Tax cuts for the wealthy have not brought economic growth

[blueblood]

Dp

Edited December 12, 2011 by blueblood

[blueblood]

You and your "kind" are not the issue, and successful corporations and wealthy people are not the issue either.

You dont have to take wild guesses about that. Just read a little bit about history to see what happens when inequity in society reaches a certain point. Theres all kinds of different things that can happen.

The british aristocracy was brought down by stripping the wealthy of much of their direct influence over government (the removal of the veto from the house of lords) and with land taxes. A relatively peaceful affair.

The french and russian revolutions got pretty ugly and violent.

The robber barons were broken up with taxation, and so were the railroad tycoons.

In a democracy extreme wealth concentration can lead to the erosion of private propery rights. For example the election of hugo Chavez in Venezuela... where a large underclass living in tent cities in abject poverty voted for the first guy who campaigned on real wealth redistribution.

These "rebalancings" can happen a lot of different ways, but history shows they are pretty much a forgone conclusion.

So dispite your silly "Bring it on!!!" bluster the picture in your head of the unwashed mob showing up to steal your money is nothing more than a rather simplistic caricature.

And when the robber barons were taxed, their investment into businesses dried up as well. And even then did the "robber barons" go away, the people who benefit the most with the ridiculous regulations and taxation are the "robber barons" because they have the money to pay for all of that nonsense when the little guy doesn't. The market is a far better distributor of wealth. A lot of those "robber barons" got complacent and their companies ended up going the way of the dodo bird because of new ideas, inventions, and means of production. Remember when Microsoft was in the realm of anti-trust issues? Now we have Google, Apple, and Facebook poaching market share and tech dollars from them because microsoft got complacent in its old revenue stream.

Bill Gates said it best - the competitor I fear most is the guy in his garage.

As for the free money system, its not the system thats the problem, when managed by competent people, the system provides liquidity and an easier means to produce goods, the way its managed now, its an outlet for a consumption binge. Some people just aren't good enough to manage finances.

The market takes care of inflation and deflation. The problem that we have is that whenever a correction tries to take place, we try and inflate our way out of it and kick the can down the road and make the next correction that much worse. We have deflation all the time in the commodity business, prices go up and down all the time. when there is a prolonged period of low prices, firms adjust to that reality. The world doesn't end. There are many factors out of our control that will influence supply and demand which affects inflation and deflation, a person can't manage everything, that's what the market is for.

You should also read up on history of those countries stupid enough to try and redistribute wealth all in the name of fairness. It didn't turn out good for them, each and every one of them came out poorer and less efficient than before.

[dre]

And when the robber barons were taxed, their investment into businesses dried up as well. And even then did the "robber barons" go away, the people who benefit the most with the ridiculous regulations and taxation are the "robber barons" because they have the money to pay for all of that nonsense when the little guy doesn't. The market is a far better distributor of wealth. A lot of those "robber barons" got complacent and their companies ended up going the way of the dodo bird because of new ideas, inventions, and means of production. Remember when Microsoft was in the realm of anti-trust issues? Now we have Google, Apple, and Facebook poaching market share and tech dollars from them because microsoft got complacent in its old revenue stream.

Bill Gates said it best - the competitor I fear most is the guy in his garage.

As for the free money system, its not the system thats the problem, when managed by competent people, the system provides liquidity and an easier means to produce goods, the way its managed now, its an outlet for a consumption binge. Some people just aren't good enough to manage finances.

The market takes care of inflation and deflation. The problem that we have is that whenever a correction tries to take place, we try and inflate our way out of it and kick the can down the road and make the next correction that much worse. We have deflation all the time in the commodity business, prices go up and down all the time. when there is a prolonged period of low prices, firms adjust to that reality. The world doesn't end. There are many factors out of our control that will influence supply and demand which affects inflation and deflation, a person can't manage everything, that's what the market is for.

You should also read up on history of those countries stupid enough to try and redistribute wealth all in the name of fairness. It didn't turn out good for them, each and every one of them came out poorer and less efficient than before.

