Supply side stuff, starting with Reagan, the biggest deficit spender up until that time (leaving the US with more debt than all preceding presidents combined) and followed by Bush's 01 and 03 tax cuts (at a cost of nearly $1 trillion in lost revenue, primarily from the top bracket) are a major contributing factor that got us into this mess.

Along, with cuts in R&D, cuts in infrastructure spending, missed opportunities to be a leader in developing emerging technologies....

Again, it seems the assumption is that billionaires pop out of nowhere, or that wealth is generated from the ether via the conduit of An Idea.

There was no need for the government to spend a dime to help a failing company like GM. The should not have done it and should never do it in the future. Private investors would have invested in the compnents of GM that had value. Skilled employees would have gone to work for other companies. Perhaps is Telsa Motors did not have to compete with a subsidized GM they could grow faster.

This is specific and would not have had any negative short-term economic impact to our nation. Heck, the UAW could have purchased GM - and the could run it anyway they want.

Government is good at building roads, not picking emerging technologies. Given governments track record compared to the private sector, the private sector is much more efficient in allocating capital.

ace, this is what you said:
Sounds to me like you suggested that govt social safety net programs for those needing and getting help...create a cycle of dependence.

Its just not true.

I will ask you a personal question.

If you became a billionaire, how many people would benefit? How many people would you help along the way? If you don't believe "supply side" is real, wouldn't your answer be zero?

Govt has always supported emerging technologies through tax incentives, etc. and in many instances, funded the foundation (IBM, for example, survived on federal grants during its early years in the 50s...and it was federal funding in the 80s that created the infrastructure that led to the internet and all the resulting private enterprises and investment)

It becomes an even greater necessity in order to be competitive in a global economy.

The latest example...of the top 25-30 companies around the world in clean energy technology -- wind, solar, advanced batteries, etc. -- only four are American companies. In large part because other govts see the value of supporting the development of those technologies, recognizing the payback in a global market.

There are different types of billionaires. Those that change the world are the one's that create something that changes the world from an idea and a willingness to take a risk. These are the one's we need.

Can you give one example of when major innovation did not occur before major standard of living increases on this planet?

True there have been people with life changing ideas who did not benefit financially, but I hope you take a moment and understand the pattern that has repeated on scales large and small throughout the history of man. Even given things we take for granted today, like the example I gave of Ted Turner, CNN, and the 24 hour news cycle I am addicted to.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

Context. There was nothing in my post about "wealfare queens" and there was a specific citation pointing to a view held by the WTO regarding the observed impact of farm subsidies. The point was very specific and understandable to those who read what I wrote.

I have never taken a stance against the need some have for a safety net and I believe we have an obligation to care for children, elderly and the disabled. A point that I have made multiple times. Oh, but I just want people to starve...got it.:thumbsup:

ace, it was a significant government investment in creating the "information superhighway" in the 80s that provided the foundation for many of today's internet billionaires.

More recently, the govts of every other industrial nation have invested in a national broadband infrastructure, recognizing that it is a necessity in leading to the private development of more emerging technologies.

These same govts have supported, though tax incentives, etc, the private development of clean energy technologies, leaving US companies behind.

Private entrepreneurs dont create something that changes the world in a vacuum. More often than not, those innovative enterprises were built on a foundation of govt investment in one form or another.

My point is that billionaires are made by non-billionaires. Billionaires don't make themselves. They aren't created in a vacuum. No man is an island, and all that.

First, to be clear and perhaps so the subtlety of my point doesn't get lost. Government has a role in innovation. The best thing government can do is not get in the way and let emerging markets/goods/service grow. It is possible that government can do the right thing at the right time, however, government's track record of picking winners is poor and I don't not think it is the role of government to pick a side in an honest competitive market.

I don't buy into - government helped create the internet point of view. I do understand how some do, however.


I don't think, for example, the market manipulation being done by the Chinese government to support their industry is a net good for the Chinese people. And if you think we should be more like China in this regard we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe China should move in the direction of being neutral and to free market capitalism throughout their economy. I thought that was Obama's position as well, am I wrong?

Or, our country has not created an environment (pardon the pun) friendly to these companies.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

If you say that like, government's investments in the interstate highway system, helped trucking and interstate trade, I agree. Otherwise not.

[quoteMore recently, the govts of every other industrial nation have invested in a national broadband infrastructure, recognizing that it is a necessity in leading to the private development of more emerging technologies.[/quote]

Companies pay the governments for licenses to use the airways. In order for those licenses to have value, government has to invest, true - but I think you are confusing infrastructure with innovation. Investing in infrastructure is a role for government in my view.

So, you dont buy into the fact that government funding of the development of the National Information Infrastructure helped create the Internet? Wow.

Would internet entrepreneurs have created it on their own? Perhaps over time...a long time and at significant costs.

The foundation (NII) was created by the government in order to stimulate private entrepreneurship. A classic example of how government spending can and does stimulate private investment.

I, you, we, did not make Bill Gates, Microsoft. Bill Gates spent thousands of hours, when he was nothing creating something of value. The users, used his product because the net benefit of its use was greater than the net cost. bill Gates made something users could exploit for their own gain. We no more made Bill Gates than he made us.

Here is what is key: Bill Gates profited from his work. We profited from his work. Something was created. The theoretical "pie" got big because of Bill Gates. I don't begrudge him, for his share.

You missed the point. Bill Gates didn't sit in his basement, make something, release it into the world like a dove, and have a cheque signed "Bill Gates's Idea Factory" worth billions magically appear in his mailbox the next day.

The money had to come from somewhere. Wealth just doesn't appear out of nowhere; it's generated.

Tell me, how much wealth is created during a recession compared to an expansion? More? Less? About the same?

As I've posted a couple times on this thread, I will go along with revoking the Bush tax cuts for the purpose of paying off the federal debt as long as Obama cuts his spending programs as well. If Obama wants to increase spending on his programs, then I'm for tax cuts with the intent to starve those programs. I happen to think that paying down a debt which takes such a huge portion of the federal revenue is important.

