• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Our free market system versus wages

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems like people in all sorts of different academic fields are always complaining they don't make nearly as much money as celebrities, athletes, or CEO's.

Well, tough luck.

The wages we give to people are based on our free market system. People are paid based on their value relative to how much their employer thinks they're worth. If you're in an academic field and think you should be making $20 million per year, move to a communist country where you might make more money. But here in America, we have our very efficient and moral free market system.

Furthermore, I am sick of people always saying teachers and professors should make more money. I admire them greatly but I don't believe the government should ever step in and regulate wages. Just because you have a phd degree, doesn't mean you should be making millions of dollars per year. A degree is nice to have but that doesn't mean that wages neccessarily have to be set around it. I'm a big fan of education, don't get me wrong. But I don't think that means you should automatically receive a certain salary. I've encountered people who are medical doctors and have phds and they can be arrogant. I'm sorry but just having a phd doesn't mean we should all praise you like an idol.

It seems like the scientific and engineering communities are always complaining that they don't make as much money as certain people in show business. Well, that's just tough, isn't it. Like I said, we have a free market system and businesses are privately owned. Therefore, employers have a right to pay their employees whatever they want, whenever they want to.

I firmly believe that for the most part an unregulated, free market works the best.
 
Last edited:

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
His Excellently! George_Washington!


The wages we give to people are based on our free market system. People are paid based on their value relative to how much their employer thinks they're worth. If you're in an academic field and think you should be making $20 million per year, move to a communist country where you might make more money. But here in America, we have our very efficient and moral free market system.


I agree with your statements. If people want more money they should get better paying jobs. Simply put.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ivan The Terrible said:
His Excellently! George_Washington!





I agree with your statements. If people want more money they should get better paying jobs. Simply put.

Or better yet, use there free time to give speeches or other services for supplemental income, I know quite a few people who lend their talent to make what they desire. Great post by both of you. :clap: :agree
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
There are a number of aspects of your OP, some of which I agree with and some I do not, but I take particular issue with this bit:

Furthermore, I am sick of people always saying teachers and professors should make more money. I admire them greatly but I don't believe the government should ever step in and regulate wages.

I would like to make a couple points:

1) We do not have a free market system. In fact, Adam Smith and David Ricardo would be shocked at how we run our economy, which bears little resemblance to either man's theory.

2) Why shouldn't government regulate wages? The only times in history they haven't been regulated have been some of the worst economic disasters on record.

3) Why would you or anybody say that wages are not currently regulated? I'm not talking about minimum wage--wages are regulated in a variety of indirect ways that have little to do with mandate.
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ashurbanipal,


1) We do not have a free market system. In fact, Adam Smith and David Ricardo would be shocked at how we run our economy, which bears little resemblance to either man's theory.

Agreed!

2) Why shouldn't government regulate wages? The only times in history they haven't been regulated have been some of the worst economic disasters on record.

Example?

3) Why would you or anybody say that wages are not currently regulated? I'm not talking about minimum wage--wages are regulated in a variety of indirect ways that have little to do with mandate.

Proof?
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Ivan,

There are only a few times/ places in history when/where wages were completely unregulated. I am unable to think of a single instance of deregulation of wages that didn't lead to huge disparities in the distribution of wealth and some degree of economic collapse. Perhaps you can cite one or two that didn't have that effect and we can examine?

As for evidence of regulation other than minimum wage, just examine the proceedings of industry groups and trace their connections to politicians of various status and stripe. Typically, wage standards in the industry are a topic of discussion; lately the discussion (at least in the various retail industry associations with whose proceedings I am familiar) has centered on driving wages downward towards minimum wage. Companies are not given the types of tax breaks in this administration that they were given based on payrolls under Clinton, so there is no counter-incentive to pay people more. There is an actual case to be made for this being a good idea, though I think it suffers from a fatal flaw.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ashurbanipal said:
There are a number of aspects of your OP, some of which I agree with and some I do not, but I take particular issue with this bit:



I would like to make a couple points:

1) We do not have a free market system. In fact, Adam Smith and David Ricardo would be shocked at how we run our economy, which bears little resemblance to either man's theory.

2) Why shouldn't government regulate wages? The only times in history they haven't been regulated have been some of the worst economic disasters on record.

3) Why would you or anybody say that wages are not currently regulated? I'm not talking about minimum wage--wages are regulated in a variety of indirect ways that have little to do with mandate.


of course lets not forget a time when America was becoming rapidly developed and standards of living improved and that failed policies to "protect american industry" were implemented that led to the great depression, among other federal things, namely the reserve.


Government from the beginning brings problems to the table after a very short period of time. All government seems to always want to increase its regulations and excersise its influence on society. I guess it was just the fact that we didn't have wage standards that leads to economic problems instead...
 
T

The Real McCoy

LaMidRighter said:
Or better yet, use there free time to give speeches or other services for supplemental income, I know quite a few people who lend their talent to make what they desire. Great post by both of you. :clap: :agree

I love when guys like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky charge college campuses 5 figures for their speeches on the evils of capitalism. Or travel abroad to bash America, then come back home to the sweet life in their multi-million dollar homes.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
of course lets not forget a time when America was becoming rapidly developed and standards of living improved and that failed policies to "protect american industry" were implemented that led to the great depression, among other federal things, namely the reserve.

What are you talking about? Those failed policies were policies meant to deregulate wages and prices. The idea that standards of living were improving generally in the period 1865-1905 is more or less absurd. They improved for a few. Most people actually saw their standard of living drop.


Government from the beginning brings problems to the table after a very short period of time. All government seems to always want to increase its regulations and excersise its influence on society. I guess it was just the fact that we didn't have wage standards that leads to economic problems instead.

Correct but you don't seem to understand why--it's not just government that is the problem. Any organized power structure falls in the same category. Religions become corrupt. So do (especially) corporations. Government is the only thing that can balance the abuses of these interests. If you disable government from regulating corporations, corporations will form their own governments and abuse the people under their power.

In any case, yes, the fact that we didn't have wage standards prior to 1933 (IIRC) was a major cause of the great depression. The depression was confusing to a lot of people at the time--we had plenty of resources and the means to take advantage of them. But people couldn't get work, businesses were failing, and poverty was growing. Why? Take a look at the net worth and income inequalities of the time. The problem was that all the wealth had flowed to the top of the pyramid after Coolidge did away with regional wage controls that had been established by the labor movement a few decades earlier. That period, in its time, was also a kind of depression (though not acknowledged as such because economic data weren't recorded regularly). Income inequalities in the period 1865-1905 were, again, just horrible and led to lots of ill consequences. There was a brief period of wealth being redistributed, but the backlash led to deregulation and income inequality once again.

The great depression was a result of not enough people possessing enough money to buy things. Rich people were a small minority, and they didn't need to buy anything, so they left their money in the bank. Roosevelt had to threaten to devalue the dollar to get them spending it. We were on our way out of the great depression by 1938 as a result of wage standards and incentives to get rich people redistributing their wealth downward. It's more or less that simple.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I love when guys like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky charge college campuses 5 figures for their speeches on the evils of capitalism. Or travel abroad to bash America, then come back home to the sweet life in their multi-million dollar homes.

1) Is that what they speak about? Are the "evils of capitalism" they extoll evils that they themselves benefit from or commit? I've never heard either of them speak, but Michael Moore's complaints in his books have little to do with capitalism and everything to do with corporate malfeasance and government collusion. That's not inherent in capitalism; so I'm not sure I get your complaint.

2) Even if this were true, your argument has no force as it's just a form of ad hominem called the Tu Quoque (translation: 'you also'). Basically, it's fallacious to say that someone is wrong for condemning actions they themselves may participate in. To understand why this is a fallacy, think of a completely different situation: suppose that there's a coven of assassins who travel the world killing people for lots of money. The people they kill don't deserve to be killed; they're just people who anger other people with lots of money, who turn to these assassins to have them whacked. One day, Fred the assassin turns to his murderous companions and says "guys, I think what we're doing is wrong." Now the other assassins say "well, you've killed people too, so you've no room to talk." But is Fred's assertion (i.e. that killing people for money is morally despicable) wrong? Of course not.

Similarly, even if Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore do all the evil things they decry, they're still right to decry them if those actions are wrong. At best, they only condemn themselves along with the others that do them.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ashurbanipal said:
What are you talking about? Those failed policies were policies meant to deregulate wages and prices. The idea that standards of living were improving generally in the period 1865-1905 is more or less absurd. They improved for a few. Most people actually saw their standard of living drop.




