Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
Why does Krugman only focus on income equality? Why do liberals base equality on a person's income? Shouldn't we base equality on a person's opportunity to pursue happiness?
BTW: Income equality and Equality of opportunity are not the same.
Income EQUALITY is not what he is interested in. He is interested in income INEQUALITY.
Income inequality and opportunities are very much interrelated. All wealth is based upon property. And the more property one owns, the better their opportunities are. For example, a man who owns a factory is able to create a lot of wealth for himself. His children will benefit from his wealth. However, the factory workers' children will have worse chances.
@briandee The person who owns the factory provides wealth to the workers as well. And what usually happens. The man who owns the factory buys material possessions that then create more wealth for other people, and the cycle continues on.
If a pro-statist left-wing Keynesian can only get a 50% "like" rating on YouTube (whose commentors always tend to be left-wing), you KNOW the video and information have to be bullshit.
@gypsypamo Call me a brown noser, but I grew up dirt poor, made something of myself through hard work and at the age of 24, almost certainly have a higher income than you.
@stebecool I'm not arguing that. This is about the power of the individual as opposed to the power of the group. You would not enjoy the freedom u hav today if not 4 the unions.Might not b perfec bt still work to give the average worker rights. I too, through my hard work, despite being a single mother of two, also made something of myself and quite possibly have a higher income than u. The difference between us is I don't judge or begrudge.
@gypsypamo I'm happy to hear that about your success. I don't doubt the INTENTIONS of unions, but unless you take away the discretion of business to choose who they hire --which requires a different economic system altogether, the work of unions is worthless. Hiring and employing someone has a total cost, wages + capital investment to provide for them + concessions for work environment. If you set a high minimum for this, you will simply end up with unemployment of the least productive people.
@stebecool lately the discretion of business is to take the jobs overseas to places where they can get away with their mistreatment of workers and the environments in which they live. A prime recent example of that is the 12000 jobs GE recently took to asia. I have no doubt the motivation is the profit- PROFIT OVER LOYALTY
@gypsypamo They take jobs overseas because the total cost of employment (including work environment) is lower. It's not about being sadistic and wanting to "stick it" to poor people. Americans are actually better off this way. We can get basic items WAY cheaper (which increases our individual wealth - ESPECIALLY of the American poor) and we won't be focusing on learning skills that have no value in a developed society (like assembling cheap plastic toys) . We are all better off because of this.
@gypsypamo In other words, it's the cheap manufacturing that is overseas and will be. These are jobs that we shouldn't be aspiring to do. Productive creativity and problem-solving skills are what have real value in a modern society. Machines and cheap labor are a commodity, these skills will never be. As far as wealth transfer, our currency would devalue if we didn't keep issuing new debt for the Chinese to buy. That keeps their products cheap and will keep simple manufacturing jobs overseas.
@stebecool I guess that's easy to say if you r one of those people who have the skills but unfortunately not everyone does and poverty tends to b generational. Not evryone has the strength and tenacity to drag themselves out of the muck; there are always going to be a part of the population that will do that job. Not everyone wants to get an education; some people r ok with the manufacturing job; in fact I know quite a few of my customers would jump at the chance jus to have a job.
@gypsypamo any way it's all moot. soon everything will be local as we r running out of oil. Frankly I'll be glad when they quit sending all that junk from China.
@gypsypamo "Running out of oil" is one of the biggest myths created by the eco-fascists and their Left-Wing media allies. We are, however, running out of the political will to explore and drill for it. And, of course, our nitwit-in-chief has given the Brazilians $2 Billion in taxpayer money to exploit the massive recent find of their coast.
It's not that we're going to run out of oil within the next 20 to 50 years but it's getting more energy infective to drill for it and economically unsustainable. And we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, that's just logical facts not a myth. Further: we're here because of the environment so we better take care of it or else we'll die. that's plain easy to understand and don't take advanced courses in biology, nor courses in history.
@Teadon86 The facts are there's way more oil in the ground than has ever been taken out of it but because of eco-fascists and their political clout, nitwits like Obama have effectively stopped USA companies from exploration and drilling. meanwhile this nitwit, that 52% of the folks voted for, is giving Brazil $2 Billion of our tax dollars to Brazil so that they can exploit the massive find they've made off their Atlantic coast. BTW, our environment keeps getting better bcause of new technology.
@gypsypamo That's the thing about capitalism. You reap what you sow. I'm part of a big family and have many cousins (who all grew up in a similar situation) who "made it", and many who didn't. I can see that the difference between them was attitude and work ethic. I agree that if you don't have tenacity or work ethic, you may suffer under capitalism and that's how it should be. The incentive needs to be there. If you're happy with your simple job, then you should be satisfied with the lifestyle.
@gypsypamo And trust me, if we didn't have a minimum wage, they would certainly have a job. It might not be a good paying job at the start, but it would at least give them some pay while they build their skills in the industry which makes their skills more valuable (and then paid a good amount) and to pull themselves out of poverty. You see this with internships. Young people are wiling to work even for free (I did) to boost their practical skills and experience to make themselves more valuable.
You seem to have the education and dogma down; however you have failed to take your history lessons because if you did you would know that individuals had no freedom without unions. They led miserable existences. I point out to you the Triangle Fire in New York back in the 30's I believe or the Miners wars with the Pinkertons and Wackenhuts, mercenaries who worked for the owners.
This is for the Left-Wing morons out there: If unions are so good, why do they need laws to FORCE people to join them? Isn't it interesting that it is always the Left that wants to use the FORCE of GOVERNMENT to achieve its ends, such as FORCED UNIONIZATION. Now to all you Left-Wing morons out there: How does business use FORCE to achieve its ends. If business is so powerful, why do we have the highest business taxes in the world? IT'S AMAZING HOW STUPID LIBERALS ARE!!!
@scw3967 This is a collectivist idea, which interferes with my right to negotiate as a free agent. No one should have the right to dictate how and when I negotiate with an employer. No one has the right to abrogate my rights as an individual. And using the FORCE of LAW to achieve one's end is wholly immoral and distorts what government's should legitimately be obligated to do, which is protect INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. "Free Rider" is a socialist construct meant to undermine Individual Liberty.
@vince33xit is the status quo that want to use the force of government to achieve their ends which r to have unfettered use of individuals for their labor power-wage slaves- and military pawns, not just here but all over the world.They have spent billions of our tax dollars on wars with little break in between, and basically have been robbing us while we do their dirty work for them. Caps and name calling don't change that fact .Stupid is letting them get away with it.
@gypsypamo U r correct sir, the enemy of freedom and Liberty the world over is government. And government is the favorite tool of the: Left - Communists, Fascist, neo-Nazis, Liberals and Progressives. They all see the State as the means to achieve their ends.
@vince33x In our case here in America, and all countries operating under the IMF and EU it is the corporate conglomerate that is leading us into totalitarian oblivion where everything is a commodity and life has little value and all the niceties are nothiing but smoke n mirrors.
@gypsypamo Our political system serves the likes of GE, Edison, Shell, Blackwater jus to name a few. there r no differences betwn democrats and republican. Obama has continued the Bush policies and jus signed into law in the defense act on Dec. 31 taking away our right to due process under certain circumstances and also now allows the government to use military as domestic police.You should wake up n see the reality that labelling is a favorite tool of oppressor
@gypsypamo Corporate conglomerate? This isn't the 1970's anymore when building conglomerates was thought to be a good idea. What conglomerates are you talking about? Like Proctor and Gamble and their selling of both shaving razors and mac & cheese? Simple/mindless labor that requires no skill like assembling soccer balls IS a commodity. To "protect" those jobs would lead to technological, skill, and wealth stagnation for all people involved.
@stebecool wealth stagnation in personal terms means not being able to feed your family or pay your mortgage. What needs to be done is to reverse NAFTA
@gypsypamo It depends on what you define wealth to be. I think that if your wage stays the same, but your cost of living has declined significantly, then you are more wealthy than you were before. Free trade will allow you to buy products of whatever price and quality from around the world that you want to give yourself the best deal and increase your "wealth". Paying your mortgage and feeding your family is your own personal responsibility. You have to be aware of what you can afford.
@stebecool Alright Gypsy, Two questions: 1) What is wealth? and 2) How is wealth created? So far nobody on these boards has seen fit to answer these two simple questions.
@stebecool They were meant for the idiot who calls himself(?) "Gypsy." OK, the answer to the following questions: 1) What is wealth? Wealth is anything produced by man for the benefit of man. U'd be surprised how many idiots say: "Wealth is money" or "Wealth is anything we value." Both answers are nonsense. The only way wealth is akin to money is that it is something created by man to facilitate trade and transactions - but sometimes money is worthless. Think Confederate dollars or 1921
@stebecool Question 2 was: "How is wealth created?" "The ONLY way wealth is created is when Individuals, acting alone or Voluntarily with others, put at risk their Intellectual, Financial, and/or their Physical Capital in pursuit of a return commensurate with their perceived risk." It's really quite simple yet so many economists try to make it more complicated than it is. BTW, I've had at least 2 Nobel economists agree with me.
@vince33x That's the way wealth is suppose to be created. Unfortunately, it is not the only way. Fixing markets, insider trading, creating false shortages, etc. are also ways of creating wealth. But you're too dumb to see that.
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag also it effects everyone except the super rich. Average people like me who just have a mom and pop type bus. We serve the average person and if they don't have money to spend, then you don't make money either. I think profit sharing and cooperative work environments that are kinder r the way of the future.