I also posted that federal budgets, including the military and entitlement programs, need to be reduced. And by the way, you still haven't pointed out the sentence in the Constitution that prohibits entitlement programs from being eliminated.

I'm not convinced that government's role is to fund R&D. I think there's enough bright people out there and enough venture capital that industry can fund itself. Look at companies like Microsoft, HP, Google, Apple, Yahoo, and any number of other large companies that self-funded and developed new industries.

...

since this is ostensibly a thread about the transformations on the right reflected through the rise of neo-fascist movements like the tea party, new astroturf actions that accompany and gloss over the rearrangements in political power triggered by last year's supreme court decision thanks to the conservative-stacked court that found corporate persons freedom of speech rights to be just like those of actually existing human persons and following on that logic lifted restrictions on how much money they could pump into the system.

and they're doing it.

washingtonpost.com

Well, the one thing this does is increase the importance of unions, and perhaps the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act. If both corporations and unions may be considered persons, then surely they should be treated equally in terms of the right to associate without prejudice.

People like Bill Gates, did what they did because they had a passion for it. These guys wrote code for fun. Then they found that it had value to others. There was no market for the code, IBM did not even recognize the potential of the PC. The power of the PC was released into the world like a dove, there then was a marriage of the dream and practical real world productive/useful application. There were/are two sides to this marriage, both sides participate creating synergy. Bill's synergy interfaces with perhaps billions of users. My synergy interfaces with but a few, hence I am not "Bill Gates".

Now we are actually getting metaphysical. Wealth, IMHO, is created from nothing. When I refer to major standard of living improvements of man, those points in history are actual points where "wealth" or living standards take a measurable leap. There was no money involved, when man developed farming technologies that moved man from hunting/gathering to an agrarian lifestyle and the riches that flowed from that change. It was a knowledge or an idea based change, and a few had the courage to try and make it work.

Outside of the normal business cycle, productivity gains are the key to real economic growth. People in an economy have to be able to do more with what they have - there is no other way for an economy to have real growth. Nominal growth is entirely different, and we know government can temporarily inflate economic activity - but it is not lasting. Lasting and real economic growth comes from productivity gains.

Was there ever a true left/right paradigm or has it always been the haves vs. the have-nots? It seems within my lifetime the left/right thing is nothing but a lie for stupid people.

MBAspeak aside, I understand this whole process. You simply make it sound like Gates and his ideas magically generated wealth and everyone benefited like some little dependent beneficiaries. Thanks to Mr. Gates, philanthropist. Oh, wait, no...that's more like Mr. Gates now.

You can try to "create" all the billionaires you want to help bolster that tax revenue. But it's going to take a bit more than a few good ideas. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that. It might help to actually look at how an economy works in its entirety.

Wow, ace, are you actually a High Priest of Voodoo Economics?

Hm...that elusive productivity thing, eh? Care to expand on that?

Guys with $100K+ who want a sub 4 second to 60mph vehicle may look at a the Telsa compared to the Corvette, I gave that example - do you need more?

In 1920 how many auto companies were there, How many in the 30's, 40's, 50's? What has been happening to specialty car makers, like SAAB, Porsche, Jaguar in the past 20 years? Once you get past the top 20 selling models, what are the sales volumes of the others? How many Hummers are being sold to consumers compared to battery powered vehicles, what are the trends. What happened to the DeLorian? And you wonder why government favoring GM over Telsa may be significant?

I think you've found one point we agree on, that this ruling is a bad ruling. I don't like it because it lets unions and people like George Soros buy their way further into the federal government. Even this article points out how liberals are using this ruling to their benefit.

It is not magic. I have tried. Am I to understand that your concept of wealth creation is that it is always is rooted in a demand for a good or service and then someone comes along with a solution?

In the middle ages before the printing press, there was no mass demand for printed reading material, it was rare to come across people who could even read. Then considering the materials initially printed, there was no demand for that either

Where does an idea come from? What creates it? I don't know, do you?

How do you want me to proceed. Examples in history, statistics, what? Will it make a difference at this point? I am not going to do a search on statistics tonight, but you can consider the productivity gains in farming and how it has lead to real economic growth in every modern nation on this planet. And, then imagine if some third world nations had something as simple as irrigation systems, how much more productive they would be and the impact that would have on living standards. I know a person in the Peace Corp, serving in a third world nation today - getting fresh water for consumption and planting consumes an unbelievable to me amount of human resources in the poverty stricken country he serves in.

I'm not talking specifically about demand or whether a market exists or is yet to be created. Wealth creation is dependent on a number of factors, including supply, demand, production, and a market for exchange. You have been implying that wealth comes literally from nowhere, brought forth—somehow—and solely—by an idea. You have so far failed to take into account the very important and well-known factors that actually do it, and it doesn't come from nothing. I'm not about to quote Adam Smith or anyone else to explain something so fundamental to the understanding of economics.

I understand innovation has a role, but you are adamant—for one reason or another—in your position that it is the panacea for an economic downturn, or worse, an economic crisis. It's not.

I've already pointed out how much of economic recovery is dependent on spending as a result of pent-up demand (existing markets). Innovation has a much larger role in expansion. It takes advantage of scaling after it leaves the early-adopter stage. The reason why I asked you about wealth creation during a recession is because it's a hell of a lot harder leaving the early-adopter stage during a recession than it is during an economic expansion. Innovation is not going to be a huge factor in the recovery; auto sales, home sales, retail sales, etc., will be.

Ideas aren't created, they're stolen. What is required to turn an idea into a mass-market solution? Do you know that much?

I was more or less wondering about your perspective on the nature of production and its role in an economy. I was cautious about this because of your odd view on other things such as wealth and the role of innovation in an economy.

