Dave Bing: Today was a 'very, very difficult day'

[texascpa]

If they live in the suburbs, they can still spend money in the Detroit economy.

That's a reach for your argument.

 

[texascpa]

The issue is who really fuels the economy. I say it's the workers who create the products and use their salary and pension to buy them. Others would say it's those who essentially bet on what will be produced and bought to see if they can make money off of their bets. To me, that's a sideshow. That's why "caring for" the common people by giving them opportunities to be educated, trained or rehabilitated, eliminating barriers of prejudice, paying them a descent salary for their work and pension to live on after their work career is over and providing them with health care is good economics. It creates productive citizens and consumers with money to spend.

The economy is fueled by people who take risks, who take an idea and build on it and then sell the output of that idea to others. Based on the volume of those sales, these people (business owner) hire others (laborer) to help produce and sell that output.

You know why this is true? Because, theoretically, you could have the number of risk takers (business owners) equal to the working population. You cannot have the number of laborers equal to the working population. Without the people who took the risk or idea and set things in motion, there would be no laborer.

 

[Orangeyes]

Will Syracuse follow Detroit into bankruptcy?

 

[Antz201]

Unions and poor government planning is what has them bankrupt. These stupid pensions that worked in the 30s and don't work now are half the problem...this will happen many times, because of situations like these is that I am a hardcore conservative that wants to preserve as much as my cash as possible. Once money leaves my hands and goes to government, I have no control. I don't feel sorry for anyone, because Americans still haven't woken up to the realization that we have major financial problems in this country starting with the federal government that owes 17 trillions, people are too stupid to picture how much money that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HOFCeluck]

Slightly off topic

www.weather.com/travel/modern-ruins-abandoned-detroit-photos-20130715

Something simultaneously cool and sad about these pictures of abandoned Detroit buildings. Reminds me of images of Pripyat, the Ukranian city that was evacuated in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster and left to decay.

 

[Orangeyes]

Unions and poor government planning is what has them bankrupt. These stupid pensions that worked in the 30s and don't work now are half the problem...this will happen many times, because of situations like these is that I am a hardcore conservative that wants to preserve as much as my cash as possible. Once money leaves my hands and goes to government, I have no control. I don't feel sorry for anyone, because Americans still haven't woken up to the realization that we have major financial problems in this country starting with the federal government that owes 17 trillions, people are too stupid to picture how much money that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this all started with deregulation. Back when America was prospering and we had 50 years of economic bliss one in every three American's was a member of a union. Today only one in fourteen are a member of a union. The trouble with the unions started when syndicated crime came into the picture.

 

[Orangeyes]

Bing on CNBC: Bailout unlikely

 

[SWC75]

The economy is fueled by people who take risks, who take an idea and build on it and then sell the output of that idea to others. Based on the volume of those sales, these people (business owner) hire others (laborer) to help produce and sell that output.

You know why this is true? Because, theoretically, you could have the number of risk takers (business owners) equal to the working population. You cannot have the number of laborers equal to the working population. Without the people who took the risk or idea and set things in motion, there would be no laborer.

And without the laborers and consumers, there would be no investors. Economic activity didn't begin speculation. it began with someone selling something he made or grew to someone who wanted to buy it. That's still the central act of any economy.

 

[Todd Gack]

Unions and

For all their excesses -- with witch I agree there are some -- unions provided us the middle class. I love the phrase "may the strong take what they can and the weak suffer what they must" -- but it's not way to run a society.

 

[TampaLaker]

For private businesses unions are useful balances against the natural greed of other men/women. The equal greed of those in unions balance the greed of owners/management. Also, the original starting point for protecting the health and well-being of the workers can certainly be beneficial. However, as Detroit and many other government entities demonstrate, unions and government are a bad mix. Essentially, labor chooses management. When that occurs, management is indebted to the worker only, not the consumer; so, management provides more for the worker that will continue to re-elect him than for the consumer he is supposedly intended to serve.

This becomes the classic conservative vs. progressive argument regarding democratic/republican forms of government. By giving a limited (govt. workers) group greater power, they are able to intimidate their employers into giving them contracts that in this case have become unsustainable. Also, as the population paying taxes to pay for the income of those who are no longer employed decreases, the per capita (sp?) costs increase. Unfortunately, the pensions that are being paid out today were certainly not based on the life spans enjoyed today; rather they are based on the life spans expected when retirees were employed. And we all know that life spans are continuing to extend. And as people live longer, they tend to have more physical problems which put more pressure on the insurance plans that government unions often are able pressure out of their self-elected employers.

Combine these issues with the flight from the city due to whatever cause (that is another discussion for another time) and ever expanding blight of rundown neighborhoods creates a cycle that is almost impossible to stop.

 

[texascpa]

And without the laborers and consumers, there would be no investors. Economic activity didn't begin speculation. it began with someone selling something he made or grew to someone who wanted to buy it. That's still the central act of any economy.

That's where you are wrong. An investor is always a laborer, but a laborer is not always an investor. Proof: a sole propreitorship without any employees.

