Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a problem with the claim that we need to save $300 million by spending $7 billion.
You're completely ignoring the fact that economics involves more than just supply and demand. Infrastructure and societal conditions have to facilitate supply (production) and consumer demand (consumption/use). Capitalism collapses into chaos, without being regulated by a government authority for the public good. It's not funny that you ignore that, it's sad. Left to the market, without government intervention, there would be millions of homeless people, and the social unrest would be unmanageable, undermining commerce. You as a millionaire, would have to live in a walled city, surrounded by a private army. The economy would eventually fall apart.
That's the cost of doing business. I agree, to the extent that we can, we should take government out of commerce. So if consumers have to pay a few cents more per product at Walmart, or maybe an extra dollar, depending on the price of the product, that's the cost of capitalism. Walmart could decide not to raise the prices of its products and make less profit. That's up to Walmart.
You wouldn't have lower profits,
You would definitely lower profits. By a lot. I'm not shocked that you don't understand.
Left to the market, without government intervention, there would be millions of homeless people, and the social unrest would be unmanageable, undermining commerce.
Have you seen all the success with government intervention in San Francisco? LOL!
Thank goodness they don't have any homeless people or unmanageable social unrest.
That's natural. Sorry, you can't understand that. It's called "overhead". If you want the economy to function, then full-time workers to make a living wage, otherwise socialism has to enter the picture and subsidize your labor costs. The alternative is greater inequality, scarcity, more poverty, and more homeless sleeping on the sidewalk, in front of your business.
That's an example of the government not being involved. Where is law enforcement? Do you actually want the government to step back and let private security firms handle the homeless? Go ahead. Pay for it yourself, without the government. Hire mercenaries to clean the streets of San Francisco. That's what you're promoting, right? No government. Take the government out of the picture.
That's natural. Sorry, you can't understand that. It's called "overhead"
Your ignorance is very natural. You should look up "profit margin".
If you want the economy to function, then full-time workers to make a living wage, otherwise socialism has to enter the picture and subsidize your labor costs.
$300 million of socialism versus $7 billion of higher costs.
The alternative is greater inequality, scarcity, more poverty, and more homeless sleeping on the sidewalk, in front of your business.
So, San Francisco.
That's the cost of capitalism/doing business. Without government regulation, the streets would be like San Francisco throughout the country. You would be unable to do business.
No one would invest in San Francisco if a bunch of mercenary death squads were going around "sweeping the streets. The situation would deteriorate into even more chaos. Without the government, commerce would be unable to function.That's an example of the government not being involved.
Yeah, when I think San Francisco, laissez-faire comes to mind.
Where is law enforcement?
I guess their liberal government doesn't want them around.
Hire mercenaries to clean the streets of San Francisco.
They'd get results.
No one would invest in San Francisco if a bunch of mercenary death squads were going around "sweeping the streets. The situation would deteriorate into even more chaos. Without the government, commerce would be unable to function.
www.sfchronicle.com
The "hands off" of liberal policies, that defunds the police and refuses to prosecute criminals undermines commerce in San Francisco. Businesses are leaving, because if they open a store and someone shoplifts, they can't do anything. That's a lack of good, hands-on, effective policing. Lack of government involvement. If liberals defund the police, they're actually shrinking a part of government that is needed for commerce to function. People won't do business in that location if it's not safe.With government regulation, the streets are crappy in San Francisco. Literally.
Haven't you been paying attention?
No one is investing in San Francisco now.
Without the government, commerce would be unable to function.
You think commerce is functioning there now? LOL!
A wave of retail store closures has decimated downtown San Francisco, with more than a dozen notable destinations having closed or announced closures since the beginning of 2023. Old Navy, AmazonGo, Saks Off Fifth, Anthropologie and Office Depot are among the major retail brands that said they would shutter storefronts.
Most recently, Westfield announced that they would be giving up its San Francisco mall to lenders in the wake of Nordstrom’s planned closure. The mall will continue to be open, but the transfer casts a cloud over the future of its remaining tenants.
Retail closures have impacted cities across the country, as a rise in online shopping and changing habits during the pandemic affected foot traffic in retail spaces. But San Francisco’s closures have received more media attention, with retailers citing additional challenges such as high inflation, supply chain issues, labor shortages and crime. And the city’s downtown core has been affected more than other parts of the city, according to sales tax data.
S.F. downtown exodus: Map shows every major retail closure this year
A wave of retail store closures has hit downtown San Francisco. This map tracks every major retail brand that has shuttered storefronts.
The "hands off" of liberal policies, that defunds the police and refuses to prosecute criminals undermines commerce in San Francisco. Businesses are leaving, because if they open a store and someone shoplifts, they can't do anything. That's a lack of good, hands-on, effective policing. Lack of government involvement. If liberals defund the police, they're actually shrinking a part of government that is needed for commerce to function. People won't do business in that location if it's not safe.
It was government regulation that allowed America to industrialize itself.
You just proved my point. More law enforcement. If people don't want to work for you, then pay them more and improve conditions in the workplace. Supply and demand right? If people don't want to work for you, pay them more. As far as inflation, that's mostly due to corporate greed, taking advantage of the covid crisis. The government can eliminate inflation with price controls.
The Vietnam War required significant government spending on military operations, equipment, and personnel. This spending was not matched by a proportionate increase in tax revenues or reductions in other types of government spending, leading to large budget deficits. This increase in government spending without corresponding increases in revenues put upward pressure on prices, contributing to inflation.
World War II Price Controls (1942-1946): During World War II, the U.S. government implemented widespread price controls in an attempt to combat inflation and stabilize the economy. The Office of Price Administration (OPA) was established in 1941 and was responsible for controlling the prices of many goods and services in order to ensure that they remained affordable for consumers during the war. The OPA controlled prices of essential goods such as food, fuel, and housing. These controls were gradually lifted after the war.- Korean War Price Controls (1950-1953): In a response to inflationary pressures resulting from the Korean War, President Harry Truman enacted wage and price controls in 1950. The Economic Stabilization Agency was established to oversee these controls. The focus of these controls was to prevent prices from spiraling out of control due to the costs of the war and keep the economy stable.
- Nixon's Price and Wage Controls (1971-1974): In the early 1970s, the U.S. was experiencing stagflation, a combination of stagnant economic growth and high inflation. In 1971, President Richard Nixon announced a 90-day freeze on wages and prices, which was later extended and modified to become the more extensive Phase II and Phase III price controls. This period, known as the "Nixon Shocks", also involved the U.S. leaving the gold standard. The price controls had mixed results. Initially, they did bring down inflation, but over the longer term, the controls led to shortages and economic distortions. Eventually, they were phased out.
- Carter's Voluntary Wage and Price Controls (1978): In response to high inflation rates in the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter encouraged businesses and labor unions to voluntarily limit wage and price increases. Although these controls were not mandatory, they represented an attempt by the federal government to curb inflation through influencing market behavior.
The oil crisis in the 1970s was one of the major contributors to the inflation experienced in the United States during that decade. There were two separate but related oil crises in the 1970s:
- 1973 Oil Crisis: The first oil crisis began in October 1973 when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo against countries perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War, which included the United States. This caused oil prices to quadruple by early 1974. The price of crude oil went from around $3 per barrel to nearly $12 per barrel.
- 1979 Oil Crisis: The second oil crisis occurred in 1979 and was precipitated by the Iranian Revolution. The revolution led to a drop in oil production in Iran, causing global oil supplies to tighten. As a result, prices doubled, with crude oil reaching more than $39 per barrel in 1980.
The combination of these factors during the oil crises contributed to a period of high inflation and economic turmoil in the United States during the 1970s. The Federal Reserve, led by Chairman Paul Volcker in the late 1970s and early 1980s, eventually implemented a tight monetary policy to combat the high inflation, which contributed to a recession in the early 1980s but ultimately helped to bring inflation under control. Without government involvement, our modern economy collapses.
All they need to do is enforce the law, prosecuting criminals. Liberals refuse to do that.They have a huge government that doesn't do anything useful.
Like the Soviet Union.
You keep ignoring the fact that illegals aren't working in major brand retail stores. You're conflating two separate issues, at least as far as retail-service jobs are concerned, and illegals.If people don't want to work for you, then pay them more and improve conditions in the workplace. Supply and demand right?
Exactly. If we boot 30 million illegal aliens, the supply of low-skilled workers goes down.
Employers are forced to pay more for workers or go without.
Fine OP on FDR and how our society can function perfectly well with high taxes on billionaires and the very rich.
Of course today billionaires do not derive much of their wealth from “taxable income” and so even if income tax rates were as progressive as they were under FDR it would not raise the “functional tax rates” of billionaires much at all. Addressing or proposing solutions to address this issue is not the subject of this OP, however.
We are becoming a more divided society economically and socially in good part due to the rise of a new oligarchy of the very rich, which already controlls both political parties. It exercises its control in many subtle ways, a situation worsened by reactionary Republican policies — ratified by a Conservative Supreme Court —like “Citizens United.”
It is tragic that MAGA Republicanism has swallowed the billionaire’s and Ann Randian ideology almost completely. Today most MAGA Republicans spend all their efforts defending the billionaire conman Donald Trump, repeating lies and demagogy, and fighting “cultural wars” against liberals and imagined “communists” in the “Democratic Party.
We need real leaders and a mass movement to address growing economic inequality in our country — with a serious overall program for progressive tax and economic reform.
You keep ignoring the fact that illegals aren't working in major brand retail stores. You're conflating two separate issues, at least as far as retail-service jobs are concerned, and illegals.
No American working a full-time job in the US should be on welfare, especially if they're working for a multibillion-dollar company like Walmart. They should make enough to live without government welfare.
