how soon before the US in same state as Greece?

[Spotless]

Let's put aside studies:

 

What brings out the pitchforks?

 

A case could clearly be made that socialism and communism is not born from socialists - it is born from the extremes we are seeing here on our shores - the cake eaters create these forms inadvertently because they force the need for change.

 

And through out all of history - simple work migrates to poorer areas - this raises the living standard and the work migrates again.

Poorer areas have less regulation, lower wages and are typically somewhat desparate often offering "no taxes and free rent" for a decade to new companies. But what do these moves leave in their place? The USA was once such a place, Japan used to make "jap" crap and now it has fruit in its supermarkets that are hand placed in delicate protective sleeves.

 

Pretend you are a lawyer and must defend either argument - it is too simple to become uprooted in this noise and easy to take either "side" but we certainly don't speak of the jobs lost or the medical insurance costs because of CEO's making 500 times the average wage.

 

The average laborer in real dollars is making about $4.00 less per hour than they made in 1970.

 

While we are still the leading manufacturing country in the world - we would be in a much larger position if Reagan had not instituted tax incentives and government assistance programs to help our largest corporations move abroad. He did it because in his own words "America needs to remain competitive". Only the largest could afford such a task even with our government aid - the result was the fastest shift of manufacturing jobs from one country to another in all of modern history. And it killed the remaining mid-sized and large corps because they could no longer compete.

 

The whole notion of deregulation and self-regulation should be brought before a group of parents - ask them what happens when you put the cookie jars out and tell the kids to self-regulate. Laws are needed to abate corporate greed, insure good working environments and proper compensation and voice - and provide for proper clean output relatively free from pollution - these things will drive some business away but they also will attract higher forms of business creating many new better paying jobs and cleaning up existing areas.

 

The impact on the economy of every forced minimum wage increase has had a net large scale positive impact.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Spotless

[CloudHands]

If minimum wage was so great then why not set it at $100 or $1000 dollars an hour ? And why is it that the government omit certain groups like the disabled from it ? It's because the Government already understand the economics, they just rely on everyone else being dumb enough to swallow the bull. They know full well that setting it above market rate causes unemployment and they also know that the disabled would not find employment at the higher wage rates and so that group is exempted.

 

I know nobody will agree because it is not your culture... but

 

If I agree with you in a context of worldwide free market, if a country manage to tax importation (which would reduce pollution and dope economy) any good will be paid the fair price.

 

How can it be authorized an enterprise to have more sellers than productive workers ? That company sells sells. Not services, neither goods, it sell sells -to old people that don't need them generally-

 

The same apply for economy. Economy has not to run for itself it isn't the end of the chain. There are ways to manage it otherwise and it has to be because the way you (most anglo-saxons for what I can see) think about it implies people as slave of the system. It is now but it has not to be.

 

Rules, laws, regulations are the barrier to human savagery it will not make people weaker.

 

From a philosophic perspective the idea that underlie our actual economy is the natural selection. Mankind lives in society and has selected solidarity a very long time ago as its main vector but we forgot it when we started running.

 

 

BTW : sorry for my bad english is that all understandable ? I always wonder...

Edited July 16, 2015 by CloudHands

[Karl]

In the real world, historically Fred can become so rich and powerful he buys the pond, bakery and farmland thus Bob's production is zero. Fred can then put Bob to work, take all his production and pay him a minimalist wage. Fred is very happy, Bob lives a relatively poor life and society is the worse for it.

 

Aren't we seeing something like that going on in the U.S with wage stagnation? The middle class getting poorer and wealthiest getting richer? Thankfully the middle class is recovering from the 'jobless' recovery and wages are beginning to rise. Its taken a long time and its devastated 10's of millions of lives.

 

I think Capitalism has many benefits, but left unchecked can devolve into near feudalism. Its the job of sound economic theory to run the numbers and find the 'sweet spots' that protect workers and employers. To me, part of that sweet spot includes a minimum wage. Society needs a safety net. There is a problem with too much wealth inequality. Eventually it leads to the system shattering.

