Scare Tactics

[Ganesh]

This is a reprint of a letter written to a US newspaper recently. I think it is worth looking at, as it presents a clear summary of actual economic issues facing us today, and discounts the spin of the far right, limit government, cut spending, catastrophe is coming crowd.

"Regarding professor Jack Ochs’ commentary on the U.S. national debt (“A Great Economic Reckoning,” Oct. 16), I take great issue with how he and other economists and pundits characterize our debt as a burden that will cause us to raise future taxes and cut necessary entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare to maintain solvency.

1. If interest rates go up, it’s because the economy is strong and growing with healthy inflation. Interest payments on the debt as part of the budget are insignificant then. Rates don’t go up in a vacuum. I marvel at how people still don’t make that connection.

2. The U.S. government is nothing like Greece because we issue debt in our own currency and therefore can never run out of it. Investors know this and will never fear that the U.S. Treasury will not pay its debts.

3. Mr. Ochs mentions post-World War I Germany as an example of rampant inflation from money printing. Of course. The country was destroyed and had no productive assets to deploy locally and had to print money to service its debts to other countries. It had no wealth backing. The only way hyperinflation happens is from severe political unrest, coups and civil wars. It never happens in stable, wealthy sovereign currency-issuing countries.

4. He laments demographic effects on the debt and federal expenditures. Japan has a far worse demographic profile than we have, has a 250 percent debt/​GDP ratio (ours is 75 percent) and the interest rate on 10-year Japan bonds is 0.50 percent.

Academic and business interests scaring everybody about a coming debt catastrophe have severely limited our politicians’ ability to lower tax rates, increase spending and invest in the kinds of projects and programs that benefit all citizens of this country, put people back to work and foster widespread prosperity.

We don’t need to have hang-ups about our debt because we will always be able to pay it. Always. Fears about the national debt should never be an excuse to limit the capabilities of this country."

 

[Hawkeye10]

This is a reprint of a letter written to a US newspaper recently. I think it is worth looking at, as it presents a clear summary of actual economic issues facing us today, and discounts the spin of the far right, limit government, cut spending, catastrophe is coming crowd.

"Regarding professor Jack Ochs’ commentary on the U.S. national debt (“A Great Economic Reckoning,” Oct. 16), I take great issue with how he and other economists and pundits characterize our debt as a burden that will cause us to raise future taxes and cut necessary entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare to maintain solvency.

1. If interest rates go up, it’s because the economy is strong and growing with healthy inflation. Interest payments on the debt as part of the budget are insignificant then. Rates don’t go up in a vacuum. I marvel at how people still don’t make that connection.

2. The U.S. government is nothing like Greece because we issue debt in our own currency and therefore can never run out of it. Investors know this and will never fear that the U.S. Treasury will not pay its debts.

3. Mr. Ochs mentions post-World War I Germany as an example of rampant inflation from money printing. Of course. The country was destroyed and had no productive assets to deploy locally and had to print money to service its debts to other countries. It had no wealth backing. The only way hyperinflation happens is from severe political unrest, coups and civil wars. It never happens in stable, wealthy sovereign currency-issuing countries.

4. He laments demographic effects on the debt and federal expenditures. Japan has a far worse demographic profile than we have, has a 250 percent debt/​GDP ratio (ours is 75 percent) and the interest rate on 10-year Japan bonds is 0.50 percent.

Academic and business interests scaring everybody about a coming debt catastrophe have severely limited our politicians’ ability to lower tax rates, increase spending and invest in the kinds of projects and programs that benefit all citizens of this country, put people back to work and foster widespread prosperity.

We don’t need to have hang-ups about our debt because we will always be able to pay it. Always. Fears about the national debt should never be an excuse to limit the capabilities of this country."

No actually a lot of times countries cant pay their debts, and then very bad things start to happen.

Every. Time.

 

[Moderate Right]

This is a reprint of a letter written to a US newspaper recently. I think it is worth looking at, as it presents a clear summary of actual economic issues facing us today, and discounts the spin of the far right, limit government, cut spending, catastrophe is coming crowd.

"Regarding professor Jack Ochs’ commentary on the U.S. national debt (“A Great Economic Reckoning,” Oct. 16), I take great issue with how he and other economists and pundits characterize our debt as a burden that will cause us to raise future taxes and cut necessary entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare to maintain solvency.

1. If interest rates go up, it’s because the economy is strong and growing with healthy inflation. Interest payments on the debt as part of the budget are insignificant then. Rates don’t go up in a vacuum. I marvel at how people still don’t make that connection.

2. The U.S. government is nothing like Greece because we issue debt in our own currency and therefore can never run out of it. Investors know this and will never fear that the U.S. Treasury will not pay its debts.

3. Mr. Ochs mentions post-World War I Germany as an example of rampant inflation from money printing. Of course. The country was destroyed and had no productive assets to deploy locally and had to print money to service its debts to other countries. It had no wealth backing. The only way hyperinflation happens is from severe political unrest, coups and civil wars. It never happens in stable, wealthy sovereign currency-issuing countries.

4. He laments demographic effects on the debt and federal expenditures. Japan has a far worse demographic profile than we have, has a 250 percent debt/​GDP ratio (ours is 75 percent) and the interest rate on 10-year Japan bonds is 0.50 percent.

Academic and business interests scaring everybody about a coming debt catastrophe have severely limited our politicians’ ability to lower tax rates, increase spending and invest in the kinds of projects and programs that benefit all citizens of this country, put people back to work and foster widespread prosperity.

We don’t need to have hang-ups about our debt because we will always be able to pay it. Always. Fears about the national debt should never be an excuse to limit the capabilities of this country."

So you get a liberal to critique the economy and what do you get? A biased liberal viewpoint of the economy. Who wooda thunk?

 

[mmi]

So you get a liberal to critique the economy and what do you get? A biased liberal viewpoint of the economy. Who wooda thunk?

So you have nothing to offer of any substance — you just smugly label the author's politics. Big surprise.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Oh look more fearmongering.

 

[Ganesh]

No actually a lot of times countries cant pay their debts, and then very bad things start to happen.

Every. Time.

The writer makes the point that, outside of some extreme peripheries, a major economy with its own currency is not going to go bankrupt, not going to have to default on debt obligations, and really the challenge is to provide full and meaningful employment, and to maximize pro-social economic endeavors. Dollar amounts of debts only have relevance in relation to the larger economy; its direction and its sustainability.

As far as bad things happening, they already are, and much of it is due to misguided ideas of limiting public resources, and public direction of social policy. Take a look at inner cities in Europe, and then do a tour of similar in the US, or fly out of a US airport, and then try one like Hong Kong, Singapore, or others around the world, or seek out healthcare in Australia or Canada, and then go home and pay your corporate dues.

 

[eohrnberger]

What wonderful news!

Ever single man, woman and child should demand $100,000,000,000 each in benefits from the government.
After all, the government can just borrow more, and it'll never go bankrupt. You just said so.

Yeah, brilliant. :screwy:

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

What wonderful news!

Ever single man, woman and child should demand $100,000,000,000 each in benefits from the government.
After all, the government can just borrow more, and it'll never go bankrupt. You just said so.

Yeah, brilliant. :screwy:

If this is the only argument you can come up with, just admit defeat and spare yourself the embarrassment of being taken apart in debate.

 

[eohrnberger]

If this is the only argument you can come up with, just admit defeat and spare yourself the embarrassment of being taken apart in debate.

Debt matter. Deficits matter. Neither can be run up beyond a point without repercussions. TANSTAAFL. Pay me now, or pay me later. Whatever you want to call it, that is reality.

What the OP posits is that it's not, and that both debt and deficits can be run up without consequences. I'm just saying that is simply not so, and it's foolish to believe that it is so.

 

[mmi]

Debt matter. Deficits matter. Neither can be run up beyond a point without repercussions.

So stop supporting the policies that have created all these very large deficits and all this debt. Seems simple enough.

 

[eohrnberger]

So stop supporting the policies that have created all these very large deficits and all this debt. Seems simple enough.

DC's spending problem needs to be brought under control.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Debt matter. Deficits matter. Neither can be run up beyond a point without repercussions. TANSTAAFL. Pay me now, or pay me later. Whatever you want to call it, that is reality.

What the OP posits is that it's not, and that both debt and deficits can be run up without consequences. I'm just saying that is simply not so, and it's foolish to believe that it is so.

Almost every sovereign country chooses to issue debt. And the world still turns. Without debt, there is no money, and without federal deficits, there is no MB. And with that one, single sentence, I put forth a more substantive argument than, "TANSTAAFL," or "pay me now, or pay me later." You aren't going to win this debate without making an economic argument. Let's see some evidence of these repercussions and consequences you're talking about.

 

[Ganesh]

What wonderful news!