Why so unequal? It's certainly true that people who have less could be given more for profit, for both the investee and the investor party so the old Marxist adage of capital concentration is bogus. Look to the removal of the direct financial incentives to act in ways that raise one's ability and to induce others to invest in one's potential to reap rewards for that sound allocation for the consumer, as to why these potentials aren't being reaped, involuntary WELFARE STATISM.
But what about the existence external to the price system of particular actions that go without reward? Well bring them in the price system by excluding non payers by privatisation and private grounds bought on specific contracts of exclusion to keep such amenities for residents of areas implying some fee paid for market choice of what goes into the price system. Okay Mr Cannot Be Bothered, Q=what about the lack of investment in those with potential? A=Unintegral contract law and minimum wages!
Let's focus on the important issue here: parents bringing small children to economic conferences, Bruckner concerts, airplanes, restaurants, etc.. should be sent off to the Gulag.
It is one thing to be a great economist in one niche area where you are rewarded a nobel prize for your efforts. It is an entirely different thing to take on the whole of socio-economic history of the 20th century and then somehow try to use your biased viewpoint to skew it to your liking.
I am very unsurprised that he was/is invited to Sweden to hold these talks lol.
@vince33x That of not the definition of liberal. It's a great straw man, though. It might be what you believe. It might be the view promoted by people you listen to. It is not, however, what those you would call liberal actually believe.
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
@tehsuperepicpwnzor taxes are at a 50 year low compared to GDP. Taxes haven't been this low at 35% since the 28% from 1988-1990. And, at 25% the last half of the 1920s.
@jrwel14 Federal income, yes. But that 'low' number doesn't factor in the other 80ish federal taxes, all the layers of new state taxes, cost of living, 'hidden' taxes (such as the payroll tax), and most importantly workplace regulations that make employees more costly to keep. If you're getting paid $40,000, and taking home $34,000, your employer is spending $74,000 on you.
This is the kind of Leftist Jew that made the German people go ballistic on them. Of course, this phony Left-Wing Jew is extremely wealthy...he just doesn't want you to become wealthy. He is a truly evil man.
@vince33x You've just compared (and defended) the most murderous and racist policy in the world (Hitler's) to something that Krugman is describing...you must be a fascist scum.
You obviously know NOTHING about that period in pre-world war II history that drove Hitler to kill the way he did...comments like yours are WHY people will never forget what happened. We remember and watch your self-loathing, hating of others type...
@DarkBeats00 1st, Mao was the most murderous criminal in history, followed by Stalin. As far as Fascist scum is concerned, that appellation better fits a big gov't advocate like Krugman.
So, tell me, what drove Hitler to be so murderous towards the Jews?
@vince33x Okay you can use the "one reed can be snapped, together they cannot be" as an example of how liberals, by having faith in collective action are fascists but that does not make us so. It is not a valid argument because fascism is inherently an exclusive ideology where the benefits go to a chosen few, whereas liberalism is more inclusive.
@Meade556 The problem with your analysis is that you base it on "intentions" instead of results. Liberalism as practiced around the world today is pure Fascism.
Please tell me what you think Fascism is and how it manifests itself and tell me how Liberalism, as practiced today is any different?
yes i do. thats why i asked you about mussolini, and what you think he had in common with european liberals (social democrats). i'd really be interested to hear your answer. thank you.
@Zatzzo Well, in case you don't, fascism is the tight control of the Private sector via high tax rates and tight regulations, which is exactly what the so-called European Social Democracies and more and more, the USA practice. The essence of Fascism is, while businesses remain in private hands, they are highly taxed and highly regulated, they are essentially under government control though not ownership. Many economists have called Fascism the last step before Socialism.
"Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition. It is opposed to many ideologies, including conservatism and liberalism. it is opposed to democracy, parliamentary systems."
"Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion."
@Zatzzo Two observations: 1) Most universities don't allow the use of Wikipedia as a source because its reliability is suspect, 2) The definition of Liberalism you used is the 19th century definition, when "Liberals" truly did believe in Capitalism and Individual Liberty.
You have to look at how Fascism manifested itself in the real world, as in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy and aside from Hitler's manic hatred of Jews, in economic terms, it's pretty much how Democrats run things.
@Zatzzo Liberalism, as practiced today, simply believes that the State is capable of redeeming man. This is an incredibly dangerous belief because if you believe the State can redeem man then you'll do ANYTHING to effect this outcome, including wholesale slaughter as the Nazis and Communists engaged in. Read Buckley's UP FROM LIBERALISM and David Horowitz's latest: A POINT IN TIME. Both are incredibly revealing of Liberalism as practiced today.
Did Buckley and Horowitz explicitly argue that liberals want to "redeem man" and would go as far as slaughtering people? i kinda doubt that, but if you could give me a quote, i'd be happy to believe you. i'm not that familiar with their work. i'd especially be interested in how they try to prove their point, and what examples they give, of liberals trying to slaughter people in order to redeem man.
@Zatzzo In Buckley's book he talks about Liberals' view of the "perfectibility of man." And Horowitz states specifically: "That if man is redeemable in this world, why wouldn't you do anything to achieve that redemption (including going as far as Stalin and Hitler.)" Beyond that, I suggest you read the books. If you don't wish to purchase them, they're available at most good libraries.
@Lodatzor That's the point, the meaning of "Liberal" has changed since the beginning of the 20th Century. Prior to the 20th Century, the term "Liberal" meant a belief in Individual Liberty. Today, the term "Liberal" and "Progressive" are synonymous, in that they both mean a belief in government as the engine of economic and social progress.
Liberal may mean WHATEVER in USA, but in the rest of the world it means what it actually stands for: of an pertaining to liberty. Don't use your confused lingo and try to confuse others with it. This is an international site.
@MikaelUmaN Brush up on your knowledge of current affairs. The meaning of "Liberal" here in the USA is tantamount to "Progressive." I.e.> Believing that government is the primary means for promoting "social & economic justice" (whatever that means!). In BOTH Europe & Canada in the 19th Century, the "Liberals" were staunch defenders of Laissez-Faire economics, this has not been the case in the 20th Century as Liberal Parties in Canada and Great Britain have "evolved into muddled, moderates."
@vince33x I think in our right-shifted politics of today, "liberal" is one who believes government is ANY means for promoting comfort for her people. The parens patriae interest that a state has always had long enough to have a Latin term.
@baigandine Where do you get the idea that the USA's politics have "shifted right?" Are u kidding me? 'W' was the most LEFT-WING Republican elected since Richard Nixon. Government-spending EXPLODED under Bush and has gone up even more under our current nitwit-in-chief. "Right-shifted politics?" You must be a complete idiot!
@vince33x David Horowitz is the fascist, he calls for more military spending, while going after the old, the sick, the little kids and the poor, but we must also cut taxes for the rich, medieval.
@Meade556 For the most part, Horowitz advocates for Less gov't not more gov't, so in that sense he is not a fascist. He is a Jew and has a blind allegiance toward Israel. I understand his feelings though I disagree with them. I believe Israelis should defend Israeli interests NOT American boys, as we did in Iraq, which was a PROXY WAR FOR ISRAEL.
@vince33x You're such a moron. You're blaming the victims for the crimes that were committed against them. You're logic is so twisted, yet it makes sense to you. That's how dumb and brainwashed you truly are.
@vince33x that definition of fascism is the one that Glen Beck uses to compare Obama with fascists. You're an idiot to the nth degree. Fascism is total control of everything by one person, a dictator. That dictator usually takes on a self-appointed god-like quality. Your pseudo-intellectualism isn't fooling anyone. You're as dumb as they come.
@baigandine I don't need a dictionary to define Fascism, I look at what they do in the real world and aside from Hitler's insane hatred of Jews, the Fascists are disturbingly similar to our Left-Wing Progressives. Suggest you read Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM. Mussolini was a Socialist and Nazi stood for the German Socialist Workers Party. All the scum on the Left pretty much use the same playbook and it's all about government control.
@vince33x I have and he is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes in the book he even sounds confused and points out, in a confused section that liberalism, unlike fascism is nannying not brutal. Mussolini was not a soicalist and Hitler killed off the "socialism" part of National Socialism on the night of the long knives, his party did not even have a program so you cannot say it was socialist, given its treatment of big business, it was anything but.
@Meade556 After reading your other posts, i suspect your powers of comprehension are lacking, so I'm not surprised at your inability to grasp what Jonah Goldberg is writing about, which are the striking similarities between American Liberalism and Fascism: Central economic planning, high tax rates, strict regulations on businesses and when you look at the union aspects of Progressivism, there is a very high degree of (slef-serving) Nationalism. Remember the restrictions on Japanese imports?
@vince33x Also, Mussolini was a Socialist before he started the Fascist movement in Italy...suggest you learn a little more about the history of that time. And, as far as Socialists killing Fascists and vice versa, what do you expect from two very similar and thuggish ideologies?
@vince33x Socialism is different from fascism, Stalinism and Fascism you have a point, but Stalin was the exception, not the rule in Soviet leadership. Socialism is not the Soviet Union, but more like Britain or Gaullist France and people are allowed to fight back as Socialists did against Fascism, up to the bitter end.
@Meade556 Yea, after Stalin and his henchmen had stolen all the Private Property, the need to kill millions (of Property) owners was greatly diminished. All u Left-Wingers sing from the same propaganda book: The Soviet Union wasn't really socialist. Baloney! Socialism is simply the State ownership of the means of Production and Distribution; Fascism is the tight State control of the means of Production and Distribution - NOT A DIME'S WORTH of DIFFERENCE!
@vince33x Tight State Control, oh all those profits foisted on poor IG Farben Krupp and Thyssen by cutting the minimum wage, taking away employee rights, all of which Mussolini did in Italy but without the Concentration camps and starvation. Whereas Stalin betrayed a lot of the principles of Lenin. Stalinism is not Socialism. Britain and France in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the Nordic Countries now are Socialism.
