On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:mainstream economics is Keynesian, and it's what got us where we are today. The reason it's so easy to accept is because empowers the government to do a lot of spending, and of course the government isn't going to reject this system even in the face of it's complete failure, because it would mean to willingly give up power.
You're still making a claim without an iota of evidence. Show me a system that has ever done better or that theoretically does better with convincing empirical proof.
late 1800s to early 1910s United States.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:Look at government "calculated" inflation rate, then look at the real inflation rate in the market.
You still haven't proven that most bailout provisions didn't turn a profit. Show me the numbers, please.
A profit for who? Wealth disparity is going up, and national production has decreased, like you would assume with such unemployment numbers...
Who has this profit? You must be talking about inflation. I can show you inflation... price of gold, silver, copper, price of oil, price of food, even our stock market is seemingly stable while the economy is continuously declining... why? the market is measured in terms of declining currency, that's why.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:It hasn't been spiraling down because we were in such advantageous position as manufactorers at the end of world war 2, but as others have rebuilt and are also increasing their production our regulations and monetary system makes it impossible for us to compete... regulations and the monetary polices date back to the early 1900s.
Wat. All of our major competititors also use regulations and monetary policy. If we're getting beaten, it has nothing to do with those.
In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country.
Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies.
On November 01 2011 21:20 Kiarip wrote:If putting money in the bank isn't safe then the banks can higher the interest rates. If they don't, people can keep the money under their mattress.
I don't think you understand how banks works. For a bank to increase interest rates, they would also have to turn a higher profit on their lending/investment practices. Your proposed system basically means that banks will engage in riskier speculation...which is exactly the case prior to the FDIC. What the FDIC does is guarantee depositors, but also requires the banks to adhere to certain rules to negate moral hazard.
Lol... negate moral hazard? It creates moral hazard.
If people don't trust banks to lend banks money, they will still borrow money, and on average they will try to borrow more than gets lent.
The interest rates will coordinate Banks' balance regardless of the reason that people don't want to put their money in the bank. Fear of bank crash isn't a matter of principle, if the rates were sky-high people wouldn't think twice before putting money in the bank, and would probably never borrow... If people are seemingly too scared to make bank deposits it simply means that the interest rates are too low.
Of course the government wouldn't want them to rise, because low rates provides all this fake "growth" in form of bubbles, which politicians then put on their resumes, as long as they don't burst on their watch.
Wikipedia is generally a poor first-hand source for this type of thing, but it's challenging to find numbers put together so they're easy to read and such. But compare the recessions during the "Free banking era" that you're promoting to the recessions that we experience after the great depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
There's a difference. Back then our industries were still largely unregulated in comparison to what they are today, but the government already practiced an expansionary monetary policy which is what brought about the bubbles, and then recessions, however DESPITE of this the industries grew tremendously, in fact a lot of what some for a long time have considered to be "contractions," were in fact drastic increases in productivity resulting in decline in prices.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:late 1800s to early 1910s United States.
You mean the Progressive Era, when we started regulating business practices to ensure free enterprise? You're hurting your own point here.
Not really, because the regulations back then were still a lot less than they were of other nations. We only just started passing regulations at that point.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:A profit for who? Wealth disparity is going up, and national production has decreased, like you would assume with such unemployment numbers...
Wtf are you talking about? The bailout provisions were comprised of loans to banks at risk of failing. Those loans were paid back with interest, so that the Fed got back more money than they lost in loans that were defaulted. Hence they turned a profit on those loans.
So basically what you're saying is that the FED made a profit... Ok thank you for answering my question.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:In the late 1800s we had less regulation than other Western countries (since a lot of them were still monarchies, and such,) and we had an incredible increase in productivity, which resulted in an increase in wealth in our country.
Now we have some of the most regulations of the Western countries, and our wealth is dwindling... Even countries widely accepted as Socialist have less regulations in most of their market sectors than we do... the thing that's only really socialist about them with relation to us is their entitlement policies.
Uhh, no. The other major economies are just as or more regulated than we are. Regulations clearly aren't responsible for our decline.
