Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.

"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties. Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.

It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?

I encourage you and all your friends to vote for the Communist Party candidate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Illinois should go Red

"But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.

"Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?

"Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

"Because it works.

"In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.

"The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.

"More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.

"It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.

"In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet

Awesome, right?

Yes, your idiocy is awesome!

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.

"As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.

"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.

"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.

"On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council.

"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.

"California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility.

"Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."

Can't police your pols?
Move to Jersey.

Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California

"As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.

Which assets should they use to "capitalize" this bank?

"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.

State funds? If they take in $104 billion and spend $106 billion, where is this extra money they can lend out coming from?

"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.

Yes, more money for politicians to buy favors with!

"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.

If Robby is for it, it's clearly a bad idea.

Ellen Brown

Silly old hack.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree people are ultimately responsible for their exit of poverty. After all, they are the individuals in question. However, when gaps in education, income, and opportunities are so severe that people are literally better off joining a gang and selling drugs from an economic standpoint then we have a problem. To you we only have a problem when it affects you and the rest of the world can **** off. This is classic selfish display and is widely held by many Americans. Indeed, selfishness drives the economy.

However, capitalism has not removed scarcity. Scarcity is rampant in Africa, parts of Asia esp Southeast, and definitely here in America. Those lines I've waited in for soup kitchens represent scarcity yet I could walk into any store with endlessly stocked shelves. This demonstrates the raw power capitalism and its success at being able to produce and manufacture goods.

We are really good at production (globally) and we rely on cheap labor (less than 2 dollars oftentimes). In other words, in order to maintain our global production at affordable prices, we need people to live in scarcity otherwise the rest of us who do not have a big savings would be significantly threatened by having to pay many times higher than the currently affordable prices. And not just a few but billions would be threatened since the middle class is the largest class.

So if we ever wish to reduce the number of parasites, we must address our view of selfish behavior as a desirable trait. In capitalism it drives the economy. Other incentives exist such as recognition, praise, internal reward of helping another person among many others. As long as selfish desire is the baseline incentive, we are going to have "parasites." That's why I think capitalism is far from the final stage of social evolution. As long as all humanity stakes claim to dignity and fair treatment and equal access to basic needs capitalism is going to be revised and revised to meet the demands of all us fabulous parasites.

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

Your understanding of concepts are good but you fail to grasp certain essential concepts that causes your ideas to have holes, quite large like a well worn prostitute.

It's funny you mention MickeyD's. They rely on socialism to succeed or more accurately the welfare state. Their employees simply cannot support themselves or families without public assistance AND MCDONALDS KNOWS THIS. In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low. Once again the private gain of a few greedy directors results in the taxpayers picking up the slack despite the fact they made 5 Billion in profits last year! Please take a moment to watch this short clip:

McResources "Help" Line - YouTube

In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low.

Too low? Too low for what?

You want to help increase the wages of Americans working at McDonalds, deport the millions of illegals competing for these low skill, low wage jobs.

Wages will rise very quickly.

 

[georgephillip]

The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.

When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.

Ask yourself if you can do basic math!

Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits.

"Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly.

"But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.

"University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

"As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: 'In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.'”

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

 

[Indeependent]

CRA Sub-Primes < 3% of value of 2008 Crash.
Conservatives are all rhetoric and no math.

Maybe I should have used a bigger font?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.

Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue

Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
Command Economy maybe?
Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts

Prosperity? Are you kidding? But for the US entry into WW II, the Great Depression would have lasted past the 1950's where it ended, and well into the 60's.
Yes, WW II put a lot of people to work, but it also left the US with crushing debt. And with the post war baby boom, also in desperate need to spend even more to cover the needs of all those soldiers coming home to no jobs. Remember, we no longer needed aircraft, tanks and other materiel for the military. It was peace time. "Rosie the Riveter" lost her job and went back to being a house wife.
Look, you are a true believer in socialism. That's that.
If you find socialism more desirable, I am sure you can choose a more suitable country in which to live and head there. Preferably NOW.

 

[RKMBrown]

This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.

"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties. Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.

It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?

Can't happen with this voting system. The system must be changed to one in which you get to vote for the candidates in the order of your preference. The current system is designed to force you to pick from two opposing bad choices that each thrive by selling the idea that voting for anyone but them is a vote for the worst choice.

 

[RKMBrown]

The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.

Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.

Wrong.

Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble. Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?

Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.

Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.

You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble. You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.

"Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are new - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about you as well, uh?

The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).

It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for power.

This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!

Again, you say nothing significant except to demonstrate ignorance.

Tell us, oh brilliant economist, what is mathematical the definition of price elasticity? How is it related to market power?

What is the criteria at which a company has maximized profit. Derive it.

And regarding your CRA bs, surely you can present the histrical data of the percentage of CRA loans; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fourth mortages; subprime loans; govt guaranteed motgages along with the default rates of each.

It's a little thing that economists like to call "counting". It is common among the sciences and necessary "to do the math".

Saying "naive crunch granola liberal" means nothing except that you are good at mental masterbation. You are great at spouting meaningless insults but can't actualy present researched material, hard data, or deductive arguments from basic principles.

Sadly, you're not even good at that. You've been smacked in the face with facts and the best response you can come up with is "that article doesn't count"

I've provided links, video, etc. to back up everything I've said. And that, my friend, is why you are so pissed off. Sorry - you lose.

 

[Indeependent]

Something went wrong with my browser.

 

[P@triot]

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.

Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.

You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!

 

[Bombur]

Wrong.

Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble. Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?

Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.

Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes.

When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
At what time?

Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.

Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance.

The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.

 

[Bombur]

Wrong.

Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble. Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?

Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.

Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.

You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble. You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.

CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.

It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.

 

[gnarlylove]

All those companies were started by ideas which are free, I give you that. But you know in order to make money you got to spend it right? So everyone needs their own venture capitalist it sounds like...I'm joking. All those people with those free ideas came from educated backgrounds, Harvard, Reed etc. etc. and until such access and opportunity exists among the parasite classes, such visions are far and few between. You know theres a strong link between education and achievement? People with less education naturally achieve less, and it's not hard to understand why. There are dozens of other factors but education is significant.

 

[Indeependent]

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.

Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.

You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!

You are basically saying that the only way to become monetarily successful is to create an IT related business.
Maybe these days such a statement rings true.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.

You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble. You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.

CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.

It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.

There is no such designation as a "CRA loan." Every subprime loan is a CRA loan. Banks had to lower their criteria for all loans because of CRA. You don't actually think they had some specially earmarked loans that were designated for black people with bad credit histories, do you? The use of the term "CRA Loans" indicates only that you're a lying propagandist. It has no connection with the facts.

 

[bripat9643]

All those companies were started by ideas which are free, I give you that. But you know in order to make money you got to spend it right? So everyone needs their own venture capitalist it sounds like...I'm joking. All those people with those free ideas came from educated backgrounds, Harvard, Reed etc. etc. and until such access and opportunity exists among the parasite classes, such visions are far and few between. You know theres a strong link between education and achievement? People with less education naturally achieve less, and it's not hard to understand why. There are dozens of other factors but education is significant.

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Thousands of kids go to Harvard every year, and many of them never make any real money. It's not an automatic ticket to vast wealth. There is nothing particularly luxurious about the childhood of Jeff Bezos. He was a vice president before he started Amazon, but he worked his way up to that position. He wasn't born in it. Steve Jobs was just another average kid from a middle class family.

Almost anyone can get an education if they simply apply themselves in school. The son of my ex-wife is getting straight 'A's in school, and he will likely get a full scholarship and go to a respectable state university. His mother only makes $30,000/yr.

The libturd theory that you can't get ahead unless your parents are wealthy is just plain bunk.

 

[bripat9643]

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.

Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.

You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!

You are basically saying that the only way to become monetarily successful is to create an IT related business.
Maybe these days such a statement rings true.

No, that's not what he's saying. However, it's apparent that you believe it. You have resigned yourself to being a loser.

 

[Andylusion]

Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?

"This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.

"Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.

"More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."

Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org

Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.

Public banks? Awesome!
Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.

Illinois should go Red

"But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.

"Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?

"Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

"Because it works.

"In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.

"The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.

"More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.

"It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.

"In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet

Awesome, right?

The interest rates on loans in North Dakota are not any better than the average.

My completely free-market, non-state run bank, has offered me excellent rates for years.

As for providing $70 Million to the state is really great and wonderful..... *IF* your goal is to enrich politicians and their political supporters.

I have no interest in enriching politicians, and political supporters.

When you say "$70 Million to the State", what I hear is "$70 Million sucked away from growth and the economy, and blown on scummy politicians and their fat cat supporters".

This is not a plus. It's a negative.

 

[Andylusion]

The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.

Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help

Image from this interesting read

To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).

Is inequality bad for economic growth?

The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.

For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.

Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?

In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale. Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.

The other aspect is that of choice. Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint. One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again. She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.

Does that graph include people like this? Of course. But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?

That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system. If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.

Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.

What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.

If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth. Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare. You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member? They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice. She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.

The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.

I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.

This comes from the story of Warren Buffet. If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route. He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine. He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money. Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.

What do most people do? I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong. Thus they consume their money, and are broke.

That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people. That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.

You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)? But people don't. They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.

There's a reason for this. Actions have consequences. Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death. In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.

But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous. Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people. Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.

1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign. Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.

Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility. He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.

You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets. Sorry, false premise.

You are talking about entire nations worth of people. Your analysis is based on personal choice. So in essence you are saying that the entire nation has started to be lazy even though any measure of how much Americans work proves you wrong.

Once again nothing you say holds up to reality.

The alternative theory is that the markets are being impacted in some way which makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you just posted. At least try and make a good argument.

It's not just "work more". You can't just "work more" and expect to get wealthy. Have you to advance yourself. And not even just "get education".

I remember hearing this lady call in for advice on what she should do with her finances. She said she made $30,000 a year, and things were tough, but she was in school, and would be out in a year or two. The host asked what her degree was, and she said "social work".

Er.... Social Work? You are going to earn the same when you get that degree, as you already are... except now you'll have thousands of dollars in loans to pay back. That's a bad plan.

"But this is what I like to do!"

Fail! Life isn't all about "what I like to do". You don't go to someone's home and say "I want you to hire me to play video games!". Sorry, not hiring you. "But it's what I like to do!" Sorry, I don't give a crap. I need someone to mow my lawn though. "But I don't like to do that!"

If anyone wants to be wealthy, you must do something that has value in the market place. The value is determined by the customer, not your personal preference.

You can work 'long hours' at flipping burgers over, and you'll just remain a burger flipper. The people who end up franchise owners, they work their way up. I want to be shift manager. I want to balance the books. They save up their burger flipper money, and take courses in management. They sign up for McDonald's management course.

What they don't do, is put in their 8 hours, and go home, sit in front of the boob tube, and say "man I put in a hard days work".

These are all choices. Choices have consequences.