Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Have Liberals been right about the economy all along?

Have Liberals been right about the economy all along?
Thread Tools
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 08:42 PM
 
The main reason that I identify as a Republican is that "conservative" economic principles (free trade, deregulation, anti-union policies, etc) seemed to be creating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. Or, in other words, the three decades following Reagan's election are characterized by brisk economic growth and technological innovation.

However, looking forward, I believe that the aforementioned economic principles, which are advocated endlessly by both Republicans and academic economists alike, are destroying job growth and middle class income.

When most everyone I know in my demographic (recent graduates; i.e., 22-26 year olds) are unable to find full-time jobs--much less careers-- and when economic trends point to the decimation to vast swaths of the American labor force, I can't help but wonder: should unions and protectionism regain prominent roles in American economic policy?

If you disagree, and think that the labor force is undergoing a painful but necessary long-term restructuring which should not be impeded by protectionist policies, tell me why.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 08:45 PM
 
Prediction:

Liberals: "Yes!"
Conservatives: "No!"
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 09:00 PM
 
Unions had there place, but have now become another layer of bureaucracy. Protectionism has never worked. It was tried after Black Tuesday. (Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act)
45/47
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 09:01 PM
 
Neither can permanently sustain an economy effectively.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 09:19 PM
 
Where did BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, Honda, et al build their plants? Where is Intel building their next generation plant?
45/47
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2011, 11:08 PM
 
Unions served to protect employees from abuse by their employers. We now have laws to serve that role. The only thing unions do today is to drive wages up higher than the value of the labour being provided and to make it difficult to fired unproductive employees.

Protectionism is even worse. Protectionism might protect jobs, but in the end it only serves to drive up the cost of locally made goods (because North Americans won't work for the pennies that a Chinese labourer will), decreasing our ability to spend, driving local companies out of business and rendering those protected jobs redundant.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 12:07 AM
 
Unions ceased to have any value once they gained special considerations from the government. Now they yet another special interest group lobbying for more privileges, favors and power.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
However, looking forward, I believe that the aforementioned economic principles, which are advocated endlessly by both Republicans and academic economists alike, are destroying job growth and middle class income.
Perhaps because modern conservatives are hypocrites and have never really done anything meaningful to move toward actually doing what they say.

It never ceases to amaze me how free markets are blamed for our economic woes in a country where there are 10s of thousands of new rules and laws written every year, and new methods of using the tax code to try and manipulate behavior to suit what politicians thing is "right".
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 01:13 AM
 
The OP was a very thoughtful and heartfelt post IMO. So I wonder how the thread got flipped into an anti-union thing. Especially when the union comment in the OP was rather tangential to the main point.

In any event, I'm not one to say whether "liberals" are right about the economy or "conservatives" are right. What I will just point out is the nature of the beast. The late great Fredrick Douglass said that …

Power concedes nothing without demand.

So in that light my viewpoint is that there needs to be checks and balances on things. Many on the right decry "big government". Yet they turn a blind eye to "big business". Or "big
lobbyists". In my view "big government" ought to be a check on "big business". And the Chamber of Commerce ought to keep a check on the AFL-CIO. I've never understood this notion that a big, multi-national corporation that bends its employees and customers over with no grease is cool … but big government is a sign of the apocalypse.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 02:00 AM
 
Maybe it's because these big evil companies have no real power of their own, and in spite of the irrational hatred and mistrust toward them they are the ones actually creating jobs and wealth. Not government.

Government has the guns and the power. The only power companies have is what they can buy from the politicians, and that's not really an argument against these companies. It's an argument against corruption.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
When most everyone I know in my demographic (recent graduates; i.e., 22-26 year olds) are unable to find full-time jobs--much less careers-- and when economic trends point to the decimation to vast swaths of the American labor force...
Republicans certainly aren't without blame, but to excuse the role that leftwing/liberal policies have had in all of the above is just silly.

