No one can argue that the wealth gap is growing. This money is not distributed in any way
Fundamental question: Do you believe it’s the government’s role to bridge the so-called ‘wealth gap’?[/quote]
No, but I think that the government should step in when those with power keep others down for financial gain. It’s why we have a minimum wage.
The reason our economy got to where it is now is because there was still money for some to make, no matter how risky. It was a case of the super rich playing with funds to create money even though it could collapse everything. I think the gov’t should step in there
You’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I buy “trickle down”
[/quote] I was only a pup when trickle down ecomonics was popular. I read, and form my theories with the help from, classic economists like Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Smith, Haslette, Murray, and others. How about you?
[quote]
Where does that money go? It gets rolled into hedge funds that capitalize on the trading back and forth of risky mortgages.
No one can argue that the wealth gap is growing. This money is not distributed in any way[/quote]
It does not disappear my friend. It is not under anyone’s matress. It is in the market whether you chose to think through this logically or not. It provides us home, car, and business credit. It funds start-ups. It buys goods and services and creates new markets and jobs. It is donated to charities. Some ends up back in the hands of our wasteful gov’t. The only question is whether you think having it go through our spectacularly efficient gov’t first is the most evective route.
Economics is a very intesting subject. It is not terribly complicated if have the facilities of logic and reason. I can recommend some books if you are interested.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Once again, I approach topics individually. I do NOT like the idea of paying more taxes the more money I make…but guess fucking what? It is already happening right now! I pay a shit load in taxes every month right now simply because I went to school and got “doctor” in front of my name.
The system as it stands SUCKS ASS and needs a change. [/quote]
So, then you disagree with Obama’s targeted tax increases? Just because it’s happening now doesn’t make it right.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
The free market has given us every significant technological advancement in the history of this country.
Really?
Well, all of those little guys don’t count…like that idiot who made the light bulb or the complete fool who discovered how to channel electricity.
Don’t even get me started on that moron who came up with “Peanut butter”[/quote]
I say, chocolate chip pancake and sausage on a stick.
The free market has given us every significant technological advancement in the history of this country. I really don’t understand why poeple don’t think it will give us alternative energy sources. Gov’t can not give us the efficient alternatives.
When have we ever had free market capitalism in recent history? This is not free market capitalism. This is state subsidized capitalism. In IT and medicine, most advances come from government funded research. Companies like Intel refuse to fund their own research whenever they can get away with getting the government to fund it,
[/quote]
Let’s keep the theme going…BINGO. those with the most political clout and lobbing money get the grants. Not the most inovative or efficient. Is this what you would like to have happen to energy.
[quote]
while they say “we are more of a production and manufacturing company.” And then they go forth and brag about “their” advancements.[/quote]
Who pays for it is irrelevant. We know where the products come from. If there is a demand and profit available, the money will be there. Gov’t, with subsidies and grants, picks and chooses the direction the market takes. This is very dangerous and has certainly set us back. Demand and viability need direct capital, not lobbying and political favoritism.
No, but I think that the government should step in when those with power keep others down for financial gain. It’s why we have a minimum wage. [/quote]
Show me examples of those with power to keep others down for financial gain.
The minimum wage was not created because of what you state. We could fill pages just discussing how minimum wage has never been effective and just drives the cost of goods/services up for everyone in a neverending loop-- feel free to start that thread
[quote]borrek wrote:
The reason our economy got to where it is now is because there was still money for some to make, no matter how risky. It was a case of the super rich playing with funds to create money even though it could collapse everything. I think the gov’t should step in there[/quote]
If you’re alluding to the F/F problem right now, you’re not understanding that government intervention is equally if not more responsible for the situation-- it created an environment to give credit to those who should never been granted credit. In other words, the government created an unnatural environment for that industry just for the political sake of ‘housing for everyone’.
Gov’t has the funds to set us back decades on alternatives. Gov’t makes political decisions and spends money the same way. If they back the wrong technology or research projects, the bulk of the market will follow. This is catastrophic. Do you have confidence that the gov’t can spend this enormous amount of money (that they don’t have) on the most efficient research and on the most efficient technologies? You are going to have show me one single instance gov’t has been more efficient then the free market on domestic issues.
