CDZ What are you worth?

[320 Years of History]

The 'rules' of free trade may sound good, yet they are entirely engineered towards assuming the disparity we're living ,ergo they are often called 'free traitors'

I think I may care to respond to your post, but I don't know what the sentence above is supposed to mean. Can you please explain it, ideally without rhetorical jargon. Specifically:

• What on Earth does "engineered toward assuming" mean?

 

[Boss]

I recognize that we in overall agreement about the merits of free trade and capitalism over those of constrained trade and non-capitalism. I think we agree that laissez faire capitalism (including the free trade aspect of it) has some serious downsides. I think too that you know as well as I and every economist on the planet that taking a system to ever greater degrees of laissez fair-ness does not overcome those ills, it exacerbates them. If, however, you don't think that to be so, than please explain (or refer to credible documents/theories that do) just how moving to ever more unrestrained trade/capitalism can be shown/expected to mitigate the downsides of unrestrained capitalism/trade.

I will point out that you have yet to illustrate any legitimate downsides to true free market capitalism. You can toss out fancy terms like laissez faire all day, we've both agreed there are benefits to having some degree of government oversight to ensure things like public safety or environmental protection. We both can agree there are areas the framers/founders understood that free market capitalism was ineffective at handling because the incentives were all wrong, like national defense and security. We should both be in agreement that individual constitutional rights have to be protected above the interests of free market capitalists. All of these things combined make laissez faire free market capitalism impossible in our system. Now, beyond those things, what can you cite that is a legitimate downside to free market trade?

From my perspective, free market capitalism is the simplest thing to understand and the most fair and equitable form of commerce we can have. I have something you need and want, you have something I need and want... we voluntarily agree to trade. Why is that wrong or bad in any way?

 

[sparky]

Wall street broke capitalism in '08 Boss. It was an easy bubble to predict , with roots hailing back to the rescinding of Glass Steagal during the Clinton era , just took 20 years to 'pop'...

They further granted the chair of the Banking commission to it's biggest proponent, Barney Frank

There are more examples, but this most recent one should easily express capitalism as an animal that eats itself.

Proof?

$70 B wall st, $38B Big Oil, 2T stashed offshore avioding taxation, $153B Walmart & McD worker ants,$813B military annual subsidization(s)

THAT is where 'free trade' got us.....

~S~

Well, no sparky... you're simply burping up propaganda put out by Marxists who seek to destroy Capitalism so they can implement Marxist Socialism.

First of all, "Wall Street" is a place. It is the financial district in New York City where stocks are exchanged daily as a part of our capitalist system. Most working Americans have 401ks which are tied to stocks being traded there. Thousands of American companies live and die, hire and fire, based on what happens there. So to just point your finger at "Wall Street" and blame it for all our problems is simply showing a profound lack of understanding in how our economic system works. The same can be said for any particular piece of legislation or even any particular political leader or administration. ALL of your "bubble bursts" come as a direct result of government interfering with free market capitalist mechanics. With true free market capitalism, the laws of supply and demand along with free enterprise competition, forces the markets to adjust and avoid any kind of artificial bubble... no bubble, no bubble burst. The problems occur when we get AWAY from free market principles and rely on government meddling. Politicians lack the financial wisdom to comprehend the ramifications and consequences of their policies.

Another thing you seem to be doing is calling out Big Conglomerate CORPORATISTS. These are NOT free market capitalists. Certain corporations and industries have very powerful lobbies in Washington, where they buy political influence in order to leverage an advantage over their competitors.... that is NOT free market capitalism, and is actually a bigger threat to free market capitalism than Marxist Socialism. But the Marxist is more than happy to exploit Corporatism in order to prop up the myth that Capitalism is failing you. What is failing you is Big Government in collusion with Corporatists implementing policies that destroy free market trade.

My reference to Wall st embodies that which controls the market , which are essentially the big conglomerate corporatists Boss

Yet we can dispense of that which is semantical ,and instead focus on the economic model(s) pursuant to what is an economic system that works for everyone.

For starters, we can view Adam Smith's "hidden hand" as the father of free trade, the jist was the market itself would always be self correcting. We can find Mr Smith's quote throughout the econosphere up to and inclusive in doctorate thesis , yet he was captive to (by today's standards) an isolated ag-economy of little more than corn crops and livestock.

Insisting an even distribution of economic rights and political power exists for a level playing field globally wasn't even on Smith's radar 3.5 centuries ago....

We can FF to John Maynard Keynes, father of macroeconomics , who's depression era economic model of lower interest rates and gub'mit infrastructure investment became the prevalent model after WW2 , obviosly fitting the needs of the time

Moving forward , his successor Milton Friedman challenged Keynesian economics as naive ,instead focusing on intricacies he missed, the Fed's role gaining far more prominence

One wonders what these folks would say now, magically sequestered in some board room in 2016.