@Meade556 Krupp was in ruins after WWII and Hitler's (socialist) insanity. BTW, the only way unions gained ground in the USA in the 30s & 40s was because Democrats (incl FDR & the Gov of MI) refused to enforce laws against trespass, so our own gov't was complicit in the union thuggery of that era. So what happened in the 80s, 90s, & 00s? BTW, the Nordic countries are creeping, albeit glacially, toward the right as they realize the stagnation of Socialism.
@vince33x There is no central planning in progressivism, at most we nudge the economy with certain measures like infrastructure and R&D spending, otherwise we dictate nothing about which companies will set up where and what they will produce, the regulations on business in fascism differing enormously from progressive regulation. Well if you remember correctly, the Japanese had similar tariffs to our products and we responded in kind and there is nothing to be ashamed of for doing so.
@Meade556 It's interesting that the only economic system that results in real progress is Capitalism but the Left, with the help of their minions in the press and the Academy, have co-opted the word for use as their moniker (Progressives) because the term "Liberal" has become so acidic. Which brings us to Obama - the most "Progressive" President since the warmonger LBJ, and his crowning achievement is ObamaCare, which is essentially the take over and Central Planning of 1 sixth of our economy.
@vince33x Your words: "There is no central planning in progressivism." This is utterly preposterous! U are obviously clueless to reality. What do you call the government takeover of GM and Chrysler? What about Amtrak? The Post Office? TARP, Bank Bailouts? These are not hallmarks of Free Market Capitalism, they are the hallmarks of Central Planning! Left-Wing Republicans (like 'W' and Nixon) and almost all Democrats would like to manage the whole of the economy from Washington. We've seen Central
@vince33x Planning before - in the Soviet Union - and it was an unmitigated disaster. What was once called the "Breadbasket of Europe" couldn't even feed themselves and if it weren't for American grain farmers, millions in the Soviet Union would have starved to death in the 70s & 80s. Yet the Left never yields, they still believe in their insane policies, no matter how many millions have to die to achieve their view of Paradise on earth. Progressives are either very ignorant or very evil people
@vince33x Amtrak is a Government corporation, overseen but not directed by the Government, no one is required to do business with it. The Post Office has been with us since the Washington Administration, Paul Ryan supported TARP (incidentally it was all necessary, not the exact form it took but the general actions were necessary to prevent a much greater catastrophe) as for GM and Chrysler those two companies have recovered exports are on the increase.
@Meade556 Amtrak came into being because gov't's favors to unions bankrupted most east coast rails and the gov't "came to the rescue." In typical gov't fashion, it breaks your keg and then puts a cast on it says we're here to help. Amtrak is now getting about $2B a year in taxpayer subsidies because it is so bloated it cant compete otherwise. The Post Office, who has no competition for 1st class mail needs a $9B taxpayer subsidy to continue operations; it cost $1.4M/job saved at GM and they
@vince33x Amtrak came into being because, the railways show the limits of the market and also times changed with road and air travel becoming more accesible due to the Federal dollars spent on that. The Post Office has FedEx and UPS, both of whom I see around a lot, part of the Post Office's problem is that it is not allowed to choose what it charges. For example the Royal Mail has more freedom, is still incredibly cheap and turned a 404,000,000 profit in 2010, we could learn
@Meade556 Wrong, gov't forced railroads to maintain the featherbedding unions wanted, greatly increasing their costs and making them less competitive and eventually bankrupting them. Gov't wouldn't allow the RRs the flexibility to compete because of the political power of the unions - get ur economic history straight. Again, u make my point on central planning when you say: "Post Office's problem is that it is not allowed to choose what it charges." BTW, I believe the Royal Mail is soon to be
@vince33x You're an idiot. Before 2008, no one was pointing at unions as the cause of all our problems. After 2008, morons like you listen to those that caused the problems and point their fingers at the unions. How about pointing the fingers at the bankers, Wall St. and the like that created the instability of the financial system? They're killing off the middle class and you're their cheerleader. You're a moron and a bigot.
@vince33x still owe the taxpayer more than $30B, which is almost their total market cap, so this money will NEVER be paid back. Not to mention Obama's fascist act of screwing all GM's and Chrysler's bondholders. BTW, Ryan was dead wrong in voting for TARP. In fact he was cow-towing to his heavily unionized district, so he showed political cowardice or expediency, however you wish to define it - I call it cowardice, with that vote.
@vince33x Fascist, that is Capitalistic rules of bankruptcy, shareholders lose everything and bondholders become the new shareholders, which means it was not some big union conspiracy as it meant that the Union pension and health plans had them a 40% stake in the company and they all took big pay cuts and there are now more workers at both than before the Crisis. Also TARP was for the banks, not the unions, you have no clue what you are talking about.
@Meade556 U nitwit, I didnt say TARP was for the unions but union leadership supported TARP. The UAW contributed heavily to the election of Obama and he was beholdin to them, that's why he screwed the bondholders. The basic rules of bankruptcy are that the debtholders are 1st in line if the assets are liquidated. How is that fascist? What Obama did was pure Fascism, it was totally dictatorial. U are either clueless or an out and out liar.
@vince33x You call me a nitwit and ignore the realities that union members were the bondholders for a lot of bonds and got screwed according to the standard rules of capitalism. It was not fascism what Obama did, what is fascist is you saying things like "The American left has always been dominated by the Jews" no wonder Hitler happened. TARP was for the bankers and people supported it because it was necessary.
@Meade556 Obama stood 400 yrs of Common Law on its head when he screwed the bondholders of GM and Chrysler and the fact he did it via government fiat was pure Fascism. BTW, how is making a factual observation: "The American left has always been dominated by the Jews" fascist? But your little postscript: "no wonder Hitler happened." Is a lie as I never said any such thing. Finally, many economists did not agree with TARP, including the lead economist at the WSJ - Stephen Moore.
@vince33x At most it is a nudging, all that is mandated is that people have healthcare, not who they purchase it from, considering that before Obamacare it was legal for HMOs to spend whatever sum they wished on "bureaucracy" normally being $35 out of every $100 we give them. I support a Federal mandate that they spend at the very least $80 out of every $100, I am not paying them 14k so they can buy mansions.
@Meade556 Don't give me this crap "nudging." It is FORCE, which is what governments are all about. Geo. Washington once observed: "Government is not reason or eloquence, it is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The two sectors of our economy that have had the most inflation are: Health and Education. Not coincidently, they are the two sectors with the most gov't control. It's stunning how u on the Left cant connect the dots.
@vince33x No, that is due to the private sector, take away all state support UCLA and UCB are cheaper than Georgetown or even Dickenson, and in the healthcare sector, our problem is that, unlike in Europe, we do not charge according to the Marginal Cost of Production, we can connect the dots. In Europe the Governments dictate how the People's money is spent, here we say "oh leave it to the private sector it will all be great" and we know what happens and every advance in civilization..
@vince33x Yes the democratically constituted and accountable agencies of the people decide what to do with the People's money not a bunch of fat cats interested in their own self enrichment, The Governments there are simply dedicated to the proposition that life is difficult enough and Government should not preside over a system that enables this or actively makes it more difficult. Governments should have more power than corporations
@Meade556 I luv it when u post because u prove urself an idiot almost every time and ur last post is no different. Ur words: "Governments should have more power than corporations." U think governments don't have more power than corporations? R u kidding me? Governments have the tanks and the guns plus the power to tax - which Jefferson called the "power to destroy." U r a complete idiot!
@vince33x Ah but who are those guns, tanks and taxes used for! Why the wealthy and the corporations of course. Corporations paid less than 7.2% of Federal taxes last year, far less than they did at the height of our prosperity, an era of stronger government and unions. Yeah and fire is the power to destroy but also to create, Jefferson understood this which is why he supported taxes to pay for the new National Debt, but he wanted a tax on financial transactions.
@Meade556 A couple of points: 1) before WWI, the Federal gov't never took more than 3% of our national income (Civil War excepted), 2) What pct of a person's income do u think it's OK for gov't to steal (Jefferson also said: "Taxation is theft" and "the power to tax is the power to destroy")? BTW, when the thugs at the UAW occupied GM property, the Gov. of MI did not allow the police to evict them. The Dems obviously believe trespass is a legit way to achieve one's ends.
@vince33x As an enumerated power of the constitution taxation is not theft anymore than National Defense is an occupation, yes the power to tax is the power to destroy as fire can destroy so too can it create. Jefferson eventually sided with Hamilton on the assumption of a national debt, where he differed was "who to tax?" Jefferson said have a tax on financial transactions, Hamilton said on farmers.
@Meade556 I'll stand by Jefferson's characterization of taxes and the definition of theft - the action of stealing or taking that which doesn't belong to you. During Jefferson's Presidency, he abolished numerous taxes; I can find no reference to him ever advocating taxes on 'transactions.' At best, taxation is a necessary evil and as such ought to b kept to the minimum necessary for legitimate government functions: Defense, courts, police and not much else. A simple tenet for a free society is:
@vince33x GM broke that part of the agreement when it decided to cut workers compensation and fire them even though the company's profits were improving. That is living at the expense of your workers.
@Meade556 What r u talking about, the UAW coerced workers into a sit-down strike engaging in the illegal act of trespass. And a corrupt MI Gov.. refused to uphold the law in protecting GM property. R u telling me u think it's OK for one group to destroy the property of someone else?
