0
0

Do Americans Believe Capitalism & Government Are Working?


 invite response                
2013 Jul 17, 4:43pm   10,126 views  82 comments

by puhim   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Do Americans Believe Capitalism & Government Are Working?

Findings from the 2013 Economic Values Survey by the Public Religion Research Instituteand Governance Studies at Brookings

The 2013 Economic Values Survey probed Americans’ views on capitalism, government, economic policy, and financial well-being. It found that Americans are concerned about the lack of jobs (26% cited this as the most important economic issue), the budget deficit (17%), and the rising cost of health care (18%) and education (9%). Overall, they are pessimistic about what the future holds.

http://bit.ly/12N8gBu

« First        Comments 77 - 82 of 82        Search these comments

77   Reality   2013 Jul 22, 7:20am  

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.

78   still1bear   2013 Jul 22, 7:25am  

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.

79   tatupu70   2013 Jul 22, 9:35am  

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.

80   Reality   2013 Jul 22, 11:14am  

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.

81   tatupu70   2013 Jul 22, 8:39pm  

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.

82   Reality   2013 Jul 22, 9:42pm  

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.

« First        Comments 77 - 82 of 82        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions