A question for the right on how to return to an economy where everyone prospers

[Craig234]

Wrong.

Look at the how the richest American (Gates) got there.

And Buffett wouldn't be there if the stock market hadn't gone retail.

Fern

Technology has increased wealth. It didn't force it to be concentrated. Gates is worth tens of billions; how much wealth did Microsoft add to the economy?

I repeat, idiocy.

And I'm not going to waste time on your trolling.

 

[matt0611]

Technology has increased wealth. It didn't force it to be concentrated. Gates is worth tens of billions; how much wealth did Microsoft add to the economy?

I repeat, idiocy.

And I'm not going to waste time on your trolling.

Seriously?

Do you realize the productivity gains Windows has caused in the world economy over the past 20 years?. All of the software that was able to be developed for it? And all of the products that software has created? All of the jobs that has created?

How much productivity Office adds to workplaces? Visual Studio?

How many people that are entertained by Xbox's every day?

Bill Gates deserves every penny IMO.

 

[soccerballtux]

Specific policies?

the policies that make it cost $80k to employ a $60k worker.

 

[Fern]

Technology has increased wealth. It didn't force it to be concentrated.
-snip-

Sure it does.

It opens up fantastically larger distribution channels for any person or company or product. It means exponentially larger sets of customers.

How much money would Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly be making without cable TV extending their footprint to millions? Not much.

Same with pro athletes. Before cable TV they didn't make a whole lot (excepting a few, even so it was much less than now), cable extended their customer base tremendously.

With no internet to distribute their content, would we have Facebook billionaires? Of course not.

Fern

 

[Ozoned]

In the 60's, there were millions of mom and pop stores selling us the things we consume.
Now there is wal-mart & their type. A room full of rich guys deciding 1st, what we will be offered to consume, and 2nd pocketing the profit that the mom & pops used to take in. I guess the government needs to step in and level the playing field so that mom & pop stores
can compete with the big piles of money, and go back to the days of making terrible use of our resources. Become less efficient...

 

[Craig234]

Seriously?

Do you realize the productivity gains Windows has caused in the world economy over the past 20 years?. All of the software that was able to be developed for it? And all of the products that software has created? All of the jobs that has created?

How much productivity Office adds to workplaces? Visual Studio?

How many people that are entertained by Xbox's every day?

Bill Gates deserves every penny IMO.

You've got it backwards. You're arguing my point. I'm defending Microsoft.

 

[Craig234]

In the 60's, there were millions of mom and pop stores selling us the things we consume.
Now there is wal-mart & their type. A room full of rich guys deciding 1st, what we will be offered to consume, and 2nd pocketing the profit that the mom & pops used to take in. I guess the government needs to step in and level the playing field so that mom & pop stores
can compete with the big piles of money, and go back to the days of making terrible use of our resources. Become less efficient...

Imagine a self-sufficient small town that's inefficient. They farm, they have a restaurant, they service horses and have a blacksmith, etc.

A mom and pop store, also.

Now, imagine one person invents a technology that provides all these things with a machine at no cost to him - so the good are available from this person.

Now, a few things would happen. What do the townspeople do? How do they 'earn' his products? If they sell an item, he makes it for free and sells it for less.

Someone tried to organize a 'fight the machine' movement to pay more from each other, but it falls apart. What happens?

Maybe inefficient IS better, if the 'machine' isn't providing cheaply to people, just undermining their situation?

There's an analogy there, to when these 'increased efficiencies' benefit only a few. Maybe Wal-Mart can provide cheaper items - but with great harm to others, and rather than people getting much benefit, they are the wealthiest family in the world now, great wealth extractors.

This is where 'have things like taxes that help everyone benefit' work for society, but society has been propagandized for decades against that.

We need those Wal-Mart heirs to keep all those hard-earned billions as they party!

Maybe society would sometimes function better with a bit less efficiency, in that situation.

But how much of the change in concentration of wealth is the loss of inefficient 'mom and pop' businesses? I haven't seen a case it's that much.

 

[Patranus]

Its not about an economy where everyone prospers but an economy where everyone can prosper.

Equal access not equal outcomes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

BS excuse.

It's how it is and what people have to deal with. That you have no grasp of the matter is not our fault.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's how it is and what people have to deal with. That you have no grasp of the matter is not our fault.

In other words, the Right has no answer, other than a fatalistic acceptance of the divine right of capital to crush the middle class.

Craig knew that would be the ultimate answer before he even posed the question. Many of the Righties having responded in this thread still don't understand that to be the answer they're giving.

