Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
But do you realize the effects of a more rigid workforce?
I'm not even going to go further, because you've missed my point. I'm not requiring a "rigid workforce." My point is that I believe that "people," not business, should come first. And in economics, it is the opposite.
Again, in an effort to focus on the immediate results on the individual labor, you've failed to consider the long-term effects for all involved.
The long-term effects of laissez-faire capitalism was the late 19th century: monopolies, low wages, poor labor treatment, and concentrated wealth. Regulations were put in to stop this from happening again, but, as they slowly get deregulated under false promises of "more competition" and "lower consumer prices," we just see fewer, but larger corporations and higher prices. And, without this competition, we have business complacency, whereas business refuses to innovate, preferring to sell consumers the same old product because it is dependable.
Rather than require industries to keep employing workers they genuinely no longer need, I do think that re-education and other assistance in finding a new job is the better solution. That's not to suggest that blue-collar workers are "stupid and lazy", but to remind you that a fluid job market is better for both employers AND employees.
And, pray tell, who is going to foot the bill for "re-education"? Labor cannot afford it on their lowered wages, and the expense of college is overly burdensome for lots of people.
As far as I can tell, you haven't been recognizing "supply and demand" in either case - simplistic or with provisos. You've continued to focus on JUST the direct effects on JUST the person most obviously involved, utterly ignoring the long-term effects on all.
I can't wait 50 years for a few pennies to trickle-down off of Bill Gates' bloated stomach. And the problems I bring about are long-term problems. Wage suppression has lasted two decades with no end in sight. Over 45 million people without health insurance with no end in sight. These problems aren't just going to go away if you ignore them.
I believe that you *were* implying that your beliefs were at least more Christian.
If the shoe fits...
1. Those who did believe that poverty is the will of God were indeed wrong, though I'm not sure it was "Christianity" en masse.
The noble exception was Roman Catholic social service institutions.
2. I'm not suggesting the improper mixture of church and state. I'm suggesting that taking care of the poor may be the job of private orginizations (churches and others) solely. Taking the job back from the government isn't a First Amendment infringement - at least, it's no more an infringement than the government seizing the role in the first place.
If you send it to private organizations, you run into the problem of power and profit motivation. If you hand it to religion, you have the problem of discrimination and judgmentalism.
3. The United States is the most giving country in the world, by dollars.
And it still isn't enough.
You know, it's none of your business what I do in my private life, asshole.
It was a rhetorical question, dumb fuck.
How many times did you give?
Since you've asked, I am forbidden from giving, thanks to homophobic stereotypes.
Moreover, if government knows best, how much money have you given to government above and beyond your tax burden? How many times have you looked at your wallet, decided you have too much money, and given it to Washington?
What a stupid question. They have taxes, because they know people won't freely give, but things need to be done. The war on terrorism, for instance, can't pay for itself.
Beyond that, while it *is* true that government can more completely guarantee charity, it's ALSO true that government-run programs are easily abused and difficult to reform.
Well, when you have a stubborn legislature, it is hard to reform anything, now isn't it?
(I value freedom over security, you apparently don't)
Boy...we certainly have the wrong president for that. Ashcroft virtually ordered suspended the Freedom of Information Act. Bush signed an executive order that reversed a 1978 executive order that required the release of presidential papers 12 years after a president leaves office--only funny, considering Reagan's papers were due to be released. Anyone who questions is now "aiding terrorism." Such freedom we have...
but I would only give government those jobs that the private sector clearly cannot handle, and I'm not convinced charity is one of them.
If the private sector could handle it, then why are there still homeless? Those without insurance? If it can't handle it now with the government doing most of the job, then I don't expect it to handle it doing 100% of the job.
They either reinvest it in themselves, hiring more, buying more machinery, etc.; or give larger profits to stockholders.
It will certainly be option #2.
Those stockholders, at least, now have a greater income to also invest in other companies or simply "buy stuff". The economy improves, prices of products drop, and the BUYING POWER of those with the same take-home wages INCREASES.
Oh yes. Those old people can now get $9 dividend checks coming in, instead of the $2 ones they currently have. The amount of sizeable stockholders out there aren't enough to make a substantial dent in the price of anything.
Then a rumor hits the stock market, and all their investment is worthless.
I agree that the current health care system is screwed up, but that isn't an indictment of capitalism. If anything, a system where prices are set almost entirely separated from the effects on the consumers' pocketbook is about as far as an American gets from supply-and-demand.
