Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[KSMountain]

Calling B.S. that an editor of the Wall Street Journal said wall st must be “defeated”. And that he startled paraphrasing Lenin. Pulease.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Well it makes some sense but breaks down on the jobs part.

Here is what I do not understand…. Everyone says bring the jobs back. Bring them back! Like it is no problem to do so… However if there are people who will do the same job for 1/10 of the cost of an American employee then how exactly does that work? If American union jobs benefit the american employee somewhat but a nice percentage of that salary goes to the union which then goes to lobbyists, then how does that work as well?

The crux of it is that “american jobs” carry so much overhead with the salary that the answer is that IT DOESNT WORK.

The big admission here is that a percentage of the American labor force has priced themselves out of jobs. The govt has compounded the problems by awarding corporations for outsourcing as well and all that infrastructure buildout did not happen in a year and you cannot throw a switch and expect it to be reversed in a year… or two…or five. Similarly the effort it will take to return those jobs is indescribeable and the bottom line it that it will hurt the companies it is aimed at which will hurt their bottom line and their stock price which will hurt Wall St which controls the govt…

savy?[/quote]

SDR,

Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.

As of now, we are still the world’s #1 consumer powerhouse. We’ve only managed to stay there because Americans were convinced to take on debt to make up for their stagnating/declining wages. I fully believe that the housing bubble was intentionally designed to force people into more consumer debt. We were *encouraged at every step* to “take money out of our homes” and spend it. By using housing as the tool for expanding debt (credit levels were determined more by the “value” of the collateral instead of income/ability to pay back the debt), the amounts could be much larger than with unsecured debt that was strictly based on income.

We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Well it makes some sense but breaks down on the jobs part.

Here is what I do not understand…. Everyone says bring the jobs back. Bring them back! Like it is no problem to do so… However if there are people who will do the same job for 1/10 of the cost of an American employee then how exactly does that work? If American union jobs benefit the american employee somewhat but a nice percentage of that salary goes to the union which then goes to lobbyists, then how does that work as well?

The crux of it is that “american jobs” carry so much overhead with the salary that the answer is that IT DOESNT WORK.

The big admission here is that a percentage of the American labor force has priced themselves out of jobs. The govt has compounded the problems by awarding corporations for outsourcing as well and all that infrastructure buildout did not happen in a year and you cannot throw a switch and expect it to be reversed in a year… or two…or five. Similarly the effort it will take to return those jobs is indescribeable and the bottom line it that it will hurt the companies it is aimed at which will hurt their bottom line and their stock price which will hurt Wall St which controls the govt…

savy?[/quote]

SDR,

Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.

As of now, we are still the world’s #1 consumer powerhouse. We’ve only managed to stay there because Americans were convinced to take on debt to make up for their stagnating/declining wages. I fully believe that the housing bubble was intentionally designed to force people into more consumer debt. We were *encouraged at every step* to “take money out of our homes” and spend it. By using housing as the tool for expanding debt (credit levels were determined more by the “value” of the collateral instead of income/ability to pay back the debt), the amounts could be much larger than with unsecured debt that was strictly based on income.

We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Well it makes some sense but breaks down on the jobs part.

Here is what I do not understand…. Everyone says bring the jobs back. Bring them back! Like it is no problem to do so… However if there are people who will do the same job for 1/10 of the cost of an American employee then how exactly does that work? If American union jobs benefit the american employee somewhat but a nice percentage of that salary goes to the union which then goes to lobbyists, then how does that work as well?

The crux of it is that “american jobs” carry so much overhead with the salary that the answer is that IT DOESNT WORK.

The big admission here is that a percentage of the American labor force has priced themselves out of jobs. The govt has compounded the problems by awarding corporations for outsourcing as well and all that infrastructure buildout did not happen in a year and you cannot throw a switch and expect it to be reversed in a year… or two…or five. Similarly the effort it will take to return those jobs is indescribeable and the bottom line it that it will hurt the companies it is aimed at which will hurt their bottom line and their stock price which will hurt Wall St which controls the govt…

savy?[/quote]

SDR,

Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.