@vince33x No GM was equally guilty of using a private security force and then as now they owned the Flint PD and the Police did drag protestors and beat them within an inch of their lives. What about the workers toil? Hmmm? Without them GM would have been nothing and GM had locked the workers out because they demanded better conditions, since the management ignored them when they asked nicely obviously they weren't going to give up. Our Fathers destroyed Royal Property
@Meade556 Ur words: "What about the workers toil?" WTF does that mean? Were they not paid for their 'toil?' Ur words: "Without them GM would have been nothing..." Really? GM could get workers anywhere, they were lined up around the block anytime there were job openings. Do u understand that Labor is a cost? And when it can be substituted for capital it makes for a more productive shop floor? The 4 elements of production are, in order of importance: 1) Management, 2) Capital, 3) Resource,
@vince33x and 4) Labor. Labor is the LEAST important element of production. Indeed, wherever possible u want to 'get the labor out.' The auto industry is hugely more productive today because it is building the same number of cars w/ 1.5 million FEWER workers! Do u get that?
@Meade556 GM did not want to deal w/the UAW, so the 'workers' (more likely, UAW goons) engaged in a sit-down strike on GM property - IOW, they were trespassing - an illegal activity. GM had every right to expect the police to remove these trespassers, especially when they started braking windows and destroying GM equipment. Instead, the Gov. of MI put a wet finger in the air to gauge the 'political wind direction' and then ordered out the Nat'l Guard to prevent the police from taking action.
@vince33x Ah but the Constitution specifically, with the Commerce and Taxation clauses, expands the powers of Government far beyond that. Jefferson wanted to pay for the new national debt with a tax on financial transactions and the taxes he abolished were the ones levied disproportionately on poor people and Jefferson himself was a stickler for Federal power in a lot of ways. In any case greenbacks are the Government's money it does not exist without it.
@Meade556 The Commerce Clause was wildly expanded by the Leftsts judges appointed by FDR and until the passage of the 16th Amendment, taxes on incomes were unconstitutional. Again, I've never seen anything where Jefferson called for a tax on financial transactions. Where are you getting that? As for Federal power, from the Founding until WWI, the Federal Gov't never stole more than 3% of Nat'l income. In other words, the Federal gov't was tiny relative to our economy - unlike today.
@vince33x Article in the Financial times recently on how debt crises are not new, specifically why it was so urgent for Hamilton's proposals for the assumption of a National Debt to go ahead. Furthermore the idea that we needed a 16th amendment is ludicrous because Congress has the specifically enumerated power of taxation. As for the expansion of the Commerce Clause, there was no expansion, simply using the power given to the Government by the Fathers.
@Meade556 What does this mean: "Hamilton's proposals for the assumption of a National Debt?" And more idiocy from u: "the idea that we needed a 16th amendment is ludicrous..." R u kidding, the Supreme Court had declared taxes on incomes unconstitutional u twit. That's why, unfortunately, the 16th Amendment was ratified. Before FDR was elected and was able to appoint Left-Wing justices, the SC had a very narrow definition of the Commerce Clause. FDR's appointees greatly expanded it. If ur just
@vince33x Considering the sweat equity of those men and the fact that it was the Police and Company thugs who were beating up the workers, not the other way around and those workers had helped bring GM back from the brink they were entitled to a better deal and the Government's job is to protect its people not defend everything business does. I'll also remind you it was a Republican, LaFollette who sided with syndicalists time and time again as well as TR.
@Meade556 As usual, u've got ur facts confused. At GM, the UAW trespassed on GM property and engaged in a sit-down strike. They also broke factory windows and destroyed plant equipment. GM officials asked the police to remove the strikers from GM property and MI Gov. Murphy called out the Nat'l Guard to stop the cops from protecting the property of GM shareholders. So you had the highest ranking Gov. official in the state of MI using his office to help lawbreakers - CRIMINAL!
@vince33x GM property! Oh please you kick a man and you expect him not to fight back, especially given what GM had done and the way company thugs were beat up the workers before they staged their strike, as part of everyday life and during it, is what is criminal. Unions are ordinary people coming together and standing up for themselves. Nothing is more feeble than the strength of one, it is why soldiers work well as a team and not nearly as well as individuals.
@Meade556 Ur confusing GM w/Ford, which did have a security force. It was the UAW that engaged in violence against GM. U just believe that mobs should be allowed to prevail. That is a fascist belief.
@vince33x The Boston Tea party destroyed the property of the East Indian Company. Mobs running the roost? Hmmm, on the one hand you accuse me of being authoritarian, on the other anarchistic, you have to get your ideologies straight.
@Meade556 The Boston Tea Party was a response to the actions of a dictatorial Gov't not a private entity. The East India Co. was a gov't sponsored monopoly. IOW, it was illegal to compete with it - like the US POst Office. BTW, I accuse u of one thing, like all on the Left, u r a fascist.
@vince33x communist are to the left, FASCISTS to the right on the political spectrum. you, are a fascist. and an ignorant puppet of fox news. perhaps a socio-path as are most conservative cranks. hope you die soon! ;)
@blastsummit Yet another nitwit who doesn't understand the political spectrum. Let me expalin it to u: On the far Left u have Communism or the Total State. Just to the right of Communism is Socialism and a little further right is Fascism. If u go all the way over to the Far Right, u have Anarchy. Just to the Left of Anarchy u have the Constitutional Republic. Simply put: Large Powerful Gov't = Left; Small, minimal Gov't = Right. There now, is that so hard for u 2 understand?
@Meade556 By what measure do u say the workers were ENTITLED to a better deal - says who? The workers are entitled to the best deal they can get LEGALLY - not thru coercion and FORCE - ur starting to sound like a fascist. AND, the gov't's job is to protect life, limb, and property. The UAW had no right to engage in illegal activity (trespassing) to achieve its ends.
@vince33x has involved more fire, and likewise, usually, more Government. We first crawled our way from obscurity with the help of fire, the Industrial Revolution depended on machines driven by fire, products forged by fire and Washington's Administration imposed a heavier tax regime than the British and had a more invasive presence but that was the whole point of our constitution powerful yet limited National Government.
@vince33x Yeah there you go using the same rhetoric as the Nazis and then comparing me to them. Yeah, Bernie Sanders, Ben Cardin, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken all Fascists and Nazis I imagine.
@Meade556 Here's Barron's definition of Fascism: "Doctrine; collection of concepts; and dictatorship by government of a country, often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes, racism, and private economic ownership under rigid government control.
A fascist regime is often militarily belligerent." Other than "temperament" how is it any different in practice than Communism or Socialism or Progressivism?
@vince33x Very progressives are democratic as are socialists, like Britain's Labour Party, France Socialist Party and even the UMP. Our nationalism is not racism, but a fervent commitment to the success and well being of the country and those who inhabit it as I describe and the government control is precisely the form progressives abhor, the Police State, Fascist countries are decidely unregulated.
@Meade556 Your words again: "Fascist countries are decidely unregulated." Are you that misinformed or just deliberately lying? Which is it. One of the hallmarks of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy was a tightly regulated and highly taxed Private Sector. Before WWII, the American Left was fawning all over Mussolini (they didn't like Hitler because the American Left has always been dominated by Jews)..."he made the trains run on time" and "he provided government services unheard of before
@vince33x Mussolini. The Left-Wing, American Press (e.g.> the NYT) were falling all over themselves in editorial praise of Mussolini - One writer went so far (in 1923) as to call Mussolini "a Latin Roosevelt" who has been a great service to his country. Seriously, did you attend gov't school or are u a gov't school teacher?
@vince33x I know this may shock you, but a paper which fawns over Lindsey Graham is not liberal and the gray lady has ever been written for the New York elite, it is not liberal, elitist, in the worst possible sense yes, liberal no. And in 1923 Roosevelt was not even Governor of New York so you are being disingenuous and no in point of fact I went to a church school and have always worked in the private sector, that does not stop me from being liberal and proud of it.
This has been flagged as spam show
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Friedman. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 1 week ago
Why does Krugman only focus on income equality? Why do liberals base equality on a person's income? Shouldn't we base equality on a person's opportunity to pursue happiness?
BTW: Income equality and Equality of opportunity are not the same.
heavym3tal 2 weeks ago
@heavym3tal
Income EQUALITY is not what he is interested in. He is interested in income INEQUALITY.
Income inequality and opportunities are very much interrelated. All wealth is based upon property. And the more property one owns, the better their opportunities are. For example, a man who owns a factory is able to create a lot of wealth for himself. His children will benefit from his wealth. However, the factory workers' children will have worse chances.
briandee 1 week ago
@briandee The person who owns the factory provides wealth to the workers as well. And what usually happens. The man who owns the factory buys material possessions that then create more wealth for other people, and the cycle continues on.
heavym3tal 1 week ago
@heavym3tal
Here are some authors you might want to read:
Niccolo Machiavelli
Adam Smith
Max Weber
Thorstein Veblen
briandee 1 week ago
@briandee Have you read any of Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, or Walter Williams?
heavym3tal 1 week ago 2
man alot of people dont like krugman
cyborganic99 3 weeks ago
Krugman is the most overrated economist of the 21st century
Gtjg88 3 weeks ago
If a pro-statist left-wing Keynesian can only get a 50% "like" rating on YouTube (whose commentors always tend to be left-wing), you KNOW the video and information have to be bullshit.
stebecool 1 month ago
Go ahead, vote for the republicans.
