|
Post by blueneck on Jul 10, 2007 4:26:56 GMT -6
Exactly, business left to its own devices naturally try to get away with paying the lowest possible wages. The "free" market assumption that wages rise to a fair market value is based on the theory that people behave rationally, and therefore so do businesses and markets, which of course is flawed because people do not always think and act rationally, and it follows logically that therefore business and markets do not behave rationally either. Again this is one of the biggest fallacies of supply side "free" market ideology It is based completely on flawed assumptions and logic - much like many other neo/liberal/CON "philosophies". If markets behaved rationally, why did we get a housing bubble? Why does the stock market continue to grow despite overwhelming bad economic news? In fact Greedspan coined a term for this phenomenon "irrational exuberence".
As already stated, evidence of this is the constant whine of employers with the half-truth, that they can't find qualified help, but of course they never finish the sentence "we can't find quality help, at the wages we want to pay"
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 10, 2007 6:53:26 GMT -6
Certainly there are differences between fair labor value and fair market value. Even the Austrian school acknowedges that.
Classical economics always had a special role for labor in the cost of a product. Here is a good starting definition,
So it seems to me its exactly the opposite as your market theory of value. And yes I would agree with Marx when he said,
Now, if the business actually paid the cost of hiring the worker's labor power we could say the market is free. That is certainly not the case because your fair market value is heavily subsidized by workers and the state.
If you want to hold onto a whimsical fantasy of Adam Smith waving his invisible hand and setting the price of labor go for it. My only point is that your fair market value must account for the full cost of labor. When in many circumstances the fair market value is determined by the lowest wage possible (isn't this the argument over AFTA's and immigration) should not the fair labor costs be taken into account.
We could say Fair Market Value + Government supports = Full Labor Costs. That really does not account for the total because even without government support workers living standards continue to decline. Workers are in fact subsidizing their own labor through carrying heavier debt and cutting back.
I would argue up until a business pays their full labor cost it is not free. It is dependent on government and its workers to subsidize its cost of labor. Your Fair Market Value is simply code for government subsidization and corporate welfare.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 10, 2007 11:28:32 GMT -6
The argument about "aggregate demand" is still as faulty as the first time I addressed it. I'll say this once more - increased labor costs result in increased prices. This means that there is an equal "aggregate demand" because the non-market pay increases precede price increases.
As for our current housing bubble and such, that is a result of government interventionism, NOT from market failure. Interest rates were set at non-market rates by fractional reserve banking (government-sponsored fraud) and the Federal Reserve (which has the power to set interest rates). This led to a disconnect between consumer time-preferences and interest rates (which effect the distribution of resources to consumer and capital goods). Consumers did not have the high preference for future spending which the low interest rates indicated, and thus resources were wrongly allocated to capital markets (housing) which have high yields but also high, long term investment. It was the initial government intervention in interest rates that caused the malinvestments, it was not a "market failure."
And, again, proletariat, then we should remove government from the equation. There was a time prior to government interventionism and people seemed to live on, they didn't die from a lack of government aid. Oh, and by the way, who pays for all these government aids? The average person. So, essentially if we removed taxes, we would have your "fair labor value" (which I still consider farcical, but whatever).
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 10, 2007 12:23:21 GMT -6
There was a time prior to government interventionism and people seemed to live on, they didn't die from a lack of government aid. Enlighten me when was that. I'd imagine it is about 1929 your dreaming of.