[/quote]
You have no idea how the government researches. The don’t offer a billion dollars to a company to create a super renewable ultra clean energy. They offer a million dollars to a thousand companies to tweak efficiencies by a percent here and there. They back competing technologies and allow private companies to invest their own money and get involved for license rights.
There is a glaring problem with bureaucracy and lack of oversight in gov’t reasearch, but when the prize is as big as renewable clean energy, I think the free market will add a check/balance.
No one can argue that the wealth gap is growing. This money is not distributed in any way
Fundamental question: Do you believe it’s the government’s role to bridge the so-called ‘wealth gap’?
No, but I think that the government should step in when those with power keep others down for financial gain. It’s why we have a minimum wage.
[/quote] only the consumer or gov’t can give them power. If the consumer gives them this majical power, what right is it of gov’t to take it away. And who decide who can keep the power and who can’t and to what level? The same politicians that hand out subsidies and have created the equalities? The free market is a direct democracy where we vote millions of times a day. Every transaction is a vote.
The minimum wage does more harm than good. It keeps those that are not worth minimum wage from selling their services.
[/quote]
The reason our economy got to where it is now is because there was still money for some to make, no matter how risky. It was a case of the super rich playing with funds to create money even though it could collapse everything. I think the gov’t should step in there
[/quote]
And they would lose there collective asses if big brother didn’t step in. They will never learn their lesson and will keep taking these risks if there is someone to bail them out.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Once again, I approach topics individually. I do NOT like the idea of paying more taxes the more money I make…but guess fucking what? It is already happening right now! I pay a shit load in taxes every month right now simply because I went to school and got “doctor” in front of my name.
The system as it stands SUCKS ASS and needs a change.
So, then you disagree with Obama’s targeted tax increases? Just because it’s happening now doesn’t make it right.
[/quote]
I think it may be better than what I am experiencing right now. Most of you complaining about this are NOT making 250K a year or anywhere near it.
Gov’t has the funds to set us back decades on alternatives. Gov’t makes political decisions and spends money the same way. If they back the wrong technology or research projects, the bulk of the market will follow. This is catastrophic. Do you have confidence that the gov’t can spend this enormous amount of money (that they don’t have) on the most efficient research and on the most efficient technologies? You are going to have show me one single instance gov’t has been more efficient then the free market on domestic issues.
You have no idea how the government researches. The don’t offer a billion dollars to a company to create a super renewable ultra clean energy. They offer a million dollars to a thousand companies to tweak efficiencies by a percent here and there. They back competing technologies and allow private companies to invest their own money and get involved for license rights.
There is a glaring problem with bureaucracy and lack of oversight in gov’t reasearch, but when the prize is as big as renewable clean energy, I think the free market will add a check/balance.
[/quote]
They cannot possibly evaluate as many technologies as the free market. The cannot possibly spend the investment money as efficiently as the free market. The free market is driven my profit and greed. The bureaucrats are driven working their 9 to 5 and going home.
Then what do we need gov’t for? Who cares more about your money, you or some nameless bureaucrat in washington. Who do you trust more to invest it wisely and to move that investment if it not panning out?
No, but I think that the government should step in when those with power keep others down for financial gain. It’s why we have a minimum wage.
Show me examples of those with power to keep others down for financial gain.
The minimum wage was not created because of what you state. We could fill pages just discussing how minimum wage has never been effective and just drives the cost of goods/services up for everyone in a neverending loop-- feel free to start that thread
[/quote]
The minimum wage legislation kept workers from being exploited, and kept working hours reasonable, and it allows a provision to force companies to scale base pay with cost of living increases/inflation. Minimum wage isn’t perfect, but it is better than nothing. I don’t see how anyone living around immigrant labor (and we all do) can say that those guys have a decent standard of living. If we kick out immigrants, prices will shoot through the roof, but it still doesnt make it right for us to take advantage of their situation.
It could also be argued that corporate taxes are useless because companies will only pass that cost onto the customer in a free economy. We both know it isn’t that simple and corporate taxes are important.