TradingTutor 1 month ago
Comment removed
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo Call me a brown noser, but I grew up dirt poor, made something of myself through hard work and at the age of 24, almost certainly have a higher income than you.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool I'm not arguing that. This is about the power of the individual as opposed to the power of the group. You would not enjoy the freedom u hav today if not 4 the unions.Might not b perfec bt still work to give the average worker rights. I too, through my hard work, despite being a single mother of two, also made something of myself and quite possibly have a higher income than u. The difference between us is I don't judge or begrudge.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo I'm happy to hear that about your success. I don't doubt the INTENTIONS of unions, but unless you take away the discretion of business to choose who they hire --which requires a different economic system altogether, the work of unions is worthless. Hiring and employing someone has a total cost, wages + capital investment to provide for them + concessions for work environment. If you set a high minimum for this, you will simply end up with unemployment of the least productive people.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool lately the discretion of business is to take the jobs overseas to places where they can get away with their mistreatment of workers and the environments in which they live. A prime recent example of that is the 12000 jobs GE recently took to asia. I have no doubt the motivation is the profit- PROFIT OVER LOYALTY
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo They take jobs overseas because the total cost of employment (including work environment) is lower. It's not about being sadistic and wanting to "stick it" to poor people. Americans are actually better off this way. We can get basic items WAY cheaper (which increases our individual wealth - ESPECIALLY of the American poor) and we won't be focusing on learning skills that have no value in a developed society (like assembling cheap plastic toys) . We are all better off because of this.
stebecool 1 month ago
@gypsypamo In other words, it's the cheap manufacturing that is overseas and will be. These are jobs that we shouldn't be aspiring to do. Productive creativity and problem-solving skills are what have real value in a modern society. Machines and cheap labor are a commodity, these skills will never be. As far as wealth transfer, our currency would devalue if we didn't keep issuing new debt for the Chinese to buy. That keeps their products cheap and will keep simple manufacturing jobs overseas.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool I guess that's easy to say if you r one of those people who have the skills but unfortunately not everyone does and poverty tends to b generational. Not evryone has the strength and tenacity to drag themselves out of the muck; there are always going to be a part of the population that will do that job. Not everyone wants to get an education; some people r ok with the manufacturing job; in fact I know quite a few of my customers would jump at the chance jus to have a job.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo any way it's all moot. soon everything will be local as we r running out of oil. Frankly I'll be glad when they quit sending all that junk from China.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo "Running out of oil" is one of the biggest myths created by the eco-fascists and their Left-Wing media allies. We are, however, running out of the political will to explore and drill for it. And, of course, our nitwit-in-chief has given the Brazilians $2 Billion in taxpayer money to exploit the massive recent find of their coast.
vince33x 1 month ago
It's not that we're going to run out of oil within the next 20 to 50 years but it's getting more energy infective to drill for it and economically unsustainable. And we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, that's just logical facts not a myth. Further: we're here because of the environment so we better take care of it or else we'll die. that's plain easy to understand and don't take advanced courses in biology, nor courses in history.
Teadon86 1 month ago
@Teadon86 The facts are there's way more oil in the ground than has ever been taken out of it but because of eco-fascists and their political clout, nitwits like Obama have effectively stopped USA companies from exploration and drilling. meanwhile this nitwit, that 52% of the folks voted for, is giving Brazil $2 Billion of our tax dollars to Brazil so that they can exploit the massive find they've made off their Atlantic coast. BTW, our environment keeps getting better bcause of new technology.
vince33x 1 month ago
@gypsypamo That's the thing about capitalism. You reap what you sow. I'm part of a big family and have many cousins (who all grew up in a similar situation) who "made it", and many who didn't. I can see that the difference between them was attitude and work ethic. I agree that if you don't have tenacity or work ethic, you may suffer under capitalism and that's how it should be. The incentive needs to be there. If you're happy with your simple job, then you should be satisfied with the lifestyle.
stebecool 1 month ago
@gypsypamo And trust me, if we didn't have a minimum wage, they would certainly have a job. It might not be a good paying job at the start, but it would at least give them some pay while they build their skills in the industry which makes their skills more valuable (and then paid a good amount) and to pull themselves out of poverty. You see this with internships. Young people are wiling to work even for free (I did) to boost their practical skills and experience to make themselves more valuable.
stebecool 1 month ago
You seem to have the education and dogma down; however you have failed to take your history lessons because if you did you would know that individuals had no freedom without unions. They led miserable existences. I point out to you the Triangle Fire in New York back in the 30's I believe or the Miners wars with the Pinkertons and Wackenhuts, mercenaries who worked for the owners.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
This is for the Left-Wing morons out there: If unions are so good, why do they need laws to FORCE people to join them? Isn't it interesting that it is always the Left that wants to use the FORCE of GOVERNMENT to achieve its ends, such as FORCED UNIONIZATION. Now to all you Left-Wing morons out there: How does business use FORCE to achieve its ends. If business is so powerful, why do we have the highest business taxes in the world? IT'S AMAZING HOW STUPID LIBERALS ARE!!!
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x The free rider problem, you remember Microeconomics?
scw3967 1 month ago
@scw3967 This is a collectivist idea, which interferes with my right to negotiate as a free agent. No one should have the right to dictate how and when I negotiate with an employer. No one has the right to abrogate my rights as an individual. And using the FORCE of LAW to achieve one's end is wholly immoral and distorts what government's should legitimately be obligated to do, which is protect INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. "Free Rider" is a socialist construct meant to undermine Individual Liberty.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33xit is the status quo that want to use the force of government to achieve their ends which r to have unfettered use of individuals for their labor power-wage slaves- and military pawns, not just here but all over the world.They have spent billions of our tax dollars on wars with little break in between, and basically have been robbing us while we do their dirty work for them. Caps and name calling don't change that fact .Stupid is letting them get away with it.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo U r correct sir, the enemy of freedom and Liberty the world over is government. And government is the favorite tool of the: Left - Communists, Fascist, neo-Nazis, Liberals and Progressives. They all see the State as the means to achieve their ends.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x In our case here in America, and all countries operating under the IMF and EU it is the corporate conglomerate that is leading us into totalitarian oblivion where everything is a commodity and life has little value and all the niceties are nothiing but smoke n mirrors.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo Our political system serves the likes of GE, Edison, Shell, Blackwater jus to name a few. there r no differences betwn democrats and republican. Obama has continued the Bush policies and jus signed into law in the defense act on Dec. 31 taking away our right to due process under certain circumstances and also now allows the government to use military as domestic police.You should wake up n see the reality that labelling is a favorite tool of oppressor
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo Corporate conglomerate? This isn't the 1970's anymore when building conglomerates was thought to be a good idea. What conglomerates are you talking about? Like Proctor and Gamble and their selling of both shaving razors and mac & cheese? Simple/mindless labor that requires no skill like assembling soccer balls IS a commodity. To "protect" those jobs would lead to technological, skill, and wealth stagnation for all people involved.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool wealth stagnation in personal terms means not being able to feed your family or pay your mortgage. What needs to be done is to reverse NAFTA
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@gypsypamo It depends on what you define wealth to be. I think that if your wage stays the same, but your cost of living has declined significantly, then you are more wealthy than you were before. Free trade will allow you to buy products of whatever price and quality from around the world that you want to give yourself the best deal and increase your "wealth". Paying your mortgage and feeding your family is your own personal responsibility. You have to be aware of what you can afford.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool Alright Gypsy, Two questions: 1) What is wealth? and 2) How is wealth created? So far nobody on these boards has seen fit to answer these two simple questions.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x I'm assuming that post was not meant for me. What are your answers to the questions?
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool They were meant for the idiot who calls himself(?) "Gypsy." OK, the answer to the following questions: 1) What is wealth? Wealth is anything produced by man for the benefit of man. U'd be surprised how many idiots say: "Wealth is money" or "Wealth is anything we value." Both answers are nonsense. The only way wealth is akin to money is that it is something created by man to facilitate trade and transactions - but sometimes money is worthless. Think Confederate dollars or 1921
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x deutsche marks.
vince33x 1 month ago
@stebecool Question 2 was: "How is wealth created?" "The ONLY way wealth is created is when Individuals, acting alone or Voluntarily with others, put at risk their Intellectual, Financial, and/or their Physical Capital in pursuit of a return commensurate with their perceived risk." It's really quite simple yet so many economists try to make it more complicated than it is. BTW, I've had at least 2 Nobel economists agree with me.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x That's the way wealth is suppose to be created. Unfortunately, it is not the only way. Fixing markets, insider trading, creating false shortages, etc. are also ways of creating wealth. But you're too dumb to see that.
NYCSteveS 1 month ago
When people refer to "stagnation of real wages", does that mean wages per hour stagnated for the working class, or for everyone?
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 month ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag stagnation for the working class. It is the working class that get wages.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag also it effects everyone except the super rich. Average people like me who just have a mom and pop type bus. We serve the average person and if they don't have money to spend, then you don't make money either. I think profit sharing and cooperative work environments that are kinder r the way of the future.
gypsypamo 1 month ago
Why so unequal? It's certainly true that people who have less could be given more for profit, for both the investee and the investor party so the old Marxist adage of capital concentration is bogus. Look to the removal of the direct financial incentives to act in ways that raise one's ability and to induce others to invest in one's potential to reap rewards for that sound allocation for the consumer, as to why these potentials aren't being reaped, involuntary WELFARE STATISM.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
But what about the existence external to the price system of particular actions that go without reward? Well bring them in the price system by excluding non payers by privatisation and private grounds bought on specific contracts of exclusion to keep such amenities for residents of areas implying some fee paid for market choice of what goes into the price system. Okay Mr Cannot Be Bothered, Q=what about the lack of investment in those with potential? A=Unintegral contract law and minimum wages!
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Let's focus on the important issue here: parents bringing small children to economic conferences, Bruckner concerts, airplanes, restaurants, etc.. should be sent off to the Gulag.
teaCupkk 1 month ago
It is one thing to be a great economist in one niche area where you are rewarded a nobel prize for your efforts. It is an entirely different thing to take on the whole of socio-economic history of the 20th century and then somehow try to use your biased viewpoint to skew it to your liking.