So people demonize business for 50 straight years, actively work to chase out the productive, label those who are as greedy and evil, see to it that as much red tape and statist bullshit as possible sits in the way of investors and risk takers, elect tax-and-spend crooks to create mountains of nanny-state boondoggles built on foundations of debt stretching forward generations... and then turn around and wonder why decent high paying jobs in the private sector have gone the way of the dinosaur?

Puh-lease.

Yeah, sure. A healthy business climate with plenty of high paying jobs comes from people that demonize business and those both paying and receiving high wages as greedy 'not paying their fair share' cheaters. Right.

This is also the bunch that thinks inviting in MILLIONS of low/no-skilled illegals and encouraging -nay, DEMANDING- that business sector after business sector be turned into 'jobs Americans won't do' has NO NEGATIVE EFFECT on the native US job market! Well gee, isn't it great for your job-seeking friends to compete with an ever-increasing list of displaced industry workers? Yes, after being given the green light to pay illegal workers peanuts because otherwise 'a head of lettuce will cost $80 wah wah wah" the same industries and others that get the message must be chomping at the bit to ladle on the big salary and bennies for you... just because you show up with and extra slip of paper.

Yeah, more anti-business liberalism, out of control taxation, mountains of debt, unfunded liabilities and purposefully-demolished labor markets is just what career-seekers need.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 04:57 PM
 
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Unions had there place, but have now become another layer of bureaucracy. Protectionism has never worked. It was tried after Black Tuesday. (Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act)
I believe your picture of unions is inaccurate. Most unions are NOT the UAW or Teamsters, and have served to improve working conditions AND productivity. Unions DO need to keep up with the times, but so does management.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2011, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
The main reason that I identify as a Republican is that "conservative" economic principles (free trade, deregulation, anti-union policies, etc) seemed to be creating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. Or, in other words, the three decades following Reagan's election are characterized by brisk economic growth and technological innovation.

However, looking forward, I believe that the aforementioned economic principles, which are advocated endlessly by both Republicans and academic economists alike, are destroying job growth and middle class income.

When most everyone I know in my demographic (recent graduates; i.e., 22-26 year olds) are unable to find full-time jobs--much less careers-- and when economic trends point to the decimation to vast swaths of the American labor force, I can't help but wonder: should unions and protectionism regain prominent roles in American economic policy?

If you disagree, and think that the labor force is undergoing a painful but necessary long-term restructuring which should not be impeded by protectionist policies, tell me why.
You're exactly right. The free-market mania of Milton Friedman that basically became the guiding principle of Western Civilization when Reagan and Thatcher came to power has created a great deal of wealth, but that wealth remains concentrated in a few hands.

The inevitable and logical conclusion is that no value was really being added to the economy during this period. Profits were up, but they were up only because under free markets the wealthy were able to more shamelessly exploit workers and consumers alike.

What good is GDP growth if all it does is make a few people absurdly wealthy compared to the society they draw their wealth from?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
The main reason that I identify as a Republican is that "conservative" economic principles (free trade, deregulation, anti-union policies, etc) seemed to be creating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. Or, in other words, the three decades following Reagan's election are characterized by brisk economic growth and technological innovation.
ok I see theres a lot I going to have to go over in your post.

1st the republican ideology is not responsible for creating the greatest amount of wealth for people. Neither republicans or democrats have deregulated in a way that helps small businesses or independence. Both specifically cater to already-wealthy corporations / special interests in illogical ways then spin it for all you non-business owners as if a positive thing.

Ridiculous wealth is made through the stock market (a concept I disagree with due to creating value out of nothing ie shares to expand exponentially and unstably beyond one's means...but I wont get into that now).

As for Reagan, he did not create this economic boom, the internet and technology sector did. Unless Reagan and the republicans invented the internet. It's unfortunate people on either side give credit to the government for the success of the technology sector which was set to expand and create new jobs/industry anyway.

