• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

The New Economy in America and its Discontents

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I came across some startling figures today. They all concern the New Economy that many, if not all, US politicians support. Let's go through the facts. First of all, the Gini coefficient, a measurement of a population's income inequality, is currrently past .45, a level not seen since the pro-business 20s. The Gini coefficient works like this: if all were equal, the coefficient would be zero, if all were owned by a single person, the coefficient would be one. The coefficients of industrialized countries normally range from .2 to .4, so one can see that with the US's coefficient of .45 (and its expected to rise, the graph I have shows it going up) is high. The majority of American workers' wages in the 90s either fell or barely kept pace with inflation. In 1990, the average CEO made 85 times more money than the average blue collar worker. This ratio grew, as in '99, the avg CEO made 475 times more than the average blue collar worker. And these are average numbers. In '97, the CEO of General Electric was paid some 1400 times the average wage of a blue collar worker in the US and 9,571 times the avg wage of a Mexican worker. Compare this with Japan, where the CEO-worker salary ratio is 11:1 and in Britain it is 24:1. Perhaps most startling, the US's richest 1% held 40% of the US's wealth in '97. This is up from 20% in 1979. Bill Gates himself owned in 1999 as much as 40% of the American population put together. Organized labor has slipped below 10% of the private sector workforce.

These numbers tell us one thing: Our country is heading the wrong way. We must atleast put a left Democrat back in the White House, even though more and more Dems support the New Economy. We must do something, though, before the old ideas of equality and economic security, the old liberal ideas, are lost forever. Frighteningly, the Republican party seems to be gaining momentum with each election year. We must stop this disturbing trend soon, that much should be clear. The time to act is now.

*All numbers and figures taken from One Market Under God by Thomas Frank.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
All facts and figures are skewed.

It is impossible to tell specifically what these problems are caused by.



It could be the huge # of jobs shipped overseas because of minimum wage.

It could be the deals and benefits government grants big businesses.

It could be a complication with the # of people with adequate education for CEO positions at a company.

It could be copyright and patent laws that prevent people from duplicating products.

It could be the inefficiency caused by the general acceptance of a fiat currency (FRNs) as the medium of exchange in the US.

It could be high taxes that cause low-wage earners to struggle.

It could be pricey costs of the FDA that prevent new products from reaching the market, thus discouraging small businesses and individuals to create their own products.



Each thing I named is a problem CAUSED by government rules and regulations.

What I'm saying is, since the US is neither very capitalist nor very socialist, it is not possible to easily tell which part of which side is causing the problems.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
All facts and figures are skewed.

It is impossible to tell specifically what these problems are caused by.



It could be the huge # of jobs shipped overseas because of minimum wage.

It could be the deals and benefits government grants big businesses.

It could be a complication with the # of people with adequate education for CEO positions at a company.

It could be copyright and patent laws that prevent people from duplicating products.

It could be the inefficiency caused by the general acceptance of a fiat currency (FRNs) as the medium of exchange in the US.

It could be high taxes that cause low-wage earners to struggle.

It could be pricey costs of the FDA that prevent new products from reaching the market, thus discouraging small businesses and individuals to create their own products.



Each thing I named is a problem CAUSED by government rules and regulations.

What I'm saying is, since the US is neither very capitalist nor very socialist, it is not possible to easily tell which part of which side is causing the problems.
Actually, your whole rebuttle is a little inaccurate. This same pattern-great inequality, and great wealth for CEO's (and the rest of management)-happened once before. In the 'roaring twenties'. And, if you look at the Gini index, the graph I mentioned showed a hig inequality rate in the twenties and early thirties, just before the New Deal was implemented. After the war, measures taken by Roosevelt in the New Deal kept this high rate of equality, and this was the era of heavy regulation and 'bgi government'. 1968 was the highest year of equality in our nation's history. Inequality started to arise in the 70's, but this was slight. Then we have Reagan, and his wonderful 'Reaganomics'. This marked the beginning of the end of democratic economics in the USA. Inequality soared during the 80's and grew even faster during the 90's. The 90's shut the door on democratic economics, and welcomed in the 'free market' (which you, of all people, Gabo, should know isn't free). Recall that in '90 the blue collar worker still made 1/85 the wage of his CEO. This ratio soared during the era of 'Market populism', the '90s. By the end the worker made only 1/475 the wage of his CEO. There really is no evidence that minimum wage or 'big government' cause economic inequality, since the US experienced its greatest equality during the era of 'big government'. The country experience its greatest inequality in the '20s, and today, we are approaching that.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
This same pattern-great inequality, and great wealth for CEO's (and the rest of management)-happened once before. In the 'roaring twenties'. And, if you look at the Gini index, the graph I mentioned showed a hig inequality rate in the twenties and early thirties, just before the New Deal was implemented.
The roaring twenties and the following Great Depression were CAUSED by government monopolizing of our currency.

Don't try blaming free enterprise for something the government caused.



anomaly said:
Then we have Reagan, and his wonderful 'Reaganomics'. This marked the beginning of the end of democratic economics in the USA. Inequality soared during the 80's and grew even faster during the 90's.
Yes, Reagan WAS the beginning of the end of USA economics.