As for the free money system, its not the system thats the problem, when managed by competent people, the system provides liquidity and an easier means to produce goods, the way its managed now, its an outlet for a consumption binge. Some people just aren't good enough to manage finances.

It IS the problem though. The entire point of this system is to allow easy credit. Nobody has ever managed it "competently" and nobody ever will. I already explained this to you. Any time theres a shortage of borrowing the rates will always be relaxed to attract new borrowers. Defecits actually put DOWNWARD pressure on interest rates, despite your conventional keynesian wisdom. Its 100% the system and you will never get another result in the FIAT FR system than we what we have already been getting.

Besides the fact, that if you dont want to ease credit conditions during times of recession then theres simply no need for the system anyways.

If people can print wealth on a printing press they WILL. As long as you support the system that allows this, then you support easy credit. End of story.

the system provides liquidity and an easier means to produce goods, the way its managed now, its an outlet for a consumption binge

LOL. YOu seem to be chasing your tail here. The "liquidity" that the system provides is exactly what youre ranting about. Thats just facy word for lots of easy credit.

The system will never produce a result besides the only one it ever HAS produced. Doesnt matter who you put in charge.

You should also read up on history of those countries stupid enough to try and redistribute wealth all in the name of fairness. It didn't turn out good for them, each and every one of them came out poorer and less efficient than before.

Horseshit. Every single successful industrialised country on earth has done this to one degree or another.

The market takes care of inflation and deflation. The problem that we have is that whenever a correction tries to take place, we try and inflate our way out of it and kick the can down the road and make the next correction that much worse.

The market would deal with inflation and deflation in a sound money system, but it NEVER will in this one. The banking system is run by private corporations and regulated by the government. Banks will ALWAYS want to lend money and they hate having any reserves what-so-ever. Governments will ALWAYS want to dump easy money into the system to push problems into the future, because if they dont they wont get another term in office.

Edited December 12, 2011 by dre

[Jack Weber]

And when the robber barons were taxed, their investment into businesses dried up as well. And even then did the "robber barons" go away, the people who benefit the most with the ridiculous regulations and taxation are the "robber barons" because they have the money to pay for all of that nonsense when the little guy doesn't. The market is a far better distributor of wealth. A lot of those "robber barons" got complacent and their companies ended up going the way of the dodo bird because of new ideas, inventions, and means of production. Remember when Microsoft was in the realm of anti-trust issues? Now we have Google, Apple, and Facebook poaching market share and tech dollars from them because microsoft got complacent in its old revenue stream.

Bill Gates said it best - the competitor I fear most is the guy in his garage.

As for the free money system, its not the system thats the problem, when managed by competent people, the system provides liquidity and an easier means to produce goods, the way its managed now, its an outlet for a consumption binge. Some people just aren't good enough to manage finances.

The market takes care of inflation and deflation. The problem that we have is that whenever a correction tries to take place, we try and inflate our way out of it and kick the can down the road and make the next correction that much worse. We have deflation all the time in the commodity business, prices go up and down all the time. when there is a prolonged period of low prices, firms adjust to that reality. The world doesn't end. There are many factors out of our control that will influence supply and demand which affects inflation and deflation, a person can't manage everything, that's what the market is for.

You should also read up on history of those countries stupid enough to try and redistribute wealth all in the name of fairness. It didn't turn out good for them, each and every one of them came out poorer and less efficient than before.

You do realize that on one hand you are advocating for the breaking up of a monopoly,in the Canadian Wheat Board...And on the other hand,are advocating for a regressive return to an era where there were many manipulative monopolies,right?

[blueblood]

It IS the problem though. The entire point of this system is to allow easy credit. Nobody has ever managed it "competently" and nobody ever will. I already explained this to you. Any time theres a shortage of borrowing the rates will always be relaxed to attract new borrowers. Defecits actually put DOWNWARD pressure on interest rates, despite your conventional keynesian wisdom. Its 100% the system and you will never get another result in the FIAT FR system than we what we have already been getting.

