Income Inequality Questions
invite response
2013 Sep 24, 2:28am 56,611 views 226 comments
by CL ➕follow (1) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 141 - 180 of 226 Next » Last » Search these comments
"The price of living"?
Yep. The US provides many services to all of its citizens. I know you would like it if you could enjoy them for free, but, unfortunately that's not how it works.
Spoken like a defender of feudal privileges. So how much do you enjoy the "service" of blowing up other countries and rebuilding them, while letting our own country rot?
For what it's worth, your "price of living" argument is 200+ years out of date. Ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" are individual human rights endowed by his/her Creator. Only those born into slavery are indoctrinated to believe the original sin theory of owing someone else "a price of living."
For purposes of how taxes, laws and rights apply to them, is there any other way to think about it? Oh wait, let's form a government committee to assess who really earned their wealth and who didn't, and then we can apply different rights and taxes accordingly.
I'd say we already have the levers in place to allow a broad brush attempt at it. Adjust the tax rates for labor, capital gains, inheritance etc...
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:19am
No. Productivity in its most basic semantic meaning: output. No denominator
necessary. All denominators implicitly discount population that is too
discouraged to work or have to get paid under the table.
That is patently false. Productivity is output divided by something. Find me one citation that defines productivity as output.
Bureau of Lies and Statistics is talking about "Labor Productivity" as a
specific term defined by themselves, not simple productivity
Well, of course. All measures have definitions. But, never is productivity simply output.
They are distrusted by the overwhelming majority of the population in every
single election! Merely half of the eligible voters vote, and few office holders
get much more than half the votes. That's like, 70-80% of the population did not
vote for them! every single one of them!And your point being?
The point is simply to refute your pretense that they are entrusted by the majority Americans to do anything. 70-80% do not trust them in every single election. The approval rating is in the 20-30% range.
Some of the people who don't vote are completely politically disconnected. Also, they don't follow current events and are oblivious to various subjects. They may be experts at using yelp but will not be able whatsoever to explain concepts such as quantitative easing, tax policy, ACA, etc. Thus, it is not true to say that they don't vote because they are dissatisfied with politicians, they are just apathetic.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:22am
Spoken like a defender of feudal privileges. So how much do you enjoy the
"service" of blowing up other countries and rebuilding them, while letting our
own country rot?
I don't. Unfortunately I don't get to make those decisions. The US is a Republic so our representatives make them.
Do you not believe in the Constitution??
That is patently false. Productivity is output divided by something. Find me one
citation that defines productivity as output.
Marriem-Webster defines the word as "the quality or state of being productive."
Bureau of Lies and Statistics is talking about "Labor Productivity" as
a
specific term defined by themselves, not simple productivity
Well, of course. All measures have definitions. But, never is productivity
simply output.
But you are dragging in a completely different term from what I was talking about. BLS "Labor Productivity" is utterly different from what I was talking about in "productivity." If you look at BLS "Labor Productivity" alone, there is no recession: Labor Productivity has been rising as more and more people get laid off! What does that say about the usefulness of that particular artfully coined metric?
I already told you why the BLS "Labor Productivity" metric is disconnected from how the real economy is doing.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:31am
Marriem-Webster defines the word as "the quality or state of being
productive."
That you for proving my point.
But you are dragging in a completely different term from what I was talking
about.
That's because you don't know what productivity is. You said low taxes increase productivity. Which is wrong.
Some of the people who don't vote are completely politically disconnected.
Also, they don't follow current events and are oblivious to various subjects.
They may be experts at using yelp but will not be able whatsoever to explain
concepts such as quantitative easing, tax policy, ACA, etc. Thus, it is not true
to say that they don't vote because they are dissatisfied with politicians, they
are just apathetic.
Did you not read the approval/disapproval ratings for the Congress and the President? and politicians in general? "Dissatisified" is under-statement.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:33am
If you look at BLS "Labor Productivity" alone, there is no recession: Labor
Productivity has been rising as more and more people get laid off! What does
that say about the usefulness of that particular artfully coined metric?
It shows what really happens in the real world. Businesses employ only the least number of people that they need to in order to meet demand. They don't hire when taxes are decreased or when profits rise. They hire when they are forced because they can't meet demand.
Spoken like a defender of feudal privileges. So how much do you enjoy the
"service" of blowing up other countries and rebuilding them, while letting our
own country rot?
I don't. Unfortunately I don't get to make those decisions. The US is a Republic so our representatives make them.
