Taxing the rich is not equivalent to taxing corporations.

You're dumb.

taxing the rich more than other lasses is tantamount to communism, you know, the great american principle "you keep what you earn"

>>243578
>Eisenhower was a secret commie!!11oneone

>rich worked their way to to their riches
>rich pay more taxes because they make more money
>The super-super-super rich is what you need to be worried about
>you can't tax the super-super-super rich, they own everything.

>>243434

2/3 of american corporations pay no taxes.
the ones that do usually just pay 15%

GE, GM, Bank of America, pay 0 taxes, make billions in profit each quarter, lay off tens of thousands of workers.

Bank of America got back 1 billion in taxes. Meanwhile police and teachers are underfunded...

>hurrr taxes kill jobs

but they aren't paying taxes lol they are getting gov. subsidies and STILL cutting jobs.

back in the 60s they faced 80% tax rate...and employment was stable and low. Go figure

>>243590

>manipulate data
>HURR

>notice the "A" in "morans" is photoshopped from a preceding "A" in the same image

Try again photoshop troll, the original image was obviously spelled correctly.

>[LARGE] corporations move to other countries
>new entrepreneurs start up small businesses
>more competition and lower costs of production
>America thrives again
>overseas corporations beg to move back
>OP offers his prolapsed anus in return for a job

everythingwentbetterthanexpected.movie

>corporations go to another country where they can pay people .50 cents a day
Keep taxes low enough that they don't move. Or if worse comes to worse, don't import their products. Spawn new businesses to replace the old ones. Jobs are created.

>>243617

They're shipping jobs overseas, manipulating loopholes, etc. to AVOID the 35% corporate income tax. That's the whole point. And they're not hiring because they're fundamentally worthless firms that can't do shit right and should have gone bankrupt (to have their assets bought up by more capable entrepreneurs) but were propped up by that idiot Obongo.

>>243622
They don't look the same. And the image is nearly as old as the internet. Get a brain, moran.

>>243622

Which "A?"

>>243617
>>243617
>>243617
Bank of America
Taxes kill jobs.
They pay 0% taxes.
They get back 1 billion from government.
They cut like what, 30k jobs.

>mfw free-market solves everything

Get a Brian Moran!

>>243639

I dont think you understand what a 1 billion tax refund from the government is.

>>243639
>And they're not hiring because they're fundamentally worthless firms

Bank of America quarterly profits so far, 6.2billion.
0% taxes
1 billion of the profits were tax refund.

30k jobs cut.

This is similar to every other bank and corporation.

Enjoy your free-market.
What other country can they go to and get 1billion in tax refunds? GE got 3.2 billion...

ya america is a terrible place to do business...

>>243658

Yes, here.

>>243665

I don't think you understand that I don't share your belief that running a bank on unsound loans propped up by Fannie and Freddie, cheap Federal Reserve credit, securities rated AAA by a bogus government-created ratings cartel with FHA capital requirements of $2 for every $100 bought, etc. is a sound business plan.

>>243682

Are you serious? You are pointing to firms that make bloated profits because they suck on the nipples of government subsidies as an example of the "free market"? They are making big privatized profits because they have imposed their costs, through the legal system, on the rest of us. The fact that their costs are dispersed and hidden doesn't make them any less real.

It's always amused me, this preconceived notion that atlas can shrug and nobody will replace him.

It's like Herman Cain believes that if he moved away then nobody else would step up and cook a fuckin pizza.

Even more humorous is the notion that the ultra rich could move anywhere else civilized and pay a lower tax rate.

EPA/RREL

>>243712

no such thing as free-markets

if you have any laws, the market isn't free...child labor laws? no free-market.

overtime? no free-market
safety regulations? no free-market

there has never been a free-market on earth.

less corporations

more small business = more jobs than corporations

more small business = more taxes for the government

more taxes = more government spending = even more jobs

>>243777

shhhh you'll upset the libertarian austrianfags.

>>243777
yes there has. it's called the black market.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy?page=0,0

>>243777

>if you have any laws, the market isn't free

No. A free market requires legal protection of self-ownership and property justly acquired through homesteading. (Laws against force & fraud.)

>child labor laws? no free-market

Yeah but child-labour laws are at best redundant and at worse harmful. In the West, when combined with the minimum wage, they force kids who don't have stable families into street beggary when they could be working and making something out of themselves. And in the developing world they cause poverty, e.g. when the US passed the Child Labour Standards act in 1993, thousands of kids in Bangladeshi textile factories were kicked out of sweatshops and onto the streetss where after they became prostitutes.

>safety regulations? no free-market

Funny, then, how Ford gave workers the 8-hour day and the 5-day week and how worker fatalities were declining well before OSHA. Products and working conditions in a market tend to standardize quality according to consumer demand.

>there has never been a free-market on earth.

This isn't true; medieval Ireland was essentially free, and even justice was privately provided. The city of Gurgaon in India is a bustling metropolis with private infrastructure and where most people live peaceably in gated communities protected by private security.

But even if it was true, that would be a strupid argument. It's like telling an abolitionist that there has never been a society without slavery on earth. So what? The point is to start one.

>>243834
>they force kids who don't have stable families into street beggary when they could be working and making something out of themselves

Stopped reading right there. I have a great fucking laugh though. Good job.

>>243900

You wouldn't be laughing if you were a street kid.

>>243834

every market you can identify was regulated by laws beyond property laws and was directly or indirectly supported by a government.

You transport your goods over railways? Railways were funded by governments.

You pay taxes? Free-market distortion.


I'm not saying free-markets are good or bad, I'm saying there has never been a free-market on earth. We have no data on them. We don't know if they are good or bad.

>black markets

black markets are definitely not free. property rights aren't respected or enforced. transaction costs distort the market (money laundering)...etc.

Free-market dogma is just dogma. We have no data to back any of it up. All we can observe are mixed economies.

>>243932

Those street kids are eating a hot meal every night (food stamps) and have a roof over their heads (public housing) and going to a public school to learn how do spot and avoid assholes that think it's better for them to slave away making pennies a day than getting an education.

Those kids can thank that evil, evil government for that.

>>243900
hes actually right if you read about it a major thing they do is hunt through dumps to find stuff to sell like scrap metal and a solid amount die from trash avalanches

>>243940

>every market you can identify was regulated by laws beyond property laws and was directly or indirectly supported by a government.

Medieval Ireland wasn't. Gurgaon wasn't.

>Railways were funded by governments. You pay taxes?

.....so?

>there has never been a free-market on earth. We have no data on them. We don't know if they are good or bad.

MOST societies have not been free-market, I'll give you that. But we do have relatively free societies. E.g. America in the 19th century: consistently rising per capita real income, dramatic falls in prices and rises in standard of living, increased output, cartels forming but getting torn down by vicious competition, etc.