Correct but you don't seem to understand why--it's not just government that is the problem. Any organized power structure falls in the same category. Religions become corrupt. So do (especially) corporations. Government is the only thing that can balance the abuses of these interests. If you disable government from regulating corporations, corporations will form their own governments and abuse the people under their power.

In any case, yes, the fact that we didn't have wage standards prior to 1933 (IIRC) was a major cause of the great depression. The depression was confusing to a lot of people at the time--we had plenty of resources and the means to take advantage of them. But people couldn't get work, businesses were failing, and poverty was growing. Why? Take a look at the net worth and income inequalities of the time. The problem was that all the wealth had flowed to the top of the pyramid after Coolidge did away with regional wage controls that had been established by the labor movement a few decades earlier. That period, in its time, was also a kind of depression (though not acknowledged as such because economic data weren't recorded regularly). Income inequalities in the period 1865-1905 were, again, just horrible and led to lots of ill consequences. There was a brief period of wealth being redistributed, but the backlash led to deregulation and income inequality once again.

The great depression was a result of not enough people possessing enough money to buy things. Rich people were a small minority, and they didn't need to buy anything, so they left their money in the bank. Roosevelt had to threaten to devalue the dollar to get them spending it. We were on our way out of the great depression by 1938 as a result of wage standards and incentives to get rich people redistributing their wealth downward. It's more or less that simple.


Contrary to popular belief, the cause of the initial stock market crash in 1929 was basically the same cause of the bursting of the recent bubbles in the stock market, that being the loose money policies of the Fed. During the 1920s, as Murray N. Rothbard documented in his classic America’s Great Depression, the Fed--led by Benjamin Strong (the Alan Greenspan of his day), chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (which basically set Fed policy at that time)--suppressed interest rates and aggressively pursued open market operations to vastly increase bank reserves.

Following the 1929 crash, the Fed at first reacted by loosening credit to "provide liquidity" to the system, something which Rothbard authoritatively explains in his book. Bank failures occurred, not so much because the Fed refused to stop bank runs, but rather because banks had overextended themselves during the unsustainable boom of the late 1920s.

Even had they propped up banks in the manner that Friedman says they should have, the U.S. economy still would have been foundering in a serious downturn as the malinvested capital created and sustained by the boom had to be liquidated. Friedman, ironically, is correct in stating that the Fed played a major role in causing the Great Depression, but he fails to point out the real damage caused by the central bank.

http://www.mises.org/story/1008


As the article points out itself, your analysis doesn't fit with the model here. Even my own analysis was wrong though.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
128shot said:
http://www.mises.org/story/1008

Contrary to popular belief, the cause of the initial stock market crash in 1929 was basically the same cause of the bursting of the recent bubbles in the stock market, that being the loose money policies of the Fed. During the 1920s, as Murray N. Rothbard documented in his classic America’s Great Depression, the Fed--led by Benjamin Strong (the Alan Greenspan of his day), chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (which basically set Fed policy at that time)--suppressed interest rates and aggressively pursued open market operations to vastly increase bank reserves.

Following the 1929 crash, the Fed at first reacted by loosening credit to "provide liquidity" to the system, something which Rothbard authoritatively explains in his book. Bank failures occurred, not so much because the Fed refused to stop bank runs, but rather because banks had overextended themselves during the unsustainable boom of the late 1920s.

Even had they propped up banks in the manner that Friedman says they should have, the U.S. economy still would have been foundering in a serious downturn as the malinvested capital created and sustained by the boom had to be liquidated. Friedman, ironically, is correct in stating that the Fed played a major role in causing the Great Depression, but he fails to point out the real damage caused by the central bank.

As the article points out itself, your analysis doesn't fit with the model here. Even my own analysis was wrong though.

I've seen this "bubble theory" (which appears to be the rage du jour in economics) argument before blaming monetary policy for stock market fluctuations. I don't know if I buy it. Exactly what Fed policies led to the market crash in '29? If there was an overexpansion of the money supply, you would have seen inflation, which to my knowlege was not a characteristic of the 20s. Besides, the US was still on the gold standard then, how much control over the money supply did the Fed have (without devaluing the dollar)?

