Will we ever come together as a country?

Joe Stocks said:

But your rhetoric is entirely empty because you refuse to defend your position in any intellectual fashion. We must broaden the distrbution of wealth, "Wait I have a question..."

"No, while we are talking about it there will be tyranny here."

Your rhetoric sounds anti-inellectual and tyrannical because your want to shut out any disucssion of the subject because the problem supposed to be too important discuss.

Click to expand...

Who says I want to shut down a discussion of the subject, Joe? You are putting words in my mouth -- you were doing that before -- and that's the reason I refuse to discuss this with you. I won't tolerate people putting words in my mouth.

All the same I'm certainly doing nothing to prevent you from discussing the subject. You can discuss it all you want. The fact I'm not going to go over basic economics with you because you've put words in my mouth surely doesn't prevent you from expressing your own opinion on the matter. Or does it?

Hi Sunstone,

Who says I want to shut down a discussion of the subject, Joe? You are putting words in my mouth -- you were doing that before -- and that's the reason I refuse to discuss this with you. I won't tolerate people putting words in my mouth.

Click to expand...

I have done no such thing. You said that while people (or I, but I would be discussing it with others of course) would delve into the intellectual nuances of how to distribute wealth more broadly or even if this is a praiseworthy goal a tyranny could or would be coming. To me, this sounded like fear mongering and manufactured crisis making of the highest degree.

As you know, there are many like you who believe that wealth needs to be distributed more evenly in society. I just hope we can have an actual discussion about the merits and demerits of such an action.

But as you say, it might be too late by then.

Joe Stocks said:

To me, this sounded like fear mongering and manufactured crisis making of the highest degree.

Click to expand...

Joe, if you studied economic history a bit I'm sure you would discover that it's not fear mongering, but rather a commonplace notion among economic historians.

Joe Stocks said:

It wasn't a waste of time, you got most of right. The part you missed is when two things happen: lending institutions are accused of red lining and the government pressures them to give risky loans out and when everybody believes that the government will be the 'lender of last resort' and pay for the bad loans. In a free market, bad loans are rarely given out because they are only given out to people that can demonstrate that they can pay the loan back. Faulty government policy created this, not the free market.

Click to expand...

But this WAS a free market, and because there was no oversight, debt was bundled up and sold as assets. It was bundled so that the bad debts would be mixed in with the good debts (those likely to be repaid) so that the sellers could claim it was a secure investment. In some cases the claim was made that these assets were insured, though they couldn't actually use the word "insured" or they would have been liable for fraud. It will take some time, but you will be seeing people go to jail over this.

Basically it was just another Ponzi scheme. Everyone knew that the products were bad, but they also knew that those who get in on the scheme early, and out in time, get very rich, so they all wanted in on it, anyway. EVERYONE involved wanted as many loans to be made as possible, and they didn't care if the loans were being made to people who could repay them, because all they wanted was more loans to bundle up and sell on the market for big profits. The pressure to make all those bad loans came from everywhere, not the least of which were the CEOs of the big banks, themselves.

You keep saying that this doesn't happen in a free market. But it happens all the time in free markets, because free markets are not governed. There is no one there to stop this sort of thing. It's the same as before the 1929 crash. After the 1929 crash, laws were passed and overseers were put into place. Banks were secured against run-outs. But over the last several decades, the republicans have been systematically dismantling these oversights. Part of their big lie was that "free markets" self-regulate. But free markets don't self-regulate. They just turn into an economic "wild west" where these schemes and rip-offs are commonplace. If it remains unregulated long enough, it will collapse because of all the cheating and manipulation. Which is exactly what happened.

Joe Stocks said:

Once you accept the premise that economics is not zero-sum then your entire point was shot. Bill Gates has made a millions of people richer, but by your previously discarded theory he should have been making people poorer.

Click to expand...

