business opportunities opened up as we participate more in the Global Marketplace. There are secondary and tertiary effects that few of these articles cover. The effects are not the benefits of the profit margin of an outsourcing company but new companies that spring up in response to Global Demand. Participating in the Global Marketplace need not be a "race to the bottom", unless we stay committed to competing for labor in the industries of our yesteryear.

 

[Indeependent]

What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?

Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.

Wow. You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
You must have 20/20 hearing.
Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?

 

[dnsmith35]

LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.

Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.

The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't the housing market.

But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?

"Financial reform didn’t work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.

"Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.

"We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes

Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't have a point to run on.

 

[dnsmith35]

LOL. So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it. Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.

Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds. Teacher pension accounts hold them. The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy. Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.

The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't the housing market.

Empty claims. Zero evidence.

The crash was caused by sub-prime loans. We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.

Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s. The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.

Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives. Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped. Prices dropped first. Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.

This indicates there was a price bubble. Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.

Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.

In other words, what you said was wrong.

Correct! Not only did your graph showed the start of the bubble, this one does too.

The up swing started in 1997 and inflation of price to value started in 1999.

 

[dnsmith35]

The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't the housing market.

Empty claims. Zero evidence.

The crash was caused by sub-prime loans. We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.

Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s. The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.

Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives. Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped. Prices dropped first. Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.

This indicates there was a price bubble. Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.

Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.

In other words, what you said was wrong.

How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?

Different problems stupid!

 

[dnsmith35]

There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.

I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.

I am, sadly, able to believe that. As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?

Not in any intelligent manner. Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.

 

[Indeependent]

Empty claims. Zero evidence.

The crash was caused by sub-prime loans. We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.

Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s. The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.

Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives. Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped. Prices dropped first. Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.

This indicates there was a price bubble. Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.

Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.

In other words, what you said was wrong.

How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?

Different problems stupid!

Oh yeah, DNS! What an intelligent response!
Sub-Prime Loans <3% of the crash.
And you call "stupid"?
Whew!