Ever single man, woman and child should demand $100,000,000,000 each in benefits from the government.
After all, the government can just borrow more, and it'll never go bankrupt. You just said so.

Yeah, brilliant. :screwy:

Actually it is pretty good news for most, although I suspect, given the posts you have presented here to date, that you will struggle to understand it, unless your caregiver is willing to spend time reading it to you slowly, with frequent breaks for references to the dictionary, and other assorted works, and perhaps not then.

The good news is that society has come a long way, with some rather dramatic advances in technology and hence the productivity of the economy, exponential increases in knowledge in many fields, and a relatively long period of peace among the major economies of the world (with some exceptions). People today, in the more favored part of the world anyway, have the ability to be healthier and wealthier than ever before. It really only takes a small portion, by historic standards, of the population to produce all goods and services necessary.

Now the bad news. Just about all that increase in productivity and wealth has coalesced around a tiny minority of the determined, the voracious, and the casually fortunate. Some here have been agents of their fortune; many have not. And in either case, it is not good for the economy. The nostalgia of the middle class society so used by politicians will dwindle ever further into memory if the upward redistribution of wealth continues.

When the forces of the marketplace push towards a new feudalism, a high tech one with corporate centers of power, and surviving, but marginalized peasantry, mesmerized like our fellow poster eohrnberger into arguing resolutely against his own interests, then the time has come for public policy, and public expenditure, to utilize the gains of our times. Those that feel they are worth billions, or trillions, can make their case, but aside from the most credulous and easily swayed, my bet is it won't hold up under informed scrutiny.

The push should be, IMO, for as full employment as is practical, meaningful employment, and subsidy for all else. It should be for worthwhile, pro-social, sustainable projects, and not for desperate attempts to maintain a consumer society by selling ever more worthless bobbles, and certainly not for the wink and nudge acquiescence to a rentier class, producing nothing but plans for further appropriation of wealth. We've seen how the trickle down/ government austerity programs work: they do not. Time for a new paradigm.

 

[eohrnberger]

Actually it is pretty good news for most, although I suspect, given the posts you have presented here to date, that you will struggle to understand it, unless your caregiver is willing to spend time reading it to you slowly, with frequent breaks for references to the dictionary, and other assorted works, and perhaps not then.

The good news is that society has come a long way, with some rather dramatic advances in technology and hence the productivity of the economy, exponential increases in knowledge in many fields, and a relatively long period of peace among the major economies of the world (with some exceptions). People today, in the more favored part of the world anyway, have the ability to be healthier and wealthier than ever before. It really only takes a small portion, by historic standards, of the population to produce all goods and services necessary.

Now the bad news. Just about all that increase in productivity and wealth has coalesced around a tiny minority of the determined, the voracious, and the casually fortunate. Some here have been agents of their fortune; many have not. And in either case, it is not good for the economy. The nostalgia of the middle class society so used by politicians will dwindle ever further into memory if the upward redistribution of wealth continues.

When the forces of the marketplace push towards a new feudalism, a high tech one with corporate centers of power, and surviving, but marginalized peasantry, mesmerized like our fellow poster eohrnberger into arguing resolutely against his own interests, then the time has come for public policy, and public expenditure, to utilize the gains of our times. Those that feel they are worth billions, or trillions, can make their case, but aside from the most credulous and easily swayed, my bet is it won't hold up under informed scrutiny.

The push should be, IMO, for as full employment as is practical, meaningful employment, and subsidy for all else. It should be for worthwhile, pro-social, sustainable projects, and not for desperate attempts to maintain a consumer society by selling ever more worthless bobbles, and certainly not for the wink and nudge acquiescence to a rentier class, producing nothing but plans for further appropriation of wealth. We've seen how the trickle down/ government austerity programs work: they do not. Time for a new paradigm.

How wonderfully insulting of you. Too bad, I was expecting better from you.

I recognize part of your position as the 'concentration of wealth' argument. (See, far more economical in words and no insults - I tell ya it can be done)

So what do your propose as a remedy? Forced wealth redistribution?
And if so, which temple priests will you elect charge with the responsibility of doling out the earnings of some for the benefit of others?
Whom of the many humans all with many human flaws and many human frailties can anyone trust with such immense power and impact as to chose the winners and losers in life?

Certainly none in government have proven themselves worthy of such trust. So then whom to charge with this awesome responsibility?

A government is a fiscal entity and as such doesn't it exist within the same fiscal realities and boundaries as any other fiscal entity? The most fundamental of these realities is that if you spend more than what you take in, you'll accumulate debt. An ever increasing debt load can't be sustained.