He did make people poorer, each time he sold them his software. Every item he and IBM sold cost people money. That money did not grow on trees. Every dollar Gates gained came out of someone's pocket. It's true that computers have made business more efficient, and so have in many cases paid for themselves over time. But the fact remains that every dollar that increases the wealth of the wealthy, decreases the wealth of someone else. If that dollar is exchanged for a valuable good or service, then the value added will eventually recoup the dollars lost. But if that good or service is valueless, as has become more and more the case under "Reaganomics", then the dollars spent are not recoverable.

Joe Stocks said:

Show me some examples. I know of no industry where the company increased its productivity by impoverishing its workers.

Click to expand...

Let's look at every company that has used NAFTA to build a new factory in another country where they can exploit the lack of labor protections profit. And how do you explain the fact that wages have been static in this country for decades while the investors, CEOs and upper management have been raking in the big money? Are you just willfully blind?

Joe Stocks said:

The opposite occurs, if a company increases its productivity and its good is highly demanded then the workers reap the benefits of a greater and more efficient output.

Click to expand...

Then why have wages been stagnant for 40 years while the investors, CEOs, and upper management got a whole lot richer?

Joe Stocks said:

This is a recipe for economic disaster. Labor must be a fluctuating commodity like anything else; artificially raising it without producing more puts businesses at a great disadvantage and eventually financial ruin. If people want their wages to go up, they must be more efficient and produce more things. You cannot just magically pay people a 'living wage.' That money has to come from somewhere.

Click to expand...

Any business enterprise that cannot pay a living wage is not a socially viable enterprise.

The purpose of a business enterprise is that the well-being of everyone involved is increased by their participation. If a business enterprise can't fulfill this purpose it should not be engaged in.

Hi PureX,

But this WAS a free market, and because there was no oversight, debt was bundled up and sold as assets. It was bundled so that the bad debts would be mixed in with the good debts (those likely to be repaid) so that the sellers could claim it was a secure investment. In some cases the claim was made that these assets were insured, though they couldn't actually use the word "insured" or they would have been liable for fraud. It will take some time, but you will be seeing people go to jail over this.

Click to expand...

Let' get this point straight: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not exist in the free market. They are GSE's or government sponsored enterprises. All that you said above occurred after bad loans were given out. The point is in the free market those loans would have never been given out in the first place. Lending institutions do not stay in business giving bad loans to people. Bad loans can be given to people if the government takes the losses which is what happened. Whatever this is it is not the free market at work.

He did make people poorer, each time he sold them his software. Every item he and IBM sold cost people money. That money did not grow on trees. Every dollar Gates gained came out of someone's pocket. It's true that computers have made business more efficient, and so have in many cases paid for themselves over time. But the fact remains that every dollar that increases the wealth of the wealthy, decreases the wealth of someone else. If that dollar is exchanged for a valuable good or service, then the value added will eventually recoup the dollars lost. But if that good or service is valueless, as has become more and more the case under "Reaganomics", then the dollars spent are not recoverable.

Click to expand...

The zero-sum theory of economics which your entire argument is predicated on is false. You are arguing that there is only a fixed amount of wealth out there and that when people get wealthier they are just taking money from somebody else. But this is false, how has the world become wealthier? Under the zero-sum economic theory this would be impossible. Wealth can be created, it isn't just rearranged. While the zero-sum economic philosophy is emotionally satisfying because there is a villain (the rich) and the advocates are fighting on behalf of the hero (the poor or middle class), the theory itself is false.

Let's look at every company that has used NAFTA to build a new factory in another country where they can exploit the lack of labor protections profit.

Click to expand...

This doesn't explain the very low unemployment numbers that followed the passage of NAFTA.

And how do you explain the fact that wages have been static in this country for decades while the investors, CEOs and upper management have been raking in the big money? Are you just willfully blind?

Click to expand...

Wages haven't been static. From 1969 to 1996 average real income per person increased by 51%. Now, obviously take this with a grain of salt as this is from the Republican Propaganda Machine known as the U.S. Census Bureau ("Changes in Median Household Income: 1969-1996," Current Population Reports, p23-196, p. 1). Now I am sure you will use the data which indicates that real income per household rose by only 6% during that same time period. But since the composition of households changes a per person analysis is much more sound.