Incidentally, just because we have no "data" on something doesn't make it worthless. Tossing out the theory of the market for that reason is like tossing out the scientific method because it doesn't predict in advance what discoveries and findings will be might through it. We just use them because they're more successful than other methods.

>Friedrich Hayek, advocates free-market austrian dogma.

>Gets terribly sick

>Gets invited to go to America.

>Is afraid to leave austria and lose his socialized gov. health care.

ROFL. This actually happened.

>>243973

Where? In America? I'd had to ask you to provide a source for that claim.

>corporations go to another country where they can pay people .50 cents a day
>and then someone else starts a business in their place because the market is not a fucking charity and doesn't ignore a vacuum of hundreds of millions of consumers.

This argument is, no joke, a modern take on the divine right of kings.

>>243986

>Medieval Ireland

Not sure what time period you are talking about. But in medieval times people couldn't even own their land...and they all paid tithes to the king or church....and there were tariffs a plenty...but again dunno what time-frame you mean.

go read some real 19th century American economic history.
It was one of the most heavily subsidized times. Government was fucken handing out land grants for thousands of farmers and financing intercontinental railways with taxes. Those railways were a crucial aspect of Americas industrial revolution.

>>244024
>>244024


19th century america, not to mention all the tariffs they were pumping out to protect domestic firms

if you find a country that has had free-markets for a decade, let me know I want to read about the outcomes.

untiil then, free-market mumbo jumbo is just pure speculation

>>243949

>Those street kids are eating a hot meal every night (food stamps)

>have a roof over their heads (public housing)

Your faith in bureaucracy is touching. Read some of the work on how affordable housing i.e. rent control has destroyed entire neighbourhoods and how food stamps entrench poverty before you make asshat, ignorant claims like the ones your making. "EVeryone who disagrees with me is immoral!!!" Grow up.

>going to a public school

>avoid assholes that think it's better for them to slave away making pennies a day than getting an education.

You mean being baby-sat by public sector drones for 12 years? You mean being straight-jacketed into a cookie-cutter curriculum that bores you to death, trains you in stupidity, and provides you with absolutely ZERO preparation for the real world? And a street kid isn't going to school by definition, idiot. You think it's better for an adult to make minimum wage and have to try to climb the social ladder that late in life than to have already earned some kind of income base? You aren't convincing anyone of your moral superiority, idiot.

>>243578
>earn

>sit on my ass all day countin stacks
>go buy a yacht
>roll tobacco with some Franklins
>ride in my limo
>get another yacht
>golf at $10,000/night resort
>trash my limo so I have an excuse to get a new one
>get a private jet
>new yacht day
>count some stacks
>realize I still have more than 1000 times the moneys of an average citizen
>patronize middle-class for not working in my company hard enough
>hard day at work, better hire some prostitutes
>beat the prostitutes
>bring them on my cheapest yacht so they don't bleed on my good one

>earn

>>243989

>Keynes approved of Nazi economics and was an anti-semite
>Obama's biggest campaign contributors were Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan
>The Nature Conservancy took money from Exxon

I can play the ad hominem game too.

>>244024

>Not sure what time period you are talking about.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

>It was one of the most heavily subsidized times.
That's why I said "relatively" free. I hardly think a case where government spending is 4% GDP should be ruled out.

>>244040

I don't really care what you consider "speculation". I personally think the social-democratic fantasy land of equality is a speculation. Who gives a shit?

>>243989
Cool story.

To call Hayek "dogmatic" is proof enough of your ignorance.

>>244011
Yep.
That's what I was saying here.
>>243729

>>244045

LMAO

You didn't disprove a single claim I made, you just cursed and shat out whatever tripe came to mind.

Food stamps are the single most effective way to provide for the nourishment of kids in poverty. The reason the programs are failing is because asshats like you claim they enforce government dependency so you CUT those programs' funding.

And public housing is an excellent constraint on high rental costs. I know because half the kids at the public University I attended lived in them. The reason ghetto apartment units are such dumps is because of the poverty they persist in because morons like you accost them as lazy fucks dependent on government hand outs and then cut those programs.

>You mean being baby-sat by public sector drones for 12 years?
That's right, they don't learn shit because idiots like you keep demanding cuts in funding for public schools.

What the fuck do you think all this bitching by your party about cutting spending is about?

Fucking faggots get to believing their own bullshit. It's comical.

>>244045
>wants to compete in the global marketplace
>denounces a well rounded education
>this is what conservatives actually think

>>244045

HEY GUYS GOVERNMENT IS EVIL WE SHOULD ALL LIVE IN A FREE-MARKET UTOPIA THAT I FANTASIZE ABOUT IN MY TINY BRAIN

>>244085
>I can play the ad hominem game too.

Its just a fact that Hayek loved his socialized medicine. And the Koch family was backing him up...and trying to bring him to America to preach his rubbish


>That's why I said "relatively" free. I hardly think a case where government spending is 4% GDP should be ruled out.

well if you factor in the domestic profits produced due to heavy tariffs placed on foreign competition you'd realize how much distortion gov. was causing back then--enough to undermine any idea of a "free-market"

>>244114

>you just cursed and shat out whatever tripe came to mind.
>Fucking faggots get to believing their own bullshit
>because morons like you

Anyone who can read can see that you're a hypocrite.

>Food stamps are the single most effective way to provide for the nourishment of kids in poverty. >The reason the programs are failing is because asshats like you claim they enforce government dependency so you CUT those programs' funding.

I guess that's why food stamp use and SNAP spending is at record highs, huh?

>And public housing is an excellent constraint on high rental costs. I know because half the kids at the public University I attended lived in them.

I don't care about "half the kids" you went to school with. Any number of anecdotes can be cited in favour of any position. They're not evidence.

>The reason ghetto apartment units are such dumps is because of the poverty they persist in because morons like you accost them as lazy fucks dependent on government hand outs and then cut those programs.

What "cuts"? Most US cities have some kind of rent control program.. It is in the nature of rent control to drive the poorest tenants out of neighbourhoods, to lower the quality of housing and limit the supply, to create black markets, and to hurt the most disadvantaged. If you haven't read any of the empirical work on this subject its not my fault.

>they don't learn shit because idiots like you keep demanding cuts in funding for public schools.

So when public programs all fail over and over again, even though they get INCREASES in funding, they are MY fault. Fucking faggots believing their own bullshit.

>>244163

>Its just a fact that Hayek loved his socialized medicine. And the Koch family was backing him up...and trying to bring him to America to preach his rubbish

And it's just a fact that Keynes loves his Nazis and corporate money backed Obama up and props up environmentalists to preach their rubbish. Again, I can run down a rabbit's hole with you with ad hominem. Why don't you try making a grown-up argument?

>well if you factor in the domestic profits produced due to heavy tariffs placed on foreign competition you'd realize how much distortion gov. was causing back then--enough to undermine any idea of a "free-market"

And if you realize the amazing gains in private productivity made during that entire century despite some government restrictions you'd realize dismissing it entirely is as absurd as dismissing frictionless theories in physics.