Do you not believe in the Constitution??
What do you mean by "believe"? It's not a religious document. Much of what's going on is quite un-constitutional.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:36am
What do you mean by "believe"? It's not a religious document. Much of what's
going on is quite un-constitutional.
I think the question is self explanatory.
Marriem-Webster defines the word as "the quality or state of
being
productive."
That you for proving my point.
Nowhere does it prove your point, which is quite besides the point anyway.
But you are dragging in a completely different term from what I was
talking
about.
That's because you don't know what productivity is. You said low taxes
increase productivity. Which is wrong.
You are the one who can not differentiate between "economic productivity" and "BLS Labor Productivity."
What do you mean by "believe"? It's not a religious document. Much of what's
going on is quite un-constitutional.
I think the question is self explanatory.
You are just dodging the question. Thanks for trying to side-track the discussion yet again.
If you look at BLS "Labor Productivity" alone, there is no recession: Labor
Productivity has been rising as more and more people get laid off! What does
that say about the usefulness of that particular artfully coined metric?
It shows what really happens in the real world. Businesses employ only the least number of people that they need to in order to meet demand. They don't hire when taxes are decreased or when profits rise. They hire when they are forced because they can't meet demand.
Do you think the officially unemployed people have their lives suspended in a cryogenic tank powered by a wire connected to big generator in the sky? The officially unemployed have to make a living somehow, and the vast majority of them do not have savings to live off, so they making livings in several ways that the BLS do not take in account:
1. filing papers for social security disability; paper filing is essentially their job. BLS only counts the bureaucrats receiving the paper, but the real work is done by both the bureaucrats and an even more vast army of "job holders" filing papers and receiving the money as their sole or main source of income.
2. holding jobs that get paid under the table. BLS obviously do not count the low productivity of those jobs into the average "Labor Productivity"
3. entertaining their family members, or at least avoiding getting kicked out.
4. entertaining strangers or regular "friends" as in prostitution.
5. dealing drugs
6. thieving (besides tax collecting, which is a job counted by BLS)
. . .
Just to name a few. What do you think the real productivity per person per hour would be if those "jobs" are taken into account? Yet it is this more comprehensive average that the people really feel about the economy. Those without official jobs are people too! BLS seems to think they cease to be part of the economy and cease to be living human beings.
Dan8267
2013 Oct 30, 9:57am
The "Game Theory" that you refer to explicitly postulates repeating game involving the same set of players in a non-changing market.
No. Not at all. The branch of mathematics known as game theory most certainly handles problems involving dynamic systems.
In any case, you haven't refuted the point that "Corporations will inevitably create monopolies and oligopolies through mergers unless prevented by government." This point is also empirically true. History proves it. It is a matter of written fact regardless of whether or not you accept any theory explaining why it is so. To argue otherwise is to argue that there is no water on the planet Earth. It is demonstrably false.
It's not just corporations that want to maximize profits; individuals too! A big part of maximizing profit is reducing expenses, which means reducing someone else' profit.
And what is good for the individual can be devastating for society as a whole resulting in worse conditions for everyone including the individual who is maximizing his own self-interest. This is the very definition of a dilemma.
According to capitalist theory, a capitalist economy should work like this. An inefficiency exists in some market. An entrepreneur notices this inefficiency, creates a more efficient way of satisfying the market, reaps a profit from the efficiency gap between his solution and the current market solution, the market adjusts, the profits the entrepreneur has been making falls to zero, the entrepreneur can no longer collect rent on his solution and has to find another inefficiency in some market to correct.
If capitalism worked as it is supposed to, then all economic (not normal) profit in any enterprise should rapidly fall to zero no matter how high it starts. And this should be a good thing, one that everyone wants because it means there is no waste, no misallocation of resources.
However, the reality is that so-called capitalists don't want that and prevent that scenario from playing out. Capitalists want inefficiency and waste in the economy because that is the only way for economic profits and rent collection to take place. A fully efficient market, by definition, has no opportunity for economic profit. It is precisely through creating and exploiting waste that the financial parasites like those in Goldman Sachs obtain their wealth. But doing so only works as a zero-sum game.
Dan8267
2013 Oct 30, 9:59am
Whereas in a government controlled economy, the bureaucrats also want to maximize their own personal profits
Unrestrained "American style capitalism" and Soviet Communism are exactly the same thing. The only difference is if you call the central dictatorship controlling everything a "government" or a "corporation". Of course, the name you give that dictatorship does not change its nature.
