Ghost Of 1929 Re-Appears - Pay Attention To The Signals

[Bubstr]

You are fooling yourself if you think one is better than the other. You have to be blind to listen to what they say and see what they do. Go ahead, wave your flag and let them pee on your leg and tell you it's rain. It's a sure fire way to collapse and revolution.

[t.nie]

You are fooling yourself if you think one is better than the other. You have to be blind to listen to what they say and see what they do. Go ahead, wave your flag and let them pee on your leg and tell you it's rain. It's a sure fire way to collapse and revolution.

I don't really follow your blanket line of reasoning that both sides are purchased by big business and the elites. If you care to investigate Obama's campaign contributions and contributors, he was by far the most successful candidate ever at rallying millions of people to give small contributions to his campaign to help him get elected OVER the big money people who supported and gave money in huge ways to Superpacs that ran anti-Obama campaigns and directly to the Romney/Ryan ticket and the Geezer/Dingbat offering in the first go round.

If both parties were already in the back pocket of big business and our government totally owned and controlled by big business, we would be way further down the backroad to feudalism than we are. Not to say that you don't make great analysis of the past history of economic policy in this nation, you do. But I would beg to differ that we no longer have a voice.

I think that part of the master plan of the right wing conservatives is to convince people their voice and vote doesn't matter. If the majority can be convinced they cannot effect change and they stop participating out of frustration at the gridlock, then it is guaranteed that NO change will happen, ever. And this does serve the wealthy elite in our country. The Tea Party is the perfect example of corporate money causing logjams in our progress and turning people against government in general ("it's ineffective and they are all only self serving anyway") and demoralizing anyone who does try.

Just look at the constant barrage on these boards from the Tea Party Troll Nation. It is just an endless flow of constant bashing, belittling, name calling and hatred. After awhile, people without a strong will just give up and quit in the face of the constant malice and hatred that comes back. They win out of sheer brute force and ignorance, not because they make valid points or have a good way forward.

[t.nie]

Robert Reich made a very interesting observation about the economic philosophy of the conservatives. A conservative believes the way to motivate wealthy people to work harder is to make sure they get to make a lot of money and keep it, while on the other hand they oppose paying the workers more because they believe it will make them lazy and they won't work as hard.

Classic case of a double standard.

[Bubstr]

I don't really follow your blanket line of reasoning that both sides are purchased by big business and the elites. If you care to investigate Obama's campaign contributions and contributors, he was by far the most successful candidate ever at rallying millions of people to give small contributions to his campaign to help him get elected OVER the big money people who supported and gave money in huge ways to Superpacs that ran anti-Obama campaigns and directly to the Romney/Ryan ticket and the Geezer/Dingbat offering in the first go round.

If both parties were already in the back pocket of big business and our government totally owned and controlled by big business, we would be way further down the backroad to feudalism than we are. Not to say that you don't make great analysis of the past history of economic policy in this nation, you do. But I would beg to differ that we no longer have a voice.

I think that part of the master plan of the right wing conservatives is to convince people their voice and vote doesn't matter. If the majority can be convinced they cannot effect change and they stop participating out of frustration at the gridlock, then it is guaranteed that NO change will happen, ever. And this does serve the wealthy elite in our country. The Tea Party is the perfect example of corporate money causing logjams in our progress and turning people against government in general ("it's ineffective and they are all only self serving anyway") and demoralizing anyone who does try.

Just look at the constant barrage on these boards from the Tea Party Troll Nation. It is just an endless flow of constant bashing, belittling, name calling and hatred. After awhile, people without a strong will just give up and quit in the face of the constant malice and hatred that comes back. They win out of sheer brute force and ignorance, not because they make valid points or have a good way forward.

I believe you could say there where more small donations to the democratic party. You could also say there where more large corporate donations. You could even say the democrats got more donations. What you didn't say, was what was expected from those donations. I believe if you look, you will find one of the DNC contributors did double duty and contributed to Romneys run in the primaries. nothing like hedging your bets.

