|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:
But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people,
You are coming up with this Germany China thing repeatedly now, and just so that you know, I'm not saying it's the heaven on earth here, but I'm pretty sure we're not slaves, lol. I think you're a little caught up in your Marxist way of thinking.
|
On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +In short: The main reason that German household wealth is lower than than elsewhere is that less claims on the future output of the housing sector take the form of assets. Housing is just as commodified in Germany as elsewhere (I don’t think public housing is unusually important there). But it is less capitalized. Show nested quote +It’s not a coincidence that Europe’s dominant economy has the least market wealth. The truth is, success in the world market has depended for a long time now on limiting dependence on asset markets, just as the most successful competitors within national economies are the giant corporations that suppress the market mechanism internally. Germany, as with late industrializers like Japan, Korea, and now China, has succeeded largely by ensuring that investment is not guided by market signals, but through active planning by banks and/or the state. There’s nothing new in the fact that greater real wealth in the sense of productive capacity goes hand hand with less wealth in the sense of claims on the social product capitalized into assets. Only in the poorest and most backward countries does a significant fraction of the claims of working people on the product take the form of asset ownership. The article is advocating for a greater share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few and points to Germany and China as examples of booming economies that should guide toward a more enlightened form of sustained growth. Germany boosts profits for the rentier class by encouraging more people to rent, and "success in the world" is achieved by producing the most for the least cost. I don't argue with the premise and findings of the article. Home ownership through mortgage and the vast expansion of credit in the West, and the countries that supply the demand for Germany's and China's goods are a requirement both to keep the game going and as a political reality. The dream of owning your own home in America is the vaccine that prevents wage laborers from being infected with Marxian ideas, preventing them from looking at inequality through the lens of surplus value and its concomitants. But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, by concentrating power about what to do with society's assets in the hands of the few. Nevermind that without the artificial demand generated by credit-happy, home-owning economies in the US and Europe there would be no one for Germany and China to sell their high-quality, depressed-price goods to. You said a few pages back Jonny that Germany was lagging, and I expect that to continue. Germany and China and the rest are pursuing a single-minded policy of export-financed growth that pays during a recession but ultimately leads nowhere.
I'm not so sure that's what the author was intending to suggest or even how Jonny read it. I am terribly curious what Jonny thought were the big 'takeaways' from the article?
|
On April 09 2014 12:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:
But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, You are coming up with this Germany China thing repeatedly now, and just so that you know, I'm not saying it's the heaven on earth here, but I'm pretty sure we're not slaves, lol. I think you're a little caught up in your Marxist way of thinking.
Wage slaves tend not to feel like slaves when they can buy cars and things. Saying that you don't "feel" exploited doesn't change the fact that you are. But I don't really understand your continued nationalist sentiment here. Do you think you are better than China or something?
On April 09 2014 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:In short: The main reason that German household wealth is lower than than elsewhere is that less claims on the future output of the housing sector take the form of assets. Housing is just as commodified in Germany as elsewhere (I don’t think public housing is unusually important there). But it is less capitalized. It’s not a coincidence that Europe’s dominant economy has the least market wealth. The truth is, success in the world market has depended for a long time now on limiting dependence on asset markets, just as the most successful competitors within national economies are the giant corporations that suppress the market mechanism internally. Germany, as with late industrializers like Japan, Korea, and now China, has succeeded largely by ensuring that investment is not guided by market signals, but through active planning by banks and/or the state. There’s nothing new in the fact that greater real wealth in the sense of productive capacity goes hand hand with less wealth in the sense of claims on the social product capitalized into assets. Only in the poorest and most backward countries does a significant fraction of the claims of working people on the product take the form of asset ownership. The article is advocating for a greater share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few and points to Germany and China as examples of booming economies that should guide toward a more enlightened form of sustained growth. Germany boosts profits for the rentier class by encouraging more people to rent, and "success in the world" is achieved by producing the most for the least cost. I don't argue with the premise and findings of the article. Home ownership through mortgage and the vast expansion of credit in the West, and the countries that supply the demand for Germany's and China's goods are a requirement both to keep the game going and as a political reality. The dream of owning your own home in America is the vaccine that prevents wage laborers from being infected with Marxian ideas, preventing them from looking at inequality through the lens of surplus value and its concomitants. But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, by concentrating power about what to do with society's assets in the hands of the few. Nevermind that without the artificial demand generated by credit-happy, home-owning economies in the US and Europe there would be no one for Germany and China to sell their high-quality, depressed-price goods to. You said a few pages back Jonny that Germany was lagging, and I expect that to continue. Germany and China and the rest are pursuing a single-minded policy of export-financed growth that pays during a recession but ultimately leads nowhere. I'm not so sure that's what the author was intending to suggest or even how Jonny read it. I am terribly curious what Jonny thought were the big 'takeaways' from the article?