We are already seeing in the federal government budget that discretionary spending being squeezed out by the non-discretionary spending, of which 16% is the mandatory payment on the debt's interest. How much more debt can be taken on before the federal government is forced to borrow ever more to pay the debt interest, and the whole thing turns into a runaway?

And with those parting thoughts, I bid you a good evening.

 

[austrianecon]

This is a reprint of a letter written to a US newspaper recently. I think it is worth looking at, as it presents a clear summary of actual economic issues facing us today, and discounts the spin of the far right, limit government, cut spending, catastrophe is coming crowd.

"Regarding professor Jack Ochs’ commentary on the U.S. national debt (“A Great Economic Reckoning,” Oct. 16), I take great issue with how he and other economists and pundits characterize our debt as a burden that will cause us to raise future taxes and cut necessary entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare to maintain solvency.

1. If interest rates go up, it’s because the economy is strong and growing with healthy inflation. Interest payments on the debt as part of the budget are insignificant then. Rates don’t go up in a vacuum. I marvel at how people still don’t make that connection.

2. The U.S. government is nothing like Greece because we issue debt in our own currency and therefore can never run out of it. Investors know this and will never fear that the U.S. Treasury will not pay its debts.

3. Mr. Ochs mentions post-World War I Germany as an example of rampant inflation from money printing. Of course. The country was destroyed and had no productive assets to deploy locally and had to print money to service its debts to other countries. It had no wealth backing. The only way hyperinflation happens is from severe political unrest, coups and civil wars. It never happens in stable, wealthy sovereign currency-issuing countries.

4. He laments demographic effects on the debt and federal expenditures. Japan has a far worse demographic profile than we have, has a 250 percent debt/​GDP ratio (ours is 75 percent) and the interest rate on 10-year Japan bonds is 0.50 percent.

Academic and business interests scaring everybody about a coming debt catastrophe have severely limited our politicians’ ability to lower tax rates, increase spending and invest in the kinds of projects and programs that benefit all citizens of this country, put people back to work and foster widespread prosperity.

We don’t need to have hang-ups about our debt because we will always be able to pay it. Always. Fears about the national debt should never be an excuse to limit the capabilities of this country."

Can you link it? Because the fool actually doesn't even look at US debt structure (page 18).. or even know the BoJ is doing NIRP and has bought up 40% of Japanese bonds on the market (the other half are held in institutions that can sell them as they'd go insolvent per Basel rules or Insurance rules).

 

[mmi]

which temple priests will you elect charge with the responsibility of doling out the earnings of some for the benefit of others?

Shifting, not doling out. And if we can elect representatives empowered to declare war, I figure we can do the same in regard to setting fiscal policy.

>>Whom of the many humans all with many human flaws and many human frailties can anyone trust with such immense power

That's easy — liberals.

>>Certainly none in government have proven themselves worthy of such trust.

I disagree.

>>So then whom to charge with this awesome responsibility?

Again, liberals.

>>A government is a fiscal entity and as such doesn't it exist within the same fiscal realities and boundaries as any other fiscal entity?

No, as a matter of fact it doesn't, not the US in the twenty-first century at least.

>>The most fundamental of these realities is that if you spend more than what you take in, you'll accumulate debt.

So let's stop giving massive tax cut giveaways to fat cats and deregulating the financial sector to produce a bubble and a severe recession.

>>An ever increasing debt load can't be sustained.

That depends on a variety of factors, notably economic expansion and the relative size of the debt. If we run $300B deficits and production grows at 2-2.5% in real dollars, the national debt will become less of a problem. Ten years of that and debt/GDP would fall back to a more manageable figure.

>>non-discretionary spending, of which 16% is the mandatory payment on the debt's interest.

Debt service in neither discretionary nor non-discretionary. Non-discretionary spending last year was around $2.5T, so the $223B in interest payments was about nine percent of that total.

>>How much more debt can be taken on before the federal government is forced to borrow ever more to pay the debt interest, and the whole thing turns into a runaway?

How much more GOP SSE crap can we withstand? I say we don't look to find out.

 

[mmi]

DC's spending problem needs to be brought under control.

Flat Jul 2010 - Mar 2014 at $3.8T in current expenditures. $4.1T Q2 2016, up 8% in nominal dollars under the Negro. (source)

 

[joG]

Flat Jul 2010 - Mar 2014 at $3.8T in current expenditures. $4.1T Q2 2016, up 8% in nominal dollars under the Negro. (source)

I didn't realise anyone still used that word.