Still don't understand the hate for the unions. In a Capitalist utopia where everyone is trying to get as much money as possible, why is it suddenly offensive for the workers to want their slice?

Wait, what? The reason people couldn't read was because there was no reading material available, outside that available to clergy, academics and nobility, and no need to learn as there wasn't literature available to read anyway. But I suppose your version is preferable amongst the crowd that strives to justify a have/have not system.

I once heard unions described as a system of worker organization that results from bad management. I'm not sure how widely true that is, but I imagine it's true to a degree.

I generally understand government and unions as a counterbalance to exploitative capitalist practices.

Regardless, if capitalists view the free organization of capital via private ownership and exchange as an ideal to uphold, then why not view the free organization of labour via its ownership and exchange as another ideal worthy to uphold? Surely capitalists aren't morally motivated by greed. It's freedom, right?

...

A couple of thoughts stuck me today as I followed this unfolding thread periodically on work breaks...

1. ace: The situation with Tesla Motors is a bit more complicated than you are trying to make it out. In terms of picking winners and losers at the behest of the US Government...both GM and Tesla Motors have received government support. Tesla has been lobbying for years to gain US government support, and at this time have $465M ($465,000,000 / almost half a billion dollars) in government subsidized loans to develop their sedan class vehicle. I believe the initial target price will be in the neighborhood of $50,000 and judging from the way the hybrid vehicles have been handled, will likely rely on tax incentives to get any market share initially. From what I've read, they will have a target range of ~220 miles per charge, with an option to buy a more expensive battery pack that will boost them up to ~300 miles. To argue that the government could have chosen to stabilize GM or boost up Tesla, but chose to support GM because of entrenched politics is too simplified. If Tesla were to grow in market share in the near-term to the size of GM, or even nearly the size of GM, they would have to adopt GM's technology. The pure electric vehicle technology that is ready to go today is simply not ready for mass marketing without significant changes in expectation on behalf of the United States public. This why they are an early adopter technology company, and this is why they are being supported by the United States government. Incidentally, I believe they are probably also receiving some assistance from Japan and/or Germany, as they are now teamed up with Daimler/Mercedes and Toyota.

2. Another issue with the lack of widespread reading in Europe was also that wily Catholic Church, who used literacy or illiteracy, if you will, as a tool to retain power over the populace. Its tough to argue with the interpretation of God's Word if you can't read it.

3. This entire issue seems to rotate around that nasty phrase "redistribution of wealth," and it seems to me that no matter how you look at it, any form of government will entail a redistribution of wealth. "Class Warfare" is simply a reality. What I see is that those with money/power are simply using that money and power to reframe the discussion, such that if you allow the current ordering to stand, then these concepts go away. If you believe in a more uniform distribution of wealth in a given society, then you are promoting these concepts. No matter what you choose, someone will not be happy. But you can't simply wash away the underlying concepts simply because you happen to like things the way they are.

there are several types of problem with conservo-stuff here. the first is a profound ignorance of historical reality. it's kind of stunning. what you get instead is cherry-picked, abstracted, pre-chewed factoids--fake case studies taken from editorials in ibd and supplemented with rudimentary web searches. no conception of how data is put together to form an argument in anything remotely like a social science context. no conception of how argument leans on data. it's just dilettante fucking around.

if you take the nitwit absolute separation of state and "economic innovation"---it's kinda hard to imagine silicon valley or the internet without darpa...but in conservo-land that's ok state intervention because its related at a remove or two from boys in uniforms and killing people. there's hundreds of modalities of public/private interactions--countless seemingly---from all over the world that have worked and continue to work. it's only american rightwing ideologues, working on a basis of ignorance and presupposing even more of it, who try to pretend otherwise.

but maybe all this flies in econ 101 at bullshit u. you can't stay a freshman forever though.


conservatives hate unions because unions take power from capital. if you know anything about the history of the workers' movement, you know that's the point. taking power. redistributing wealth is a way of taking power. it happens that the post 1945 american model of union action is almost entirely a-political. A-POLITICAL, meaning not that unions have no operated like PACs as agents inside of conventional politics, but rather that is ALL they do. they are nothing like the political trade-unions in europe. and the explanation is easy: sector monopoly. and the reason for that is easy: fear of the left. anti-communism.

but that's still not enough for our boys on the right who are likely themselves wage slaves but who imagine that if they grovel long enough that Fortune will Smile and they'll go from aping the people who exploit to becoming one of them.

and they are, in the way that any servant is one with a master.
servants have traditionally always carried shit for their masters.
they're more militant than the masters about being a master than the masters are because they confuse being a master with possession of virtue.

nietzsche called this sort of person a slave.

I've lived in New England and New York my whole life. My hometown was one of the many mill towns in New England in the 1960's. I watched as unions helped make manufacturing in New England non-competitive and as the company moved work to the southern US where they had lower priced labor.

I have no use for an organization that tries to extort union dues out of me as a condition of employment. That's been limited somewhat now by laws which allow an employee to resign from the union but still allow a union to collect an agency fee from that employee. Some states have right to work laws that prevent that extortion, but not so here in the northeast US.

I have no use for corrupt union bosses who regularly misuse their positions or who embezzle money from union pension funds, or otherwise steal from their membership.

I have no use for stupid concepts like seniority or being prevented to step outside the boundaries of your job definition by union rules.

I've worked 35 years in technical skilled jobs and my income has increased several multiples over the rate of inflation in that time, without having to work in a union shop.

So basically, unions can pound sand.

you're painting with an awfully broad brush, there, dogzilla

Moreover, company management is well known to commit the same or similar transgressions. I guess the question is where is it more prevalent?

The so called "Boston Tea Party" was an act of vandalism, malicious destruction of property, and burgulary carried out by a group of armed thugs

I find it quite remarkable a political movement would be named in honour of these kinds of acts.

I find it astonishing that people seek government using this name which really is based around the glorification of tax evasion, slave taking, destruction of property and the denial of the native people even the meagre rights that the British had allowed them. If these right wing politicians were in power do you think then they would encourage people to evade taxation? Unlikely.

