dc_dux

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....

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dogzilla

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.

silent_jay

...

roachboy

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

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dogzilla

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.

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

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?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

FuglyStick

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.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

...

pig

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.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dogzilla

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.

Derwood

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

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

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

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

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.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

FuglyStick

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?

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

robot_parade

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.

dippin

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?

Shadowex3

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

__________________

dippin

Oh, I understand that.

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

Xerxys

...