What is the middle class?

[Jomama]

You two morons deserve each other. Culture made a sweeping statement against capitalist and then tried to weasel out of it by saying it only addresses the 1% - but then still dont tell how. Yes, I'm in the 1%, answer my questions when you're done playing circle jerk with Edward.

 

[CultureCitizen]

understand what exactly? try to be specific.

Do you understand now how developing nations embracing free trade in a sudden manner can get stagnated ?
And how controlled trade in which only specific sectors are liberalized is a better solution ?

no you idiot!! you can never start in a sudden manner unless you have stuff to trade of equal value.

Making sense now??

Well , then we have an agreement ( finally, it seems ) , just save the "idiot" adjective for to those who wrote the Washington concensus and signed the NAFTA.

John Williamson, .. "the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department.[1]"

Brian Mulroney, George Bush , Bill Clinton and Carlos Salinas de Gortari

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yes. I find it disquieting that many acquire income through rent-seeking mechanisms which seem to go hand in hand with the revolving door: oligopolies, tax breaks, tax evasion through loophole, multi billion wars, money laundering, insider trading ... etc.

Explain that please? I'm an entrepreneur, please explain how I participate in all these ills. In my simple mind I was just the guys cutting paychecks weekly to decent people in an impoverished (rust belt) area of the country. Here I thought my wages were helping to feed hundreds of people weekly but you're saying my entrepreneurialism is really more closely affiliated with; tax evasion, multi billion wars, money laundering, insider trading ... etc. ??? And the feeding of families with honest wages should be delegated to ... whom?

Ok Jomama ,
By my original post yes, "many acquire income through rent-seeking mechanisms" please do note I said many , not everyone. In any case:

Do you make large donations to specific candidates and expect in return :
a) Subsidies ( like corn farmers)
b) Tax cuts for your specific industry
c) tariff protection
Do you accept dealings with shady characters to obfuscate the origin of their earnings ( like HSBC )?
Do you take advantage of tax loopholes to pay less than 5% on corporate tax?
Have you worked in the government and offered a public project to a company in exchange for its support in your campaign?
Have you bought your competitors to avoid competition ?
Have you actively participated in predatory lending as did many of the banks before de subprime morgage crisis?
Do you earn more than 100 times what your workers earn in average ?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then yes, indeed , you are a rent seeker.

References
HSBC became bank to drug cartels, pays big for lapses
The 16 Profitable Companies That Pay Almost Nothing In Taxes
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis
Top CEOs Make 373 Times the Average U.S. Worker

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well , then we have an agreement

no agreement with an idiot liberal. Cut the BS. If you're for crippling Americas economy by protecting it from competition say why or admit you lack the IQ to be here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then yes, indeed , you are a rent seeker.

of course people on welfare food stamps medicaid medicare SS minimum wage unions govt jobs public schools etc are rent seekers too.

Liberalism is 100% designed to create more and more rent seekers, i,e, people who earn a living through govt violence rather than free peaceful and voluntary relationships.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then yes, indeed , you are a rent seeker.

of course people on welfare food stamps medicaid medicare SS minimum wage unions govt jobs public schools etc are rent seekers too.

Liberalism is 100% designed to create more and more rent seekers, i,e, people who earn a living through govt violence rather than free peaceful and voluntary relationships.

... and children Ed. Don't forget children those awfull toddler rent seekers who live in a bubble, isolated from the market forces.
Someone has to show them a thing or two and put them to work since an early age ( 4 or 5 years max ).
I am starting to think on just what a great nation the US would be if those little creatures didn't spend 18 years in an economic bubble ... productivity will skyrocket I am certain.

... sarcasm intended.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and children Ed.

why would the perfect idiot liberal include children?? unless his pure ignorance drove him to try and change the subject??

 

[CultureCitizen]

... and children Ed.

why would the perfect idiot liberal include children?? unless his pure ignorance drove him to try and change the subject??

nasty rent-seekers ... aren't they ?