Interesting how Reagan's DOUBLING the size of the government in one short term is what brought the beginning of the end.



anomaly said:
The 90's shut the door on democratic economics, and welcomed in the 'free market' (which you, of all people, Gabo, should know isn't free). Recall that in '90 the blue collar worker still made 1/85 the wage of his CEO. This ratio soared during the era of 'Market populism', the '90s. By the end the worker made only 1/475 the wage of his CEO. There really is no evidence that minimum wage or 'big government' cause economic inequality, since the US experienced its greatest equality during the era of 'big government'. The country experience its greatest inequality in the '20s, and today, we are approaching that.
You claim the biggest equality came when we had big government, yet Reagan (who came after this 'equality') is the first president to DOUBLE the size of the government. Apparently our government was actually quite small during this time of equality.

You don't consider the fact that our school system has not changed with the times, making it harder for people to be successful in the real world.

You don't contrast ACTUAL wages of blue collar workers, but only contrast the ratio compared to their CEOs.

I'm guessing that you think the government is SMALLER than it used to be, since you say our government isn't big enough anymore.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
The roaring twenties and the following Great Depression were CAUSED by government monopolizing of our currency.

Don't try blaming free enterprise for something the government caused.
Then why do these spurts of inequality coinside with laissez-faire policies? And when did our gov't not monopolize the currency? Besides, voters have control over the gov't. As privatisation and deregulation increase, so does inequality. Every economist agrees with this, so why do you disagree? The evidence is there. This is the main reason we have people such as your's truly who are against modern capitalism. It is known that deregulation and privatisation of the economy causes inequality.




Gabo said:
Yes, Reagan WAS the beginning of the end of USA economics.

Interesting how Reagan's DOUBLING the size of the government in one short term is what brought the beginning of the end.
Info please? And I believe Reagan appears this way because he increased the size of our military. But it is known by almost everyone (except for you) that Reagan preached the virtues of capitalism and he, along with Thatcher, his British counterpart, began to privatise and deregulate and lower taxes, destroying the foundation of the old welfare state of liberalism.




Gabo said:
You claim the biggest equality came when we had big government, yet Reagan (who came after this 'equality') is the first president to DOUBLE the size of the government. Apparently our government was actually quite small during this time of equality.

You don't consider the fact that our school system has not changed with the times, making it harder for people to be successful in the real world.

You don't contrast ACTUAL wages of blue collar workers, but only contrast the ratio compared to their CEOs.

I'm guessing that you think the government is SMALLER than it used to be, since you say our government isn't big enough anymore.
No, if you know anything, you would know FDR's New Deal increased the size of our governement tremendously, some capitalist onlookers even feared that his socialist policies threatened capitalism itself. It remained this large until Nixon in the 70s, Reagan in the 80s, and Clinton in the 90s began to tear the New Deal apart. Our schools system needs reform, but handing schools over to corporations is not the answer. We need to make public schools more equal. And you want Thomas Frank to go out and discover every single blue collar worker's salary? That's about impossible. But he can find the averages, and compare them to the CEO's salary. Again, this ratio is very high in the US, but not in the UK or Japan, countries that haven't done as much deregulation or privatisation as the USA.
Overall, I don't think you have any case to make in this argument, Gabo. But I would like to se the data that says Reagan doubled the gov't's size. And again, it can appear this way because of increasing the size of the military.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's some info on Reagan contributing to economic inequality: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/decline.htm .
And BTW, I looked around for this 'doubling the size of gov't' and found that under Reagan the total size of gov't remained pretty much the same, decreasing slightly in '89. Reagan cut social programs and taxes continually, but gov't size was kept constant thanks to his record peacetime spending on the military.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Then why do these spurts of inequality coinside with laissez-faire policies? And when did our gov't not monopolize the currency?
It's not so much the monopolizing of currency that matters, but the abusing of the monopoly that matters.

Back before the Federal Reserve Act, all money had to be backed by silver and gold, and US Dollars had the good old saying "redeemable by bearer on demand".

Then came the conversion of USD into a fiat currency. They slowly got rid of all the REAL dollars, replacing them with look alikes that didn't have the valuable redemption guarrantee.

This led our economy on a downward spiral.
One we are still in today.


anomaly said:
Besides, voters have control over the gov't. As privatisation and deregulation increase, so does inequality. Every economist agrees with this, so why do you disagree? The evidence is there. This is the main reason we have people such as your's truly who are against modern capitalism. It is known that deregulation and privatisation of the economy causes inequality.
Sameness and equality are not a shared vision.
In fact, many people despise indifference.
It's important to acknowledge individualism and uniqueness.

I suggest you read The Giver or watch The Incredibles for some insights as to how sameness and mediocrity are not always good things.


The wonderful thing about deregulation is that people can agree to be regulated. They can regulate themselves!

This is what makes deregulation so much more versatile and fair!

Those people sharing your opinion can establish a society with rigid structure and rules to promote mediocrity.

Meanwhile, people like me can live in complete freedom, not mooching off of others as a way of life.


A free market is NOT always a market of dog-eat-dog, no rules competition.