No they're not, we have one of the most regulated economies especially in favor of large corporations, and against consumers, the unemployed, and the small businesses.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:Fear of bank crash isn't a matter of principle, if the rates were sky-high people wouldn't think twice before putting money in the bank, and would probably never borrow... If people are seemingly too scared to make bank deposits it simply means that the interest rates are too low.
Except history proves you wrong.
Your understanding of the topic is so fail it's almost hilarious. It's like talking to a conspiracy theorist, except on economics.
[/quote]
yeah I was gonna say that about you... I'm done with this discussion
Can't really argue with kiarip in his world everything bad is the governments fault. I'm sure if he could he would blame the triangle shirtwaist factory fire ,pemberton mill collapse, the great chicago fire and what happened during the homestead strike on the government as well. He runs off the idea that business is fully competent and government is completely incompetent eve when it's the same people running both sides of it, in which it's cronyism to which the business are not at fault for even though it takes two to tango.
...As indicated by Tuesday's letter, her support among police officers has diminished even more than it had following the resignation of popular former Chief Anthony Batts in early October.
"It was sort of remarkable that she was able to alienate both sides," said University of San Francisco political scientist Corey Cook of Quan's relationship with protesters and police. "She has no friends at this point."
I will preface my post by saying that my question may be naive.
Why is it companies say that they have to limit workers wages to ensure profit, but in the same breath say they have to pay CEO's 45 times that wage to also ensure profit? Why are lower wages good for a worker but bad for a CEO? is he not an employee of the company?
Why is a CEO walking away inherently worse than a worker leaving? Like any position there is a pool of people who can be CEOs, sure it may be smaller. But saying we must pay whatever we can to get this CEO, and not the same for workers, implies that CEO is more important than the people who actually provide the profit. The CEO is a facilitator, the workers are the providers, why is their value so badly skewed?
On November 02 2011 11:42 Probulous wrote: I will preface my post by saying that my question may be naive.
Why is it companies say that they have to limit workers wages to ensure profit, but in the same breath say they have to pay CEO's 45 times that wage to also ensure profit? Why are lower wages good for a worker but bad for a CEO? is he not an employee of the company?
Why is a CEO walking away inherently worse than a worker leaving? Like any position there is a pool of people who can be CEOs, sure it may be smaller. But saying we must pay whatever we can to get this CEO, and not the same for workers, implies that CEO is more important than the people who actually provide the profit. The CEO is a facilitator, the workers are the providers, why is their value so badly skewed?
The argument basically is workers are a dime a dozen and the harder in demand people are like ceo's to get the talent you need to pay them as to companies the people at the top are much more important then the people at the bottom, ie top down style of management. Which doesn't go off the idea paying them more will make them perform better but rather paying for a better one at the start means you'll do better. Frankly i find it full of themselves just a brash justification for paying them a lot of money. But to a public company a CEO can help and hurt a stock price, but not all ceo's are so influential to their company as a steve jobs so it's full of shit.
According to the Economic Policy Institute report, in 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than a typical worker; by 2007, they made 275 times more. U.S. CEOs also make far more than CEOs in other advanced countries, the report said.
In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated.
Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
On November 02 2011 11:42 Probulous wrote: I will preface my post by saying that my question may be naive.
Why is it companies say that they have to limit workers wages to ensure profit, but in the same breath say they have to pay CEO's 45 times that wage to also ensure profit? Why are lower wages good for a worker but bad for a CEO? is he not an employee of the company?
Why is a CEO walking away inherently worse than a worker leaving? Like any position there is a pool of people who can be CEOs, sure it may be smaller. But saying we must pay whatever we can to get this CEO, and not the same for workers, implies that CEO is more important than the people who actually provide the profit. The CEO is a facilitator, the workers are the providers, why is their value so badly skewed?