We aren't getting "supply and demand" on medical prices. Pharmaceutical companies jack up American medical prices to make up for nations that were smart enough to regulate the prices. And, since most medicines we currently use are under patents still, they are monopolies. Almost amusing how, in India, they could sell AIDS drugs for less than $10 that American pharmaceuticals were charging $10,000 for. And who ultimately suffers? The American public.
Further, I question the stats about the low-paying jobs, specifically: does it include teenagers and college kids who aren't trying to raise enough money to feed a family? And does it also account for the fact that low-paying jobs are also very transient - that most people don't keep those jobs for any extended period of time? If it doesn't (and I suspect it doesn't), the statistic is meaningless.
What you state is irrelevant. My point is that most jobs created now are low-paying. When people talk about all the "jobs created" under Reagan, they neglected to mention that they were mostly low paying. Unfortunately, that's most of the fun of politics--the word play.
And when your family is working half the year to write a check to the IRS, how can it function properly?
Are you sick in the head? We aren't paying 50% in income taxes. And, not that it is any of your business, but we get sizeable refund checks.
1. If businesses lower wages, the Fed won't see the added income.
The Fed's concern is not about added income, it is inflation curbing.
2. If the Fed's reaction is what hurts individuals, you're still not indicting capitalism. It may just indicate that government has too much control over the economy, not too little.
The Fed's reaction was legislated under a conservative president.
The federal government has spent something near a TRILLION dollars since 1930 in its unsuccessful effort to defeat poverty. It's created a welfare state and supressed the economy. Dismantling those programs will be difficult, but I think it's necessary.
It was pretty damn successful until the 1980s. And a trillion over 60 years is nothing compared to $7 trillion spent on the military in the 1980s.
No, "progressive", punitive taxes are nothing new, but they do provide a huge disincentive to create wealth.
Is Bill Gates going to get so depressed that he'll just stop wanting to make money?
And you also deal with generally mediocre services, a stagnant economy, and, most importantly, drastically less economic freedom. It's not all roses.
I'll let the Europeans comment on this.
See, this is the big difference between you and me. You see the rich paying less than they are now, and say that's not fair. I see that, under Forbes' plan, the rich is STILL paying more as a percentage, still paying more in absolute numbers, and is less likely to find loopholes to pay less.
So, somehow, in reducing the rate from 36% to 17%, the rich are going to pay more? I'm not even going to comment on the ridiculousness of that.
I find that more than fair for the poor.
What part of the 2% increase in taxes didn't you understand?
So it's not only the U.S. vs. Mexico, it's the North vs. the South? Are you honestly suggesting that companies should be unable to move their plants to ANOTHER PART OF THE UNITED STATES?
No, I'm saying that they think of the South as "cheap." I'll make sure to put that on my city's billboard.
I suppose that if you lived in City X, and a company moved to the suburbs because of lower taxes, you'd ask the federal government to prevent that too.
Sounds correct to me.
...or, are you suggesting that the federal government should make all economic decesions, including tax laws and labor laws that have traditionally been the states' domain?
Not really.
Why even have a Tenth Amendment?
In case you haven't read it, it is terribly broad.
Wasn't there a recession between the glorious early Seventies and the early Eighties? What caused that, hmm?
And weren't there two recessions in the "glorious" 80s?
And which decade do you think was the most prosperous since WWII? The Seventies, or the Eighties?
Prosperous for business, the 80s. Prosperous for labor, the 60s.
To use your analogy, you're still ignoring the basic physics rather than acknowledge the basic phyisics THEN recognizing the provisos.
I see you've fully ignored the point of what I wrote. Not a complete surprise, though.
And the "deregulated" companies can't build more plants, despite the HUGE increase in demand, thanks to environmental regulations. In this case, limits on production directly lower supply, creating the same damn shortage.
What part of "cut production" and "higher prices" didn't you understand? The shortages magically disappeared after the utility commission uncovered the utilities were often operating at 75% capacity during the so-called "shortages."
And, FYI, they are building more plants over there. They don't magically appear overnight.
And you still haven't shown the basic understanding from which you can begin factoring, which is why I suggested "Economics in One Lesson."
More theory. I've had enough theory driven into me to last a lifetime, and I haven't liked what I read.
But if you want to stop debating, great. I'm not going to reply again. If you want to follow suit, please do.
Is that a promise or yet another idle threat?
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time