When people regulate themselves, they can agree to whatever they wish.



anomaly said:
Info please? And I believe Reagan appears this way because he increased the size of our military. But it is known by almost everyone (except for you) that Reagan preached the virtues of capitalism and he, along with Thatcher, his British counterpart, began to privatise and deregulate and lower taxes, destroying the foundation of the old welfare state of liberalism.
Yes, Reagan PREACHED the virtues of capitalism, but instituted nothing of the sort.

I don't care where he put the money, DOUBLING the size of the government is one of the WORST possible things for a capitalist to do.

Because, as history has proven, once the size of government increases its almost impossible for it to decrease.



anomaly said:
No, if you know anything, you would know FDR's New Deal increased the size of our governement tremendously, some capitalist onlookers even feared that his socialist policies threatened capitalism itself. It remained this large until Nixon in the 70s, Reagan in the 80s, and Clinton in the 90s began to tear the New Deal apart.
REAGAN DOUBLED GOVERNMENT SIZE!

How can you possibly see that as tearing apart big government?



anomaly said:
Our schools system needs reform, but handing schools over to corporations is not the answer. We need to make public schools more equal.
How do you plan to make everyone the same when they clearly are NOT!
In doing so, you eliminate EVERY part of their life that includes individuality.

Public schools have only gone straight downhill from their creation.

SAT scores are WAY lower than 20 years ago, and fewer people are graduating.

On the reverse side, private schools are decreasing tuition, increasing teacher pay, being nicer to students, and changing with the times. They have WAY lower dropout rates, and are more likely to succeed.

It is simply impossible and wrong to make everything the same, when everyone is clearly not.
Stop trying to mold the entire nation into the personality, opinions, and thoughts you see fit.

People have a variety of lifestyles, and everyone deserves the right to learn morals and values of their own liking.



anomaly said:
And you want Thomas Frank to go out and discover every single blue collar worker's salary? That's about impossible. But he can find the averages, and compare them to the CEO's salary. Again, this ratio is very high in the US, but not in the UK or Japan, countries that haven't done as much deregulation or privatisation as the USA.
Once again, a ratio means nothing.

I would like to see a raw number value that compares earnings of US blue collar workers to those in other countries.



anomaly said:
Overall, I don't think you have any case to make in this argument, Gabo.
Here is my sole arguement. You either:

1) Regulate Economy - those that like benefits from regulations are happy. those that don't like regulations are skrewed over with no recourse.

2) Deregulate Economy - those that like benefits from regulations regulate themselves, so they're happy. those that don't like regulations create none, so they're happy. EVERYONE WINS



anomaly said:
But I would like to se the data that says Reagan doubled the gov't's size. And again, it can appear this way because of increasing the size of the military.
"He was a budget hawk who tripled the national debt and created record budget deficits with his tax-cutting "supply-side" economic policies, which came to be known as Reaganomics."

"Reagan had considerable problems trying to balance the budget during his second term in office. This was because he had increased defence spending by 35%."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm


I don't remember where the article showing government size was, but here is an article with some stuff about him increasing defecit and spending.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
It's not so much the monopolizing of currency that matters, but the abusing of the monopoly that matters.

Back before the Federal Reserve Act, all money had to be backed by silver and gold, and US Dollars had the good old saying "redeemable by bearer on demand".

Then came the conversion of USD into a fiat currency. They slowly got rid of all the REAL dollars, replacing them with look alikes that didn't have the valuable redemption guarrantee.

This led our economy on a downward spiral.
One we are still in today.
You didn't answer my first question.



Gabo said:
Sameness and equality are not a shared vision.
In fact, many people despise indifference.
It's important to acknowledge individualism and uniqueness.

I suggest you read The Giver or watch The Incredibles for some insights as to how sameness and mediocrity are not always good things.


The wonderful thing about deregulation is that people can agree to be regulated. They can regulate themselves!

This is what makes deregulation so much more versatile and fair!

Those people sharing your opinion can establish a society with rigid structure and rules to promote mediocrity.

Meanwhile, people like me can live in complete freedom, not mooching off of others as a way of life.


A free market is NOT always a market of dog-eat-dog, no rules competition.

When people regulate themselves, they can agree to whatever they wish.
Ha! The leftist belief is to create more equality in economic areas, not total sameness and equality. You speak of everything being the same and equal, and miss the point of what I was saying. I want more economic equality, it is the right that wants 'order' in society (control of lifestyles). And would you please show me the worker who is completely happy making 1/425 the salary of his CEO? And please don't go into your utopian ideas about the wonder of deregulation. I've tried to make the other forum the one for utopian ideas, and this one for more realistic observation into the current system. With deregulation, it is not so wonderful as you imagine. Regulating businesses means the gov't keeping an eye on businesses and mandating things deemed fair and just. Deregulating would eliminate this watch, and businesses would be 'free' to subject their workers to whatever they feel would give management more money. It happened in the twenties, and history has a tendency to repeat itself. And deregulation certainly doesn't mean total democracy, as you seem to think. In fact, in the realm of business, democracy is a foreign idea, as almost every major company is a dictatorship. And you wish to eliminate the semi-democratic control of businesses we have now, in favor of letting these dictatorships, many of them, run free? Well, atleast now I see where you're getting this idea of 'freedom' from. Businesses would be free to create the most profit possible.




Gabo said:
Yes, Reagan PREACHED the virtues of capitalism, but instituted nothing of the sort.