This is my view (it may be completely off), but I believe that corporations set extremely high standards for those individuals they hire as executives. For example, an executive must have a large business history / education / the technical knowledge of "CEO-speak" etc. These are fairly arbitrary restrictions that are placed upon possible candidates and it restricts the field dramatically - as a result, corporations fight over a few of these individuals and raise CEO earnings accordingly. The market for executives sets itself so that if any one corporation chooses to intentionally pay their executives less, those executives can simply jump ship to another corporation. Therefore, the high salaries are maintained.
Likewise, worker wages are kept lower simply because corporations have the capability to do so. If, for example, corporation X is paying their workers a low amount, corporation Y has no incentive to raise their wages to a level above that of X's. Viewing the two roles in relation to one another is flawed in that they are looking at separate markets. It really isn't a question of whether workers are deserving of their wages, but of what the market is willing to pay for specific roles :/.
Also, (this may affect everything alot more), those closer to the central decision-making of any organization will reap more benefits haha.
On November 02 2011 11:42 Probulous wrote: I will preface my post by saying that my question may be naive.
Why is it companies say that they have to limit workers wages to ensure profit, but in the same breath say they have to pay CEO's 45 times that wage to also ensure profit? Why are lower wages good for a worker but bad for a CEO? is he not an employee of the company?
Why is a CEO walking away inherently worse than a worker leaving? Like any position there is a pool of people who can be CEOs, sure it may be smaller. But saying we must pay whatever we can to get this CEO, and not the same for workers, implies that CEO is more important than the people who actually provide the profit. The CEO is a facilitator, the workers are the providers, why is their value so badly skewed?
This is my view (it may be completely off), but I believe that corporations set extremely high standards for those individuals they hire as executives. For example, an executive must have a large business history / education / the technical knowledge of "CEO-speak" etc. These are fairly arbitrary restrictions that are placed upon possible candidates and it restricts the field dramatically - as a result, corporations fight over a few of these individuals and raise CEO earnings accordingly. The market for executives sets itself so that if any one corporation chooses to intentionally pay their executives less, those executives can simply jump ship to another corporation. Therefore, the high salaries are maintained.
Likewise, worker wages are kept lower simply because corporations have the capability to do so. If, for example, corporation X is paying their workers a low amount, corporation Y has no incentive to raise their wages to a level above that of X's. Viewing the two roles in relation to one another is flawed in that they are looking at separate markets. It really isn't a question of whether workers are deserving of their wages, but of what the market is willing to pay for specific roles :/.
Also, (this may affect everything alot more), those closer to the central decision-making of any organization will reap more benefits haha.
I get what you are saying but it doesn't really answer my question. Are CEO standards 450 times that of your average employee? To me the argument saying "we have to pay massive salaries to get the best" only works if you are consistent. Why do the different markets value high standards so drastically differently? If a CEO is supposed to lead a company why isn't he held to the same standards as everyone else? It just seems unfair to limit wages increases for the majority on one hand and increase your own on the other? Surely if the company is doing well, everyone benefits and conversely if it is doing badly everyone loses.
On November 02 2011 12:57 Gofarman wrote: So... how is the occupy wall street thing coming along? this thread is so derailed...
it is an it isn't, the core of occupy wallstreet was to start the discussion of restructuring of how government works for the people. Although the headliners would be getting money out of politics and stuff about income inequality etc, but it just all revolves around how government has failed for the avg person instead acting for the people with money.
On November 02 2011 11:42 Probulous wrote: I will preface my post by saying that my question may be naive.
Why is it companies say that they have to limit workers wages to ensure profit, but in the same breath say they have to pay CEO's 45 times that wage to also ensure profit? Why are lower wages good for a worker but bad for a CEO? is he not an employee of the company?
Why is a CEO walking away inherently worse than a worker leaving? Like any position there is a pool of people who can be CEOs, sure it may be smaller. But saying we must pay whatever we can to get this CEO, and not the same for workers, implies that CEO is more important than the people who actually provide the profit. The CEO is a facilitator, the workers are the providers, why is their value so badly skewed?