Except for the capital cost and potential competition which you have ignored. Unless of course you are talking about forced labour/slavery. An entrepreneur has to risk his capital to create production which he must accurately guess. If he gets it wrong he loses his investment and like snakes and ladders he ends up at the start with Bob. Bob on the other hand may prefer not to risk his capital. Unlike Fred his pay is ALL profit, risk free and paid regardless of Fred's income. Fred takes the risk, bob doesn't. That's the pay off for the worker-zero risk, instant payment.

 

My example was to show that everybody in a market economy can be a producer and that it doesn't matter how little they produce, as their contribution benefits everyone and is a multiplier for production. If the state makes demands on the better producers to pay more than the less effective producer is worth, then it creates a barrier to entry into the labour market. The higher the wage the greater number of potential producers disenfranchised.

 

The middle wage earning issue is due to jobs erosion caused by state monetary and market interventionism. I can go into that at some other time but that's not the point under discussion.

 

Your final paragraph shows the degree of misunderstanding. Real free market capitalism does not cause any issues. What causes problems is state interventionism that has created crony capitalism, or in another way it is fascistic economics. Private ownership of profit and public ownership of debts. There are no 'sweet spots' just as the USSR could find no 'price sweet spots' and eventually used Sears catalogue in an attempt to find a 'correct' market price. Of course that failed and so did the idea that a Government can determine the price and desires of the market. Only the free market can discover price and only the market can reward the good producers and liquidate the bad. Neo feudalism is exactly what crony capitalism is, but even though it is called capitalism it isn't. It's soft slavery.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

Let's put aside studies:

 

<snip>

I love it. Let's not look at actual data and evaluate how things really work. Instead, let's speculate about how we think things ought to work and then collectively decide which ideas we think seem more attractive.

 

Knock yourselves out.

 

[CloudHands]

I love it. Let's not look at actual data and evaluate how things really work. Instead, let's speculate about how we think things ought to work and then collectively decide which ideas we think seem more attractive.

 

Knock yourselves out.

 

 

I like the lightness you found in despair.

[Karl]

I love it. Let's not look at actual data and evaluate how things really work. Instead, let's speculate about how we think things ought to work and then collectively decide which ideas we think seem more attractive.Knock yourselves out.

 

Reality. Its so overrated.

[thelerner]

 

Your final paragraph shows the degree of misunderstanding. Real free market capitalism does not cause any issues. What causes problems is state interventionism that has created crony capitalism, or in another way it is fascistic economics. Private ownership of profit and public ownership of debts. There are no 'sweet spots' just as the USSR could find no 'price sweet spots' and eventually used Sears catalogue in an attempt to find a 'correct' market price. Of course that failed and so did the idea that a Government can determine the price and desires of the market. Only the free market can discover price and only the market can reward the good producers and liquidate the bad. Neo feudalism is exactly what crony capitalism is, but even though it is called capitalism it isn't. It's soft slavery.

As a business major and even more so as a business owner (w/ 12 employees) I disagree with the absolutism of your thinking.  Since the USSR couldn't find a sweet spot then regulation should be done away with?  I've read static economic thinking with its mathematics and closed system thinking and its largely an academic exercise.  In the real world you have to take into account basic human self interest/greed- people will pay others as little as possible and also to cut corners to the point of danger to employees, customers and the environment.   Intelligent regulations are good.   

 

Is your 'Real free market Capitalism' a real entity or an ideal?   Which countries that practice it?  

 

 

I'd add, that I'm arguing as Centrist and Pragmatist.  What some remember as 'Golden Age' for the United States economy was due to hard won benefits from unions.

 

Though that historic tidbit didn't keep me from trying to stop the Teamsters when they came to my small establishment.

Edited July 16, 2015 by thelerner

[thelerner]

Reality. Its so overrated.

and thats why the gods invented alcohol.