Let's see I believe Obama had several large donations from Insurance companies, United Healthcare being one of them. Maybe that's why we got the ACA that saves us no money. I remind you the democrats had all three branches at the time it passed. They could have passed a good one, just more lip service and screwing the country for profit.

Who passed NAFTA? Clinton. But who originated it? Reagan. We know how many jobs this cost the country. Now tell me which party didn't screw us? Tell me who profited from NAFTA? If I was a betting man, I'd bet they was a contributor.

Neither side can take a holier than thou stance when it comes to being bought and paid for.

[15D]

Feudalism was just another name foe unbridled capitalism. Manifest destiny lead by the European explorers was pure unbridled capitalism. East India company was unbridled capitalism.

Manifest Destiny is what happened in the American West. Colonialism is what happened in India, significant differences. Britain was in the midst of an industrial revolution while it was exploiting India, far from a Feudal System of serfs and lords. I not going to bother with the rest of your reply, A you at best are a curmudgeon. No amount of reason or facts will sway your opinion.

[15D]

Robert Reich made a very interesting observation about the economic philosophy of the conservatives. A conservative believes the way to motivate wealthy people to work harder is to make sure they get to make a lot of money and keep it, while on the other hand they oppose paying the workers more because they believe it will make them lazy and they won't work as hard.

Classic case of a double standard.

Many reasons cause a business to go under with poor management leading the way. Over paying employee's is one way in which management misleads. Market forces should be the basis for establishing pay. Before you go off the deep end I'll go ahead and point out that yes there will be inequities. The market can lag or lead and for more the most part wages lag. The only way for an economy to lift wages across the board is to enter a period of prolonged expansion where businesses are forced to compete for workers, whether they be skilled or not, this will put the worker in a position where they can extract more pay for the labor.

As an example; back in the mid to late '90's the local Wendy's Franchise's were paying a couple of dollars and hour over minimum way and offering a $1,500 signing bonus for anyone who would sign on for a year. I think all reasonable people would agree that form '93 on that the economy was in a period of prolonged expansion. Some would place the expansion period back to '84 with a short recession in '92 or so.

[t.nie]

Many reasons cause a business to go under with poor management leading the way. Over paying employee's is one way in which management misleads. Market forces should be the basis for establishing pay. Before you go off the deep end I'll go ahead and point out that yes there will be inequities. The market can lag or lead and for more the most part wages lag. The only way for an economy to lift wages across the board is to enter a period of prolonged expansion where businesses are forced to compete for workers, whether they be skilled or not, this will put the worker in a position where they can extract more pay for the labor.

As an example; back in the mid to late '90's the local Wendy's Franchise's were paying a couple of dollars and hour over minimum way and offering a $1,500 signing bonus for anyone who would sign on for a year. I think all reasonable people would agree that form '93 on that the economy was in a period of prolonged expansion. Some would place the expansion period back to '84 with a short recession in '92 or so.

Market forces establish pay? Sure, and for those who can manipulate entire markets in their favor, they get compensated well above what they are worth.

This happened in the US in the 60s leading into the early 70s with the labor force having such leverage as to ensure their workers were overpaid. I remember auto workers working 3 days, calling in sick 2, and getting paid twice what most mid level college degreed managers made.

This was a classic case of the labor/management relationship being tilted in favor of labor, and it eventually led to spiraling inflation, out of control labor, closures of business, loss of revenue and a general downturn in the entire American economy.

We are now in the exact opposite situation and we need a correction. Masses of people have no spare cash, spending grinds to a halt and the wealthy few are holding onto the bulk of the cash in our economy. If "market forces" alone were the driving force behind this development over the last 30 years, then we would all be better off. However, regulation and deregulation has devalued the labor contribution and overinflated the value of the top management and owners. Markets are manipulated in favor of the management over the worker.