Besides the fact, that if you dont want to ease credit conditions during times of recession then theres simply no need for the system anyways.

If people can print wealth on a printing press they WILL. As long as you support the system that allows this, then you support easy credit. End of story.

LOL. YOu seem to be chasing your tail here. The "liquidity" that the system provides is exactly what youre ranting about. Thats just facy word for lots of easy credit.

The system will never produce a result besides the only one it ever HAS produced. Doesnt matter who you put in charge.

No I'm ranting about the stupidity of people managing it by artificially setting low interest rates and the bigger instance of stupidity of people using low interest rates for consumption instead of deleveraging or using it to finance production.

We've already been through this and stated that a kitchen knife is a useful tool if used improperly can seriously hurt you, much like the current system.

[cybercoma]

It IS the problem though. The entire point of this system is to allow easy credit. Nobody has ever managed it "competently" and nobody ever will. I already explained this to you. Any time theres a shortage of borrowing the rates will always be relaxed to attract new borrowers. Defecits actually put DOWNWARD pressure on interest rates, despite your conventional keynesian wisdom. Its 100% the system and you will never get another result in the FIAT FR system than we what we have already been getting.

Case in point, there is more money in the world than the entire value of every last thing we've produced planet.

[blueblood]

You do realize that on one hand you are advocating for the breaking up of a monopoly,in the Canadian Wheat Board...And on the other hand,are advocating for a regressive return to an era where there were many manipulative monopolies,right?

The difference is, I go to jail if I don't play by the rules of the cwb and the other there is freedom and incentive to either support or not support the "manipulative monopolies". For example a lot of people don't like walmart becaise its the robber baron of the late 20th/21st century yet walmart has a lot of successful competitors such as target and other niche retailers.

[cybercoma]

Walmart is not the 21st century robber baron. The 21st century robber barons are Freddie and Fannie or the speculators that have overthrown the food markets. They reap the rewards while people lose their homes and starve to death. It's the New Gilded Age. Look how much wealth, growth, and affluence there is. Pay no attention to the peeling wallpaper.

[dre]

No I'm ranting about the stupidity of people managing it by artificially setting low interest rates and the bigger instance of stupidity of people using low interest rates for consumption instead of deleveraging or using it to finance production.

We've already been through this and stated that a kitchen knife is a useful tool if used improperly can seriously hurt you, much like the current system.

You have this exactly backwards.

Its the market that determines those rates. Banks want to lend, and they will always lower the rates until people are borrowing. Nothing artificial about that at all. You act like the government has a gun to banks heads or something, but thats not at all the case.

We've already been through this and stated that a kitchen knife is a useful tool if used improperly can seriously hurt you, much like the current system.

No this is just silly. You simply dont understand how the system works or what it was designed to do. The activity you are ranting about, is the whole reason the knife is usefull. Liquidity... easy credit. Those are the knifes "features". Its working exactly the way it was intended to.

If you really want a pay as you go system, you would never need such a system or support its use.

You need read up on why we have central banks as a lender of last resort. The entire reason for it, is to allow banks to leverage themselves up the yingyang without getting brought down by a bank run. And as long as you have it, the discount window will ALWAYS be opened as soon as theres trouble.

Edited December 12, 2011 by dre

[Jack Weber]

The difference is, I go to jail if I don't play by the rules of the cwb and the other there is freedom and incentive to either support or not support the "manipulative monopolies". For example a lot of people don't like walmart becaise its the robber baron of the late 20th/21st century yet walmart has a lot of successful competitors such as target and other niche retailers.

Uh...I don't think that's why alot of people don't support Wal-Mart..

And we have enacted anti-trust laws to keep businesses from forming monopolies that can manipulate an entire market from behind the scene...Wal-Mart does'nt do that,because it actually has competition...

Are you suggesting doing away with anti-trust legislation??