As of now, we are still the world’s #1 consumer powerhouse. We’ve only managed to stay there because Americans were convinced to take on debt to make up for their stagnating/declining wages. I fully believe that the housing bubble was intentionally designed to force people into more consumer debt. We were *encouraged at every step* to “take money out of our homes” and spend it. By using housing as the tool for expanding debt (credit levels were determined more by the “value” of the collateral instead of income/ability to pay back the debt), the amounts could be much larger than with unsecured debt that was strictly based on income.

We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Well it makes some sense but breaks down on the jobs part.

Here is what I do not understand…. Everyone says bring the jobs back. Bring them back! Like it is no problem to do so… However if there are people who will do the same job for 1/10 of the cost of an American employee then how exactly does that work? If American union jobs benefit the american employee somewhat but a nice percentage of that salary goes to the union which then goes to lobbyists, then how does that work as well?

The crux of it is that “american jobs” carry so much overhead with the salary that the answer is that IT DOESNT WORK.

The big admission here is that a percentage of the American labor force has priced themselves out of jobs. The govt has compounded the problems by awarding corporations for outsourcing as well and all that infrastructure buildout did not happen in a year and you cannot throw a switch and expect it to be reversed in a year… or two…or five. Similarly the effort it will take to return those jobs is indescribeable and the bottom line it that it will hurt the companies it is aimed at which will hurt their bottom line and their stock price which will hurt Wall St which controls the govt…

savy?[/quote]

SDR,

Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.

As of now, we are still the world’s #1 consumer powerhouse. We’ve only managed to stay there because Americans were convinced to take on debt to make up for their stagnating/declining wages. I fully believe that the housing bubble was intentionally designed to force people into more consumer debt. We were *encouraged at every step* to “take money out of our homes” and spend it. By using housing as the tool for expanding debt (credit levels were determined more by the “value” of the collateral instead of income/ability to pay back the debt), the amounts could be much larger than with unsecured debt that was strictly based on income.

We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Well it makes some sense but breaks down on the jobs part.

Here is what I do not understand…. Everyone says bring the jobs back. Bring them back! Like it is no problem to do so… However if there are people who will do the same job for 1/10 of the cost of an American employee then how exactly does that work? If American union jobs benefit the american employee somewhat but a nice percentage of that salary goes to the union which then goes to lobbyists, then how does that work as well?

The crux of it is that “american jobs” carry so much overhead with the salary that the answer is that IT DOESNT WORK.

The big admission here is that a percentage of the American labor force has priced themselves out of jobs. The govt has compounded the problems by awarding corporations for outsourcing as well and all that infrastructure buildout did not happen in a year and you cannot throw a switch and expect it to be reversed in a year… or two…or five. Similarly the effort it will take to return those jobs is indescribeable and the bottom line it that it will hurt the companies it is aimed at which will hurt their bottom line and their stock price which will hurt Wall St which controls the govt…

savy?[/quote]

SDR,

Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.

As of now, we are still the world’s #1 consumer powerhouse. We’ve only managed to stay there because Americans were convinced to take on debt to make up for their stagnating/declining wages. I fully believe that the housing bubble was intentionally designed to force people into more consumer debt. We were *encouraged at every step* to “take money out of our homes” and spend it. By using housing as the tool for expanding debt (credit levels were determined more by the “value” of the collateral instead of income/ability to pay back the debt), the amounts could be much larger than with unsecured debt that was strictly based on income.

We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
.[/quote]

From a Marxist perspective, this is an internal contradiction of capitalism which inevitably undercuts the conditions of its own existence. Put simply, capital destroys or circumvents all barriers to serve it’s goal of accumulation. Well-paid labor is such a barrier, to accumulating capital, that inevitably will be destroyed.

What you are seeing is not a planned event per se, but the natural flow of capital accumulation and gimmicks to delay and hide it’s effects. The dramatic increase in debt-based consumption, over the past four decades, was to counteract the systems own contradictions — which essentially created more problems and scapegoats when you think about it.

Of course, we had plausible sounding rationalizations for every step we took that put us in the corner we are in.

So, both, you and SDR are correct, in a sense, and that is why it is a contradiction.

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
.[/quote]

From a Marxist perspective, this is an internal contradiction of capitalism which inevitably undercuts the conditions of its own existence. Put simply, capital destroys or circumvents all barriers to serve it’s goal of accumulation. Well-paid labor is such a barrier, to accumulating capital, that inevitably will be destroyed.

