RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid!

RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 7:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy What are the big ticket items that make it more profitable to pay the shipping costs and increased administration? Salaries, taxes and compliance costs....all 3 of which are higher domestically due to government intervention than they would be without it. Because core salaries are lower elsewhere, some businesses would still offshore. But policy driven wage costs, taxes and compliance costs drive the decision in many cases. And now we're back to steering around domestic taxes and getting more "bang for the buck" by outsourcing labor. Without a doubt, I believe there are additional stimulus policies the American government should enact (beyond the Economic Stimulus Package) that can help entice business to source its labor within our borders, such as subsidizing emerging industries, further reducing taxes and revising regulatory practices that make everyone happy, but I do wonder if it's going to matter much in the end. As you say, it's a business decision to outsource, and let's be honest—the primary motive is what will forever be the ultimate platinum pussy to capitalism: cheap labor. That's why all of Apple's manufacturing goes to China and Taiwan. That's why Nike's factories are beyond our borders, too. That's why I lost one of my main design clients last year. Growth is a natural desire for a business, but when it means putting Americans out of work is of no importance compared to increasing margins, something is terribly wrong. I don't blame only the financial sector and opportunistic interests of corporations; the attitudes of Americans themselves are partially the root of the problem. They've adapted to what I call the Walmart culture, where the predominant decree from all is must be dirt cheap. Combined with the competitiveness of emerging economies, it's an increasingly bleak picture of the average American skilled worker. You dont need to subsidize ANY industries, you just need to get out of there way and give them a level playing field with other countries. what is wrong with putting Americans out of work is the conditions that MAKE those margins better offshore. The profit motive is responsible for most of what we enjoy today. You are totally correct about the "Walmart culture". The way to combat "cheap" is with "better". But if people would rather buy the made in China toy with a little lead in it than pay the $1.49 extra, you can't legislate their bad decisions away. The auto industry is a perfect example. When the quality out of Detroit sucked, we in essence "outsourced" autos to Japanese companies. The quality got better, Japanese quality got worse, and there is some hope of profitability. People actually do buy cars based on quality...but there isnt enough quality differentiation in small ticket items to change that decision. More unmitigated bullshit. The slaves of China, Vietnam et al offer a higher profit...period. American workers are and have been more productive and build better quality than the world. The quality of Detroit cars were secondary to their typical corporate, short-term dumbass, lazy thinking with increases in price and on gas-guzzling cars in that ever present search for more profits. The Japanese among others...take a lower profit in exchange for long term success. Not the greedy, stupid, lazy, short-term profteers of American industry. Give me my Chinese slave. You could be the greatest American employee on the planet...tough. The capitalist, much more concerned with profits over patriotism, has no problem and is in the business of eliminating every American job he can. Just since 2000, the US has lost 5-7 million manufacturing jobs while creating 7 million new jobs...outside this country. Fuck Americans, their jobs and their economy.

Anarrus -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 7:55:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your statement was a false dichotomy...the rich can get richer without everyone else getting poorer. It doesnt fit your worldview, but as that great Republican said, a rising tide lifts all boats. Lame platitudes don't create jobs, nor pay mortgages or utility bills. But if you think a cutesy saying carries any real weight, here's one for you.... hot air lifts balloons. Judging from the volumn of hot air generated on both sides of the political aisle we could float a fleet of balloons large enough to block the sun from the sky over Washington DC and then some.

Edwynn -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 9:25:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anarrus quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your statement was a false dichotomy...the rich can get richer without everyone else getting poorer. It doesnt fit your worldview, but as that great Republican said, a rising tide lifts all boats. Lame platitudes don't create jobs, nor pay mortgages or utility bills. But if you think a cutesy saying carries any real weight, here's one for you.... hot air lifts balloons. Judging from the volumn of hot air generated on both sides of the political aisle we could float a fleet of balloons large enough to block the sun from the sky over Washington DC and then some. It is quite obvious by the 'lifts all boats' portion of said platitude that the self-proclaimed econ expert espousing it is incapable of reading the simplest of charts, such as the one in the article linked in the OP: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png from which chart it appears as though the bailout provided to the top 1% is being dumped into and overwhelming the inadequate buoyancy of the small boats of the lower 80%. Somehow, that lower 80% does not appear to be 'rising' to my eyes.