So please, spare me the crap about "free market" economics leveling the playing field. That doesn't happen because we don't have a true "free market." We have a subsidized market to help the wealthy gain more wealth, and a deregulated labor market with few if any worker protections. If Union busting laws were repealed, we would, over time, see more balance in the market as workers could organize and have some leverage in negotiations.

I think that over time we will see this balance redressed, as too many are suffering and too few are profiting from the current system. There is a need for balance. You cannot keep people beholden to their masters forever, sooner or later there will be a revolt against the exploitation.

The "prolonged expansion" of our economy could be happening now, if the wealthiest were incentivized through heavier taxation on wealth to spend more and keep less. There is plenty of money in America for everyone to have some spare cash, the problem now is every spare nickel that used to be dispersed widely through wages and benefits is now all held by a very few. And they aren't spending it here, if anywhere.

We did it before, we will do it again.

[Bubstr]

Manifest Destiny is what happened in the American West. Colonialism is what happened in India, significant differences. Britain was in the midst of an industrial revolution while it was exploiting India, far from a Feudal System of serfs and lords. I not going to bother with the rest of your reply, A you at best are a curmudgeon. No amount of reason or facts will sway your opinion.

Tell us the difference. It was all exploitation by the elite. Different name, different song and dance, same old exploitation with the help of the government.

[15D]

Tell us the difference. It was all exploitation by the elite. Different name, different song and dance, same old exploitation with the help of the government.

We had legally purchased much of the midwest from France through the Louisiana Purchase and was given much of the west legally from Spain as a result of the Spanish American War Treaty. If you want to say that we did treat the natives the way we should of, I'll concede that as it is a horrible stain on our past. However, we didn't press them into slavery. It was our intent to inhabit the west and use it's lands and resources for the betterment of our society.

Britain went to war with India in order to exploit both of it's resources and natives. It was there intent to plunder and pillage. They had no desire to build a working government for the people, just take.

To me it is the intent that makes the difference.

[15D]

Market forces establish pay? Sure, and for those who can manipulate entire markets in their favor, they get compensated well above what they are worth.

This happened in the US in the 60s leading into the early 70s with the labor force having such leverage as to ensure their workers were overpaid. I remember auto workers working 3 days, calling in sick 2, and getting paid twice what most mid level college degreed managers made.

This was a classic case of the labor/management relationship being tilted in favor of labor, and it eventually led to spiraling inflation, out of control labor, closures of business, loss of revenue and a general downturn in the entire American economy.

We are now in the exact opposite situation and we need a correction. Masses of people have no spare cash, spending grinds to a halt and the wealthy few are holding onto the bulk of the cash in our economy. If "market forces" alone were the driving force behind this development over the last 30 years, then we would all be better off. However, regulation and deregulation has devalued the labor contribution and overinflated the value of the top management and owners. Markets are manipulated in favor of the management over the worker.

So please, spare me the crap about "free market" economics leveling the playing field. That doesn't happen because we don't have a true "free market." We have a subsidized market to help the wealthy gain more wealth, and a deregulated labor market with few if any worker protections. If Union busting laws were repealed, we would, over time, see more balance in the market as workers could organize and have some leverage in negotiations.

I think that over time we will see this balance redressed, as too many are suffering and too few are profiting from the current system. There is a need for balance. You cannot keep people beholden to their masters forever, sooner or later there will be a revolt against the exploitation.

The "prolonged expansion" of our economy could be happening now, if the wealthiest were incentivized through heavier taxation on wealth to spend more and keep less. There is plenty of money in America for everyone to have some spare cash, the problem now is every spare nickel that used to be dispersed widely through wages and benefits is now all held by a very few. And they aren't spending it here, if anywhere.

We did it before, we will do it again.

Some of this sounds as though Engels and Marx had written it, or in the very least had influence. However, I will agree with you on two of your points, our current economy isn't free, or least it isn't as free as it should be, and two, that we can do it again.

There are many on the conservative side who believe that crony capitalism is running amouck and would like to see it abate, myself included. The way I would advocate this is over a number or years start writing out of the tax code exemptions for businesses, level the playing field so to speak.

Reducing the cost of doing business in America is the only way that we can start the economy onto a protracted period of expansion. Essentially if it's more cost effective to manufacture products overseas then it is here, then they will be manufactured oversea's. Putting up trade barriers will only cause further trouble. Until we collectively come to this conclusion we will continue to bleed jobs. That a look at the American South today. They've essentially adopted this philosophy and made it through the recession if better shape then the states/cities with higher costs of doing business.

If Obamacare had delivered on it's original stated purpose of driving the cost of health care down for everyone, I think we would be well into a recovering and growing economy. What has happened is most believe that it will increase the cost of health care significantly and what we have is a stagnate economy as a result. Businesses are sitting on the sideline waiting to find out how this health care law will play out before they are willing to expand or in some cases, get back to pre-recession level production.

[Bubstr]

Some of this sounds as though Engels and Marx had written it, or in the very least had influence. However, I will agree with you on two of your points, our current economy isn't free, or least it isn't as free as it should be, and two, that we can do it again.

There are many on the conservative side who believe that crony capitalism is running amouck and would like to see it abate, myself included. The way I would advocate this is over a number or years start writing out of the tax code exemptions for businesses, level the playing field so to speak.

Reducing the cost of doing business in America is the only way that we can start the economy onto a protracted period of expansion. Essentially if it's more cost effective to manufacture products overseas then it is here, then they will be manufactured oversea's. Putting up trade barriers will only cause further trouble. Until we collectively come to this conclusion we will continue to bleed jobs. That a look at the American South today. They've essentially adopted this philosophy and made it through the recession if better shape then the states/cities with higher costs of doing business.

If Obamacare had delivered on it's original stated purpose of driving the cost of health care down for everyone, I think we would be well into a recovering and growing economy. What has happened is most believe that it will increase the cost of health care significantly and what we have is a stagnate economy as a result. Businesses are sitting on the sideline waiting to find out how this health care law will play out before they are willing to expand or in some cases, get back to pre-recession level production.

Let me get this straight, we need to reduce the cost of manufacturing in order to compete with dollar a day labor? Since the elite really want more profit not less, that narrows the cuts down to taxes and labor. I don't see the need for taxes going down, with the job market we have and these wars we get into. Should we cut tax on the rich and make the middle class pay it, as the poor have no money. I guess our middle class is looking forward to the dollar a day wage to compete in the world market. Competing to get exploited.

As far a business sitting out to see what happens with Obama care, No one buys that line. They are sitting out for two reasons. One, they have no customer for their product. Two, business loans are hard to come by, even with stellar credit, if they did have the buyer. Show me a business that passes up profits for political reasons and I'll show you stupid. If there is a dollar to be made, you go make it or someone else will.

[racin6mod]

To BUDSTR point Ford and other companies are pushing they're suppliers to look for and use the cheapest labor and overhead cost no matter were in the world it comes from. some are in counties that hate the usa like Egypt but they have $2.00 a day labor zero insurance and the countries electrical company is run but the military so it's free to the supplier and the building is owned by the government. so now the ceo of ford and others is 380 time that of the usa employee and 38000 times that of the Egypt worker. profit before all else. here at my business I try very hard to us only made in the usa and will never buy a ford product in my life due to what I know about them.they would rather send money to our enemies than pay a little extra to have the cars built the same people they intend to sell them to the American public.

thousands of us companies are bouncing the globe looking for the free labor so ceo's can take even more. 380 time the average employees pay. greed is killing this country!!!!

[t.nie]

Some of this sounds as though Engels and Marx had written it, or in the very least had influence. However, I will agree with you on two of your points, our current economy isn't free, or least it isn't as free as it should be, and two, that we can do it again.

