Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

"If You’ve Got A Business — You Didn’t Build That"


Shady

Recommended Posts

...What worked for an extremely longer time was limited govt, competitive wages, and few regulations during the 17 and 1800s when the USA began to leave the UK in the dust. The innovations that happened today were built on that foundation.

...and yet there is more innovation than ever before in post Industrial Revolution nations. As labour becomes just as portable as capital, the old framework no longer applies. Slavery worked well as an economic system during that same period, but it is now obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...and yet there is more innovation than ever before in post Industrial Revolution nations. As labour becomes just as portable as capital, the old framework no longer applies. Slavery worked well as an economic system during that same period, but it is now obsolete.

Which is why the regs. Wages, and Size of govt have to come down in order to compete with other nations. Your taking a page out of post Victorian England's playbook and England amounted to a big pile of monkey crap compared to the USA at that point In time and going forward. I don't know why you guys want to copy something that ends up not working.

Slavery didn't work well because a slave is only going to work as hard as he can to avoid punishment, which results in a massive opportunity cost because of a lack of motivation, and I can't blame them. However realistic wages that both parties agree on is what does work. The south learned that lesson the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Your taking a page out of post Victorian England's playbook and England amounted to a big pile of monkey crap compared to the USA at that point In time and going forward. I don't know why you guys want to copy something that ends up not working.

Because it still works for the majority of stakeholders. We don't have to worry about losing a physical empire like you guys did.

Slavery didn't work well because a slave is only going to work as hard as he can to avoid punishment, which results in a massive opportunity cost because of a lack of motivation, and I can't blame them. However realistic wages that both parties agree on is what does work. The south learned that lesson the hard way.

No...slavery was very successful around the world for centuries in agrarian economies. The United States still uses cheap migrant labour and poor conditions to turn ag profits.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TimG, if people in China find a better way to do things, their discovery does not mean less for us. Life, the universe, is not a zero sum game.
For countries it is not a zero sum game. Everyone is getting wealthier. But for the lower and middle classes in rich countries it is a losing proposition because they have nothing to offer that justifies the wage levels they receive (other than their ability to provide services to the rich people that live among them). So we see a rising wage gap where the people in the rich countries with the right skills and and right connections prosper while the rest stagnant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For countries it is not a zero sum game. Everyone is getting wealthier. But for the lower and middle classes in rich countries it is a losing proposition because they have nothing to offer that justifies the wage levels they receive (other than their ability to provide services to the rich people that live among them). So we see a rising wage gap where the people in the rich countries with the right skills and and right connections prosper while the rest stagnant.
Huh?

TimG, you believe that "for the lower and middle classes in rich countries it is a losing proposition". IOW, you still believe that it is a zero-sum game. According to you, to make some people in China/India richer, some people in America must be poorer. That's simply not true; you're wrong.

First, poor Americans (bottom quintile) are richer now than 30 years ago.

Second, it is possible for everyone in the world to live better. Imagine.

-----

Let me add a final point. It's possible for everyone on this Earth to be richer, and to live in a clean (sustainable) environment.

How?

Capitalism and the price mechanism are a first good start.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it still works for the majority of stakeholders. We don't have to worry about losing a physical empire like you guys did.

No...slavery was very successful around the world for centuries in agrarian economies. The United States still uses cheap migrant labour and poor conditions to turn ag profits.

Success in slavery is subjective. I don't view it as successful because I look at the opportunity cost of poor productivity.

Is your "empire" still working? I'm sure the Brits thought that way when they opened the massive govt tax and spend/regulations spigot and watched the empire collapse.

That debt monster from rapid govt expansion is what does successful countries in throughout history.

The cheap migrant labour at least has willing labour and management. Slavery did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Manny

First, poor Americans (bottom quintile) are richer now than 30 years ago.

How many of them are there now, compared to 30 years ago?

How wealthy are the middle class, compared to 30 years ago? Because it seems to me like my parents, who both had totally menial jobs compared to me, had a nice apartment and owned a cottage, and occasionally bought a new car. I have no cottage, and I have never bought a new car.

Second, it is possible for everyone in the world to live better. Imagine.

It is possible, except that the wealthy prefer to take the short route to increase their wealth, and that means a zero-sum game for everybody who's in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

TimG, you believe that "for the lower and middle classes in rich countries it is a losing proposition". IOW, you still believe that it is a zero-sum game. According to you, to make some people in China/India richer, some people in America must be poorer. That's simply not true; you're wrong.