This is my view (it may be completely off), but I believe that corporations set extremely high standards for those individuals they hire as executives. For example, an executive must have a large business history / education / the technical knowledge of "CEO-speak" etc. These are fairly arbitrary restrictions that are placed upon possible candidates and it restricts the field dramatically - as a result, corporations fight over a few of these individuals and raise CEO earnings accordingly. The market for executives sets itself so that if any one corporation chooses to intentionally pay their executives less, those executives can simply jump ship to another corporation. Therefore, the high salaries are maintained.
Likewise, worker wages are kept lower simply because corporations have the capability to do so. If, for example, corporation X is paying their workers a low amount, corporation Y has no incentive to raise their wages to a level above that of X's. Viewing the two roles in relation to one another is flawed in that they are looking at separate markets. It really isn't a question of whether workers are deserving of their wages, but of what the market is willing to pay for specific roles :/.
Also, (this may affect everything alot more), those closer to the central decision-making of any organization will reap more benefits haha.
I get what you are saying but it doesn't really answer my question. Are CEO standards 450 times that of your average employee? To me the argument saying "we have to pay massive salaries to get the best" only works if you are consistent. Why do the different markets value high standards so drastically differently? If a CEO is supposed to lead a company why isn't he held to the same standards as everyone else? It just seems unfair to limit wages increases for the majority on one hand and increase your own on the other? Surely if the company is doing well, everyone benefits and conversely if it is doing badly everyone loses.
I think you've identified the issue at stake - simply put, CEOs are held to a different standard from that of workers. Salaries/Bonuses aren't really defined by what a person deserves, but mainly but what other people are willing to pay for that. It is probably unfair, but that's just the way that the job market works.
In fact, a study here suggests that higher CEO pay leads to worse share performance. Why do corporations continue to give out high salaries? It's because the market decides that the pay rate for CEO's (for a number of reasons that I don't really know) should be much much higher than that of the average worker.
I don't think I've really answering your question, but I think you are trying to make too much sense out of a hierarchy system that doesn't really follow the 'fair' sense of logic.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:So basically what you're saying is that the FED made a profit... Ok thank you for answering my question.
If you're asking where the profit goes towards, it's been used to pay down the federal debt, as originally specified in bailout provisions.
On November 02 2011 06:53 Kiarip wrote:No they're not, we have one of the most regulated economies especially in favor of large corporations, and against consumers, the unemployed, and the small businesses.
While this isn't untrue, the level of government regulation in the United States is comparable to that of other major economies. Which means, as I suggested earlier, that problems with the economy stem from other places, such as our excessive public debt, the decline of the education system, and move away from manufacturing towards finance and services.
On November 02 2011 10:00 semantics wrote: Can't really argue with kiarip in his world everything bad is the governments fault. I'm sure if he could he would blame the triangle shirtwaist factory fire ,pemberton mill collapse, the great chicago fire and what happened during the homestead strike on the government as well. He runs off the idea that business is fully competent and government is completely incompetent eve when it's the same people running both sides of it, in which it's cronyism to which the business are not at fault for even though it takes two to tango.
Isn't it the position of libertarianism itself? You read two pages of Ayn Rand and you realize that the world is divided between the good market and the bad government.
What strikes me is both the blind faith in capitalism and the complete disbelief in democracy and politics in general. I can't help to consider it as just another completely extremist position. I'm not that interested by extremism in general.
I never got this thing with the FED, but in France we used to have a central bank (BF) that was completely public, that didn't make profit and that was working very well. If I understand, the problem with the FED is precisely that it is owned / ruled by and in favor of certain private banks, right?
guys try not to get frustrated and say you're gonna stop posting just like that! lots of people are reading this (well i am anyway) and its interesting to see the back-and-forths since we don't relate or understand exactly what you're all saying , we are still curious to read more , even if you're getting frustrated in your own personal arguement with another person :3 think of us readers!!!
@FFGenerations. During your reading, have you noticed any patterns in the discussion? Spend more, tax more, spend less tax less? You would think this discussion would go a bit smoother. The funniest thing to me, is the side with all the influence(keynesian,neo-conservative,neo-liberal) constantly blames libertarians for everything. Our policy failed cause Rothbard farted, cause Hayek sneezed. It was Reagans fault and so on.