Advocating for the Andrew Carnegie's and Commodore Vanderbilt's of the world???

Edited December 12, 2011 by Jack Weber

[blueblood]

Walmart is not the 21st century robber baron. The 21st century robber barons are Freddie and Fannie or the speculators that have overthrown the food markets. They reap the rewards while people lose their homes and starve to death. It's the New Gilded Age. Look how much wealth, growth, and affluence there is. Pay no attention to the peeling wallpaper.

Fannie and Freddie are govt creations.

Speculators have not overthrown the food markets, have you looked at futures prices today vs. The end of august? The speculators shorted the market and prices dropped like a rock, sending the signals that we have too much supply and we need to get rid of some.

[blueblood]

You have this exactly backwards.

Its the market that determines those rates. Banks want to lend, and they will always lower the rates until people are borrowing. Nothing artificial about that at all. You act like the government has a gun to banks heads or something, but thats not at all the case.

No this is just silly. You simply dont understand how the system works or what it was designed to do. The activity your ranting about, is the whole reason the knife is usefull. Liquidity... easy credit. Those are the knifes "features".

If you really want a pay as you go system, you would never need such a system or support its use.

Oh really? So the central banks setting interest rates is a figment of my imagination and open market operations didn't occur...

The lending market is reacting to pretty strong signals sent by central banking which unfortunately right now is ran by fools.

The system was designed to make financing for production easier, not for millions of people to over leverage themselves on houses and cars,

[blueblood]

Uh...I don't think that's why alot of people don't support Wal-Mart..

And we have enacted anti-trust laws to keep businesses from forming monopolies that can manipulate an entire market from behind the scene...Wal-Mart does'nt do that,because it actually has competition...

Are you suggesting doing away with anti-trust legislation??

Advocating for the Andrew Carnegie's and Commodore Vanderbilt's of the world???

Walmart is e subject of great controversy because it is the largest retailer. However many people don't support it because they don't like how it runs, don't like the shopping experience, don't like cheap products, or want to go somewhere else.

Walmart can't do that because the retail industry is so diverse. A person who buys clothes from Harry Rosen isn't going to be clothes shopping at walmart. Same goes for some people buying electronics. Walmart can't be all things to all people, because competitors key in on that and market products where walmart can't.

When demand for something is high enough, there isn't a firm big enough that can quash all the competitors. Look what happened to RIMs markets are of smartphones over the last few years, and they started the stupid thing! When a firm gets too big, they have little incentive to innovate as they are focused on keeping their current revenue stream going in order to appease shareholders. However, in doing so they run the risk of other firms or the guy in his garage coming up with an idea that will cannibalize that firms revenue stream.

[Jack Weber]

Walmart is e subject of great controversy because it is the largest retailer. However many people don't support it because they don't like how it runs, don't like the shopping experience, don't like cheap products, or want to go somewhere else.

Walmart can't do that because the retail industry is so diverse. A person who buys clothes from Harry Rosen isn't going to be clothes shopping at walmart. Same goes for some people buying electronics. Walmart can't be all things to all people, because competitors key in on that and market products where walmart can't.

When demand for something is high enough, there isn't a firm big enough that can quash all the competitors. Look what happened to RIMs markets are of smartphones over the last few years, and they started the stupid thing! When a firm gets too big, they have little incentive to innovate as they are focused on keeping their current revenue stream going in order to appease shareholders. However, in doing so they run the risk of other firms or the guy in his garage coming up with an idea that will cannibalize that firms revenue stream.

Great...

But that did'nt answer any of the questions I asked....

[dre]

Oh really? So the central banks setting interest rates is a figment of my imagination and open market operations didn't occur...

The lending market is reacting to pretty strong signals sent by central banking which unfortunately right now is ran by fools.

The system was designed to make financing for production easier, not for millions of people to over leverage themselves on houses and cars,

Oh really? So the central banks setting interest rates is a figment of my imagination and open market operations didn't occur...

