I'm sorry but people are zombies without distinction and manufacturing waste. then yes economy go bad.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk]Idiocracy - Trailer - YouTube[/ame]

 

I love all the comments about this being the direction society is heading in. For such a group of smart people, you'd think you geniuses would have googled "IQ over time" and found out that by every study done in this century, IQ has gone UP over time. I think you just want to feel good about yourselves.

 

response - It doesn't matter that "IQ" has gone up over time,stupid people breed faster than smart people.

 

 

So it's good to be streamlined expenses as in the war. the richs not have need of many houses. others are on the street or a family to have a studio, appart .

 

then yes taxed the rich. and less than crooked politicians as Buch no said to me he has business with bin Laden .

I think Democracy is in crisis, from the ideology that Capitalism is the answer for everything. Right now, the U.S. government can & should borrow at 0% interest, invest in education, infrastructure, green jobs, moving us away from oil and into wind, solar, and efficiency. To stimulate a slow economy, there has to be purchasing happening or we will sit in neutral. But it takes a government where the mantra isn't austerity as the answer. In fact even better would be to double the tax rate on the rich, and give the working class citizens a tax break - because working class citizens actually buy things, they don't just sit on the money.

And I agree, not into wars and no more tax breaks for the already super-rich - even Warren Buffet has had enough! Yes, it's nuts, like a tale of two cities - the rich have a house in every state and country, the working class barely have affordable housing - this cannot stand. Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" | AlterNet

I think Democracy is in crisis, from the ideology that Capitalism is the answer for everything. Right now, the U.S. government can & should borrow at 0% interest, invest in education, infrastructure, green jobs, moving us away from oil and into wind, solar, and efficiency. To stimulate a slow economy, there has to be purchasing happening or we will sit in neutral. But it takes a government where the mantra isn't austerity as the answer. In fact even better would be to double the tax rate on the rich, and give the working class citizens a tax break - because working class citizens actually buy things, they don't just sit on the money.

And I agree, not into wars and no more tax breaks for the already super-rich - even Warren Buffet has had enough! Yes, it's nuts, like a tale of two cities - the rich have a house in every state and country, the working class barely have affordable housing - this cannot stand. Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" | AlterNet

 

I agree. I've felt this way for a while. Yes it would be nice to make some money and live comfortably, but when is it enough? You have people in this country and around the world struggling to make ends meet while these CEO's are still bringing in record profits. It doesn't make sense, and doesn't seem fair.

 

I'm not saying that if you're successful that you should have to make the playing ground equal and give up all you've earned, but at the same time can't they give sympathy and help out those in less need by not getting that extra million dollar bonus?

 

I've always felt in general that if you are rich it's nice, but if you have no one to share your success with then it is pointless. The rich should be taxed more, and the middle class should get more help (as mentioned how it is the middle class that is always buying).

 

 

 

In general it just sucks for the middle class. The rich don't have to worry about expenses and the poor get help from the government.

There's two fallacies here, let me see if I can explain them without catching ire:

 

1. Heavily taxing the rich in order to lighten taxation on the poor is sort of like putting makeup on acne. It doesn't really solve the root problem, which is that very rich people are usually making money off certain legal protections to their businesses - patents, regulations, corporate structure, etc.

 

If you dismantle these barriers-to-entry, you'd see tons of startup companies spring up to compete with the established names in every industry. And the billionaires would only be hundred-millionaires.

 

2. The rich don't actually "sit on wealth". They spend their money on homes, cars, staff, boats, planes, landscaping, toys, etc. They also invest a lot of the money (some investments are more helpful to society than others). But the rich do create tens of thousands of jobs.

 

Forget for a minute about rich people and poor people and class strata. Think about a society as a whole, just one big group of people.

 

There are certain things everybody wants - education, car, house, food, entertainment, health care, etc. In order to know how much of this stuff to make, we need to have accurate signals that draw people toward certain career paths.

 

Right now, the laws and taxes draw people away from productive career paths (health care, farming, engineering, trades) and toward less-productive jobs (lawyer, hedge fund manager, teacher, pharmacist).

 

This is why the price of certain goods/services keeps rising, while the price of other goods/services remains fairly low - the signals are skewed. We have too many people manufacturing bombs and houses, and too few doctors and engineers.

 

If you just feed the middle class free money, you end up with higher prices for the stuff they typically buy, because you haven't actually increased the production of that stuff.

There's two fallacies here, let me see if I can explain them without catching ire:

 

1. Heavily taxing the rich in order to lighten taxation on the poor is sort of like putting makeup on acne. It doesn't really solve the root problem, which is that very rich people are usually making money off certain legal protections to their businesses - patents, regulations, corporate structure, etc.

> If the wealthy are making money off of legal protections, that indirectly is a result of the wealthy elites owning the regulatory structures visa vi the politicians they buy, allowing that to happen to excess, yes that's a problem (amassing patents becoming an arms race). But fortunes are still made in more traditional ways as well. Beyond that, taxing the rich helps restore economic fairness - currently the rich get all the good products of civil society - well educated trained workers, managers, infrastructure, cheap raw materials, institutions that educate, research, and train those they employ, etc. - they get all that currently without reinvesting in the country as they should. And the working class have been shouldering the burden for this economy for far too long now, that burden is breaking the working class.

