Republicans

[Specop 007]

But who will be creating that wealth? With all our factories shipped to China, the only thing we can do is advise others how to spend their money and I don't think they would want our advice; look how our economy turned out when we followed it.

HOW its made is a different discussion entirely from IF it can be made.

Only a blind fool would argue a zero sum game. History disproves that so quickly as to be, as I have said, relegated to the halls of the academic and nothing more.

 

[Hacp]

HOW its made is a different discussion entirely from IF it can be made.

Only a blind fool would argue a zero sum game. History disproves that so quickly as to be, as I have said, relegated to the halls of the academic and nothing more.

I think we're looking at where it is made.

 

[Acanthus]

Economics is not a zero sum game. That would mean in caveman times everyone was riach biach!

There was not a modern economy in caveman times.

Since the inception of currency, what I have said is absolutely true.

 

[Specop 007]

There was not a modern economy in caveman times.

Since the inception of currency, what I have said is absolutely true.

AH! So your flawed theory only works if condition A, B, C and D are met?! Well of course!

If you cherry pick the circumstances I can prove that poodle ownership is a direct causation of wealth generation too I suppose.

In a free market economy it simply isnt true. If i make $1 that does not mean someone somewhere else loses $1. That is zero sum. Hell even if you want to go out into the realm of the value of labor and goods it still doesnt hold true.

Keep pretending we're sitting in a classroom. You'll end up like so many other book smart fools.

 

[daishi5]

There was not a modern economy in caveman times.

Since the inception of currency, what I have said is absolutely true.

I get the feeling that you haven't thought this through. Please stop and think through what you are saying and come back to this now derailed thread.

 

[Acanthus]

AH! So your flawed theory only works if condition A, B, C and D are met?! Well of course!

If you cherry pick the circumstances I can prove that poodle ownership is a direct causation of wealth generation too I suppose.

In a free market economy it simply isnt true. If i make $1 that does not mean someone somewhere else loses $1. That is zero sum. Hell even if you want to go out into the realm of the value of labor and goods it still doesnt hold true.

Keep pretending we're sitting in a classroom. You'll end up like so many other book smart fools.

Once again wealth =/= money.

Money is just a placeholder for goods and services.

Exploiting someone for money, labor, or property is wrong...

This is the basis of my argument.

Wild-west free market economics don't work. See the banking industry.

 

[daishi5]

Once again wealth =/= money.

Money is just a placeholder for goods and services.

Exploiting someone for money, labor, or property is wrong...

This is the basis of my argument.

Wild-west free market economics don't work. See the banking industry.

Who are we exploiting, you already said the chinese have two choices, make us cheap crap or starve. Do you believe removing the choice that is "not starve" is exploitation?

Really, how is international trade with China exploitation, do you have any idea how much the quality of life indicators in China have improved.

For example, i am just going to copy paste from a paper I wrote a few years ago.

the World Bank estimated that 375 million people lived in extreme poverty in China in 1990 (Friedman 399). Just 11 years later, according to The World is Flat, that number was down to 212 million and on track to be down to 16 million by the year 2015 (399).

Your "exploitation" has reduced the number of people in extreme poverty by 163 MILLION people. Why don't you go ask those people if they would like to stop being exploited so they can go back to living in extreme poverty?

 

[Specop 007]

Once again wealth =/= money.

Money is just a placeholder for goods and services.

Exploiting someone for money, labor, or property is wrong...

This is the basis of my argument.

Wild-west free market economics don't work. See the banking industry.

I suggest you try to open a bank and then continue on to run it. You'll be just swimming in regulations and paperwork. A free market it is not. Of course that doesnt fit into your classroom discussion though does it.

The fact you would even type that gives me a very good indication about how much you really understand about the entire subject, because the financial industry is far from a "wild west free market".

 

[dmcowen674]

Republican definition of free market: "more money for me".

Yep and it's been great watching the selfish bastards squirm in 2009

So far 2010 has been awesome in watching them squirm department too :thumbsup:

 

[ebaycj]

For someone whos supposedly doing so damn well you have a lot of anger and jealousy over the "Rich". As for your cute snide comments about General Motors you can blame the government for that, not the rich. But I dont want facts to get in the way of a good rich white guy bashing.

Again....Bitter, party of one. Quit being jealous of others success and go make your own.

And to add, the "rich" pay FAR more in taxes than you ever will. So maybe instead of crying over someone whos already paying a higher percentage than you you would be better served to ask why so many pay nothing at all.....