Such is the nature of Denial.

 

[BoomerD]

Craig, the error in your question is that you think the right WANTS to see a return to prosperity for the middle-class, when just the opposite is true. It's been their goal for decades to bring the middle-class back to the serfdom of previous centuries. Wealthy-----------poor. No one in between.

 

[momeNt]

In other words, the Right has no answer, other than a fatalistic acceptance of the divine right of capital to crush the middle class.

Craig knew that would be the ultimate answer before he even posed the question. Many of the Righties having responded in this thread still don't understand that to be the answer they're giving.

Such is the nature of Denial.

Pretty sure craig is about to make the switch from listening to your baseless propaganda to the well reasoned arguments of matt and the other posters in this thread that didn't devolve into useless arguing.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

First, I do believe that there have been fundamental changes to the economy and it may not be possible to get the distribution back the way it was. That said, here are my suggestions to improve the problem:

1. Tax reform: Tax capital gains as ordinary income, reduce the marginal rates and the corporate income tax. If reform is done properly we can have a system with flatter rates but that is actually more progressive than the current system. Lower marginal rates would make it easier for HENRY's to accumulate wealth. A more efficient tax code would also increase economic growth and make everyone better off.

2. Education reform through vouchers. One of the of biggest advantages that the children of the wealthy have is access to better schools. We spend more than most other industrialized nations on education with worse than average results so funding is not the issue. In fact the worst inner city school often spend the most. Vouchers would give the poor better access to primary education and level the playing field somewhat.

3. Limit technology transfer to countries like China. High skill manufacturing is one of the remaining good paying blue collar jobs. We shouldn't just hand our IP over to the Chinese

4. Send all illegal immigrants home and limit H1B visas. Getting rid of low cost illegal immigrant workers is admittedly a double edged sword. It will certainly cause the price of many goods and services to increase as business are forced to pay more reasonable wages. However, with unemployment so high I believe the trade off is worth it. Limiting H1B visas will increase the salary for technical professions. As wages increase more Americans will pursue these fields.

edit: I'll add a number 5

5. Reduce the cost of higher education. I have no idea how to accomplish this, but it would certainly be a good thing.

 

[JSt0rm]

First, I do believe that there have been fundamental changes to the economy and it may not be possible to get the distribution back the way it was. That said, here are my suggestions to improve the problem:

1. Tax reform: Tax capital gains as ordinary income, reduce the marginal rates and the corporate income tax. If reform is done properly we can have a system with flatter rates but that is actually more progressive than the current system. Lower marginal rates would make it easier for HENRY's to accumulate wealth. A more efficient tax code would also increase economic growth and make everyone better off.

2. Education reform through vouchers. One of the of biggest advantages that the children of the wealthy have is access to better schools. We spend more than most other industrialized nations on education with worse than average results so funding is not the issue. In fact the worst inner city school often spend the most. Vouchers would give the poor better access to primary education and level the playing field somewhat.

3. Limit technology transfer to countries like China. High skill manufacturing is one of the remaining good paying blue collar jobs. We shouldn't just hand our IP over to the Chinese

4. Send all illegal immigrants home and limit H1B visas. Getting rid of low cost illegal immigrant workers is admittedly a double edged sword. It will certainly cause the price of many goods and services to increase as business are forced to pay more reasonable wages. However, with unemployment so high I believe the trade off is worth it. Limiting H1B visas will increase the salary for technical professions. As wages increase more Americans will pursue these fields.

edit: I'll add a number 5

5. Reduce the cost of higher education. I have no idea how to accomplish this, but it would certainly be a good thing.

All sounds good but pie in the sky unfortunately.

 

[xj0hnx]

Let me repeat for the hard of reading:



I don't want to have to keep repeating the same thing on that.

What a retard. You make a thread, and then when someone answers your stupid question with an answer you don't like, you get huffy and pretend that they aren't following your imaginary rules of the conversation. This is why no one takes you seriously, no matter how hard you try.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Imagine a self-sufficient small town that's inefficient. They farm, they have a restaurant, they service horses and have a blacksmith, etc.

A mom and pop store, also.

Now, imagine one person invents a technology that provides all these things with a machine at no cost to him - so the good are available from this person.

Now, a few things would happen. What do the townspeople do? How do they 'earn' his products? If they sell an item, he makes it for free and sells it for less.

Someone tried to organize a 'fight the machine' movement to pay more from each other, but it falls apart. What happens?

Maybe inefficient IS better, if the 'machine' isn't providing cheaply to people, just undermining their situation?