Any business enterprise that cannot pay a living wage is not a socially viable enterprise.

The purpose of a business enterprise is that the well-being of everyone involved is increased by their participation. If a business enterprise can't fulfill this purpose it should not be engaged in.

Click to expand...

Do you believe labor should be a fluctuating commodity?

Hi Sunstone,

Joe, if you studied economic history a bit I'm sure you would discover that it's not fear mongering, but rather a commonplace notion among economic historians.

Click to expand...

Which economic historians? And do these economic historians advocate that the state confiscate wealth and distribute it to others? Because I believe that has a worse track record than a state that has private property and allows the necessary reality of wealth inequality.

Joe Stocks said:

They are GSE's or government sponsored enterprises. All that you said above occurred after bad loans were given out. The point is in the free market those loans would have never been given out in the first place. Lending institutions do not stay in business giving bad loans to people. Bad loans can be given to people if the government takes the losses which is what happened. Whatever this is it is not the free market at work.

Click to expand...

This is just flat out untrue.

First of all, many banks were making these bad loans, not just FMae and FMac. All the big ones were doing it for all they were worth, which is why they were in so much trouble when the scheme collapsed. And they were not compelled to do so by the government. They were part of the free market and they did it willingly, because there was money to be made off turning these bad debts into phony assets. It became a race to see who could produce more of this stuff the fastest, because they all knew that the bottom would drop out eventually. So stop blaming it on the government and on the democrats. Greed is the reason this happened. Greed and the lack of oversight in the marketplace.

Joe Stocks said:

The zero-sum theory of economics which your entire argument is predicated on is false. You are arguing that there is only a fixed amount of wealth out there and that when people get wealthier they are just taking money from somebody else. But this is false, how has the world become wealthier? Under the zero-sum economic theory this would be impossible. Wealth can be created, it isn't just rearranged. While the zero-sum economic philosophy is emotionally satisfying because there is a villain (the rich) and the advocates are fighting on behalf of the hero (the poor or middle class), the theory itself is false.

Click to expand...

I have not been arguing a "zero-sum" economy. However, no one in their right mind buys into the theory that an economy can grow in value enough to make up for the unprecidented rise in the income of the wealthy that has been occuring in this country. Actual growth is only a small fraction of our actual wealth. So much so that the economy works for the most part like a zero-sum economy in that most of the increase in wealth that one person experiences, has come to him by way of a decrease in wealth for others. And this is why the "trickle down" never happened.

Joe Stocks said:

This doesn't explain the very low unemployment numbers that followed the passage of NAFTA.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's lots of pizza delivery jobs available out there. A father of three who used to make $18 an hour in a shop can always go deliver pizzas while his job moves to Mexico so that his old bosses can make even MORE money by exploiting Mexican workers.

Joe Stocks said:

Wages haven't been static. From 1969 to 1996 average real income per person increased by 51%. Now, obviously take this with a grain of salt as this is from the Republican Propaganda Machine known as the U.S. Census Bureau ("Changes in Median Household Income: 1969-1996," Current Population Reports, p23-196, p. 1). Now I am sure you will use the data which indicates that real income per household rose by only 6% during that same time period. But since the composition of households changes a per person analysis is much more sound.

Click to expand...

But when you look into the data from which that "average" is derived, what you find is that a few people's incomes went up by a huge margin, while everyone else's remained stagnant. Doctors, and lawyers, and bankers, and politicians are all making far, far more than they made back in the 1960s. But the middle and working classes are still getting paid about the same as they were way back then. These are the ugly truths hiding behind your "averages".