Income only I pay 33% marginal rate. If I cashed all my short term investments I would pay 35% marginal rate. I don't bitch about it, I just pay it, because that's my duty as a citizen. If I want more money/stuff/etc... I go out and earn it.

And I'm a libertarian-democrat. (mostly libertarian by idealism, mostly democrat by pragmatism).

You repubs are seriously retarded if you think paying in the 28% bracket is "doing so damn well" anymore. Or you live somewhere that the cost of living is near zero. Either way, you have a pretty narrow view of success in the USA.

 

[ebaycj]

For someone whos supposedly doing so damn well you have a lot of anger and jealousy over the "Rich". As for your cute snide comments about General Motors you can blame the government for that, not the rich. But I dont want facts to get in the way of a good rich white guy bashing.

Again....Bitter, party of one. Quit being jealous of others success and go make your own.

And to add, the "rich" pay FAR more in taxes than you ever will. So maybe instead of crying over someone whos already paying a higher percentage than you you would be better served to ask why so many pay nothing at all.....

Of course I'm going to bash the rich white guys over Government Motors. The rich white guys are the ones who ran that fucking company into the ground. They failed. The government decided their failure fucked too many of it's citizens in the ass too hard, and bailed them out.

Let me repeat: The rich white guys were the ones who failed.

 

[ebaycj]

Yep and it's been great watching the selfish bastards squirm in 2009

So far 2010 has been awesome in watching them squirm department too :thumbsup:

I think the selfish bastards did most of their squirming in late 2008.

2009 has been a good year for the selfish bastards, myself included.

I think 2010 will be another good year (not so much squirming).

 

[ebaycj]

I suggest you try to open a bank and then continue on to run it. You'll be just swimming in regulations and paperwork. A free market it is not. Of course that doesnt fit into your classroom discussion though does it.

The fact you would even type that gives me a very good indication about how much you really understand about the entire subject, because the financial industry is far from a "wild west free market".

Yes, but the fact of the matter is:

1. There were regulations in place, which were de-regulated, shifting the market closer to "free market" and farther from "fixed market".
2. The banking industry went nuts doing all the things previously forbidden by regulation.
3. Banks/Financials begin to fail because they made bets they couldn't pay on (because they were so sure that they wouldn't ever have to pay out).
4. The economy blew the fuck up in epic proportions (think nuclear holocaust) and screwed literally every participant in it.
5. Free market FAIL.

 

[ebaycj]

The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States is $140,350. FYI...members of Congress are paid $165,000.

The median annual earnings for a person over 25 yrs old in the United States is $32,140.

CEO median income is 4.37x...not even close to 30x or 300x. Yes some of the CEOs for some of the largest corporations make some decent coin...but get real...we aren't talking about a huge number of people here. Feel better?

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

Nice dodge of my "Fortune 500 CEO's" qualifier.

I own my own (single person) "company". Does that make me a "CEO" by your standards, if i set my official title to that? Because I wouldn't. Hell, even if I had 20 people working for me, I doubt I'd consider myself a CEO. More like a successful small business owner.

While your numbers may be factually true (by disregarding my qualifier), they still don't explain what i was getting at: Why, a couple decades ago, was 30x salary sufficient for running a large corporation, but now it must be 300x salary to do the same job? What changed? Why do shareholders tolerate this? Certainly there is someone out there who could (and would) do the same job for 30x the average employee's salary, the shareholders could pocket the rest as dividends.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nice dodge of my "Fortune 500 CEO's" qualifier.

I own my own (single person) "company". Does that make me a "CEO" by your standards, if i set my official title to that? Because I wouldn't. Hell, even if I had 20 people working for me, I doubt I'd consider myself a CEO. More like a successful small business owner.

While your numbers may be factually true (by disregarding my qualifier), they still don't explain what i was getting at: Why, a couple decades ago, was 30x salary sufficient for running a large corporation, but now it must be 300x salary to do the same job? What changed? Why do shareholders tolerate this? Certainly there is someone out there who could (and would) do the same job for 30x the average employee's salary, the shareholders could pocket the rest as dividends.

Shareholders don't tolerate it. They have no voice in effect because it's not a democracy. Voting is decided by the majority shareholders, and since they often are in sympathy with management, pay isn't based on merit. In their turn, they get taken care of. The few decide what they want to be paid, and they get it. It works well.

 

[ebaycj]

Shareholders don't tolerate it. They have no voice in effect because it's not a democracy. Voting is decided by the majority shareholders, and since they often are in sympathy with management, pay isn't based on merit. In their turn, they get taken care of. The few decide what they want to be paid, and they get it. It works well.