Plus, you contradicted yourself. the mere fact of someone selling some is the definition of speculation.

 

[SWC75]

That's where you are wrong. An investor is always a laborer, but a laborer is not always an investor. Proof: a sole propreitorship without any employees.

Plus, you contradicted yourself. the mere fact of someone selling some is the definition of speculation.

"And investor is always a laborer." That's like saying the NFL consists of Las Vegas gamblers, not the players who make the plays.

And when you take on a job, your salary and pensions is not supposed to be something you are speculating on. Neither is a product you are buying- or selling.

 

[texascpa]

"And investor is always a laborer." That's like saying the NFL consists of Las Vegas gamblers, not the players who make the plays.

And when you take on a job, your salary and pensions is not supposed to be something you are speculating on. Neither is a product you are buying- or selling.

The owner of the the NFL team is a laborer regardless if anyone else is. But a player is not an investor.

Sure you speculate on your retirement. 401K, Pension, anything that has assets has speculation. Pension values can fluctuate with the rise and fall of the assets that the pensions are invested in. Take a look at what Central States Pensions are doing right now. They are letting companies cash out (essentially buy out of the pension) because the value of the cash is better than the assets that they can invest in. If pensions didn't have speculation inherent in them, then there would be no need to have highly paid pension managers.

You also have speculation in your salary. You are speculating that the company does well and you will continue to be gainfully employed and you will receive salary increase. But, guess what, some companies don't do well, people lose their job, salaries are reduced (or bonuses eliminated). Ever hear the phrase "don't spend your bonus just yet"?

 

[Forza Azzurri]

I replyed to your post above.

Yes. My bad on the interpretation. Did not think about the Worst Job thread.

 

[AlaskaSU]

This goes to the crux of the divergent points of view of the liberal and the conservative: Is the economy fueled by those who build the products and then use their salaries or pensions to buy them or by those who speculate on them trying to get rich? I think you can tell which of that i'm on.

The only way an economy can expand is through investment. Consumption makes investment profitable. Both are integral. Lets shift the discussion a bit to note that the difference between economic performance of different economies is a matter of allocation of capital. Government lacks a feedback mechanism and as a result it is an inefficient allocator of capital. Free markets provide the crucial feedback loop so long as businesses are allowed to make a profit or go broke. If the gvt throws money at Solyndra there is no consequence. When gvt transfers money from people that use capital efficiently to others it is acting in the name of humanity. However, it is also creating an inefficient allocation of capital. I assume that you, SWC, agree with me that the correct balance is a matter of judgment. In my judgment, gvt has gone too far and is confiscating too much. Growth is being stifled. Gvt is involved in too many activities. Better to attempt less and do better with a smaller agenda. I would eliminate half the federal gvt: Dept of Education, Commerce etc are unnecessary or duplicative of State activities. Even the EPA is duplicative of torts and the judicial system. One of the most deleterious effects of malignant gvt growth is the making of law by bureaucrats thus giving the public no recourse.

Furthermore, I assume that you also agree with me regarding the crucial role of new investment.

 

[AlaskaSU]

It's not meaningless to your "conservative" nonsense -- Alaska sucks on the lower 48's teat. It's a fact -- and you're welcome.

You are a person that is incapable of logic. Federal gvt expenditures in Ak go to over a half dozen very large military bases. Do you think that a small population state has so much pull that it can take in more than it gives? Are National defense expenditures what you mean by sucking on the teat?

 

[AlaskaSU]

For all their excesses -- with witch I agree there are some -- unions provided us the middle class. I love the phrase "may the strong take what they can and the weak suffer what they must" -- but it's not way to run a society.

False reasoning. Maximum employment is achieved when labor is paid the amount of their marginal rate of productivity. If wages are artificially raised above MRP, employment has to decrease. For example, capital will be substituted for labor, or the employer will go bankrupt. Neither gvt nor unions can increase wealth. All they can do is redistribute it. In the case of unions the redistribution is higher wages at the cost of higher unemployment. If an economy could be run by forced redistribution, Russia, N Korea, Cuba would all be workers paradises, instead of insolvent dehumanized hell holes.

 

[AlaskaSU]

For private businesses unions are useful balances against the natural greed of other men/women. The equal greed of those in unions balance the greed of owners/management. Also, the original starting point for protecting the health and well-being of the workers can certainly be beneficial. However, as Detroit and many other government entities demonstrate, unions and government are a bad mix. Essentially, labor chooses management. When that occurs, management is indebted to the worker only, not the consumer; so, management provides more for the worker that will continue to re-elect him than for the consumer he is supposedly intended to serve.

This becomes the classic conservative vs. progressive argument regarding democratic/republican forms of government. By giving a limited (govt. workers) group greater power, they are able to intimidate their employers into giving them contracts that in this case have become unsustainable. Also, as the population paying taxes to pay for the income of those who are no longer employed decreases, the per capita (sp?) costs increase. Unfortunately, the pensions that are being paid out today were certainly not based on the life spans enjoyed today; rather they are based on the life spans expected when retirees were employed. And we all know that life spans are continuing to extend. And as people live longer, they tend to have more physical problems which put more pressure on the insurance plans that government unions often are able pressure out of their self-elected employers.