>>244127

>public education has been a total 100% success!!!
>this is what libfags actually believe

>>244235
I am a hypocrite by choice, thank you.

>I guess that's why food stamp use and SNAP spending is at record highs, huh?
See, this is why I like coming to this board. It gives me the chance to ask dolts to support their positions and reveal how clueless they are.

Did we not go through the worst recession since the 40's just a year ago? Are we not still hovering around 9% unemployment? Are those unemployed workers not also the parents of starving children? Does the current economy not dictate that more people will file for food stamps? Does that not lead to a high cost for those programs? Are those high costs NOT the reason your party keeps bitching about cutting $2.3 trillion over the next decade?

See? It baffles my mind how you people have the hardest time connecting the dots. It really is baffling.

>I don't care about "half the kids" you went to school with. Any number of anecdotes can be cited in favour of any position. They're not evidence.
The point was clearly to highlight that not just poor people take advantage of that program. University kids use them as well so they can afford the high cost of a quality education. Unlike your claim that that program fosters and enforces poverty.

cont...

>>244366

cont.

>What "cuts"?
Again, my fucking jaw hits the floor. The fuck do you think the republican party was blocking in Congress? Funding programs like the stimulus bill that went directly to states for public works/funding of public workers/funding of social programs. How is this even possible to not grasp?

>If you haven't read any of the empirical work on this subject its not my fault.
Here's your chance to do a quick Google search for an unbiased (lol yeah right) source that partially supports your claims. Enlighten me.

>So when public programs all fail over and over again, even though they get INCREASES in funding, they are MY fault.

Now I'm just starting to think you're not retarded, but ignorant as fuck. What do you think Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program was supposed to address? Guess what the one fucking thing Bush failed to include in that bill was. FUNDING. He admitted so himself saying that it was one of his biggest regrets.

Get a fucking clue. Or don't. You'd then deprive me of the sheer amusement of reading your ignorant tripe.

>>244298

>public education hasn't been a complete success
>the answer to the problem is to get rid of child-labor laws
>this is what morons like the OP's pic actually believe

>>244235
This thread looks like absolute shit but I'm just stopping to point out that those graphs are pretty fucking worthless because the scales have nothing to do with each other.

>>244366

>I am a hypocrite by choice
Obviously.

>Does the current economy not dictate that more people will file for food stamps? Does that not lead to a high cost for those programs? Are those high costs NOT the reason your party keeps bitching about cutting $2.3 trillion over the next decade?

a) not a Republican, I don't know who "my party" is supposed to be
b) yes, more people applying for food stamps will put strain on the system and raise costs. that's because it's a centrally planned bureaucracy. did more people buying computers raise the price of computers? among the bad effects of food stamps are to subsidize infant formula and discourage poor mothers from breastfeeding.

>Guess what the one fucking thing Bush failed to include in that bill was. FUNDING.
>Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007.

When a businessman does something stupid, he tends to make losses and be driven out of business and have his assets bought up by someone more capable. (Unless Obongo is there to bail him out.) When a bureaucrat does something stupid, GUVE HIM MOAR MONEYS GUISE THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING

>The point was clearly to highlight that not just poor people take advantage of that program. University kids use them as well so they can afford the high cost of a quality education. Unlike your claim that that program fosters and enforces poverty.

Your anecdote isn't evidence. None of this holds. try again.

>The fuck do you think the republican party was blocking in Congress? Funding programs like the stimulus bill that went directly to states for public works/funding of public workers/funding of social programs.

Public works programs are not rent control programs. Try again.

>Here's your chance to do a quick Google search for an unbiased (lol yeah right) source that partially supports your claims.

Since anything I bring up will obviously be dismissed as "biased" simply because you disagree with it, you aren't worth the effort of trying to convince.

>>244390

>public education fails because it is bureaucratic and has no incentives to lower costs and be efficient, but who cares since it makes me feel good that we have it
>child labour laws aren't the reason why middle-class families don't send their children to work for $1/day in a mine somewhere and are part of the reason why poverty is entrenched among the underclass, but who cares since these laws make me feel good
>this is what a libtard actually believes

>>244402

>the scales have nothing to do with each other.

This is quite literally the stupidest reason for dismissing a graph I have ever come across. Of course the scales have nothing to do with each other. That's why they're on different axis.

>>244390

Child labor laws? What the fuck...

Even so, in a modern society, child labor laws are actually not needed, because the economy is doing so well that we don't need children and older people to work, which you can clearly see now a days.

Second, I support the elimination of the minimum wage and any benefits forced to by law. All that does it make it harder for smaller businesses to compete, thereby keeping the wealth concentrated to those who have enough money to actually pay out all those things.

Second, minimum wage laws are racist. When the majority of underprivileged are disproportionally black or hispanic, all you do with minimum wage laws is not allow those individuals who are not worth the minimum wage to not get hired. You want to solve the unemployment problem, just get rid of the minimum wage.

>>But corporations are evil and they will pay people 25 cents

No they wont. Because wages are prices like anything else. Human capital theory shows that humans are worth whatever they have in skills. Also, look at Switzerland, they have no minimum wage laws, yet the have some of the highest wages in the world. Go figure.

>>244446
>yes, more people applying for food stamps will put strain on the system and raise costs.
Then the amount of people enrolled in the program is not an indication of its lack productivity.
>that's because it's a centrally planned bureaucracy.
A for-profit company running it would force down its cost? Wow. You're one funny guy.
>did more people buying computers raise the price of computers?
Ahaha. How can you even compare the two? One is a product BOUGHT in the market, the other is essentially a handout.
>among the bad effects of food stamps are to subsidize infant formula and discourage poor mothers from breastfeeding.
Yeah, I've noticed that women in the ghetto don't breast feed their children. No wait, I just made that shit up. How do you keep a straight face when you know you're full of shit?


And the answer to the deficiencies in the public education system isn't to drain it of money (even according to your party). That tactic is meant to starve the program of funding and claim how ineffective it is AFTER it completely fails.

>>244513
lol @ people not being "worth" minimum wage. alright bro

>>244544

Oh I can show you some people not worth the minimum wage. They're actually a lot more common than you think.

>>244538

Wat...

More people applying for food stamps means more money that has to come out of the pockets of those who pay taxes, either now or later through inflation/borrowing, to fund these people. This means less spending by other people and less investment by others, which in turn leads to less productivity in the market place, hence less jobs to help these people not have to use the system.

You know, you can create laws preventing capital flight. and no, it won't make us like china. It'll just make it so that the uber rich can't act like a global virtual senate, taking money out of countries that offend them with populist economic policies.

