Why shouldn't capitalism be better regulated?

[SmartCat]

Bingo... so while their was a HUGE change in the marginal tax rate.. it hardly made a blip on revenue as a percentage of gdp. In fact.. if you were to check in 1978 When carter was president. ... the revenue was 16.99... LESS than Reagans last year.

However.. meanwhile..spending rose.

So yes.. for the most part.. our issue when it comes to deficits have been spending.. and not the marginal tax rate on the highest wage earners.

I guess you are opposed to Reagan's increases in the military budget then.

Nice try at a strawman.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Straw man - Wikipedia

How is my argument a straw man argument?

The Reagan administration was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. It was a time for a huge and unnecessary increase in military spending.

Reagan is responsible for the increase in the national debt that happened during his administration because he cut taxes for the rich while raising military spending. What don't you understand about that?

 

[jaeger19]

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Straw man - Wikipedia

How is my argument a straw man argument?

The Reagan administration was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. It was a time for a huge and unnecessary increase in military spending.

Reagan is responsible for the increase in the national debt that happened during his administration because he cut taxes for the rich while raising military spending. What don't you understand about that?

Um sir. The debate was on the cause of debt and deficit increase. The claim was made that it was the lowering of the high marginal tax rates. As I showed..the lowering of the marginal tax rates at the top rate.. did little to influence the actual effective national tax rate (tax revenue as a percentage of gdp).

the real difference was in spending.

Reagan is not responsible for the increase in the national debt because he "cut taxes for the rich"...that was shown to be false. As it was pointed out.. Revenue as a percentage of GDP was still around what it was before Reagan took office.. In fact..there were times during Reagan where the tax revenue as a percentage of gdp was higher..than under Carter.

The real difference which caused the increase in debt and deficit was spending. …

That's the facts. You sir are simply wrong in stating it was because of decreasing taxes for the rich. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

You attempted to set up a strawman argument by then trying to argue about whether I agreed with military spending or not.

That was not the debate. The debate is whether lowering the marginal rate on top earners increased the debt and deficit..and the answer is no.

 

[phattonez]

staff was cut in half....and the half that remained all made more money....but the company made boatloads more money

the computer revolution started....automation and technology made jobs easier...faster...and companies invested a LOT of money in training and hardware

and people were downsized because automation took care of a number of slots....and it happened EVERYWHERE

and the owners and managers made tons more money....

that is what happened....not the twisted story you think happened

What's just or good about that? What is the point of this technological advancement if it makes the lives of most people WORSE?

 

[gdgyva]

What's just or good about that? What is the point of this technological advancement if it makes the lives of most people WORSE?

my life got better

my staff's life got better

we all made more money

our jobs got easier

who said it made most peoples lives WORSE?

yes...some people were downsized....and jobs were lost....other jobs were created

programmers. technicians, installers....highly technical and HIGH PAYING jobs

 

[phattonez]

my life got better

my staff's life got better

we all made more money

our jobs got easier

who said it made most peoples lives WORSE?

yes...some people were downsized....and jobs were lost....other jobs were created

programmers. technicians, installers....highly technical and HIGH PAYING jobs

Some? Wages have been stagnant to negative for 50 years. You're underestimating how big this was. And I'm all for it, I just wish it was done in a way that benefited all of society.

 

[bicycleman]

Capitalism is a sign of freedom. What would you have, totalitarianism, with the government controlling industry and everything you do in your life?

 

[SmartCat]

Um sir. The debate was on the cause of debt and deficit increase. The claim was made that it was the lowering of the high marginal tax rates. As I showed..the lowering of the marginal tax rates at the top rate.. did little to influence the actual effective national tax rate (tax revenue as a percentage of gdp).

the real difference was in spending.

Reagan is not responsible for the increase in the national debt because he "cut taxes for the rich"...that was shown to be false. As it was pointed out.. Revenue as a percentage of GDP was still around what it was before Reagan took office.. In fact..there were times during Reagan where the tax revenue as a percentage of gdp was higher..than under Carter.

