Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[jstoesz]

Do you not acknowledge that investments make jobs. When you put money in the market, you are providing capital for business to grow with. Are banks out of control certainly, are they too large a % of our economy, for sure. But don’t use that to demonize other productive rich people. Not all investors are shysters. And many productive business owners use their surplus, and plow it into the market or other asset classes. What else would you have them do with it?

Do you know any 1%ers? I only know one couple. They built a machine shop from one machine in their garage to a 2 acre shop over 20 years. They employ a lot of people, and they made their money in business providing work for a community that has no work. They didn’t steal a dime from their employees, they provided jobs to a small foothills community which has an appalling employment rate. And I resent your posture when applied so broadly.

For all their warts, did bill gates or steve jobs make their millions/billions off the backs of their workers? Or did they provide employment for thousands?

In America someone will lend you a million dollars and your only collateral being an idea. Where did that million come from? The thieving unproductive bastardly rich 1%, who risks their money on the next Linkedin or Rackspace.

We cannot go on doing what we always did, and we need the people’s accumulated wealth to get us there. Your simple minded manual labor economy is dead, long buried, I am not even sure if it ever lived.

[jstoesz]

Btw, I do not have millions, I am a lowly engineer. And I doubt I will ever be an investor. Gambling freaks me out way too much.

But I do want to encourage investment. Cranking up the Cap Gains tax as some of you suggest will surely limit investment (which is your goal I fear).

I want to be the guy who has the million dollar idea that some fat cat will take as collateral.

What I find hard to swallow is the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc. What a waste of productive assets, but that is their prerogative.

[SD Realtor]

JP and CAR it is a tough problem. I dont know the answers however there I feel that you both effectively sidestep some of the points I am trying to bring up.

JP your last statement referring to computers..

“I’d say they are probably “produced” by some underpaid worker in China. Too bad we are not producing them here, but that would be less money for the 1%.”

*******************
So why is the worker in China underpaid?

Once again you and CAR seem to idealize that those who are in other countries and who make VASTLY less then an American would make TO DO THE SAME JOB are underpaid. Yes the corporation makes MORE PROFITS then they would if the American did the job however the product would then COST MORE. Even if you forced the corporation to make it in America and then subsidize the price, it is just as unsustainable of a model as other solutions. As wonderful as Steve Jobs is portrayed, what do you guys think the profit margin is on Apple products.

I would submit to you that they are not underpaid when compared to the billions of others around the world. To me the basic premise that you guys are missing, and I mean by a long shot, is that Americans enjoy a standard of living that is EXPONENTIALLY better then a large percentage of the world.

Look guys, I get the problem, I get your anger about the unequal distribution of wealth in the country, about corporations making mega profits, and I hate it to. I am just as angry…I also get that this is unsustainable correct? I mean when it all comes down to these protests, this is what it is about, that this model is not sustainable, that it is not fair, that it must change. Right?

However if you abstract the problem outward, isnt that just as unsustainable as well? Solutions posed by CAR are entirely 100% bounded by our national boundaries, aren’t they? (CAR correct me if I am wrong on that)

******************************

I don’t have any good answers, I wish I did. The lobbys, the unions, the large corps… man it is just a mess. I dont like seeing the rape of the public but I don’t think the redistribution of wealth is the answer… I don’t know what is though. I hope that there can be some sort of middle ground somewhere

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]I’d say they are probably “produced” by some underpaid worker in China. Too bad we are not producing them here, but that would be less money for the 1%.[/quote]

And yet here you sit, typing away on a computer…

When you (or your employer) bought this machine, most of the proceeds went to the 1%, right? And now you tell me that these evil capitalists used slave labor to build it?

And then there is this website – run is by an investment adviser – you know, one of those Wall Street guys.

Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was a nice clean line that separated the 1% from the other 99?

Let’s just ignore reality, and pretend the world is as simple as we’d like it to be.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.[/quote]

Theoretically, the financial system is an efficient way of allocating capital to productive uses. For that service, they get a return.

The problem now is that the banks are the friction within our economic system.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.[/quote]

Theoretically, the financial system is an efficient way of allocating capital to productive uses. For that service, they get a return.

The problem now is that the banks are the friction within our economic system.[/quote]

Holy crap. I actually agree with brian. Only have to add They are ONE of the frictions within our economic system.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, the benefits received from the government (clean air, water, safe food supply, medical R&D/technology, physical infrastructure, military protection, social/safety services, etc., etc.) are FAR, FAR greater per dollar spent than what we get from most private sector companies.[/quote]

Was hoping to sidestep the obvious communist/capitalist argument here, and will continue to do so though you seem to keep going back to it.

