patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,738 comments by 13,872 users - WookieMan online now
Do Americans Believe Capitalism & Government Are Working?
invite response
2013 Jul 17, 4:43pm 9,994 views 82 comments
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 82 of 82 Search these comments
Consumer choice (aka "free market") is the most efficient and "leveling" wealth distribution system
That is absurd. The exact opposite is true.
What evidence do you have for that? Every single government controlled economy (aka "central planning") has worked to be extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the political families at the expense of the masses.
The rest of your post about cronies is the same BS that you and others have been posting here for awhile.
That's just another content-free personal attack from you.
The reason some people prefer a highly progressive tax system to redistribue wealth is because it has been proven to work historically.
Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.
What's more, you are willfully blind on how the tax money is then spent. Bureaucrats have spending patterns that entrench existing capital: they tend to give contracts to either those with personal political connections or to big existing businesses. Individual consumers spending their own money are the ones who ferret out the latest improvement in economic efficiency: by taking chances with new upstart innovators because they offer better bang for the buck.
Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!
The best way to have equitable distribution of wealth is collective bargaining right for employees. Companies are naturally able to collectively bargain via presence of HR departments that report to senior management. So workers should be able to collectively bargain as well to balance the scales instead of only 7% being in the unions in the private sectors like we have now. This would be much more efficient that raising taxes. For instance lets assume that a hypothetical worker gets $10 per hour with no health coverage. Assume if he/she were in a union and would get paid $17 per hour with health benefits. That would be the most just outcome. Conversely, if the taxes on the rich were increased from lets say 39% to 45%, there's no mechanism to ensure that this new money would find a way to the worker to get their $7 extra per hour with health benefits. Thus, in my opinion, the answer lies in enhanced collective bargaining rights, not higher taxation.
Collective bargaining creates labor relationships that are inflexible. Almost all unions are only possible in industries where the workers are already over-paid (hence the ability to afford hundreds if not thousands per yr union dues). Union contracts would just drive such disparity all the more out of whack.
In the long run, no long term union contract can survive time and consumer freedom to shop elsewhere instead of being fleeced by the union and management in collusion. Whoever plan their own lives according to long term union contracts are screwed after the union bosses and politicians harvest their pound of flesh.
The US no longer is a pure form of Capitolism. Massive outsourcing without due diligence (Ross Perot forecasted) created a plurality of Ponzi Schemes and Bubbles.
At the same time, Unions have been consolidating power, because the people were lied to as the loss of all middle class jobs at all levels.
At this point in history, after 100 years of technology enlightenment, all societies will have their prosperity linked to continual improvements in technology. The US with the massive humanities and arts has denied this once, twice, thrice, so that even now I hear humanities majors say "why did I get this degree" in chorus.
Many of my friends who are Asian are scientists, Many of the scientists are Engineers. Any group who tries to improve their contribution, and their own standards bless them. Any group who tries to inflate bubbles, does not contribute to society - well the curse is they dont contribute.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 2:16am
What evidence do you have for that?
US from 1940 - 1980. Reality says
Every single government controlled economy (aka "central planning") has worked to be extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the political families at the expense of the masses.
Again--try to stay on topic. Nobody is advocating a government controlled economy. How in the world did you get there?
Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.
Again--history disagrees.Reality says
What's more, you are willfully blind on how the tax money is then spent. Bureaucrats have spending patterns that entrench existing capital: they tend to give contracts to either those with personal political connections or to big existing businesses.
I'm not blind to it. It's just not part of the current discussion. I agree governments are not usually first adopters of new technology, but it's not relevent here.
Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!
Nope--it's not. And don't confuse spending and taxation--they are two entirely separate issues.
What evidence do you have for that?
US from 1940 - 1980
That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.
Again--try to stay on topic. Nobody is advocating a government controlled economy. How in the world did you get there?
The "exact opposite" (your words) from Consumer Choice (i.e. Free market) is government central planning.
Progressive tax schemes are just a way of long term tax raising through bracket creep. As some of the super rich famously said, only the little people pay taxes.
Again--history disagrees
Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.
I'm not blind to it. It's just not part of the current discussion. I agree governments are not usually first adopters of new technology, but it's not relevent here.
Of course it is. Unless you think the purpose of tax collection is wealth destruction (pure envy), how the tax money is spent and its effect on the economy vs. how it would have been spent in private hands, is extremely relevant . . . and the crux of your seeming paradox: the more government tax and spend to "level the field" since the late 60's, the more un-level the society has become!