The real difference which caused the increase in debt and deficit was spending. …

That's the facts. You sir are simply wrong in stating it was because of decreasing taxes for the rich. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

You attempted to set up a strawman argument by then trying to argue about whether I agreed with military spending or not.

That was not the debate. The debate is whether lowering the marginal rate on top earners increased the debt and deficit..and the answer is no.

You are complicating a simple reality. Reagan and those who supported him are responsible for the nearly tripling of the national debt during the Reagan administration. This is because Reagan cut taxes for the rich while raising defense spending.

By the end of the Second World War the top tax rate was 94%. That is the difference between the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats and the fantasy economics of the Republicans.

Republicans still do not understand the contradiction between desiring lower taxes, a strong national defense, and balanced budgets. The Defense Department cannot be paid for with pennies from heaven. It takes real money.

Saying that tax cuts do not raise the national debt, higher spending does. is like saying that you can't lose weight by dieting, but by exercising, or visa versa.

Tax cuts for the rich mean tax increases for the rest of us, cuts in domestic spending programs that benefit us, and/or more national debt. It is just as simple as that.

Republicans have difficult making connections. They have a goal over here, and another goal over there. They want to achieve both of them, not realizing that the more the first goal is achieved, the less the second goal can be achieved, and visa versa.

 

[SmartCat]

my life got better

my staff's life got better

we all made more money

our jobs got easier

who said it made most peoples lives WORSE?

yes...some people were downsized....and jobs were lost....other jobs were created

programmers. technicians, installers....highly technical and HIGH PAYING jobs

Computer technology makes it possible for geniuses to become billionaires. It creates careers for those of above average intelligence. It destroys jobs that most people are able to learn. We see that everywhere. ATM machines reduce jobs for bank tellers. Bar codes reduce jobs for cashiers. Industrial robots reduce jobs for factory workers.

Computer technology is a major reason for the growing income gap.

 

[nekrodev]

Capitalism is a sign of freedom. What would you have, totalitarianism, with the government controlling industry and everything you do in your life?

capitalism is only an economic system, and takes NOTHING into account other than the standard **** which anyone intelligent already knows is wrong

 

[gdgyva]

Computer technology makes it possible for geniuses to become billionaires. It creates careers for those of above average intelligence. It destroys jobs that most people are able to learn. We see that everywhere. ATM machines reduce jobs for bank tellers. Bar codes reduce jobs for cashiers. Industrial robots reduce jobs for factory workers.

Computer technology is a major reason for the growing income gap.

just as henry ford put buggy whip makers out of business

your point?

technology will continue to march on

some jobs will be created with it, and some jobs lost

the good paying white collar jobs of the 50's for pushing a button are gone....you have to have skills....

they can be educational or vocational but you better be able to do something that the average joe cant do if you want to make a decent living

supply and demand is still the way our system works...and i dont see that changing anytime soon

 

[MrWonka]

So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.

I think the best way to think about economic regulation is to understand that ultimately capitalism is about competition, and to think about economic competition the same way we think about athletic competition. In any competition you need rules for fair play, and you need to have unbiased referees to enforce them. The core problem being that in an athletic competition there are generally thousands of eyes watching the same game that the referees are watching and so if a referee is not calling a fair game it is far more likely to be caught. Furthermore each team has an equal opportunity to criticize the referees if they feel they're doing a bad job, that is not generally the case in a world where mega corporations can spend billions to lobby the referees and sway elections.

Another thing that does need to be considered as well is that there are negative consequences to over regulating things that maybe aren't necessary. Excessive regulation can hinder productivity by creating barriers to entry into industries for new businesses. In fact, in many cases large businesses advocate for excessive regulation because they know they already have the infrastructure in place to handle it where a smaller competitor doesn't. This is why the ACA only required businesses with more than a certain number of employees to set up health care for them. If you're a smaller business that doesn't have it's own large internal HR department being asked to do this can be incredibly difficult and make it very hard to stay competitive.

I like that approach of letting smaller businesses more leeway when it comes to complying with regulation until they get on their feet and really start to grow. Smaller businesses are likely not doing the same level of harm that a large business would if it wasn't doing the right thing, but also it may motivate larger businesses to split themselves up and stay smaller voluntarily.

 

[jaeger19]

You are complicating a simple reality. Reagan and those who supported him are responsible for the nearly tripling of the national debt during the Reagan administration. This is because Reagan cut taxes for the rich while raising defense spending.

By the end of the Second World War the top tax rate was 94%. That is the difference between the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats and the fantasy economics of the Republicans.

Republicans still do not understand the contradiction between desiring lower taxes, a strong national defense, and balanced budgets. The Defense Department cannot be paid for with pennies from heaven. It takes real money.

Saying that tax cuts do not raise the national debt, higher spending does. is like saying that you can't lose weight by dieting, but by exercising, or visa versa.

Tax cuts for the rich mean tax increases for the rest of us, cuts in domestic spending programs that benefit us, and/or more national debt. It is just as simple as that.

Republicans have difficult making connections. They have a goal over here, and another goal over there. They want to achieve both of them, not realizing that the more the first goal is achieved, the less the second goal can be achieved, and visa versa.

Sorry but the facts simply prove you wrong. The fact is..that lowering the top rate on high income earners did pretty much nothing to change the treasuries revenue as a percentage of gdp. In other words..it did little to change the nations effective tax rate.

In fact.. as has been already proven to you.. You simply don't want to accept the facts that have already been proven.

Saying that tax cuts do not raise the national debt, higher spending does. is like saying that you can't lose weight by dieting, but by exercising, or visa versa.

Oh.. I have never ever ever said that. Tax cuts... THAT LOWER REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP....they have the potential to raise the national debt and deficit if spending does not decrease accordingly.

If you are spending at 21% of GDP.. and have been taxing at 18% of GDP.. and drop tax rates so that now you are taking at 15% of gdp? Yeah..thats going to cause an increase in deficit and national debt. That's actually what happened in the early years of the OBama administration. Largely due to the tax cuts that had been done under bush and then the tax cuts in the Stimulus bill.

But that didn't happen under Reagan.. the highest rates dropped..but the revenue as a percentage of gdp remained relatively unchanged. in fact.. in some of the Reagan years.. it was actually higher than it had been under Carter. What increased was spending.

Tax cuts for the rich mean tax increases for the rest of us, cuts in domestic spending programs that benefit us, and/or more national debt. It is just as simple as that.

Actually no.. its not that simple. That's what you don't seem to understand. For example.. the difference between marginal rates.. and effective rates. and so on. Its entirely possible that you can change the marginal rate.. and lower it dramatically and it to NOT lower effective rates.

Republicans have difficult making connections.

Actually as you demonstrate.. and as the current crop of progressive democrats demonstrate.. democrats have difficulty making connections as well.

 

[SmartCat]

just as henry ford put buggy whip makers out of business

your point?

technology will continue to march on

some jobs will be created with it, and some jobs lost

the good paying white collar jobs of the 50's for pushing a button are gone....you have to have skills....

they can be educational or vocational but you better be able to do something that the average joe cant do if you want to make a decent living

supply and demand is still the way our system works...and i dont see that changing anytime soon

The industrial revolution destroyed jobs for farm workers, but it created jobs in factories where they could work.

Computer technology destroys jobs for factory workers and clerical workers, and replaces them with nothing.

 

[CommunityStanda]

The industrial revolution destroyed jobs for farm workers, but it created jobs in factories where they could work.

Computer technology destroys jobs for factory workers and clerical workers, and replaces them with nothing.

It replaces them with lower prices for its consumers. That's a smart business procedure.

 

[marke]

We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.

Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.

So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.

Sex can be good or bad also but most people do not want the government getting too involved with regulating their sex lives. Capitalism is not socialism and applying socialist rules to capitalist businesses will not make better business sense, but worse sense. Regulating fire codes will not damage good business. Establishing zones for various property issues will not damage good business. Telling businesses what they musty pay for goods and services and what they must charge for goods and services, for example, will do damage to good business.

 

[wellwisher]

We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.

Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.

So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.

The problem is capitalism, when running on all cylinders, creates wealth and jobs and increases the GNP. On the other hand, Government never turns a profit, and is now operating with ever compounding debt. How can the economic morons in Government, regulate the free market economy, if they can't even get their own house in order? What would happen is the dysfunction of Government would be added to the economy. We would end up with a dysfunctional economy, based on donor preferences, instead of free market competition.

Two good examples were the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008, and now the student loan bubble that threatens to collapse. Both were created by Government interfering in the free market.

The Housing crisis was due to an attempt to extend the Affordable Housing Act to home ownership. The government tried to force business and banks to loan money for houses, even to people who could not pay back the debt. The banks refused to cooperate for decades, until the Government decided it would guarantee the mortgage loans. This government interference, in the free market, mess-up the free market checks and balances. The final result was an economy molded into the style of high government debt.

Student loan debt is similar and got really bad under Obama, due to the Government getting involved in the free market. Once again, Government decided to underwrite student loans, and the free market took advantage of the lack of free market checks and balances due to the government.

Picture if colleges and universities had to directly give grants and student loans to attend their university. Then picture a lot of students talking about defaulting on their loans. The colleges would adapt to these free market forces and change the recruitment process. They would also try to make it more economical feasible for everyone, so there is less risk for everyone and less need to default. They are businesses that what to grow as well as turn a profit.

But with Government underwriting, even bad debt, colleges were able to raise prices and could continue to allow even more dead beats to attend. Now education works in the image of debt ridden government. The only difference is printing money is called counterfeiting if the students do it.

I would prefer there by more checks and balances on the lawyers in Government. Lawyers in Government should not be able to use law as a weapon or as a political tool, since this corrupts the intent of law. There should be mandatory prison. Instead we allow the same morons, who can't even balance a budget, to self police.

 

[SmartCat]

It replaces them with lower prices for its consumers. That's a smart business procedure.

I have not noticed that prices have declined. I have read that profits have increased, and that wages for blue collar workers have been, at best, flat since the recession of 1974.

 

[jaeger19]

The industrial revolution destroyed jobs for farm workers, but it created jobs in factories where they could work.

Computer technology destroys jobs for factory workers and clerical workers, and replaces them with nothing.

Not quite true.. it actually has created tons and tons of better paying jobs. The question is whether they are in the US.. and whether the us worker has the education to do those jobs.

 

[SmartCat]

Not quite true.. it actually has created tons and tons of better paying jobs. The question is whether they are in the US.. and whether the us worker has the education to do those jobs.

Computer technology creates better paying jobs for those of IQ's of at least 115. Those whose IQ's are 80 or below are becoming unemployable.

 

[jaeger19]

Computer technology creates better paying jobs for those of IQ's of at least 115. Those whose IQ's are 80 or below are becoming unemployable.

that process has been going on since the first hominid figured out how to use the sharp edge of a rock to skin his prey while others less smart were still using their teeth.

And I would defy you to find that many people in the US incapable of using a computer. In fact.. it could be argued that the computer has made it EASIER for people with low IQ's to be employable.

Think about it.. how many people make change in their heads now? Heck.. now computers sport the pictures of the items that you are ordering.. and staff just poke the picture.. instead of having to tally the prices on a sheet of paper.

You have computers that are reading the bar codes on items, and the teller doesn't have to be able to even read well to input the desired amount.

 

[nekrodev]

that process has been going on since the first hominid figured out how to use the sharp edge of a rock to skin his prey while others less smart were still using their teeth.

And I would defy you to find that many people in the US incapable of using a computer. In fact.. it could be argued that the computer has made it EASIER for people with low IQ's to be employable.

Think about it.. how many people make change in their heads now? Heck.. now computers sport the pictures of the items that you are ordering.. and staff just poke the picture.. instead of having to tally the prices on a sheet of paper.

You have computers that are reading the bar codes on items, and the teller doesn't have to be able to even read well to input the desired amount.

No one doubts that CONVENIENCE is good, but the problem is that computers and other new technology require training, and are much easier to learn and use if you're already familiar with similar things already - which isn't usually going to be the case.