 

[Jomama]

By my original post yes, "many acquire income through rent-seeking mechanisms" please do note I said many , not everyone. In any case:

Okay, Many or 1% or actually even less because I answered No to every question below but I'm a capitalist, I make money deploying capital, and I'm your definition of 1%.

So how many people are going to answer Yes to those questions? Really, you think the country club is just teeming with people who could say Yes to that? What stupid questions, I'm far less sympathetic of the abuse Edward gives you. I know and work with zillionaire industrialists and they dont waste their time kowtowing for political favors. They have serious distaste for the loser political class and couldnt stomach more than an hour of that zoo. They can make more money faster doing something else.

For the record I would buy a competitor to avoid competition. America spent the 2000's vastly oversupplied in nearly every industry. This created much of the shockwave industry felt in 2009 which stripped middle class Americans of large portions of their wealth and income. I personally advocate for market equilibrium which seems to have fostered startups and consolidations for centuries. You? Central Planning? Outlawing the ability to buy or sell a business?

Do you make large donations to specific candidates and expect in return :
a) Subsidies ( like corn farmers)
b) Tax cuts for your specific industry
c) tariff protection
Do you accept dealings with shady characters to obfuscate the origin of their earnings ( like HSBC )?
Do you take advantage of tax loopholes to pay less than 5% on corporate tax?
Have you worked in the government and offered a public project to a company in exchange for its support in your campaign?
Have you bought your competitors to avoid competition ?
Have you actively participated in predatory lending as did many of the banks before de subprime morgage crisis?
Do you earn more than 100 times what your workers earn in average ?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then yes, indeed , you are a rent seeker.

One of the Many, or maybe just 1% or maybe even less, or maybe just a liberal boogyman?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Okay, Many or 1% or actually even less because I answered No to every question below but I'm a capitalist, I make money deploying capital, and I'm your definition of 1%.

So how many people are going to answer Yes to those questions? Really, you think the country club is just teeming with people who could say Yes to that? What stupid questions, I'm far less sympathetic of the abuse Edward gives you. I know and work with zillionaire industrialists and they dont waste their time kowtowing for political favors. They have serious distaste for the loser political class and couldnt stomach more than an hour of that zoo. They can make more money faster doing something else.

For the record I would buy a competitor to avoid competition. America spent the 2000's vastly oversupplied in nearly every industry. This created much of the shockwave industry felt in 2009 which stripped middle class Americans of large portions of their wealth and income. I personally advocate for market equilibrium which seems to have fostered startups and consolidations for centuries. You? Central Planning? Outlawing the ability to buy or sell a business?

How many ... ? not many , for sure . Probably around 100,000 in the US... that wouldnt make the country club teeming with them.

You may find them stupid , but you can equally call reality stupid. I posted the links it is up to you whether to believe in their content or not.

Buying your competition , yes, well that's a monopolic practice and it would actually take you one step closer to the position of central planner. Markets need competition to work, ask any economist.

Central planning: All countries perform certain amount of central planning, how else do you think the postal service , the police , public education or the military work ?

No , central planning is not for every single area, but monopolies can be equally harmfull.

What I am certain of is that inequality and poverty make a society and an economy more unstable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... and children Ed.

why would the perfect idiot liberal include children?? unless his pure ignorance drove him to try and change the subject??

nasty rent-seekers ... aren't they ?

why would the perfect idiot liberal include children?? unless his pure ignorance drove him to try and change the subject??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No , central planning is not for every single area, but monopolies can be equally harmfull.

too stupid as always!! Only Marx and his puppets worried about monopolies. We have had anti trust for 100 years and few if any on either side want to get rid of it even though its not needed because the free market destroys most monopolies before the govt bureaucrats can.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I am certain of is that inequality and poverty make a society and an economy more unstable.

100% stupid and liberal as always Mao enforced equality right down to the same clothes for everyone and still 65 million slowly starved to death!!