No. Not at all. The branch of mathematics known as game theory most certainly
handles problems involving dynamic systems.
Go back and read your game theory again. Pay attention to the pre-conditions of the model.
In any case, you haven't refuted the point that "Corporations will inevitably
create monopolies and oligopolies through mergers unless prevented by
government." This point is also empirically true. History proves it. It is a
matter of written fact regardless of whether or not you accept any theory
explaining why it is so. To argue otherwise is to argue that there is no water
on the planet Earth. It is demonstrably false
Utter nonsense. Give me a monopoly or oligopoly, and I will show you the government role in its creation. Mergers do not translate into monopoly or oligopoly, and are usually failures in growth industries. Mature industries are just something that is ready to be displaced by new industries, absent government regulations barring new entry.
And what is good for the individual can be devastating for society as a whole
resulting in worse conditions for everyone including the individual who is
maximizing his own self-interest. This is the very definition of a dilemma.
You are defining own stuff in self-contradictory terms, but in any case I get what you are trying to say . . . here's the key: so why would you want to entrust any particular individual with the privilege of nobody else being able to say "no" to him? You are recognizing monopoly is bad on one hand, yet advocating monopoly by government bureaucrat is good on the other. Do you think people become selfless gods when they put on the robes of a bureaucrat? Is that your religion?
If capitalism worked as it is supposed to, then all economic (not normal)
profit in any enterprise should rapidly fall to zero no matter how high it
starts. And this should be a good thing, one that everyone wants because it
means there is no waste, no misallocation of resources.
That's not true. Information propagation takes time. Some people actively reject good information for a long time, like you are doing now, wasting electricity repeating magic theory that's been proven false over and over again. Free market is a information distribution system, just like a bureaucracy is. Free market just happens to be more efficient than bureaucracy in distributing new information, rewarding those adjusting to new reality quickly, instead of rewarding the "yes men" playing to some pre-established template that has long been obsolete.
However, the reality is that so-called capitalists don't want that and
prevent that scenario from playing out. Capitalists want inefficiency and waste
in the economy because that is the only way for economic profits and rent
collection to take place. A fully efficient market, by definition, has no
opportunity for economic profit. It is precisely through creating and exploiting
waste that the financial parasites like those in Goldman Sachs obtain their
wealth. But doing so only works as a zero-sum game.
In case you did not realize, Goldman Sachs works in a central banking bureaucracy system. GS churns out bureaucrats that head central banks of the world. Creating inefficiency is what the bureaucracy is good at, as the consumers are not allowed to say no to the bureaucracy, at gun point. In a free market, consumers, that means you and me, would be shopping elsewhere.
Unrestrained "American style capitalism" and Soviet Communism are exactly the
same thing. The only difference is if you call the central dictatorship
controlling everything a "government" or a "corporation". Of course, the name
you give that dictatorship does not change its nature.
Nonsense. What you are seeing now is not "unrestrained American Style Capitalism." You see what you see as comparable to the soviet system because central banking is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 (Plank #5 to be specific). It is not co-incidence. At the macro level for money and banking in the US, you are indeed looking at a soviet-like system. At the height of soviet power, they believed with new-found computers they can precisely calculate the price for every single product ever known to men. That's what believers in central banking believes regarding the price of money.
Dan8267
2013 Oct 30, 5:56pm
No. Not at all. The branch of mathematics known as game theory most certainly
handles problems involving dynamic systems.Go back and read your game theory again. Pay attention to the pre-conditions of the model.
So you are saying that the entire branch of mathematics known as Game Theory is based on one and only one specific model with a static set of pre-conditions. What the fuck are you talking about?
That's like saying there exists one and only one derivative in Calculus, one and only one polynomial in Algebra, and one and only one summation in arithmetic. Yes, you can add 2 and 3, but not 5 and 7. Arithmetic only supports adding 2 to 3.
Give me a monopoly or oligopoly, and I will show you the government role in its creation.
Viacom
Mergers do not translate into monopoly or oligopoly, and are usually failures in growth industries.
Mergers have been standard operating procedure since Reagan killed anti-trust enforcement.
The entire so-called basis of capitalism theory is competition. Mergers, by definition, are antithetical to competition and thus have no place in an economy that allegedly follows capitalistic theory.
Companies are suppose to crush their enemies, not join them.