>>244470
>your example is not good enough even though I can't support the bullshit I claimed

Alright then. I bet before today you would have claimed the only people that use that program were people in the ghetto. Now you know otherwise and you still pretend the program is a failure. That's the definition of a retard.

>Public works programs are not rent control programs. Try again.
Stop pretending that's what I was referring to because you know it's not. Public funding for those programs comes essentially from federal funding when the economy is in a recession. You'd know that if you weren't so averse to facts.

>Since anything I bring up will obviously be dismissed as "biased" simply because you disagree with it, you aren't worth the effort of trying to convince.
Lol. I wish I could have seen your facial expression when you came up with that bs to avoid having to spend hours looking for a source to back up your claims. Funny.

>>244582

Yeah, and all you would do there is hurt Americans more just so more people can have jobs. You do the following things;

a.) If country A is poorer because country B doesn't invest/import their goods, country A cannot buy B's goods. Therefor, you hurt employees of exporting goods at the expense of some other sector of workers.
b.) By forcing companies to pay higher wages, they in turn have to offer products at a higher price, so the poor in the country now have less purchasing power.

You did nothing for humanity in general, and it's debatable whether helped the country you imposed said laws on.

>>244576
>This means less spending by other people and less investment by others, which in turn leads to less productivity in the market place, hence less jobs to help these people not have to use the system.

Hah. Goodness. Republicans really are the most clueless bunch out there, aren't you?

Food stamps are the single most effective form of economic stimulus because it gets spend immediately, spurring demand for goods. It's not a talking point. Its been proven by audit after audit.

All that money you claim is being taken out of the economy is actually sitting idly by not being invested. Again, audits a surveys prove this. Investors don't want to expand businesses because they don't have confidence in the economy, because there's no demand.

>>244616
>If country A is poorer because country B doesn't invest/import their goods, country A cannot buy B's goods. Therefor, you hurt employees of exporting goods at the expense of some other sector of workers.
I think I know what you mean, but can you give an example.
>By forcing companies to pay higher wages, they in turn have to offer products at a higher price, so the poor in the country now have less purchasing power.
No, if everyone in the country is getting paid comparable wages, then prices will be rated at a comparable rate. For instance, if all outsourced labor came back to America, labor expenses would be raised, say, 30%, but people in America would have actual jobs, there would be, like 30% more money moving through the economy. At the worse the government could subsidize real necessities. Hell we subsidize food.
Now, this would mean that no company could have a comparable advantage by having access to cheap Chinese labor. Let's say furniture company A can undersell Company B because Company B uses domestic labor and Company A uses Chinese debt peonage labor. Why don't we just pass a law either forbidding Company A from doing that or put a tariff on Company A's products to make them comparable to Company B's prices. seriously, this globalization shit has to stop. It has been killing America for decades now.

>>244634

Wrong. In a recent survey, the majority of businesses cited regulations and taxes as being what they were concerned with the most. Demand didn't come far behind, so I agree that demand is important.

However, you're being myopic. Money that sits idly by not being invested is not money sitting idly. First of all, who's to say that the investor is not waiting for an opportunity to later invest? Investments take time and research to make. Second, even IF that money were stored away under a mattress, what would that do? It would deflate the currency enough so that people savings would actually increase in value. Either way, the economy wins.

I can discuss other problems with welfare programs, but this is just a fallacy to think that you're just helping the economy by giving these people that money. All the government is doing is this; A takes money from B to give to C, but A keeps a little for itself in the process.

The free market could provide much better solutions to helping the poor than the government. You just have way too little faith in humanity to expect any good will. Non-for profits exist too you know.

>>244680

>can you give an example

Sure. I'll give a real world example without mentioning names (shouldn't be hard to figure out). Let's say that Country A offers steel at a cheaper price than Country B. Country B imposes a tariff on Country A's steel. The steel workers of Country B can now keep their jobs, however, Country A's steel industry will not expand and create more wealth for employees so they have purchasing power. If Country A buys cars and refrigerators from Country B, then that population as a whole now has less money with which to buy cars and refrigerators from Country B. Those car and refrigerator employees in Country B are now hurt, and everyone in Country B is hurt in general because steel is now more expensive.

The same applies with putting a restriction on capital. You hurt Country A's purchasing power, which in turn hurts Country B's exporting industry.

There is a saying in Economics, a tax on imports is a tax on exports.

Remember, the free market isn't so much about employees, it's about the consumer. Helping workers over the consumer eventually hurts the poor a lot more.

>>244681
>Wrong. In a recent survey, the majority of businesses cited regulations and taxes as being what they were concerned with the most.
Actually, that's complete bullshit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/studies-challenge-wisdom-of-gop-candidates-plans/2011/10/30/g
IQAeW2iVM_story.html

It's from Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's senior economic adviser.

>Money that sits idly by not being invested is not money sitting idly.
Actually, until it is somehow circulating through the economy it is BY DEFINITION sitting idly by.
>First of all, who's to say that the investor is not waiting for an opportunity to later invest?
Who said they weren't? That's essentially the point. They're too scared to invest now when the economy desperately needs it, so it's perfectly acceptable for the government to pump it into the economy with its own social programs. Because it is NOT the privilege of the rich to decide when they'll help the economy and when they won't.

>>244738
OK fine but that's not the world we are living in. Notice that our examples are different. In my example, I dealt with two domestic companies, one that had access to foreign labor, one that does not. That has nothing to do with trade, and everything to do with exploitive labor practices that destroy both China and American societies.

Second, it's funny because that was exactly the advice the British gave the Americans when we first broke away: our interests were in exporting raw materials, while britain's was in manufactoring goods. But we disregarded their advice, to our own betterment. You see, if Country B protects its own steel mills, more of B's workers will have money, which will drive demand and development of domestic markets.

>>243434
>derp thread
>posts obvious trolling derp
>DERPDERPDERPDERP

cont. >>244846.

>Second, even IF that money were stored away under a mattress, what would that do? It would deflate the currency enough so that people savings would actually increase in value.
Not when the economy is in the shitter. The single best way to increase wealth for everyone (according to you people) is to GROW the economy. A recession is the opposite of growing the economy.

>just a fallacy to think that you're just helping the economy by giving these people that money.
What part of economic audits don't you understand? The OMB is run by PhDs in economics that study this shit. There are also countless non-gov groups that study this shit. Giving money to poor poeple that spend that money injects demand into the economy. This isn't some shit people come up with in their sleep or by listening to talk radio.

>All the government is doing is this; A takes money from B to give to C, but A keeps a little for itself in the process.
A keeps that bit and spends it itself. Public workers have bills to pay as well. And if B isn't investing, then C will.

>The free market could provide much better solutions to helping the poor than the government.
Yet when the free market had a chance it failed miserably (hence Social Security, Medicare, etc were passed during the great depression).
>You just have way too little faith in humanity to expect any good will.
Because we've seen what the rich will do with their money: Wall Street collapse.

