Why would a conservative only care about the wealthy?

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

1024
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

28 Jul 2014, 4:11 pm

Few people care only about the rich. I think conservatives and classical liberals think one or both of the following:
A) Everyone is entitled to what they earn; taking from one (rich or poor) for the sake of others is unjust.
B) The economic policies they propose lead to faster economic growth than egalitarian policies, so on the long therm they are better for everybody (including the poor).

You may agree or disagree with them, but they are not the same as only caring about the rich.


_________________
Maths student. Somewhere between NT and ASD.


1024
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

28 Jul 2014, 4:37 pm

ZenDen wrote:
But But..........the battle's already lost. Perfect example: A year or two ago Obama was on all TV screens celebrating and agreement for Free Trade with South Korea.
Unless I disremember my economics this means that the incredibly productive and efficient S.Korea will ship ALL of their products, competitive to U.S. manufacturers or not, to the U.S. without any import duties or fees to protect American jobs. And in return all the raw materials (from our country), etc. that these international companies may need they can now import into S.Korea without any fees or taxes. We have many such "agreements", for the benefit of many corporations, with many countries.

If South Korean production is indeed more efficient than American, then restricting or applying tariffs on Korean imports would conserve higher American wages only at the cost of similarly higher prices, so it wouldn't have any benefit on the real wages. (I don't think Korea is more productive though - otherwise their real wages would already be higher, which they are not.)
If South Korea is only better in some industries and worse in others, then trade will result in both countries focusing the industries they are good at and downsizing the ones where they are inefficient, benefitting both countries.

Kraichgauer wrote:
So, we're not supposed to restrict business so they can't leave Americans without work, and we're supposed to deregulate businesses so they will want to stay - at the cost of the worker and the consumer. You want all the advantage given to business, I'm surprised you don't figure we should wipe their collective ass after they defecate on us, too.

As long as companies compete, a large part of any advantages to businesses will appear as advantages to workers and customers. If profits grow above the typical rate, companies expand and new companies appear trying to reap the profits. The greater demand for labor and greater supply of products drive wages up and prices down until the profit rates go back to normal.
This only requires antitrust regulation for enforcing competition. And that only in sectors with high barriers to entry, since cartels are naturally unstable in sectors with low barriers.


_________________
Maths student. Somewhere between NT and ASD.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jul 2014, 5:39 pm

1024 wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
But But..........the battle's already lost. Perfect example: A year or two ago Obama was on all TV screens celebrating and agreement for Free Trade with South Korea.
Unless I disremember my economics this means that the incredibly productive and efficient S.Korea will ship ALL of their products, competitive to U.S. manufacturers or not, to the U.S. without any import duties or fees to protect American jobs. And in return all the raw materials (from our country), etc. that these international companies may need they can now import into S.Korea without any fees or taxes. We have many such "agreements", for the benefit of many corporations, with many countries.

If South Korean production is indeed more efficient than American, then restricting or applying tariffs on Korean imports would conserve higher American wages only at the cost of similarly higher prices, so it wouldn't have any benefit on the real wages. (I don't think Korea is more productive though - otherwise their real wages would already be higher, which they are not.)
If South Korea is only better in some industries and worse in others, then trade will result in both countries focusing the industries they are good at and downsizing the ones where they are inefficient, benefitting both countries.

Kraichgauer wrote:
So, we're not supposed to restrict business so they can't leave Americans without work, and we're supposed to deregulate businesses so they will want to stay - at the cost of the worker and the consumer. You want all the advantage given to business, I'm surprised you don't figure we should wipe their collective ass after they defecate on us, too.

As long as companies compete, a large part of any advantages to businesses will appear as advantages to workers and customers. If profits grow above the typical rate, companies expand and new companies appear trying to reap the profits. The greater demand for labor and greater supply of products drive wages up and prices down until the profit rates go back to normal.
This only requires antitrust regulation for enforcing competition. And that only in sectors with high barriers to entry, since cartels are naturally unstable in sectors with low barriers.