When most everyone I know in my demographic (recent graduates; 22-26 year olds) are unable to find full-time jobs--much less careers-- and when economic trends point to the decimation to vast swaths of the American labor force, I can't help but wonder: should unions and protectionism regain prominent roles in American economic policy?
And here is the misconception. None of what I will say here is directed at you or your friends but at your age group in general. The perverted culture of the youth today has brainwashed them into thinking it's all about going to school, party a little, educate a little, have fun.... Then sign up for a laid back high paying computer/ office /paper-pusher job with a corporation in a high riser downtown, have a nice laid back lunch and coffee break, then get off work, party at the clubs and never worry about getting laid off. While this has been the scenario for a decade or more, it is a mirage, it was unsustainable from the start; and it's time to deal with the fact that it's coming to an end. Everyone wants to be the office monkey of a company; people dont want to do manual labor. The people that make things make the money, this can be represented by manufacturing. (Now when your government has created unfair standards and trade laws that encourage companies to move their operations overseas that's when your manual labor job is also in trouble.)

The solution:

Change the mindset of the youth. In other words... White people can do manual labor too. Why is it that young city slicker whites think they're too good for construction or working fast food? Since whites are the majority they cant all have the easy paper pusher office job.. but they seem to think they have a RIGHT too anyway; and that the government should facilitate it. Really, most the jobs people seem to be getting laid off from arnt all manufacturing, theyre things like insurance underwriter and stuff. The US is importing more stuff all the time and constantly opening up jobs for cart pushers and box movers and all you see working these is blacks and mexicans.

Now racial component aside we also need to teach our youth how to take the initiative. You don't HAVE to get HIRED by a somebody else. If you're out of work, do your own thing to make money. Start a business perhaps. Yes it requires the dreaded work, yes it requires thinking, yes it requires time and responsibility. Yes I know it's hard; I don't care. Do it anyway!

And 3rd but not least, with the proper mindset in place we need to pressure our government to deregulate in a way that allows a society that I described above; based on small business. Contrary to myth small business is more efficient, more local, cheaper, higher quality product when competing on fair playing field with corporations.. In its current form it discriminates against doing-your-own-thing / small business. It doesn't matter how great a product you have you can never compete against a 70 year old $40,000,000,000 company that gets discounts for ordering in $50 million dollar quantity. To me getting discounts for ordering parts in quantity is no different than any other form of discrimination. Thats just one of many regulatory changes I would make. People have gotten used to the buy in quantity model but I really think it needs to be regulated to fit in today's society of mega monopolies, and it would change everything.

When I go to 3rd world countries I see all these people in the streets doing things to make money that are for all practical purposes forbidden in the US. When I went to a Honduran town this year I found many of them only work 4 months a year and just save up for the rest of the year. Maybe we should send our youth to tell them they should protest the government since they don't have an office job, or to teach them how to live paycheck to paycheck then complain when they get laid off for a few months.

There's no excuse why Americans shouldn't have money saved up for this recession.

If you disagree, and think that the labor force is undergoing a painful but necessary long-term restructuring which should not be impeded by protectionist policies, tell me why.
I think we're going through a restructuring but not for the better. Everyone seems to be pushing the government in the wrong direction and its going to make the situation worse. Unemployment benefits are 1 example. Many people have been openly vocal about the fact that they have no intention of looking for a job as long as there is benefits and they know that in numbers they will win. Instead of benefits I would prefer soup lines. The government should protect you; but only to a minimum... no cash should be given to anyone. They just waste in on iPhone and xbox.

The government and people; are using the illogic of creating products to create necessary jobs, rather than creating jobs to create necessary products. I think smacintosh's sig explains the success of this best though; the government hasn't created much product or jobs to date, but broken a bunch of eggs trying.

The Unions:

Keep in mind the unions are in most part whats responsible for the demise of their companies/employers and many sectors of the economy. The unions cannibalized their own jobs to the point that the government had to bail out their successful industries in order to continue their existence.