My dad was left paralyzed from working in a strip mine. The union went to bat for him and made sure that my parents would have a home and security.

So basically, the anti-union contingent can go fuck themselves. Fair enough?

It's all about the balance of power. Neither company managers nor workers are any more normal than the average person...if one side or the other has too much power, that power *will* eventually get abused. If the company has all the power, you'll end up with crappy wages, unsafe working conditions, etc. If the unions have all the power, they'll be shortsighted and force the company into an untenable situation. For every 'horror story' about lazy and corrupt union members that people on the right love to tell themselves, there's a story on the left about the money-grubbing corporate bosses forcing workers to chose between unsafe working conditions and keeping their job. The role of government should be to, as nearly as possible, balance those interests, so we can have a vibrant, profitable business climate, while at the same time have safe and fair working conditions. The mix will never be perfect, and there will be imbalance and inefficiency, but, on the whole, we'll muddle through.

Let's assume everything you have just said there is the absolute truth. The next question is, why does that make it ok for the government to intervene?

Or, more precisely, why is it ok to deregulate everything else BUT unions?

I believe your answer can be found in Roachboy's post Dippin.

Oh, I understand that.

I just want to hear the rationalization from those who believe in this sort of selective regulation.

...

I don't recall posting that everything should be deregulated.

Unions should be regulated for the same reason we have anti-discrimination law, to protect individual's rights.

It's not me who's asking for new regulation on the unions. It's the unions that are asking for this employee free choice act.

from the article linked below:

Tea & Crackers | Rolling Stone Politics

Interesting fact: The Tea Party claims to have been founded less than a month after Obama was sworn into office. So clearly it wasn't a reaction to any actual policy making by Obama's administration. Can we be honest about the real reason it was started?

Not sure that proves anything. Most incoming POTUS have a team and basic agenda in place weeks after winning in Nov. That the Tea Party folks were against him from the start doesn't prove they're racist, if that is what you're implying.

I saw that as an implication that the movement isn't about policy, as none had been made, but about anti-Obama instead.

But every POTUS start detailing policy really during the election. Within weeks of being elected those details become plans and by the time they're sworn in those plans are well known. The fact people were actively working to fight his plans a month after being sworn in proves nothing more then they disagreed with his plans.

I have no problem with people who disagree with Obama on policy or actions. I disagree with him on several issues. The people I have problems with disagree based on falsehoods such as he's a Muslim, he a socialist (crap people open a book once and while) or he's soft terrorism. The worst of the worst, IMO, are those who simply hate him becasue he's black, claim he's not American or he supports terrorist.

taibbi tells the story of the birth of the second-generation tea party in the tea & crackers article i linked above. the article is quite good...well worth a read. but here's the origin:

Tea & Crackers | Rolling Stone Politics

(quote's from pg 2 of this version).

i don't think it requires a whole lot of commentary.

Yeah, I'm not going to take seriously "journalism" that uses "windbag" and "turd" when referring to the piece's subjects. Ain't journalism, ain't news, ain't worth reading, and sure as hell ain't the basis for an argument.

my my, i wouldn't have suspected a prude lay behind all these drive-by posts that display such willingness to tell others to fuck themselves.

RB, you are just as guilty, if not more so, of preaching rhetoric instead of fact, as the right wing journalists you like to "hold accountable." I may agree with your position 70 percent of the time, but you are still a hypocrite.

fugly dear, i didn't write the article that appeared in rolling stone.
mike taibbi, who did write the piece, works in the "new journalism" style that's been "new" since hunter s. thompson pioneered it (in rolling stone).
the research is solid, the methodology folded into the piece.
your "objection" is basically that the style of writing doesn't appeal to your prudish sensibility.
then don't read it.
it's of no consequence to me, your "taste".

To me, it makes the writer look unproffesional if he's calling people "turds" and "windbags." The only place I could see insults like that being used and not immediately object to it would be in an editorial, which the article you posted is not.

Journalism is (or should be) unbiased and fair. That article is not journalism.

A well written piece. Thanks for the post, rb.
This section & many others are quote-worthy:

"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it."

I'm especially saddened by the pervasive notion that many of us relying on government
help, are most unworthy...especially the brown ones.

On a positive note, my foodstamps will increase by five dollars this month.

The facts hold up. Journalism should, first and foremost, be about the facts holding up.

The employee free choice act actually reduces regulations on unions by eliminating the need for employer acquiescence to bypass a secret ballot in case a majority sign a petition.

The bottom line of what I was getting at is that since Reagan republicans have been more than willing to use the Sherman anti trust act against unions even as they relax their application everywhere else.

Trust me, RB, if I could put you on ignore, you'd have been there months ago.

...but since you cannot partake of this silly ignore function, his posts somehow
have blasted into your brain against your will &
you find yourself agreeing with him 70% of the time.

I need some scones to go with this Mad-Hatter party.

that's fascinating, fugly.

===
back in the olde days of the 1970s when there was something of a cultural revolt going on, there was a reaction in the form of "new journalism" against the fake omniscience and patronizing neutrality of mainstream infotainment writing. new journalism put the writer him or herself into the piece and made of the information-gathering part of the piece. new journalism also played around with tone. it's not everyone's cup of tea.

the factual basis of taibbi's piece can easily be checked out--there's little new in it---if you've been tracking the tea party or curious about who's paying for it or wondering what was gonna come of that ugly supreme court ruling of a few months ago that was referenced earlier, you'd already know most of it.

taibbi's journey through kentucky is unobjectionable. a standard trope. he does it well enough.

the piece appeared in rolling stone, which sometimes still features interesting political journalism. taibbi is ok--william greider is better. i don't think anyone relies on rolling stone for all their information...it's not like conservative journalism and its heavily-funded multi-media wrap-around environment. the sort of writing that they publish that interests me---and for what it's worth i only find out about it when someone bounces me something or by mistake: reading rolling stone in 2010 seems goofy to me, particularly its music coverage---that writing **presupposes** you are an active reader of information and **presupposes** that you will challenge it--because the style is about provocation.

like i said, this isn't necessarily a type of writing i enjoy. i think this piece is well done.

that's the end of my defense of the piece.

i find it kind of funny in 2010 that there's any need to explain what new journalism is much less defend it.