You're more than welcome to make pretend-world arguments about what could happen, but there's a reason it's never happened.

I'mokaywiththis.jpg

>>244846

It's not bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Nauh6A5HOtg#t=467s

The study their citing is this one. Demand edged the other two but that's because they were split. Those two are basically government functions and both cost money. Put regulations and taxes together and now it's 37%. That's quite a bit and more than demand, so do your homework next time before you call bullshit.

But you're still mistaken. Demand is not created by giving people money. Demand is created by giving people jobs. That's the part you don't seem to get. You're transferring wealth when you do this. There is no transfer of wealth in the free market because wealth is created.

>Because it is NOT the privilege of the rich to decide when they'll help the economy and when they won't.

What is it with you socialists who somehow think that government bureaucrats are somehow more pious than business men? Are politicians not privileged rich too? Dude, can you be anymore myopic? A market failure can very well be a government failure as well. Stop thinking the government is Jesus with a flamethrower ready to kill all those greedy dirty corporatists.

Also, economists have shown that deflation actually does not hurt investment, because during deflation, the purchasing power of your capital increases while the prices of goods needed for a start up decrease. There goes that theory.

>>243626
Problem:
onerous state and federal regulations have made it progressively [har, har] more difficult to start up businesses.

>>244856

But again, if one gets cheaper labor and is able to undercut its competitors, how does that hurt a society? When they undercut everyone else, that means a good is available for cheaper, so now the poor have more purchasing power. Again, you are being myopic and only seeing the immediate benefit to employees in one sector, but what you're really doing is making everyone subsidize employees in one sector and those who hurt the most are the poor.

Second, you're about about it driving demand and development for domestic markets because again, you're being myopic. You're only seeing the shortterm. First, everyone will have less purchasing power because that good that was protected is now more expensive. Second, people in the exporting business will also be hurt, so they're purchasing power will be weakened. So you see, it's not all peachy, you need to really see far into what were talking about to see what really goes on. I suggest you read the following book;

mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

It explains pretty much what I said and gives plenty of other examples. No serious economist believes in tariffs or anything of the sort.

>>243434
>Murrica 2015
>don't tax the rich at all
>corporations go to another country where they can pay people .50 cents a day anyways
>unemployment 50%

>>244861

A recession, as a mentioned in my previous post, is not all that bad. It's a reset for the economy and provides new investment opportunities. Shit, you should hear how elated Wall Street gets when there's an economic downturn, it's almost guaranteed money for them. Plus, capital increases in value while prices go down, thus helping investment opportunities.

Now, what's funny about your arrogance is that you show how little you know about the economic collapse when you say "Wall Street collapse". You do know that the reason the bubble was created and then burst was because of the monetary policy and because the government told Fannie and Freddie to lend to anyone? So what happened? People weren't able to pay their loans, people realized that it was artificially created demand, and BUST, everything went down the shitter. Who started it? Who created all the moral hazards in the most heavily regulated market? The government.

You're probably one of these idiot democrats that think that governments "create jobs", just like some of these retarded Republicans we have now.

Free market failed miserably? That's a crock of shit. What were all the old people doing before? Dying? Did no one make it past old age? Not to mention all of the investment opportunities that are available today compared to back then, new innovators that can provide new ideas for providing these services.

I really fucking hate when people like you forget everything that capitalism and the free market has done and you bitch about "OH NOES CORPORATIONS". Then you spew your "facts" without ever having read any economic material.

You do not create wealth by giving money from A to B. You create wealth by investing and creating goods and services that people use to better their lives. That money has to come from somewhere, and all you're doing is removing it from one of the more productive areas to the least productive.

>>245001

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you intentionally not post the link to the survey because you couldn't find a non- Fox News one?

Is that the way this debate will go now? Citing Fox News as a source on anything about the government.

Fox Business Network is the most virulent antagonist of anything government. You might as well quote the Koch brothers as a source on how well non-profits work.

>Demand is not created by giving people money.

Look, now I'm getting frustrated here. You're clearly parroting bullshit you hear on Fox or talk radio with nothing to support it. I've posted a link to a REPUBLICAN economist, the senior economist to REAGAN as the man saying the regulations and taxes are not the problem. He cites a survey of over a thousand businesses.

And you come back at me with fox news bullshit?

Demand is created when people have money. NOBODY is hiring because there is no demand. There can not be more employment until people can spend money; money such as food stamps and tax rebates for the middle class and poor.

This shit isn't made up. I've sited businesses themselves saying this.

>What is it with you socialists who somehow think that government bureaucrats are somehow more pious than business men?
Pious? They're elected representatives in charge of guarding against the shit Wall Street pulled. Too bad Bush let that shit hit the fan before Obama could take office. But your hatred of government doesn't cloud your judgement at all, just to let you know. You're clearly objective. Lmao.

>Also, economists have shown that deflation actually does not hurt investment
And which people have the money? The rich. The middle class and poor are the ones affected by recessions. How many millionaires are being evicted from their homes?

This is what it's like talking to the most dense segment of the country. No wonder you were set to vote for Palin. What a joke.

>>245029
You're trolling, right? It wouldn't have anything to do with the banks not loaning to anyone, right?

>>244861
>A recession, as a mentioned in my previous post, is not all that bad.
That's right. It's not at all bad for the rich. That's what Wall Street loves. It's a reset for everyone else but for them. But you're too fucking clueless to see that very important fact.

But nice try with that "hurr government forced wall street to fuck up the economy." It has been outlined in detail how Wall Street bankers gorged themselves on CDOs and mortgage-backed securities. They sold shit labeled as AAA. They fed themselves on what they knew was poison because they were getting filthy rich off of it. Everyone from top to bottom. But you idiots will just pretend it's the government's fault for forcing banks to make loans. The government didn't force banks to make shitty loans, the banks made them because they were easier to get rich off of. But your puny brainwashed mind can't comprehend that can it?

But nice try running back to your bullshit about the free market. There has never been one. The free market is a wet dream of idiots that consider the government an evil enterprise, all while sucking the dick of the rich like the Koch brothers.

You really are the cancer to society. Thankfully people can see through your bullshit and aren't buyinig it anymore. Good riddance.

>>245029

Correction:
Banks refusing to loan to long-time customers to fund start-up costs is making it non-regressively (har dar) hard to start up businesses.

They're on the record: regulations affect big corporations, not small businesses. Unless you can link me to a Fox article saying otherwise, I'll have to assume you're wrong.

>>245148

Great, so I supply the actual study you're talking about and you go apeshit "BUT IT'S FOX NEWS WAAAHHH!!!". Listen dipshit, you provided a fucking news article that nitpicked the fucking data and didn't even mention the rest of the survey. Stop being so fucking hypocritical and debate the point.

