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

[AlaskaSU]

Conservatives favor free markets up until the point where they gain an advantage, at which point they then exercise their advantage to maintain their advantage. An actual global free market would decimate the United States.

What you mean to say is that businessmen do not like free markets. So what??? Of course Motorola would prefer that Apple never existed. As long as businesses operate where there is free competition there will be economic efficiency. Businessmen have every right to invent a better mousetrap in order to gain market share. Do you want a law that requires business to have gvt approval in order to gain market share? What businesses have no right to do is to use the gvt to lock out competitors through favorable taxation or regulation. If gvt lacked such powers bussinesses would have no need to lobby gvt. The problem is that the gvt tries to micromanage the economy through over-regulation. Businessmen, just like anyone else, react rationally to gvt incentives and disincentives.

Gvt has no business picking winners and losers. Too big to fail is as wrong headed as tax breaks to GE, grants for Green Industry, ethanol and on and on. I love the line Hilary used when promoting ethanol. She said, "I have lots more good ideas." Sure you have good ideas, but because you are a lib you think you have a right to use other peoples money to finance your good ideas. Get out of politics and use your own money if you think your ideas are worthwhile.

Why do libs think that the United States does not compete in a global economy? I guess Detroit had to learn the hard way. Capital flows to where it gets the best return. In 60 seconds I can move money from Ford to Toyota.

 

[SWC75]

What you mean to say is that businessmen do not like free markets. So what??? Of course Motorola would prefer that Apple never existed. As long as businesses operate where there is free competition there will be economic efficiency. Businessmen have every right to invent a better mousetrap in order to gain market share. Do you want a law that requires business to have gvt approval in order to gain market share? What businesses have no right to do is to use the gvt to lock out competitors through favorable taxation or regulation. If gvt lacked such powers bussinesses would have no need to lobby gvt. The problem is that the gvt tries to micromanage the economy through over-regulation. Businessmen, just like anyone else, react rationally to gvt incentives and disincentives.

Gvt has no business picking winners and losers. Too big to fail is as wrong headed as tax breaks to GE, grants for Green Industry, ethanol and on and on. I love the line Hilary used when promoting ethanol. She said, "I have lots more good ideas." Sure you have good ideas, but because you are a lib you think you have a right to use other peoples money to finance your good ideas. Get out of politics and use your own money if you think your ideas are worthwhile.

Why do libs think that the United States does not compete in a global economy? I guess Detroit had to learn the hard way. Capital flows to where it gets the best return. In 60 seconds I can move money from Ford to Toyota.

"Capital flows to where it gets the best return." And that's where products are being made by well-motivated, healthy workers and bought by people who make enough money to buy them.

 

[Orangeyes]

The mayor of Detroit is a job about nothing

 

[OttoinGrotto]

What businesses have no right to do is to use the gvt to lock out competitors through favorable taxation or regulation. If gvt lacked such powers bussinesses would have no need to lobby gvt. The problem is that the gvt tries to micromanage the economy through over-regulation. Businessmen, just like anyone else, react rationally to gvt incentives and disincentives.

If I'm following what you're saying, you're advocating the position that government powers enable businesses to abuse those powers. Do you believe abuses wouldn't take place if government was absent? Abuse is the constant, not the variable.

Why do libs think that the United States does not compete in a global economy?

We do compete in a global economy, but we've also purposefully made that global economy into something that does not at all resemble a free market. Now, why would that be?

Because nobody really wants a free market. Competition sucks. It's hard. It's so easy to lose. In a lot of ways it's a race to the bottom. As soon as there is some advantage to be had, or some disadvantage to be cast on another, generally people will utilize whatever edge they have to come out on top. A "free market" is a complete impossibility. It's as utopian of a dream as any command economy. And honestly, in the US, we enjoy the greatest advantages - if we were to move to a true free market, we have the most to lose, and most assuredly would.

I think the stance you're advocating is treating the symptom (government abuse) and not the disease (people by nature cheat). It's easier to complain about the government though. Even though we know that won't change anything, it's more palatable than facing the nature of humanity and realizing the uphill battle it is to change the way people actually are.