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 10, 2007 14:07:01 GMT -6
Enlighten me when was that. I'd imagine it is about 1929 your dreaming of. If you want to talk about the Great Depression, even the Federal Reserve admits that was the fault of the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 10, 2007 14:54:13 GMT -6
If you want to talk about the Great Depression, even the Federal Reserve admits that was the fault of the Federal Reserve. What happened to that libertarian non interventionist line. The Great Depression occurred because government, in particular the reserve, did not intervene in the market. So, if the government bailed out the free market through loans and bonds everything would be wonderful. You guys like to have it both ways; first public spending by FDR did not end the depression, but the lack of it by Hoover caused it. The rule of the free market must be there are two things which make the market not free; first intervention by government and second lack of intervention by government.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 10, 2007 15:34:28 GMT -6
The argument about "aggregate demand" is still as faulty as the first time I addressed it. I'll say this once more - increased labor costs result in increased prices. This means that there is an equal "aggregate demand" because the non-market pay increases precede price increases. No, it is your statement that is faulty. When demand increases, the quantity sold increases as well as the price. This is very well laid out in standard economic textbooks. It's theoretically sound and has been proven by empirical evidence. If demand for a good goes up, the quantity sold increases more than the price initially. This is consistent with the concept of "sticky prices." In addition, as the price increases, the supply produced increases as well. This is all basic macroeconomics which can be found in any modern economics textbook. The only time that the entire demand increase is composed of price increases is when there is a fixed supply. Or, in other words, only when the supply curve is completely vertical. And this never occurs in the real world. It is not "cost" of production that determines prices. It's consumer demand that is the major determinant of price. It is consumer ability and willingness to pay a higher price. If a producer raises prices in tandem with production costs, and it reduces the product of sales X price, it reduces sales revenue. If optimal profits are obtained at the same price, even with the new cost increase, then the price will not be raised, because it would reduce business profits. Companies won't maintain price increases that reduce overall profits, regardless of whether their production costs increase. Let me give an extreme example to illustrate the point. Let's start with a burger flipper at McDonald's who costs $5.50/hour, and he produces 200 burgers/hour that sell for $2 each. Let's assume that the demand for burgers is such that all 200 burgers can be sold each hour for $2 each. That would be $400 worth of burger sales per hour. Let's assume the ingredients of the burger cost 50 cents each. (Though not completely realistic, I'm not going to add any other costs in, to keep this simple. The point is the same.) Thus the sales income - product cost = $1.50/burger. That would reduce the net profit from sales of burgers to $300/hour. From that $300/hour, we also need to subtract the cost of labor. In this case, it would be $300 - $5.50 = $294.50. If we raise the worker's hourly wage to $7.00/hour, it reduces the profit to $293.00. Now if we increase the cost of the burger, and it reduces the total hourly profits to below $293.00, the price will not be raised. If maximum profit is obtained at the same price, despite the wage increase, there won't be ANY benefit to raising the price. The only time the price will be raised is if net profit is maximized at a higher price. Otherwise, increasing wages won't increase prices any. Again, it is largely the consumer demand for production that determines price. If maximum profits are obtained a specific price, even if costs increase, business will not increase prices. It would reduce their profits to do so. The increased "cost" of production is not passed on to consumers as a price increase if reduces profits. However, as you have alluded to, which I agree with to some extent, the aggregate increase in wages from a minimum wage increase will also increase prices. It will increase consumer spending power and demand, resulting in both an increase in the quantity and price of goods sold. As for our current housing bubble and such, that is a result of government interventionism, NOT from market failure. Interest rates were set at non-market rates by fractional reserve banking (government-sponsored fraud) and the Federal Reserve (which has the power to set interest rates). There you go again, Morty, writing something I completely agree with. The housing bubble is largely a product of government policy and intervention at many different levels. The government has facilitated massive credit expansion both directly and indirectly. Allowing homebuyers to deduct mortgage interest payments from their income tax was one factor. Excluding capital gains from home sales from capital gains taxes was another factor. Implicit backing of lenders and their irresponsible loan practices was another. (i.e., lenders' belief that they'll be bailed out by the taxpayer if they fail.) Add in explicit backing of many players in the subprime mess, who in turn have ignored the very guidelines supposedly required to maintain this explicit backing (i.e, no money down, interest only, no documentation, etc.) The government has definitely had a hand in this. And it seems likely our government will eventually bill taxpayers for a bailout of the worst offenders.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 10, 2007 15:48:22 GMT -6
The Federal Reserve which technically is not part of the government (according to libertarian Ron Paul) is at least partly responsible for the housing bubble thru greenspan's reliance on too easy credit and artificially low interest.