[CloudHands]

Have you ever thought that how things work are put on by leaders for themselves ?

[Brian]

I like the lightness you found in despair.

And I like the despair you find in lightness. Well, not "like" so much as "am amused by."

 

Personally, I prefer to be negatively affected by my own bad decisions rather than by the bad decisions of a self-appointed set of "exalted ruler"-types and their regulatory toadies. To each his own though, I suppose, but I've never been able to understand how cradle-to-grave manipulation of the lives of other individuals is somehow purported to be consistent with the principle of wu wei wu." It seems like some believe Taoism doesn't apply to real people.

[Brian]

Have you ever thought that how things work are put on by leaders for themselves ?

Of COURSE they are! Yes!!! This is exactly the point -- as a general rule, self-selected policy-making rulers will manipulate their subjects to their own advantages.

 

Think the UN would do a good job of running iTunes?

[CloudHands]

And I like the despair you find in lightness. Well, not "like" so much as "am amused by."

 

Personally, I prefer to be negatively affected by my own bad decisions rather than by the bad decisions of a self-appointed set of "exalted ruler"-types and their regulatory toadies. To each his own though, I suppose, but I've never been able to understand how cradle-to-grave manipulation of the lives of other individuals is somehow purported to be consistent with the principle of wu wei wu." It seems like some believe Taoism doesn't apply to real people.

 

Nice. Seriously

 

You have to understand, I grew up in a city with 60% social housing and I actually live in that kind of neighborhood so I know the effects of these minimal wages or non-employment. And I know the effects of a (well done) social city politic or no...

 

So please leave me out with reality.

 

What you seem to ignore is that Mankind is a specie of followers (see Milgram) that allow unfairness, injustice, violence and more if authorities allow it. The great part is that allows us to work together. The bad one, we tolerate intolerable (subjective   )

 

But some are less than others... 

[thelerner]

Have you ever thought that how things work are put on by leaders for themselves ?

Yes, but I think

most things,

don't end up

quite as plannned.

[CloudHands]

Think the UN would do a good job of running iTunes?

 

 

What is the aim of iTunes ? And don't see the relevance of your question.

[CloudHands]

Yes, but I think

most things,

don't end up

quite as plannned.

 

Seems to be quiet well for descendant of plutocracy leaders.

[Karl]

As a business major and even more so as a business owner (w/ 12 employees) I disagree with the absolutism of your thinking.  Since the USSR couldn't find a sweet spot then regulation should be done away with?  I've read static economic thinking with its mathematics and closed system thinking and its largely an academic exercise.  In the real world you have to take into account basic human self interest/greed- people will pay others as little as possible and also to cut corners to the point of danger to employees, customers and the environment.   Intelligent regulations are good.   

 

Is your 'Real free market Capitalism' a real entity or an ideal?   Which countries that practice it?  

 

 

I'd add, that I'm arguing as Centrist and Pragmatist.  What some remember as 'Golden Age' for the United States economy was due to hard won benefits from unions.

 

Though that historic tidbit didn't keep me from trying to stop the Teamsters when they came to my small establishment.

 

In a very few words you have asked a tremendous amount of questions.

 

No need for regulation but an absolute need for natural law. There will always be-at least in MMOW-those who attempt to gain advantage by cheating. However, the greatest advance in the direction of cheating is the Government and its regulations that are intended to protect the profits of vested interests by preventing competition. What we really need is laws which never ever disadvantage the consumer and always ensure businesses are subject to free market competition.

 

There is not only static economics but also a steadily rotating economy, both are bankrupt.

 

In the real world self interest is key. It is the only thing that creates action. Of course some employers will try and pay their employees as little as possible, but then the consumers of the products want to pay as little as possible, the workers want to be paid as much as possible and the business owner make as much profit as possible. The important thing here is that businesses isn't comprised of a static model that fits into society like an isolated component. Instead the workers are in turn consumers and as such are also the bosses. The business owner works for the consumer and by turn is also a consumer. It's all interconnected.