First, poor Americans (bottom quintile) are richer now than 30 years ago.

Second, it is possible for everyone in the world to live better. Imagine.

-----

Let me add a final point. It's possible for everyone on this Earth to be richer, and to live in a clean (sustainable) environment.

How?

Capitalism and the price mechanism are a first good start.

That works when everyone in he USA is still employed. However, USA labour costs too much and therefore investments are made where labour is cheaper, hence the rapid growth overseas. The problem is that the wealth of the average American has been shot full of holes by inflation, and loss of employment. Their living standards are not what it's going to be in the 90's.

If someone is unemployed in the USA, they are poorer. When the Americans are convinced that they need to take a haircut on their checks so they have jobs, then your premise will be accurate. India/china aren't at the point of being the same level of consumption as the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to you, to make some people in China/India richer, some people in America must be poorer. That's simply not true; you're wrong.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying the normal churn of the free market there will be winners and there will be losers. There may be more "winners" than "losers" but that does not mean there are no losers. It is naive for you to suggest that the free market means everyone is a winner all of the time. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what I am saying. I am saying the normal churn of the free market there will be winners and there will be losers. There may be more "winners" than "losers" but that does not mean there are no losers. It is naive for you to suggest that the free market means everyone is a winner all of the time.
In the "normal churn" of life, TimG, "there will be winners and there will be losers." No doubt, last week, a young woman in Philadelphia, or Hamburg, discovered that she had brain cancer, with a few months to live. TimG, it is absurd to compare such chance to the vagaries of the "free market".

With free markets, there are increasingly more winners than losers, and I would say that we have got the better side of this cancer. In my mind, capitalism and free markets with prices defeat known cancer and make more of us winners. The free market is not a perfect solution, but it's better than all else.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TimG, it is wrong to blame such chance on the "free market".
Who is blaming anything? I am simply stating a fact of life. And those facts are that we are seeing the islands of wealth that dominated the world being torn down and billions of people are seeing their lives improve. But there will be losers and those losers will be the unskilled/low skilled workers in developed countries. This means the income gap in developed countries is heading up and the government can't do anything about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is blaming anything? I am simply stating a fact of life. And those facts are that we are seeing the islands of wealth that dominated the world being torn down and billions of people are seeing their lives improve. But there will be losers and those losers will be the unskilled/low skilled workers in developed countries. This means the income gap in developed countries is heading up and the government can't do anything about it.
No doubt, many bank tellers lost their jobs with the arrival of ATMs (as Obama noted).

And many horse traders lost their jobs with the invention of the automobile. And Americans were impoverished.

And how many telephone operators/postmen are no long required because you and I can communicate through our computers. Indeed, how many men were never hired because we no longer need telephone installers since kids today don't have landlines. Did this impoverish America?

----

And TimG, you claim that "those losers will be the unskilled/low skilled workers in developed countries. This means the income gap in developed countries is heading up and the government can't do anything about it."

TimG, like Obama, you don't understand America.

This is nothing new. Individual Americans do as Tom Muclair, raise their sleeves, and get back to work.

========

But Thank God, TimG, you have implicitly admitted that the workers in textile/shoe factories in Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and India are better off today. Even for them, and the poor in the West, the world in 2012 is a better place than it was in 1977.

A mother can call her pregnant daughter on a cell phone today; she could only worry 25 years ago.

I reckon that the world, for ordinary people, is a better place today.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how many telephone operators/postmen are no long required because you and I can communicate through our computers. Indeed, how many men were never hired because we no longer need telephone installers since kids today don't have landlines. Did this impoverish America?
Exactly. The postmen and telephone operators are losing their jobs but the problem is the replacement jobs are going to jurisdictions with cheaper labour. The next generation in America is finding fewer and fewer job opportunities even if they have all the right degrees.
This is nothing new. Individual Americans do as Tom Muclair, raise their sleeves, and get back to work.
Sure. Get back to work at wages levels which are much lower than what they earned in the past - which was the entire point that I have been making. There will be losers in this realignment of wealth. I don't see the point denying the reality. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, poor Americans (bottom quintile) are richer now than 30 years ago.

How many of them are there now, compared to 30 years ago?

By definition, exactly 20%, both then and now.

How wealthy are the middle class, compared to 30 years ago? Because it seems to me like my parents, who both had totally menial jobs compared to me, had a nice apartment and owned a cottage, and occasionally bought a new car. I have no cottage, and I have never bought a new car.