But again it is a prime example of a market not behaving rationally as people rushed to pay more and more for property of dubious value and using subprime and other financial gimmicks to do so.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 10, 2007 15:51:21 GMT -6
That period of time was the late 1800s where the rise of the robber barons shifted capital to the wealthy and he gap between rich and poor grew - causing much labor unrest - it continued on right before the great depression.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 10, 2007 18:11:56 GMT -6
|
|
Morty
Contributor
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Morty on Jul 10, 2007 22:02:57 GMT -6
What happened to that libertarian non interventionist line. The Great Depression occurred because government, in particular the reserve, did not intervene in the market. That's absolutely correct. Or, would be if you said the exact opposite of what you did. In fact, the Federal Reserve was what caused the bubble in the first place, that and the fractional reserve system in general. Then, the Federal Reserve and government interventionism deepened the Depression and made it "Great." Haha, yes, exactly. It would have been wonderful, watching the continuation of malinvestment. Of course, eventually, the government runs out of money. Then, the malinvestments which you decided would be awesome to allow continue for years on end without any slowing would all fall apart at once causing a worse economic disaster than can even be imagined. No, that's completely incorrect. "Us guys" do not like it both ways, we like it one way - freedom. Hoover did not cause the Great Depression and to say he did is ridiculous. If you want to pin it on an American President, blame Wilson. He created the Federal Reserve and got us involved in World War One (which, like most wars, caused a bubble of investment in industry - "gearing up for war" and such). That's not surprising, considering modern macroeconomics is heavily influenced by none other than Lord Keynes. His absurd economic theories are widely discredited. To be frank, I'm not a fan of this whole cult of aggregate demand. For one, aggregate demand is a silly concept. You are basically trying to put all the demand curves of the economy into one ultra-super-awesome demand curve. It doesn't work because it assumes all spending (and all investments and capital, on that note) are homogeneous, which is absurd and completely untrue. But, regardless of this fundamental flaw in the idea of aggregate demand itself, aggregate demand doesn't mean much. It is an effect of larger economic factors (recessions, the business cycle, etc), not the cause. Does aggregate demand generally fall in a recession? Absolutely. But to assume its fluctations causes recessions is folly. Aggregate demand is not the determining factor of the economy, but rather an effect of more important factors. It is technically not, in the same way that the BEIC was technically not part of the British Government (except it is perhaps even more intricately connected). I would say the majority of the problems in the Gilded Age fall into two categories. 1) They came from government interventionism. 2) They are largely exaggerated. Many probably fall into both categories.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2007 2:14:15 GMT -6
" This is all basic macroeconomics which can be found in any modern economics textbook" That's not surprising, considering modern macroeconomics is heavily influenced by none other than Lord Keynes. His absurd economic theories are widely discredited. No, Keynes' theories have not been discredited. The concept of aggregate demand is widely accepted in the field of economics. It's taught in almost every college and university economics class and is completely accepted and has been fully validated. If you think otherwise, you need to go to your local college or university book store and buy a Macroeconomics textbook, like McConnell & Brue, and read it. In addition, there's no mention whatsoever of "Austrian" economics in most standard textbooks. Most importantly, however, is that the aggregate demand concept is the product of logic and common sense, as opposed to the illogical, and wishful thinking theories of classical economics or supply-side economics. To be "frank," I look at Austrian economics as a cult. And again, not only is the concept of aggregate demand NOT a silly concept, it is perfectly logical and easy to understand. If applied to consumers, it means there is an aggregate demand consumers exert through their spending. And, without borrowing, that aggregate consumer demand is 100% limited to aggregate consumer wealth, or more specifically, aggregate spendable consumer wealth. Consumers can't purchase production if they don't have any wealth with which to purchase that production. And if they don't purchase any production, there's no demand for production. And without production, no wealth is produced. Without that demand, factories and workers sit idle, like they did during the Great Depression. Without demand, labor has no value, because the product of labor would have no value without production demand. If no one can purchase production, no one will be hired to provide that production. That was absolutely and completely proven in the Great Depression. Regardless of what caused it, the lack of aggregate demand perpetuated it and worsened it. The aggregate demand-increasing policies of FDR did succeed in increasing aggregate demand and raised GDP significantly. However, it was the massive increase in aggregate demand from war spending in WWII is what ultimately supplied the necessary aggregate demand to end the Depression.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 11, 2007 4:35:03 GMT -6
Keynes credibility grows more and more by the day, as does others like Galbraith, it is the absurd theories of Laffer, Friedmann and other supply side economic hacks whose theories are based on flawed logic and assumptions of peoplers rational behavior that are preached as dogma are being widely discreditted, by none other than former supply siders like Roberts and Blinder and many others. Just look around at the realities these ridiculous supply side theories create - increased disparity of wealth, growing poverty rates, loss of good paying jobs, inflated markets, housing bubbles, consumer debt, negative savings - it goes on and on
Like it or not the lasseiz faire of the Hoover administration coupled with the wild west "free" market mentality, robber baron greed and irrational exuberance that caused the great depression - look it up in ANY history book.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 11, 2007 5:52:58 GMT -6
Morty,
You're losing a grip on reality. What's the difference between having a reserve that does nothing and one that doesn't exist. Now, if the fed in Hoover's administration had intervened somehow by loading capital into the market it might make sense to blame the feds. But no, the opposite happened, the feds in Hoover's administration refused to act by NOT buying up bonds and giving out loans.