Also, let me see if I can put it another way so you're limited mind can finally understand it;

>There isn't any demand
>People don't have jobs
>There isn't any demand because people don't have jobs.
>If I buy something with your money, then I'm just giving your money back to you. No additional wealth was created.
>Real wealth is when someone creates a good and someone else purchases said good with their money, not your own.

Did that finally make fucking sense to you?

What's also laughable is that you think everyone who receives these benefits are poor helpless people who really need it. Never taking into account the very large amount of people who just exploit the system and start to depend on it. This in turns robs more wealth from those who earned it, which in turn limits their purchasing power and limits their investment power.

Again, your argument for "derp stimulating the economy by giving people money" is as fucking old a bullshit an argument as most of these stupid socialist ideas.

mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

This is a great intro to economics. I suggest you read it. I understand why you're shortsighted, everyone commits the Broken Window fallacy.

>>245198

Why do you think those people were able to peddle the CDOs you fucking retard? Housing demand was inflated because the government wanted the poor to get more houses. Look up Moral Hazards you moron. Jesus, are you really that ignorant, yet at the same time talk as if you know anything about economics?

I know all about the CDOs and the mortgage-backed securities. But guess what, I'm against the fucking bailouts. They should've been allowed to go bankrupt for their reckless behavior, instead of being bailed out. WHICH AGAIN IS THE FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT GOVERNMENT BEING A FUCKHEAD.

So again, let's see here... Government creates the moral hazard that allows for artificially created demand to increase prices on houses artificially that allows bankers to be even riskier with lending because a.) the government will back them up b.) all this extra demand makes housing more expensive, so banks can't lose if they repossess.
AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT BAILS THEM THE FUCK OUT?!?!?!

You're an idiot because you confuse Corporatism with Free Markets. Look up the difference you ignorant piece of shit and next time try being a lot more fucking humble with your posts. You really look like a tool in front of people who actually study economics.

>>245215

What? So now you can pretend you provided the source when all you linked was a youtube video of a fox drone talking about A survey?

This shit is beyond comical. Post your source. Not the fucking video. The link to the survey, just like I did.

Yet you claim the article I posted nitpicked? Fuck you are the funniest faggot alive.
>The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies’ reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor “business demand.”

Furthermore,
>As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, “It’s just nonsense. It’s just made up.” He’s an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Again,
>Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.
>The rating firm Moody’s says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That’s 11 percent more than a year earlier.

cont...

cont. >>245288

See that? You're too fucking dumb to be trusted to click the link so I've posted my source where you can't ignore it.

There are no jobs because there's no demand, not because regulations are starving businesses of capital. IT'S RIGHT FUCKING THERE ASSHOLE.

Nice try with your bullshit about government dependance though. And the socialist tag. All too comical and expected from idiots that don't know shit other than fox and talk radio talking points.

Here read it from a repbulican economist's own fingers:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1168/supply-side-economics-rip

Your arguments are fcking retarded and you can't see it making it even more funny to watch. What a complete faggot.

>>245198

To further illustrate an important point I implied;

If a thief breaks into your house and steals your watch, you then call the police and they catch him red handed. They then let him go.

Thief comes back, steals your shit, police come and do nothing?

Think about this for a second. I agree that the thief is morally responsible for the act, but this absolve the police?

We live in a society where we absolve our right as free humans to inflict punishment on those who wrong us, so that a supposedly higher moral power (the legal system) can exact justice for us. If that legal system fails, then are we still going to keep blaming the thief? What good does that do us? We need to go to the supposed protector of our rights and ask "hey big guy, what happened here?".

If that doesn't happen? Then you take justice into your hands. But again, exact it on the ones taking your right to exact punishment away first, otherwise, you risk being barbaric.

>>245246

What part of this shit don't you understand? Had the banks NOT sold those shit securities they would NOT have collapsed the economy.

See this is the funniest part of all: you claim the free market can set the economy free, then complain when the government gives them even an INCH of room to fuck around.

And nobody gives a fuck what you think of the bailouts. It's irrelevant. You're clueless about everything else on the eoncomy, so why should that be different?

You'll suck the dick of the "free market" then shit on the poeple that RUN that free market.

You live in a fucking fantasy world that nobody has ever in the history of mankind been able to set up. You're the dumbest motherfucker on this board, and that's saying a lot.

>>245295

OH GOODNESS THIS IS GLORIOUS.

See, you fancy yourself a philosophical economist. You are without a doubt a joke. You'd rather turn to philosophical theories about Broken Glass than read the articles written by actual professionals. It's beyond comical now.

Good show.

>>245045
>But again, if one gets cheaper labor and is able to undercut its competitors, how does that hurt a society? When they undercut everyone else, that means a good is available for cheaper, so now the poor have more purchasing power. Again, you are being myopic and only seeing the immediate benefit to employees in one sector, but what you're really doing is making everyone subsidize employees in one sector and those who hurt the most are the poor.
Dude, but then you get into a situation like America is in, where nobody has good working class jobs anymore. And you're OK with this? Yeah, cheap stuff is coming into America from China, but nobody has the money to purchase it anymore. Are you seriously saying America is in better shape now that we have access to cheap Chinese labor, than we were in the 60s when American people had access to decent working class jobs? Yeah, it's better for the rich, but for nobody else.

>>245045
>Second, you're about about it driving demand and development for domestic markets because again, you're being myopic. You're only seeing the shortterm. First, everyone will have less purchasing power because that good that was protected is now more expensive. Second, people in the exporting business will also be hurt, so they're purchasing power will be weakened. So you see, it's not all peachy,
Look, I'd rather have a steady income, less buying power, but have more people with decent jobs. This leads in turn to better communities and a more even distribution of wealth. I mean, there are lots of other countries that are not as WEALTHY as America, like Denmark, but that have higher STANDARDS OF LIVING because the wealth is more evenly distributed. And this doesn't happen by accident. To quote a wise woman, Margie Gunderson, "There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that?" We sold our soul as a nation for cheap shit from China. It's a shame.

>No serious economist believes in tariffs or anything of the sort.

Of course not. Because most 'serious' economists are shills for the rich and powerful. I like heterodox economists like William Black, James Galbraith and Pavlina Tcherneva. Pic related. It's Pavlina Tcherneva.

To make it completely easy for that faggot to understand the points:

--Government regulations are what's preventing companies from hiring new workers because of onerous costs and barriers to entry
FACT: companies are sitting on more capital than they know what to do with, yet they aren't hiring because THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR GOODS.

Dense shit.

>>245288

Are we still on about this?

>"Small businesses rate “poor sales” as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the “political climate.”

I posted the exact same study. Did I lie about anything? Why are we still discussing it? The one study I provided cited that 37% is related to regulations and taxes. Why are we still debating this when I haven't said anything that's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett

Funny, it says nowhere how this man is an actual economist. He's a politician. Great job. You're sources are wonderful.

Go read stuff by actual economists dipshit, stop posting political propaganda. Do you even know who Mises or Friedman are?