I love all of Taibbi's writing, regardless of him calling people fuckwads or whatever.

That's pretty funny, RB, you rant about infotainment then post a great example of infotainment.

I had a moment of deja-vu when I read this sentence

I thought it might have been a parody of Obama's crying to members of the democratic party about how they haven't been backing him lately.

Matt might want to hire a fact checker if he expects to be taken seriously as a journalist

When did this $7.5 trillion bank bailout occur? That doesn't seem to have made the news for some reason.

The article is entertaining. It's as if a conservative reporter went to the Democratic national convention and described the attendees there as being all welfare recipients and drug addicts. Maybe Matt's trying for a job as a reporter for Truthout or one of the other loony websites.

his articles on Wall Street are very informative. I suggest trying them out

What I took away from the article is the cynical but probably truthful point that the Tea Party movement is doomed.

Not that the Democrats or progressives are going to triumph in any way, but that the establishment system is playing the movement for chumps. It's incredibly depressing when you think about it. He's saying that this movement isn't a pendulous swing to the right, but instead a manufactured slide of the middle class slide into poverty and powerlessness.

No wonder his tone is so sour.

I just read an article in the Globe and Mail that revealed how American marriages are at an all-time low and that the gap between the rich and the poor is at an all-time high.

This to me seems like a big-picture snapshot of shifting values, both internal and external. The traditional family is eroding. The middle class is eroding. America is changing, and I think this is the kind of environment that creates something like the Tea Party movement.

Your attempt to recast what I wrote is misleading. If we reverse engineer wealth creation, we see patterns. From my reviews there are correlations between those who have created wealth from "ideas" and major benefits to mankind as measured by standard of living improvements. In order for "ideas" to have an impact, synergy has to be created - where the total is greater than the sum of the parts - this affect in an economic perspective is the creation of wealth. These "ideas" leading to the creation of synergy comes from a place I don't understand - and I called it nothing. Perhaps it is something, I don't understand it. If you do, explain it please.


Is it your position, that "man" has never had an original idea? Your statement is confusing to me.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

There was no need to read. There was no real opportunity to read. It was a time when time was consumed by more pressing (pardon the pun) needs, like avoiding starvation. However, given the synergy created from the invention of the printing press, reading began to have value and allowed for increased productivity. This lead to material standard of living increases for the populations with access to the new technology.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

Of course things are more complicated than what will be communicated here - even more complicated that your expansion of the original point. However, the basic question, does Telsa compete with GM, can not even be agreed upon here.

Hence, a centralized power weather it is the church or government using its power to control people/markets/etc. is wrong in my view. I think an informed populace with the freedom to choose is best for mankind.

I think it possible for government to play a productive role, create synergy without redistribution of wealth. I am not an anarchist and I think markets need a governmental regulatory body with enforcement power. That then helps markets operate at higher efficiency.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

I don't hate unions, nor do I hate corporate lobbyist. They have a job to do. the problem is how liberals try to separate the two. For example GM has about 300,000 employees, the protection those employees received from government is disproportional to the general population. Why? My answer is the power of their political influence. If it is wrong, it is wrong - or lobbying is lobbying. I prefer government to be neutral. If you don't, then the next time a big corporate lobby "wins" in Washington, tip your hat to them rather than complain. Be consistent.

You see unions and lobbyists as the same thing? I think you may be misunderstanding just what it is that unions and lobbyists do.

Lobbyists exist solely to sway public officials on issues and causes. It's what they do and all they do.

Unions, on the other hand, exist to give power to workers through organization. The central responsibility of a union is to, collectively, be the voice of the workers. Chief among the goals of unions is better working conditions and fair pay. While some unions do hire lobbyists to push for political agendas, that's not the central responsibility of a union.

In short, they're not the same thing. One can be consistent while still being honest.

I agree that they are not the same thing the way an apple is not an orange, but both an apple and an orange are fruit. A corporate lobbyist is an advocate for the corporate interest that they represent, even in the political arena; and a union is an advocate for the labor interest that they represent, even in the political arena.

Just a concluding note for me on the topic of wealth creation to tie it in a nice little bow. Anyone who objectively looks at wealth creation will have to see that in the process of individual initiative that creates individual wealth through productivity gains (as opposed to fraud, stealing, cheating, arbitrage, etc) it follows that all benefit. History shows us that "trickle down" is real, history shows us the power of "supply side economics". Our next move forward, will require this process to occur again - organic growth in economic terms does not lead to standard of living improvements.

You seem to take a metaphysical—and possibly superstitious—view of how wealth is created. An idea is a great thing. I value ideas. I think ideas are among the greatest things about humanity. However, you seem to take a reverent view of them, as though they exist independent from reality as some self-contained entity. And somehow it comes into being to bring along with it all this lovely wealth. And that we should thank the idea and the one who birthed it for creating all this lovely wealth. The problem is either a) you are not being comprehensive enough in explaining how ideas fit into the puzzle of wealth creation, or b) you have an antiseptic view of ideas and wealth.

If the problem is b, then all I can say at this point is that you should probably read an introduction to macroeconomics. I won't go as far as to say to read the Wealth of Nations, but reading summaries of it wouldn't hurt.

Ideas don't create wealth from nothing. They create it from a "synergy"—a word you seem to like—between production (i.e. labour + capital), demand (i.e. a consumer), supply (inventory/service availability), and a market (a place of exchange, usually using cash or credit).