Yes thats correct. Banks can charge whatever they like in interest and its usually higher than the overnight rate. The central bank only sets the overnight rate that banks lend to each other (through the central bank) at. Open market operations are something entirely separate from rates.

The lending market is reacting to pretty strong signals sent by central banking which unfortunately right now is ran by fools.

Hardly. Like I said, if people arent borrowing banks will lower their rates. Regardless of any signals from the central bank, simply because if they arent lending they arent making money. Furthermore in countries like US the central bank is not really run by the government anyways. The FED in the US is run by 12 private corporations. In Canada its a lot more government controlled. In both cases though the natural predisposition held by both government and banks is to open the discount window and try to keep people borrowing. It isnt the government thats sending me letters in the mail every other day begging me to borrow money at rock bottom rates. Its banks.

The system was designed to make financing for production easier, not for millions of people to over leverage themselves on houses and cars,

No thats just not true. The system got put in place after a banking crisis early in the last century where JP MOrgan got stuck being the lender of last resort... they basically said "next time we wont do this", and banks lobbied government to socialize much of their risk, and allow them to leverage themselves to an insane degree.

The system was designed to allow lots of easy credit so that the money supply would not rapidly contract every time there was an economic slowdown.

unfortunately right now is ran by fools.

No you just think that because you dont know how the system works. The the "fools in charge" are doing is an entirely predictable result of the system. Maintain liquidity at all costs!

[Rick]

Here we go again. Another fine example of how well Harper's tax cuts for the wealthy don't pay off

Harper gave plant tax breaks

If London's Electro-Motive plant is closed and its jobs moved to Indiana, it'll be after having milked the benefits of a billion-dollar tax break once trumpeted on the plant floor by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Three years ago, Harper donned protective goggles and posed with workers to chat up how his government had created a $1-billion tax break for industry broadly and a $5-million break to grease the wheels for sales by the locomotive-maker.

"Ontario is the heart, it is still the engine of the Canadian economy," Harper said then. "There's no reason the Ontario economy can't be as strong as the economy in any other part of this country."

Harper wasn't talking Thursday, as many of those same workers faced off with a company now owned by Caterpillar Inc. that seemingly wants to slash wages and benefits by more than half or close the 61-year-old facility.

While a Harper spokesperson said she'd seek a comment from him, the task of answering was delegated to an Industry Canada spokesperson.

"It would be inappropriate for Industry Canada to comment on this matter until the future of the plant is more clear," Stefanie Power wrote to The Free Press.

There was no such hesitation from the union boss representing workers now kept away from the plant by a fence and hired security.

Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza says Harper shouldn't offer mega-tax breaks without getting something in return: A commitment not to take the money and leave.

"If it's only the carrot and they leave, you have to ask yourself, what kind of sanity is this?" Lewenza said.

The Conservative government's budget in 2008 created tax breaks to benefit industry generally and Electro-Motive in particular:

- All industry would be allowed to deduct from taxes owed a greater percentage of new assets, a break which was expected to cost Ottawa $1 billion by the end of 2011.

- Buyers of locomotives could deduct a greater share of their cost, a break estimated to be more than $5 million.

Months later, Electro-Motive sold 40 locomotives to CN Rail.

Lewenza has challenged Harper to come to London and explain what safeguards, if any, were put in place to keep Electro-Motive in the city. There's been no response.

The silence is concerning, Lewenza said, because it's clear the parent company that of the plant, U.S.-based equipment giant Caterpillar Inc., has no interest in settling a labour dispute that will lead to a lockout or strike after the workers' contract expires at midnight Saturday.

"They got taxpayers' support, Harper visited the plant and yet today (the federal government) won't play any role," Lewenza said.

[cybercoma]

How many examples do we need of supply-side economics failing miserably? These companies want the billion dollar pay day from the government, while crushing the working class by reducing their pay and benefits. Is it any wonder the income gap is rapidly increasing?