Then where are those high paying jobs that were supposed to have replaced the ones that skipped out on the American people? I think the plan for capitalism works great in theory, but in reality it only makes the few wealthy - unless the government or organized labor twists them by the proverbial t*tties to make them share in their prosperity with their workers.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


1024
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

28 Jul 2014, 6:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Then where are those high paying jobs that were supposed to have replaced the ones that skipped out on the American people? I think the plan for capitalism works great in theory, but in reality it only makes the few wealthy - unless the government or organized labor twists them by the proverbial t*tties to make them share in their prosperity with their workers.

How am I supposed to point them out to you? Anyway, outsourcing is going on for decades and hasn't raised the unemployment levels. The crisis did, but by now they are back to normal levels except in countries with strictly regulated labor markets. The outsourcing scare is similar than the scare about machines (Luddism) 200 years ago, turned out to be baseless.

The average profit on stock investment hasn't changed much in the long term, hovering around 7% per year, despite huge advances in technology and organization. This can be observed through P/E ratios, with data available since the late 1800s.
Profits as a percentage of the GDP have risen as the ratio of total amount of investment to GDP has grown, but it's still at 11%, and some of it may be profits earned abroad. The rest is going in wages and taxes.

Btw in my opinion any outcome, including inequality, resulting from voluntary transactions is just, but I don't expect you to agree with that. :)


_________________
Maths student. Somewhere between NT and ASD.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jul 2014, 6:53 pm

1024 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Then where are those high paying jobs that were supposed to have replaced the ones that skipped out on the American people? I think the plan for capitalism works great in theory, but in reality it only makes the few wealthy - unless the government or organized labor twists them by the proverbial t*tties to make them share in their prosperity with their workers.

How am I supposed to point them out to you? Anyway, outsourcing is going on for decades and hasn't raised the unemployment levels. The crisis did, but by now they are back to normal levels except in countries with strictly regulated labor markets. The outsourcing scare is similar than the scare about machines (Luddism) 200 years ago, turned out to be baseless.

The average profit on stock investment hasn't changed much in the long term, hovering around 7% per year, despite huge advances in technology and organization. This can be observed through P/E ratios, with data available since the late 1800s.
Profits as a percentage of the GDP have risen as the ratio of total amount of investment to GDP has grown, but it's still at 11%, and some of it may be profits earned abroad. The rest is going in wages and taxes.

Btw in my opinion any outcome, including inequality, resulting from voluntary transactions is just, but I don't expect you to agree with that. :)


Of course there's going to be financial inequality between workers and employers, but there has grown such a class chasm between the two that can hardly be justified by anyone.
And point out what jobs you will, but the fact remains, wages have not grown with corporate profits, benefits are shrinking to nothing, and there is too much unemployment. Even if you're right that outsourcing can't be blamed for all of it, still the blame definitely lies with those so called job creators who are guilty of outsourcing and putting profits before people.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LostWayfinder
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

28 Jul 2014, 7:06 pm

Conservative policy benefits the wealthy disproportionately. A more progressive policy benefits all.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Jul 2014, 9:00 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So, we're not supposed to restrict business so they can't leave Americans without work, and we're supposed to deregulate businesses so they will want to stay - at the cost of the worker and the consumer. You want all the advantage given to business, I'm surprised you don't figure we should wipe their collective ass after they defecate on us, too.


Carefully read again what I actually said.
Raptor wrote:
Yes, but don't regulate them to where it's overly tempting to roll up their tents and take them to China or just go out of business.


Kraichgauer wrote:
I did absolutely understand what you wrote.

Uh huh, but the rest of your reply indicates otherwise......
Quote:
It's still putting the full advantage with business at the expense of workers and consumers when they take advantage of the fear that regulations will drive them away. As sonofgandhi had pointed out, it was Republicans who had blocked legislation that would have made it more difficult for businesses to pack up and desert Americans. Had this been allowed to go though, big business would have to stay despite all those evil regulations, and actually be what they claim to be - job creators.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,158
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Jul 2014, 9:55 pm

1024 wrote:
Few people care only about the rich. I think conservatives and classical liberals think one or both of the following:
A) Everyone is entitled to what they earn; taking from one (rich or poor) for the sake of others is unjust.
B) The economic policies they propose lead to faster economic growth than egalitarian policies, so on the long therm they are better for everybody (including the poor).