It appears that you think arguing against public employee unions is support for capitalism. It isn’t. It is support for more efficient governmnent spending.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]Was hoping to sidestep the obvious communist/capitalist argument here, and will continue to do so though you seem to keep going back to it.[/quote]

More than once I’ve wondered if she realizes how many of her posts are basically a paraphrased version of Marx.

BTW, isn’t there somebody around here who despises “leftists?”

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Was hoping to sidestep the obvious communist/capitalist argument here, and will continue to do so though you seem to keep going back to it.[/quote]

More than once I’ve wondered if she realizes how many of her posts are basically a paraphrased version of Marx.

BTW, isn’t there somebody around here who despises “leftists?”[/quote]

Whether one likes him or not, there is no question that Marx was brilliant. He’s been correct on many points — he predicted exactly what we’re dealing with WRT today’s “economic crisis.”

[SD Realtor]

CAR the problem that I have with theories of equal distribution at any level is that it is not natural.

If you look at natural life it is random and it is far from equal. Where creatures exist in the food chain is where they exist and in nature there could and will never be equality. Thus we see an adaptation of creatures to exist and they naturally mutate over millions of years to thrive in their niche rather then make all niches equal.

Theories of equality for all workers rubs me wrong because the ruling class still exists. There can never be a society where everyone is equal, where all living conditions are the same. It is simple impossible. So to me theories such as his are not just pollyanish (if there is such a word) but entirely rubbish.

Now if you are espousing creating societies that try to emulate nature then that is something I can embrace. Sadly though numbers (and this is where the pragmatic side of me takes over) indicate that it will be challenging if not impossible to do because of finite problems and the matter that we simply have to many people in the world.

Again, don’t know the answers… however I know in my heart a Marxist society is simply a smoothing out of the working class but that evil ruling class still exists. Don’t try to say for a minute that it doesnt. I believe shooting for improving what we have over embracing a nonexistent utopia is a better path. I just am struggling to figure out the improving what we have part. Being hypocritical and complaing about the evil corporate empire while thoroughly immersed in their products and way of life seems….. odd to me.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR the problem that I have with theories of equal distribution at any level is that it is not natural.

If you look at natural life it is random and it is far from equal. Where creatures exist in the food chain is where they exist and in nature there could and will never be equality. Thus we see an adaptation of creatures to exist and they naturally mutate over millions of years to thrive in their niche rather then make all niches equal.

Theories of equality for all workers rubs me wrong because the ruling class still exists. There can never be a society where everyone is equal, where all living conditions are the same. It is simple impossible. So to me theories such as his are not just pollyanish (if there is such a word) but entirely rubbish.

Now if you are espousing creating societies that try to emulate nature then that is something I can embrace. Sadly though numbers (and this is where the pragmatic side of me takes over) indicate that it will be challenging if not impossible to do because of finite problems and the matter that we simply have to many people in the world.

Again, don’t know the answers… however I know in my heart a Marxist society is simply a smoothing out of the working class but that evil ruling class still exists. Don’t try to say for a minute that it doesnt. I believe shooting for improving what we have over embracing a nonexistent utopia is a better path. I just am struggling to figure out the improving what we have part. Being hypocritical and complaing about the evil corporate empire while thoroughly immersed in their products and way of life seems….. odd to me.[/quote]

SDR,

I’ve never said that everyone should be paid the same regarless of skill level, work ethic, etc. What I’m saying is that the money (value of goods and services) created by labor belongs primarily to the workers, not the “capitalists” who simply skim off the top of every legitimate transaction.

No question about the “ruling class” existing under any circumstances. What we *can* do is make sure that they never gain so much power (either under a capitalist or communist system) that they are able to control everyone and everything else. I’m not talking about “redistributing” wealth. What would be best for society as a whole would be for wealth to stay with those who create it. That is NOT what we have under our current “capitalist” system. We have redistributed the wealth/power **UP** from the workers to the capitalists; that’s what I have a problem with.

If we maintain the majority of wealth/power among the general public, the “ruling class” will never be able to take power.