Market fluctuations are caused by many things. Fed policy may have some effect (lower interest rates tend to encourage economic acitivity and investment, not necessarily a bad thing), but you certainly cannot discount market psychology -- alternatively greed and fear -- as being primary causes of market fluctuations.

I think a more palatible explanation for the severity of '29 crash was the loose regulation on margin trading. You could margin (borrow) against stocks 90% in those days. For $10, you could buy through your broker $100 worth of stock by borrowing $90 against the stock. If the stock went up 10%, $10 in price, to $110, you made $10, you doubled your money with only a 10% increase in stock price. Take the $10 you made and buy another $100 worth of stock. Yippee! Lots of money was made this way and it fueled the huge bull market in the roaring '20s.

But, what happens when things don't go up? Suppose the $100 stock you bought goes down to $90. You owe your broker $90, so your equity has been totally wiped out with a 10% decrease in stock price. Then you'd get a "margin call" from your broker, telling you to pony up $9 to meet the margin. What do you do? Maybe sell the other $100 stock you just bought? Except that went down 10% too, you owe your broker $9 for that as well. Now your equity is wiped out, and you owe your broker $18. If you don't pay up, your broker sells your stock and you are wiped out.

At a 90% margin, a 10% increase in stock price doubles your money and a 10% decrease wipes you out. Multiplie this times millions of investors and you can see the enormous multiplier effect and pressure this puts on market prices, going up when times are good but pushing the prices down when things slide.

It was this margin trading that wiped out millions of investors and greatly increase the depth of the market collapse.

Today margin trading is limited by law to 50%, I believe.
 
Last edited:

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
128 shot,

OK, so this article you posted is just terrible:

One of the enduring myths about government is the notion that successful governments are those entities that "provide prosperity" for those who are governed.

Isn't one of the main charges of government as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States providing for the common weal? So to the extent that governments work for the people they govern, it appears that providing prosperity is a principle mission of government. So this guy may as well have said "One of the enduring myths about geometry is that triangles have three sides." That successful government provides prosperity is true by definition, so with this kind of lead in, I don't hold out much hope that the rest of the article will be worthwhile.

In a recent appearance before Congress, Alan Greenspan declared that the recent "scandals" in American business were the result of "infectious greed...

The implication here is that Greenspan is wrong. This author capitalizes on the fact that, if all the enron-like scandals that prop up the American economy were exposed, our economy would collapse utterly. He is going to draw a distinction between the set of ideas that dictate these sorts of business models as the holy grail and those sets of ideas that would keep wages unregulated. Nothing is further from the truth--the Dennis Kozlowskis of the world would love nothing better than to be able to pay a pittance to their employees.

To understand, however, why the U.S. economy is quite vulnerable to a serious recession--or even a depression--we need to know why the Great Depression occurred and what the government should have done to prevent it, as opposed to what the government actually did. Furthermore, understanding real causes of the Great Depression also reveals that the political classes gained power from this economic calamity. If anyone believes that most intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats are not hoping and praying for a repeat of the 1930s, I have a bridge that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

This appears to be the one indellibly true paragraph in the whole article. What was it that Goebbels said about lying? Something about mixing lies with the truth to confuse one's audience...

This one {i.e. that lower wages led to depression} should be laughable on its face...This is like saying an abundance of food causes hunger, a logical absurdity.

This is a straw man, and not even a very artful one at that. Creating an abundance of food does not necessarily lead to hunger, but making everyone create an abundance of food, and then giving all the food to just a few people does leave everyone else hungry. This is precisely analagous to keeping wages artificially low. If you have lots of money in the economy, but 1% of the people have 99% of it, the rest are going to be poor. That seems so clear as to be beyond dispute, at least with any set of real-world parameters.

As is always the case during a boom, the standard of living for most Americans increased in that decade...

1) Standards of living did not increase for most people during the 1920's, especially when measured proportional to the overall amount of wealth in the U.S. economy. Standard of living was not defined then as it is today, either; the picture looks much worse pre-depression when a common-sense definition of "standard of living" is applied.

2) The price of essential goods and services remained constant proportional to the money supply, while wages declined proportional to the money supply. This led to a transfer of wealth upward, and a relative sequestration of money in the hands of a few.

3) This isn't to say that deregulated wages were the only cause of the depression, but they certainly contributed and prolonged it.

In the wake of the crash and the subsequent liquidity crisis that occurred soon afterward as margin calls escalated after the stock market downturn, Hoover urged business and labor leaders to keep wages and prices high and not let them fall, believing that a "high wage" strategy would win the day.

1) Calling for something and getting people to listen are two different things. The reaction of most businesses to the news of the depression was to fire as many people as possible, keep wages low, while raising prices. This is simple psychology--the people who owned the businesses wanted to get as much money as possible for the hard times; that's how they did it.

2) In any case, if wages have been falling relative to prices, it makes no sense to call for wages and prices to stay high--wages must increase and prices must fall; the fabulously wealthy must give up some of their wealth.

In 1932, the Hoover administration, alarmed that the federal budget deficit was growing, pushed through a huge series of tax increases. Top income tax rates were raised from 24 percent to near 70 percent, while taxes on other items were nearly doubled. Not surprisingly, the federal deficit grew even more after the passage of these punitive tax measures.

1) The tax measures were hardly "punitive" in the sense of "intended to punish."

2) Why "not surprisingly?" If you make $100 a month but have bills of $200 a month, you have to go into debt at the rate of $100 per month. But if you get a job making $300 per month, you should be able to pay your bills without encurring debt unless your bills go up. If government spending increased after government revenues increased, then this is the only reason this wouldn't be "surprising." But one could hardly be said to be the cause of the other. It appears, by this point, that this author has shown his hand--by making it seem like deficits will "not surprisingly" grow if you tax the rich, it seems pretty clear he's wanting to prevent increasing taxation on those who have a lot of money.

Rothbard also points out that Hoover attacked business leaders and the stock market, much in the same way that President George W. Bush and his amen corner in Congress and the media have been doing. Like the present media and political classes, Hoover sought to blame business leaders themselves for the economic downturn.Rothbard also points out that Hoover attacked business leaders and the stock market, much in the same way that President George W. Bush and his amen corner in Congress and the media have been doing. Like the present media and political classes, Hoover sought to blame business leaders themselves for the economic downturn.

It comes as quite a shock to me, as I'm sure it does to just about everyone else with any kind of brain, that Bush is "attacking" business leaders.

To be continued...
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,589
Reaction score
2,326
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
as promised...

Roosevelt’s New Deal, which Rothbard says was basically a continuation of the Hoover programs, had the opposite results from what his adoring press claims. When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, the nation’s rate of unemployment stood at 25 percent. After falling to about 15 percent by 1935, unemployment rose to nearly 20 percent in 1938--a depression within a depression--and stayed in double digits until near the end of 1941, when the United States entered World War II.

So let's get this straight: Roosevelt decreased unemployment, but his New Deal had the opposite effect that his adoring press claimed? It seems to me they claimed it reduced unemployment. This author seems to admit that this is the case. So he's contradicting himself.

But I get the deeper question--was it enough? Obviously not. But whereas deregulation had led to depression and government programs seemed to decrease unemployment, it would seem wise to continue government spending and reverse deregulation.

Roosevelt’s second New Deal centered on aiding labor unions in organizing the workplace, aggressive antitrust policies, raising taxes on higher-income Americans in order to further transfer wealth. The centerpieces of the second New Deal were the creation of Social Security and passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. The first has created literally trillions of dollars of unfunded liability, while the second has led to untold increases in business costs and lost productivity.

1) That trillions of dollars of unfunded liability is pure grade-A spin. Those projections take projected payouts and ignore projected revenue. So technically its correct--payouts given ten years from now are a liability and they're currently unfunded. But by then, they will be funded, just as payouts now were unfunded ten years ago. See the CBO report on social security for details.

2) Any sort of concession to labor could be described as increasing costs and causing lost productivity. For instance, if India were to institute a mandatory 10 hour day and a minimum wage of $5.00 a day, many businesses there would claim a loss of productivity and an increase in costs. But the question is, is it a good and necessary thing? In this case (i.e. in the case of the depression and post depression in America) it clearly is a good thing. I'm sure companies all over America would love to be able to pay a few cents an hour rather than the minimum they are currently required to pay. But the fact that there are laws preventing them from doing so is an unquestionably good thing. So basically, this guy is full of *****.

On top of raising costs on businesses, the Roosevelt administration also was the source of white-hot anti-enterprise rhetoric. It is no wonder that private investment--and especially long-term investment--fell to extremely low levels during the 1930s, as business owners found themselves facing uncertain fates from a hostile government that was blaming them for the unemployment and the economic crisis.