Your source is invalid. Here, let me get you some actual economists;

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec1.asp
http://www.cato.org/events/031121bf.html

Fucking idiot.

>>245353
holy shit that might be my advanced macroeconomics professor...

>>245325

How do you think you said anything coherent just now.

>you claim the free market can set the economy free, then complain when the government gives them even an INCH of room to fuck around.

Why would that be inconsistent. The Free Market is free because it has no government intervention. I thought you were derpelicious before, but this is just dumb. Are you losing it there buddy?

And the bailouts are irrelevant. Seriously, you're running out of arguments. It's sad.

Then I provide you with a solid philosophical foundation and you completely ignore it and don't even try to refute it. You're pathetic, it's obvious to me you've lost this debate and have no more ability to counter my points than to just say "NOPE, UR RONG", while showing that you have no knowledge of economics the whole time.

>>245391
Cool! Yeah, she's really fucking sharp. Have you heard anyone else talk about her classes?

>>245384
Ah, so you're finally bowed into admitting that lack of DEMAND is problem.
>These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

>The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

>In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

>“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

>The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

>>245330

The loss of jobs to outsourcing is only a part of what's going on, I would even say a small part. There are actual jobs in the US, the problem is a mismatch of labor skills and available jobs. This is what happens during malinvestment, particularly by the government, which induced the bubble. So what do you think happened? Construction for housing went up. so workers went to where the money was at, in housing. When the bubble burst, now a bunch of people in the housing industry lost their jobs and are not being reintegrated back into the system. Believe it or not, economies sort themselves out, we don't need government interference. The Great Depression is a great example, when FDR started pumping money into the economy, all it did was prolong the misery. The US was in fact one of the nations that endured the GD the longest.

Why is that? Because as I mentioned previously, there is a mismatch of labor and available jobs, so what's going to have to happen now is that labor is going to have to retrain itself to reintegrate back into the system and fill the available jobs.

When the government creates a "Jobs Bills", it is in fact simply prolonging this reshuffling of the labor market that NEEDS to happen. Again, if China's wealth is increased, they will have more purchasing power and in turn buy products from the US, everyone wins.

cont >>245428

Bruce Bartlett:
>Bartlett’s work is informed by many years in government, including service on the staffs of Congressmen Ron Paul and Jack Kemp and Senator Roger Jepsen; as staff director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress; senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House; and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration.

And from your wikipedia link:
>Occupation author, historian, ***economist***

Nice try though. Keep coming at me with your pseudo economics bullshit. It's making me laugh with glee.

>>245414
not that i know of im not a hundred percent sure but shes one of my favorite professors shes really sharp and is a no bullshit person at an otherwise pretty liberal college

>>245353

Last I checked, the US had a pretty high standard of wealth. Also, Denmark's labor laws are very much looser than they are here in the US. Let me get you a link;

http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/nordic/papers/Kuttner.pdf

It's funny you mentioned Denmark cause I had used this article for some research. If you read it, you will see how the labor unions were much more realistic in their demands and didn't expect so much from companies. It is in fact the deregulation of the labor market in Denmark that has helped them.

Now, the funny part is that they spend a lot less of their GDP on health care and still have universal coverage, plus a plethora of other social benefits. I agree, they sort of have their shit together, but how sustainable is it? Tuition is rising and so is health care and the middle class is seeing themselves squeezed more and more. The article also mentions how a massive "welfare culture" has been created by the welfare system in Denmark.

I don't see this is as a sustainable system because this system tends to drive costs up for education and health care. All it takes is a financial downturn and they will see themselves falling on tough times.

Finally, your assessment of economists, while it has hint of merit, still does not. If you really understood economics, you would realize that the free market is pro-consumer and anti-corporation. I know it's hard to get that because you think that what we're seeing today is capitalism, but it isn't. The US has a bad mixture of corporatism, welfare statism, central planning/interventionism, and some free market.

>>245398
>The Free Market is free because it has no government intervention.
And that "free market" would allow the market to do whatever it wants, including selling shit securities like THEY JUST DID and collapse the economy. You faggots run to "durr the bailouts is why they did it," but that just shows how clueless you are of what actually happened. Lehman Brothers, a company founded over a hundred years ago and with the influence on par with Goldman, went bankrupt, starting the collapse of the economy. Again, not philosophical bullshit by some retards in their radio studio, but the people that run the economy and Wall Street.

And I said YOUR opinion on the bailouts was irrelevant, not the bailouts themselves, you dumb shit. Of course the bailouts are relevant. They're what saved the economy and prolonged the recession. But you're too dumb to see that without me pointing it out to you.

>Then I provide you with a solid philosophical foundation
Bwhahahahah.

That fact you typed that with a straight face makes me laugh so hard.

What a fucking idiot you are.

>>245460

Yes, your source, which has a B.A. American diplomatic history, trumps my sources, which are Nobel laureautes in economics. Lol, nice try buddy.

>>245520

Aw, I see you're starting to doubt yourself. Turn on that talk radio. It'll rev you up and you can ignore all the facts I've posted.

Yes, that man has had his fingers in the actual economy. Hands-on experience. Has seen how policies actually work in the biggest economy in the world. Has seen first hand what works and doesn't.

If I break my window will you come over and fix it for me for a grand?

>>245508

Don't confuse intervention intended to control economic outcomes and direct the markets with instituting laws that protect consumers, corporations, and workers from each other. I have always said this. You're just too stupid to realize that because again, all you've read is what some B.A. in American diplomatic history has to say on the matter.

The fact that you're not even recognizing that my thief scenario is correct just shows me that you're either a troll or just trying way too hard not to lose even a single point of contention.

Please go read an econ book, for the love of god.

>>245548

Lol, sure thing. Keep telling yourself that some dude with a B.A. in diplomatic history trumps a Nobel prize winning economist.

What the.. I don't even...

>>245548

Look at what I post;
>>245498

OH MY GODDNESS, ACTUAL FUCKING PAPERS ON ECONOMICS ON UNIVERSITY WEBSITES

Do you want me to get some more reading material for you from all the shit I've read, ass gobbler?

>>245551
>Don't confuse intervention intended to control economic outcomes and direct the markets with instituting laws that protect consumers, corporations, and workers from each other.
Oh, so now some regulation is okay. I see the patient is making progress. But didn't that contagion birth itself in that market?

I think one area we can agree on though is that government intervention is abused by the market, so the government should not intervene unless it has strict rules governing what the market can and can't do. Good?

>I have always said this. You're just too stupid to realize that because again, all you've read is what some B.A. in American diplomatic history has to say on the matter.
Well, we were kind of busy discussing the actual economy we live in, so it didn't allow much time to discuss your hypothetical economy.