Protecting jobs to the extreme point that unions do just bankrupts companies; in the end rather than have a few unemployed people, everyone ends up laid off... (assuming no government bailout... )
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 01:16 AM
 
… .
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 5, 2024 at 12:52 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I have to say I agree with you on this one thing. This is great point. Too often republicans fight in the name of protecting corporations larger than most world governments, and yet disparage everything government; really they are one and the same. But meanwhile dems accuse every business of being greedy/evil and demand an over-sized government solution for everything.
In other words, Republicans want to be ruled by a bunch of heartless cutthroats who only wish to rape and pillage the average person while Democrats want to be ruled by a bunch of heartless cutthroats who only wish to rape and pillage the average person.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 02:46 AM
 
Let me reverse the questions a bit:

If the corporations are so powerful that they need to be controlled, why don't the same people who believe this ever hold the government to the same standard? Even if I agreed that this is the case, I can't for the life of me understand why it is then ok to give the only entity with REAL power and more money than any company can dream of even MORE power over people, and more money as well.

It is as I said…corporations have no real power. All they have is what they can get through their connections in the government. When this happens and people find out, what is the result? Sure they bitch and complain that the government is corrupt and they may occasionally vote out someone for it. (usually not) In the end, the result is an outcry for MORE regulations and laws restricting business, which is effectively giving MORE POWER to the other half of the corrupt relationship. Sheer genius.

All of this simply leads to fewer and LARGER corporations with more money and connections. All these new rules as well as the corruption come together to squeeze out smaller businesses who aren't large enough to survive under the rules, and who don't have the connections to get the favors and special considerations.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I can't help but wonder: should unions and protectionism regain prominent roles in American economic policy?
Re: Unions

They will protect people that ALREADY have a job, and increase their benefits and job stability.
However, it comes at a cost, and does result in higher unemployment.

Unionization has never caused job growth.

-t
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 08:03 AM
 
The government has built in controls-while we don't use them as often as we should, every other year we, the voters, can "fire" much of the House and as much as 1/3 of the Senate. It's not as fast as a restraining order or court decision, but it's there.

Corporations need to be controlled for the same reason the late 19th Century Robber Barons did: they have broad control over large parts of the economy (less centralized than back then, but still very strong control) and they have enormous amounts of money available for "corporate" use. I don't care if it's Getty buying up huge amounts of property and evicting the tenant farmers so he can drill for oil, or Exxon doing something similar. And big corporations have a life like sense of self preservation-they try to kill business that could act as rivals, so big business needs controls to prevent stagnation of markets and allow for innovation.

If government was merely working to maintain a level playing field in terms of competition and access to markets, business would be more likely to see the need for innovation and nimbleness. Unfortunately, the reasons I listed for needing controls on corporations have prevented this: business interests have co-opted legislators' focus because businesses say "more costs for us mean less jobs." Which goes from a situation where business is worried about survival to business using that idea to hostage jobs.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 07:37 PM
 
Kerrigan:

Many have contributed a great deal of information to address your point so I'll stick with the philosophy behind the sentiment.

You decry the principles you claim to appreciate while offering absolutely zero to substantiate their supposed failures. For example, each conservative principle you cited including free trade, deregulation, anti-union policies, etc have shown a decline in adherence.

I maintain the failures you see around you are not of those principles above, but the abandonment of them. The short answer to your question is "no". Never before has there been more evidence both in the US and abroad of the folly of liberal economic philosophy.
ebuddy
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2011, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Never before has there been more evidence both in the US and abroad of the folly of liberal economic philosophy.
Really?
The collapse, almost, was the fault of liberal policy?
Wow, really, wow.
And Palin will defeat Obama.
Wow.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Really?
The collapse, almost, was the fault of liberal policy?
Wow, really, wow.
And Palin will defeat Obama.
Wow.
Yes!
Zoinks and Eureka!
Really, seriously, really.
And Pelosi will defeat Obama.
Egadz.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Kerrigan:

Many have contributed a great deal of information to address your point so I'll stick with the philosophy behind the sentiment.