What other things do you have that your parents did not? How about instant access to a global information infrastructure that lets you do things that no one in history until the 1970s ever dreamed would be possible? That's just one example from a long list.

It is possible, except that the wealthy prefer to take the short route to increase their wealth, and that means a zero-sum game for everybody who's in.

It's really not a zero-sum game. New wealth is constantly being created, at a rapid rate. You need only look at the total size of the global economy as a function of time. It is not staying still, it is (almost always) growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And TimG, you claim that "those losers will be the unskilled/low skilled workers in developed countries. This means the income gap in developed countries is heading up and the government can't do anything about it."

TimG, like Obama, you don't understand America.

This is nothing new. Individual Americans do as Tom Muclair, raise their sleeves, and get back to work.

You seem to be under the impression that TimG is denouncing free markets.

He's not; nor is he offering a prescription. He's simply making an observation.

(And your Tom Mulcair = America phrase is just odd.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt, many bank tellers lost their jobs with the arrival of ATMs (as Obama noted).

And many horse traders lost their jobs with the invention of the automobile. And Americans were impoverished.

And how many telephone operators/postmen are no long required because you and I can communicate through our computers. Indeed, how many men were never hired because we no longer need telephone installers since kids today don't have landlines. Did this impoverish America?

----

And TimG, you claim that "those losers will be the unskilled/low skilled workers in developed countries. This means the income gap in developed countries is heading up and the government can't do anything about it."

TimG, like Obama, you don't understand America.

This is nothing new. Individual Americans do as Tom Muclair, raise their sleeves, and get back to work.

========

But Thank God, TimG, you have implicitly admitted that the workers in textile/shoe factories in Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and India are better off today. Even for them, and the poor in the West, the world in 2012 is a better place than it was in 1977.

A mother can call her pregnant daughter on a cell phone today; she could only worry 25 years ago.

I reckon that the world, for ordinary people, is a better place today.

August, what your describing is creative destruction, and that's a natural healthy part of the economy because it allocates resources when technology grows.

We are not in that situation with the growth of emerging markets. It is a healthy part of the economy and many more people worldwide will benefit than not benefit. However, this is not creative destruction you are describing with postmen and horse traders. This is resource reallocation to where it is most cost effective and efficient to manufacture products. Unfortunately it's becoming less and less north America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, poor Americans (bottom quintile) are richer now than 30 years ago.

Don’t drink the kool-aid served by Fox News before fact checking.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/25/fox-mangles-data-to-claim-the-poor-are-getting/165297

The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 ─ the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 ─ the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/09/census-us-poverty-rate-up-13-since-2008-in-biggest-jump-in-51-years/1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Manny

By definition, exactly 20%, both then and now.

What other things do you have that your parents did not? How about instant access to a global information infrastructure that lets you do things that no one in history until the 1970s ever dreamed would be possible? That's just one example from a long list.

It's really not a zero-sum game. New wealth is constantly being created, at a rapid rate. You need only look at the total size of the global economy as a function of time. It is not staying still, it is (almost always) growing.

You're glossing over the reality that poverty is on the rise, the income gap is increasing, and that this trend has continued now for decades.

Compare this to 30-40 years ago, when single-income families had a house and a car.

But they had TV and radio. No internet. Yay.

"What's for dinner Mommy?" "Nothing Son." "But I'm so hungry!" "Shut up and play on your computer..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're glossing over the reality that poverty is on the rise, the income gap is increasing, and that this trend has continued now for decades.
That is only because you insist on looking at trends within the bounds of imaginary lines on a map. Globally wealth disparity has decreased as developing countries become richer. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is only because you insist on looking at trends within the bounds of imaginary lines on a map. Globally wealth disparity has decreased as developing countries become richer.

Yep Mitt Romney can tell you all about the wealth of America trickling off shore. I am not sure you can win a US election on that argument though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're glossing over the reality that poverty is on the rise, the income gap is increasing, and that this trend has continued now for decades.

Compare this to 30-40 years ago, when single-income families had a house and a car.

But they had TV and radio. No internet. Yay.

"What's for dinner Mommy?" "Nothing Son." "But I'm so hungry!" "Shut up and play on your computer..."

That's because of inflation. It's simple, when mommy joined the work force there are now more dollars around to chase the products being produced hence a part of the reason why things cost more. That and essentially printing money every time there was a mild recession.

That last quote is preposterous, ever wonder why "pawn stars" became popular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...