The article ends with:
"The world of small farmers and self-employed artisans isn’t one we can, or should, return to. Perhaps the world of homeowners managing their own retirement savings isn’t one we can, or should, preserve."
Implication: Maybe we should move to a world where the working class rents, capitalists manage their pensions (because they are really good at that), and capitalists make all the decisions about what to do with the world's accumulated capital. Oh and by the way, those small businesses in Southern Europe aren't very efficient, so when I say capitalists I mean the boards of large conglomerates who manage billions of dollars. And by decisions I mean how much they pay themselves and how much to pay everyone else.
|
On April 09 2014 12:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 12:03 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:
But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, You are coming up with this Germany China thing repeatedly now, and just so that you know, I'm not saying it's the heaven on earth here, but I'm pretty sure we're not slaves, lol. I think you're a little caught up in your Marxist way of thinking. Wage slaves tend not to feel like slaves when they can buy cars and things. Saying that you don't "feel" exploited doesn't change the fact that you are. But I don't really understand your continued nationalist sentiment here. Do you think you are better than China or something?
No. I'm just saying it's possible that employees and employers can both profit in a free market system, as long as there is sensible regulation and redistribution in place, both of which Germany got quite a lot, although you're repeatedly painting a completely bizarre picture of our job market. Also this is the first time someone ever called me a nationalist. And no I don't think I'm 'better than China' and I don't know what gave you that idea. Also the countries don't really have much in common(economically and politically) besides that they both like selling cars.
|
What, in particular, is bizarre about the picture I am painting?
Saying that they can both profit off of the employee's work doesn't mean very much. Feudal lords and peasants both profited from their relationship too. You sound like a compliant serf justifying an unjust economic relationship.
Edit: Both run trade deficits. Both sell to countries where the average debt is very high. Both artificially depress their workers' wages. Both have a state with a (relatively) heavy hand in corporate governance and investment.
Are they identical? Obviously not. Are there parallels? Yes.
|
On April 09 2014 12:26 IgnE wrote:
What, in particular, is bizarre about the picture I am painting?
Saying that they can both profit off of the employee's work doesn't mean very much. Feudal lords and peasants both profited from their relationship too. You sound like a compliant serf justifying an unjust economic relationship.
In fairness you do know what happened to many of the serfs who complained about their circumstances or worse yet tried to significantly change them.
Sometimes realizing situations can be far more terrifying than pretending like they don't exist.
|
On April 09 2014 12:26 IgnE wrote:
What, in particular, is bizarre about the picture I am painting?
Saying that they can both profit off of the employee's work doesn't mean very much. Feudal lords and peasants both profited from their relationship too. You sound like a compliant serf justifying an unjust economic relationship.
Well firstly you seem to reduce China and Germany to some kind of Fordist nightmare where evil capitalists rule over the stupid working class, which obviously only doesn't rebel because they're simply too stupid to understand what's happening.
I simply think Germany gives you a headache because both employers and employees in this country seem to have somehow found some kind of balance, which in what i extrapolate from your posts, simply isn't possible in our society. Instead you're collectively degrading everyone to some kind of Lumpenproletariat instead of maybe accepting the fact that people think that a well balanced social market economy may be the best option we currently have.
the class struggle you're waiting for isn't happening because people are too blind to understand a concept that isn't really that incredibly hard to grasp, it's not happening because people actually aren't doing so badly.
|
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
|
On April 09 2014 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option. Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed. Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%. You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on. On April 09 2014 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:What did you find interesting? The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights. "Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women." "Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination." "Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public" (Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face) Source
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men..
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree. No, I didn't say that.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic.
You don't like Republicans. Got it.
What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it.
On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)?