I don't care where he put the money, DOUBLING the size of the government is one of the WORST possible things for a capitalist to do.

Because, as history has proven, once the size of government increases its almost impossible for it to decrease.
Well, maybe you should check your facts, he never doubled the size of government. He cut some social programs and lowered the taxes that were funding 'big government', and then built up the military as had been never seen before during peacetime (in doing both, he really kept the size of government technically the same, although he tore apart what one traditionally thinks of as 'government', and built up the military, which is technically government). And may I remind you, he was a Republican, no libertarian. He strongly believed the virtue of capitalism, but also in the virtue of a strong military.









Gabo said:
How do you plan to make everyone the same when they clearly are NOT!
In doing so, you eliminate EVERY part of their life that includes individuality.

Public schools have only gone straight downhill from their creation.

SAT scores are WAY lower than 20 years ago, and fewer people are graduating.

On the reverse side, private schools are decreasing tuition, increasing teacher pay, being nicer to students, and changing with the times. They have WAY lower dropout rates, and are more likely to succeed.

It is simply impossible and wrong to make everything the same, when everyone is clearly not.
Stop trying to mold the entire nation into the personality, opinions, and thoughts you see fit.

People have a variety of lifestyles, and everyone deserves the right to learn morals and values of their own liking.
Public schooling creates a standard of learning, it doesn't make every student the same. And I can't believe you're saying that I wish to destroy individual freedoms! I am no conservative! I want people to have the freest lifestyle possible, but at the same time I want to see the economy regulated, ensuring that corporations don't have the freedom to screw the avg worker as they have done in the past. I push for economic democracy, where the gov't, voted by the people, controls businesses and thus makes sure everyone makes a fair amount of money, eveyone gets benefits they deserve, and every form of labor is free to organise against any unfair measure of business. Your confusing socialism with fascism, and it is very aggravating.




Gabo said:
Once again, a ratio means nothing.

I would like to see a raw number value that compares earnings of US blue collar workers to those in other countries.
Huh? Does it really matter if a blue collar worker in the US makes more than a blue collar worker in the UK or vis-versa? I don't know what you're talking about. The facts are simple: An average CEO in the UK makes 24 times what the average blue collar worker makes in the UK, and a CEO in the USA makes 475 times more than an average blue collar worker in the USA. It's really quite simple. You can't ignore the facts. I again plead to you to admit that capitalism increases economic inequality, as these numbers should show (also something that Ayn Rand herself admitted). Ayn Rand admitted this! Why can't you? Why do you cling to an obviously imperfect system on the basis of believing it is indeed perfect! Unregulated capitalism=Less government involvement=economic inequality. Please admit it!




Gabo said:
Here is my sole arguement. You either:

1) Regulate Economy - those that like benefits from regulations are happy. those that don't like regulations are skrewed over with no recourse.

2) Deregulate Economy - those that like benefits from regulations regulate themselves, so they're happy. those that don't like regulations create none, so they're happy. EVERYONE WINS
If you deregulate, businesses gain power, and, contrary to what you believe, businesses and CEOs don't really care about work conditions or worker wages. They care about profit, profit for themselves. Why else would Nike and Gap maintain sweatshops in Asia? These don't promote human welfare. And yet they exist. Don't confuse this with the CEO's of these corporations being 'evil'. They are just following the general rule of capitalism, and that is to get as rich and profitable as possible. This need for profit inevitably leads to vast inequality, which is seen in capitalism. Again, I await your saying that capitalism creates inquality.




Gabo said:
"He was a budget hawk who tripled the national debt and created record budget deficits with his tax-cutting "supply-side" economic policies, which came to be known as Reaganomics."

"Reagan had considerable problems trying to balance the budget during his second term in office. This was because he had increased defence spending by 35%."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm


I don't remember where the article showing government size was, but here is an article with some stuff about him increasing defecit and spending.
I agree. But he certainly didn't double the size of government. He simple lowered taxes, deregulated (not as much as his supporters would have liked), and spent like crazy on the military. He din't spend anything on social programs or anything like that, rather on military. Through these measures, he increased the unemployment rate and the poverty rate. Demand side economics have always been supported by the left. Demand side or Keynesian economics states that it is the government's responsibility to smoothe out bumps in the business cycle. Otherwise known as gov't regulation. Wait, don't you disagree with this? Don't you support tax cuts and supply side economics, the very thing your quote criticizes Reagan for supporting?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Ha! The leftist belief is to create more equality in economic areas, not total sameness and equality. You speak of everything being the same and equal, and miss the point of what I was saying. I want more economic equality, it is the right that wants 'order' in society (control of lifestyles). And would you please show me the worker who is completely happy making 1/425 the salary of his CEO? And please don't go into your utopian ideas about the wonder of deregulation. I've tried to make the other forum the one for utopian ideas, and this one for more realistic observation into the current system. With deregulation, it is not so wonderful as you imagine. Regulating businesses means the gov't keeping an eye on businesses and mandating things deemed fair and just. Deregulating would eliminate this watch, and businesses would be 'free' to subject their workers to whatever they feel would give management more money. It happened in the twenties, and history has a tendency to repeat itself. And deregulation certainly doesn't mean total democracy, as you seem to think. In fact, in the realm of business, democracy is a foreign idea, as almost every major company is a dictatorship. And you wish to eliminate the semi-democratic control of businesses we have now, in favor of letting these dictatorships, many of them, run free? Well, atleast now I see where you're getting this idea of 'freedom' from. Businesses would be free to create the most profit possible.
We've never had a truly free economy.