If you dismantle these barriers-to-entry, you'd see tons of startup companies spring up to compete with the established names in every industry. And the billionaires would only be hundred-millionaires.

> I agree, it's a crying shame the fat cats can buy their Senators so-to-speak, and allow this method of control and market lock to occur. Another great reason to get the influence of the wealthy elites out of government.

2. The rich don't actually "sit on wealth". They spend their money on homes, cars, staff, boats, planes, landscaping, toys, etc. They also invest a lot of the money (some investments are more helpful to society than others). But the rich do create tens of thousands of jobs.

> Gee thanks - I can build Thirston Howell the Third a luxury yacht, complete with bar and maid service. And there is a little of that, but a lot of their money is invested elsewhere, usually where labor can be exploited on the cheap and polluting is almost a non-issue. And then they invest in the most lucrative things, like extending credit to workers who aren't paid enough to live on. And this puts workers into a debt spiral. Lots of jobs for bankers though!

Forget for a minute about rich people and poor people and class strata. Think about a society as a whole, just one big group of people.

Plutocrats are reptilian I think, but alright, for argument's sake..

There are certain things everybody wants - education, car, house, food, entertainment, health care, etc. In order to know how much of this stuff to make, we need to have accurate signals that draw people toward certain career paths.

yes, that's clear.

Right now, the laws and taxes draw people away from productive career paths (health care, farming, engineering, trades) and toward less-productive jobs (lawyer, hedge fund manager, teacher, pharmacist).

> hm, I wouldn't think of those occupations in the second group as less productive - except for the hedge fund managers, some of the lawyers. They're essential for creating a well educated, healthy, and balanced society. But as far as the tax situation steering people in those directions, I think it's more of an income issue - better pay for working class careers is what's needed.

This is why the price of certain goods/services keeps rising, while the price of other goods/services remains fairly low - the signals are skewed. We have too many people manufacturing bombs and houses, and too few doctors and engineers.

> It's a lot of things, not just the tax issues - the ability to charge more for educated and trained fields which are more specialized, etc. But the biggest problems I see are with certain businesses & special interests being able to buy the government's ear, and get perks they want at everyone else's expense. Too many lobbyists for the biggest most powerful entities, which skews everything to their favor.

If you just feed the middle class free money, you end up with higher prices for the stuff they typically buy, because you haven't actually increased the production of that stuff.

> I don't know about that - if you give tax breaks to working class people, they generally stimulate production of more goods and services if the economy is slow, but not if the economy is overheating. Better still would be to take the influence of a few powerful interest groups out of politics to the best that we can, and then our elected officials will work for their constituents and country as a whole, not just the special interest groups that skewer things in their favor.

I agree. I've felt this way for a while. Yes it would be nice to make some money and live comfortably, but when is it enough? You have people in this country and around the world struggling to make ends meet while these CEO's are still bringing in record profits. It doesn't make sense, and doesn't seem fair.

 

I'm not saying that if you're successful that you should have to make the playing ground equal and give up all you've earned, but at the same time can't they give sympathy and help out those in less need by not getting that extra million dollar bonus?

 

I've always felt in general that if you are rich it's nice, but if you have no one to share your success with then it is pointless. The rich should be taxed more, and the middle class should get more help (as mentioned how it is the middle class that is always buying).

 

 

 

In general it just sucks for the middle class. The rich don't have to worry about expenses and the poor get help from the government.

Here, here! Time to restore the balance, restore a fair economic system. The CEO's are so out of touch with their own companies, it's another absurdity as well. If the company fails, they do even better! I think they should be making no more than 30X what the workers make, tied to the average earnings of the workers & the company - to keep them honest and working as team players in the enterprises they lead. Today, the average CEO makes over 250X what the average worker makes. Here's a snapshot of the trend in growing inequity: CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows

 

Precisely 40 years ago today... this is when CEO pay started to take off, and the class divide was created.

Arundhati Roy made the comment on Faultlines, and I feel much the same, that today it's as though there is another country of global elites, and then where does that leave the rest of us? The economic needle's tip is so far from the base that being out of touch is the reality in the current economic arrangement.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnTS9gHCZoI]Fault Lines - Arundhati Roy - YouTube[/ame]

And I feel much the same as she does - the indigenous people might as well be invisible, that is why they are easily persuaded by Marxists, as global Capitalism, the power that is bulldozing their world away, resembles more and more Fascism.

What is needed is a coming to terms with the problem, and getting governments that protects all citizens and their rights, so indigenous peoples get a fair deal if they choose to sell their crops or minerals or participate in the economic system in another way, but have the option of choosing another path. Democracies that are controlled and responsive to the wealthy elites become only democracies in name. So it is the reality we face today, and it is essential that we restore real democracy with guaranteed rights and protections for all .

Chuck, watch this:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1F4tqhuIrI]Ron Paul: Corporations Are NOT People - YouTube[/ame]

 

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

When the media hates him THAT much and both parties do too, he's someone we should listen to.