Combine these issues with the flight from the city due to whatever cause (that is another discussion for another time) and ever expanding blight of rundown neighborhoods creates a cycle that is almost impossible to stop.

Crazy talk. The ability to make a profit is good. it drives investment. Why do you think it evil? If profits are excessive, other competitors will enter the picture. Are you familiar with the stock market? There is competition between corporations. Profits are limited by competition. Unions are irrelevant to most of the economy.

I surmise that you are opposed to monopolies. Union power comes from monopolizing labor. The net effect of unions is to increase unemployment by artificially raising the cost of labor beyond its worth (marginal rate of productivity) thus forcing capital to be substituted for labor.

 

[Cusefan95]

The thing that impresses me is a thread that is obviously political stays on the basketball board simply because of the loose association that the mayor played basketball at SU before I was born. This is why I so infrequently post here or come onto this board anymore - the inability of moderators to identify political posts and move them to the off-topic board.

I don't care about anyone's political opinions here. I realize the decision seems to have been made to allow the boards to be a free-for-all with no need to confine off-topic posts to the off-topic board...so I'm just expressing my disgust with that decision prior to taking another sabbatical from the board.

 

[Bayside44]

The thing that impresses me is a thread that is obviously political stays on the basketball board simply because of the loose association that the mayor played basketball at SU before I was born. This is why I so infrequently post here or come onto this board anymore - the inability of moderators to identify political posts and move them to the off-topic board.

I don't care about anyone's political opinions here. I realize the decision seems to have been made to allow the boards to be a free-for-all with no need to confine off-topic posts to the off-topic board...so I'm just expressing my disgust with that decision prior to taking another sabbatical from the board.

The thread was generally tasteful...to a generation of posters that don't do our OT free for all Dave Bing is Carmelo - DC - The Pearl all rolled into one.

Considering the world we live in to be disgusted by this is rather misplaced. Enjoy the summer.

 

[OttoMets]

The thing that impresses me is a thread that is obviously political stays on the basketball board simply because of the loose association that the mayor played basketball at SU before I was born. This is why I so infrequently post here or come onto this board anymore - the inability of moderators to identify political posts and move them to the off-topic board.

I don't care about anyone's political opinions here. I realize the decision seems to have been made to allow the boards to be a free-for-all with no need to confine off-topic posts to the off-topic board...so I'm just expressing my disgust with that decision prior to taking another sabbatical from the board.

Dunno, the dialogue on here is mostly respectful and somewhat informative. It's not a basketball thread, but of all the topics to complain about, this doesn't seem to be the one.

 

[Todd Gack]

You are a person that is incapable of logic. Federal gvt expenditures in Ak go to over a half dozen very large military bases. Do you think that a small population state has so much pull that it can take in more than it gives? Are National defense expenditures what you mean by sucking on the teat?

Are you disagreeing that Alaska receives more federal money than it sends back in taxes? And it's more than just military spending -- no state received more per capita from the stimulus bill. And, yes, a small state can rake it in when one of its senators is one of Congress's lead appropriators (see Stevens, Ted).

From a 2010 NYT blog entry:

“We’ve got this schizophrenic thing where we now claim to hate pork but love what’s coming to us,” says Anne Kilkenny, a resident of Wasilla, a suburb of Anchorage and the home of Sarah Palin. “We are by any definition a net beneficiary of the federal government.”

 

[Todd Gack]

False reasoning. Maximum employment is achieved when labor is paid the amount of their marginal rate of productivity. If wages are artificially raised above MRP, employment has to decrease. For example, capital will be substituted for labor, or the employer will go bankrupt. Neither gvt nor unions can increase wealth. All they can do is redistribute it. In the case of unions the redistribution is higher wages at the cost of higher unemployment. If an economy could be run by forced redistribution, Russia, N Korea, Cuba would all be workers paradises, instead of insolvent dehumanized hell holes.

You can employ more people if you pay everyone less -- absolutely -- that has nothing to do with the argument that unions built the middle class. You can't get there at $10.00/hour.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Not to turn this into an OT thread but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Detroit's current financial woes are decades in the making.

What bothers me about this whole process is that retirees may end up in line behind secured creditors for both their pension and their retiree health benefits.

Those are the people who should be paid first.

How does he not know what he's talking about. He was saying being the mayor of Detroit is a tough job. Is that wrong? You are an idiot.

 

[texascpa]

You can employ more people if you pay everyone less -- absolutely -- that has nothing to do with the argument that unions built the middle class. You can't get there at $10.00/hour.

It's not the employer's or even the government's responsibility to make sure everyone gets into the middle class, which unto itself is impossible in any economic society. It's up to the individual to insure they don't stay at $10/hr their whole life. And you don't need to be in a union to do that.