I am very unsurprised that he was/is invited to Sweden to hold these talks lol.
MikaelUmaN 1 month ago
Paul Krugman is a fool. The most over-rated economist in America.
blackshep01 1 month ago
@vince33x That of not the definition of liberal. It's a great straw man, though. It might be what you believe. It might be the view promoted by people you listen to. It is not, however, what those you would call liberal actually believe.
chillmonster 1 month ago
@chillmonster seems to be the consensus on what " liberal " means imo
Tophawtdog4411 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 2 months ago
@1963danno If you were being asked to give 35% of your salary to the Federal Government and another 15% to the State, you'd be using tax loopholes too. And cheap labor is what the global economy runs on. Always has, always will.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 2 months ago
@tehsuperepicpwnzor taxes are at a 50 year low compared to GDP. Taxes haven't been this low at 35% since the 28% from 1988-1990. And, at 25% the last half of the 1920s.
jrwel14 2 months ago
@jrwel14 Federal income, yes. But that 'low' number doesn't factor in the other 80ish federal taxes, all the layers of new state taxes, cost of living, 'hidden' taxes (such as the payroll tax), and most importantly workplace regulations that make employees more costly to keep. If you're getting paid $40,000, and taking home $34,000, your employer is spending $74,000 on you.
tehsuperepicpwnzor 2 months ago
@tehsuperepicpwnzor taxes are still low. no matter what you conervatives claim. Inheritance tax is down, capital gains.
jrwel14 2 months ago
This is the kind of Leftist Jew that made the German people go ballistic on them. Of course, this phony Left-Wing Jew is extremely wealthy...he just doesn't want you to become wealthy. He is a truly evil man.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x You've just compared (and defended) the most murderous and racist policy in the world (Hitler's) to something that Krugman is describing...you must be a fascist scum.
You obviously know NOTHING about that period in pre-world war II history that drove Hitler to kill the way he did...comments like yours are WHY people will never forget what happened. We remember and watch your self-loathing, hating of others type...
DarkBeats00 2 months ago
@DarkBeats00 1st, Mao was the most murderous criminal in history, followed by Stalin. As far as Fascist scum is concerned, that appellation better fits a big gov't advocate like Krugman.
So, tell me, what drove Hitler to be so murderous towards the Jews?
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x You will have to xplain how Krugman is a fascist.
Meade556 2 months ago
@Meade556 Tell me, do you know what Fascism is?
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x Okay you can use the "one reed can be snapped, together they cannot be" as an example of how liberals, by having faith in collective action are fascists but that does not make us so. It is not a valid argument because fascism is inherently an exclusive ideology where the benefits go to a chosen few, whereas liberalism is more inclusive.
Meade556 2 months ago
@Meade556 The problem with your analysis is that you base it on "intentions" instead of results. Liberalism as practiced around the world today is pure Fascism.
Please tell me what you think Fascism is and how it manifests itself and tell me how Liberalism, as practiced today is any different?
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
my question would be: what do they have in common? what does mussolini have in common with say any social democrat leader in finnland or sweden?
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo Do you understand what Fascism is?
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
yes i do. thats why i asked you about mussolini, and what you think he had in common with european liberals (social democrats). i'd really be interested to hear your answer. thank you.
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo Well, in case you don't, fascism is the tight control of the Private sector via high tax rates and tight regulations, which is exactly what the so-called European Social Democracies and more and more, the USA practice. The essence of Fascism is, while businesses remain in private hands, they are highly taxed and highly regulated, they are essentially under government control though not ownership. Many economists have called Fascism the last step before Socialism.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
ok and here's what wikipedia says:
"Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition. It is opposed to many ideologies, including conservatism and liberalism. it is opposed to democracy, parliamentary systems."
"Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion."
how do you think these go together?
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo Two observations: 1) Most universities don't allow the use of Wikipedia as a source because its reliability is suspect, 2) The definition of Liberalism you used is the 19th century definition, when "Liberals" truly did believe in Capitalism and Individual Liberty.
You have to look at how Fascism manifested itself in the real world, as in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy and aside from Hitler's manic hatred of Jews, in economic terms, it's pretty much how Democrats run things.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
please tell me about your definition of liberalism, and give me a source that you believe is respectable.
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo Liberalism, as practiced today, simply believes that the State is capable of redeeming man. This is an incredibly dangerous belief because if you believe the State can redeem man then you'll do ANYTHING to effect this outcome, including wholesale slaughter as the Nazis and Communists engaged in. Read Buckley's UP FROM LIBERALISM and David Horowitz's latest: A POINT IN TIME. Both are incredibly revealing of Liberalism as practiced today.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
Did Buckley and Horowitz explicitly argue that liberals want to "redeem man" and would go as far as slaughtering people? i kinda doubt that, but if you could give me a quote, i'd be happy to believe you. i'm not that familiar with their work. i'd especially be interested in how they try to prove their point, and what examples they give, of liberals trying to slaughter people in order to redeem man.
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo In Buckley's book he talks about Liberals' view of the "perfectibility of man." And Horowitz states specifically: "That if man is redeemable in this world, why wouldn't you do anything to achieve that redemption (including going as far as Stalin and Hitler.)" Beyond that, I suggest you read the books. If you don't wish to purchase them, they're available at most good libraries.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
actually that doesnt answer my question. where and when did liberals try to redeem man by using the state and slaughtering people?
Zatzzo 2 months ago
@Zatzzo Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Red China...total slaughtered: about 120,000,000.
vince33x 2 months ago
@vince33x
and what about liberal governments?
Zatzzo 1 month ago
@vince33x
All of those regimes are totalitarian. That is the opposite of liberal.
Lodatzor 1 month ago
@Lodatzor That's the point, the meaning of "Liberal" has changed since the beginning of the 20th Century. Prior to the 20th Century, the term "Liberal" meant a belief in Individual Liberty. Today, the term "Liberal" and "Progressive" are synonymous, in that they both mean a belief in government as the engine of economic and social progress.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x NO. That is WRONG.
Liberal may mean WHATEVER in USA, but in the rest of the world it means what it actually stands for: of an pertaining to liberty. Don't use your confused lingo and try to confuse others with it. This is an international site.
MikaelUmaN 1 month ago
@MikaelUmaN Brush up on your knowledge of current affairs. The meaning of "Liberal" here in the USA is tantamount to "Progressive." I.e.> Believing that government is the primary means for promoting "social & economic justice" (whatever that means!). In BOTH Europe & Canada in the 19th Century, the "Liberals" were staunch defenders of Laissez-Faire economics, this has not been the case in the 20th Century as Liberal Parties in Canada and Great Britain have "evolved into muddled, moderates."
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x I think in our right-shifted politics of today, "liberal" is one who believes government is ANY means for promoting comfort for her people. The parens patriae interest that a state has always had long enough to have a Latin term.
baigandine 1 month ago
@baigandine Where do you get the idea that the USA's politics have "shifted right?" Are u kidding me? 'W' was the most LEFT-WING Republican elected since Richard Nixon. Government-spending EXPLODED under Bush and has gone up even more under our current nitwit-in-chief. "Right-shifted politics?" You must be a complete idiot!
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x David Horowitz is the fascist, he calls for more military spending, while going after the old, the sick, the little kids and the poor, but we must also cut taxes for the rich, medieval.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 For the most part, Horowitz advocates for Less gov't not more gov't, so in that sense he is not a fascist. He is a Jew and has a blind allegiance toward Israel. I understand his feelings though I disagree with them. I believe Israelis should defend Israeli interests NOT American boys, as we did in Iraq, which was a PROXY WAR FOR ISRAEL.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x You're such a moron. You're blaming the victims for the crimes that were committed against them. You're logic is so twisted, yet it makes sense to you. That's how dumb and brainwashed you truly are.
NYCSteveS 2 months ago
@vince33x that definition of fascism is the one that Glen Beck uses to compare Obama with fascists. You're an idiot to the nth degree. Fascism is total control of everything by one person, a dictator. That dictator usually takes on a self-appointed god-like quality. Your pseudo-intellectualism isn't fooling anyone. You're as dumb as they come.
NYCSteveS 2 months ago
@vince33x What a bullshit definition of fascism. What encyclopedia or dictionary supports it?
baigandine 1 month ago
@baigandine I don't need a dictionary to define Fascism, I look at what they do in the real world and aside from Hitler's insane hatred of Jews, the Fascists are disturbingly similar to our Left-Wing Progressives. Suggest you read Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM. Mussolini was a Socialist and Nazi stood for the German Socialist Workers Party. All the scum on the Left pretty much use the same playbook and it's all about government control.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x BTW, it was Stalin who ordered Communists the world over to label and ideology that wasn't (in his mind) Communist, to be called "Fascist."