 

The free market works to allocate resources correctly, but on its own it is only theory. It also needs private ownership and the base of natural law. This means a misuse of resources and pollution is minimised. Environmentalists should embrace free markets and private property if they wish to have a clean planet, but ironically they choose socialism- something that has proven to be a polluter and abuser of all resources. They also cleave to state to provide subsidies for green energy which tips productive capacity into the pockets of vested interests. They want the state to use its coercive violence to back their ideology. They are using fascism but have no clue they are doing so.

 

The U.S. Prior to 1870 was as free market as it could ever have been. The model back then was Britain and its laissez faire policies (even then these policies were only partially free market in the UK but propelled Britain to become the dominant economy). The big U.S. Producers of the mid 19th Century eventually persuaded the government to protect them from competition by upcoming, innovative businesses- which were abundant as new innovations continually beat established ones. However, we don't even have to consider these obvious examples. All we need to see is that where the free market has had the slightest room for growth it has blossomed, thrived and increased living standards for entire countries.

 

The golden age was built on the early success of free market entrepreneurs, not unions and that legacy has been squandered by successive crony supporting governments. A huge part of this crony empire is state education.

[Karl]

Nice. Seriously

 

You have to understand, I grew up in a city with 60% social housing and I actually live in that kind of neighborhood so I know the effects of these minimal wages or non-employment. And I know the effects of a (well done) social city politic or no...

 

So please leave me out with reality.

 

What you seem to ignore is that Mankind is a specie of followers (see Milgram) that allow unfairness, injustice, violence and more if authorities allow it. The great part is that allows us to work together. The bad one, we tolerate intolerable (subjective   )

 

But some are less than others... 

 

Thats a logically flawed statement. If humans are a species of followers then how come we have people who are keen to lead and dominate and those that do not wish to lead or follow ?

 

You have generalised poorly. I find that people like to be liked. They want to be seen as charitable, neighbourly, fair, empathetic, honest, sensible and kind. Some will tolerate violence if they believe it is in 'the interests' of the community or those that are victim of the violence, or are forced into it by threats of violence themselves. Otherwise their are few who accept injustice and violence other than true psychopaths.

 

We have the power of reason for 'a reason'. We arent instinctive, we have free will and choice. We choose to work with others because we can reason that things are better when we do so. So, we should be worried about our leaders who glory in conflict and the destruction of wars that serves to undo all our hard work. It is states and rulers who go to war, not the average person.

[thelerner]

Thats a logically flawed statement. If humans are a species of followers then how come we have people who are keen to lead and dominate and those that do not wish to lead or follow ..

 

It is states and rulers who go to war, not the average person.

Seems to me we have 100,000's even millions of average persons going to war, following the dictates of their rulers.  Not the smartest thing we do.   We may not like it, but we may be a species of (mostly) followers.   I've always said mankind is more rationalizing then rational. 

[CloudHands]

What did they expect to find?

What Milgram and other thought they would discover versus what they truly discovered

Milgram was certain that very few participants would actually carry out the orders of the experiment (to 450-volts). “So he was surprised when 26 of the 40 (65 percent) individuals who served as teachers in the initial experiment administered the full 450-volts to the presumably helpless learner” (Forsyth, 2010, p. 244). Only a few predicted that anyone would give a shock greater than 180-volts. A panel of psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class adults were asked by Milgram to make predictions about the results of the experiment. “Most people, including both experts and laypersons alike, were surprised by the level of obedience Milgram discovered in his research” (Forsyth, 2010, p. 247).