~S~

 

[sparky]

The 'rules' of free trade may sound good, yet they are entirely engineered towards assuming the disparity we're living ,ergo they are often called 'free traitors'

I think I may care to respond to your post, but I don't know what the sentence above is supposed to mean. Can you please explain it, ideally without rhetorical jargon. Specifically:

• What on Earth does "engineered toward assuming" mean?

Meaning the elites created it for their own gain 320

And really, any economic model can have plain human greed put serious holes in it

Then the same players who'll do so will stand behind their political puppets blame shifting it away from themselves.

Nothing new ,for ex. the Jekyll island crew purposely named it the 'Federal Reserve' fully aware it neither ,to do just that!

~S~

 

[Boss]

My reference to Wall st embodies that which controls the market , which are essentially the big conglomerate corporatists Boss

Which was precisely my point in clarifying what "Wall Street" actually is. And no, they are not "essentially" the big conglomerate corporatists. In fact, the vast majority are free market capitalists. Marxists do not make a distinction between corporatists and free market capitalists, they are all Capitalists and must all be destroyed so that Marxism can proceed. Therefore, they will brainwash the masses into accepting this meme that "Wall Street" is the source of all your problems... those evil rich capitalists who are screwing you over.

The overwhelming majority of companies represented on Wall Street are free market capitalists competing in a free market system with other free market capitalists. The value of their stocks, their profits, etc., are directly tied to most American's 401k retirement plans, if not, their very jobs and livelihoods.

 

[dblack]

Yet we can dispense of that which is semantical ,and instead focus on the economic model(s) pursuant to what is an economic system that works for everyone.

Sorry for the clip-and-drop, but I think this bit highlights a key difference in perspective. The free market isn't a 'system'. It's merely people trading with each other, or not, as they please. Efforts to turn into a system are what create the kinds of centralized corruption you're complaining about.

 

[sparky]

Yet we can dispense of that which is semantical ,and instead focus on the economic model(s) pursuant to what is an economic system that works for everyone.

Sorry for the clip-and-drop, but I think this bit highlights a key difference in perspective. The free market isn't a 'system'. It's merely people trading with each other, or not, as they please. Efforts to turn into a system are what create the kinds of centralized corruption you're complaining about.

Then we're still looking to define 'Free Trade' beyond the usual laissez-faire association Mr.dblack.....

I would suggest the concept then of being free from monopolies, free from political or economic privilege, free from artificial influences ,a meritocracy of competition

So, do you think all the players, left alone to their own means, will play by said rules.....?

~S~

 

[sparky]

My reference to Wall st embodies that which controls the market , which are essentially the big conglomerate corporatists Boss

The overwhelming majority of companies represented on Wall Street are free market capitalists competing in a free market system with other free market capitalists. The value of their stocks, their profits, etc., are directly tied to most American's 401k retirement plans, if not, their very jobs and livelihoods.

You do realize the fiscal crash of '08 saw 40 million homes foreclosed, the same in jobs lost, and any savings, retirement ,annuities and/or liquid assets devalued at the hands of instruments such as Credit Default Swaps

Said instruments were outlawed after the depression, and for good reason, rescinded in the 90's merely for the sake of profit at the consumers risk

Call it Wall st, K street, Fiscal monopolies , Elitist influence , Congress on crack, if you like, they have only ONE allegiance, and it don't look like it's economic equilibrium

~S~

 

[sparky]

So let's introduce a plot twist then fellas....China! Objectively the fastest growing market this rock has seen since our Gilded age.

Seen politics aside, they are totalitarian capitalists & doing a rather impressive job of it

Who sezs Gub'Mit & Market don't mix?

~S~

 

[Boss]

You do realize the fiscal crash of '08 saw 40 million homes foreclosed, the same in jobs lost, and any savings, retirement ,annuities and/or liquid assets devalued at the hands of instruments such as Credit Default Swaps

Said instruments were outlawed after the depression, and for good reason, rescinded in the 90's merely for the sake of profit at the consumers risk

Call it Wall st, K street, Fiscal monopolies , Elitist influence , Congress on crack, if you like, they have only ONE allegiance, and it don't look like it's economic equilibrium

You are blaming something that wasn't caused by free market capitalism. If not for government (Big Gov) being influenced by Corporatists, there would have never been a fiscal crash. The problem is too much government power interfering too much with free market capitalism. The "solution" is NOT more government power to punish free market capitalists!

Economic equilibrium is best achieved and maintained through principles of free market capitalism. There is a specific supply... There is a specific demand... There is competition... these naturally create a price equilibrium. It is only when outside forces of government interfere that we have a problem.

 

[dblack]

Yet we can dispense of that which is semantical ,and instead focus on the economic model(s) pursuant to what is an economic system that works for everyone.

Sorry for the clip-and-drop, but I think this bit highlights a key difference in perspective. The free market isn't a 'system'. It's merely people trading with each other, or not, as they please. Efforts to turn into a system are what create the kinds of centralized corruption you're complaining about.

Then we're still looking to define 'Free Trade' beyond the usual laissez-faire association Mr.dblack.....