You are recognizing monopoly is bad on one hand, yet advocating monopoly by government bureaucrat is good on the other. Do you think people become selfless gods when they put on the robes of a bureaucrat? Is that your religion?
Like a typical American, you are assuming that because I reject your position I must be taking the stereotypical opposite position. If I reject the nonsense of the right, I must accept the nonsense of the left. If I acknowledge that completely unregulated capitalism is harmful and wasteful, then I must be a Communist or a socialist and believe that government can do no wrong.
This is a false dichotomy. The truth is orthogonal to the left-right line. I can reject two opposing thesis and propose a third option that is like neither. In fact, I could propose an infinite number of alternatives arrange in all directions in a many-dimensional problem space. It is your false assumption that all of economics and politics is represented by a one-dimensional line with coordinates to the left and coordinates to the right. I think in much higher dimensions; many more degrees of freedom.
And it is because you unquestioningly accept this false dichotomy as the only possible truth, that you must misinterpret my position. You can tell that my position is not the same as yours, but you wrongly assume that therefore my position must be on the other side of this one dimensional line you think is the universe. My position is nowhere near that line.
My "religion" is the lack of religion. Economic systems are like underwear, you change them whenever you need to. There is no "best" economic system. There is only one or more best systems for a particular set of priorities, constraints, and environment. For example, an autonomous science lab that must perform resource management (mining, extracting chemicals), run scientific tests in a variety of fields, and self-repair would best be ran as a Communistic model rather than a Feudal or Capitalistic model. The economy would not even involve human beings, but would be an economy nonetheless and subject to the same engineering discipline.
The bottom line is that in order to understand anything I'm saying, you'd need to abandon your paradigm and you don't seem ready to do that yet. Perhaps in time you will be able to do that. I'd suggest coming back and reading my posts again when that time comes and you'll have an ah-ha moment when everything clicks. Until then, explaining my economic philosophies would be like trying to explain cloud computing to a Medieval farmer.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 30, 9:30pm
You are just dodging the question. Thanks for trying to side-track the discussion yet again.
You're asking me the definition of "believe" and I'm sidetracking the discussion? OK then.
What do you think the real productivity per person per hour would be if those "jobs" are taken into account? Yet it is this more comprehensive average that the people really feel about the economy. Those without official jobs are people too! BLS seems to think they cease to be part of the economy and cease to be living human beings.
So what? I'm not arguing the advantages or disadvantages of the BLS measurment of productivity. Just that you don't know the definition.
So you are saying that the entire branch of mathematics known as Game Theory
is based on one and only one specific model with a static set of pre-conditions.
What the fuck are you talking about?
You were talking about one specific game theory scenario: repeat games. That's when the players have an interest to collude. Otherwise, basic game theory would dictate "Prisoner's delimma": under cut the prices of your competitors to get their business before they do it to you!
"Game theory" may be a fancy new term for you . . . whereas for me it's no more complicated than walking and chewing gums at the same time. I did actually study economics in the same Institute that many of the world's top central bankers went to.
Give me a monopoly or oligopoly, and I will show you the government role in
its creation.
Viacom
What do you have against Viacom? It's not even as big as Disney, Time Warner or Fox/Newscorps. At less than 10% market share in most of its markets, Viacom is certainly not a monopoly or oligopoly, more like an underdog, albeit a relatively big underdog but still an underdog compared to the other big-3 mentioned above.
Mergers have been standard operating procedure since Reagan killed anti-trust
enforcement.
Mergers were taking place long before Reagan. Government anti-trust boondoggle has been taking place long after Reagan.
The entire so-called basis of capitalism theory is competition.
No. It's about freedom of choice. Competition is only a result of consumers having freedom of choice.
Mergers, by
definition, are antithetical to competition and thus have no place in an economy
that allegedly follows capitalistic theory.
Your "theories" don't meet the simplest reality test: if merger is not allowed, then resources (including labor) under the control of losing companies would have to wait till bankruptcy to be recycled! Even then buying from the bankruptcy court would still be Merger & Aquisition. Get to know your "theory" and its implications before pronouncing them.
Like a typical American, you are assuming that because I reject your position
I must be taking the stereotypical opposite position. If I reject the nonsense
of the right, I must accept the nonsense of the left. If I acknowledge that
completely unregulated capitalism is harmful and wasteful, then I must be a
Communist or a socialist and believe that government can do no wrong.
This is a false dichotomy. The truth is orthogonal to the left-right
line.