[ralis]

Thats a logically flawed statement. If humans are a species of followers then how come we have people who are keen to lead and dominate and those that do not wish to lead or follow ? You have generalised poorly. I find that people like to be liked. They want to be seen as charitable, neighbourly, fair, empathetic, honest, sensible and kind. Some will tolerate violence if they believe it is in 'the interests' of the community or those that are victim of the violence, or are forced into it by threats of violence themselves. Otherwise their are few who accept injustice and violence other than true psychopaths. We have the power of reason for 'a reason'. We arent instinctive, we have free will and choice. We choose to work with others because we can reason that things are better when we do so. So, we should be worried about our leaders who glory in conflict and the destruction of wars that serves to undo all our hard work. It is states and rulers who go to war, not the average person.

 

 

Critical thinking skills are not in abundance here in the U.S. or in this thread. To posit that average persons don't go to war has no basis in fact. E.g. Germany in WWII in which average persons bought into the propaganda of the Third Reich. Here in the U.S. average persons willingly followed by enlisting in the armed forces. One follows a leader for myriad reasons such as evolutionary and social imperatives. 

 

From a cursory reading of your narrative, you have formed suppositions from Ayn Rand objectivism, Russell Kirk, Dr. Milton Friedman, Dr. Robert Mundell and so forth. Neoliberal ideology only serves corporate interests at the expense of the average person. Neoliberal suppositions are more akin to Social Darwinism than real world economics.

[CloudHands]

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

If you want more.

[Karl]

Seems to me we have 100,000's even millions of average persons going to war, following the dictates of their rulers.  Not the smartest thing we do.   We may not like it, but we may be a species of (mostly) followers.   I've always said mankind is more rationalizing then rational. 

 

I would urge you to read about the 'Prussian' model for education and the reason for its implementation. It will give you great insight. Also research John Taylor Gatto and Albert J Nock. Gatto has several online videos which really will open your eyes-it did mine.

[CloudHands]

A person's attitude evolves after a change in his/her experience. Very little is related to reason/reflexion.

Note that hearing a discourse is an experience but what will change you mind is more about how many time you'll hear the same thing. Chomsky explain that very well.

[Karl]

Critical thinking skills are not in abundance here in the U.S. or in this thread. To posit that average persons don't go to war has no basis in fact. E.g. Germany in WWII in which average persons bought into the propaganda of the Third Reich. Here in the U.S. average persons willingly followed by enlisting in the armed forces. One follows a leader for myriad reasons such as evolutionary and social imperatives. 

 

From a cursory reading of your narrative, you have formed suppositions from Ayn Rand objectivism, Russell Kirk, Dr. Milton Friedman, Dr. Robert Mundell and so forth. Neoliberal ideology only serves corporate interests at the expense of the average person. Neoliberal suppositions are more akin to Social Darwinism than real world economics.

 

Err no. Try again. Milton Friedman.......shudder and social Darwinism is really far off the mark. Darwin was a eugenicist and proto Fabian. He was also misquoted.

Objectivism is just Rands version of Aristotlian logic and I'm not upset to be associated with logic.

I haven't read any Kirk, Mundell etc which suggests it probably doesn't align with my thinking. Try Von Mises, Bastiat, Rothbard.

 

Hitlers propaganda expert Goebbels said people naturally did not want to go to war, they had to be persuaded by a constant Fear induction and then brand any objectors as traitors. Nazi courts were full of war objectors who were summarily executed. The state education system is designed to destroy critical thinking and make obedient citizens for the meat grinder. People can be conned, it doesn't mean they would take that course of action as a free thinking preference.

[Karl]

A person's attitude evolves after a change in his/her experience. Very little is related to reason/reflexion.

Note that hearing a discourse is an experience but what will change you mind is more about how many time you'll hear the same thing. Chomsky explain that very well.

 

That's begging the question. It's also a truism.

 

Attitude is not possible without reasoning. So, infact far from being unrelated it is key. You appear to be thinking in an anamalistic sense. Of course everything is experienced-how could it be any other way ? We create concepts. Some don't have strong critical thinking skills and so reasoning is poor. Anyone is capable of improving reasoning, but the state discourages it.

 

Chomsky is not a good logician.