The usual laissez-faire 'association' works fine for me. A free market is simply a given in a free society. The only regulation it requires from government is the same legal structure that all other areas of society must follow (eg. laws against violence, theft, fraud, etc...).

I would suggest the concept then of being free from monopolies, free from political or economic privilege, free from artificial influences ,a meritocracy of competition

And I would reject this suggestion. A free market isn't complicated. It's people trading free of coercive influence. Period.

 

[dblack]

So let's introduce a plot twist then fellas....China! Objectively the fastest growing market this rock has seen since our Gilded age.

Seen politics aside, they are totalitarian capitalists & doing a rather impressive job of it

Who sezs Gub'Mit & Market don't mix?

~S~

I never have. Governments and (non-free) markets can be quite 'successful'. So can slavery. I don't really care. I've never advocated free markets for performance reasons. I advocate for free markets because I advocate for freedom.

 

[sparky]

You do realize the fiscal crash of '08 saw 40 million homes foreclosed, the same in jobs lost, and any savings, retirement ,annuities and/or liquid assets devalued at the hands of instruments such as Credit Default Swaps

Said instruments were outlawed after the depression, and for good reason, rescinded in the 90's merely for the sake of profit at the consumers risk

Call it Wall st, K street, Fiscal monopolies , Elitist influence , Congress on crack, if you like, they have only ONE allegiance, and it don't look like it's economic equilibrium

You are blaming something that wasn't caused by free market capitalism. If not for government (Big Gov) being influenced by Corporatists, there would have never been a fiscal crash. The problem is too much government power interfering too much with free market capitalism. The "solution" is NOT more government power to punish free market capitalists!

Economic equilibrium is best achieved and maintained through principles of free market capitalism. There is a specific supply... There is a specific demand... There is competition... these naturally create a price equilibrium. It is only when outside forces of government interfere that we have a problem.

So who would these 'corporatists' that had such an overwhelming influence on our Congress, and where do they normally reside Boss?

~S~

 

[jillian]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

that is a silly hypothetical since no one is suggesting anything of the kind. wouldn't you do better to discuss policies that might actually be implemented in this country?

 

[sparky]

I would suggest the concept then of being free from monopolies, free from political or economic privilege, free from artificial influences ,a meritocracy of competition

And I would reject this suggestion. A free market isn't complicated. It's people trading free of coercive influence. Period.[/QUOTE]

And how would you suggest that to exist w/o devolving into 'biggest dog wins' ?

~S~

 

[dblack]

... A free market isn't complicated. It's people trading free of coercive influence. Period.

And how would you suggest that to exist w/o devolving into 'biggest dog wins' ?

As long as all interactions are voluntary, I have no problem with 'biggest dog wins'.

 

[dblack]

You do realize the fiscal crash of '08 saw 40 million homes foreclosed, the same in jobs lost, and any savings, retirement ,annuities and/or liquid assets devalued at the hands of instruments such as Credit Default Swaps

Said instruments were outlawed after the depression, and for good reason, rescinded in the 90's merely for the sake of profit at the consumers risk

Call it Wall st, K street, Fiscal monopolies , Elitist influence , Congress on crack, if you like, they have only ONE allegiance, and it don't look like it's economic equilibrium

You are blaming something that wasn't caused by free market capitalism. If not for government (Big Gov) being influenced by Corporatists, there would have never been a fiscal crash. The problem is too much government power interfering too much with free market capitalism. The "solution" is NOT more government power to punish free market capitalists!

Economic equilibrium is best achieved and maintained through principles of free market capitalism. There is a specific supply... There is a specific demand... There is competition... these naturally create a price equilibrium. It is only when outside forces of government interfere that we have a problem.

So who would these 'corporatists' that had such an overwhelming influence on our Congress, and where do they normally reside Boss?

~S~

Corporatists are government leaders, including members of Congress, who see government as a means of 'running' society.

 

[Onyx]

And how would you suggest that to exist w/o devolving into 'biggest dog wins' ?

There are no winners or losers. Just rulers and slaves.

Capitalism provides for everybody relative to their accomplishments.

The state can always be bought off, but the common man has the capacity to resist.

 

[Boss]

So who would these 'corporatists' that had such an overwhelming influence on our Congress, and where do they normally reside Boss?

Look at the donor list for just about any major politician and you'll find them. They reside everywhere and their stocks are traded on Wall Street. Some of them are even stock traders on Wall Street. But THEY are not the problem. The problem is the powerful centralized federal government they influence and the crooked politicians who run it. Remove that, and you solve 99% of the problem.

 

[Boss]

Corporatists are government leaders, including members of Congress, who see government as a means of 'running' society.

I have a different definition.

Corporatists are capitalists who exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over their competition. You're describing the government "Cronies" they collude with by purchasing influence through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. They are partners in crime.

Again, the solution here is to reduce the power of government over business, not scream for MORE! The Left seems to want to inherently trust government but government is complicit. We stopped electing men of character, honor and integrity years ago.. we said character doesn't matter. We have to reduce the power and influence of government and get back to encouraging free market capitalism while rejecting crony corporatism.