It was you not me who blamed the feds for the great depression. As I said you can't have it both ways. You certainly can not blame government for not intervening and in the next breath blame it for intervening. So, enlighten me how should Hoover and his reserve intervened in the market to prevent the depression. Personally I was shocked the toasters didn't turn things around.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2007 12:41:11 GMT -6
The Fed did "load capital" into the market by greatly increasing the borrowing ability of business which made massive over investment possible. Without the Fed's creation it would have been impossible for the stock market bubble to have occurred, and much of the lending & margin borrowing would never have occurred.
The Fed's creation allowed for a much larger amount of credit creation and resultant money supply growth, without which share prices would have never risen to the level they did.
I wouldn't say the Fed was the only cause of the Great Depression. But it certainly made a major contribution.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 11, 2007 13:51:19 GMT -6
My comments on inaction with the reserve came from this, is it incorrect? wike: Monetarists, including Milton Friedman and Benjamin Bernanke, argue that the Great Depression was caused by monetary contraction, which was the consequence of poor policy making by the American Federal Reserve System and continuous crisis in banking system.[3] By not acting, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink by one-third from 1930 to 1931. Friedman argued[4] the downward turn in the economy starting with the stock market crash would have been just another recession. The problem was that some large, public bank failures, particularly the Huntly New York Bank of the United States, produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and that the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks fell. He claimed if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did and the money supply would not have fallen to the extent and at the speed that it did.[5] With significantly less money to go around, businessmen could not get new loans and could not even get their old loans renewed, forcing many to stop investing. This interpretation blames the Federal Reserve for inaction, especially the New York branch, which was owned and controlled by Wall Street bankers. The Federal Reserve, by design, was not controlled by the President or the U.S. Treasury; it was primarily controlled by member banks and the chairman of the Federal Reserve.[6]
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2007 22:03:04 GMT -6
Here's Wikipedia's version of Keynes' explanation of the cause/perpetuation of the Great Depression: Keynes explanation"English economist John Maynard Keynes in 1936 argued that there are many reasons why the self-correcting mechanisms that many economists claimed should work during a downturn may not work in practice. In his The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, Keynes introduced concepts that were intended to help explain the Great Depression. One argument for a noninterventionist policy during a recession was that if consumption fell, then the rate of interest would fall. According to the classical economists, lower interest rates would lead to increased investment spending and demand would remain constant. However, Keynes states that there are good reasons why investment does not necessarily automatically increase as a response to a fall in the interest rate. Businesses make investments based on expectations of profit. Therefore, if a fall in consumption appears to be long-term, businesses analyzing trends will lower expectations of futures sales. Therefore, the last thing they are interested in doing is investing in increasing future production, even if lower interest rates make capital inexpensive. In that case, according to Keynesians and contrary to Say's law, the economy can be thrown into a general slump.[5] This self-reinforcing dynamic is what happened to an extreme degree during the Depression, where bankruptcies were common and investment, which requires a degree of optimism, was very unlikely to occur. In Keynes’s view, since private sectors cannot be counted on to create aggregate demand during a recession, the government has the responsibility to create demand during this time, even if it has to run a deficit. Keynes’s ideas were revolutionary at the time, and his work was broadly influential. The Keynesian view of economics and the cause of the Depression were widely accepted until the 1970s when simultaneous unemployment and high inflation lead to the shift to other economic views...."
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 12, 2007 4:44:22 GMT -6
The longest most sustained growth period in the history of the world resulted after the New Deal.
It began petering out in the 70's when the Nixon era ushered in the first of the neo-conservative supply siders dismantling of the New Deal - coincidence?
it is also the beginnings of "revisionist" history - alsthough the right likes to project this on the left, the reality it is they who try to change history and economic theory to suit their ideologies.
Keynes is so right on there has to be demand to spur production - capital and investment does not spur production - one of the most basic flaws in supply side economics. More right today than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Jul 12, 2007 7:23:46 GMT -6
Keynes is so right on there has to be demand to spur production - capital and investment does not spur production - one of the most basic flaws in supply side economics. More right today than ever. Demand side theory is not right all of the time. There are times in an economic cycle when demand is chasing supply driving traditional inflation. In that case as was the case prior to the Kennedy Dillon tax cuts, a supply side stimulus can spur investment in capacity and relieve inflationary pressures. It is a better solution as it doesnt use a broad weapon against inflation like an FOMC action. It is true that a company will not invest in a new product without expecting a demand for that product. At the end of a business cycle capx tends to dry up in many sectors. So fiscal policy geared towards encouraging capx dont do much other than increasing deficits
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 12, 2007 15:04:41 GMT -6
It is true that a company will not invest in a new product without expecting a demand for that product. At the end of a business cycle capx tends to dry up in many sectors. So fiscal policy geared towards encouraging capx dont do much other than increasing deficits Exactly. Former Reagan undersecretary of the Treasury, and previous supply-side advocate, Paul Craig Roberts, has made a similar point in his writings on Supply-Side economics. He states there were no supply-side justifications for Bush's tax cuts. According to Roberts, the conditions that justify supply-side tax cuts did not exist when Bush implemented his 1st wave of tax cuts (and still don't exist.) The end result of those tax cuts further refutes any justification. Supply-side tax cuts are supposed to lead to increased capital investment, resulting in increased production of goods, and downward price pressure. Bush's tax cuts have not lead to increased capital investment or increased production, compared to the higher tax rates under Clinton. What they have resulted in, however, is increased non-productive investment, and in increased counter-productive investment (such as investment in foreign production facilities, displacing American manufacturing, reducing American employment & wages, and consequently reducing the American wage income necessary to bolster American consumer demand.) I think there are cases where supply-side tax cuts might have some justification (such as in Cuba if they suddenly embraced a capitalist economic system). However, there's certainly no justification at present. In fact, recent tax cuts have been counter-productive-- by increasing inflation, as well as increasing non-productive & counter-productive investment.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Jul 12, 2007 20:45:13 GMT -6
It is true that a company will not invest in a new product without expecting a demand for that product. At the end of a business cycle capx tends to dry up in many sectors. So fiscal policy geared towards encouraging capx dont do much other than increasing deficits Exactly. Former Reagan undersecretary of the Treasury, and previous supply-side advocate, Paul Craig Roberts, has made a similar point in his writings on Supply-Side economics. He states there were no supply-side justifications for Bush's tax cuts. According to Roberts, the conditions that justify supply-side tax cuts did not exist when Bush implemented his 1st wave of tax cuts (and still don't exist.) The end result of those tax cuts further refutes any justification. Supply-side tax cuts are supposed to lead to increased capital investment, resulting in increased production of goods, and downward price pressure. Bush's tax cuts have not lead to increased capital investment or increased production, compared to the higher tax rates under Clinton. What they have resulted in, however, is increased non-productive investment, and in increased counter-productive investment (such as investment in foreign production facilities, displacing American manufacturing, reducing American employment & wages, and consequently reducing the American wage income necessary to bolster American consumer demand.) I think there are cases where supply-side tax cuts might have some justification (such as in Cuba if they suddenly embraced a capitalist economic system). However, there's certainly no justification at present. In fact, recent tax cuts have been counter-productive-- by increasing inflation, as well as increasing non-productive & counter-productive investment. unlawf, there is a benefit to bubbles in that they can create cheap capacity for investment. Global Crossing is a great example. Yes the massive losses in speculative dollars was awful but the excess fiber capacity built sold at tremendous discounts. That is the upside. As someone on your forum put it, the weaker dollar has spurred exports. yes we still have the trade deficits but US corps are enjoying elevated returns on their foreign investments. Global growth is creating a lot of liquidity. That liquidity is still looking for safehavens like US markets. At what point would a weakening dollar deter capital inflows? Logic would dictate that the dollar would weaken faster than the trade defict would decrease. That would mean the return on foreign investment would fall. As of right now that rebalancing has been orderly. I am using ETFs an a matching 401K for investments so the rally today was a pleasant surprise. I am staying out of US retail but staying in large cap stuff like Cat and I have alt energy with Sunpower that I was lucky enough to get at 50. Not that I have any great insight. Iam still recovering from the tech crash as I was heavily biased in tech.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 14, 2007 16:04:31 GMT -6
I am sure you can understand now why Paul is not an acceptable substitute. With all that said I might vote for him as an independent given the current stock of potential candidates. This is because at this point in history I believe its more important to have a strong third party assault than what that particular third party stands for. The only way we will get true electoral reform is if the Dems and Rep are scared, real scared. That's another great reason to support Ron Paul. We need someone who is not part of the elite Corporate establishment. I don't agree with a lot of Paul's specific reasons for his positions, but I do agree with many of his positions themselves, as well as his resultant votes. Paul is also the only candidate opposing the current banking-monetary-financier control of our government and the world. This may be his strongest point. Despite the theoretical contradiction with his "libertarianism," Paul opposes private creation of money, as is currently practiced today. He advocates returning to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 15, 2007 7:05:48 GMT -6
A thread on the reserve might be interesting. I have always felt in many ways the reserve made us a capitalist dictatorship, any actions too 'radical' are quickly brought back in line via interest rates. Nader has written on the reserve although has not called for its ouster. In fact after you get past Paul's 'constitutional issue' there is much agreement between Nader, Paul, Kucinich etc.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 15, 2007 9:23:16 GMT -6
In fact after you get past Paul's 'constitutional issue' there is much agreement between Nader, Paul, Kucinich etc. Exactly. They're very similar. Especially about the policies they'd put into place. It's too bad we couldn't get these 3 guys together and form an anti-establishment coalition. Thanks for the link to the article by Nader on the Federal Reserve. It was very good. I especially liked his criticism of Greenspan where he said: " For example, Chairman Greenspan often railed against federal deficits, but he promoted ruinous, large Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that vastly ballooned the federal deficit. He warned about rising entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, but did not mention the vast, annual corporate entitlements – subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts – that swarm out of Washington, D.C. daily. He continued his belief that federal regulation of business was backed by what he called in his earlier adult years as “armed force”, but he walked away from much of his sworn duty to enforce the consumer protection laws under the Federal Reserve’s jurisdiction. "
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jul 15, 2007 12:07:17 GMT -6
I have never been a fan of Greenspan but one day watching him on C-SPAN I almost broke my HD TV. It started out good and in all talking about how as good a system capitalism is it has created this gap of rich and poor. But the gap he was referring too was the rich labor of the European and US unionized workforce, and the poor labor of the third world. He went on to articulate why free trade and other measures are so central in equalizing this wealth imbalance. It was then I realized the declining wages and standard of living was not an 'unintended consequence', but all part of the design from th start. I very much agree with you that there are certain policies that the libertarian left and right can come together on. I have seeing more and more folks advocating a Kucinich / Paul independent run which is probably glosses over their differences too much. But on the other hand here is an 08 primary political compass graphic. I think I'd put Ron Paul a little further down on the libertarian grid. In either case Kucinich / Gravel is closer to Paul than any of the other candidates. It also becomes very clear that most our politics excludes everything but the authoritarian right.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 16, 2007 3:48:07 GMT -6
I have never been a fan of Greenspan but one day watching him on C-SPAN I almost broke my HD TV. It started out good and in all talking about how as good a system capitalism is it has created this gap of rich and poor. But the gap he was referring to was the rich labor of the European and US unionized workforce, and the poor labor of the third world. He went on to articulate why free trade and other measures are so central in equalizing this wealth imbalance. It was then I realized the declining wages and standard of living was not an 'unintended consequence', but all part of the design from th start. Proletariat, That's a great observation. Though I've never heard Gree dspan say anything exactly like that, it certainly does seem like something he would say. His concern is not about the rich getting more and more of the wealth. Rather, it's about ensuring that the workers of the world are equally impoverished. Greedspan adheres to the belief that there can never be too much capital, and that concerns about consumer demand are unjustified. After all, it's common knowledge that money to purchase consumer goods just falls out of the sky-- doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 22, 2007 6:56:22 GMT -6
Nah - it just comes from raiding home equity and loan shark credit cards.
This is downright sociopathic thinking from Greedspan. even the Robber Barons of the late 19th century weren't this coniving and dispicable.
|
|