.

[Michael Hardner]

The left argues no such thing. CEOs do deserve high pay. They don't deserve disproportionate pay.

Mea culpa: poorly chosen word.

There should be a healthy ratio that rewards people for advancement and personal liability, but not a ratio that's so disproportionate that society suffers as wealth is hoarded at the top.

"Healthy" is such a values laden word. I don't mean to call into question the idea that there's a public concept of 'healthy' or that it's a bad thing... just to point out that pragmatic vs moral is the axis that people use to argue their positions on economics and their opponents, shifting to the other foot when it makes sense to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but that example doesn't really work for or against the point I was making since the media landscape was different.

No, it works, you just don't like the historical context. Wealth buys more speech, but it doesn't always buy victory.

[Michael Hardner]

It is only through the wealth generated by "capitalism" that this game of robbing Paul to feed Peter can continue.

And the game can turn to killing Paul to pay peter pretty quickly if those who are winning don't manage it well. I used to play Monopoly with my little sister for hours by initially beating her, they making special deals with her to keep her wealthy enough to stay interested in playing. If I beat her too soundly, she flipped the board over.

That's the game at the level of its human decomposition.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it works, you just don't like the historical context. Wealth buys more speech, but it doesn't always buy victory.

Ok, and the Cuban revolution is coming to the us in Q2 2014. History without context is just historo-wanky rhetoric.

[bush_cheney2004]

And the game can turn to killing Paul to pay peter pretty quickly if those who are winning don't manage it well. ....

That's the game at the level of its human decomposition.

Threatening to kill the "ruling class" has not worked to achieve "income equality". It is better to have been rich and "decomposed" than never to have been rich at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, and the Cuban revolution is coming to the us in Q2 2014. History without context is just historo-wanky rhetoric.

Let it come....Americans know all about "revolution". Canadians...not so much.

[Michael Hardner]

Let it come....Americans know all about "revolution". Canadians...not so much.

Okaaay. Well, my post had the unintended result of you not disputing the theory but simply saying you're ready for civil war. I have never said you're not consistent....

[Michael Hardner]

Threatening to kill the "ruling class" has not worked to achieve "income equality".

That's right, but rational appeals to the mob have limited value when Mme. Lafarge is in her knitting circle.

It is better to have been rich and "decomposed" than never to have been rich at all.

I wonder if a head rolling around in a French basket could articulate that ?

[bleeding heart]

"I regret nothing! And look at the finery adorning my corpse up there!"

[bush_cheney2004]

Okaaay. Well, my post had the unintended result of you not disputing the theory but simply saying you're ready for civil war. I have never said you're not consistent....

Good point...Americans have also done the "civil war" thing.....Canadians, not so much. See a trend here ? Stay "safe"...heheh.

[kimmy]

Capitalism was never intended to serve the "common good". As for not "earning it", I guess the poor unwashed masses should stop buying lottery tickets, stop visiting casinos, stop buying equities and municipal bonds, and cash in all their bank CDs. From now on everybody has to open a business to create jobs. Yeah...like that will work.

"The common good" has been the core of the argument that capitalism and the free market is a good thing. It is the core of Republican arguments why they should be in office. Creating more wealth is good for everybody! If we bake a bigger pie, there's more pie for everybody, even if some people get more pie than others. "A rising tide lifts all boats!" And those are reasonable messages to take to the voters.

But that only applies when we're talking about activities that actually create more wealth, bigger pies, and rising tides. Trying to get voters to support policies that just allow the financial sector to take more pie without actually making more pie should be a tough sell.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

"The common good" has been the core of the argument that capitalism and the free market is a good thing. It is the core of Republican arguments

Pure capitalism is apolitical and amoral, not giving a damn what Republicans, Democrats, Tories, or Liberals say in "core arguments".

But that only applies when we're talking about activities that actually create more wealth, bigger pies, and rising tides. Trying to get voters to support policies that just allow the financial sector to take more pie without actually making more pie should be a tough sell.

No, actually it is a harder political sell to ramp up welfare giveaways to those who don't "earn it".

Edited January 26, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

And we end up back on the pragmatic vs moral axis again:

The left argues that CEOs don't "deserve" high pay, however they (sometimes tacitly) support a system that rewards seniority over merit pay.

The right argues that people shouldn't be limited in earning as much as they can get, but reject the idea that labour can collude in exactly the same ways big business does.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about CEO pay at all. If Jamie Dimon makes his shareholders wealthier, then he deserves the $20 million raise they just gave him. That's between him and his shareholders.

The part I care about is when some politician steps up to the microphone and advocates for (for example) lower capital gains taxes because that's how you stimulate investment to create more jobs. That's a fine theory, except that now that the financial sector is able to create capital gains without actually engaging in any capitalism, there's no longer any reason to think that lowering the capital gains tax actually helps create jobs. Maybe instead of lowering the taxable gains tax, we should lower the taxes on things that actually create jobs.

Or, basically, same argument in regard to any policy that the financial industry says will boost the economy or create jobs. "Cutting financial regulations will create jobs!" Yeah, like fun it will.

-k

[kimmy]

Pure capitalism is apolitical and amoral, not giving a damn what Republicans, Democrats, Tories, or Liberals say in "core arguments".

No, actually it is a harder political sell to ramp up welfare giveaways to those who don't "earn it".

If that's the case, why is Rich Guy Team always trying to market their policies in terms of what is good for the common man?

-k

[bleeding heart]

Capitalism is meant to be amoral in its specificities (and that's arguable) but "moral"--the greater good--in the larger sphere...in its effects. Whatever system, economic or otherwise, that doesn't benefit the majority is a non-starter.

that's not my view--that IS the defense of capitalism, from every capitalist theorist of note (with zero exceptions, to my knowledge) outside of the anarcho-capitalists.

And no one takes the anarcho-capitalists seriously, because they're stupid.

[bush_cheney2004]

If that's the case, why is Rich Guy Team always trying to market their policies in terms of what is good for the common man?

Because that is what marketing is all about. Poor Guy Team does the same thing....guess which one is "WINNING" ? Please tell us how "poor welfare guy" has "earned it".

[Michael Hardner]

Stay "safe"...heheh.

Thanks, I trust I'll be ok unless I choke on my popcorn while watching the big show, ie. fireworks, rockets red glaring and so on...

[kimmy]

Because that is what marketing is all about. Poor Guy Team does the same thing....guess which one is "WINNING" ? Please tell us how "poor welfare guy" has "earned it".

hmm? Who said anything about welfare being "earned"? I don't know where that came from. "Wealth is earned" is, however, a big part of the message you guys are peddling. "We built this!" "Makers vs takers!" etc.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

Because that is what marketing is all about. Poor Guy Team does the same thing....guess which one is "WINNING" ? Please tell us how "poor welfare guy" has "earned it".

Certainly……..Priorities USA isn’t getting most of it's money from the Hobo living under the bridge base.

[bush_cheney2004]

hmm? Who said anything about welfare being "earned"? I don't know where that came from. "Wealth is earned" is, however, a big part of the message you guys are peddling. "We built this!" "Makers vs takers!" etc.

Capital did build it...we can see the historical lack of capital at play in Canada right now (decline of Ontario manufacturing, refineries, east-west pipelines, slaughterhouses, etc.). Wealth is good. Being poor sucks.

[kimmy]

When we're talking about a guy who gets millions of dollars by purchasing stocks at a "preferred investor" price and flipping him the same day, or gutting a company Bain style, the claim that anything at all has been "made" is ridiculous.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

When we're talking about a guy who gets millions of dollars by purchasing stocks at a "preferred investor" price and flipping him the same day, or gutting a company Bain style, the claim that anything at all has been "made" is ridiculous.

But it has been "earned", just like any rube with a bank savings account or winning lottery ticket. This is just a rehashed class envy argument. Go to Somalia and enjoy the Gini index !

* Edited to add that government will tax both to give income and benefits to those who most certainly have not "earned it".

Edited January 26, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Go to Somalia and enjoy the Gini index !

Agree 100%. This is why we need to have incentives for the wealthy to engage/invest in society - socially and otherwise. Once such incentive is "not having their wealth nationalized/being guillotined"

[bush_cheney2004]

Agree 100%. This is why we need to have incentives for the wealthy to engage/invest in society - socially and otherwise. Once such incentive is "not having their wealth nationalized/being guillotined"

Meh....if you would threaten the rich with anarchy and beheadings, even for those who have not "earned it", then the rich will influence and decide just how much economic pity they will bestow upon the unwashed masses. But there are always more riches to be had by new and previously failed risk takers. As they say, "no balls...no blue chips".

[kimmy]

But it has been "earned", just like any rube with a bank savings account or winning lottery ticket. This is just a rehashed class envy argument. Go to Somalia and enjoy the Gini index !

Go to Somalia and enjoy a low-tax, low-regulation paradise.

-k