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
|
On April 09 2014 11:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +In short: The main reason that German household wealth is lower than than elsewhere is that less claims on the future output of the housing sector take the form of assets. Housing is just as commodified in Germany as elsewhere (I don’t think public housing is unusually important there). But it is less capitalized. Show nested quote +It’s not a coincidence that Europe’s dominant economy has the least market wealth. The truth is, success in the world market has depended for a long time now on limiting dependence on asset markets, just as the most successful competitors within national economies are the giant corporations that suppress the market mechanism internally. Germany, as with late industrializers like Japan, Korea, and now China, has succeeded largely by ensuring that investment is not guided by market signals, but through active planning by banks and/or the state. There’s nothing new in the fact that greater real wealth in the sense of productive capacity goes hand hand with less wealth in the sense of claims on the social product capitalized into assets. Only in the poorest and most backward countries does a significant fraction of the claims of working people on the product take the form of asset ownership. The article is advocating for a greater share of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few and points to Germany and China as examples of booming economies that should guide toward a more enlightened form of sustained growth. Germany boosts profits for the rentier class by encouraging more people to rent, and "success in the world" is achieved by producing the most for the least cost. I don't argue with the premise and findings of the article. Home ownership through mortgage and the vast expansion of credit in the West, and the countries that supply the demand for Germany's and China's goods are a requirement both to keep the game going and as a political reality. The dream of owning your own home in America is the vaccine that prevents wage laborers from being infected with Marxian ideas, preventing them from looking at inequality through the lens of surplus value and its concomitants. But to argue that we should follow Germany in their corporate- and state-sponsored capitalistic forays is to argue for greater enslavement of people, by concentrating power about what to do with society's assets in the hands of the few. Nevermind that without the artificial demand generated by credit-happy, home-owning economies in the US and Europe there would be no one for Germany and China to sell their high-quality, depressed-price goods to. You said a few pages back Jonny that Germany was lagging, and I expect that to continue. Germany and China and the rest are pursuing a single-minded policy of export-financed growth that pays during a recession but ultimately leads nowhere.
I think you really mis-read the article. For example the article cites German workers having the power to elect board members even though they don't possess the traditional (share ownership) means to do so.
Edit: For the record, the more you guys cite Marxian ideology the less and less sane it looks.
|
On April 09 2014 12:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 12:26 IgnE wrote:
What, in particular, is bizarre about the picture I am painting?
Saying that they can both profit off of the employee's work doesn't mean very much. Feudal lords and peasants both profited from their relationship too. You sound like a compliant serf justifying an unjust economic relationship. Well firstly you seem to reduce China and Germany to some kind of Fordist nightmare where evil capitalists rule over the stupid working class, which obviously only doesn't rebel because they're simply too stupid to understand what's happening. I simply think Germany gives you a headache because both employers and employees in this country seem to have somehow found some kind of balance, which in what i extrapolate from your posts, simply isn't possible in our society. Instead you're collectively degrading everyone to some kind of Lumpenproletariat instead of maybe accepting the fact that people think that a well balanced social market economy may be the best option we currently have.
I agree that 'enslavement' may be a bit hyperbolic; the difference in average working/living conditions between American 'slaves', Native 'slaves' (slaves of native tribes), feudal 'serfs', Chinese 'workers' and German 'workers' are evidence, I believe, of that. (I say this if for no other reason but to avoid the rhetorical use being too 'effective')
But the larger parallels are reasonable but after doing a little research on Germany I think it's doing astonishingly well over the last 100 or so years. Obviously the WW's didn't showcase the pinnacle of 'German Society' but sure is a resilient damn country.
Not sure on the future of Germany, but this discussion has actually sparked my interest.
I'll look through to see what I can on what has been said so far but a PM with summary links or relevant info would be appreciated but not expected(particularly on whats 'wrong' with Germany right now, and/or their refutations).
|
On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded.
You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
|
On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded. You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this.
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
@ jonny
I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
|
On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded. You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this. All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords. @ jonny I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it.
Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something 
|
On April 09 2014 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes the laws that are on the books.
Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with its positions on marijuana legalization and criminal sentencing.
Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.
“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and more specifically that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people."
Republicans on the panel grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.
Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.
“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said. source ...was there a point to this post? Or is this just fodder for another disingenuous discussion? I'm sure you've seen CCStealthBlue's contributions and that was in kind. Thought provoking sometimes, sometimes to see if there's comment on it--if others find it interesting. The House Judiciary Committee had Holder before it with some very serious accusations back and forth. The House, back in 2012, held Holder in contempt of Congress in the wake of the Fast and Furious scandal.
I mean who can't love a little terrorist lawyer/fast & furious exchange during the committee hearing.