I think it would work.

It's at least worth a try.



anomaly said:
Well, maybe you should check your facts, he never doubled the size of government. He cut some social programs and lowered the taxes that were funding 'big government', and then built up the military as had been never seen before during peacetime (in doing both, he really kept the size of government technically the same, although he tore apart what one traditionally thinks of as 'government', and built up the military, which is technically government). And may I remind you, he was a Republican, no libertarian. He strongly believed the virtue of capitalism, but also in the virtue of a strong military.
I did get my facts mixed up....... :(

The defecit is the thing he let run out of control.

My bad.



anomaly said:
Public schooling creates a standard of learning, it doesn't make every student the same. And I can't believe you're saying that I wish to destroy individual freedoms! I am no conservative! I want people to have the freest lifestyle possible, but at the same time I want to see the economy regulated, ensuring that corporations don't have the freedom to screw the avg worker as they have done in the past. I push for economic democracy, where the gov't, voted by the people, controls businesses and thus makes sure everyone makes a fair amount of money, eveyone gets benefits they deserve, and every form of labor is free to organise against any unfair measure of business. Your confusing socialism with fascism, and it is very aggravating.
Fine, you can have your public schools.

I'm OK with that as long as you let me take my tax money and put it towards the private school I WANT for my children's education.



anomaly said:
Huh? Does it really matter if a blue collar worker in the US makes more than a blue collar worker in the UK or vis-versa? I don't know what you're talking about.
This is all you need to do.....

The average US blue collar worker earns (insert#here) per hour
The average UK blue collar worker earns (insert#here) per hour

Then we can see which set of blue collar workers are better off.


anomaly said:
The facts are simple: An average CEO in the UK makes 24 times what the average blue collar worker makes in the UK, and a CEO in the USA makes 475 times more than an average blue collar worker in the USA. It's really quite simple. You can't ignore the facts.
DO YOU THINK THE BLUE COLLAR WORKER CARES?

All the blue collar worker cares about his HOW MUCH he gets paid.


If I have good wages, I could care less if my boss makes 1000x what I do.



anomaly said:
I again plead to you to admit that capitalism increases economic inequality, as these numbers should show (also something that Ayn Rand herself admitted). Ayn Rand admitted this! Why can't you? Why do you cling to an obviously imperfect system on the basis of believing it is indeed perfect! Unregulated capitalism=Less government involvement=economic inequality. Please admit it!
Yes, capitalism does create economic inequality.

But inequality is a natural trait of any society.
It's not possible for everyone to act equal when they clearly aren't.

The only way for equality is voluntary.


But capitalism works none the less.
It works by creating a huge abundance of wealth from unique collaboration.

While my boss may earn 1000x what I do, I still earn more than I would earn in a society of FORCED equal-pay labor and government regulations.

The wealth pie is biggest in a free market.
Regulations deplete the wealth pie dramatically.

Capitalists believe its best to have the biggest wealth pie possible.
That way, even the people that get less of the pie still get more wealth than if everyone had gotten an equal amount of a tiny pie.



anomaly said:
If you deregulate, businesses gain power, and, contrary to what you believe, businesses and CEOs don't really care about work conditions or worker wages. They care about profit, profit for themselves. Why else would Nike and Gap maintain sweatshops in Asia? These don't promote human welfare. And yet they exist. Don't confuse this with the CEO's of these corporations being 'evil'. They are just following the general rule of capitalism, and that is to get as rich and profitable as possible. This need for profit inevitably leads to vast inequality, which is seen in capitalism. Again, I await your saying that capitalism creates inquality.
YOU CAN REGULATE YOUR OWN COMMUNITY!

There WILL be many people with your attitude that don't want to be harmed by unfair "dog-eat-dog" capitalism.

But thanks to the system you so utterly condemn, you would be perfectly able to create your own rules under your own voluntary society.



anomaly said:
I agree. But he certainly didn't double the size of government. He simple lowered taxes, deregulated (not as much as his supporters would have liked), and spent like crazy on the military. He din't spend anything on social programs or anything like that, rather on military. Through these measures, he increased the unemployment rate and the poverty rate. Demand side economics have always been supported by the left. Demand side or Keynesian economics states that it is the government's responsibility to smoothe out bumps in the business cycle. Otherwise known as gov't regulation. Wait, don't you disagree with this? Don't you support tax cuts and supply side economics, the very thing your quote criticizes Reagan for supporting?
Reagan decreased taxes, but not government size.

He did what Bush is doing now.


Half correct (the part about lowering taxes), but half wrong (government still big).
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
We've never had a truly free economy.

I think it would work.

It's at least worth a try.
How will we get there? I created this thread because I feel the way in which you wish to achieve your free society is flawed...deregulation and further privatisation of the current economy create far less freedom, not more, as Republicans would have you believe.






Gabo said:
This is all you need to do.....