You may agree or disagree with them, but they are not the same as only caring about the rich.


Looking at the current state of the world, I am failing to see how the poor are benefiting from conservative economic policies in the long run. Also as they say the middle class is getting smaller, well I am quite certain it is not because they are becoming wealthy.

The current system cannot sustain itself and is likely to collapse....may as well sit back, have a beer and watch the show :twisted:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Jul 2014, 11:00 pm

Raptor wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So, we're not supposed to restrict business so they can't leave Americans without work, and we're supposed to deregulate businesses so they will want to stay - at the cost of the worker and the consumer. You want all the advantage given to business, I'm surprised you don't figure we should wipe their collective ass after they defecate on us, too.


Carefully read again what I actually said.
Raptor wrote:
Yes, but don't regulate them to where it's overly tempting to roll up their tents and take them to China or just go out of business.


Kraichgauer wrote:
I did absolutely understand what you wrote.

Uh huh, but the rest of your reply indicates otherwise......
Quote:
It's still putting the full advantage with business at the expense of workers and consumers when they take advantage of the fear that regulations will drive them away. As sonofgandhi had pointed out, it was Republicans who had blocked legislation that would have made it more difficult for businesses to pack up and desert Americans. Had this been allowed to go though, big business would have to stay despite all those evil regulations, and actually be what they claim to be - job creators.


Again, I'm pretty certain I did understand - and my response was that businesses shouldn't find it so easy to jump ship to get away from regulations, as much as they have a hard on to do so.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


1024
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

29 Jul 2014, 2:22 am

A good indicator of the impact of income inequality on the middle class is the difference of the mean and the median (50th percentile) income. It is around 20% in the US and 10-20% in most countries.
This means that the most typical middle class people would only benefit from a communist system based on complete equality if it decreased the total earnings by less than 20%. Considering a social democratic system that would halve the inequality, they would only benefit if it decreased the total earnings by less than 10%. The US economy is more than 20% ahead even of most social democratic Western European counrties, let alone countries that have ever tried communism.

It is easy to say that the middle class is shrinking (everyone feels poor as they could easily spend more income), but it's not backed up by data.


_________________
Maths student. Somewhere between NT and ASD.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jul 2014, 9:30 am

1024 wrote:
A good indicator of the impact of income inequality on the middle class is the difference of the mean and the median (50th percentile) income. It is around 20% in the US and 10-20% in most countries.
This means that the most typical middle class people would only benefit from a communist system based on complete equality if it decreased the total earnings by less than 20%. Considering a social democratic system that would halve the inequality, they would only benefit if it decreased the total earnings by less than 10%. The US economy is more than 20% ahead even of most social democratic Western European counrties, let alone countries that have ever tried communism.

It is easy to say that the middle class is shrinking (everyone feels poor as they could easily spend more income), but it's not backed up by data.


Say what you will, but most Americans do not enjoy the prosperity of their parents. Home ownership is rarer and rarer, and people are struggling without getting anywhere. Maybe we're ahead of other western countries economically, but that doesn't mean that many Americans haven't lost ground with no apparent hope of regaining it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

29 Jul 2014, 10:01 am

Conservatives worship the wealthy. Being rich is a sign of God's favor.



1024
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

29 Jul 2014, 10:03 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Say what you will, but most Americans do not enjoy the prosperity of their parents. Home ownership is rarer and rarer, and people are struggling without getting anywhere. Maybe we're ahead of other western countries economically, but that doesn't mean that many Americans haven't lost ground with no apparent hope of regaining it.

Home ownership has been shrinking since the crisis, but it's still as high as before the unsustainable bubble. As for the general sentiment I can't comment since I'm not American.