MrRodgers -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 9:56:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Anarrus quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your statement was a false dichotomy...the rich can get richer without everyone else getting poorer. It doesnt fit your worldview, but as that great Republican said, a rising tide lifts all boats. Lame platitudes don't create jobs, nor pay mortgages or utility bills. But if you think a cutesy saying carries any real weight, here's one for you.... hot air lifts balloons. Judging from the volumn of hot air generated on both sides of the political aisle we could float a fleet of balloons large enough to block the sun from the sky over Washington DC and then some. It is quite obvious by the 'lifts all boats' portion of said platitude that the self-proclaimed econ expert espousing it is incapable of reading the simplest of charts, such as the one in the article linked in the OP: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png from which chart it appears as though the bailout provided to the top 1% is being dumped into and overwhelming the inadequate buoyancy of the small boats of the lower 80%. Somehow, that lower 80% does not appear to be 'rising' to my eyes. Just how do the rich get richer without somebody getting poorer or deeper in debt ? Impossible. Just where would money come from if *everybody's* bank account was higher tomm. ? That CANNOT happen. WHAT great republican ? You see how so many in the right simply have no credibility. You just as far too many on the right today, would like to continually revise history to suit your bankrupt or bankruptcy-causing ideas. It was JFK that first popularized that phrase. 'The New England Council.' Favorably struck by the motto set forth on its letterhead: *'The rising tide lifts all the boats,'* it not surprisingly it found its way into J.F.K.'s speeches.'." From Safire's New Political Dictionary by William Safire (Random House, New York, 1993). Besides...it's true for water but not true for economies. Water naturally rises the same all over...incomes do not.

Musicmystery -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 10:02:29 AM)
quote: Just where would money come from if everybody's bank account was higher tomm. ? That CANNOT happen. Well, technically, it can, if we want to nitpick. One way would be universally increasing productivity. Another would be universal sale of assets to foreign buyers. And the third would be to inflate the currency (obviously not something we're just going to do, but point is, its possible). Economics is not entirely a zero sum gain. In the short run, perhaps more so, but in the long run, not at all necessarily.

MrRodgers -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 12:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Just where would money come from if everybody's bank account was higher tomm. ? That CANNOT happen. Well, technically, it can, if we want to nitpick. One way would be universally increasing productivity. Another would be universal sale of assets to foreign buyers. And the third would be to inflate the currency (obviously not something we're just going to do, but point is, its possible). Economics is not entirely a zero sum gain. In the short run, perhaps more so, but in the long run, not at all necessarily. Some studies have put the increase in US productivity since 1980 at 35-40%. Where's the money ? Result...the bottom half (1/2) 50% of income earners are poorer against inflation. I guess everybody will really be rich if productivity increases another 35-40% over the next 30 years resulting in maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the people...poorer for it. Neither the laws of govt. or the marketplace requires the investor class to share any increase of profits as a result. The great vain to making wages the single most competitive aspect of economies and keeping about 10-12 million out of work. Works great...see top 10%...see corporate profits. BTW, selling assets still requires somebody's bank account to be correspondingly lower. Devaluing the currency makes nobody richer. Economy for by far most of labor does nothing for them and especially when compared in inflationary terms with some 1200 to 1500% inflation since the formation of the fed. For labor and for most of the 20th century...economy is a negative sum game.

mnottertail -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 12:03:53 PM)
BTW, selling assets still requires somebody's bank account to be correspondingly lower. You misspoke on a calamitous scale here, please fix it, you could not have possibly meant this to convey what it does.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 12:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers WHAT great republican ? You see how so many in the right simply have no credibility. You just as far too many on the right today, would like to continually revise history to suit your bankrupt or bankruptcy-causing ideas. It was JFK that first popularized that phrase. Exactly my point, MR. Some dumbasses here would automatically attribute that to a Republican, not realizing it was their Camelot hero who not only said it, but cut taxes to do it. JFK's tax and foreign policies would fit better in today's GOP than the Democrat party, unlike his brother, so in that sense it was a Republican who said it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 12:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Some studies have put the increase in US productivity since 1980 at 35-40%. Where's the money ? Result...the bottom half (1/2) 50% of income earners are poorer against inflation. I guess everybody will really be rich if productivity increases another 35-40% over the next 30 years resulting in maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the people...poorer for it. the bottom half of income earners AFTER TAXES AND INCREASED TRANSFER PAYMENTS are not poorer against inflation.

mnottertail -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 1:11:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers WHAT great republican ? You see how so many in the right simply have no credibility. You just as far too many on the right today, would like to continually revise history to suit your bankrupt or bankruptcy-causing ideas. It was JFK that first popularized that phrase. Exactly my point, MR. Some dumbasses here would automatically attribute that to a Republican, not realizing it was their Camelot hero who not only said it, but cut taxes to do it. JFK's tax and foreign policies would fit better in today's GOP than the Democrat party, unlike his brother, so in that sense it was a Republican who said it. If any of the dumbasses would have read my response they would have seen that he was speaking of and about and in the context of infrastructure improvements in fact the thing was a dam . Not corporate welfare. Thats why the water reference fit in the first place because it did indeed affect every american. As yours is the counterpoint in your usage and your context, simply because yours doesn't hold it. He said: A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States. So I regard this as an investment by the people of the United States in the.....