Thanks for the posting Jay, and I actually expected Ron Paul to say something like that as well and I'm glad he did, and yes I agree Nick, if the mainstream media hates him, then he must be doing something right! :laugh3:

I'm still astounded that this 5 "conservative" majority supreme court would have the gall to cherry pick Citizen's United vs. FEC as a case to take and then use as a tool to allow unlimited cash to flow into campaigns, and their decisions to declare that corporations have personhood and speech rights is so absurd as to be laughable.

This Slate article offers a good overview: The misguided theories behind Citizens United v. FEC. - By David Kairys - Slate Magazine

An excerpt from : Is capitalism doomed? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

 

To enable market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, we need to return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of laissez-faire and voodoo economics and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states. Both are broken.

The right balance today requires creating jobs partly through additional fiscal stimulus aimed at productive infrastructure investment. It also requires more progressive taxation; more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline; lender-of-last-resort support by monetary authorities to prevent ruinous runs on banks; reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents; and stricter supervision and regulation of a financial system run amok; breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and oligopolistic trusts.

Over time, advanced economies will need to invest in human capital, skills and social safety nets to increase productivity and enable workers to compete, be flexible and thrive in a globalised economy. The alternative is - like in the 1930s - unending stagnation, depression, currency and trade wars, capital controls, financial crisis, sovereign insolvencies, and massive social and political instability.

 

^And that's good, but to enable the above to happen, campaign finance reform is essential so government can begin to represent the common interests of the citizens, not the special interests blocking reform.

"market-oriented"

"economies"

"voodoo economics"

"fiscal stimulus"

"fiscal discipline"

"financial system"

"stagnation"

"depression"

 

All of these terms need to be defined very specifically in order for them to have any scientific meaning. And this is the problem - it's not a science. It's a religion.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-americas-dead-drop-rick-perry-we-will-help-you-out

"market-oriented"

"economies"

"voodoo economics"

"fiscal stimulus"

"fiscal discipline"

"financial system"

"stagnation"

"depression"

 

All of these terms need to be defined very specifically in order for them to have any scientific meaning. And this is the problem - it's not a science. It's a religion.

 

> Jay, the gist of the article makes good general points, I tend to agree with much of what is said - it's not so difficult to make sense of it from the perspective of broad generalities, as it is intended.

> But if one thing's clear, we can't get policies that make for fair, ethical, and rational economic improvements if a powerful few can buy off the government through campaign donations, lobbying jobs, and other quid pro quos. No rational economic policy can be applied if the governing bodies of the world are not beholden to the majority of their citizens and the best interests of all. (and no surprises Wall Street's "banks" will load up with cash any and every candidate they can buy)

The right balance today requires creating jobs partly through additional fiscal stimulus aimed at productive infrastructure investment.

 

Didn't work for Japan over the last 20 years.

 

more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline; lender-of-last-resort support by monetary authorities to prevent ruinous runs on banks; reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents;

 

We're doing that. Putting private sector debt onto the public sector. But transferring the bubble to public doesn't make it go away. Lender of the last resort just supports the corrupt and keeps the insolvent floating and sucking dry the economy.

Didn't work for Japan over the last 20 years.

 

 

 

We're doing that. Putting private sector debt onto the public sector. But transferring the bubble to public doesn't make it go away. Lender of the last resort just supports the corrupt and keeps the insolvent floating and sucking dry the economy.

> It didn't work for Japan because the Japanese are such good savers! Unlike us..:laugh3: (generally speaking, that is to say). I'm not as familiar with Japan's economic troubles.

> Putting private sector debt as in the bailout of the Wall Street banks? Well, yes, the whole thing is set up again by the same players that allowed things to be set up in so precarious and overinflated a manner in the first place, yes. Goldman, Citi, BankAm, et al.

> And those are some of the top donors to most campaigns.

> So, hence, the need to demand an amendment which takes away their excess influence in politics - each financier, each corporate owner deserves no more control over the government than what any other citizen has.

And even if they try and run an end-game around this amendment, it's written down plain for all to see - very hard to ignore something when there it is, written as a guaranteed right, made very hard to misinterpret.

 

We don't have a free market because interest rates and credit supply are controlled by a central bank. You cannot have a true free market without the rates and credit controlled by market conditions.

 

We have a loosely centrally planned economy. Instead of micromanaging every sector like people think with a centrally planned economy, the Fed does it in a macro sense by the rates. It's a much looser and broad central planning, but central planning none the less. It's plausible deniability, loose enough to say "we have a free market capitalism system" but enough control where they can control the macro economy with rates and credit programs they design.

 

As far as a bubble, in a free market they don't happen unless there is manipulation of the credit supply. Why did the housing bubble and tech bubble happen? Fed tried to build up a sector of the economy artificially and control the economy health on a macro sense and it led to excess credit that had to flow somewhere. But since real supply and demand were not there to back it up, it was a bubble that had to pop. It had nothing to do with free market capitalism, for if not for the central planning of low rates and excess credit, there wouldn't have been enough capital to create the bubble.