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x It was the Italians who first devised the label Fascist, not Stalin.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 That's not what I said you dip...read it again and try to comprehend this time.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x I have and he is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes in the book he even sounds confused and points out, in a confused section that liberalism, unlike fascism is nannying not brutal. Mussolini was not a soicalist and Hitler killed off the "socialism" part of National Socialism on the night of the long knives, his party did not even have a program so you cannot say it was socialist, given its treatment of big business, it was anything but.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 After reading your other posts, i suspect your powers of comprehension are lacking, so I'm not surprised at your inability to grasp what Jonah Goldberg is writing about, which are the striking similarities between American Liberalism and Fascism: Central economic planning, high tax rates, strict regulations on businesses and when you look at the union aspects of Progressivism, there is a very high degree of (slef-serving) Nationalism. Remember the restrictions on Japanese imports?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Also, Mussolini was a Socialist before he started the Fascist movement in Italy...suggest you learn a little more about the history of that time. And, as far as Socialists killing Fascists and vice versa, what do you expect from two very similar and thuggish ideologies?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Socialism is different from fascism, Stalinism and Fascism you have a point, but Stalin was the exception, not the rule in Soviet leadership. Socialism is not the Soviet Union, but more like Britain or Gaullist France and people are allowed to fight back as Socialists did against Fascism, up to the bitter end.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Yea, after Stalin and his henchmen had stolen all the Private Property, the need to kill millions (of Property) owners was greatly diminished. All u Left-Wingers sing from the same propaganda book: The Soviet Union wasn't really socialist. Baloney! Socialism is simply the State ownership of the means of Production and Distribution; Fascism is the tight State control of the means of Production and Distribution - NOT A DIME'S WORTH of DIFFERENCE!
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Tight State Control, oh all those profits foisted on poor IG Farben Krupp and Thyssen by cutting the minimum wage, taking away employee rights, all of which Mussolini did in Italy but without the Concentration camps and starvation. Whereas Stalin betrayed a lot of the principles of Lenin. Stalinism is not Socialism. Britain and France in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the Nordic Countries now are Socialism.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Krupp was in ruins after WWII and Hitler's (socialist) insanity. BTW, the only way unions gained ground in the USA in the 30s & 40s was because Democrats (incl FDR & the Gov of MI) refused to enforce laws against trespass, so our own gov't was complicit in the union thuggery of that era. So what happened in the 80s, 90s, & 00s? BTW, the Nordic countries are creeping, albeit glacially, toward the right as they realize the stagnation of Socialism.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x There is no central planning in progressivism, at most we nudge the economy with certain measures like infrastructure and R&D spending, otherwise we dictate nothing about which companies will set up where and what they will produce, the regulations on business in fascism differing enormously from progressive regulation. Well if you remember correctly, the Japanese had similar tariffs to our products and we responded in kind and there is nothing to be ashamed of for doing so.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 It's interesting that the only economic system that results in real progress is Capitalism but the Left, with the help of their minions in the press and the Academy, have co-opted the word for use as their moniker (Progressives) because the term "Liberal" has become so acidic. Which brings us to Obama - the most "Progressive" President since the warmonger LBJ, and his crowning achievement is ObamaCare, which is essentially the take over and Central Planning of 1 sixth of our economy.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Your words: "There is no central planning in progressivism." This is utterly preposterous! U are obviously clueless to reality. What do you call the government takeover of GM and Chrysler? What about Amtrak? The Post Office? TARP, Bank Bailouts? These are not hallmarks of Free Market Capitalism, they are the hallmarks of Central Planning! Left-Wing Republicans (like 'W' and Nixon) and almost all Democrats would like to manage the whole of the economy from Washington. We've seen Central
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Planning before - in the Soviet Union - and it was an unmitigated disaster. What was once called the "Breadbasket of Europe" couldn't even feed themselves and if it weren't for American grain farmers, millions in the Soviet Union would have starved to death in the 70s & 80s. Yet the Left never yields, they still believe in their insane policies, no matter how many millions have to die to achieve their view of Paradise on earth. Progressives are either very ignorant or very evil people
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Amtrak is a Government corporation, overseen but not directed by the Government, no one is required to do business with it. The Post Office has been with us since the Washington Administration, Paul Ryan supported TARP (incidentally it was all necessary, not the exact form it took but the general actions were necessary to prevent a much greater catastrophe) as for GM and Chrysler those two companies have recovered exports are on the increase.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Amtrak came into being because gov't's favors to unions bankrupted most east coast rails and the gov't "came to the rescue." In typical gov't fashion, it breaks your keg and then puts a cast on it says we're here to help. Amtrak is now getting about $2B a year in taxpayer subsidies because it is so bloated it cant compete otherwise. The Post Office, who has no competition for 1st class mail needs a $9B taxpayer subsidy to continue operations; it cost $1.4M/job saved at GM and they
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Amtrak came into being because, the railways show the limits of the market and also times changed with road and air travel becoming more accesible due to the Federal dollars spent on that. The Post Office has FedEx and UPS, both of whom I see around a lot, part of the Post Office's problem is that it is not allowed to choose what it charges. For example the Royal Mail has more freedom, is still incredibly cheap and turned a 404,000,000 profit in 2010, we could learn
Meade556 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Meade556 Wrong, gov't forced railroads to maintain the featherbedding unions wanted, greatly increasing their costs and making them less competitive and eventually bankrupting them. Gov't wouldn't allow the RRs the flexibility to compete because of the political power of the unions - get ur economic history straight. Again, u make my point on central planning when you say: "Post Office's problem is that it is not allowed to choose what it charges." BTW, I believe the Royal Mail is soon to be
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Privatized.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x You're an idiot. Before 2008, no one was pointing at unions as the cause of all our problems. After 2008, morons like you listen to those that caused the problems and point their fingers at the unions. How about pointing the fingers at the bankers, Wall St. and the like that created the instability of the financial system? They're killing off the middle class and you're their cheerleader. You're a moron and a bigot.
NYCSteveS 1 month ago 17
@vince33x still owe the taxpayer more than $30B, which is almost their total market cap, so this money will NEVER be paid back. Not to mention Obama's fascist act of screwing all GM's and Chrysler's bondholders. BTW, Ryan was dead wrong in voting for TARP. In fact he was cow-towing to his heavily unionized district, so he showed political cowardice or expediency, however you wish to define it - I call it cowardice, with that vote.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Fascist, that is Capitalistic rules of bankruptcy, shareholders lose everything and bondholders become the new shareholders, which means it was not some big union conspiracy as it meant that the Union pension and health plans had them a 40% stake in the company and they all took big pay cuts and there are now more workers at both than before the Crisis. Also TARP was for the banks, not the unions, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 U nitwit, I didnt say TARP was for the unions but union leadership supported TARP. The UAW contributed heavily to the election of Obama and he was beholdin to them, that's why he screwed the bondholders. The basic rules of bankruptcy are that the debtholders are 1st in line if the assets are liquidated. How is that fascist? What Obama did was pure Fascism, it was totally dictatorial. U are either clueless or an out and out liar.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x You call me a nitwit and ignore the realities that union members were the bondholders for a lot of bonds and got screwed according to the standard rules of capitalism. It was not fascism what Obama did, what is fascist is you saying things like "The American left has always been dominated by the Jews" no wonder Hitler happened. TARP was for the bankers and people supported it because it was necessary.
Meade556 1 month ago
Comment removed
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x including Stephen Moore, the chief economist at the WSJ.
vince33x 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Meade556 Obama stood 400 yrs of Common Law on its head when he screwed the bondholders of GM and Chrysler and the fact he did it via government fiat was pure Fascism. BTW, how is making a factual observation: "The American left has always been dominated by the Jews" fascist? But your little postscript: "no wonder Hitler happened." Is a lie as I never said any such thing. Finally, many economists did not agree with TARP, including the lead economist at the WSJ - Stephen Moore.
vince33x 1 month ago
@Meade556 I didn't say anything about a "union conspiracy." Why do u make things up?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x At most it is a nudging, all that is mandated is that people have healthcare, not who they purchase it from, considering that before Obamacare it was legal for HMOs to spend whatever sum they wished on "bureaucracy" normally being $35 out of every $100 we give them. I support a Federal mandate that they spend at the very least $80 out of every $100, I am not paying them 14k so they can buy mansions.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Don't give me this crap "nudging." It is FORCE, which is what governments are all about. Geo. Washington once observed: "Government is not reason or eloquence, it is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The two sectors of our economy that have had the most inflation are: Health and Education. Not coincidently, they are the two sectors with the most gov't control. It's stunning how u on the Left cant connect the dots.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x No, that is due to the private sector, take away all state support UCLA and UCB are cheaper than Georgetown or even Dickenson, and in the healthcare sector, our problem is that, unlike in Europe, we do not charge according to the Marginal Cost of Production, we can connect the dots. In Europe the Governments dictate how the People's money is spent, here we say "oh leave it to the private sector it will all be great" and we know what happens and every advance in civilization..
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 This says it all, ur words: "In Europe the Governments dictate how the People's money is spent..." Ur honor, the prosecution rests!
vince33x 3 weeks ago
@vince33x Yes the democratically constituted and accountable agencies of the people decide what to do with the People's money not a bunch of fat cats interested in their own self enrichment, The Governments there are simply dedicated to the proposition that life is difficult enough and Government should not preside over a system that enables this or actively makes it more difficult. Governments should have more power than corporations
Meade556 3 weeks ago
@Meade556 I luv it when u post because u prove urself an idiot almost every time and ur last post is no different. Ur words: "Governments should have more power than corporations." U think governments don't have more power than corporations? R u kidding me? Governments have the tanks and the guns plus the power to tax - which Jefferson called the "power to destroy." U r a complete idiot!
vince33x 3 weeks ago
@vince33x Ah but who are those guns, tanks and taxes used for! Why the wealthy and the corporations of course. Corporations paid less than 7.2% of Federal taxes last year, far less than they did at the height of our prosperity, an era of stronger government and unions. Yeah and fire is the power to destroy but also to create, Jefferson understood this which is why he supported taxes to pay for the new National Debt, but he wanted a tax on financial transactions.
