patrick.net

tatupu70 says

But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?

The displacement is not an on-off switch but a gradual process. The value of existing capital decline, as the new capital owners' capital value increase.

dublin hillz says

So banstas and public/private sector unions are actually allies even though their interests are polar opposites of each other via alleged access to government officials (presumably on opposite sides of the isle?)

Why would they be polar opposites? Both banksters and unions are monetary inflationists. Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.

dublin hillz says

still1bear says

Wealth inequality is produced by oversized govenment. Whoever is closer to

the gov't, can always buy more of it at wholesale prices. this is what Wall

street banksters and unions are doing. Banksters buy it with money and unions

with organized voting. The regular voter/taxpayer has to pay much higher retail

price by taxation and voting. Limiting the gov't power will reduce the parasitic

classes on wall street and in City hall (you cannot eliminate them

completely).

So banstas and public/private sector unions are actually allies even though their interests are polar opposites of each other via alleged access to government officials (presumably on opposite sides of the isle?)

Their interests are completely identical : suck maximum blood out of the taxpayer.

Reality says

The displacement is not an on-off switch but a gradual process. The value of existing capital decline, as the new capital owners' capital value increase.

Yep. Instead of Joe being a billionaire, now it's Tom. How does that reduce wealth inequality?

Reality says

Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.

lol-you're kidding right?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The displacement is not an on-off switch but a gradual process. The value of existing capital decline, as the new capital owners' capital value increase.

Yep. Instead of Joe being a billionaire, now it's Tom. How does that reduce wealth inequality?

Like I said, it's a gradual process. Instead of Joe being a billionaire, Tom, Dick and Harry each grabbing a share of the market that used to be Joe's exclusive domain, and the consumers get even more benefit from the competition.

In any case, are we talking about wealth inequality with different people being wealthy at different times or long term exclusive entrenched wealth? The former is just the other side of the same coin called "upward mobility."

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.

lol-you're kidding right?

Why? The banksters and unions have been big contributors to Democrats for a very long time.

Just out of curiosity then--what's your explanation for why the US enjoyed low disparity from WWII until around 1980?

tatupu70 says

I think you were correct earlier. He's not ignorant of the facts--he's purposely dishonest.

my impression, too. I have him on ignore, along with a couple dozen more shitheads here who only emit heat and not light.

He's "shrek", right?

Anyhoo, the 1912 Progressive Party platform is a very good read.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/progressive-platform-of-1912/

Makes ya want to be a Progressive, LOL

tatupu70 says

Just out of curiosity then--what's your explanation for why the US enjoyed low disparity from WWII until around 1980?

1. Book cooking. Many of the perks were simply not reported as income. When top bracket was 90%, companies gave their most valued executives all sorts of perks without making them taxable income. That's no different from how "benefits" like employment based medical insurance came about when wage was capped during WWII.

2. The US dollar was on international gold standard (Brettonwoods) until the 70's. There was less nilly-willing money printing to enrich the insiders like it's been the case in our time.

3. Government spending as percentage of the economy was lower than we have now, so the private sector was more in the driver's seat deciding what gets made by which company, and for how much. Bureaucrats spending someone else' money (whether in government or in big corporation) tends to buy from established players instead of taking chances with new upstarts; that spending pattern entrenches existing wealth disparity.

Bellingham Bill says

my impression, too. I have him on ignore, along with a couple dozen more shitheads here who only emit heat and not light.

He's "shrek", right?

No. Now that you mentioned him, I wonder where he is now.

Anyhoo, the 1912 Progressive Party platform is a very good read.

The Bullmoose Party was just a shill for getting the Princeton professor elected, so they could put in place the Federal Reserve, and prepare for WWI.

Occasionally they will let in a new member like Bill Gates

Gates made his own place at the table, LOL.

Project Chess wasn't supposed to be IBM's bread and butter so the no one was more surprised at what the PC market became in the 1980s than them . . .

They tried PS/2 and OS/2 to bring things back under their control, but it was too late . . .

Reality says

Soon enough, the living standards in the capitalistic society were improving to a level where people had enough leisure to enjoy weekend professional sports (in the late 19th century), and women/children didn't have to pick up left over harvest or coal blocks falling off carts any more.

Utter nonsense. In the late 19th century children worked in large numbers in every part of industry, frequently 10-14 hours a day 6 days a week. The reason being that blue collar wages were so low that every family member had to work to simply survive. Many industries, especially coal controlled the workers housing and food charging very high rates that created endless debt essentially making it slave labor. Look up company store. Wealth was very concentrated in a very small segment of society, even more so than today.

bob2356 says

Utter nonsense. In the late 19th century children worked in large numbers in every part of industry, frequently 10-14 hours a day 6 days a week. The reason being that blue collar wages were so low that every family member had to work to simply survive.

How was that different from the previous agrarian society?
40hr work week for the general society has been only possible since the 20th century, after the rapid industrialization of the 19th century.

Many industries, especially coal controlled the workers housing and food charging very high rates that created endless debt essentially making it slave labor. Look up company store. Wealth was very concentrated in a very small segment of society, even more so than today.

It' the same sh*t that Henry Ford tried to replicate at his River Rouge plant, and Foxconn tried to do a few years ago in its Chinese factory towns. Those paternalists always run into the same problem: while initially they delivered higher standards of living for the workers than the latter's hometown farming community had to offer, the living conditions in monopolistic factory towns couldn't keep up with rising expectations. Slave plantations simply couldn't be enforced financially without tax-payer funded government-run slave return system. So those company towns lasted much less time in the relatively free market societies than the country-wide slave plantation in "Beef-and-potato" socialist workers' paradise in the former soviet union.

still1bear says

Their interests are completely identical : suck maximum blood out of the
taxpayer.