• Idea + "Synergy" = Wealth

• Where "Synergy" = supply + demand + production + market

If you take anything out of the equation, wealth cannot be generated in a capitalist economy. This is why I said that Bill Gates didn't generate all the wealth he did on his own. He may have been the catalyst, but he couldn't have done it on his own.

Yes. As much as I hate to quote the Bible, King Solomon said that there is nothing new under the sun. Ideas don't spring from nothing. They're based on a synthesis of experience and speculation, often brought about by a problem or an opportunity. You can take any idea imaginable and trace it back to another source. It's not like the Big Bang every time someone comes up with something.

To tie this into what I was saying, movable type was created out of an innovation in the process of bookmaking, which was a laborious thing until then. The idea didn't come from nowhere; it came from thinking about the process of bookmaking and how to use technology to make the process easier. A hell of a lot of reading came afterward, but reading wasn't invented by Gutenberg.

Gutenberg didn't invent language. He didn't invent reading. He didn't invent paper. He didn't invent books. He didn't even invent engraving or printing. He invented a process as an innovation based on existing elements.

A lobbyist represents an organization. A union is an organization. Corporate lobbyists and union lobbyists can be compared, obviously, but not the unions themselves. Here's something to consider: not all unions are even political.

I look for core elements that are the true foundation of disagreement, this may be one. I don't understand your point of view. I am sure you and I are not the only one's with an opinion on this point and I would love to read what others have to say. Ironically, I bet if there was a survey of Tea Party people compared to non-Tea Party people, there would be a division similar to ours on this point.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

How is that possible? If politics involves influencing collective public actions or views, I disagree. I can agree that not all union or lobbyist work to influence national politics - but by definition they exist to influence something or to have some kind of impact, and if "politics" in a public manner is required there must be engagement to fulfill the purpose. If a union exist for its members to play card games, I would not actually call it a union - it is a social club.

Well, it might help for you to know that I've been an agnostic since birth, and that I think the Age of Enlightenment was actually a good thing. That might be a start anyway.

I don't want to get too bogged down in semantics, but when I used the word politics, I meant:
definition of politics from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Many unions only exist to ensure that managers don't exploit their workers with unfair wages or treatment. They don't ever interact with politicians on any level, they don't have anything to do with public policy, and they don't hire lobbyists. Their interaction with the government begins and ends with paying taxes. In that way, they're nothing at all like lobbyists.

I always find it ironic when folks on the right rail against "redistribution of wealth" when in reality they've been working tirelessly at that since before Regean. Almost all of their policies are designed to move even more of the wealth to those already wealthy and push more and more of the middle class in poverty.

Maybe saying it's by design isn't completely supported by fact but the effects certainly are by all the data I've ever seen.

What Reagan started was a redistribution of power. The concentration of wealth is a side effect.

the only thing funnier than that, tully, is the history of abstract "synergies" to the total exclusion of knowing what you're talking about factually or conceptually. but the funniest thing is watching a rickety chain of arbitrary statements about "history" get assembled that culminates in surreal claims about the objective validity of supply side economics.

this is "history" for conservatives.....?

This whole drive for lower taxes, smaller government, etc., and the resistance to the redistribution of wealth needs to be placed into context with the reality of current global economics.

It's still usual for people to think in terms of the nation state, but the multinational (not to be confused with international) corporate structure of today is widely apathetic towards the nationalism of individuals. Multinational corporations aren't preoccupied with "the American way of life" in the way individuals are. They're preoccupied with capital flows and market opportunities around the world.

So what you get are incredibly wealthy entities that may or may not be considered "American," who are interested in maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. What happens to a large degree is you get a more or less "American" entity owned by Americans and others alike who don't give a damn whether they employ American workers, just as long as the employee costs (i.e. compensation and benefits) are kept low with respect to required skill sets. If these skills can be had in Asia for cheaper, then that's where they will be bought.

Capital, then, flows from the American wealthy to virtually anywhere in the world and back again. American workers can be cut out of the loop if they demand too much compensation, even if it's modest in terms of the local market in which they live. They can't compete with China and India, but they do anyway. So essentially, there is a downward pressure on American income levels because of globalization, fuelled in large part by neoliberal practices of free markets and free trade. These same neoliberal practices don't consider fairness or the relative value of labour. They look at labour value in absolutes, in terms of bottom lines.

In America, holders and users of capital not only maintain their quality of life, they improve it. Those on the bottom rungs of the ladder, who struggle just to keep competitive in the labour market (i.e. they go into debt just to get educated), are lucky to break even. Considering that it's unfeasible to rely on government pension money, one must have access to capital to fund their own retirement, let alone a quality lifestyle. But with real wages in the U.S. flipping between erosion and being stagnant, this is becoming increasingly difficult.

So the Tea Party wants smaller government and lower taxes and no universal health care. They want government to have less control over how global trade affects those without capital. They want those who hold capital to be able to hold a lot more of it. They want less tax revenue to help pay for what the poor cannot hope to afford.

This is all just fine. America's poor will have to deal with their slide toward a Third World reality. Just don't be surprised if they acquire an increasing interest in socialism. You know, that thing that does a great job keeping economies stable.

I disagree. Power has always been in the hands of the wealthy. It's the golden rule... those with the gold make the rules. But for years they've been perfecting gaining more and more of the wealth, much like mobbed up casino bosses upping the skim. And their wealth almost always comes at the cost of the middle class and poor. Sure there's guy/gals out there that hit one out of the park and made it big on a good idea but they're much like those scamming welfare. They make up a very small percent of the overall population. Just look at the data over the last 30-40 years- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is redistribution of wealth and it's completely supported by the right.

Tully, I was referring mostly to the deregulation orgy sparked by Reagan. It basically gave more power to the wealthy to do what they do...which we know is based on maximizing profit.

Deregulation was the removal of rules...leaving the wealthy to make the rules instead, as you say.