Edwynn -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 1:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy the bottom half of income earners AFTER TAXES AND INCREASED TRANSFER PAYMENTS are not poorer against inflation. You really are having the greatest difficulty in reading even the simplest of charts. http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png I cannot display the chart itself here, but I will reprint the caption of the right-hand chart: CHANGE IN SHARE OF INCOME vs. 1979, after taxes Did you see that "after taxes" thing, right there at the top? As for the transfer payments, only some measurable number of the lowest quintile (that means 'the lowest 20%') receive TANF and/or food stamps or medicaid. Those who receive SS or medicare have already paid in for that, so that's a wash. And to whom it may concern; government subsidies are also transfer payments, and tax credits and a plethora of 'special treatment' deductions allowed to a select few corporations are in effect 'off the books' transfer payments.

MrRodgers -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 5:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Some studies have put the increase in US productivity since 1980 at 35-40%. Where's the money ? Result...the bottom half (1/2) 50% of income earners are poorer against inflation. I guess everybody will really be rich if productivity increases another 35-40% over the next 30 years resulting in maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the people...poorer for it. the bottom half of income earners AFTER TAXES AND INCREASED TRANSFER PAYMENTS are not poorer against inflation. What increased transfer payments...what taxes ? You have to make some money to pay any real federal income tax. The single largest factor in why the working poor pay so little if any income taxes...they make little if any money. Comparisons are drawn on income from wages, tips and salary. For the poorest 50% of this country...life takes more of that income than it did 30 years ago. And BTW, the selling of assets is an exchange of wealth not a creation of it but if you are saying we could sell the National parks or the Grand Canyon...yes making the treasury less in the hole. So what...that is simply not going to happen.

MrRodgers -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 5:51:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers WHAT great republican ? You see how so many in the right simply have no credibility. You just as far too many on the right today, would like to continually revise history to suit your bankrupt or bankruptcy-causing ideas. It was JFK that first popularized that phrase. Exactly my point, MR. Some dumbasses here would automatically attribute that to a Republican, not realizing it was their Camelot hero who not only said it, but cut taxes to do it. JFK's tax and foreign policies would fit better in today's GOP than the Democrat party, unlike his brother, so in that sense it was a Republican who said it. If any of the dumbasses would have read my response they would have seen that he was speaking of and about and in the context of infrastructure improvements in fact the thing was a dam . Not corporate welfare. Thats why the water reference fit in the first place because it did indeed affect every american. As yours is the counterpoint in your usage and your context, simply because yours doesn't hold it. He said: A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States. So I regard this as an investment by the people of the United States in the..... Actually that the TVA and Hoover say are govt. projects has the taxpayer better off as we all know beyond all doubt, the capitalist would have said 'hey we should build hydro power in Tenn and in Colorado'...and had their hand out for loan guarantees. They do for every other major project. Almost every single nuclear plant and most large entertainment and transportation facilities in the US have used govt. loan guarantees, tax favors if not govt. cash. much of which at 100% taxpayer costs for the benefit of corporate America.

Edwynn -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/3/2011 6:54:42 PM)
Give it up. Willbur, the talking horse's ass, will never let down, being as that his fantasy beats reality any day of the week, in his own world.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/5/2011 10:59:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You dont need to subsidize ANY industries, you just need to get out of there way and give them a level playing field with other countries. I'm not so sure I agree fully with that. Take a look at the computer chip revolution in this country, and you'll see that since it was vital technology for our national interest, it was supported by robust military (government) spending, which then eventually created a thriving consumer market. The idea of "getting out of the way and letting the free market decide" was put to the test in the financial industry with lax regulations. We saw what that sort of thinking led to, unfortunately. Unregulated capitalism leads to exploitation, trusts and corporate tyranny, eventually.

xssve -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/5/2011 12:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your statement was a false dichotomy...the rich can get richer without everyone else getting poorer. It doesnt fit your worldview, but as that great Republican said, a rising tide lifts all boats. It was a republican who said: "We ought to make the pie higher." Which turns out to be a much better analogy, particularly with respect to taxation levels, i.e., which is better: a lower slice of higher pie, or a higher slice of a lower one? Think before you answer, and you might even want to look at the IRS historical data. You might also want to research how supply side theory arose as a direct result of the Kennedy tax cuts, and why that is significant.

xssve -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/5/2011 1:02:45 PM)
Here's a couple of charts to get you started, Marginal Rates and GDP, and job growth (about halfway down the page).

xssve -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/5/2011 1:21:00 PM)
MF warns against getting to spazzed about the job numbers just yet, although the pubs are terribly exited about it..

juliaoceania -> RE: Plutocracy Now! or It's the Inequality, stupid! (6/5/2011 7:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Your statement was a false dichotomy...the rich can get richer without everyone else getting poorer. It doesnt fit your worldview, but as that great Republican said, a rising tide lifts all boats. This is so parrot-like. You post no facts, no figures, nothing to support this platitude. Is this what stands for debate in your circles?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625