 

[Moderate Right]

How wonderfully insulting of you. Too bad, I was expecting better from you.

I recognize part of your position as the 'concentration of wealth' argument. (See, far more economical in words and no insults - I tell ya it can be done)

So what do your propose as a remedy? Forced wealth redistribution?
And if so, which temple priests will you elect charge with the responsibility of doling out the earnings of some for the benefit of others?
Whom of the many humans all with many human flaws and many human frailties can anyone trust with such immense power and impact as to chose the winners and losers in life?

Certainly none in government have proven themselves worthy of such trust. So then whom to charge with this awesome responsibility?

A government is a fiscal entity and as such doesn't it exist within the same fiscal realities and boundaries as any other fiscal entity? The most fundamental of these realities is that if you spend more than what you take in, you'll accumulate debt. An ever increasing debt load can't be sustained.

We are already seeing in the federal government budget that discretionary spending being squeezed out by the non-discretionary spending, of which 16% is the mandatory payment on the debt's interest. How much more debt can be taken on before the federal government is forced to borrow ever more to pay the debt interest, and the whole thing turns into a runaway?

And with those parting thoughts, I bid you a good evening.

You are wrong. It is the temple priestess named Hillary.

 

[Critter7r]

almost every sovereign country chooses to issue debt. And the world still turns. Without debt, there is no money, and without federal deficits, there is no mb. And with that one, single sentence, i put forth a more substantive argument than, "tanstaafl," or "pay me now, or pay me later." you aren't going to win this debate without making an economic argument. Let's see some evidence of these repercussions and consequences you're talking about.

but but but but but ... Venezuela!!

 

[mmi]

I didn't realise anyone still used that word.

Ya mean "source"?

Nah, I know which one ya mean. I figure "Negro" is a fine word, and that Negroes should be proud of their racial heritage, Trumpian business practices notwithstanding.

 

[eohrnberger]

Shifting, not doling out.

Tomato / tomato.

And if we can elect representatives empowered to declare war, I figure we can do the same in regard to setting fiscal policy.

>>Whom of the many humans all with many human flaws and many human frailties can anyone trust with such immense power

That's easy — liberals.

:lamo As if more than 1/2 the country actually has trust there.
That's gonna have to be a real sell job. Kinda like how ObamaCare was sold, on a pack of lies.

>>Certainly none in government have proven themselves worthy of such trust.

I disagree.

>>So then whom to charge with this awesome responsibility?

Again, liberals.

See above comments as the the dishonesty exhibited by liberals / Democrats / progressives. Of course that's not saying that Republicans / conservatives are necessarily any better, but does call to question the likelihood of abuse of this ominous power over the economy by something as untrustworthy as government.

>>A government is a fiscal entity and as such doesn't it exist within the same fiscal realities and boundaries as any other fiscal entity?

No, as a matter of fact it doesn't, not the US in the twenty-first century at least.

>>The most fundamental of these realities is that if you spend more than what you take in, you'll accumulate debt.

So let's stop giving massive tax cut giveaways to fat cats and deregulating the financial sector to produce a bubble and a severe recession.

No one is asserting this as a path forward except you. However, I would insist that legislation / regulation actually do what it claims to do, and do it in a minimally intrusive / maximum effectiveness manner, such as the ObamaCare failure and the Dodd-Frank failure, WRT too big to fail.

>>An ever increasing debt load can't be sustained.

That depends on a variety of factors, notably economic expansion and the relative size of the debt. If we run $300B deficits and production grows at 2-2.5% in real dollars, the national debt will become less of a problem. Ten years of that and debt/GDP would fall back to a more manageable figure.

>>non-discretionary spending, of which 16% is the mandatory payment on the debt's interest.

Debt service in neither discretionary nor non-discretionary. Non-discretionary spending last year was around $2.5T, so the $223B in interest payments was about nine percent of that total.

Check. However, the interest payment appears to be non-discretionary spending.

Major categories of FY 2014 mandatory spending included:

1. Social Security ($845B or 24% of spending),
2. Healthcare such as Medicare and Medicaid ($831B or 24%),
3. other mandatory programs such as food stamps and unemployment compensation ($420B or 12%) and interest ($229B or 6.5%).[SUP][1][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expen...al_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_entitlements

Further, the fastest growing segment of non-discretionary spending is in the entitlement programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expen...al_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_entitlements

Seems to me that if we want to, and have to, be able to afford these entitlement programs, we should be working to grow GDP so that we can, and not at a measly 1% to 1.5%. That's not going to happen regardless of how much more the government spends. That's only going to happen if the government lowers barriers to the private sector, most significantly, regulations that are less costly to comply with, reference Dodd-Frank as an example.