The average US blue collar worker earns (insert#here) per hour
The average UK blue collar worker earns (insert#here) per hour

Then we can see which set of blue collar workers are better off.
That ratio is completely insignificant. I'm talking about the equality in a particular country, and I used the data I used to illustrate that in the US we have far less equality than in the UK or Japan. Let's say a US worker makes more than a UK worker. Now what does that prove? Nothing. British workers are still more equal to the CEO counterparts than are US workers to their CEO counterparts. All of this data was to show that in the US (the country which has privatised and deregulated the most in the last 20-30 years) inequality is quite vast, thus making the US worker the least powerful of any industrialized country.



Gabo said:
DO YOU THINK THE BLUE COLLAR WORKER CARES?

All the blue collar worker cares about his HOW MUCH he gets paid.


If I have good wages, I could care less if my boss makes 1000x what I do.
If I were the blue collar worker, I'd care. My uncle (a blue collar worker) cares. If your CEO is making 1000x what you do, that means that you could have more money, if the CEO didn't keep it all for himself. And also, this vast inequality obviously gives the CEO far more power than the workers, thus making organized labor less possible, and also making the CEO freer to move production to a poorer country.




Gabo said:
Yes, capitalism does create economic inequality.

But inequality is a natural trait of any society.
It's not possible for everyone to act equal when they clearly aren't.

The only way for equality is voluntary.


But capitalism works none the less.
It works by creating a huge abundance of wealth from unique collaboration.

While my boss may earn 1000x what I do, I still earn more than I would earn in a society of FORCED equal-pay labor and government regulations.

The wealth pie is biggest in a free market.
Regulations deplete the wealth pie dramatically.

Capitalists believe its best to have the biggest wealth pie possible.
That way, even the people that get less of the pie still get more wealth than if everyone had gotten an equal amount of a tiny pie.
Ah thank you! Thank you for finally admitting that. It is then obvious that capitalism helps the minority, while hurting the majority. That is my problem with the system. I push for a system that would favor the majority of people: democratic socialism. From there, we could see communism, in which one is not measured by the amt of money he possesses. And you're right, capitalism does work, but usually only for a limited time. Capitalism will allow for a great production and thus great wealth, but inevtably workers will begin to overproduce, and create huge surpluses. This leads to those nasty depressions and recessions. And capitalism almost by definition works for the few, at the expense of the many. Also, the ever fluctuating market in capitalism does great damage to workers. And then you speak of 'equal pay'? Where do you get this from? Equal pay does not exist in socialism or communism. In socialism, wages are more equal, in communism, the entire monetary system is abolished, as production is strictly for human use, not profit. And you're wrong, you'd earn more as a worker in a system of socialism, as employers would be forced to pay you more (force can be a good thing!). And the wealth pie isn't neccesarily larger in capitalism, just a small percentge of people take a huge percentage of the pie, leaving less for the rest of us.




Gabo said:
YOU CAN REGULATE YOUR OWN COMMUNITY!

There WILL be many people with your attitude that don't want to be harmed by unfair "dog-eat-dog" capitalism.

But thanks to the system you so utterly condemn, you would be perfectly able to create your own rules under your own voluntary society.
So, when we give these corporations (most of whom see nothing wrong with children and others working 16 hr days in sweatshops for a meager wage) more power, your utopia will be realised? News to me!




Gabo said:
Reagan decreased taxes, but not government size.

He did what Bush is doing now.


Half correct (the part about lowering taxes), but half wrong (government still big).
Well, Reagan and now Bush both depleted gov't size (in the sense of cutting social programs, and now Bush wants to destroy a huge gov't program-SS), but on paper it appears that they kept gov't about the same size, as Reagan began spending a huge amount on 'defense' and Clinton and Bush have followed. On average, the USA spends more on defense than every other industrialised country combined.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
How will we get there? I created this thread because I feel the way in which you wish to achieve your free society is flawed...deregulation and further privatisation of the current economy create far less freedom, not more, as Republicans would have you believe.
You won't let me voluntarily opt out of oppression?

Somehow I find that unfair and unjust.


I am not advocating a nationwide sweep that instantly abolishes all rules and regulations. But there is no reason to stop us from consenting to being deregulated ourselves.



anomaly said:
That ratio is completely insignificant. I'm talking about the equality in a particular country, and I used the data I used to illustrate that in the US we have far less equality than in the UK or Japan. Let's say a US worker makes more than a UK worker. Now what does that prove? Nothing. British workers are still more equal to the CEO counterparts than are US workers to their CEO counterparts. All of this data was to show that in the US (the country which has privatised and deregulated the most in the last 20-30 years) inequality is quite vast, thus making the US worker the least powerful of any industrialized country.
So would you rather have everyone share an equal amount of nothing, or the unequal division of a large amount of something?

I prefer the latter of the two, since everyone gets more.

Which is why I bring up the issue of raw wages earned.
If our "unfair" system ends up paying the blue collar worker more than your "fair" system, then which system is better? I would say ours. It doesn't matter if we also end up with people getting a lot more. Our average is still higher than yours, so we are better off.



anomaly said:
If your CEO is making 1000x what you do, that means that you could have more money, if the CEO didn't keep it all for himself.
That's a big misconception that many people share.

And it isn't true at all.