>The fact that you're not even recognizing that my thief scenario is correct just shows me that you're either a troll or just trying way too hard not to lose even a single point of contention.
I am very stubborn, so I might have overlooked that point in my haste to enlighten you on the facts of the debate.

>Please go read an econ book, for the love of god.
I have. But I'm a physics/math major, not an econ major, so I'm kind of turned off by rambling theories about shit that doesn't exist.

>>245592
>ass gobbler

But why are you mad? I thought we were having a friendly conversation discussing how wrong you are about the historical facts. Sure, I'll concede you might be right about your hypothetical economy, but that's not what we live in.

Just tell me this though, because it's easier to tell what a person really believes based on who they vote for: did you vote for Palin in '08?

Be honest.

>>245601

>>245601

Yes, I agree, we never got around to discussing that. I am pro-consumer and anti-corporations, and I recognize that laws are needed to ensure that corporate greed is actually directed for the good of the consumer. This is why I don't give corporations such a hard time, because in the end, the government is ultimately responsible for punishing the bad guys. And even that is not entirely true, because consumers have a lot more power than they think against corporations, so long as the government isn't protecting them. Just look at what OWS finally figured out, if you don't like big banking, take your money out of it. Consumers do have power to make corporations behave.

What kind of physics and math are you doing? And economics is a very interesting topic that has pretty much hooked me for the last two months and has hooked me before.

>>>243834
>Funny, then, how Ford gave workers the 8-hour day and the 5-day week and how worker fatalities were declining well before OSHA. Products and working conditions in a market tend to standardize quality according to consumer demand.

Did you just use a company that years later ended up conducting a cost-benefit analysis and concluded than paying off the families of those who DIED from one of their products was cheaper than actually fixing it and making it safe as your example?

>>245623

See, you accuse me of "labeling" you as a socialist, then you apparently label me as a hick redneck republican. She's the biggest idiot ever. I'm an atheist (and a seriously educated one) and a libertarian/free market guy. She's a fucking idiot neo-con. I think neo-cons are the biggest idiots in the world and no system is more prone to crony capitalism than that one. It's pretty much another way of saying Fascism.

I'm, as it should be no surprise, a supporter of Ron Paul, since I'm a libertarian and a free market guy.

Now it's your turn to answer this; are you a socialist/marxist? Some of your rhetoric sounds like it.

>>245661

Lol, I take it you either got that from that Milton Friedman video on youtube about the Ford Pinto and completely ignored what he was talking about or you haven't seen the video yet.

>OP thinks taxing the rich means taxing the corporations
>also thinks they'll move elsewhere
>neglects to mention that Europe has most fortune 500 companies and has tax rates 2x America's

>mfw

>>245651

Oh man. I agree completely with that first paragraph. How did we get so heated that we talked past each other for the last hour?

I'm in complete agreement with the role the government should play: protector against the inherent greed of corporations.

I also agree that greed is the driving engine behind capitalism, which has created the greatest economy in the world.

I was in favor of the bailouts because it rescued the economy from a depression, but was pissed as hell that there were no strings attached to every penny the government doled out. The biggest companies should have had all their assets sold off, with the government only providing the funds to keep it from liquidating too quickly.

Cool.

And I'm studying Astro-Particle Physics at UCLA. I'm minoring in math only because I enjoy it.

>>245661

>>245661

Here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

Are motorcycle companies evil too because motorcycles are so dangerous?

>>245684

Well, to be fair, I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I would have voted for Ron Paul in '08, but the republican party can't stand the guy, so it was either Obama or Palin. Guess which I voted for.

I'll also admit that on the surface socialism (like the Scandinavian countries practice) is enticing. Communism, not so much.

>>245724

The reason why we got into that sort of a discussion is because I defended corporations and the free market. The reason I do so is because I expect the government to do it's part and protect me as a consumer. Hence, when a corporation gets rich, they did so legally and providing a good for people. I understand how people who are upset with the system might get put off by my initial comments, but I mean, I guess that from now on I have to preface all my initial comments with "we don't have capitalism in America, we have Corporatism", just to make sure we are on the same page. It's funny how Ron Paul is actually for a lot of the things OWS is talking about, even though those people tend to be hard left or even communists. I saw one bitch say that money is evil and things would be better if there was no money. Talk about naive and uneducated. I know they're not all like that, but hopefully they can see that true economists are actually on their side.

Now, as to the bailouts, a large amount of mainstream economists may think that they were good, but that's because these economists are Keynesians. Keynesians get the government jobs because they are one of the few schools of economics that actually advocate government intervention. So naturally, it pays you a lot to follow this particular brand of economics. Neo-Classical and Austrians, which have a lot more in common, all disagreed with the bailouts as it causes some major issues with the economies. The Too Big To Fail thing was complete bullshit. All that happened is that their profits were privatized and their losses were socialized. Corporatism at its finest.

That sounds really cool. I like math and physics, I'm a game programmer and I've always wanted to write my own engine but I just don't have the time, patience, and discipline to study those two areas by myself. I don't know, I said that about economics before and now look at me, I've learned enough to consider myself a 3rd year econ undergrad.

>>245691
No I didn't watch the video.

The point is that companies don't always do what is best for the consumer or employees, and in the age of multi-national corporations the hand of the market doesn't act quickly enough. Or is having that FREEDUM worth the deaths of thousands of consumers and employees due to negligence?

>>245727
What does company negligence have to do with the inherent dangers of operating a product?

>>245751

The Scandinavian countries and Switzerland are a lot more capitalistic than even the US sometimes. Look at Denmark, their labor market is a lot more unregulated. You can fire anyone at anytime. They do have strong social programs but those people really understand the virtues of the free market. I think it's pathetic that the US spends as much as it does of its GDP on health care (which I think is first in the world at 17%) and doesn't have universal coverage. The Swiss have fixed this because they keep the health insurance market extremely competitive, whereas the US has regulations that allows these health insurance businesses to become monopolistic.

Read the article I provided above, there are some definite issues with these systems, but I agree, they're currently much better than the American system. Let me repost it;

www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/nordic/papers/Kuttner.pdf

>>245820
>>245839

As Benjamin Franklin said, he who is willing to give up freedom for safety deserves neither. You're talking about a time where the economy was not as robust. Today we have Consumer Reports and the internet. Do you really think a fiasco like the Ford Pinto will be kept secret? I welcome the idea of companies being reckless in a true free market society with proper laws. They will get the shit sued out of them and ruin them forever, and everyone from then on will see how much it costs to defraud consumers.

While the BP Oil Spill was not as bad as advertised, according to a bunch of articles and scientists, I most certainly hope that they are made to pay every fucking penny of that shit. I heard $20 billion and I hope that's right. Fucking irresponsible fuckers.

Protectionism

Tax the fuck out of companies trying to import

>>245884

Please refer to the following posts for a rebuttal, since obviously you're a late comer, I dont expect you to read through he whole thread.

>>244616
>>244738
>>245045