How do private sector unions vampire of the taxpayer? The employees' salaries are paid by the company itself and most of the time the companies are publicly traded. Additionally many of the organizations which tend to have large amount of union members tend to be the most stable and sought after dividend payers such as T and VZ.

dublin hillz says

many of the organizations which tend to have large amount of union members tend to be the most stable and sought after dividend payers such as T and VZ.

That's not a co-incidence. Unions are simply partaking in the monopolistic market position that the companies enjoy, at the expense of the consumers. We can add GM and USX to the list at an earlier time. Chances are that T and VZ will join GM and USX in a different list at some time in the future.

dublin hillz says

still1bear says

Their interests are completely identical : suck maximum blood out of the

taxpayer.

How do private sector unions vampire of the taxpayer? The employees' salaries are paid by the company itself and most of the time the companies are publicly traded. Additionally many of the organizations which tend to have large amount of union members tend to be the most stable and sought after dividend payers such as T and VZ.

1. Definitely, private sector unions are less of a vampire than the public ones, so just eliminating bloodsucking gov't employee unions will prevent many future Detroits and state bankruptcies.
2. Private sector unions are labor monopolies. There is nothing wrong with the unionized labor per se, but labor monopoly is just as bad as any monopoly and should be eliminated. It is unthinkable that the whole car making industry is controlled by a single union.

Reality says

Book cooking. Many of the perks were simply not reported as income. When top
bracket was 90%, companies gave their most valued executives all sorts of perks
without making them taxable income. That's no different from how "benefits" like
employment based medical insurance came about when wage was capped during WWII.

Utterly ridiculous. Please tell me how a company car gets a 1%er into the middle class in income.

Reality says

The US dollar was on international gold standard (Brettonwoods) until the 70's.
There was less nilly-willing money printing to enrich the insiders like it's
been the case in our time.

OK, then how do you explain the extreme wealth disparity in the late 1920s? Or in the late 1800s?

Reality says

Bureaucrats spending someone else' money (whether in government or in big
corporation) tends to buy from established players instead of taking chances
with new upstarts; that spending pattern entrenches existing wealth disparity.

So what? You never mentioned how that affects wealth disparity. Regardless, it's an idiotic idea.

tatupu70 says

Utterly ridiculous. Please tell me how a company car gets a 1%er into the middle class in income.

A $400k Rolls-Royce, a $2000/mo parking spot / garage, with a $50k/yr driver.

Even more expensive perks could include: a company house, a company vacation house, a company boat, a company plane, company chef and gardener for the company houses, company house cleaning staff for the same houses, one or several company personal assistants / pencil sharpners on the company payroll instead of having the executive paying for them out of his own take-home pay.

The POTUS official salary is $400k/yr. Do you really think anyone else making merely $400k a year can afford a White House with staff, Camp David, 747, and Chinook, not to mention the security staff and armored limo with protective motorcade? "Income" is whatever they say it is for the really rich and powerful.

OK, then how do you explain the extreme wealth disparity in the late 1920s? Or in the late 1800s?

Late 1920's extreme wealth disparity was the result of the FED blowing bubble; a lot of it was bubble paper wealth. Late 1800's extreme wealth disparity had a lot to do with the railroad industry, which to a large extent was once again government subsidized speculation. A major exception ironically was the Rockerfeller fortune, which actually didn't have much government help in its initial formation. The Rockerfellers didn't get involved with manipulating the government until the very end of the 19th century and the 20th century after their rivals, especially the banksters at the time led by Morgan, tried to use the government to checkmate them.

tatupu70 says

Bureaucrats spending someone else' money (whether in government or in big

corporation) tends to buy from established players instead of taking chances

with new upstarts; that spending pattern entrenches existing wealth disparity.

So what? You never mentioned how that affects wealth disparity. Regardless, it's an idiotic idea.

Are you really that dense? What do you think a government purchase program buying tens of thousands of IBM PC's in 1980 would do to the relative market position of IBM vs. Apple? What do you think DoD buying hundreds of thousands of iPad does today would do to the profitability and relative market position of Apple vs. Android competitors?

Bureaucratic purchasers tend to entrench established players in the market place, unlike individuals spending their own money tending to ferret out new and more cost effective alternatives.

Reality says

Are you really that dense? What do you think a government purchase program
buying tens of thousands of IBM PC's in 1980 would do to the relative market
position of IBM vs. Apple? What do you think DoD buying hundreds of thousands of
iPad does today would do to the profitability and relative market position of
Apple vs. Android competitors?

Save the insults. Like I said earlier, I don't care if it's Gates or Jobs that gets the money. It doesn't really make any difference in wealth disparity. Government purchases do very little to change disparity.

tatupu70 says

Save the insults. Like I said earlier, I don't care if it's Gates or Jobs that gets the money. It doesn't really make any difference in wealth disparity. Government purchases do very little to change disparity.

Apple in 1980 was a small startup company, IBM was a big established company. Gates' MSFT would get only $50 out of a $5000-10,000 price tag that the government paid IBM for a PC; no, the government bureaucrats wouldn't buy from Compaq, another startup at the time, either. You are clueless if you think government purchases make no difference. Why do you think there are thousands of lobbyists milling around in DC? and DC income and real estate have seen the largest increase in the country over the past decade or two?

New market entrants with innovative new solutions displacing old established players is how creative destruction of capital works in a free market place. That's how upward mobility is accomplished. That's how entrenched wealthy is displaced. That's how economic productivity is improved. Bureaucratic spending displacing individual free choice get in the way of all of that. That's why socialistic societies always stagnate.