There are many on the conservative side who believe that crony capitalism is running amouck and would like to see it abate, myself included. The way I would advocate this is over a number or years start writing out of the tax code exemptions for businesses, level the playing field so to speak.

Reducing the cost of doing business in America is the only way that we can start the economy onto a protracted period of expansion. Essentially if it's more cost effective to manufacture products overseas then it is here, then they will be manufactured oversea's. Putting up trade barriers will only cause further trouble. Until we collectively come to this conclusion we will continue to bleed jobs. That a look at the American South today. They've essentially adopted this philosophy and made it through the recession if better shape then the states/cities with higher costs of doing business.

If Obamacare had delivered on it's original stated purpose of driving the cost of health care down for everyone, I think we would be well into a recovering and growing economy. What has happened is most believe that it will increase the cost of health care significantly and what we have is a stagnate economy as a result. Businesses are sitting on the sideline waiting to find out how this health care law will play out before they are willing to expand or in some cases, get back to pre-recession level production.

And just to add to what Bubstr said, as he covered most of it, Obamacare has not been fully implemented and once implemented, it will take a few years to see what it's effect will be on the economy and business. It's ridiculous to come to a conclusion that it has failed to meet an objective before it has even been fully implemented for even one day.

[t.nie]

To BUDSTR point Ford and other companies are pushing they're suppliers to look for and use the cheapest labor and overhead cost no matter were in the world it comes from. some are in counties that hate the usa like Egypt but they have $2.00 a day labor zero insurance and the countries electrical company is run but the military so it's free to the supplier and the building is owned by the government. so now the ceo of ford and others is 380 time that of the usa employee and 38000 times that of the Egypt worker. profit before all else. here at my business I try very hard to us only made in the usa and will never buy a ford product in my life due to what I know about them.they would rather send money to our enemies than pay a little extra to have the cars built the same people they intend to sell them to the American public.

thousands of us companies are bouncing the globe looking for the free labor so ceo's can take even more. 380 time the average employees pay. greed is killing this country!!!!

I agree, we don't have a wealth problem or innovation or taxation or regulation problem in America. We only have one problem, unbridled and unregulated greed. When business people are enjoying record profits while the average person's net wealth and earnings are going backwards, it doesn't take a genius to see the obvious.

[15D]

Let me get this straight, we need to reduce the cost of manufacturing in order to compete with dollar a day labor? Since the elite really want more profit not less, that narrows the cuts down to taxes and labor. I don't see the need for taxes going down, with the job market we have and these wars we get into. Should we cut tax on the rich and make the middle class pay it, as the poor have no money. I guess our middle class is looking forward to the dollar a day wage to compete in the world market. Competing to get exploited.

As far a business sitting out to see what happens with Obama care, No one buys that line. They are sitting out for two reasons. One, they have no customer for their product. Two, business loans are hard to come by, even with stellar credit, if they did have the buyer. Show me a business that passes up profits for political reasons and I'll show you stupid. If there is a dollar to be made, you go make it or someone else will.

Labor is only one portion of the cost of bringing a product to market. Many of the places that have extremely lower labor costs also have few natural resources to build the products with. Thus it has to be shipped in, manufactured and shipped to market. We have both the resources and market here. If we were to lower the cost of doing business then it may be possible that the least expensive way to bring a product to market is with US labor here at home. Otherwise it will stay overseas.

Yes Bubstr and TNIE and all others, businesses have leaned the labor force back to the bare minimum with Obamacare being the leading reason why. They will not put another person on the payroll until they absolutely have too because they are unsure of what the total compensation package will have to be. So yes they are currently maximizing profit as many do not see their potential market share increasing in the near future. When they think they will need the added capacity is when they will start to hire. My initial contention that a prolonged period of economic expansion is the only way to get there.

So, why is it so hard to get money Bubstr? Dodd/Frank have anything to do with that?