No, the "majority shareholders" are often investment funds. Why is it that individual investors can't vote their shares THAT THEY OWN, that are owned through an ETF / Open-end / Closed-end fund?

 

[MotF Bane]

Yes, but the fact of the matter is:

1. There were regulations in place, which were de-regulated, shifting the market closer to "free market" and farther from "fixed market".
2. The banking industry went nuts doing all the things previously forbidden by regulation.
3. Banks/Financials begin to fail because they made bets they couldn't pay on (because they were so sure that they wouldn't ever have to pay out).
4. The economy blew the fuck up in epic proportions (think nuclear holocaust) and screwed literally every participant in it.
5. Free market FAIL.

You aren't even close to being a libertarian.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nice dodge of my "Fortune 500 CEO's" qualifier.

I own my own (single person) "company". Does that make me a "CEO" by your standards, if i set my official title to that? Because I wouldn't. Hell, even if I had 20 people working for me, I doubt I'd consider myself a CEO. More like a successful small business owner.

While your numbers may be factually true (by disregarding my qualifier), they still don't explain what i was getting at: Why, a couple decades ago, was 30x salary sufficient for running a large corporation, but now it must be 300x salary to do the same job? What changed? Why do shareholders tolerate this? Certainly there is someone out there who could (and would) do the same job for 30x the average employee's salary, the shareholders could pocket the rest as dividends.

I didn't dodge anything...I think you missed the point of my post. I readily acknowledged that some CEO's make a boatload of money (your point) ...however, we aren't taking about a huge number of people here and if you want to make fair comparisons you should use averages (my point). I personally don't have a problem with Fortune 500 CEOs making money...these people make a lot of personal sacrifices and work their asses off to get where they are and have a right to earn what the market will bear. Successful companies employ people...this is a good thing.

I presented you with a balanced perspective of comparing average CEO pay to average worker pay (my point)...yet you take the very highest paid CEOs and compare that to the average worker (your point that I'm objecting to as it's an apples and oranges comparison). There are many people who are not CEO's that make 300x+ more than the average worker. Wouldn't it be more honest to compare the incomes for the top .1% CEOs with the the top .1% non-CEOs? But that wouldn't play well in demonizing CEOs...now would it?

So what is it to you that these world class CEOs make 30x, 300x, or 3000x that of an average worker? Why is this a heinous problem for you? Do you think they're unfairly taking the bread out of starving babies mouths? Jealousy? Please shed some light here.

Edit: "I own my own (single person) "company". Does that make me a "CEO" by your standards, ..." I'm using Wikipedia's definition of CEOs...if you have a problem with their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

 

[Specop 007]

Of course I'm going to bash the rich white guys over Government Motors. The rich white guys are the ones who ran that fucking company into the ground. They failed. The government decided their failure fucked too many of it's citizens in the ass too hard, and bailed them out.

Let me repeat: The rich white guys were the ones who failed.

Yep, the Unions had nothing at all to do with it did they? Best to just blame those damned evil rich white guys......

 

[Specop 007]

Yep and it's been great watching the selfish bastards squirm in 2009

So far 2010 has been awesome in watching them squirm department too :thumbsup:

Nice to know you like seeing your fellow man suffer. I expected absolutely nothing less from you. You'd burn a school to the ground with the children inside if you knew you'd get 1 evil Republican wouldnt you.

 

[Specop 007]

Yes, but the fact of the matter is:

1. There were regulations in place, which were de-regulated, shifting the market closer to "free market" and farther from "fixed market".
2. The banking industry went nuts doing all the things previously forbidden by regulation.
3. Banks/Financials begin to fail because they made bets they couldn't pay on (because they were so sure that they wouldn't ever have to pay out).
4. The economy blew the fuck up in epic proportions (think nuclear holocaust) and screwed literally every participant in it.
5. Free market FAIL.

No, that "de-regulation" was actually regulation in another direction. The banks were fucked either way. They were either discriminatory in their lending practices and boohoo it was unfair or they were predatory in their lending practices and boohoo why did they let some guy without a job sign a $500,000 note.

Both times they played by the rules. Once again, keep the fucking politicians out of business. Banks know who can and cannot pay back loans. Dont try to set up bullshit feelgood lending rules so that "underprivileged" people can afford a house. Let the FREE market sort out who gets a house and who doesnt. Banks will look out for their best interest. If they arent forced to loan money to people they know cant pay it back you can damn well bet they wont.