I see your point. Maybe it's a chicken and the egg thing.

my theory has long been that there's more to conservative deregulation than merely accelerating class warfare. at least in its earlier, thatcherite phase(s) the new right was influenced by systems-theoretical critiques of the welfare state, which are different from the more simple-minded critiques you get from other quarters (in this thread, dogzilla's posts are consistently on this)...for that line of thinking, bureaucratic action generates crisis. it creates it (the general explanation is as a function of a system-imperative to reduce complexity) and then reacts in an ad-hoc manner to address crisis--so it's a continuous cycle of action unintended consequences action to address those followed by unintended consequences and so on. because the state is involved, each aspect of this cycle is political. and there's really no way out of it. a steady self-defeating grinding away of the legitimacy of the state as a function of the nature of bureaucratic organization itself coupled with the particular complexity of state action.

so i've thought that the idea was, initially anyway, to roll the state out of areas as a form of damage control---with the idea that over the longer run persistent social problems would require that the state move back into those areas again. so it looked for a while like a way of limiting damage, of protecting the state from itself, and this by way of a conservative appropriation of a hard left critique of the social-democratic state.

over time in the states, the right has become more rigid/ossified ideologically and less pragmatic politically as it lost legitimacy because of the way it exercised power and found itself running toward neo-fascism.

plus the world has changed. thatcherism of this stripe was very much a mid-to-late 70s affair, so in that space the regulation school called "flexible accumulation" during which some of the more basic aspects of what became neo-liberalism or "globalization" were starting to take shape. the fragmentation of labor processes for example and the beginnings of an accelerated remaking of the geography of capitalist organization that erased nation-state borders. but that mutated with the arrival of a telecommunications "revolution" of sorts with the net and its infrastructure and its various superstructures.

now things are different. i don't think the right has fuck all to say of any interest about where we are. but i think people are freaked out---alot of people are freaked out---because basically they've been sold a bill of goods over a very long time. horseshit like supply-side "trickle-down" economics and the mythologies of american exceptionalism that they sit on...but i digress....

still, it is curious the extent to which petit bourgeois conservatives mobilize politically against their own material interests. this gives the lie to any notion of "rational actor" theory in both its markety and marxist forms. they don't make sense from any conventional economics-based behavioral model.

but i digress.

It should have died out decades ago, though. Trickle-down should have died in the late 80s when it was demonstrated conclusively to be false. Exceptionalism should have died with the cold war and the advent of the true international community. They're still fricking here.

I'm normally a patient man, but this is ridiculous. Modern conservatism, conservatism in 2010, should be about simplifying government, things like reducing the complexity of the tax code or eliminating wasteful spending. Modern conservatives should be absolutely enraged at the defense budget. They should be calling for a public option while we on the left are calling for single-payer. Instead, we have fucking morons marching on Washington complaining about the how our Hawaiin president is a secret Kenyan, how Social Security should be privatized, and how taxes, which are at their lowest in generations and lowest among all of our international peers, are somehow too high. I've lost my patience. The Tea Party no longer, in my mind, has permission to exist, and Tea Party members will be treated as such from here on in.

I'm fascinated by ace and his theories on intellectual/creative bootstrappyness

Unless you are disabled, you have no right to any of my income. This is a vote issue for me, so I will vote against any politician who proposes anything like a public health care option. Let the wealthy socialists and liberals stop being hypocrites and devote their fortunes to helping the poor first.

Social Security should be privatized. FDR was an idiot to implement the Ponzi scheme he created where by law the only investments Social Security can make are in government bonds. I've taken the data from the document the Social Security administration sends me every year and the annual rate of interest on Social Security bonds and roughly computed what the present value of my payments would be. Then using the same 4% of balance figure that I've read should be your rate of withdrawal from a 401K to preserve the fund balance, my Social Security payout should be about 1.5-2x what the SSA tells me it will be

Not only that, but I am not allowed to pass on any remaining balance in my Social Security account as an inheritance even though it was my money that funded that balance.

Finally, I have managed to reach a balance in my 401K in just 15 years that it took me 35 years to reach in Social security.

Taxes are too high. I don't care what other countries taxes are. If you like government handouts, move to a socialist country. The government should be a minimalist provider of services of last resort and should stay out of a lot of stuff it meddles in today. Entitlement programs should be cut. None of you has yet even attempted to explain how the Constitution prohibits that.

If you want to be an ostrich and pretend the Tea Party doesn't exist, that's fine by me. Right now it looks like in about a month they will bring you the hope and change that Obama didn't. :D

Yknow funny because I want to say basically the same thing to you. If you want to live in Sarajevo so much why don't you just move there, and you've never explained what in the constitution prohibits joining the first world either. At least not in a way that can't ALSO be used to argue against everything from the interstate to the airforce. Your position is fundamentally untenable as it is inherently flawed: Firstly it requires that people be perfect, and secondly it's not internally consistent while claiming outwardly to be absolutely so. Libertarianism, teapartyism, and the hard right in general basically boil down to "I should be able to do what I want when I want... but nobody else should be able to do it back to me."

To quote the internet:

We've already tried the articles of confederation, it didn't work.

How disabled is disabled enough? I mean to get some of your hard earned fairly paid taxes does someone need to be a quadriplegic or could they just have lung cancer? What about mental illnesses?

And why not allow people people access to affordable health care through a single payer system? The more healthy people there are the more likely they are to be working and contributing to the system.

If your disability prevents you from working at the job you had, or if you were never able to get a job because of your disability, then you qualify. Periodic (5 year?) re-evaluations wouldn't be a bad idea.

As long as it's not at taxpayer expense, I don't care.

so once again, we see the pertinence for conservative socio-economic views of being a narcissitic dick.

me me me me me me me me me.
die if you aren't like me me me me me me me.
me me me me me me me me me.
because this is america.


btw: i don't think its at all a foregone conclusion that the be-a-dick people are going to make much headway in the midterms.
i'm thinking: waterloo for the ultra-right, crisis for the republicans.

but who knows. it's possible that the obama administration's unwillingness to combat the right will bite us all in the ass.


at least emmanuel's quit.