Joe Stocks said:

Do you believe labor should be a fluctuating commodity?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that labor should be treated as a commodity at all. I think we should treat everyone who contributes to the value of a business enterprise as a partner. And they should all share in the success/profits of the enterprise as they will share in it's failure. Not all partners will be equal, I understand, but there is no CEO on this Earth that is really worth hundreds or thousands of times more than the average employee of his company.

Wandered Off said:

I often get a bit nervous about calls to 'come together as a country.' My inner cynic always hears something like, "How about you sit down, shut up, and do it my way so we're together." Of course I realize that isn't really the message most of the time, and that it's quite useful to address some problems as a group, but I also think our diversity of opinion is healthier than some in the media make it appear.

Just had to rant there a bit. I'm all better. Back to the economics lessons...

Click to expand...

I think the coming together stuff is mostly referring to the ridiculous partisanship on the part of politicians who only want to hurt and blame the other party, regardless of what it costs the public.

yes:yes:!one gavarment wich will be able to bring as all to gether.DAN 2:44;REV 11:15:clap

Reverend Rick said:

....
Will we continue to demonise each other and accomplish little or can we all come together as a nation free of class envy and realise all boats rise with the tide and all ships overloaded will surely sink?

Click to expand...

I'm just guessing Reverend, but my money is on the side that says we will continue to demonize each other and accomplish little.

Hi PureX,

Before we go any further I want to see if you know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed about have of the nation's $12 trillion mortgage market.

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we are talking about half of the housing market being controlled by a non-free market institution. And the current financial crisis was started when Fannie and Freddie went under.

Do you believe this fact? Because if you don't there is not much we can discuss.

Joe Stocks said:

Hi PureX,

Before we go any further I want to see if you know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed about have of the nation's $12 trillion mortgage market.

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we are talking about half of the housing market being controlled by a non-free market institution. And the current financial crisis was started when Fannie and Freddie went under.

Do you believe this fact? Because if you don't there is not much we can discuss.

Click to expand...

We aren't going any further, for several reasons. One is that you cherry-pick your information, as all propagandists do, to demonize those you have already chosen to be the demons and to glorify those you have already chosen to be the saints. And two, you are an idealist who has fallen in love with his own ideals.

I'm not interested in propaganda, and you aren't interested in much of anything else. So I see little value in continuing.

Hi PureX,

We aren't going any further, for several reasons. One is that you cherry-pick your information, as all propagandists do, to demonize those you have already chosen to be the demons and to glorify those you have already chosen to be the saints. And two, you are an idealist who has fallen in love with his own ideals.

I'm not interested in propaganda, and you aren't interested in much of anything else. So I see little value in continuing.

Click to expand...

What have said that isn't true? You want to blame free market capitalism for this current mess, when I point out the simple fact that the institution that started this whole messy ball rolling is not a free market institution you take your ball and go home.

This is all you can say? Pretty pathetic, I expected a lot better from you.

You can't refute my arguments so you call them propaganda. Well, if you ever want to actually debate issues let me know.

Good day.

Will we ever come together as a country?

Click to expand...

No, and why should we? What does it even mean? That we all agree? And please, American politics are quite civil compared to the days of Andy Jackson and the days leading up to the Civil War.

For this country to be "united," it would necessitate that one side gives up its principles. Are you willing to do that for the sake of unity? If you really want a country that is "united," try North Korea. There isn't a whole lot of arguing going on over there.

PureX said:

And two, you are an idealist who has fallen in love with his own ideals.

Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle!

Purex, your views on property ownership is pretty idealistic and not grounded in the real world either. My take on this one is, if either Joe or Yourself proved your point beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither of you would change your position.

From an idealist standpoint, both sides present a good arguement. In the real world, just as soon as Barney and friends started lending money to people who had no incentive or means to pay back the money, the socialist ideals failed miserably.

Any time hard work is rewarded equally to doing nothing, productivity slides into the toilet. When people do very little, they will have very little. This fact is a constant under socialist or capitalist systems.

Reverend Rick said:

Pot, meet kettle!

Click to expand...

I did not claim otherwise.