There's an analogy there, to when these 'increased efficiencies' benefit only a few. Maybe Wal-Mart can provide cheaper items - but with great harm to others, and rather than people getting much benefit, they are the wealthiest family in the world now, great wealth extractors.

This is where 'have things like taxes that help everyone benefit' work for society, but society has been propagandized for decades against that.

We need those Wal-Mart heirs to keep all those hard-earned billions as they party!

Maybe society would sometimes function better with a bit less efficiency, in that situation.

But how much of the change in concentration of wealth is the loss of inefficient 'mom and pop' businesses? I haven't seen a case it's that much.

That's a good point.

It really wouldn't be far fetched at all to say that technology will progress to the point where robots will be able to do all manual labor.

It's not unlike the industrial revolution, where millions of farmers moved to the cities only to find the cities weren't all that great either.

But this time around, it just seems like things will be much harder to balance out. Unlike the industrial revolution, where the farmers had a more or less equivalent work option in factory work, we will increasingly run out of lower tier jobs that the bottom 30% can do. Maybe even bottom 50%. Where you had joe welder or joe forklift operator... those jobs could easily be automated within a generation or two with robotics and advanced AI. Specialized, experienced and top quality tradesmen will always be needed -- but that's not a job creator.

I consistently hear that anyone can find a job if they just work hard enough -- but I think we're reaching a point where, thanks to technological and efficiency advances -- people will be fundamentally prevented from working due to a true lack of supply, and not a lack of will on their part.

neat article here that talks about this kinda stuff, on a more local level:
http://channelnomics.com/2011/08/05/tech-mission-elimination-jobs/

so even that article says the main counterargument to this line of thought is the idea that new tech shifts jobs. (industrial revolution or the example provided in the link above). but imo, without a deep analysis, is that we're reaching a point where technology won't just shift jobs -- but actually eliminate them.

so what then? what do you do when free labor can do 90% of the work... when you have maybe 10% of the population producing and owning the wealth, with 90% of the population with... what?

also, i think this is at least somewhat related to craig's question. he's essenitally asking how to redistribute wealth... and im asking how you'd prevent a case with an even more extreme concentration of wealth thanks to technological innovation and efficiency boosts

 

[Nemesis 1]

Actually history teaches us that lesson threw President Jackson . GET RID of federal reserve Bank . We don't need Rothschild / Warburg and the like . David R. and his types making policy for USA banks . The Federal reserve has nothing to do with the USA . Other than it controls cash flow . We don't need foreign bankers running our banking system . The next thing Is stop giving aid to illegal aliens in the USA and send them back to were they came from until such a time they come here legally. IF you collect welfare we need you working not setting home drinking and doing drugs . If you get food stamps and are a daily drinker like many I know . The food stamps have got to stop . If ya didn't drink you would have money for food . Third Stop all imports from communist nations . We didn't allow it with Russia and China is a bigger threat.

ON taxes the Only FAIR system is a straight across the board 10% tax on all gross income. NO loop holes NONE . IF ya have 20 kids to bad so sad . Its cheaper by the doozen . Advertizing does nothing but raise product cost that is transferred to the consumers. Stop giving foreign aid to everyone , I have no compasion for Kazar jews . Now . Stop tring to police the world and stop suppling our enimies with weapons . The military industrial complex is a complete waste of money.

Pass new constitional law barring attornies from working in the government other than judical . NO Attorny pres sen or rep.

Pass constitional law NO lobbist.

Begin now rebuilding our decaying infrastructure . Make law that no special treatment of construction workers for unimployment . The law applies to ALL EQUALLY

Government inspectors need to have someone overseeing their jobs as to many payoffs to criminal type inspectors.

BUILD a NEW high speed rail system . YA i know . But to not see the importance of this is pure stupidity. Make grants available to small business on a scale like never befor .

 

[rchiu]

Everyone prospers? Give me a break. 1970 US GDP is 1/3 of what it is today, yeah income gap was smaller but everyone was poorer.

Sure there are tons of policies you can use to reverse the trend in income gap. Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il are all experts in those policies, I am sure you can read up on their policies and follow their footsteps.

 

[Nemesis 1]

In 1970 I could by a brand new car that got 20 mpg for $1200 and gas was 25 cents a gallon . I nice new home was under $20,000 . You tell me all about the GDP of inflation . . Get a brain.

In 1970 if you had a million dollars you were Rich . Today not even close. In 1970 a million dollars earned at least $40,000 a year . You need a reality check. In 1970 the only people not working were those who didn't want to . Today they are the entitlement types .