Of course! They had all the money, and they wanted to keep it because there didn't seem to be any prospect for making any more at the time. But here's one of the critical issues--it wasn't that the Fed wasn't printing money, it's that the money they were or could have printed would have devalued the money already in circulation, because there was a depressed rate of commodity production.

Furthermore, much of the drop in the nation’s unemployment rate was due to the fact that millions of American men were conscripted into the armed forces. To put it mildly, while people had jobs and paychecks, they still were poor. War might have provided jobs, but it did not bring prosperity.

Again, this just makes no sense. It's like the guy is saying "The sky is blue. But, of course, the sky is yellow." Those people who got jobs and paychecks, whether in the military, working in a factory, or whatever, had a leg up over what they had prior to WWII. It was an improvement over the prior situation. So this criticism makes zero sense.

What makes the current situation so dicey is that, on top of all the other bad economic news, politicians of both political parties are leading a "race to the bottom" to see who can be the most outraged at business owners and executives. The Democrats have already announced that they are going to run their political platforms on anti-business themes, or at least on demands that businesses be regulated to death. Republicans, on the other hand, have touted their own "tough new laws" that are aimed at throwing as many executives in prison as the justice system can spare.

1) I've never seen any politician anywhere claim that business ought to be regulated "to death."

2) If business owners or executives commit crimes, their statii as such should not protect them from legal prosecution. Frankly, I think the penalties for doing what the likes of Dennis Kozlowski or Jeff Skilling did ought to be much more severe than are currently provided for; they ruined the lives of thousands of people and adversely affected millions more to provide for their own extravagant lifestyles. What they did ought to be considered equivalent to mass murder and they treated as such.

There is a way out of this current economic mess: Stop the government merry-go-round. As Rothbard writes in America’s Great Depression, once the economic bust has begun, the burdens of government must be lifted. Malinvested resources must be permitted to be liquidated, government spending must be cut back, and the central bank must not try to "reflate" the currency. Within a short time, business owners and managers will make the necessary adjustments, and the economy will recover.

OK, so he makes several claims, a couple spurious ones interspersed with claims that he did provide some support for:

1) Lift the burdens of government: he didn't show that reasonable government regulation would either cause a depression or prevent us from coming out of one.

2) Liquidate malinvested resources: to the extent this is possible, it seems like a good idea. I bet, however, his idea and my idea of malinvested resources are a little different.

3) Cut back government spending: this needs to be heavily qualified. What spending, particularly, and in what way? I think it would be good to decrease the tax burden on the poor and middle classes while increasing the burden on the upper classes in order to re-distribute wealth. But it would be disastrous to cut all government spending.

4) The Fed must not try to reflate currency: well, what does he mean exactly? They shouldn't print extraordinary amounts of cash for the treasury department if that's what he means. But they shouldn't take a bunch of money out of circulation, either. Cracking down on derivatives would be a much more sound monetary policy.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Real McCoy said:
I love when guys like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky charge college campuses 5 figures for their speeches on the evils of capitalism. Or travel abroad to bash America, then come back home to the sweet life in their multi-million dollar homes.

Excellent point. David Horowitz recently wrote a book how college campuses have been taken over by marxists and socialists, it's called, "The Professors."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260034/immaculate-books/102-6621620-6429723

I would suggest everyone read this book. If you're a bratty, marxist Ivy League Professor and you're mad cause Donald Trump makes more money in one day than you will make in your entire lifetime...tough. Cry me a bloody river. He's worked hard for it. He employees thousands of people and keeps the economy going. All you do is sit behind Ivory Towered walls and whine about the free market. Sucks to be you.
 

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
27
Location
In your mind
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
His Excellently! George_Washington!


Thank you Ivan, I knew you were a brillant man from the beginning

Was there any doubt?

would suggest everyone read this book. If you're a bratty, marxist Ivy League Professor and you're mad cause Donald Trump makes more money in one day than you will make in your entire lifetime...tough. Cry me a bloody river. He's worked hard for it. He employees thousands of people and keeps the economy going. All you do is sit behind Ivory Towered walls and whine about the free market. Sucks to be you.

I'll pick it up.
 
Top Bottom