Holder: "You don't want to go there, buddy! You don't want to go there, okay!" If both topics also aren't a big deal to you, no need to post, just read the thread and carry on.
|
On April 09 2014 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded. You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this. All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords. @ jonny I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it. Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something Does this mean the mild-mannered economist gloves have come off?
|
On April 09 2014 13:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded. You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this. All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords. @ jonny I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it. Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something Does this mean the mild-mannered economist gloves have come off?
Actually I'm not even sure if he's interpreting the article correctly through a Marxist lens...
|
On April 09 2014 13:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2014 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2014 12:43 IgnE wrote:
It's not an option. If you've read any of my posts I don't think Germany's export-oriented "balance" is sustainable. Once the artificial demand from the US collapses in the next crisis, Germany and China are going to hit prolonged economic trouble, followed by countries like Brazil and Chile that are supplying raw resources to the manufacturing centers of Germany and China. It's not as if growth in Germany weren't already slowing. You are barely able to stay above water right now, and have dipped below 0% growth for a quarter or two recently.
And if you think there's no such thing as ideology you are sorely deluded. You're right, obviously permanent trade imbalances are unsustainable. You're just mistaken if you think the reason for these unbalances lies within the fact that German workers are driven into slavery, when in fact there's little factual evidence supporting this. All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords. @ jonny I'm sure there are others ways of interpreting his data. If he wants to argue for worker ownership and communal allocation of surplus capital, such as in a worker coop, then I am all for it. Try re-reading the article without the Marxist BS. You may just learn something
You are the one who posts it without comment. If you have a point to make it, then make it. My analysis isn't wrong. It just isn't apropos anything, since no one here has attempted to make policy claims based on the article's findings. I was preemptively responding to a Forbes editorial on it that would use it as evidence that inequality isn't a bad thing.
|
On April 09 2014 12:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 09 2014 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 04:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Democrats' push for pay equity between men and women is "condescending," one of the top women in the House Republican leadership argued Tuesday, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it the "left's latest bizarre obsession."
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, made her comments flanked by her fellow leaders in the House at their weekly news conference, and suggested that the campaign for equal pay for equal work reflects a lack of understanding of women's contributions to the workforce.
"Please allow me to set the record straight. We strongly support equal pay for equal work, and I'm proud that I live in a country where it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Jenkins. "Some folks don't understand that women have become an extremely valuable part of the workforce today on their own merit, not because the government mandated it."
Jenkins went on to belittle Democratic efforts on the issue.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Jenkins said.
McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, went further, slamming the Democrats' push as cheap political showmanship and accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had just addressed the issue, of playing games.
"Instead of focusing on jobs, [Reid] launched into another confusing attack on the left's latest bizarre obsession," McConnell said, adding that Reid was refusing to entertain GOP suggestions on the economy. "Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left." Source Yeah the Republican Spokesperson was out saying that they agree there is a wage gap, they just don't want to do anything about it. Wonder if the Republicans here got the memo that the party actually believes the wage gap is real (even when adjusted for hours,risk,etc)...? There really isn't a whole lot the Federal government can do about the wage gap. Sex discrimination is already illegal and no one is even sure why a wage gap remains. "Sexism" is a popular assumption, but the Federal government itself and even Obama's white house staff experiences a wage gap. Big difference between nothing and 'not a whole lot' Not really. Unless you include things like party image. Yeah there really is. I mean if it were up to Republicans, they would of left things as they were before the Fair Pay Act. Which was by any account just plain ignorant. Not surprisingly there are still issues that should be discussed/addressed. Not surprisingly Republicans are right there to stand in the way of not just action but the conversation itself. And the White House (presuming this wage gap can't be explained away like Republicans have attempted elsewhere) is a great example of how discrimination may happen without knowledge or with the opposite intention. That's one of several reasons why the information is important to gather and analyze in the first place. Side note: They used the same 'flawed' method to determine that $0.88 : $1.00 gap as the $0.77 : $1.00 So by that measure they are doing better than average! Coincidentally, the difference (~$0.11) between the two is approximately the wage gap presumed to be a result of discrimination. When it's not you being discriminated against it might not seem like a big deal and just a political "image" adjustment (given for some it might be). But for those women and the people who care about them raising families, planning for retirement, assessing employers, etc. it's a pretty big deal, and doing nothing is not a sensible option. Not sure what you are referencing about gathering data. Data is already gathered an analyzed. Also, with the way that the wage gap is calculated most employers will do better than average and I've typically heard the adjusted gap as considerably less than 11%. You seem to be assuming discrimination, preferring action and discounting unintended consequences. I feel the opposite, so this isn't something we're going to agree on. On April 09 2014 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2014 10:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:What did you find interesting? The discussion over how wealth statistics are calculated and the value of non capitalized rights. "Directs the Secretary to conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women." "Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC to collect from employers pay information data regarding the sex, race, and national origin of employees for use in the enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination." "Directs: (1) the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to continue to collect data on woman workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey, (2) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to use specified types of methods in investigating compensation discrimination and in enforcing pay equity, and (3) the Secretary to make accurate information on compensation discrimination readily available to the public" (Helps when you read it instead of dismissing it on it's face) Source We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does? On the gap:
If you look at the gap over time (based on methodologies that Republicans say aren't relevant when used against them) in the Obama administration, it is clearly shrinking (a trend that would be wisely followed by the rest of employers). And if the 'discrimination' gap is smaller than 11%, you are essentially saying the Obama admin is probably paying females more on parity with men.. The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses. On Discrimination:
Assume, presume, in modern English are pretty interchangeable but there is a slight inferred difference so I would quarrel there (but I don't think it's that important here).
You think what happened to Lilly isn't worthy of preventative legislation/legitimate debate, I and millions of other Americans disagree. No, I didn't say that. "The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic. You don't like Republicans. Got it. What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent? I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009. In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it. On the Wealth article:
So did you draw any interesting conclusions or have any ideas significantly altered or substantiated as a result? Or was it just information you found interesting but not worthy of any significant note (beyond the generic sense of how wealth statistics are generally calculated)? I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
We already do a lot of data collection and dissemination. I guess this is a more pro-active stance? Is that what it does?
So you're opposed to more? Or support this measure? Or do you need to know more, before you know where you stand?
The pay gap has been diminishing over time. Any given employer, Obama Admin. included, does't think that they are discriminating. They figure that their pay practices are justified and if there is a disparate impact they are prepared to defend their practices in court and the courts impose tough standards on those defenses.
Not sure what time frame you're referring to, how about a source? You do realize you don't have to think you are discriminating in order to discriminate right? There's an important difference between 'figuring' and being. Defending a case in court doesn't only consist of protecting potentially discriminant practices.
"What unintended consequences are so concerning that you would let women like Lilly get treated as a second class citizen in order to prevent?"
No, I didn't say that.
You really haven't said much at all. But you have insinuated such. If you would/do support the legislation that would/does prevent such situations, it would fly in the face of reasonable interpretations of your comments. But if I'm wrong and you do support that legislation feel free to say so.
The problem is that rather than discuss what actually would or wouldn't be effective and compromising on something that does something to help but not too much to hurt, Republicans would rather just start yelling, shove their fingers in their ears, and vote to repeal the ACA for the umpteenth time. That's not government, it's just pathetic."
You don't like Republicans. Got it.
I don't like a lot of the ideas, but the people I try to evaluate individually. But you agree with the description of the current political situation?
I didn't comment specifically on Lilly. The law designed to remedy her situation was already passed in 2009.
In the case of the Lilly Ledbetter act there was something specific Congress wanted to address - the statute of limitations on discrimination suits. That's different than addressing the pay gap in general when we don't even know what's causing it
So you, in opposition to most right leaners, supported and continue to support that act, or at least that provision?
The statute of limitations was an issue that was altered in the 2009 law. It by no means 'resolved' the multiple issues surrounding cases specifically like Lilly's let alone ones that can vary significantly in circumstances. We can agree more research needs to be done, which is one of several things legislated in the bill you earlier dismissed without reading/comprehending.
I just read it. I haven't drawn many conclusions / ideas from it yet. It's hard to post first impressions here since the ideologs will come out and piss all over them and whatnot.
How did you come across this article? And did you read it before you posted it or after?
|
On April 09 2014 13:23 IgnE wrote:
All workers are driven into wage-slavery. Germany isn't special in this regard. It's just special in that it's wages are depressed, relatively speaking, to those throughout Europe, even if it's workers are doing "well" because there is at least work for them to do, so they can continue paying rent to their landlords.
Although I'll probably open a big can of worms here: In this utopia in which people aren't pitiful 'wage slaves' and every cent of profit is evenly divided among all the workers, where is innovation coming from and how will people be able to create new companies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