You are thoroughly mistaken if you think I'm somehow right-wing. On the Nolan chart, my position would be near the top of the chart, for liberty. It is indeed not a one-dimensinonal line. Unfortunately, I get a vague sense that your various positions are rather located near the bottom of Nolan chart, slightly to the left, like the late 18th century French revolutionary youth.
My "religion" is the lack of religion.
Just like the late 18th century French revolutionary youths, quite adament about replacing old religion with a new religion centered on the god-like power of the government . . . also "convert or die!" LOL. It took Europe several hundred years to become mellow on religious conflicts, then the religion of the modern state re-infuses the bloodlust into a new crop of zealots, giving yet another lease to the State. Violent coercion is the life of government.
For example, an autonomous science lab that must perform resource management
(mining, extracting chemicals), run scientific tests in a variety of fields, and
self-repair would best be ran as a Communistic model rather than a Feudal or
Capitalistic model. The economy would not even involve human beings, but would
be an economy nonetheless and subject to the same engineering discipline.
It is the same "clockwork universe" utopia that the original Utopian Socialist of the 18th century France like Fourier embraced. You do realize, in such a machine-run universe of the future, there would be no place for human beings except for perhaps being pets. Until that end-state (really death and extinction for humanity) arrives, the utopists would just run the society as if they were the omniscient and omnipotent macine-god, treating everyone else as mindless cogs in the machine. This whole utopian theory is really quite dehumanizing. "Utopian Socialism/Communism" is really little more than a death cult for wannabe slave masters.
Unfortunately for those utopists, and fortunately for humanity, human beings are born with a yearning for freedom and liberty.
You're asking me the definition of "believe" and I'm sidetracking the
discussion? OK then.
You side tracked the discussion by asking me if I "believed" in the Constitution. Of course I had to ask what you meant by "believe"; as Benjamin Franklin put it when asked what they had accompolished there at the Philadelphia Convention (where the Constitution was drafted):"A Republic, if they can keep it!" Obviously faith in paper itself did not register high even for old Benjamin.
So what? I'm not arguing the advantages or disadvantages of the BLS measurment of productivity. Just that you don't know the definition.
B*llsh*t. Not even BLS claims they invented or defined "productivity." BLS coined the term "Labor Productivity," which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are just an ignoramous enamored by a few technical terms that you do not understand. Here is the hint: when you are faced with a new technical terms, best not try to interpret it on face value, but try to figure out what the implications and limitations of the underlying model are.
tatupu70
2013 Oct 31, 1:25am
You side tracked the discussion by asking me if I "believed" in the Constitution. Of course I had to ask what you meant by "believe"; as Benjamin Franklin put it when asked what they had accompolished there at the Philadelphia Convention (where the Constitution was drafted):"A Republic, if they can keep it!" Obviously faith in paper itself did not register high even for old Benjamin
It was meant as a joke. You've now wasted a half dozen posts on it.
B*llsh*t. Not even BLS claims they invented or defined "productivity." BLS coined the term "Labor Productivity," which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are just an ignoramous enamored by a few technical terms that you do not understand. Here is the hint: when you are faced with a new technical terms, best not try to interpret it on face value, but try to figure out what the implications and limitations of the underlying model are.
I do understand the term--it's pretty basic. It measures output/input. You can use hours, capital, land, among many things for the denominator. What you can't do is define it as ouput.
You can try to weasel your way out of it as much as you want, but you look like a fool. You were wrong. Own it.
Dan8267
2013 Oct 31, 2:25am
You are thoroughly mistaken if you think I'm somehow right-wing.
My point was that you were assuming that if I don't agree with you the only alternative position I could take is your polar opposite. More specifically, if I do not think government is the cause of the problem, I must think it is the solution. That assumption is wrong.
Just like the late 18th century French revolutionary youths, quite adament about replacing old religion with a new religion centered on the god-like power of the government
And the above statement perfectly illustrates the false dichotomy you are assuming.
No I wasn't. You are trying to force my ideas into your paradigm. That's
simply not possible. In order to understand what I'm saying, you have to discard
your worldview and, at least temporarily, accept a larger and more flexible
one.
As long as you view things through the prism of contemporary American
polarized politics where there are two and only two camps (the left and the
right), you cannot understand what I'm saying because it simply does not fit
into that line.