The most powerful leveling action in a market economy is creative destruction of existing capital (aka Upward Mobility). Government taxing and spending get in the way of that natural market leveling action.
Taking money from the private individuals and let the bureaucrats spend it is inherently Regressive!
Nope--it's not. And don't confuse spending and taxation--they are two entirely separate issues.
No they are not. Taxation is not about taking wealth from someone's home and burning it, but about how the resources of the society are differently directed according to different spending patterns: private individuals vs. bureaucrats spending the money. A rich person has to spend money to make his foot print felt in the economy; a rich person that doesn't spend simply yields that spending power ("richness") to someone else (be it a successful entreprenuer or someone who borrows to spend then declare bankruptcy).
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 2:40am
That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.
Because that's the wrong metric to use. You have to normalize the income disparity.
The "exact opposite" (your words) from Consumer Choice (i.e. Free market) is government central planning.
Correct. But you didn't apply the opposite correctly. You said that free choice is the best wealth distribution mechanism. The opposite would be that free choice is the worst distribution mechanism.
Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.
Sure. And that's a good thing. It means that distribution was working well and we didn't have such high inequality.
Of course it is. Unless you think the purpose of tax collection is wealth destruction (pure envy), how the tax money is spent and its effect on the economy vs. how it would have been spent in private hands, is extremely relevant . . . and the crux of your seeming paradox: the more government tax and spend to "level the field" since the late 60's, the more un-level the society has become!
No--I disagree. Clearly, there is almost no correlation between revenue and spending in the US. Even if there were, you design the revenue portion to accomplish whatever goals you set irregardless of how the money is spent.
And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.
No they are not. Taxation is not about taking wealth from someone's home and burning it, but about how the resources of the society are differently directed according to different spending patterns: private individuals vs. bureaucrats spending the money. A rich person has to spend money to make his foot print felt in the economy; a rich person that doesn't spend simply yields that spending power ("richness") to someone else (be it an successful entreprenuer or someone who borrows to spend then declare bankruptcy).
Addressed above. They are separate--not sure how you can't see the difference. You don't have to spend all the revenue and you don't have to collect revenue to cover all your spending. Not sure how much more clear this could be.
indigenous
2013 Jul 22, 2:51am
Reality
I go to school on you and appreciate your willingness to learn us some stuff.
Do you ever see one of these Keynesian types have an epiphany?
The only one I can think of is John Stossel. There are people who are just uneducated about economics and then get educated but the Stossel types are really rare.
That's completely false. The published brackets that nearly nobody paid made no difference. The actual income tax collected, e.g. the top quintile paid as percentage of total income tax collected, is far more "progressive" today than it ever was before 1980.
Because that's the wrong metric to use. You have to normalize the income disparity.
Quintile analysis is not the wrong metric for measuring the "progressiveness" of the tax systems. Using "income disparity" per se would actually be a wrong metric, as "income" is written up very different under different tax systems: how much income do you think the Kim of North Korea is getting? the official $200/yr that he claims? How much income do you think the owner of IKEA fortune in Sweden is getting? not counting the "charitable" foundation? How much income do you think Warren Buffet is really getting? $38million a year like in his tax return? What, he has worked for 1000+ years to accumulate his $38B fortune?
Correct. But you didn't apply the opposite correctly. You said that free choice is the best wealth distribution mechanism. The opposite would be that free choice is the worst distribution mechanism.
How can free choice be the worst when central planning systems are working out far worse for the masses than the free choice system does? Do you have philosophical objection to freedom and liberty?
Not at all. History shows that when the top brackets were set sky high (like 90%), hardly anyone paid those rates.
Sure. And that's a good thing. It means that distribution was working well and we didn't have such high inequality.
You are being exceedingly naive. Hardly anyone paying 90% bracket was not because there was a lack of wealth accumulation but simply because the CEO's were paid in perks and other forms. Tax avoidance had much greater incentive at 90% tax rate than at 33% tax rate.
No--I disagree. Clearly, there is almost no correlation between revenue and spending in the US.
Spending has to be paid by current tax plus borrowing, the latter of which has to be funded by tax money paying debt service; i.e. paid for by future taxation with interest added.
Even if there were, you design the revenue portion to accomplish whatever goals you set irregardless of how the money is spent.
That is once again willful blindness. There is only one way "how the money is spent" in government: whatever alleged goal is not accomplished so the spending can continue. LOL.