 

[CultureCitizen]

No , central planning is not for every single area, but monopolies can be equally harmfull.

too stupid as always!! Only Marx and his puppets worried about monopolies. We have had anti trust for 100 years and few if any on either side want to get rid of it even though its not needed because the free market destroys most monopolies before the govt bureaucrats can.

Sure Ed, that's why the US has antitrust laws since 1890.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No , central planning is not for every single area, but monopolies can be equally harmfull.

too stupid as always!! Only Marx and his puppets worried about monopolies. We have had anti trust for 100 years and few if any on either side want to get rid of it even though its not needed because the free market destroys most monopolies before the govt bureaucrats can.

Sure Ed, that's why the US has antitrust laws since 1890.

too stupid I said we've had it for 100 years, and???????????

 

[CultureCitizen]

No , central planning is not for every single area, but monopolies can be equally harmfull.

too stupid as always!! Only Marx and his puppets worried about monopolies. We have had anti trust for 100 years and few if any on either side want to get rid of it even though its not needed because the free market destroys most monopolies before the govt bureaucrats can.

Sure Ed, that's why the US has antitrust laws since 1890.

too stupid I said we've had it for 100 years, and???????????

Try some math Ed :
2015 - 1890 = ?

Then tell me of some example in which a monopoly has been destroyed by the market.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then tell me of some example in which a monopoly has been destroyed by the market.

100% pure stupidity as always from the typical liberal. There are no monopolies because the free market destroyed them all before they came into existence. The last big case was IBM which was destroyed by Microsoft before the govt could complete its case against them.

Do you understand?

 

[Jomama]

Culture, explain the difference between buying your competitors and industry consolidation?

When oil drops from $100BBL to $40BBL is it in the nation's interest that all producers are weakened equally and put in a position where they might not be able to recover, or is it natural and best for companies to combine efforts and strengthen their odds of survival?

Should all typewriter or turntable companies have gone out of business in quick succession or it is better to have one or two survive in a dying industry?

Do you oppose any business from going to a bankruptcy auction in their industry? Should auctions only be legal for people who dont really have a need for the items being offered?

Can you open your brain just wide enough to see that nuance exists within the dynamism of a free market system?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Then tell me of some example in which a monopoly has been destroyed by the market.

100% pure stupidity as always from the typical liberal. There are no monopolies because the free market destroyed them all before they came into existence. The last big case was IBM which was destroyed by Microsoft before the govt could complete its case against them.

Do you understand?

IBM was not destroyed by Microsoft and Microsoft is still a monopoly which makes a not very stable operating system.
The only thing that has weakened Microsoft's monopoly is technology: the rise of the smartphone.. their foothold in the PC market is still quite firm.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Culture, explain the difference between buying your competitors and industry consolidation?

When oil drops from $100BBL to $40BBL is it in the nation's interest that all producers are weakened equally and put in a position where they might not be able to recover, or is it natural and best for companies to combine efforts and strengthen their odds of survival?

Should all typewriter or turntable companies have gone out of business in quick succession or it is better to have one or two survive in a dying industry?

Do you oppose any business from going to a bankruptcy auction in their industry? Should auctions only be legal for people who dont really have a need for the items being offered?

Can you open your brain just wide enough to see that nuance exists within the dynamism of a free market system?

Jomama , as allways, the devil is in the details.
It is not the same buying a broken company , than buying a thriving ( but small ) company .
In the first case I see no problem. In the second yes, it is a rent seeking action which many times just allows the biger company to continue doing low quallity products, in the best case scenario the bigger company incorporates the technology of the smaller one and produces better products. This happens all the time in the software industry and the norm is the first scenario, not the second.

Oil companies, are natural monopolies, but the IMPORTANT part that many skip is that if a government decides to allow natural MONOPOLIES then they must be regulated because the market forces don't work with a monopoly.