Because when you FORCE that CEO to fork over a bigger amount, he becomes unhappy which leads others to be unhappy. Worker productivity goes down, consent through interaction lowers. People end up with a bigger % of money, but less actual money.

In other words, when the wages are set freely, everyone ends up with the maximum amount.

When FORCE and COERCION are introduced, it upsets the balance, causing everyone to earn a smaller share (even if it is a higher %).



anomaly said:
And also, this vast inequality obviously gives the CEO far more power than the workers, thus making organized labor less possible, and also making the CEO freer to move production to a poorer country.
The CEO's ranking in the company is what gives him all the power.

Organized labor is no less possible just because the CEO makes more cash.

In fact, the CEO grows to rely on the consumer and workers to provide him with that cash. He wants the loyalty and high output of the workers, so he provides as best as he can to maximize his profit.



anomaly said:
Ah thank you! Thank you for finally admitting that. It is then obvious that capitalism helps the minority, while hurting the majority. That is my problem with the system. I push for a system that would favor the majority of people: democratic socialism.
Actually, capitalism "favors" no one at all.

Those with an ACTUAL lead are the ones that get ahead.

It's the only system that DOESN'T create artificial stuff that would "favor" someone.



anomaly said:
And you're right, capitalism does work, but usually only for a limited time. Capitalism will allow for a great production and thus great wealth, but inevtably workers will begin to overproduce, and create huge surpluses. This leads to those nasty depressions and recessions.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bull.
People can easily tell what the market calls for.

Underproduction is WAY more common than overproduction.


The only depressions this country has had have been caused by the monopoly the Federal Reserve Banks have on our currency.



anomaly said:
And you're wrong, you'd earn more as a worker in a system of socialism, as employers would be forced to pay you more (force can be a good thing!).
They pay you more of less, though.
They can't simply fabricate more money to pay you with.

And when they are FORCED to pay you more, it hurts us all. Prices increase, productivity decreases, consumer happiness decreases, quality decreases.



anomaly said:
And the wealth pie isn't neccesarily larger in capitalism, just a small percentge of people take a huge percentage of the pie, leaving less for the rest of us.
Now it's time for you to admit something.

There is NOTHING more productive than capitalism. Capitalism is the SINGLE BEST way to create vast amounts of wealth.


And when there's more pie, even those with small slices don't go hungry.



anomaly said:
So, when we give these corporations (most of whom see nothing wrong with children and others working 16 hr days in sweatshops for a meager wage) more power, your utopia will be realised? News to me!
Your accusations are far from the truth IMO.

How come most places pay more than minimum wage then?
And how come most people don't even work the 40hr work week?
Why do most companies refuse to hire anyone under 18, even though they can?


I have nothing wrong with you believing that my vision will give the big companies unfathomable power and corruption.

That is, after all, what the government run schools have been drilling into everyone's heads for the past half century.

But you need to at least recognize my desire to VOLUNTARILY set MYSELF free from the oppression of this big government.



anomaly said:
Well, Reagan and now Bush both depleted gov't size (in the sense of cutting social programs, and now Bush wants to destroy a huge gov't program-SS), but on paper it appears that they kept gov't about the same size,
The same size!

I recently looked up the ACTUAL increase of government size under Reagan, and it was around 60% or so increase.

And Bush isn't Mr. SmallGov either, increasing government size 33%!


Like I said before, Democrats and Republicans are hardly any different.
Their only variance is on HOW they want to spend their big government money.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
You won't let me voluntarily opt out of oppression?

Somehow I find that unfair and unjust.


I am not advocating a nationwide sweep that instantly abolishes all rules and regulations. But there is no reason to stop us from consenting to being deregulated ourselves.
Yes, let's just all not pay our taxes. We will underfund the gov't, those in poverty will have nothing, and we will be reduced to a state of anarchy. Besides, many gov't programs are productive. And how are you oppressed? Because you pay taxes? You and I live in the USA, we are hardly oppressed. Those that fuel the US economy (foreign cheap laborers) are the truly oppressed.




Gabo said:
So would you rather have everyone share an equal amount of nothing, or the unequal division of a large amount of something?

I prefer the latter of the two, since everyone gets more.

Which is why I bring up the issue of raw wages earned.
If our "unfair" system ends up paying the blue collar worker more than your "fair" system, then which system is better? I would say ours. It doesn't matter if we also end up with people getting a lot more. Our average is still higher than yours, so we are better off.
In the capitalistic USA, as you pointed out before, standard of living is 12th. Japan, that country where workers earn 1/11 of their CEO's salary, the standard of living was first (I'm not sure if it is any longer, but I am sure it is higher than the USA's). Equal amount of nothing? Every type of economy produces. And socialism is not too different from capitalism, just that the market is controlled, and there are redistributive policies. Also, in socialism, the people control the economy (if it is democratic). In capitalism, we leave the market to itself, and the ones profiting from this act are inevitably the mighty corporations and their respective CEOs.





Gabo said:
That's a big misconception that many people share.

And it isn't true at all.


Because when you FORCE that CEO to fork over a bigger amount, he becomes unhappy which leads others to be unhappy. Worker productivity goes down, consent through interaction lowers. People end up with a bigger % of money, but less actual money.

In other words, when the wages are set freely, everyone ends up with the maximum amount.