Government created the environment, and private firms took advantage of that environment to make serious money. Aside from fannie mae/freddie mac, the SEC allowed 5 major companies to have debt equity ratios of 40:1 care to guess who those 5 are?? Its time for the government to create the right environment because it seems to be be proven that the lack of proper oversight results in a clusterfuck
No, but I think that the government should step in when those with power keep others down for financial gain. It’s why we have a minimum wage.
Show me examples of those with power to keep others down for financial gain.
The minimum wage was not created because of what you state. We could fill pages just discussing how minimum wage has never been effective and just drives the cost of goods/services up for everyone in a neverending loop-- feel free to start that thread
The minimum wage legislation kept workers from being exploited, and kept working hours reasonable, and it allows a provision to force companies to scale base pay with cost of living increases/inflation. Minimum wage isn’t perfect, but it is better than nothing. I don’t see how anyone living around immigrant labor (and we all do) can say that those guys have a decent standard of living. If we kick out immigrants, prices will shoot through the roof, but it still doesnt make it right for us to take advantage of their situation.
It could also be argued that corporate taxes are useless because companies will only pass that cost onto the customer in a free economy. We both know it isn’t that simple and corporate taxes are important.
borrek wrote:
The reason our economy got to where it is now is because there was still money for some to make, no matter how risky. It was a case of the super rich playing with funds to create money even though it could collapse everything. I think the gov’t should step in there
If you’re alluding to the F/F problem right now, you’re not understanding that government intervention is equally if not more responsible for the situation-- it created an environment to give credit to those who should never been granted credit. In other words, the government created an unnatural environment for that industry just for the political sake of ‘housing for everyone’.
Government created the environment, and private firms took advantage of that environment to make serious money. Aside from fannie mae/freddie mac, the SEC allowed 5 major companies to have debt equity ratios of 40:1 care to guess who those 5 are?? Its time for the government to create the right environment because it seems to be be proven that the lack of proper oversight results in a clusterfuck
[quote]dhickey wrote
And they would lose there collective asses if big brother didn’t step in. They will never learn their lesson and will keep taking these risks if there is someone to bail them out.
[/quote]
I partially agree, I think they should lose everything. Problem is this, without the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout, my house is worthless. How much is a house worth when no one can get a loan to buy it? If my ass weren’t on the line I would say let them hang.
The system as it stands SUCKS ASS and needs a change.
So, then you disagree with Obama’s targeted tax increases? Just because it’s happening now doesn’t make it right.
I think it may be better than what I am experiencing right now. Most of you complaining about this are NOT making 250K a year or anywhere near it.[/quote]
You may be right for most, but not in my case. However, I don’t think it’s the point. It doesn’t matter if that number were $50k, $500k, or $1M-- it’s the principal of class warfare and penalizing those for attaining something because of hard work and choice and those who haven’t.
I’ve spent a decade working my ass off, after working my way through college and graduate school to attain my current level of income. I still work my ass off, and am no way ‘rich’, yet I’m looking at the potential to be penalized and forced to pay tribute to an arbitrarily established ‘class’ of people who have made poor choices or whatever other twist of fate.
This is why I despise socialism and class warfare. I spite of what’s stolen from my paycheck, I still give to charity and I’d gladly give what’s taken out forcefully if I had a choice-- that’s the problem.
It is income distribution and I want no part of it. I don’t despise ultra-wealthy people or even ‘Big --’. Many in this forum support stealing from the successful and giving to the not successful-- can you imagine if that were true in bodybuilding? YOU work your ass off for 10 years and someone gets the gains for sitting on their couch eating chips?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
borrek wrote:
<<< I think the free market will add a check/balance.
OMG… Listen to yourself friend.
You know how people who smoke can’t smell smoke on other people…[/quote]
let me fill you in. The government awards contracts for research, contractors bid services. If a contractor fails to produce, their funds are “deobligated” and the money is filtered to where it needs to go.
A company who can produce cheaply and create serious results is going to get the contract over competitors.
The days of the manhattan project are over. These days we’d be dropping a bomb made by the cheapest providers that could meet the goals. The performance still has to be there though. No boom, no paycheck.
It is not a terribly efficient process, and it needs as much overhauling as anything else gov’t related, but small companies cannot put it all on the line to research techs that don’t pan out. There has to be a buffer and that buffer is gov’t.