Meade556 3 weeks ago
@Meade556 A couple of points: 1) before WWI, the Federal gov't never took more than 3% of our national income (Civil War excepted), 2) What pct of a person's income do u think it's OK for gov't to steal (Jefferson also said: "Taxation is theft" and "the power to tax is the power to destroy")? BTW, when the thugs at the UAW occupied GM property, the Gov. of MI did not allow the police to evict them. The Dems obviously believe trespass is a legit way to achieve one's ends.
vince33x 3 weeks ago
@vince33x As an enumerated power of the constitution taxation is not theft anymore than National Defense is an occupation, yes the power to tax is the power to destroy as fire can destroy so too can it create. Jefferson eventually sided with Hamilton on the assumption of a national debt, where he differed was "who to tax?" Jefferson said have a tax on financial transactions, Hamilton said on farmers.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 I'll stand by Jefferson's characterization of taxes and the definition of theft - the action of stealing or taking that which doesn't belong to you. During Jefferson's Presidency, he abolished numerous taxes; I can find no reference to him ever advocating taxes on 'transactions.' At best, taxation is a necessary evil and as such ought to b kept to the minimum necessary for legitimate government functions: Defense, courts, police and not much else. A simple tenet for a free society is:
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x "I don't have the right to live at ur expense and u don't have the right to live at my expense."
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x GM broke that part of the agreement when it decided to cut workers compensation and fire them even though the company's profits were improving. That is living at the expense of your workers.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 What r u talking about, the UAW coerced workers into a sit-down strike engaging in the illegal act of trespass. And a corrupt MI Gov.. refused to uphold the law in protecting GM property. R u telling me u think it's OK for one group to destroy the property of someone else?
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x No GM was equally guilty of using a private security force and then as now they owned the Flint PD and the Police did drag protestors and beat them within an inch of their lives. What about the workers toil? Hmmm? Without them GM would have been nothing and GM had locked the workers out because they demanded better conditions, since the management ignored them when they asked nicely obviously they weren't going to give up. Our Fathers destroyed Royal Property
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 Ur words: "What about the workers toil?" WTF does that mean? Were they not paid for their 'toil?' Ur words: "Without them GM would have been nothing..." Really? GM could get workers anywhere, they were lined up around the block anytime there were job openings. Do u understand that Labor is a cost? And when it can be substituted for capital it makes for a more productive shop floor? The 4 elements of production are, in order of importance: 1) Management, 2) Capital, 3) Resource,
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x and 4) Labor. Labor is the LEAST important element of production. Indeed, wherever possible u want to 'get the labor out.' The auto industry is hugely more productive today because it is building the same number of cars w/ 1.5 million FEWER workers! Do u get that?
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 GM did not want to deal w/the UAW, so the 'workers' (more likely, UAW goons) engaged in a sit-down strike on GM property - IOW, they were trespassing - an illegal activity. GM had every right to expect the police to remove these trespassers, especially when they started braking windows and destroying GM equipment. Instead, the Gov. of MI put a wet finger in the air to gauge the 'political wind direction' and then ordered out the Nat'l Guard to prevent the police from taking action.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x The Gov. of MI actions were BOTH immoral and illegal but such were the exigencies of the zeitgeist that nothing was done.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x Ah but the Constitution specifically, with the Commerce and Taxation clauses, expands the powers of Government far beyond that. Jefferson wanted to pay for the new national debt with a tax on financial transactions and the taxes he abolished were the ones levied disproportionately on poor people and Jefferson himself was a stickler for Federal power in a lot of ways. In any case greenbacks are the Government's money it does not exist without it.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 The Commerce Clause was wildly expanded by the Leftsts judges appointed by FDR and until the passage of the 16th Amendment, taxes on incomes were unconstitutional. Again, I've never seen anything where Jefferson called for a tax on financial transactions. Where are you getting that? As for Federal power, from the Founding until WWI, the Federal Gov't never stole more than 3% of Nat'l income. In other words, the Federal gov't was tiny relative to our economy - unlike today.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x Article in the Financial times recently on how debt crises are not new, specifically why it was so urgent for Hamilton's proposals for the assumption of a National Debt to go ahead. Furthermore the idea that we needed a 16th amendment is ludicrous because Congress has the specifically enumerated power of taxation. As for the expansion of the Commerce Clause, there was no expansion, simply using the power given to the Government by the Fathers.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 What does this mean: "Hamilton's proposals for the assumption of a National Debt?" And more idiocy from u: "the idea that we needed a 16th amendment is ludicrous..." R u kidding, the Supreme Court had declared taxes on incomes unconstitutional u twit. That's why, unfortunately, the 16th Amendment was ratified. Before FDR was elected and was able to appoint Left-Wing justices, the SC had a very narrow definition of the Commerce Clause. FDR's appointees greatly expanded it. If ur just
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x going to deny that rain is water, there's no point discussing anything with u.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 Ur word: "Article in the Financial times recently on how debt crises are not new..." No shit Sherlock!
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x Considering the sweat equity of those men and the fact that it was the Police and Company thugs who were beating up the workers, not the other way around and those workers had helped bring GM back from the brink they were entitled to a better deal and the Government's job is to protect its people not defend everything business does. I'll also remind you it was a Republican, LaFollette who sided with syndicalists time and time again as well as TR.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 As usual, u've got ur facts confused. At GM, the UAW trespassed on GM property and engaged in a sit-down strike. They also broke factory windows and destroyed plant equipment. GM officials asked the police to remove the strikers from GM property and MI Gov. Murphy called out the Nat'l Guard to stop the cops from protecting the property of GM shareholders. So you had the highest ranking Gov. official in the state of MI using his office to help lawbreakers - CRIMINAL!
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x GM property! Oh please you kick a man and you expect him not to fight back, especially given what GM had done and the way company thugs were beat up the workers before they staged their strike, as part of everyday life and during it, is what is criminal. Unions are ordinary people coming together and standing up for themselves. Nothing is more feeble than the strength of one, it is why soldiers work well as a team and not nearly as well as individuals.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 Ur confusing GM w/Ford, which did have a security force. It was the UAW that engaged in violence against GM. U just believe that mobs should be allowed to prevail. That is a fascist belief.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x The Boston Tea party destroyed the property of the East Indian Company. Mobs running the roost? Hmmm, on the one hand you accuse me of being authoritarian, on the other anarchistic, you have to get your ideologies straight.
Meade556 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 The Boston Tea Party was a response to the actions of a dictatorial Gov't not a private entity. The East India Co. was a gov't sponsored monopoly. IOW, it was illegal to compete with it - like the US POst Office. BTW, I accuse u of one thing, like all on the Left, u r a fascist.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x communist are to the left, FASCISTS to the right on the political spectrum. you, are a fascist. and an ignorant puppet of fox news. perhaps a socio-path as are most conservative cranks. hope you die soon! ;)
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit Yet another nitwit who doesn't understand the political spectrum. Let me expalin it to u: On the far Left u have Communism or the Total State. Just to the right of Communism is Socialism and a little further right is Fascism. If u go all the way over to the Far Right, u have Anarchy. Just to the Left of Anarchy u have the Constitutional Republic. Simply put: Large Powerful Gov't = Left; Small, minimal Gov't = Right. There now, is that so hard for u 2 understand?
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x boom! wrong again. vince the glenn beck drone! hahhaha
blastsummit 2 weeks ago
@blastsummit That's a pretty sick laugh. Sounds as though the men in the white lab coats are at ur back door.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@Meade556 By what measure do u say the workers were ENTITLED to a better deal - says who? The workers are entitled to the best deal they can get LEGALLY - not thru coercion and FORCE - ur starting to sound like a fascist. AND, the gov't's job is to protect life, limb, and property. The UAW had no right to engage in illegal activity (trespassing) to achieve its ends.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x has involved more fire, and likewise, usually, more Government. We first crawled our way from obscurity with the help of fire, the Industrial Revolution depended on machines driven by fire, products forged by fire and Washington's Administration imposed a heavier tax regime than the British and had a more invasive presence but that was the whole point of our constitution powerful yet limited National Government.
Meade556 1 month ago
@vince33x Yeah there you go using the same rhetoric as the Nazis and then comparing me to them. Yeah, Bernie Sanders, Ben Cardin, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken all Fascists and Nazis I imagine.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Here's Barron's definition of Fascism: "Doctrine; collection of concepts; and dictatorship by government of a country, often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes, racism, and private economic ownership under rigid government control.
A fascist regime is often militarily belligerent." Other than "temperament" how is it any different in practice than Communism or Socialism or Progressivism?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Very progressives are democratic as are socialists, like Britain's Labour Party, France Socialist Party and even the UMP. Our nationalism is not racism, but a fervent commitment to the success and well being of the country and those who inhabit it as I describe and the government control is precisely the form progressives abhor, the Police State, Fascist countries are decidely unregulated.
Meade556 1 month ago
@Meade556 Your words again: "Fascist countries are decidely unregulated." Are you that misinformed or just deliberately lying? Which is it. One of the hallmarks of Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy was a tightly regulated and highly taxed Private Sector. Before WWII, the American Left was fawning all over Mussolini (they didn't like Hitler because the American Left has always been dominated by Jews)..."he made the trains run on time" and "he provided government services unheard of before
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Mussolini. The Left-Wing, American Press (e.g.> the NYT) were falling all over themselves in editorial praise of Mussolini - One writer went so far (in 1923) as to call Mussolini "a Latin Roosevelt" who has been a great service to his country. Seriously, did you attend gov't school or are u a gov't school teacher?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x I know this may shock you, but a paper which fawns over Lindsey Graham is not liberal and the gray lady has ever been written for the New York elite, it is not liberal, elitist, in the worst possible sense yes, liberal no. And in 1923 Roosevelt was not even Governor of New York so you are being disingenuous and no in point of fact I went to a church school and have always worked in the private sector, that does not stop me from being liberal and proud of it.
Meade556 1 month ago