>>How much more debt can be taken on before the federal government is forced to borrow ever more to pay the debt interest, and the whole thing turns into a runaway?

How much more GOP SSE crap can we withstand? I say we don't look to find out.

Stockholm School of Economics?

 

[eohrnberger]

You are wrong. It is the temple priestess named Hillary.

!!!

 

[mmi]

Tomato / tomato.

Everything in the budget involves shifting. Is it all "doling out"?

>>As if more than 1/2 the country actually has trust there.

Enough to elect and reelect the Negro. Isn't he a liberal?

>>ObamaCare was sold on a pack of lies.

No it wasn't.

>>the likelihood of abuse of this ominous power over the economy by something as untrustworthy as government.

Gubmint is subject to electoral control. Corporate power is more difficult to restrain, and the public influence that does exist is largely through gubmint.

>>No one is asserting this as a path forward except you.

Have you seen Frumpy's tax plan?

>>the ObamaCare failure

A big success.

>>the Dodd-Frank failure, WRT too big to fail.

You'll agree that getting a handle on these behemoths is not an easy task. It's a work in progress imo. It looks like Congress wants to sit back and leave things to the regulators. If we aren't getting what we want, the legislature should consider further action.

[Bernanke argues that] a lot of progress has been made (and more is in train) toward reducing the risks that large, complex financial institutions pose for the financial system and the economy. To say that "nothing has been done" is simply not correct. That said, because it’s really important to get this right, thoughtful debate on the issue is necessary and welcome. (source)​

>>the interest payment appears to be non-discretionary spending.

"Mandatory," yes, and so in effect non-discretionary. I'm not arguing the point, but fwiw it's a different label. I suppose there's no legal requirement that we pay the interest, but obviously there's a very powerful political and economic incentive to do so.

>>the fastest growing segment of non-discretionary spending is in the entitlement programs.

Yes, SS and Medicare. Aging baby boomer population. One day society will be free of the burden of us old farts.

>>we should be working to grow GDP so that we can, and not at a measly 1% to 1.5%.

I agree. I support smart public investments in education, infrastructure, and R & D. Regulations should be improved/refined.

>>That's not going to happen regardless of how much more the government spends.

Sounds like ideology to me, not macroeconomics.

>>That's only going to happen if the government lowers barriers to the private sector

I figure that's one way, not the only way.

>>Stockholm School of Economics?

Seems OK t' me. A mixed economy — limited socioeconomic inequity combined with an adequate level of macroeconomic efficiency.

!!!

Eight years. Settle in and enjoy. She won't yell as POTUS the way she does as a candidate.

 

[Ganesh]

How wonderfully insulting of you. Too bad, I was expecting better from you.

I recognize part of your position as the 'concentration of wealth' argument. (See, far more economical in words and no insults - I tell ya it can be done)

So what do your propose as a remedy? Forced wealth redistribution?
And if so, which temple priests will you elect charge with the responsibility of doling out the earnings of some for the benefit of others?
Whom of the many humans all with many human flaws and many human frailties can anyone trust with such immense power and impact as to chose the winners and losers in life?

You seem to stand in great awe of any who would make economic decisions. Yet there are many out there qualified, lot's of bright young folks obtaining their PhD's, and stepping up to the plate. You may worry about immense power, but that is a fact of life- all actions have consequences, but that doesn't mean we should fear to make any decisions. If you remove such choices from the public sphere, it just means someone else is going to make them, someone with even less accountability. Who would you pick, Donald Trump? The manager of your local motel 6?

Wealth is being redistributed every minute of the day, and always has been, right back to the time when a proto-human threw a joint of mammoth meat to the rest of the tribe. The problem today is the rise of the utility of capital, and the demise of the value of labour, both occurring at the same time. This has led to a windfall for a few, and milling and boiling resentment for many (witness this election cycle). This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely will require some hard political choices about how to restructure society. It is impossible to simply assume business will take the right course, because it will not. What is good for GM may be bad for American workers. What is preferable to WalMart is usually not preferable to the town and cities it locates in. It makes sense for corporations to move to avoid taxes and regulations, it usually does not for society at large. This is really not rocket science. We have referees to ensure to efficient functioning of the game in general, assigning the job to particular players will destroy the point of the job.