What you are seeing is not a planned event per se, but the natural flow of capital accumulation and gimmicks to delay and hide it’s effects. The dramatic increase in debt-based consumption, over the past four decades, was to counteract the systems own contradictions — which essentially created more problems and scapegoats when you think about it.

Of course, we had plausible sounding rationalizations for every step we took that put us in the corner we are in.

So, both, you and SDR are correct, in a sense, and that is why it is a contradiction.

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
.[/quote]

From a Marxist perspective, this is an internal contradiction of capitalism which inevitably undercuts the conditions of its own existence. Put simply, capital destroys or circumvents all barriers to serve it’s goal of accumulation. Well-paid labor is such a barrier, to accumulating capital, that inevitably will be destroyed.

What you are seeing is not a planned event per se, but the natural flow of capital accumulation and gimmicks to delay and hide it’s effects. The dramatic increase in debt-based consumption, over the past four decades, was to counteract the systems own contradictions — which essentially created more problems and scapegoats when you think about it.

Of course, we had plausible sounding rationalizations for every step we took that put us in the corner we are in.

So, both, you and SDR are correct, in a sense, and that is why it is a contradiction.

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
.[/quote]

From a Marxist perspective, this is an internal contradiction of capitalism which inevitably undercuts the conditions of its own existence. Put simply, capital destroys or circumvents all barriers to serve it’s goal of accumulation. Well-paid labor is such a barrier, to accumulating capital, that inevitably will be destroyed.

What you are seeing is not a planned event per se, but the natural flow of capital accumulation and gimmicks to delay and hide it’s effects. The dramatic increase in debt-based consumption, over the past four decades, was to counteract the systems own contradictions — which essentially created more problems and scapegoats when you think about it.

Of course, we had plausible sounding rationalizations for every step we took that put us in the corner we are in.

So, both, you and SDR are correct, in a sense, and that is why it is a contradiction.

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
.[/quote]

From a Marxist perspective, this is an internal contradiction of capitalism which inevitably undercuts the conditions of its own existence. Put simply, capital destroys or circumvents all barriers to serve it’s goal of accumulation. Well-paid labor is such a barrier, to accumulating capital, that inevitably will be destroyed.

What you are seeing is not a planned event per se, but the natural flow of capital accumulation and gimmicks to delay and hide it’s effects. The dramatic increase in debt-based consumption, over the past four decades, was to counteract the systems own contradictions — which essentially created more problems and scapegoats when you think about it.

Of course, we had plausible sounding rationalizations for every step we took that put us in the corner we are in.

So, both, you and SDR are correct, in a sense, and that is why it is a contradiction.

[ltokuda]

Regarding “american jobs”, I wouldn’t say that the bottom line is that IT DOESN’T WORK. The problem is that our economic policy creates an environment where it will not work.

For example, here’s a great way to reduce military cost. Why don’t we just send all our technology to China and have our weapons manufactured there? They can obviously produce stuff a lot cheaper than we can so “american jobs” don’t work in this case either? Well at the end of the day, we make it work. We enforce an economic policy for military equipement that isn’t very “free market” at all. I guess someone decided that, despite the cost benefits, its not in our best interest to export our technology. This is what keeps us ahead of the competition.

But in the business world, exporting our technology is considered a good thing. We give it away to America’s competitors in search of higher profit margins. We invest in infrastructure in foreign lands so that we can move our jobs to where the pay is cheaper. We’ve all been told that this is the way it has to be … but then again, these same guys thought that investment banks were self-regulating.

My view is that greed rules. The reason why investment banks are NOT self-regulating is because they are comprised of individuals. A single fund manager would gladly see his firm go bankrupt if he could pocket a billion dollars in the process. An employee acting in his own self interest doesn’t mean he’s doing what’s best for the company. A company needs to make sure that the incentives of the employees are in line with its own well being.

Likewise, a business will gladly undermine America’s economy if the incentives were large enough. That’s just the way it is. So it is up to America to create an economic policy which aligns business interests with America’s interests. Unfortunately, these days, it seems like America is corporate owned so I’m not too hopeful that things will change for the better.

Lee

[ltokuda]

Regarding “american jobs”, I wouldn’t say that the bottom line is that IT DOESN’T WORK. The problem is that our economic policy creates an environment where it will not work.