When FORCE and COERCION are introduced, it upsets the balance, causing everyone to earn a smaller share (even if it is a higher %).
So a CEO who is not a billionaire but rather a multi-millionaire is unhappy? And when the CEO is unhappy, workers are unhappy? Huh? Where are you getting these 'facts'? And isn't the percent of money more important the the amt of actual money? I mean your actual money could seem quite miniscule compared to the actual money possessed by someone else. But the percent of money you have is a relative term, meaning relative to the particular economy under which you live, you hold more money (if that makes any sense).




Gabo said:
The CEO's ranking in the company is what gives him all the power.

Organized labor is no less possible just because the CEO makes more cash.

In fact, the CEO grows to rely on the consumer and workers to provide him with that cash. He wants the loyalty and high output of the workers, so he provides as best as he can to maximize his profit.
A CEO has plenty of money, he simply wants to create more ofit. Now how will he do this? Will he put up with a 'whiny' labor union that demands more, or will he move his factory to a foreign country where forein workers will work cheaply? Obviously he'll choose the latter. This is why, without gov't support, labor unions just don't happen too much. Workers, after all, would rather have some job than no job. This means less for the worker, and more for the CEO.




Gabo said:
Actually, capitalism "favors" no one at all.

Those with an ACTUAL lead are the ones that get ahead.

It's the only system that DOESN'T create artificial stuff that would "favor" someone.
Capitalism favors those who are more 'skillful, talented' etc. Now how do you determine who these are? Normally under capitalistic conditions, it is the businessman who benfits the most. Now does the businessman deserve it? And, if we switched to capitalism any time soon, it is the transnational corporations who would benefit the most. And what artificial stuff does socialism create? A government of the people?




Gabo said:
I'm sorry, but that is complete bull.
People can easily tell what the market calls for.

Underproduction is WAY more common than overproduction.


The only depressions this country has had have been caused by the monopoly the Federal Reserve Banks have on our currency.
Underproduction is hardly ever seen in a successful capitalistic society (the USA). Why else would corporations go overseas to sell their product (globalization in progress)? Overproduction is why capitalism demands an ever growing market. And any market can only grow so much. And where's the evidence that the currency being monopolized somehow caused the depression? If this is true, shouldn't we see a depression every year? And how can you have an unmonopolized currecy anyway? Wouldn't that render all currency without value? The Great Depression was caused by overspeculation in the stock market. When prices went down, everyone sold. This included banks. So, if you had money in banks, you were screwed (that's the immediate cause, anyway).




Gabo said:
They pay you more of less, though.
They can't simply fabricate more money to pay you with.

And when they are FORCED to pay you more, it hurts us all. Prices increase, productivity decreases, consumer happiness decreases, quality decreases.
Wait. When 'they' are foced to pay us more, it hurts us? Prices may increase, but not dramatically. Really, since the median wage is still the same, prices won't really change. And productivity certainly wouldn't decrease (not quite sure where your getting this info). Quality decreases? Even in socialism, quality must increase, or else the gov't that runs the economy is voted out of office.




Gabo said:
Now it's time for you to admit something.

There is NOTHING more productive than capitalism. Capitalism is the SINGLE BEST way to create vast amounts of wealth.


And when there's more pie, even those with small slices don't go hungry.
So, thanks to capitalism, no one goes hungry? Well, that is a little off. Under capitalism, someone has to suffer, and currently it is the 3rd world countries that actually produce most of the goods sold in 1st world countries. Socialism can be very productive. Sweden seems to be doing OK.




Gabo said:
Your accusations are far from the truth IMO.

How come most places pay more than minimum wage then?
And how come most people don't even work the 40hr work week?
Why do most companies refuse to hire anyone under 18, even though they can?


I have nothing wrong with you believing that my vision will give the big companies unfathomable power and corruption.

That is, after all, what the government run schools have been drilling into everyone's heads for the past half century.

But you need to at least recognize my desire to VOLUNTARILY set MYSELF free from the oppression of this big government.
Not in the US, but in the foreign market, most work for under minimum wage (min. wage of the USA), and they work longer than 40 hrs a week. In the USA we have regulations (those hated things) that prevent a company from so abusing a US worker. I recognize your desire to set yourself free, but you and others setting themselves free would entail some sort of revolution, not quite the revolution I have in mind, either. And then you can submit yourself to the mercy of big corporations that aren't elected rather than a gov't that is elected. But again, how will you reach your utopia? Obviously, I don't like further deregulation and privatisation as it will hurt the working class, and I'm not too fond of you and others just stopping paying your taxes. I mean, is that your plan? Everybody just stop paying taxes? That may increase the size of prisons, but it won't do much else.




Gabo said:
The same size!

I recently looked up the ACTUAL increase of government size under Reagan, and it was around 60% or so increase.

And Bush isn't Mr. SmallGov either, increasing government size 33%!


Like I said before, Democrats and Republicans are hardly any different.
Their only variance is on HOW they want to spend their big government money.
I'd like to see this link. And if these numbers are accurate, I'm sure they're only that way because of the amt Reagan and Bush spend on the military. Bush tohugh is somewhat unique. In his first term, he didn't veto a single spending bill, all while lowering taxes. Yea, that's a plan for success!
 
Top Bottom