[CPCFTW]

The company wants to go to the us because of cheaper labour costs there. What does harper have to do with that? Tax cuts aren't a contract. When the government cuts personal taxes do they say "but you have to work in canada for 10yrs or you will have to pay us back!!!". The problem is, was, and always will be the unions. They can't come to terms with the fact that a company doesn't owe them a job.

[Jack Weber]

The company wants to go to the us because of cheaper labour costs there. What does harper have to do with that? Tax cuts aren't a contract. When the government cuts personal taxes do they say "but you have to work in canada for 10yrs or you will have to pay us back!!!". The problem is, was, and always will be the unions. They can't come to terms with the fact that a company doesn't owe them a job.

So,to sisfy your "wealth creating" free market utopia,most people have to be happy with a lower standard of living...

Got it...

By the way,Uncle Milty,how would you remedy this union "situation"?

I'm sure the Chicago School of Business has an answer...

Edited December 30, 2011 by Jack Weber

[CPCFTW]

So,to sisfy your "wealth creating" free market utopia,most people have to be happy with a lower standard of living...

Got it...

By the way,Uncle Milty,how would you remedy this union "situation"?

I'm sure the Chicago School of Business has an answer...

It's already being remedied by the market. The companies are leaving the unionized labour and relocating to markets where they can get cheaper labour. The unions are dying.

It's pretty simple: if your job can be done by someone else in another country for half the cost, then expect it to be done by them. There is nothing immoral about that.

The cheaper that a company can build trains/cars/etc., then the cheaper they can be provided to consumers. I don't know why you guys seem to think that every dollar saved by a company goes towards buying some exec's lambo. You guys have a serious persecution complex.

[Jack Weber]

It's already being remedied by the market. The companies are leaving the unionized labour and relocating to markets where they can get cheaper labour. The unions are dying.

It's pretty simple: if your job can be done by someone else in another country for half the cost, then expect it to be done by them. There is nothing immoral about that.

The cheaper that a company can build trains/cars/etc., then the cheaper they can be provided to consumers. I don't know why you guys seem to think that every dollar saved by a company goes towards buying some exec's lambo. You guys have a serious persecution complex.

Yes because there's nothing morally wrong with your free market "wealth creation" excercise (see wealth redistribution excercise) that claims to make everyone wealthy while making many people poor by removing their livlihoods,only to be replaced by the lower paying temp service jobs that come afterwards...

How long to you think this is going to go on for?

Let's hear it for a global redux on 18th and 19th century European Mercantilism...You are'nt going to like the global counterbalance ...

Yours is the shortsighted view of the Russian and French aristocracy just before the fall...

[CPCFTW]

Yes because there's nothing morally wrong with your free market "wealth creation" excercise (see wealth redistribution excercise) that claims to make everyone wealthy while making many people poor by removing their livlihoods,only to be replaced by the lower paying temp service jobs that come afterwards...

How long to you think this is going to go on for?

Let's hear it for a global redux on 18th and 19th century European Mercantilism...You are'nt going to like the global counterbalance ...

Yours is the shortsighted view of the Russian and French aristocracy just before the fall...

How is it only lower paying temp service jobs? The jobs are going to other more competitive countries, they don't disappear.

Yours is the shortsighted view of a fervent nationalist and/or racist. Sorry Canadians don't have a noble right to a higher living standard than other world citizens.

And how can you bring up wealth redistribution when that is exactly what the union's intentions are (to redistribute wealth from shareholders and consumers to employees)? You demonstrate a fundamental lack of economic knowledge or comprehension.

Edited December 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Lets go over a simply economic exercise.

The world demands 60,000,000 cars per year.

Materials/parts/overhead etc. = $5,000/car

20,000,000 North American employees will build the cars for $60,000/yr each = $1,200,000,000,000 = $20,000/car + $5,000 fixed costs = $25,000

40,000,000 Chinese employees will build the cars for $5,000/yr each = $200,000,000,000 = $3,333/car + $50,000 fixed costs = $8,333

Cars are sold for a 20% profit = cars cost $30,000 when built by Canadians, or cost $10,000 when built by Chinese.

The North American workers can either get a lower paying job, or they can educate themselves for a higher paying career.

Lets say they take option 1 and they now make $30,000 instead of $50,000. They have lost $20,000 of income.

But if you were to measure their quality of life in terms of cars they can afford, they can afford 3 Chinese made cars per year, but were only making enough for 2 North American made cars previously.

Now repeat the above exercise for every conceivable product that is demanded. Surprise! While Western income may have decreased, quality of life has actually increased. And the quality of life in developing countries like China has dramatically increased (eg. 40 million low skilled unemployed workers now making $5000/yr).

The only immorality in this model is people like you stuck in the "us vs them" mentality stopping at nothing to undermine this sort of progress.

The irony is that you use computers manufactured in South Korea to spout your nonsense. There are 80 million people in Singapore and South Korea that live in an affluent country now because of free market policies.

Edited December 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Jack Weber]

How is it only lower paying temp service jobs? The jobs are going to other more competitive countries, they don't disappear.

Yours is the shortsighted view of a fervent nationalist and/or racist. Sorry Canadians don't have a noble right to a higher living standard than other world citizens.

And how can you bring up wealth redistribution when that is exactly what the union's intentions are (to redistribute wealth from shareholders and consumers to employees)? You demonstrate a fundamental lack of economic knowledge or comprehension.

Right...

I love it when you free marketeers try to take the faux high road as if your are some economic humanitarians...

Any unions intention is to:

1.Negotiate the best contract for its members...

2.Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg

It's clear you have no idea how labour contracts are negotiated or why there is a labour movement at all...

The reason you hate organized labour so much is because it is the antithesis of your free market idealogy and is a correct check on unfettered Capitalism...Which is what Friedmanites,such as yourself,really want...

And your Friedmanite/Von Hayakian poverty inducing economic theories ARE a wealth redistribution excercise (usually under the phony guise of personal freedom) because they are designed to send wealth out of the Middle Class upwards into the hands of the few at the top.I suspect this is because,at thier core,Free Marketeers feel only those at the top really deserve that wealth and everyone else should suffer (see pull themselves up by their own bootstraps)?

[Jack Weber]

Lets go over a simply economic exercise.

The world demands 60,000,000 cars per year.

Materials/parts/overhead etc. = $5,000/car

20,000,000 North American employees will build the cars for $60,000/yr each = $1,200,000,000,000 = $20,000/car + $5,000 fixed costs = $25,000

40,000,000 Chinese employees will build the cars for $5,000/yr each = $200,000,000,000 = $3,333/car + $50,000 fixed costs = $8,333

Cars are sold for a 20% profit = cars cost $30,000 when built by Canadians, or cost $10,000 when built by Chinese.

The North American workers can either get a lower paying job, or they can educate themselves for a higher paying career.

Lets say they take option 1 and they now make $30,000 instead of $50,000. They have lost $20,000 of income.

But if you were to measure their quality of life in terms of cars they can afford, they can afford 3 Chinese made cars per year, but were only making enough for 2 North American made cars previously.

Now repeat the above exercise for every conceivable product that is demanded. Surprise! While Western income may have decreased, quality of life has actually increased. And the quality of life in developing countries like China has dramatically increased (eg. 40 million low skilled unemployed workers now making $5000/yr).

The only immorality in this model is people like you stuck in the "us vs them" mentality stopping at nothing to undermine this sort of progress.

So what you are saying,because the vast majority of folks won't be able to re-educate themselves to the point where they can "compete" in your Darwinian economic model,is that most in The West must necessarily lower their standard of living (willingly or unwillingly) to satisfy your upwards wealth redistribution excercise and misguided economic theories you subscribe to???

Because it's all about the "personal fredom" and the "morality" of the Friedmanite/Von Hayakian cause...

Edited December 30, 2011 by Jack Weber