_________________
Maths student. Somewhere between NT and ASD.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Jul 2014, 10:09 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
1024 wrote:
A good indicator of the impact of income inequality on the middle class is the difference of the mean and the median (50th percentile) income. It is around 20% in the US and 10-20% in most countries.
This means that the most typical middle class people would only benefit from a communist system based on complete equality if it decreased the total earnings by less than 20%. Considering a social democratic system that would halve the inequality, they would only benefit if it decreased the total earnings by less than 10%. The US economy is more than 20% ahead even of most social democratic Western European counrties, let alone countries that have ever tried communism.

It is easy to say that the middle class is shrinking (everyone feels poor as they could easily spend more income), but it's not backed up by data.


Say what you will, but most Americans do not enjoy the prosperity of their parents.

I'm not sure that's even the case as much as you think. Besides, did people's parents carelessly throw money around like people do now?

Quote:
Home ownership is rarer and rarer, and people are struggling without getting anywhere. Maybe we're ahead of other western countries economically, but that doesn't mean that many Americans haven't lost ground with no apparent hope of regaining it.

China and other Asian nations are where most consumer goods are made now. End of story.
Read again what we talked about before \/

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ I'd like to see most all of our stuff made in the USA but I think it's too late for that. We gotta start thinking outside the box and figure out how to make lemonade out of the lemons we've unwillingly inherited. People arent going to take well to having to pay $2000 for an American made TV all the sudden that used to cost $600 when it was made in China. When people stop buying stuff we're back to square one. I myself can keep using my TV until it falls apart but I'm not everyone.


My God, there must be a blue moon! Because I find myself agreeing with you! :lol:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jul 2014, 10:43 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
1024 wrote:
A good indicator of the impact of income inequality on the middle class is the difference of the mean and the median (50th percentile) income. It is around 20% in the US and 10-20% in most countries.
This means that the most typical middle class people would only benefit from a communist system based on complete equality if it decreased the total earnings by less than 20%. Considering a social democratic system that would halve the inequality, they would only benefit if it decreased the total earnings by less than 10%. The US economy is more than 20% ahead even of most social democratic Western European counrties, let alone countries that have ever tried communism.

It is easy to say that the middle class is shrinking (everyone feels poor as they could easily spend more income), but it's not backed up by data.


Say what you will, but most Americans do not enjoy the prosperity of their parents.

I'm not sure that's even the case as much as you think. Besides, did people's parents carelessly throw money around like people do now?

Quote:
Home ownership is rarer and rarer, and people are struggling without getting anywhere. Maybe we're ahead of other western countries economically, but that doesn't mean that many Americans haven't lost ground with no apparent hope of regaining it.

China and other Asian nations are where most consumer goods are made now. End of story.
Read again what we talked about before \/

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ I'd like to see most all of our stuff made in the USA but I think it's too late for that. We gotta start thinking outside the box and figure out how to make lemonade out of the lemons we've unwillingly inherited. People arent going to take well to having to pay $2000 for an American made TV all the sudden that used to cost $600 when it was made in China. When people stop buying stuff we're back to square one. I myself can keep using my TV until it falls apart but I'm not everyone.


My God, there must be a blue moon! Because I find myself agreeing with you! :lol:


Just because I agreed with you that electronic stuff are made in China and other neighboring countries hardly means that it's a good thing. I agreed that we need to think of another approach to getting Americans high paying jobs again.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,174
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jul 2014, 10:44 am

1024 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Say what you will, but most Americans do not enjoy the prosperity of their parents. Home ownership is rarer and rarer, and people are struggling without getting anywhere. Maybe we're ahead of other western countries economically, but that doesn't mean that many Americans haven't lost ground with no apparent hope of regaining it.

Home ownership has been shrinking since the crisis, but it's still as high as before the unsustainable bubble. As for the general sentiment I can't comment since I'm not American.


But I am an American, and I'm right in the middle of this mess.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer