Party political systems are dominant in nearly all western democracies but does the limit of choosing from a small selection of parties represent true democracy or is it contrived to feel democratic while robbing the public of any real choice?
sort by best latest
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
In the UK we only get centre-right and all the parties just play in around in that area. To me democracy is about choice and party political systems prevent genuine choice.
Centre right in the UK ??? With your tax and spend policies over there in recent years, it's seems hard to describe that as fiscally conservative in any way.
The UKs biggest expenditure has been propping up a failing financial sector, a sector that failed largely due to deregulation. Without that our debts would be low by global comparisons. Much lower than US state debts.
Not by a long shot... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2013UK...
More than half the budget is entitlement driven. I don't know where you got those figures from
NHS spending and social security spending are primarily staff wages- not entitlement. The actual welfare bill is modest. However I was referring to debt, the financial bailout has been revised down to £400+ b'ion from 1trillion so my figures were OOD
Wages or not are not relevant. It is part of the overall cost of the entitlement, which demonstrates the usual lack of gov't efficiency. Without the entitlement the expenditure wouldn't exist. Deficits were a problem long before any bailouts
Welfare spending exists because the private sector needs unemployment to help drive wages down. Welfare spending props up - landlords/low paying employers.http://labourlist.org/2012/06/a-socially-just-welf...
What..LOL The private sector does not need nor want any unemployment. Full employment is possible if it is accompanied by an increase in productivity. By the way, the living wage is a political myth that can not be achieved due to monetary velocity
Ohh Clintons Labor secretary, a political appointee said it...so it must be true. LOL. That's why wall street watches the ADP report and household survey so closely every week. Because we want a bad report.LOL I have been managing money all wrong !
It is a logical conclusion of deregulation of companies- they are motivated by profit and low wages boost profit. Here is an article that highlights the link: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/22/u-...
It's the furthest thing from logical. Low unemployment signifies more widespread growth, which increases aggregate demand and profits. The last thing the private sector wants is high unemployment. It means lower wages and less long term growth.
You moved away from Friedman there. Individual companies are only interested in their own profit and low wages increase profits. Friedman wouldn't favour high wages either, but they also increase aggregate demand (as does welfare spending).
Top line revenue increases profits. That only comes from broad based growth. And welfare spending only creates transient increases in demand which don't signify significant increases anyway. And ultimately it's just a transfer payment.
£100 billion not substantial? That seems pretty damn substantial to me. Wages are just a transfer payment when you get down to it- people who receive welfare then spend it. NHS pays for specialist equipment- all boosts private sector.
A company funds a welfare program with tax dollars so it can be given to someone else to buy their products from them with the their own money that they just gave away. The entire process creates no new capital. Transfer payments don't create weath
Money moving helps create wealth- each time it passes hands it is creating profit and tax revenue. People on welfare receive skills training and education. The NHS pioneers research which is used by the private sector. All examples of wealth creation
Moving currency does not in any way create wealth. Innovation creates wealth. You are using the fallacy of the broken window theory explained by Henry Hazlitt. You're presuming that the money is not otherwise spent more productively, which it is.
You assume it will be spent more productively. The public sector funds most radical innovation because business is risk averse. Look at the internet- developed at CERN using public funding.
Nobody spends your money smarter than you. There is more waste in Gov't than anywhere.And every dollar spent by the gov't is capital that starts in the private sector. Which is why it is always a net detractor and never creates wealth.
If that is the case why do many socialist countries exhibit more growth than capitalist? It is a false assumption that growth is only made by private companies. Whoever controls the means of production can generate growth.
The only socialist countries that have a GDP per capita above the US are the Nordic nations that have instituted various free market reforms since their welfare state made them nearly insolvent in the early 90's.And have vastly different demographics
I said growth, not GDP. The Latin American countries as an average has economic growth of over 7% per year from 1945 to the late 70's when they were predominantly socialist- they then embraced liberal reforms and growth dropped to 3%.
Where did you study Econ ? GDP is the primary measurement of Growth. And GDP per capita is the best measurement of how widely the growth is distributed. You're not really trying to compare the wealth created for the avg American vs So America are you
Current GDP is not a historic yardstick. It also cannot measure how wealth is distributed http://goo.gl/3b4eTb. In L.Am growth reduced with capitalism. Although current socialist LAm have higher growth than US too. http://goo.gl/w16swD
GNP was which is basically the same. And that article is flawed,since the standard is universally applied, we know that the aggregate per capita is generally much lower in socialist nations.Which is why nobody in the US sneaks across the border to SA
They have much shorter histories than the US and were left in worse positions after independence. Just because US GDP is high doesn't mean Latin America growth isn't higher- growth is not current GDP, it's the difference between one year and the next
And just because a command and control economy tells you that they are growing at 7% doesn't make it accurate. Ex.current Chinese data which nobody buys. Left in worse positions. Failed socialist states have a habit of doing that. And plenty of them
You seem to confuse totalitarian states with socialist states. Totalitarian states don't want any external influence. The rhetoric of the fiscal right is no more true than Chinese propaganda.
You don't have to be a totalitarian state to be a fiscal train wreck as Latin America was. That is why they made the free market reforms. Their entire economy imploded. 7% Growth isn't impressive when accompanied by hyperinflation.
30/40 years of growth before Hyperinflation which occurred under non-socialist regimes too- the common theme was military authoritarianism. The role the IMF played in creating the conditions for hyperinflation shouldn't be underestimated either.
The inflation was a result of addressing economic stagnation and inflation with more Gov't expansion. Socialism metastasizes over time until it eats through prosperity and smothers economic activity. The list of failed socialist states is endless
Almost all of which don't follow socialist theories. You can't lump the totalitarian states in with genuine socialist states any more than fiscally conservative states can be described as fascist.
They can't. That's the point. They all end up the same way because they depend on altruistic gov't officials which do not exist to be entrusted with providing them with the fictional free lunch. And in the end the Gov't always disappoints.
You are still referring to totalitarianism. Further, socialism is not about free lunch- it is about getting a fair return on your efforts. Socialism also does not preclude private industry, stakeholder theory is largely socialist http://goo.gl/dh3sDA
Fair return is whatever the market demands in a free society. Supply and demand is the only fair way to allocate compensation fairly. Socialism doesn't preclude industry, it just slowly smothers it to the point of anemia.
That might be true all things being equal but the market isn't equal and the consumer doesn't have equal influence to the suppliers so it is hardly free- however the dominant hegemony portrays it. http://goo.gl/0KcNh6 Essential reading by Chomsky
Essential reading by Chomsky LOL A man with no economic training. But he is an expert in linguistics. That is helpful somehow. Next cite Alinsky. Socialist in a theoretical world that doesn't exist in real world business where incentive matters.
lol...google him again...Chomsky the author of 83 political works on a thread about politics.
Don't need to. He was a client of my old firm for years. He has ZERO training or education in the field of economics. He writes about his political views. So did Mike Lupica. But don't expect him to produce an econometrics model. Stick with Keynes
I'll say it again...political thread. About politics. Chomsky is relevant...he even explains your failure to critically engage with anything- just regurgitate the same mantra's and ignore the global economic disaster caused by the financial sector.
Chomsky is relevant to radicals. Not in the field of economics where he is out of his depth. And the crisis was not caused by the financial sector. It was caused by the social engineering of the financial sector.
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-financial-crisi... Chomsky on the crisis.
The problem is people who work is finance are motivated to believe the fallacies of the free market. They are still fallacies.
No the problem is people who worked outside the industry ignored those of us in the industry when we warned about the CRA, and the excessive liquidity the GSEs were creating for years.Because the idiots in DC thought credit should be expanded to all
But according to free market proponents it should. The free market had also caused localised collapses in several places which were ignored. Banks were at fault for providing high risk credit too easily...the list is endless
No in a free market banks would not have gov't incentives and mandates to extend credit to people that they would not otherwise lend money to. Which is exactly how the Gov't socially engineered the system. The GSE's subsidized risk.
Not how it happened in UK-our government just deregulated the banks and they took the risks on themselves- probably competing with US banks. Still a predictable outcome of competition for individuals to take risks a la Nick Leeson.
So if they were competing with US banks they were competing with a program of origin in gov't manipulation of the market. In 2007 70% of all below grade home loans in the US were on the books of a gov't agency. And the CDOs were global investments
The banks still should have ensured sufficient safeguards for themselves and separation of investment arm from other areas. It is a combination of deregulation, gov't interference and bad credit checking. Free market still destroyed tiger economies.
Banks don't like to loan money to people who can't pay them back, unless they can sell the loan to the gov't. Greed is balanced by risk. And if the gov't subsidizes away the risk, there is no free market. Only greed and irresponsible behavior.
So the fault is still with the banks. They attempted to abuse the government scheme and got caught with their pants down. The bankers are greedy and that caused the financial crash. The government tried to help people the banks tried to rob them.
They didn't abuse anything. First rule of economics is incentive matters. Second rule if you subsidize something you get more of it. Gov't should be regulating markets, not participating in them. And congress wasn't helping, they were stealing.
Libertarian polices argue for no regulation by government. And the banks have a responsibility to ensure they have the funds in place and take adequate precautions such as credit checks.
What does that have to do with anything. Because one is not a Socialist, does not mean they are a libertarian in all matters. There is a role for gov't to maintain reasonable regulations. But the gov't became a participant and distorted prices.
Because the policy makers, especially republican, are libertarian. They deregulate the banks because the banks wanted to be deregulated- then the banks abused deregulation and blamed the government for it.
You may want to actually listen to the hearings themselves before you make such fictional statements. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A It was out Dem party that concealed all the audits of the GSE's while they raped the tax payer.
Nothing fictitious- I wasn't referring to the AFTER THE FACT hearings, I was referring to deregulation being what the politicians did because the banks (money men) wanted it. Nothing to do with hiding anything at all.
What are you talking about. Those hearing were years before the financial crisis as the Democrats were warned that this was distorting prices and creating market dislocation. They were warned this would be a disaster, and ignored everyone
Sorry, didn't watch them because I am referring to Reaganism and its political children which are what deregulated the banks and financial sectors. Many democrats also follow the core tenants, but all republicans do that I know off.
You don't get it. The banks were NOT deregulated, they were OVER regulated. They had MANDATES placed on them to loan money to people with terrible credit in bad areas. Then when the loans went bad, it was the banks fault. Brilliant
That is not regulation. Regulation is things like keep separate your investment banking from other banking, keep a sufficient cash reserve, not being incentivised to sell loans and then being able to not do sufficient checks. Banks could still say no
So from that statement it's clear you have never seen a CRA audit. If you don't balance your loan portfolio across low income areas, they fine you and restrict you. And retail vs Commercial played no role. The law hadn't been enforced for decades
The fact the law hasn't been enforced is my point- banks wanted deregulation. I don't know all the details of US banking but I know the principals behind it and government can get it wrong, usually because they are handicapped by what money men want
Sounds like you don't know anything about banking in general. Glass Steagall separated retail from Inv banks. But the banks that DIDN't need assistance where the ones that had the merged model, because they were better diversified opposed to Lehman.
The EU found different- the biggest risk factor was insufficient reserve capital and the risk exposure was increases by not separating inv. and ret. of course, EU has different conditions to US
Separating retail banks from investment banks increases risk through a lack of a diversified revenue stream. That's why Lehman and Bear Sterns were in the most trouble. They had no other business model to fall back on.
They aren't separate banks, but the money has to be kept separate (as I understand it). I am more interested in the ideology that drives policy than policy itself. I agree with you about government sharing responsibility, just for different reasons.
The point is that banks managed this liability just fine because it was in their best interest to do so, until the gov't intervened in the market and distorted it. Meaning the market worked fine on it's own before the social engineers got involved.
Banks knew the liability and took no steps to protect against it. They also went further than mandated and took insufficient steps to protect themselves. The banks are still responsible.
You don't get it. If the banks didn't follow the gov't incentives they would have went out of business. If you sit back and don't participate in the changing demand you go under and lose to competitors. That's why artificial demand is dangerous.
You don't get it...free market ideology crates inequality. And following directives doesn't stop you taking sensible precautions. They went past what was required and took no measures to protect themselves. Then they don't want to take responsibility
Free markets create opportunity, the welfare state creates more poverty and dependency always. Business is there to make a profit. Why should they worry about a risk that the gov't told them in advance that they would assume for them.
They went beyond the government mandate. Free markets provide opportunity for those who are already wealthy at the expense of the poor- US and EU have benefitted from resources taken from undeveloped countries, increasing inequality.
Yes, because the Gov't assumed the risk, so it wasn't a free market anymore. Free markets create opportunity. My uncle came here with $80 dollars in 1960 from Czechoslovakia and is a multi millionaire today. He did pretty well for a poor guy.
Exceptions don't prove rules. And it wasn't a free market dominated by ever growing corporations. And the banks are still taking risks http://goo.gl/SdFpPi
It's hardly an exception, Brighton Beach, Flushing Queens. Immigrant areas prospering better than Americans born here that have become lazy and don't appreciate the opportunity that they have. They all come HERE for a better life. JPM is doing fine.
JPM has been fined for taking risks and insufficient checks leading to loses. Again- on a corporate account. So much for banks regulating fine. And what percentage of poor get rich? The American dream is built on false expectations.
LOL...JPM had a record quarter and plenty of excess reserves. Business by definition is a risk. And US immigrants do very well within a few years. It was a false dream then US citizens would be fleeing in HUGE numbers to socialist nations.
They made profits taking risks with other peoples money. Well done JPM. And you are totally clueless about propaganda, something which the powers that be in America are masters at.
What ??? LOL...that is the definition of a bank. Take other peoples money and invest it in various ways. What should they have done...Take peoples money and stare at it. When they do well they're bad. When do bad they're bad. Brilliant
They got fined for mismanagement, taking too many risks and not doing sufficient checks. Something you believe is only caused by government. My point is they do it anyway, you can't just blame the government.
I never said there aren't errors in business. I am saying they are self correcting via the risk factor. When gov't intervenes to determine outcomes...we get massive distortions and asset bubbles, because they can't correct imbalances efficiently
There is no evidence to suggest that self correction works. It is faith that leads people to believe that- unless you accept banks failing and taking people's life savings with them as a form of self correction.
Plenty of evidence...1920-21. The worst deflationary pressures in US history. FAR worse than 1929. The policy responses where precisely the opposite. Gov't was slashed 65%, not social engineering and the Depression was over in 18 months.
Read Daniel Kuehn's more recent study which as different findings which you won't like.
Already read it some time ago. At least now your citing qualified people. And he is correct about broadening the tax base. Which is generally a policy I agree with. But the lack of social intervention was still non-existent and still a quick recov
But government reduction occurred before the collapse and he concluded that the recession was a natural occurrence as part of the transition from war time to peace time economy. Not that is was a success for business per se.
The success was in that after markets realigned due to distortion there was no major social intervention. Market on their own corrected and prospered quickly vs the New Deal prolonged economic malaise of the 30/s and early 40's.
There were government policies and organised help across the country just on a smaller scale. Again exceptional circumstances don't show it will always self correct at least without collateral damage.
Even in your JP Morgan example the market self corrected. The people were discovered and fired for their actions by the company long before the regulators got involved, because it was in their best interest to get it right.
Hardly, JPM tried to splay down the issues and refused for a while to work with regulators. They had systematic issues at all levels that failed to respond even once early warning signs started to display themselves.
Patently false. They announced it to shareholders on a conference call. I was on it for my clients. They just weren't sure the extent of the loss immediately until they flushed out the whole transaction. They were well prepared in terms of reserves
That is what is being reported. "The bank, including CEO Jamie Dimon, faced much scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators for its failure to catch such a massive bad trade." http://goo.gl/CMMDIO They should have let the regulators in your conf. call
Ofcourse they faced scrutiny. They made a mistake, and businesses don't like when they lose money. That's how the market is supposed to work. The market holds you accountable for the loss. People were fired. And the calls are open to the public.
But the bank failed to catch it even after warning signs and being given information. You said the bank caught it. They have sacked two people but the problems were systematic and widespread- they just fired the two who didn't get away with the risk.
Systemic and wide spread ??? Yet they turned in a record quarter. I wish my company had such widespread problems. This was one dept trading on one type of derivative in CDS arena. Not all ventures are profitable and every firm has trading losses.
The report says it is systematic and wide spread through the investment arm and the bank admit it. Good enough for me- but then profit isn't the only metric that concerns me.
Go back an read the report the bank put out. You read it wrong. It was a single dept within the investment arm. In fact another arm in the investment division made a big profit by being on the other side of the same CDS position.
Threads have switched. Dominant ideology is Neo-liberal- that is what is important. And you do the best within the system you live doesn't mean you don't try to change it. You have displayed total ignorance of his work throughout.
Dominant ideology has switched to large top down central planning in all the places that suffer from high unemployment, massive debt, and currency devaluation. And you have been played by socialist rhetoric from men who have made millions doing it.
Go read about hegemony and come back when you understand it. Not google, actual understanding. Otherwise this is a pointless discussion believe everything you have been trained to trained to. You don't even know what socialism is.
Go meet him and do some work for him as I have then come back to me, and you'll know what a total phony he is. What somebody writes and what they live are two different things. And I have already read his propaganda in college, before I grew up.
He didn't come up with hegemony. And propaganda is a tool of those in power- not outsiders. And Chomsky is only one thinker- there are countless others. Gramsci, Foucalt, Baudrillard, Klien, Baumann, zizek, who I read as well Freidman, levitt, Rand
Wasn't talking about hegemony specifically. Just his ideaology/propaganda. He is at best a closet Marxist who has railed against supposed profiteering, when he is more of a profiteer than anyone. Millionaire countless times over.
But JPM are being investigated for bribing people in order to get business. It is in the Forbes article, it is one of many breaches that JPM are involved in but they justify it because they are profitable. Money is not the be all and end all.
Different issue. You can't operate in China without bribing elected officials. That is what happens when you empower a top down centrally planned society as China has. Placing large amount of power in gov't officials will create that environment.
Doesn't justify it. Not even close- profit does not justify their actions.
Because you don't live in reality. In a centrally planned govt system, the govt is inevitably corrupted, and you can't exist without participating in its corruption.Which is why true conservatives support very limited govt and indv responsibility
Big corporations are just as corrupt and because they distort the market by sheer size (monetary power, buying power etc...) it is not even a free market. That is reality. Big corporations like rules for others, not themselves.
There is some truth in that. Because gov't has gotten too big and become partners and not a regulator of business.Gov't should not be determining outcomes. When they do, they have too much authority. Then they get bribed. Equal opp. not equal results
We can agree on the regulators part. In fact that is entirely my fiscal point (although not my only bone with either corp or g'ment). Problem is the big companies can literally many bankrupt countries by deciding to move elsewhere.
But what you're not seeing is that companies get bigger, more dominant and the market becomes less competitive for the consumer as the gov't gets bigger. Nobody bribes someone for influence they don't have. It all starts with too much central power.
It is deregulation of business that lets them grow to the size where they intimidate government- and they got deregulation by the rich businessmen paying for electoral campaigns in return for favours- maybe being a policy advisor...
Not true. US brokerage commissions were deregulated from standard commissions in 1975. Schwab then offered discount prices. The competition increased, cost plummeted to the consumer. Today the avg citizen pays a fraction of the old cost.
Some areas are/where deregulated but there are many examples, like Walmart, who used deregulated markets to push smaller, local rivals out of business even incurring localised losses in the process. Uneven markets trend towards oligopolies.
You have it opposite. The biggest lobbyist for increased regulation is the big multinationals. They know the smaller companies can't compete with the bureaucracy. And they capture more than enough increased market share to offset the extra red tape.
Lobbying is expensive- so all lobbying is done by big companies. Where they seek internal anti- competition regulation it is because they can dominate in international markets. It is PR at home.
Lobbying is expensive, but small business does it in cooperatives. But ultimately the more regulation the more the larger entities benefit. Which means less competition and less choice for the consumer.The most reg markets have the least competition
Without regulation you end up with behemoth companies which swallow all around. Which is why the UK has seen brand names crop up in all urban and local businesses die out. They cannot compete with the big chains.
Yet the UK is a MASSIVE web of regulations. Who do you think handles the thousands of pages of labor laws, tax code, and numerous other regulatory burden better. Brand names or local mom and pop shops. Regulations need to be simple and concise.
No regulations protecting small business or preventing big companies using buyer power and loss leading to up small businesses out of business. The regulations are not restrictive of trade practices.
Yes they do. Companies spend massive resources trying to stay compliant with regulatory agencies that become extortionary once they get power. They are not their to help anyone. They're mindless bureaucrats that rarely understand what they regulate.
But they are not aimed at keeping a level playing field- it isn't free trade when one party is dominant.
That's the point...Regulators prevent free trade by making it impossible for smaller entities to compete and participate. And the regulators/gov't wants it that way. This way they can maintain control and extort business. Just protection money
Financial power prevents it being level. Small businesses don't have to confirm to many regulations- they cannot compete because of buying power and the ability to take local losses to gain market share. Sm.bus cannot afford any losses.
On what planet did you open your small business. Because in my world, the tax code alone is over 70k pages. And the US is easy compared to Europe.
We have people called accountants who deal with tax- they charge modest fees for small business because most of it is straight forward. But many regulations don't apply to businesses below certain turnover or employee numbers.
Taxes are one item on a laundry list of regulations. So when small Biz owners polled say it's their largest concern they are lying ??? This is another example of left wing policies operating in a theoretical world not rooted in reality.
Of course it is a big concern but it depends on the business. If you are looking for want angel inv. it is your big worry if you are a community business the big concern is a giant corporate rival smashing you out of the water.
Name one industry even here in a fairly business friendly envmt that is not saddled with oppressive reg's. Anyone who believes what you just said has no experience as an entrepreneur. The only place that is somewhat true is online blogs...for now.
Define oppressive. Food retail has regulations but they are fair. I have run small businesses and never felt impressed by regulation. They are usually very straight forward.
Opressive is devoting excessive resources that should be used for expanding your private venture. I spend 25% of my firms revenue on compliance alone. Not to mention, labor laws, ERISA laws etc. How easy does that make it for me to compete with JPM
Unless that includes all tax expenditure you are regulated far more than Britain. Regulations here are simplified and free advice is offered on many parts- spending on regs for me was an accountant, annual equipment checks, and one off costs of £500
It is worse in the financial field vs others, but still not as bad as the UK. As any business owner knows, the more people you hire the worse it gets. There is a big difference between a small biz with 3 emp vs 30 emp. And they create most jobs.
The regulations get more complex when you have 15 staff in UK- but the expectation then is you have designated HR officer or you outsource. They are still not onerous for most. The threat of Walmart moving into your market is much more terrifying.
They seem to have a different sentiment over there than you. Walmart isn't worried about reg's for sure.
That is only businesses in financial sector- which have seen regulations tightened since the 2008 disaster. Most UK small business is more concerned with EU reg than UK only regs.
Perhaps, but either way they want simplicity. And the larger gov't gets, the less simpler it gets. You will never get greater cap ex in a heavy regulated envmt. And the very people you want to help, you are crushing.
They are crushed in a total free market anyway and the market won't care because it has no reason to care. Current system only works if you already have capital.
Literally mill of examples of the not being the case. I started my firm with 7k to my name and today it is a 25 million dollar practice in a few years. All of my training and education was paid for by prior employers that enabled me to achieve it
You advise people on how to use their capital- so capital of still required. You also either knew the right people or got very lucky with the first appointment. That system cannot work for the majority.
http://econedge.org/14/immigrants-are-more-likely-... I guess all these immigrants coming to the US from poor countries all knew the right people and had a ton of capital as well. LOL P.S. I knew nobdoy
If you were untrained why were you hired and trained against a field of qualified people? Immigrants often have to start themselves because people won't hire them- desperation is the driving force again.
But you just claimed that these poor immgrts can't do what in fact they are more likely to do when placed in a relatively free mkt. cause the system prevents it. I was hired for 22k yr in 1996 with no exp and no connections. Hard work...No Excuses
Immigrants are self employed doing jobs nobody wants- some get lucky. Or they have skills not common. Very few w/out exp/quals/contacts will get a job that trains to high standard. You got very lucky. Nepotism is biggest driver on top jobs.
Luck has nothing to do with it for me or them. Emplyr's hire entry level jobs based on attitude. That's how I got hired. A CAN DO attitude. Not making excuses for why things CAN'T be accomplished. And immgts come here often with a CAN DO attitude.
Most young people are positive and use pointless platitudes- luck is ending up in job that trains you beyond the capacity that need. Immigrants make up s/e stats because they are taxi's, food stands etc, most work hard small % get wealthy.
What are you talking about. They are dominating the Tech and Engineering start ups. And they have a higher success rate than natural born citizens. Because they commit to success. All the data shows that. You're simply making things up.
Those whose entry level income is half the typical US citizen have high income growth- the higher initial income the lower the income increase. Poverty and desperation are the motivating forces. They also usually have higher standard education.
Ofcourse it's a motivator. They came to the US for a chance to escape poverty. That's the point. And they are 3 times more likely to become mill's. Unlike you, they don't expect to start at top
I don't expect to start at the top. I just don't respect a system that says who I know is a bigger factor in my career than what I know. http://www.career.vt.edu/jobsearchguide/Networking...
Are you crazy.Networking is not WHO you know. It's reputation. Accountants and Attorneys refer me clients all the time.Not because they are my friends. Because I have built a rep slowly over the years that demonstrates my ability. We don't socialize
For graduates? This is first jobs from University/college stats. Up to 45% is through knowing the right person. That isn't reputation.
Yes it is. Everybody has a rep. If you come to me with a referral to hire someone, I am interested in the kids work ethic and willingness to learn. Not his MBA. Those are a dime a dozen. Your rep is what makes you accountable based on your caliber.
But the jobs are given through knowing the person- through a trial that is fine but as one case in point James Murdoch- incompetent but he was European president of Newscorp. Your political system has dynasties. Not a meritocracy.
All political systems have Dynasty's to some degree, because as I explained gov't is inherently corrupt. In the Private sector, when I refer a client somewhere, if the job is not done correct...they come back to me, and I am accountable.
Britain hasn't had father and son Pm's for 150 years. Business is corrupt- once it reaches a certain mass it is more corrupt and more resilient than any government. Big business has power without governmental responsibility.
No just centuries of tax payer funded monarchy. Business does get bureaucratic when it gets too big.And Big Gov't makes it that way. Connections come from the networking process.Get out and make yourself known.You don't wait for people to come to you
Actually, while I am not a monarchist, the g'ment makes money managing the Crown estates. Networking for your own business is like that, but many of best entry jobs go to friends and family of managers/owners. It is not a level playing field.
Please cite some data that backs that claim. Maybe in the EU. Not here in the US. All the years I worked at Fidelity we never hired anyone because of who they knew. And of all the wealthy clients I helped, Almost all started from very meager origins
I've already cited the Murdochs but here is a article about Canada and Denmark I have on record, I can find more if needed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-239...
This is focused on income inequality.It doesn't cite any evidence of people being prevented from anything. Income inequality in the US is a reflection of how we report income differently. following parents footsteps doesn't mean you didn't earn it.
It is a study of the amount of children who work for their fathers companies by income- the higher the parents income th higher the chance of getting a job at their company.
Which tells you nothing. Kids often are interested in the same field as their parents. That doesn't mean they didn't go through the same process of starting at the bottom.
The same companies- with higher % by wealth. That tells you exactly how they get their breaks.
That's like saying Floyd Mayweather didn't earn his welterweight title because his dad was a fighter and taught him boxing at a young age. Most people are more likely to learn a business they grew up around. That doesn't mean it wasn't earned.
I'm done with this- getting a job in daddy's firm is not even remotely the same as becoming an athlete. Even if it was- the fact that you get greater opportunity through training is still wrong- but that isn't it- it's daddy looking sonny.
The success of US immigrants coming here from poverty which is more common than natural born citizens proves that your obstacles are greatly exaggerated. Excuses are like A-holes. Everybody has one...they all make noise...and they all stink.
I could argue (and I will) that the immigrants are less conditioned through the hegemonic influence of the dominant ideology and that they are better trained. Plus the ones that aren't successful go home or die and distort the results.
Believe it or not we keep track of people dying here in the US. No data to back that claim. And they almost never go home. In fact they usually send for their families. When they get here, they do exactly what you claim is near impossible. Work Ethic
I never near impossible- I said unequal. I pointed out they earn less initially. Americans get comfortable jobs and don't strive. Immigrants get low inc s/e positions and are forced to strive. Can't compare the dead ones or those who don't get g/c.
That is how it is supposed to be. You come here for the opportunity to strive. That's what makes it rewarding. But yes homegrown Americans have become more lazy and unproductive. And they are falling behind immigrant counterparts as a result.
They are treated like second rate citizens, that they do well is not a testament to the free market or the American dream, it is testament to their desperation and resilience. They are forced to become entrepreneurs' because they can't get decent job
LOL...being self employed is the best thing that can happen to you. I would never go work for anyone again.Some Amer's are jealous because they have come to expect things from our growing entitlement state, and don't want to put in the work anymore.
I agree, but being forced into it is still not equality. I was a middle manager in a multi national, hated it. I work for myself now from home and prefer it most days- but it was my choice. I wasn't forced into it.
They're not forced into. They're also dominating the trades unions. Electricians, steam fitters, carpenters. All good paying jobs. They just work hard and eventually realize that their better off using those new skills working for themselves.
They start on around half the wages of US nationals- that is a great motivator for not staying in the job. The stats show they earn much less in the first 10 years of living there- but after that they overtake. Also show they have higher education.
They make less when they get here, because they have less skills and exp in a new country. Makes perfect sense. But they are moving up faster, because they're not standing in line waiting for Obama phones like our welfare cases. They make it happen.
The reports say they are roughly 25% more qualified than native citizens but earn roughly half as much. Most already speak English- so the only barrier is that they are not US citizens.
That is usually more blue collar work where their education is higher. And that's because there is a long process to get certified in a field like being an electrician regardless of where your from. Then again everyone of my doctors is from India.
You'll find they are from middle clas India or above- the training and money is higher in the States (and Europe) so they take advantage of their advantage. Poor Indians rarely get to leave India.
Poor Indians are just as welcome as poor Mexicans. That's their own gov't keeping them out. As long as they come here legally, most Americans are fine with it. Most animosity in the US is from lazy people looking to punch out at 4:59.
Yet most republicans hate immigration. Plus it is economy that keeps the poor in India- not government. The government would love the poorest to leave.
Republicans don't like ILLEGAL immigration. Most Americans in general have no problem with people who come here to work legally. And India is recovering from a history of socialist govt. Since early 90's reforms, one of the fastest growing econ's
India is growing because of natural resources- that is what brings free market cultures around. They still have just as many governmental controls as ever and still they grow!
You may want to double check your data. They are growing because they dropped their protectionist policies. Before everybody was poor. Since the reforms 400 million have left poverty. The resources where always there. Growth was just smothered
Internal trade protectionism- nobody is advocating that. But state control in still high yet they are prospering.
It is high, yet diminishing. And the growth correlates precisely to the reduction in gov't control. The poor are slowly given opportunity to leave poverty...and they are. It's amazing what people do when the gov't gets the hell out of the way
Market liberalisation came in 1991- the economic growth started in 1980. So not straight cause and effect like you believe. And I am jot arguing against free market- I am arguing against unregulated free market.
The market exploded after their reforms. And nobody wants unregulated markets. Conservatives want limited simple regulations that are easy for everybody. That's how you foster more competition.
Murdoch wants no regulation- at least on his enterprises. And he has more influence than any politician.
No he wants no regulation for him and plenty for the competition. Who do you think is behind the attempts to regulate the web...Traditional media. Good piece on India's Gov't http://www.economist.com/node/18986387
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
But do we have genuine choice? In the UK we have three main parties and all of them share core policy values, in the US there are differences between Democrats and Republicans but it is a binary position. Democracy requires choice and opportunity IMO
Yes...we do. We select them in the primaries. And we have elected third party independents as well. That fact that one is more crooked than the next is our fault for not vetting people better as a collective.
You select them in primaries from people put forward by the parties. Independents have no real against the money of the parties- money buys elections and that is not democratic. It means the people with money are the only ones truly represented.
Many independents have been elected. Jesse Ventura became MN Gov. And the money ultimately begins with the voter. Even corporate money is influenced by the consumer who has the right to decide where they shop and who they buy things from.
Out of senators and state governors 3/155 are independent and all side with either democrat or republican. Only one is not independently wealthy. Corporations buy votes- it is not a level playing field if you do not support corporations.
Corporations are simply collections of people. They are controlled by the public. Not the other way around. There actions are a response to the demands of the consumer. People by influence, because politicians have too much authority.
Corporations only care about shareholder profits and primarily large shareholders. They are not representative of the majority but of a small section of the wealthy. They offer a minority a majority of influence. Nothing democratic about that.
Then why do corp's spend hundreds of million annually to do market analysis on their customer base wants and need. Because every action is a response to public demand. Public perception and demand control what corporations do.
Market analysis is as much about manipulation as identifying needs and desires- it is finding out how to best market your product. It certainly isn't about finding the best political solution for consumers- so has no bearing on the democratic process
Ofcourse it does. If I oppose a political lobby of a company, I can boycott them. They will react to my boycott because it is in their best interest to do so. We control their actions as a collective.
If that is the case these companies will all be bust soon because I am sure most voters don't support tax rebates to hugely profitable companies. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/13/30-major-u-...
Actually many of us support numerous rebates. Because many such rebates are targeted as mechanisms for incentives towards cap ex. But whether the voter is exercising his right to boycott is up to them. Action or inaction they still hold the cards.
But that is expecting government to prop up private industry. GE made $5 billion from the tax payer. This is the 6th largest US company and 14th most profitable and they paid no federal income tax. Not many will support that.
In that instance I don't either. In others I do. You're missing the point. We can all boycott GE. The choice is still the consumers. And GE and every other company must answer to the consumers decisions in the aggregate.
Lets boycott GE then. We just need to know everything they produce and distribute, the name of suppliers, contractors who use GE products and businesses with GE products. Pretty sure only the market girl is left to buy anything from.
You don't have to boycott everything they do. Just enough to send a message and impact their bottom line. If people don't take actions on their principals then they have nobody to blame but themselves. But they always had the choice.
People don't know what GE do. Money buys influence and they keep bad information out of the spotlight or spin it. Even then, GE is primarily B2B, so the public would struggle to make a significant impact especially given the size of market share.
People know full well GE makes ovens and dishwashers. If everybody stopped buying them for a political motive, you can rest assured they would take quick notice. If people are too lazy to act on their beliefs, that is how they have chosen to vote.
Regarding your below comments. The growth rates you cite in Latin Amer are somewhat comical considering the region during that period experienced hyperinflation that in some cases was as much as 30% a month and turned them into Banana Republics.
I was referring to people not knowing about GE tax avoidance.
As I said, hyperinflation after 30/40 years of growth- and after free market reforms poverty levels increased which is why they are all moving back to the left.
30/40 years of fictional growth that imploded their currency. And as they move towards the left, we can expect even more of their refugee's here in the US. Where in the world people are tying to get to tells you quite a bit about the environment.
US cultural imperialism might have some part to play in that. But usually the people fleeing are fleeing totalitarian states- not socialist. Chile caused a fair few refugees under Pinochet and they were the first to follow Friedmans ideas.
Imperialist...Give me a break. We provide more opportunity for our citizens and most of the world. Which is why people flee economically oppressive govt's to come to the US and other even more free market environments.
Cultural imperialism- trying to force American ideals onto the rest of the world safe in the knowledge that American market dominance means that American companies will prosper. The market is not equal or fair, or even free in any real sense.
The US does not actively force ideals around the world. That is utter propaganda. And no market is completely free. But US markets offer much more freedom than places like the EU, and as such our labor force is more productive and wealthy.
Your workforce is skint- they work for pennies. Your biggest industrial city had filed for bankruptcy. The war on terror is an ideological war fought because Muslims don't want western values. Vast amounts of academic papers display all of this.
What are you talking about. The US worker produces a higher GDP per hour worked, and has a higher standard of living compared to the whole of the EU which is a wreck. And if they don't want western values, they should stop coming here in droves.
US has high income inequality, GDP per capita doesn't show that. The US also has higher chid poverty http://goo.gl/cNpv3 More homelessness http://goo.gl/aaBpLA higher drug use http://goo.gl/oNjJY and higher real term poverty http://goo.gl/C15dCY
US income inequality doesn't include transfer payments and employee benefits. And US poor live better than UK mid class http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/u...
Our poor have all that too but they have to sacrifice other things to get them, same as yours. These indicators I have sent measure most aspects of life and only the most deluded think that the US poor are not poor. Obviously evidence is lost on you.
What's lost on you is the average POOR person in the US lives in a bigger home nearly twice that of the average UK citizen in general. Most of our poor are defined as middle class by EU standards.
Our property prices are far higher because we have less land- living in a bigger house which has lower construction values (also true) is not a sign of wealth. And maybe by Eastern European standards, but not by the EU. http://goo.gl/UoH4uE
Why is this so hard for you. Each country defines it's own poverty level. In the US we list people in poverty that have possessions equal to that of many UK middle class. Our poor, are generally not that poor. Some own more than one home.
The links I sent you are independently measured and don't show that. Nor does any document that is not right wing propaganda that I have ever seen. Your poor are poor, but it helps the rich feel better by saying they aren't.
The data I sent comes from the US census which is a survey of the entire nation on what they have and how they live. So I guess poor people are just lying to impress us all. Give me a break.
Owning stuff is not all that makes quality of life. Unless you have been programmed to believe it is- quality of life suffers because people buy that stuff because they are led to believe they should have it but they lose elsewhere.
Who cares. That is personal choice. The point is they are not starving and have luxuries that poor people and some people defined as middle class don't have elsewhere. Not to mention how much of our poverty is imported from our open borders
People who aren't rich care, that's who. In the US 95% of the GDP benefits go to 1% of the population. http://goo.gl/wDBKuU GDP per capita is not a great measure of equality. The poor die younger, live worse and work harder- they care.
That doesn't count existing transfer payments, employee benefits and various other forms of income which account for a HUGE portion of income. If I pay and employee 50k, their total benefit package costs me as the employer almost 100k
Many Service workers, retail workers and many more don't get the extras- they get low salaries and no health care/employee benefits.
The extra's are mostly legally mandated. SS match, workers comp, unemployment insurance. As employers we don't have the option not to pay them.
They all exist in other countries too...and they are largely proportional to wages so not closing the income gap. We have National Insurance, PAYE tax, employers liability insurance, compulsory pension payments (unless employee opts-out) etc...
But in the US the vast majority of people get their benefits from their employer. And that is a HUGE cost that is not factored into income disparity numbers you cite. My wife's employer health plan alone is 25k a year benefit we get from them.
. 1) low income workers in the US don't receive the same level of private benefits. 2) UK employers provide health insurance too, but we still bave NHS when they don't 3) Income inequality rankings take that into account- US scores 45 EU 32
Most low income people still get benefits. The overall cost of PRIVATE benefits in the US is much higher. It's a national average of 30% of compensation. Which is not reflected in the data you cite. Sounds like you never hired anyone before.
Yes I have, and yes, those benefits are taken into account. National insurance in the UK alone is 12% and pension 8-12%, plus other benefits. Life insurance is common, pri.health ins, etc, etc, all taken into account on equality comparisons
National insurance is not a PRIVATE benefit. It is filtered through the Gov't. Most employee benefits in the US are paid directly through to the employee. Cite one pier reviewed study that reflects income inequality and includes total compensation
It is paid by the employer and provides a benefit greater than health insurance provided in the US- the value to the employee is higher. Here This link measures state and employer benefits http://goo.gl/jZIN8- a more accurate measure of inequality
You are clueless as to how we define income in the US tax system. Many forms of income are not reported as income for the Rich and Poor. http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/h...
Just because they aren't declared doesn't mean they aren't measurable. Figures still exist, comparitive values can be calculated, cost/benefit analysis, sample data can be extrapolated from.
Yes it can. And I just cited a study that does exactly that and includes changes to the tax code, DB plans, S-corps, employee benefit analysis, Muni interest etc...that debunks this wide margin of growing income inequality in the US
CATO Institute aims: Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets. Well they can't be motivated to read the stats in a way to suit their aims can they? lol
So in other words you can't dispute the data with any facts and have no knowledge of the US tax system, so you'll just attack CATO. Quite the intellectual argument you've made.
You have done it to me many times you keep trying to move the debate. and I already provided independant information- not motivated. Quite the good job ignoring the bits you don't like you have done there.
Moving the debate...You throw out these ridiculous accusations, from reports that are sweeping generalities, and can't cite a specific false data point in a detailed study that backs everything I just suggested.
The accusations are ridiculous, plenty of literature exists backing me up. I haven't the time study the report in detail but stats can be manipulated, another fact. But I have sent you plenty that you ignored or discredit based on who said it.
Because nothing you sent address the changes in the US tax code in how we report income by comparison to the past. 401k's LLC's and S-corps didn't exist in years past. It dramatically altered how income appears nationally to the IRS each year.
The people who put together the information know that. The last link was from an American publication. And I sent you things you ignored before the debate got this far.
They know it and yet conveniently failed to include it in their data. And I ignore things that come from people like Chomsky who had training only in the field of linguistics and is cited by radicals as some expert on policy while praising Pol Pot
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html Chomsky never praised Pol Pot and is recognised as one of the leading political thinkers in the world.
The report I sent ignored nothing- you just didn't like the conclusion.
Leading political thinker. And what qualifications make you a political thinker ??? Apparently being an expert in syntax. Please cite the line items in the study that addresses the various changes in how income is reported in the US. Couldn't find
Widespread International recognition qualifies you as a leading thinker when you are the most quoted social scientist who is still alive.
Social Scientist doesn't make you an expert on political and economic policy anymore than my backround in finance makes me an expert in linguistics. Bill O'Reilly has the most watch cable show in the world and Harv Grad. Does that make him an expert.
Peer recognition makes you an expert.
He has no piers in any relevant field. His piers are other academics outside of the field of economics. Nobody on the council of economic advisors is calling Chomsky for advice. Yet he is constantly talking about political and economic policy.
Economic policy is a subset of political policy- the effects of both on all strata's of society are predictable and evident. He is an expert on this- recognised by academic's the world over and many governments. This is a political thread.
He is not an expert and has no training or education in the field. He is a LINGUISTICS expert who is outspoken and embraced by other radical academics.Nobody is calling him to testify before congress on policy. Nobody who matters cares what he says
Wrong on all counts- apart from congress. He has been censored in the US but he is highly regarded almost everywhere else. Linguists, incidentally, make up a surprisingly high percentage of great thinkers Barthes, Gramsci, Saussare etc...
Censored...LOL He speaks in the US at Universities all the time. So does Bill Maher. That doesn't mean he is an expert on policy. My wife is a Spanish teacher and an expert in multiple languages. She must be a political policy expert as well.
Learning language is not the same as the study of meaning. Chomsky speaks at universities, the places where enlightened thought takes place, but not main stream media. And he is a recognised expert on the ideology behind public policy
Yet he has never worked in or received a degree in public policy, which tells you the state of public universities. Bill Ayers is self confessed terrorist who tried to blow up a police station. And he is a university professor.
He already has a PhD why would he need another? And here is Chomsky's own answer as to why people listen to him. http://www.quora.com/Noam-Chomsky-author/If-somebo...
Likely answer from a man with no qualifications. You don't need them. It's like when people who have never achieved success try to tell me how business should be run. Yet I left home with nothing at 16 and became a success and they didn't.