As to your statement about my being a nationalist, you are absolutely right. It’s not that I think people in other countries don’t derserve a better life, but that (IMHO) we can more effectively improve the lives of people by concentrating on smaller groups — largely because of different resource availability, culture, productive capacity, etc. of the individual nations. I would not be opposed to spending some of our tax money in ways that would help other peole around the world improve their lives. I am also not opposed to fair trade, with tariffs that offset the lower labor and environmental standards/protections of other countries. We should trade with other countries, but we should be importing things that we cannot easily produce ourselves (oil, certain kinds of timber, minerals, finished goods that are tied to particular regions like Persian rugs, etc.). We should not import goods that are being produced elsewhere simply because they are able to exploit workers and the environment.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.[/quote]

Theoretically, the financial system is an efficient way of allocating capital to productive uses. For that service, they get a return.

The problem now is that the banks are the friction within our economic system.[/quote]

Lots of things can happen “theoretically,” but what happens in real life is what matters most of all.

If capital were being allocated to productive uses, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, much of the “productive” sort of investing has gone by the wayside, and the “speculative” sort of investing has taken its place.

A productive allocation of resources would include direct investments in companies that provide goods and services demanded or desired by willing and able buyers. Productive investments increase, maintain, or make productive capacity more efficient. It increases the supply of goods and services desired by the market.

An unproductive allocation of resources would include buying up existing assets when one has no need or use for these goods — buying them only because they anticipate selling them for more money at a later time (capital gains, for the most part), or because they want to collect rents/fees from those who actually need these goods. Instead of producing goods and services desired by the market, this type of “investing” takes goods OUT of the market, making items scarce when they are most needed and desired. This type of investing DECREASES the supply of goods and services. It does NOTHING to make anyone or anything more productive. This type of “investing” does not grow an economy, and is zero-sum. It sends false supply/demand signals to the market and creates price booms and busts that cause tremendous damage to an economy, and to society in general.

Because of tax policies, Federal Reserve manipulation, and the suppressed demand caused by the offshoring of U.S. jobs and excess debt, we have encouraged this type of completely unproductive and damaging speculation. I would like to see a reversal of this trend.

[SD Realtor]

I am sorry I thought you had posted something about being in favor of wealth redistribution so I apologize for being incorrect about that.

I guess that we can agree to disagree about the value of labor. I think that capital and technology and research also play a far greater role in the production of goods and services then labor does with regards to private enterprise. You did once again refer to the exploitation of employees in other nations when in reality those exploited people probably have it a hell of alot better then their native citizens who do not have the jobs that they have. Once again, you view them as exploited simply because they get paid much less and have a much lower standard of living then the American counterpart who does the exact same job.

If the output of the two laborers is the same then isn’t the value of the product the same as well?

So your answer is to force the jobs to be in America simply to support an artificially high lifestyle?

Doesnt that seem peculiar to you?

I think the answer that you and I and everyone else knows to be true is the one we don’t want to face which is we have an incredibly high standard of living which is really not possible to maintain in the era of globalization. You can have as many isolationist policies as you like but eventually it will catch up. It really is not sustainable. A car is a car, a computer is a computer, they do not become more valuable because you paid an American 20x more to work on the line then you paid the Malaysian.

**************

It seems to me that perhaps one single possibility is to end all lobbying. No union contributions, no private contributions, no individual competitions. I thing ending political careers is good as well. There is no reason that anyone needs to be in congress or the senate for 30 years. A one or two term limit on any office seems to make sense to me. Perhaps a limit on advertising and campaining as well… At least some limitation such that the guy with the most money cannot win an election by bombarding the public with appearances and/or advertising.

The govt doesnt serve the people, it stopped doing that long ago.

[jstoesz]

Do you think politicians are any less corrupt than 100 years ago?

Read some history books, I have a feeling we are living in an era where government is way more transparent than it has ever been.

I read a book not too long ago, Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles Water Supply in the Owens Valley, and it left me realizing how much more transparent and honest our politicians are today.

So whenever you are tempted to believe that we are in a far more corrupt time, I challenge you to read some history. I think time whitewashes past controversies.

The heart of the matter is, generally speaking, the government we have today is just so much more influential than the government we once had. Their corruption, just didn’t matter, but now it does.

This search for honest politicians offering altruistic outcomes sounds like a fools errand through candyland, and I am not even a cynic.

[SD Realtor]

Point well taken jst. Good post and something I did not consider due to my lack of reading history.

You are especially correct about the govt having more influence and the growth of all levels of govt and the taxes we pay to support all of them… (which may be needed due to population growth) Note this is an assumption by me and I could be wrong.

[Author]

Posts