"Repeat Games" is a classical Game Theory model. It has nothing to do with political left or right. You brought up Game Theory, I assumed you understood what the basic models are in that theory. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
I do have an open mind, but not an empty one :-)
freak80
2013 Oct 31, 3:29am
Patrick:
In addition to the "best of" tab, we need a "dumbest comments" tab.
Give me a monopoly or oligopoly, and I will show you the government role in its creation.
Nominated.
Mergers do not translate into monopoly or oligopoly
Nominated.
Standard Oil was not a monopoly.
Nominated.
Monopolies by definition are created by government otherwise they ain't monopolies.
Nominated.
But a monopoly only exists by government decree.
Nominated.
Standard Oil was not a monopoly.
Nominated.
Standard Oil had little price setting power when it was offering the lowest price)
Wasn't the purpose of the low price to prevent small start ups from entering the business profitably so as to compete ? Left alone, Standard could become like a single utility company controlling nearly all oil production and sales. At that point they would have price setting power in the extreme.
To argue that Viacom, a company which owns so much, isn't an oligopoly at the
least is ridiculous. That there are "bigger" companies in the oligopoly of media
also does not contradict the point that corporations naturally form oligopolies
and monopolies; in fact, it reinforces the fact.
Monopoly and Oligopoly refer to price setting power. Viacom and many other media entities had many subdivisions both due to legal protection from lawsuits and business history in the media industry: most media ventures fail financially after initial success becfause people's taste change over time. Having many subdivisions is not a sign of monopoly or oligopoly. Citing Viacom is all the more specious, as it is the underdog compared to Disney, which has a huge presence in your own home state.
Do you really believe that corporations want competition and seek it out and
lobby Congress to increase how much competition they have for the benefit of the
consumer?
So what? Of course corporations subjectively prefer less competition? Do you want more competition for your job? Of course not, shall we ban software programming then? Every single market participant subjectively prefer less competition. Heck, you probably want less competition when you buy house, buy car, or even going through the checkout line at the grocery store! Heck you even wanted to lobby Congress ban programmers from India. In the interest of American consumers of software, shall we then ban all domestic programmers who want to ban software programme supply and artificially jack up their wages and the cost of software? Perhaps we should, but why should those programmers not engaged in those lobbying be tarred with the same brush like you are tarring all corporations, most of which are not into lobbying.
Have you seen the laws handed to senators by lobbyists? They are all
design to cut competition and ensure that the company writing the law has an
unjust and unassailable advantage in a market. Do I really have to prove this to
you? And is it not obvious that greed would motivate people to seek such
advantages?
Then the problem is with the political power wielded by the government to restrict choice available to consumers. Of course some corporation owners in their self interest would lobby to exercise that power . . . just like you advocated banning Indian programmers.
I'm the most liberal person on this website by far. I believe that people
have a human right to clone themselves as their reproductive choice, that there
should be no laws prohibiting nudity anywhere including courts.
I believe that people have the absolute right of freedom of speech (not
including threats, liable, and false reports of emergencies only) without fear
of government reprisal; for example, you should be able to call a judge a
"fucking asshole" to his face in a trial and not be held in contempt of court
and if the judge cannot objectively handle it, he should be recused from the
trial.
I believe it is your Constitutional right to walk up to any cop and wave your
dick in his face in protest while smoking pot and wiping your ass with the
American flag. That's how fucking liberal I am. So I'm certainly not one that
would advocate any kind of slave-like oppression of people.
None of it would matter for the average Joe and Jane if he/she is taxed to such a degree that he/she can not afford to clone him/herself, buy a megaphone, or get him/herself published. Would matter even less if Joe and Jane have to stay on good behavior if not outright kissing the jackboots in order to have his/her meal ticket stamped, government insurance validated, to drive, to walk the street, etc. etc.
Standard Oil had little price setting power when it was offering the lowest price)
Wasn't the purpose of the low price to prevent small start ups from entering the business profitably so as to compete ? Left alone, Standard could become like a single utility company controlling nearly all oil production and sales. At that point they would have price setting power in the extreme.
That Pinky-and-Brain dream of taking over the world was already proven impossible before the government broke up Standard Oil. Standard Oil market share was already declining in the US due to competitors copying its efficient refinery practices (Standard Oil never had a stranglehold on wells and crude production, not even allegedly); worldwide, Standard Oil market share was rapidly declining before the breakup due to German chemical giants refining eastern europe crude oil.