 

[rchiu]

In 1970 I could by a brand new car that got 20 mpg for $1200 and gas was 25 cents a gallon . I nice new home was under $20,000 . You tell me all about the GDP of inflation . . Get a brain.

In 1970 if you had a million dollars you were Rich . Today not even close. In 1970 a million dollars earned at least $40,000 a year . You need a reality check. In 1970 the only people not working were those who didn't want to . Today they are the entitlement types .

dude, ever heard of "real" GDP?

 

[Doppel]

I assume the right would do what the left has done, which is jack fvcking sh*t.

 

[Ausm]

dude, ever heard of "real" GDP?

Here I will help out the mentally challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_gross_domestic_product

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realgdp.asp#axzz1YmWfmrjx

 

[Ausm]

I assume the right would do what the left has done, which is jack fvcking sh*t.

You have a legit argument here unfortunately.

 

[ElFenix]

In other words, the Right has no answer, other than a fatalistic acceptance of the divine right of capital to crush the middle class.

Craig knew that would be the ultimate answer before he even posed the question. Many of the Righties having responded in this thread still don't understand that to be the answer they're giving.

Such is the nature of Denial.

i didn't realize that state universities were the weapon of the divine right of capital

 

[momeNt]

Thanks for participating.

But on your point, you seem to be discussing 'harms of offshoring', not related to 'distribution of wealth'.

If offshoring reduces wealth, that could be across the board, or selective.

I'm trying to look specifically at the distribution being more broad again, whatever issues there are with the size of the pie.

Your chart shows 'debt drains wealth' - I don't think there's much question of that in the long run, whatever the benefits of short-term debt for Keynesian stimulus. And large debt has a couple of harmful effects - one is that all that wealth diverted to interest payments goes to the financers, the worst place for it to go; another is the 'starve the beast' problem that it strangles the budget that is good for people and growing wealth.

I do think you have hit on one related issue - the way the finance industry can extract wealth. That increases the concentration of wealth.

There seems to be a high correlation between the finance industry exploding to take 40% of all profits, and these top-earning Wall Street figures - while the fortunes 'made' on Wall Street aren't really 'made', but extracted wealth draining it from others most of the time, the 'making' of wealth now a niche industry there.

We're getting into some complicated areas though, for example trying to claim that policies for low interest rates are far more harm than good.

Not just because they inadvertantly fueled the housing bubble scam, but more.

Would changing those polices to have higher rates really cause a large broadening of the distribution of wealth? Is there evidence for that as an overall result?

I have no clue.

All i know is that we need to stop pumping money and expecting consumers to take on more debt in order to consume. We have to allow consumption to fall because the consumption was debt-fueled and we simply can't return to those levels. Currently all the money that we are pumping into the system is simply just being played with by the banks in the bond markets and not being lent out -

Liquidity Trap properly explained

http://www.safehaven.com/article/2771/burning-bridges-and-halfway-houses

The corner-stone of my deflation theory is the observation that there is a double-bias in speculation caused by the central bank's open market operations as it removes risks from bond (but not from commodity) speculation, and rewards bond bulls (while punishing the bears) [4]. This double-bias distorts the economy in favor of deflation. It is palpable only when deflation is present in the economy in the first place, in which case it is made worse than it need be by prompting speculators to compete with the central bank in buying the bonds. Interest rates fall and through the mechanism of linkage prices fall, too, as the flow of money from commodities to bonds accelerates. In the worst-case scenario a vicious circle is activated and the economy plunges into depression.
The question arises why mainstream economists didn't discover the deflationary bias and alert central bankers to mend their ways. The answer is that they did. However, they had to proceed gingerly. The bridge of the gold standard leading back to monetary sanity and rectitude had already been burnt. They were looking at the incurable congenital disease of the regime of irredeemable currency. Mainstream economists could not talk openly about the dangers of snowballing bond speculation without exposing the fatal inner contradictions of their monetary regime. The diagnosis therefore had to be couched in the language of the liquidity trap.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

Keynesian and Monetarists would not like this to happen because it destroys their view on economics. But as Keen's writes.

In fact, thanks to Milton Friedman and neoclassical economics in general, the Fed ignored the run up of debt that has caused this crisis, and every rescue engineered by the Fed simply increased the height of the precipice from which the eventual fall into Depression would occur.

It would require vast banking reform to come to any situation where our wealth isn't stolen by banks. Short of an epic collapse I don't see that happening. So it is probably best to retire this particular line of discussion and stick to political policies from the right.