You decry the principles you claim to appreciate while offering absolutely zero to substantiate their supposed failures. For example, each conservative principle you cited including free trade, deregulation, anti-union policies, etc have shown a decline in adherence.

I maintain the failures you see around you are not of those principles above, but the abandonment of them. The short answer to your question is "no". Never before has there been more evidence both in the US and abroad of the folly of liberal economic philosophy.
ebuddy,

Your assertion that we have moved away from these conservative principles is spurious at best. Ever since Reagan and the rise of the current global capitalist paradigm, the United States has been pulled way to the right, so much so that if you compare Obama to, say, Eisenhower you'll find that Obama is to the RIGHT of the post-war Republicans. It was Bill Clinton who said the "era of big government" is over in 1996.

Your statements conform to a pattern of distorted history that's been making the rounds in the media and the blogosphere--and is tantamount to gospel in the Tea Party--that America has become more liberal. The reality is that the U.S.--and by extension the world--has been completed dominated by free-market philosophies in the last thirty years.

You can hardly blame unionism and other liberal ideologies for the state of the modern world as they have been completely marginalized in favor of Chicago School economic policies ever since Reagan.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 01:05 PM
 
ebuddy is moving to the loon side of the right.
Sad really.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post

When most everyone I know in my demographic (recent graduates; i.e., 22-26 year olds) are unable to find full-time jobs--much less careers-- and when economic trends point to the decimation to vast swaths of the American labor force, I can't help but wonder: should unions and protectionism regain prominent roles in American economic policy?
The artificial prosperity that unions bring with them can only happen if there is some sector of the economy that is MORE PRODUCTIVE and can generate the wealth necessary to be sent over to the union.

Unfortunately, a lot of that wealth recently has come from promises of future benefits, where the union's contract was treated as ironclad but the bondholders' was not. But I digress.

The idea that unions have a role in today's society, with OSHA and EPA and a well-developed workers' comp system, and tort lawyers, is ludicrous. The union thug bosses are all about making money for themselves, and selling votes, and not about the "peepul" anymore anyway.

Some parasites kill the host quickly, some slowly, and some never at all. Unions in this country don't want the last one (symbiosis), obviously. IF they had a place, that place would have to be a helluva lot less expensive than it is now.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
ebuddy is moving to the loon side of the right.
Sad really.
Cry for me.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 08:45 PM
 
Nice badge of honor

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
ebuddy,

Your assertion that we have moved away from these conservative principles is spurious at best. Ever since Reagan and the rise of the current global capitalist paradigm, the United States has been pulled way to the right, so much so that if you compare Obama to, say, Eisenhower you'll find that Obama is to the RIGHT of the post-war Republicans. It was Bill Clinton who said the "era of big government" is over in 1996.

Your statements conform to a pattern of distorted history that's been making the rounds in the media and the blogosphere--and is tantamount to gospel in the Tea Party--that America has become more liberal. The reality is that the U.S.--and by extension the world--has been completed dominated by free-market philosophies in the last thirty years.
Your patterns apparently conform to a distorted... gut feeling? I'd be open to any examples you might have to show a declining centralized authority. I mean, since Clinton declared the era of big government over in '96 as a campaign pledge, this should be easy right?

Otherwise, I'm confident even a cursory glance at just a few examples will easily illustrate both the growth and expansion of government.
  • government employment
  • Federal revenues
  • sources of Federal revenues
  • Federal spending as percent of gdp
  • entitlement spending as percent of gdp
  • Federal debt as percent of gdp both gross and public
  • oversight/regulatory authority
  • ownership stake in private enterprise

You can hardly blame unionism and other liberal ideologies for the state of the modern world as they have been completely marginalized in favor of Chicago School economic policies ever since Reagan.
Is this also because you just think so or do you have some evidence to substantiate the claim?

Unions are essentially a labor cartel that keeps the overall workforce more scarce in the industries they "serve" to drive up their wages. Note - they distort the labor market and as such are commonly opposed to trade and competition. The inability of Greece to negotiate with big labor for example, was a major contributing factor to their recent meltdown and we're seeing the same exact problem in almost every major city in the US including my own. These exorbitant wages and bennies don't grow on trees, but they do grow. They come at a loss of corporate profits, make your employer less competitive, drive up prices, and by their very nature cut jobs. Don't take my word for it, look at manufacturing in terms of two sectors; union and non-union. Since 2000, 38% of unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared compared to 18% of non-union jobs. Unionized corporations expand less frequently and adjust to market conditions more slowly.

Unions not unlike liberal policies in general, exacerbate the moral hazards of dependency and create unsustainable entitlement environments. There is so much evidence to contradict your personal opinions Helmling that I'm somewhat taken aback by your degree of confidence in expressing them. Welcome back I guess.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Nice badge of honor
I just wish it were anyone, but the forum loon to pin it on me.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2011, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your patterns apparently conform to a distorted... gut feeling? I'd be open to any examples you might have to show a declining centralized authority. I mean, since Clinton declared the era of big government over in '96 as a campaign pledge, this should be easy right?

Otherwise, I'm confident even a cursory glance at just a few examples will easily illustrate both the growth and expansion of government.
  • government employment
  • Federal revenues
  • sources of Federal revenues
  • Federal spending as percent of gdp
  • entitlement spending as percent of gdp
  • Federal debt as percent of gdp both gross and public
  • oversight/regulatory authority
  • ownership stake in private enterprise


Is this also because you just think so or do you have some evidence to substantiate the claim?

Unions are essentially a labor cartel that keeps the overall workforce more scarce in the industries they "serve" to drive up their wages. Note - they distort the labor market and as such are commonly opposed to trade and competition. The inability of Greece to negotiate with big labor for example, was a major contributing factor to their recent meltdown and we're seeing the same exact problem in almost every major city in the US including my own. These exorbitant wages and bennies don't grow on trees, but they do grow. They come at a loss of corporate profits, make your employer less competitive, drive up prices, and by their very nature cut jobs. Don't take my word for it, look at manufacturing in terms of two sectors; union and non-union. Since 2000, 38% of unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared compared to 18% of non-union jobs. Unionized corporations expand less frequently and adjust to market conditions more slowly.

Unions not unlike liberal policies in general, exacerbate the moral hazards of dependency and create unsustainable entitlement environments. There is so much evidence to contradict your personal opinions Helmling that I'm somewhat taken aback by your degree of confidence in expressing them. Welcome back I guess.
I guess we're talking about different things, ebuddy. My statement was about the complete dominance of free market principles, which you take to be government's expenditures as compared to GDP.

A quick google search turns up a bunch of different figures on those numbers you want. Not surprisingly, if I trust a conservative source, then entitlement spending is estimated to be much higher a share of GDP, and if we look at number reckoned by liberal sources, it looks less dire to say the least.

But those figures aren't really what I was referring to. Which all goes to the heart of your model of conservatism vs. what the Republicans have come to represent. I'm talking about the fact that our government has been won over by the supply siders ever since Reagan and that government has come to serve a support role to the massive concentration of wealth at the top of the economic ladder in the United States, and indeed, the world at large. So while the Republicans and the Tea Party keep you shouting about deficits and entitlements, the gap between the middle class and the wealthy continues to grow.

You're very interested in how government spending and entitlements compare to GDP--what about the share of GDP enjoyed by working and middle class families?
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Cry for me.
My compassionate side wants to, but it isn't going to happen.
You have to take responsibility for going off the deep end and suffer the consequences, like those you demand the same of.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Nice badge of honor

-t
Not surprised you're impressed.
You really oughta get out of that basement.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I guess we're talking about different things, ebuddy. My statement was about the complete dominance of free market principles, which you take to be government's expenditures as compared to GDP.
The OP provided specific points of reference and I engaged those points of reference by indicating a move away from them. You addressed me in a somewhat vague complaint about Reaganomics. I'm telling you the market is anything, but "free" and cited some specific reasons for this. You cite one yourself below...

A quick google search turns up a bunch of different figures on those numbers you want. Not surprisingly, if I trust a conservative source, then entitlement spending is estimated to be much higher a share of GDP, and if we look at number reckoned by liberal sources, it looks less dire to say the least.
This was an intellectual copout Helmling. Cite any graph, poll, stat, or figure you wish. They're all showing unsustainable inclines. You've said the least, I'm asking for a little more.

But those figures aren't really what I was referring to. Which all goes to the heart of your model of conservatism vs. what the Republicans have come to represent.
Is this necessary? If I were to say simply that you've been duped by the tired liberal narrative that a rich person has money because they're taking it from poor people, would that suffice as a cogent argument to you?

I'm talking about the fact that our government has been won over by the supply siders ever since Reagan and that government has come to serve a support role to the massive concentration of wealth at the top of the economic ladder in the United States, and indeed, the world at large. So while the Republicans and the Tea Party keep you shouting about deficits and entitlements, the gap between the middle class and the wealthy continues to grow.
Yes, this is a real problem. Please cite for me how punishing wealth at the top creates more wealth at the bottom? If you don't see a progressive tax structure that increasingly takes from 'X' and gives to 'Y' while doing absolutely zero for the disparity between 'X' and 'Y', you're not looking. This is no more about Republicans and Tea Parties than it is about Democrats and Union rallies.

You're very interested in how government spending and entitlements compare to GDP--what about the share of GDP enjoyed by working and middle class families?
You appear more interested in symptoms of problems instead of the problems themselves. There is wealth and there is income. Income disparity comes from investments and investment strategy. The ol' "teach a man to fish" vs "give a man a fish" conservative model you decry. In order to cure income disparity, you've got to have money. You've got to have money to make money. Whatever model we embrace should attempt to lift the poor into a place of more money. Employers do this. Rich people. Taking from 'X' and giving 'Y' things does absolutely nothing to bolster self-sustainance or build prosperity. Raising the minimum wage and increasing the give-aways as has been done ad nauseum does nothing, but create contentment at the bottom. Statistically, the poor in the US are among the wealthiest on the globe in material assets such as sq footage of living space, vehicle and home ownership, health care, creature comforts such as air and heat, ovens and refrigeration, food and protein, entertainment sources such as cable and satellite TV, etc... so we're back to income disparity.

Above you cite the government's contribution by "picking winners" which is very much in line with a complaint of mine. Yes, the government is meddling in the affairs of the "free market" making it less free, picking winners and losers, and exacerbating the problem from both ends with the most explosive increase in entitlements doled out to the Middle class building greater dependency from the bottom-up. Can you see how other misdirected government policies distort the "free" market such as bad immigration policy which increases the number of unskilled laborers in the US? Unskilled laborers make less than skilled laborers employed by the same dreaded "rich" person. Disparity. A disparity which exists in spite of explosive growth in entitlement spending; more liberal policy = less skin in the game and more disparity.

With regard to money, we're talking about immigration policy that facilitates prosperity, not disparity. We're talking about a tax structure that rewards investment and wealth, (money) not a punitive mentality against it. Liberal ideology requires a great deal of money, money it does not earn, but takes; money it can only get from 'X'. When 'X' increasingly looks for better places to invest its money, it finds those opportunities elsewhere while still making more. Disparity. Policy should be geared toward attracting that money here where it can work for everyone while creating an environment of progress, innovation, and advancement, not pushing it elsewhere while bolstering contentment at the bottom income class by mitigating symptoms of disparity.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
My compassionate side wants to, but it isn't going to happen.
You have to take responsibility for going off the deep end and suffer the consequences, like those you demand the same of.
But you've not given any indication of how I've gone off the deep end screener. All of you've said is; "you're a poop-butt, stinky face!!". I was hoping for something a little more substantive.

Got anything?
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 11:17 AM
 
Look at California. LIBERAL STATE, Liberal Politics, Liberal nutcases. How much are they in the hole? How many BILLIONS? Seems their liberal doctrine hasn't helped them at all.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2011, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
But you've not given any indication of how I've gone off the deep end screener. All of you've said is; "you're a poop-butt, stinky face!!". I was hoping for something a little more substantive.

Got anything?
It started here,
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ore-religious/
Originally Posted by screener
Riiiiiight.
I thought you were a bit smarter than your average winger.
I passed on your non reply in the moron thread believing you got my point.
For what it's worth, my opinion of you has dropped to the blind wingnut level.
Some back and forth, then this.
Originally Posted by screener
What if it wasn't but you wrote before you thought about it.
How many here do you consider...
Originally Posted by ebuddy
... socially inept, sophomoric antagonists with no ability to formulate their own cogent arguments among my peers. Hand cymbal-clapping monkeys are the peers of sock puppets, marionettes, and morons.
Answer,
Three people, two of which I have on ignore.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2011, 11:33 AM
 
OK then.. Lets

SHUT
DOWN
THE
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT!!

The WH is not really bargaining or making any real cuts. Games again.

They never did understand why they lost in Nov.
Reid will be the reason they lose in 2012.
Then the real cuts will take place and the unions will be treated even more harshly
than they would had they given a little, but I'm not sure they understand either.
Seems they are all stuck in the 1950's.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2011, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
.
Who?

?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2011, 02:50 PM
 
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2011, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The WH is not really bargaining or making any real cuts. Games again.
Think maybe it's just possible that the administration's budget proposal was intended as a starting point? Something to put the ball in Congress' court? I do. Why should the White House come up with "all the answers" when it's a certainty that those "answers" will be brick-walled in Congress? I think, as unappealing as the president's budget is in so many ways, it's a good opening move.

And remember, Congress hasn't gotten off their collective pinstriped seats to pass spending bills that are now almost 6 months overdue. Running on continuing resolutions was one of the really effective ways for the Congress to change hands during the Reagan administration... I don't think all these newbie Reps and Senators really want to be one-shot wonders...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2011, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
It started here
Hmm. My best work was from June of 2007.

There was no "back and forth" screamer. Let me break it down for you because this is how it generally goes for you here;
  • arguments made in favor of a position
  • counterarguments made
  • screamer picks his favorite leftist talking point and adds; "Yeah man! Like wingnuts are wingnuttiest!!"
  • screamer generally gets ignored until someone finally decides the hit and run statements aren't adding to the discussion or bolstering a viewpoint and must be smacked down. Screamer gets bitter and makes chasing you around the forum his life's work.
  • arguments of others resumes
  • screamer adds another hit and run statement

Don't take my word for it screamer. Pose the question to this forum of the value of your contribution on a scale of 1-10 and others who rank similarly. I think you'll find that you're in very undesirable company. I'm sorry you're still reeling from the sound rebuke you experienced back in August of last year, but I'm doing it out of love screamer. I'm trying to help you. It'll make more sense when you're older.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2011, 09:17 AM
 
*shrug*

I would have never known, since I got Screamer on ignore for a long time.

-t
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2011, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hmm. My best work was from June of 2007.
When you were a sane right winger.
Thanks for proving my observation.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2011, 04:50 PM
 
Perhaps those idiot liberals should either get serious tech degrees and quickly invent new energy sources and the infrastructure or get rid of the stupid drilling moratoriums. had Obama been a little brighter, he might have seen this coming. If he did, and decided to let the US suffer, that means impeachment and removal.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,