The Morgan sponsored scribes made up a lot of sensationalistic stories about Standard Oil. In reality, Standard was simply an efficient producer like a modern automibile moving into what had been wasteful horsecab mom and pop shops. Before Standard Oil, the bulk of crude feed stock was thrown away in Kerosene production.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Oct 31, 4:00am
Calling long distance with AT&T was cheaper in the 80s than in the 90s, right?
Calling long distance with AT&T was cheaper in the 80s than in the 90s, right?
The AT&T monopoly was a classic case of government regulation creating monopoly. Remember the great goverment plan to wire up all rural America while putting a price cap on how much companies can charge on calls originating from there? Guess who headed the committee to regulate that price and wiring? The Boss of AT&T! Many states even banned competing telephone lines being installed, so the allged "natural monopoly" could be maintained!
freak80
2013 Oct 31, 4:17am
Yes, some utilities were government-regulated monopolies.
But it's ridiculous to assert that monopolies are impossible w/o government intervention. The trusts of the late 19th century are a classic example. They are proof that unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies and trusts. It took government intervention to "bust" the trusts.
"Reality" is using the debate tactic known as the "Gish Gallop." That is, throwing out so much bullshit in so little time that it's impossible for anyone to refute every single point in real time. He just keeps repeating the same PRATTs over and over again, hoping that some of the bullshit will "stick."
Yes, some utilities were government-regulated monopolies.
Try "practically all of them whenever a monopoly was established"
But it's ridiculous to assert that monopolies are impossible w/o government
intervention. The trusts of the late 19th century are a classic example.
Like which one? Be specific. Which "trusts"?
They
are proof that unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies and trusts. It took
government intervention to "bust" the trusts.
What is this "they" that you are talking about? Give a couple examples. Some others already tried: Standard Oil and AT&T; the former was not a monopoly but only called a monopoly by the government, the latter was put into monopolistic power by the government in the 20th century.
Standard Oil kerosene price was undercutting the production cost OF ITS
COMPETITORS! That's because Standard Oil was a much more efficient refiner than
its competitors before the latter copied its practice. Standard Oil was pulling
out gasoline, diesel, lubricants, vaseline and wax to sell, all at high premium
because of lack of competition; of course that meant it could sell Kerosene at
low price
Like usual, you bring your chart to prove your own ignorance. The rapidly
rising profit at Standard Oil was indicative of its high efficiency, not
deliberate price war loss leading.
Golly, I can barely spell Game Theory but wouldn't a steeper slope for the growth of assets vs. earnings indicate falling margins?
Golly, I can barely spell Game Theory but wouldn't a steeper slope for the
growth of assets vs. earnings indicate falling margins?
Falling margins reflecting both competitive pressure as well as capital amortization (i.e. profit decline only in the accounting sense).
Dan8267
2013 Oct 31, 5:08am
Citing Viacom is all the more specious, as it is the underdog compared to Disney,
I think you and I have very different perspectives on Viacom and the other big media companies. Too me, this looks like an oligopoly possibly headed towards a monopoly.
And I think this oligopoly was established intentionally by corporations seeking to cut down markets not by government socialistic policy.
Government's role in establishing this oligopoly has been in abandoning anti-trust law enforcement. Prior to Reagan, corporate mergers involving major telecommunication or media companies were unheard of. The government simply didn't allow large companies in the same industry to merge. After Reagan, mergers have become so normal they are expected and demanded by share holders to make quick profits.
Falling margins reflecting both competitive pressure
hmm..page 3 seems to contradict this - shows falling margins up to 1895. Standard controlled 70% of refining capacity and 91% of production through 1904, after which you could argue competitive pressure.
http://www.ewi-ssl.pitt.edu/econ/files/courses/110908_misc_industrialtrustsgraphs.pdf
What I'm saying is Standard's margins (refined-crude) fell while they were gaining larger and larger market share through 1895. Seems to me exactly was you'd expect from predatory pricing.
capital amortization (i.e. profit decline only in the accounting sense).
Thats a stretch. Do you have any support for that? The chart could easily represent EBITDA as earnings.
« First « Previous Comments 141 - 180 of 226 Next » Last » Search these comments
It seems apparent to me that income inequality drags our economy down and limits its potential. If consumers, even while working two jobs and having more than one wage earner in the household, can't afford basic goods and services, then every entity in the US suffers.
That said, how can it be rectified? How are wages set in a capitalist society? Is it only through taxing the wealthy that we can achieve a more stable distribution of income and wealth?
What else can be done?