Compared to the me me me gimme gimme gimme attitude of the entitlement crowd or the hypocrisy of the liberal/socialist elite, some of whom are in that evil 1% of the population that is keeping the poor man down?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Government CAN'T bail out the auto industry?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Government CAN'T implement Universal Health Care?

I think , depending on age, SS disability does reviews every 3 yrs. But I could be wrong.

If the tax payers aren't the single payer who would?

And why single health care out as a non-tax payer funded system? Why not build roads, schools the police, fire and the military as private systems?

Right here:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Amendment 10

If the Constitution does not -explicitly- authorise something, the Federal Gov't has no right, authority, or business doing it.

here we are again, at the point where the strict constructionists depart from the reality of the legal system that the constitution put into motion. there is precedent. like it or not. you cannot wish it away. the american common law system, which is perhaps the smartest accomplishment of the founders, is one of the few aspects of the american political system that actually works. little wonder that the ultra-right opposes it and wants to overturn the most basic operational logic of that system in the name of keeping it pure.

what's hilarious is that, as someone noted above, what the ultra-right wants to do functionally is make the constitutional system back into the articles of confederation.

which...um....didn't work.

but hey, history be damned, we're talking about arbitrarily interpreted Principles here.

What about.....

[...] to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

—The general welfare clause of the United States Constitution

and

[...] The terms "general welfare'' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare'' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the national legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce are within the sphere of the national councils as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this—That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be general and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. [...]

—Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, December 5, 1791

Surely if Hamilton saw general welfare as an interpretation of the impact of it as a common good, then a President of the United States in the 21st century can.

It is not as complicated as some try to make it out to be.

The basis of my view is that people are selfish, in that they lookout for their interests ahead of the interests of others or the community. Not to suggest that people are not charitable and don't care about others, but in the final analysis - I think we are a "me" first species. There are some species where this is not true, but not man - and I agree there are exceptions.

Given the basis of my view of humans, if wealth is to be redistributed, people want it redistributed in their direction. All people, rich or poor. So it goes, deregulate me, regulate others. Reduce my taxes, tax others. Give me benefits at the expense of others. People who own capital, fight to protect it. Those who lack capital, but have political/police/military/etc. power fight to control capital. The struggle is ageless and will never end - unless the nature of man changes.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

I challenge your premise. You are suggesting that a trend of increasing regulation imposed by government, say starting with the industrial revolution, actually reversed. I can not think of any major industry where the regulatory environment actually shrunk.

---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------


Perhaps this is the third time I have asked this personal question. If you became a billionaire how many people would benefit on your rise to that level of wealth? I assume, you believe you would be the reasons X number of people would benefit from your efforts and if not for you their lives would be worse. If true, why do you think it would be different for everyone else who would become a billionaire? What is the ratio of a person legitimately becoming a billionaire and the lives of others improved? What should the ratio be? Isn't by definition this is "trickle down"?

Also, I am beginning to understand how this ties into the inception of "ideas". If I believed there were no original "ideas", that everything that can be thought of was a part of the public domain, so to speak, and stolen or borrowed, I would think anyone being personally enriched is doing so unjustly at the expense of others.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

You are always good for a laugh lately.:thumbsup:

A man + a tube + 2 mirrors is a man, a tube and 2 mirrors.

A man + a tube + 2 mirrors + an idea to use a concave primary mirror = a reflective telescope leading to an understanding of the heavens. Thanks Sir Isaac Newton, oops or was it Galileo, oh never mind he stole the idea from from some guys who certainly stole it from someone else. Either way it is awfully abstract, isn't it. Was Newton a greedy capitalist pig, with designs of exploiting poor people?:thumbsup:

I'm not interested in comparing today's environment to the Industrial Revolution. Much in the same way, I'm not interested in comparing today's environment to the Old West, or the British colonization of North America. The reason is that there have been at least a few developments in economic theory since those times that would make such comparisons not very useful. There have been a few developments socially and politically as well.

ace, dear, what on earth are you prattling on about now?

Ace- I've seen the US population come together and work for a common cause I don't think, by nature, they're a greedy people. Allowing poor US children to die because their family lacks the ability to pay for medical treatment while paying for medical treatments for poor people in other countries seems completely crazy to me.

Dunedan- as BG points out I don't see your 10th Amendment argument standing. But I can see why you'd make it. I've always seen you strict constitutionalist. I have no problem with you having this opinion but I disagree. If we simply let the US constitution stand as written we'd have way more problems then we currently do... and we've got enough problems.

You point to a trend that reversed because of Reagan. That assumes the trend reversed by Reagan actually began at some point, when? That is the basis of my point, pick your own date or simply tell us what the basis of your premise was. Also, share with us the evidence of the trend reversal. I have no hidden agenda, I am not being humerus, I simply ask for elaboration because I think your premise is wrong. If your premise is a solid one, it should be able to stand up to questions.

My premise is that Reagan began a process of deregulation. Is that wrong?

Just that there are exceptional people who come up with exceptional ideas that actually benefit the world. Exeptionalism, is not always motivated by greed or even a pressing need to solve an immediate problem. Oh, that supply often comes before demand, oh, just more supply side drivel - you know same o', same o'. And, I was wondering that if in your infinite wisdom of what motivates people if Newton wanted people to starve too?:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

Did I say "greedy"? I think people put themselves first, a bit different than greed. Although there are some greedy people, I would not say that is the nature of man. People will meet their own needs before thinking about the needs of others. If by nature the people of the US were not as I describe, we would not so disproportionately consume the total production in the world.

---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

I think it is. I think it is a myth that there has been any deregulation in this country. From my point of view there has been a trend of increasing regulation since the founding of this nation and that it accelerated starting in the early 1900's. I do not take the position that all regulation is bad. However, excessive regulation hinders economic growth, productivity and living standards.