You get a phd by reading, research and writing about it. He already has one PhD which gave him the critical skills- then he read, researched and wrote. It just isn't formally recognised but nobody in the field is more highly thought off.
Sure, that's why as an American he doesn't sit on one congressional or Executive advisory panel. He is thought highly of by radicals and career academics with radical left leanings that have no authority in the real world to decide anything.
When you are critical of governments they tend not to ask you for advice. But that concept seems beyond you. Chomsky was bought into the conversation to highlight the means of control- government are not keen on people dissecting them.
When I want to build a building and make sure it stands, I call an engineer. Not a florist. Apparently you don't. Professors live in a theoretical world. Same is true in economics. Nobody cares what career academics think in the real world.
Read his work, all are discussions of real policy, real events and real repercussions. 83 books about real politics. And all policy is based on theory- the republican political ideology is centred on Friedman's economic theories.
Read his work...I worked for him when he was client of my firm. And he is a pure capitalist with his own money, like most hypocritical socialist. And republicans are not all monetarist. Many are more from the Austrian School, or between the two.
Winning the gamble isn't what makes it right - profit isn't everything. They had insufficient management controls in place, they lied about results and JPM are facing numerous other charges for other misconduct.
Individuals are facing charges, whom JPM already dealt with. Regulators routinely fine people for nonsense as a means to raise revenue. JPM was well capitalized and placed no systemic risk on the taxpayer, shareholders or any other entity.
They are being investigated for bribing people in China- that doesn't seem like nothing. They have stated that the costs of the investigations against them could be $6 billion more than the have budgeted. That doesn't seem responsible.
LOL...Every company has unforeseen costs. It's called being in business. That is how much the regulations will cost them in the face of a bad trade. Every time FINRA comes in my office they levy a fine to pay their salaries for some nonsense
You made my point elegantly- only profit is important. The human cost is not important- a morally bankrupt system.
There was no human cost. On every side of every trade a security has a profit and loss in the short term until the security is retired. You simply don't understand what a CDS is and how they work. Nobody is being denied food because of a derivative.
And you don't understand morality. If somebody bribes somebody to get business they are denying it to somebody else with the potential to leave people starving.
Nobody was bribed in a CDS trade. The losses where the result of a positive bet on EU debt. Unfortunately, they were wrong as you folks have buried yourself in debt and nobody wants to loan you money anymore. So the trade went against them.
He is open about the difference between his goals and his vision for society. He is openly critical of Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism. His writing on consequences and motives of policy is important and based on well documented, if concealed, events.
It's always quite convenient that the socialist mind has a different set of goals and standards for society than that which they apply to themselves. They're hardly altruistic. They really just regard society as beneath them and in need of management
That isn't socialism. He also exists within a system his goals are to achieve something in the short term to prepare for the society he envisions. Making money is not the problem it is how you treat people and create equality which are the issues.
System doesn't require he hoard tend of mill's. Funny you say that about a man who is NOTORIOUS for trying to hulimiate and intimidate young easily influenced students who question him at lectures. He is really concerned with how he treats people.
Can't find any reference to him demeaning students. And even if he is an hypocrite it doesn't mean his ideas are false- his criticisms of government and control.
Ask around up in Boston. He has quite the rep as a pretentious jerk. And all stateists are hypocrites. They gain power by condemning gov't, and then see to impose more if it under a different flag that always ends up infringing on indiv liberty.
He isn't a statist- although he sees the state as a step on the way to a free society- but also free from rule by corporations. Although none of this changes the fact I bought him in because of his writing on control not an endorsement of his goals.
He is a stateist and doesn't realize it. Once you empower gov't control to the extent he suggests, it only expands. There are NO altruistic heads of state. Never have been, and never will be. Competition is how you escape poverty and create wealth.
He is aware of the risks of big government which is why he is so critical of government. But if you want to remove two powers one needs to take the other out first- businesses have many heads so government is easier to dismantle after. .
Gov't is impossible to dismantle unless it collapses through it's own profligacy or citizens smarten up and become self reliant. Business monopoly is easy to resolve. Create a hospitable environment for business to compete and flourish
Not the case- business without g'ment is just g'ment without a mandate to protect people. The big multi-nationals are already more powerful than g'ments, Newscorps communications channels reach 80% of the worlds population- influence is power.
Who said NO gov't. I am talking about limited gov't that fosters competition and entrepreneurship, and doesn't try to dictate outcomes. When gov't becomes too big they distort markets and competition. And the consumer pays the price.
We were discussing why Chomsky sees a big government as a step towards a free society.
Which is why he is wrong. Big gov't only subjugates and never gives up power. it expands and infringes on freedom. Limited gov't and the free markets has done more to eliminate poverty and create prosperity than any system in world history.
Free markets have shifted poverty, not cured or reduced it. Look at Uzbekistans cotton industry as one example. Fear of losing sales promoted g'ment to get children out of school to pick cotton forcing a cycle of poverty.
WHAT ??? Uzbekistan is another command and control gov't economy. If it wasn't they'd wouldn't scare off foreign capital and keep investors out. That's why their economy is so one dimensional and dependent on just commodties. No innovation. LOL
They have tried to transition but market pressure has made the government scared and they then use more control. Thr problem with an uneven market- rather than help them in the transition it is more profitable to encourage current policy.
Bingo, the gov't is exercising control rather than let the market function. Capital is not finite. It must be created through innovation. That requires capital investment. And venture capital is anemic in centrally planned societies.
The alternative is don't force the children to pick it, fail to meet demand and have the economy fail. The market is forcing stagnation so others can profit. P.s money isn't everything
The alternative is foster an environment that is hospitable to capital investment so people have more opportunity to gain experience and training in various fields. Not everything. But many of us don't want gov't telling us how successful to be.
To do that they have to give up the cotton harvest that the countries economy is based on. Now they are powerless to stop richer countries using them as a resource. In the time it took them to restructure hundreds of thousands would starve.
Nonsense. The entire south of the US was a cotton industry and slowly transitioned. Because industry must adapt to keep up with a changing economic environment. You can't adapt via gov't dictate. Henry Ford didn't invent Model T via gov't dictate.
There is the problem- you have an insular look. Deep South had many other things going and was part of a growing economy. Uzbekistan has no support.Give your money away, go to the Midwest and don't take a wage while you retrain as an engineer.
Yes...it was a growing economy because it wasn't saddled with gov't dictating how resources are used. So capital investment wasn't shy about investing in the area. Nobody wants to commit capital in places where gov't dictates results.
They have an uneducated population which won't change within massive reform which can't happen without investment which won't happen with an unskilled population, regardless of government. Free market only helps those who are dominant.
How do you explain energy companies in North Dakota hiring new workers starting at 100k with NO EXP or EDUCATION. Because there is demand, thanks to the investment that led to new discoveries. Companies routinely pay to train people themselves.
Just looked at oil rig operative- trained, in birth dak- $30-40,000 dep. on exp. and they have engineers and some education for all- Uzbekistan has none. Also, fracking causes earth quakes so many people don't want to do it.
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/morning_roun... People are fleeing welfare cities like Detroit for ND. In less than 2 years there making 100k with low cost of living. I have 3 friends that went.
Detroit, huge industrial city gone bankrupt. Desperation is a great motivator. High wages are caused by skill shortage or danger. Not a sustainable model.
Detroit is an example of what happens when you make it unfriendly for business and put the whole city on welfare. Higher wages come from innovation. That is how wealth is created.Capital is not finite. It must be created. Detroit suffocated cap ex.
Detroit failed because industry started moving elsewhere 50 years ago. Welfare grew as a response to growing poverty.
Yes they moved to what we call "Detroit South" That is the southern part of the US, where workers live a higher standard of living and the Auto Industry is prospering away from the anti business climate of left wing states like Michigan.
They move to we're they can their own way. Just proves it is government for business not for people that you are interested in- the human cost is not important. .
Human cost ??? the workers are doing great there. They are selling product, living a better standard of living. Business goes where it is treated best. Keep attacking capital investment and killing incentive, and you'll get less of it.
Unions and labour power ( not welfare) grow from inequality. Inequality grows from capitalists pushing wages down for profit. You seem to think people like slaving for low wages. Not the case- now just scared the free market will move their job on
Employers don't drive wages down. They offer entry level jobs that allow for people to develop skills and work there way up to higher pay as I did. And welfare is a subsidy. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Unproductive Laziness.
Employers drive wages down for entry jobs, then lower comparative wages for skilled workers. There has been a real terms reduction in ave wage since 2008.
Wages are grown as you develop skills and become more productive. And wages are only reflective of cost of living. The auto worker in the South lives better on 50k than the worker in Detroit for 100k. Because Detroit's welfare state made it too exp.
I think you believe that. Nobody on benefits is on 100k a year- and wages are set by companies seeking to keep shareholders happy. Only one figure bothers them.
The Average UAW worker was paid 130k with benefits before Overtime. But because of the welfare state in Detroit. Property taxes in places like MI can be 12k year easy. If he works in Florida he can cut his income in 1/2 and still live better.
Detroit has a cost of living 11% lower than Miami. http://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/...
Miami is Florida's welfare city. But the main difference is in Taxes not listed here. My Father's house in Naples Fl is 700 sq ft larger. He pays $2200 in prop taxes a year under the homestead act. My Taxes are $12,500 in NY with STAR program.
NY is by far the most expensive place to live at least partly due to population vs area. Welfare is a response to poverty- it can become cyclical but it is not the initial cause.
Most expensive and most big gov't bureaucratic except maybe CA. Which is why our US census shows states like TX and ND gain congress seats every census. People looking to work or retire comfortably leave. People looking for a hand out stay here.
People with money can leave much easier. And people like to retire to somewhere less hectic- why live in the rat race if you don't need to?
People are not going to ND an uprooting their families because they have money. They are doing it because Industry has given up on the hostile environment in places like Long Island NY. Companies like Grumman packed up an moved because we made'em
Even with a free market there is always somewhere cheaper to do business. Outsourcing to poor countries cuts costs here and makes them dependant on that revenue. It isn't welfare but it still creates dependency.
it doesn't make them dependent. It makes them trained in new skills that they can develop. Again, capital is not Finite. Just because someone creates wealth doesn't mean that someone must lose wealth. Everyone can prosper if innovative and productive
All things being equal maybe- but usually outsourcing is for menial jobs- the skill base in a country doesn't increase when people move to factory/manual work. If wage gets to high the work just goes to the next poor country.
They said the same about Asia, and now China graduates more engineers per capita than the US. It's called progress. The US went through the industrial revolution. now other global economies must take a similar path. It's called progress.
We started the industrial revolution and if we has done more to help developing nations rather than exploiting them the world would be a better place. It's called same shit different name now.
There exploited by their top down centrally planned govt's that don't open up markets.If their govt's embraced more free markets, their people would have had more opportunity long ago.If your waiting for gov't to deliver wealth youll wait a long time
Not even close to true. If everything starts equal maybe, but when the relationship starts unequal it gets more unequal- the small country gets peanuts the big business gets cheap labour, minerals and other resources which translate into big profits.
Then why are the Chinese producing engineers now instead of just rice patty farmers. Because it's progress. The problem is you don't want equal opportunity. You want forced equal results. And your studying economics from a linquist.
I study politics which is about people- Chomsky was bought in to mention hegemony. I have read Friedman and Levitt- their ideas just promote inequality. I am but for big state- I am against big business.
Equality in results is impossible. Some people are willing to work harder and make sacrifices that others don't. Some are smarter and more innovative. The only thing that can be achieved is equal opportunity. Which is what the market offers.
The market offers anything but equal opportunity. If I open up a bar and a big brewery bar opens next door a week after I can't compete with them equally. The free market international is just that on a big scale. It is anything but equal.
More nonsense. Everyday I compete as a small firm with JPM's wealth management division. People pay me for more personalized service then JPM can offer. http://www.thestreet.com/story/12012813/1/rias-dou...
"Of course, all of the wealth management firms surveyed said their optimistic outlooks could be fulfilled only on the shoulders of continued boosts to the economy from the Federal Reserve."
That's a reference to monetary inflation. Which is a problem in terms of artificially inflating asset prices, which we will pay a price for in time. But market share is being captured faster by independents like me. The market is permitted to work.
Trust of big financial firms has been damaged and people like personal touch with money- makes you seem more trustworthy- but financial management itself is a sign of inequality- once you have money the money makes more money, but if you have none?
Trust in smaller firms is less thanks to guys like Madoff. It's a bigger obstacle to overcome for people who don't know the diff. The point is, we have less capital and less political influence. And we're kicking their butts anyway.
Which will carry on while they are making huge profits. But if they feel threatened they will use influence to make it harder and push small firms out of business. They don't mind you making money so long as they are making lot's more.
They already are, through the Dodd-Frank Bill. There is all kinds of proposed legislation to implement new Reg's on RIA's that will hurt us and make us less competitive. Which is what I have been telling you about complex regulations.
And it is why I say the party political system is not democratic- the rich don't get their way and they just change things.
JPM Morgan and myself are both looking out for our own interest. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that politicians have too much authority to intervene. When we're both left alone to compete, I can do just fine against them, no matter how big
They own the politicians- the rich will look out for themselves but it is not a level playing field, they have nearly infinitely more influence- not only with the politicians but also with the people through media ownership.
They own politicians because politicians have too much power. Ever see someone with no authority get bribed ??? Pol's are creating complex web's of rules and regs, so you have to bribe them to survive. When the consumer is left to choose we're fine
Media influences consumers and voters- it is power without responsibility. At least gov'm have a mandate to protect. You can bribe business too- that is effectively what buying a companies purchasing officers dinner is.
Yet the free market of the internet has subverted the media influence and crushed many of their outlets. Once again, markets working. "Mandate to Protect" ...Now that's naive. Consumer choice is the best check on business.Little thing called freedom
There is not genuine freedom of choice- the market is dominated by big companies. Plus politics is about people- you keep reducing this to a thread about business and even there the current free market is flawed.
The system needs both big and small companies to function. The places where big companies have pushed out the little guy always involved excessive gov't intervention. Politics is about power. And policy should promote freedom, starting with economics
No, without regulation big business eventually rolls over small companies- buying power, media influence, ability to take loss distort market, political influence and branding all contribute. They have no compunction about destroying competition
Then how do you explain RIA's like myself competing with JPM. And why are they lobbying for more Reg's to slow our growth rate. When the consumer is left to choose, they usually choose well.Problem is you think you know how to spend money for people
The problem with you is because you work in a parasitic industry and are doing well you think the system is working. In retail, for example, many, by necessity, have to go to cheapest provider- which is the big company- it destroys local traders.
Parasitic? tell that to the retiree's that depend on me. Smaller retailers exist all over the US. And many of these large multinationals are franchises owned and operated by small business owners. Ever eat at Subway. All small business owned.