For example, here’s a great way to reduce military cost. Why don’t we just send all our technology to China and have our weapons manufactured there? They can obviously produce stuff a lot cheaper than we can so “american jobs” don’t work in this case either? Well at the end of the day, we make it work. We enforce an economic policy for military equipement that isn’t very “free market” at all. I guess someone decided that, despite the cost benefits, its not in our best interest to export our technology. This is what keeps us ahead of the competition.

But in the business world, exporting our technology is considered a good thing. We give it away to America’s competitors in search of higher profit margins. We invest in infrastructure in foreign lands so that we can move our jobs to where the pay is cheaper. We’ve all been told that this is the way it has to be … but then again, these same guys thought that investment banks were self-regulating.

My view is that greed rules. The reason why investment banks are NOT self-regulating is because they are comprised of individuals. A single fund manager would gladly see his firm go bankrupt if he could pocket a billion dollars in the process. An employee acting in his own self interest doesn’t mean he’s doing what’s best for the company. A company needs to make sure that the incentives of the employees are in line with its own well being.

Likewise, a business will gladly undermine America’s economy if the incentives were large enough. That’s just the way it is. So it is up to America to create an economic policy which aligns business interests with America’s interests. Unfortunately, these days, it seems like America is corporate owned so I’m not too hopeful that things will change for the better.

Lee

[ltokuda]

Regarding “american jobs”, I wouldn’t say that the bottom line is that IT DOESN’T WORK. The problem is that our economic policy creates an environment where it will not work.

For example, here’s a great way to reduce military cost. Why don’t we just send all our technology to China and have our weapons manufactured there? They can obviously produce stuff a lot cheaper than we can so “american jobs” don’t work in this case either? Well at the end of the day, we make it work. We enforce an economic policy for military equipement that isn’t very “free market” at all. I guess someone decided that, despite the cost benefits, its not in our best interest to export our technology. This is what keeps us ahead of the competition.

But in the business world, exporting our technology is considered a good thing. We give it away to America’s competitors in search of higher profit margins. We invest in infrastructure in foreign lands so that we can move our jobs to where the pay is cheaper. We’ve all been told that this is the way it has to be … but then again, these same guys thought that investment banks were self-regulating.

My view is that greed rules. The reason why investment banks are NOT self-regulating is because they are comprised of individuals. A single fund manager would gladly see his firm go bankrupt if he could pocket a billion dollars in the process. An employee acting in his own self interest doesn’t mean he’s doing what’s best for the company. A company needs to make sure that the incentives of the employees are in line with its own well being.

Likewise, a business will gladly undermine America’s economy if the incentives were large enough. That’s just the way it is. So it is up to America to create an economic policy which aligns business interests with America’s interests. Unfortunately, these days, it seems like America is corporate owned so I’m not too hopeful that things will change for the better.

Lee

[ltokuda]

Regarding “american jobs”, I wouldn’t say that the bottom line is that IT DOESN’T WORK. The problem is that our economic policy creates an environment where it will not work.

For example, here’s a great way to reduce military cost. Why don’t we just send all our technology to China and have our weapons manufactured there? They can obviously produce stuff a lot cheaper than we can so “american jobs” don’t work in this case either? Well at the end of the day, we make it work. We enforce an economic policy for military equipement that isn’t very “free market” at all. I guess someone decided that, despite the cost benefits, its not in our best interest to export our technology. This is what keeps us ahead of the competition.

But in the business world, exporting our technology is considered a good thing. We give it away to America’s competitors in search of higher profit margins. We invest in infrastructure in foreign lands so that we can move our jobs to where the pay is cheaper. We’ve all been told that this is the way it has to be … but then again, these same guys thought that investment banks were self-regulating.

My view is that greed rules. The reason why investment banks are NOT self-regulating is because they are comprised of individuals. A single fund manager would gladly see his firm go bankrupt if he could pocket a billion dollars in the process. An employee acting in his own self interest doesn’t mean he’s doing what’s best for the company. A company needs to make sure that the incentives of the employees are in line with its own well being.

Likewise, a business will gladly undermine America’s economy if the incentives were large enough. That’s just the way it is. So it is up to America to create an economic policy which aligns business interests with America’s interests. Unfortunately, these days, it seems like America is corporate owned so I’m not too hopeful that things will change for the better.

Lee

[Author]

Posts