Reverend Rick said:

Purex, your views on property ownership is pretty idealistic and not grounded in the real world either. My take on this one is, if either Joe or Yourself proved your point beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither of you would change your position.

Click to expand...

I agree. But the difference is that Joe's position is based on the half-truths of organized propaganda produced by extremists, which he is interested in touting here on RF for it's own sake. I am not interested in seeing this sort of propaganda touted here. And it's extremely frustrating to try and argue with extremists who cherry pick "facts" and then try to present them as significant truths. Like, if it is a fact that my phone book has some errors in it, and it is a fact that I don't know which numbers in it are wrong, then in truth I must treat the entire phone book as hopelessly flawed and unusable. This is the logic of the extremist. Joe posed this same irrational argument (regarding the "zero-sum" economy) against me in his first several posts, and refused to acknowledge either the dishonesty or irrationality of it. He refuses to acknowledge it because he is unable or unwilling to see it, I suspect. From this, I surmise that it is a waste of time to engage in this sort of "discussion", because it's not really going to be a discussion at all. It's just an opportunity for Joe to spew his anti-liberal propaganda, and an opportunity for me to be frustrated chasing after an endless chain of half truths and irrational suppositions.

Reverend Rick said:

From an idealist standpoint, both sides present a good arguement. In the real world, just as soon as Barney and friends started lending money to people who had no incentive or means to pay back the money, the socialist ideals failed miserably.

Click to expand...

No they didn't because a lot of people who didn't have their own homes, got one. As a socialist, I don't really give a crap that SMae or FMae got payed back all the time. I cared that families have their own homes to live in.

Most of the loans made were being paid back. Some of them were not. We could have installed programs to help those who were having trouble for a very minimal cost.

But NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. The economic collapse happened because some criminals on Wall Street realized that they could bundle these debts together, and then make up a story about how because they are bundled together, the serviced debts somehow magically secure the unserviced debts, and so these bundles of debts are actually ASSETS. And as assets, they can be sold for money. A lot of money.

SMae and FMae did not invent this scheme. Wall Street brokerage houses, owned by big investment banks, invented this scheme. And it was this scheme that crashed the economy. It has nothing to do with liberals or the "Great Society". Absolutely nothing. And it has everything to do with the Reagan-era economic philosophy of deregulation, and of the outright worship of "free markets" as the answer to all possible social ills.

After the crash of 1929, many regulations were put into place to see that it never happens again. But the republican administrations have been methodically dismantling many of these regulations since the days of Reagan, and as a result, there has been more and more market abuse and manipulation, more and more wealth being accumulated by very few people, and the markets have become unstable and volatile and open to catastrophic collapse due to such abuse. And that's exactly what happened to it.

So here we have Joe, desperately trying to blame the crash on "liberals", when in truth, it was greed and the lack of oversight caused by recent republican administrations that are the real cause. But Joe will NOT recognize any of this, because he is fully invested in the lies and half-truths he has been told by the extremists on the right, through their various tireless propaganda outlets.

So what would you have me do?

Reverend Rick said:

Any time hard work is rewarded equally to doing nothing, productivity slides into the toilet. When people do very little, they will have very little. This fact is a constant under socialist or capitalist systems.

Click to expand...

I have no idea where this is coming from or what it has to do with anything. It looks to me like some of your personal prejudice has accidentally ooozed out onto the screen. I will ignore it because I'm a nice guy. *smile*

Reverend Rick said:

Purex, your views on property ownership is pretty idealistic and not grounded in the real world either.

Click to expand...

Actually, they are. If you would like to disguss this on another thread, I would be happy to explain.

Reverend Rick said:

Will we continue to demonise each other and accomplish little or can we all come together as a nation free of class envy and realise all boats rise with the tide and all ships overloaded will surely sink?

Click to expand...

Yeah, some boats rise on the backs of others. :sarcastic If the ship is overloaded, you build a bigger boat. You don't throw the economy-class people over board in order to save the first-class passengers.