It would also help if the biggest mortgage agency in the damn world didnt happen to end with "Mae" and be government controlled.

But its still those damned evil rich white guys to blame......Damn those greedy corporations.

 

[cubeless]

I didn't dodge anything...I think you missed the point of my post. I readily acknowledged that some CEO's make a boatload of money (your point) ...however, we aren't taking about a huge number of people here and if you want to make fair comparisons you should use averages (my point). I personally don't have a problem with Fortune 500 CEOs making money...these people make a lot of personal sacrifices and work their asses off to get where they are and have a right to earn what the market will bear. Successful companies employ people...this is a good thing.

I presented you with a balanced perspective of comparing average CEO pay to average worker pay (my point)...yet you take the very highest paid CEOs and compare that to the average worker (your point that I'm objecting to as it's an apples and oranges comparison). There are many people who are not CEO's that make 300x+ more than the average worker. Wouldn't it be more honest to compare the incomes for the top .1% CEOs with the the top .1% non-CEOs? But that wouldn't play well in demonizing CEOs...now would it?

So what is it to you that these world class CEOs make 30x, 300x, or 3000x that of an average worker? Why is this a heinous problem for you? Do you think they're unfairly taking the bread out of starving babies mouths? Jealousy? Please shed some light here.

Edit: "I own my own (single person) "company". Does that make me a "CEO" by your standards, ..." I'm using Wikipedia's definition of CEOs...if you have a problem with their definition, I suggest that you take it up with them.

it's all semantics...

everyone is ceo of their own little company... myself/family is my company and i generate income by contracting my labor, investing, etc... some ceos are smarter/harder working/born better than others, that's life...

it's all about class and $$$ envy... that you aren't 'lucky' enough to be making what you think you somehow deserve blinds you to the fact that the us has generated the highest standard of living for the most people in the history of the world...

is it perfect, no... does it need regulation, yes... has any better system existed, no... will have lesses always be jealous of have mores, of course...

 

[Craig234]

No, that "de-regulation" was actually regulation in another direction. The banks were fucked either way. They were either discriminatory in their lending practices and boohoo it was unfair or they were predatory in their lending practices and boohoo why did they let some guy without a job sign a $500,000 note.

Both times they played by the rules. Once again, keep the fucking politicians out of business. Banks know who can and cannot pay back loans. Dont try to set up bullshit feelgood lending rules so that "underprivileged" people can afford a house. Let the FREE market sort out who gets a house and who doesnt. Banks will look out for their best interest. If they arent forced to loan money to people they know cant pay it back you can damn well bet they wont.

It would also help if the biggest mortgage agency in the damn world didnt happen to end with "Mae" and be government controlled.

But its still those damned evil rich white guys to blame......Damn those greedy corporations.

Says the guy who couldn't care less if minorities have terrible rates of home ownership and ignores the vast goodness the programs do to help people, shifting all the blame onto the programs.

It's pretty easy to govern when your position is 'let them eat cake' and have no concern about the well being of people not in your situation.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, but the fact of the matter is:

1. There were regulations in place, which were de-regulated, shifting the market closer to "free market" and farther from "fixed market".
2. The banking industry went nuts doing all the things previously forbidden by regulation.
3. Banks/Financials begin to fail because they made bets they couldn't pay on (because they were so sure that they wouldn't ever have to pay out).
4. The economy blew the fuck up in epic proportions (think nuclear holocaust) and screwed literally every participant in it.
5. Free market FAIL.

In a market free of government influence, how does somebody loan out more money than they have?

If I have a $5 bill in my pocket, how can I, as a free market actor, loan that same $5 bill to 20 different people?

Contemplate that question and you'll realize how we have nothing like a free market.

 

[Acanthus]

I suggest you try to open a bank and then continue on to run it. You'll be just swimming in regulations and paperwork. A free market it is not. Of course that doesnt fit into your classroom discussion though does it.

The fact you would even type that gives me a very good indication about how much you really understand about the entire subject, because the financial industry is far from a "wild west free market".

Unregulated derivatives are what caused the whole problem. Credit default swaps were the vast majority of the losses that lead to the demise of the banking system as we know it. The other minor league issue was fannie and freddie backing all loans, even dishonest or outright fraudulent ones.

Failure to recognize the threat by 2 administrations for over 10 years lead us from what would be a minor recession to a worldwide multi-trillion dollar disaster.

Insult my intelligence all you like. I know a great deal about this subject. Just because some aspects of banking are full of red tape it doesn't mean the whole system is sound. Try policing half of a city and see what happens to the other half.