Remember the big fuss around Hillary Clinton's plan to have coal miners learn to be computer programmers and ****? Like, could some of them learn that? Probably, but not most of them, and virtually none of them even wanted to.

There are still low-level jobs for now, mostly in customer service, that can still be done by people with low IQs and little knowledge, but those jobs have been drying up as well.

 

[jaeger19]

No one doubts that CONVENIENCE is good, but the problem is that computers and other new technology require training, and are much easier to learn and use if you're already familiar with similar things already - which isn't usually going to be the case.

Remember the big fuss around Hillary Clinton's plan to have coal miners learn to be computer programmers and ****? Like, could some of them learn that? Probably, but not most of them, and virtually none of them even wanted to.

There are still low-level jobs for now, mostly in customer service, that can still be done by people with low IQs and little knowledge, but those jobs have been drying up as well.

I wasn't talking about convenience. I was talking about how computers have made it possible that people with lower math skills etc..can still be gainfully employed.

As pointed out.. a person who cannot do math in their head..and could not make change.. can still run a till because the computer will do it for them.

And yes.. I remember the fuss about Hillary Clinton. And she wasn't too bright about how to handle that.

The point is that coal is a finite resource and it will run out.. and so the jobs will have to change. Just like at one time being a whaler, or building Conestoga wagons.. was a way to make a living. Not so anymore. Certainly on a much less scale than it was in the past.


The fact is.. as I point out.. computers can make people with low IQ's and little knowledge.. still able to function and be productive.

 

[bongsaway]

This was common sense for a long time ( Post–World War II economic expansion - Wikipedia ), but they seemed to forget all about it by the time Reagan got into office, and it's now like an ancient fable, something we knew is absolutely not true and couldn't possibly be. This, despite the fact that other countries all over the world do it. *shrug*

Tax and rich and corporations more, implement stronger protections for workers, and incentivize growth and progress, rather than just retaining the status quo.

My personal opinion is reagan started the decline of the middle class and the push for money going from the bottom to the top and the republicans have carried on that mantra ever since.

Close all the loopholes that corporations use to shield their money. No offshore accounts etc. etc. A progressive taxing system. Health care and a living wage relative to where you live. Democratic socialism where the workers have more say in the system. Unions. There is no reason the top ten percent of america should control the other ninety. That in my opinion is not a working democracy.

 

[jaeger19]

My personal opinion is reagan started the decline of the middle class and the push for money going from the bottom to the top and the republicans have carried on that mantra ever since.

Because of course their were no rich people before Reagan.

By the way..the income tax system is definitely more progressive now..than it was under Reagan.

In fact.. taxes as a whole are probably more progressive now than it was under Reagan.

 

[Vadinho]

The real issue is what kind of regulation. I am an environmentalist but even I shake my head at some of these idiotic environmental laws that some nut decided to pass and another jerk enforced. There has to be reasonable regulations and the problem is that regulators are not usually experts in the area they regulate. Let me give you an example of the type of regulation that should be thrown out the window. If an ISP wants to bury cable along a freeway, they must permit it, do an EIR, hire some Indians to watch them dig and run through an incredible number of hurdles to dig a trench along a right of way along a highway or road. For instance, a friend of mine is a consulting engineer in my industry. They had to get an EIR for digging a trench using a ditch witch that goes about one mile an hour. This trench was along the road just outside the maximum area of the future roadway. Well, a weird butterfly exists there that could be killed by the ditch witch. Never mind that the frigging road had cars going 60 mph all day long killing the stupid butterflies, no. This ditch witch might kill one. This held up stuff and cost 10 grand to get. Now this is absurd.

But on the other hand, a logging road over a pristine river that holds native trout, salmon and steelhead is most definitely at risk if the road is done improperly. So in this case I am fine with making an EIR.

The first case is one all of us, left and right, would agree is really stupid. The second one might separate us a bit but we all know dirt roads erode, that streams need clear, clean water and that all of us want to go fish that river or know it is healthy.