And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.
And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe defense spending is designed to "level the field" so I'm not sure why you think the increased spending since 1960 is relevent. The increased spending is for defense, plain and simple.
Defense spending is not the only reason for the massive increase in government spending since the late 1960's. Are you forgetting "The Great Society"?
Addressed above. They are separate--not sure how you can't see the difference. You don't have to spend all the revenue and you don't have to collect revenue to cover all your spending. Not sure how much more clear this could be.
Yet the justification for taxation is usually the perceived need for government spending, and taxation is what directly and indirectly funds government spending.
The two are actually even more closely linked via inflation control: without taxation to curb individual spending, government spending would explode inflation rate.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 3:34am
Quintile analysis is not the wrong metric for measuring the "progressiveness" of the tax systems.
It is if you don't normalize it for income disparity.
How can free choice be the worst when central planning systems are working out far worse for the masses than the free choice system does? Do you have philosophical objection to freedom and liberty?
lol. Are you really making the "do you hate freedom" argument? How about we devise a system somewhere in between pure free choice and pure centrally planned? Do you think that might be possible?
Spending has to be paid by current tax plus borrowing, the latter of which has to be funded by tax money paying debt service; i.e. paid for by future taxation with interest added.
Obviously. What's your point?
That is once again willful blindness. There is only one way "how the money is spent" in government: whatever alleged goal is not accomplished so the spending can continue. LOL.
Funny, but not really relevent. Nobody is arguing about the efficacy of government spending. The point is that the US has almost unlimited borrowing ability so spending and revenue have very little relation.
Defense spending is not the only reason for the massive increase in government spending since the late 1960's. Are you forgetting "The Great Society"?
Not forgetting. Just trying to remind you what the problem is.
Yet the justification for taxation is usually the perceived need for government spending, and taxation is what directly and indirectly funds government spending.
Yes. And the point is? I'll say it again--the level and efficiency of government spending have no bearing on the design of tax structure.
indigenous
2013 Jul 22, 4:15am
Stop strawman tactic.
Again have you ever seen one of these Keynesian types have an epiphany?
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 4:38am
Wealth disparity is limited/eliminated in the free market through creative destruction / capital obsolescence.
Please explain the mechanism for how this happens. Preferably with some sort of data backing your theory.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 4:39am
Here's the hint: how can 80% of the population not own anything or have any income in a free market economy? Are they slaves or wards of a state? Then that's your problem.
It's the end result of your race to the bottom ideal. Everyone working for $2/hour.
Wealth disparity is limited/eliminated in the free market through creative destruction / capital obsolescence.
Please explain the mechanism for how this happens. Preferably with some sort of data backing your theory.
The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.
What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?
What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?
What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?
Here's the hint: how can 80% of the population not own anything or have any income in a free market economy? Are they slaves or wards of a state? Then that's your problem.
It's the end result of your race to the bottom ideal. Everyone working for $2/hour.
That's preposterous. Why would everyone work for $2/hr when many of them can deliver much higher productivity and employers have to compete for their labor?
Henry Ford sold cars much cheaper than his competitors, but he offered his workers much higher pay because his newly created capital (production line) was much more productive (per worker-hour). It put many of his competitors out of business (i.e. took their workers and previous lock on steel, copper, rubber, etc.).
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 5:26am
The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.
What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?
What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?
What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?
But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?
The owner of a horse cab company saw his capital (the horse cabs) become obsolete when automobile cabs came along.
What do you think happened to the typewriter and wordprocessor manufacturers when the personal computer came along?
What do you think has been happening to Dell the desktop PC giant after tablets became popular?
What do you think is happening to Apple when much cheaper Android phones and tablets have mushroomed?
But how does that reduce wealth inequality? Companies come and go, sure, but how is wealth inequality decreasing?
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).
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?)
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.
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.
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.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 6:28am
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?
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 6:30am
Except for the Romney campaign, both banksters and unions tend to be supporters of Democrats.
lol-you're kidding right?
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."
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.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 6:53am
Just out of curiosity then--what's your explanation for why the US enjoyed low disparity from WWII until around 1980?
Bellingham Bill
2013 Jul 22, 6:58am
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
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.
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.
Bellingham Bill
2013 Jul 22, 7:03am
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 9:35am
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
tatupu70
2013 Jul 22, 8:39pm
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.
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 « Previous Comments 44 - 82 of 82 Search these comments
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