Show me recent libertarian presidents, congressmen who have drove,directed financial policy into the ditch. We understand you wrecked, just don't blame US because you cannot drive your own car. I said Projectionsim before, it's laughable at this point.
The fault here is with the 'exisiting policy'. It's failed/failing and look at the lil rabid dogs defending their currency creation monopoly. The private nature of the fed, and the risk it poses to it's country and citizens has gone on just a bit too long. If we're not going to end it, we're going to nationalize it's assets. I don't like the sound of it, but even Friedman realized there were times when action outside of normal paramaters would be necessary because of unfavorable conditions created by previous policy.
There is an occupy movement in my town. I've gone out and talked to them a few times and cooked them a meal but it's not really my scene. Plus the camp is starting to smell really bad. There doesn't seem to be an articulate message coming from them as to what they are fighting for or why. It is nice to see any sort of popular protest movement, no matter how odious, and civil disobedience is always a welcome sight.
@FFGeneration I believe the disagreement is on a more fundamental level in the conception of justice, and thus the handwringing and moral outrage on the two sides of the argument. On one side, there are ideas based on distributive justice. On the other side, there are ideas based on natural justice. For distributive justice, the theme of inequality and gross inequality (of economic outcomes) keeps coming to the forefront. This is because a certain degree of inequality (of economic outcomes) ipso facto is injustice regardless of circumstances. In natural justice, the themes are instead of lying, cheating, and stealing as methods of injustice, and there is examination of the ever more subtle ways of misdirection that drive the system into the inequalities (of economic outcomes).
The disagreement over justice color the definition of good government. To accomplish distributive justice, good government must redistribute wealth, and thus wealth redistribution is a natural function of government. To accomplish natural justice, good government is an excellent legal system. Wealth redistribution is a non-government function in natural justice.
On November 02 2011 10:00 semantics wrote: Can't really argue with kiarip in his world everything bad is the governments fault. I'm sure if he could he would blame the triangle shirtwaist factory fire ,pemberton mill collapse, the great chicago fire and what happened during the homestead strike on the government as well. He runs off the idea that business is fully competent and government is completely incompetent eve when it's the same people running both sides of it, in which it's cronyism to which the business are not at fault for even though it takes two to tango.
Isn't it the position of libertarianism itself? You read two pages of Ayn Rand and you realize that the world is divided between the good market and the bad government.
What strikes me is both the blind faith in capitalism and the complete disbelief in democracy and politics in general. I can't help to consider it as just another completely extremist position. I'm not that interested by extremism in general.
I never got this thing with the FED, but in France we used to have a central bank (BF) that was completely public, that didn't make profit and that was working very well. If I understand, the problem with the FED is precisely that it is owned / ruled by and in favor of certain private banks, right?
Sorry, clicked too fast or something . Biff my man, it's not blind faith in capatalism. If I linked a video where the person in the clip demonstrated how capatalism helped this country develop into what it was, at the same time demonstrating how far we've strayed from it. Would you tear it down because it's from Fox, or beacuse of what it says? Complaining about corporatism, and blaming capatalism is a general discord for libertarians of this day. I think Rand is a bit hypocritical myself.
I understand that you're ideology and mine differentiate greatly, but it doesn't mean we cannot see the same picture, even if for a brief second. The thing with the FED, is the nature of it's ownership. If we are 'stuck' with this style of centrally planned economy, having a corporation regulate the economy of the U.S. and the world's reserve currency.... well it's kind of silly. Every bubble, they loan money to other banks to buy out your uncle's failed bakery. Small world after all. Love you man
Wealth redistribution is incompatible with justice. The purpose of law is to protect property rights, and as bastiat pointed out it it has been perverted away from that function and turned into an instrument of plunder. Theft is not just. Nor do I hold that egalitarianism is an aesthetic ideal which should be aimed for. Personally I favour societies with a good measure of inequality. If someone is not massively rich, who then will construct sky scrapers, shopping malls, or other such necessary things? And of course we have seen what societies that valued equality over freedom have degenerated into. It wasn't pretty.
EPT