“I watched with incredulity as businessmen ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition that has made this system so productive…always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state. Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their immense concern for the public interest.” - William Simon

 

[AlaskaSU]

"Capital flows to where it gets the best return." And that's where products are being made by well-motivated, healthy workers and bought by people who make enough money to buy them.

Ask a person in a third world country if they want that Nike factory. You bet they do. It beats the alternatives. It gives them a chance to save money. Cheap labor can be parlayed into economic improvement. If Nike had to pay US abroad wages it would not be in the third world. The lib position is well meaning but illogical.

 

[AlaskaSU]

If I'm following what you're saying, you're advocating the position that government powers enable businesses to abuse those powers. Do you believe abuses wouldn't take place if government was absent? Abuse is the constant, not the variable.



We do compete in a global economy, but we've also purposefully made that global economy into something that does not at all resemble a free market. Now, why would that be?

Because nobody really wants a free market. Competition sucks. It's hard. It's so easy to lose. In a lot of ways it's a race to the bottom. As soon as there is some advantage to be had, or some disadvantage to be cast on another, generally people will utilize whatever edge they have to come out on top. A "free market" is a complete impossibility. It's as utopian of a dream as any command economy. And honestly, in the US, we enjoy the greatest advantages - if we were to move to a true free market, we have the most to lose, and most assuredly would.

I think the stance you're advocating is treating the symptom (government abuse) and not the disease (people by nature cheat). It's easier to complain about the government though. Even though we know that won't change anything, it's more palatable than facing the nature of humanity and realizing the uphill battle it is to change the way people actually are.

“I watched with incredulity as businessmen ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition that has made this system so productive…always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state. Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their immense concern for the public interest.” - William Simon

Human nature is not the problem. Your commentreminds me of an insight to the lib mind. What libs want to do is create 'The New Man". Stalin's favorite psychologist is someone that believed that behavioral changes would effect genes.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest. It drives people to take risk to make a profit. Profits drive economic improvement. Humanistic thoughts are irrelevant.

If you think cheating is the problem, then punish the cheaters. However, cheating does not explain anything. It is a constant. Therefore, it does not account for change.

I agree that some participants, perhaps most, do not want a free market. So what? As long as they are in a free market society will receive the benefits.

Gvt abuse of power and market interference is not a symptom. It is the root disease and it is metastisizing. The gvt take of the GNP is now 40%. it should be 15%. Gvt aggrandizement brought down Rome and it will bring us down. Roman taxes became so high that farmers abandoned their land in mass. There was a four year tax revolt that killed 18,000 tax collectors, but nothing could slow down the ever expanding gvt. The economy broke down before they were no longer able to defend their borders.

Why do you think that we do not compete in a global economy? International, and internal, market competition is brutal. There are very few monopolies and most of those that do exist were created or enabled by gvt. In probably every case, substitute products are available. Any investor can buy stock in any corporation regardless of location.

Libs think that the goal should be to change human nature. That is illogical and unnecessary. Just pure hubris.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Human nature is not the problem. Your commentreminds me of an insight to the lib mind. What libs want to do is create 'The New Man". Stalin's favorite psychologist is someone that believed that behavioral changes would effect genes.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest. It drives people to take risk to make a profit. Profits drive economic improvement. Humanistic thoughts are irrelevant.

If you think cheating is the problem, then punish the cheaters. However, cheating does not explain anything. It is a constant. Therefore, it does not account for change.

I agree that some participants, perhaps most, do not want a free market. So what? As long as they are in a free market society will receive the benefits.

Gvt abuse of power and market interference is not a symptom. It is the root disease and it is metastisizing. The gvt take of the GNP is now 40%. it should be 15%. Gvt aggrandizement brought down Rome and it will bring us down. Roman taxes became so high that farmers abandoned their land in mass. There was a four year tax revolt that killed 18,000 tax collectors, but nothing could slow down the ever expanding gvt. The economy broke down before they were no longer able to defend their borders.

Why do you think that we do not compete in a global economy? International, and internal, market competition is brutal. There are very few monopolies and most of those that do exist were created or enabled by gvt. In probably every case, substitute products are available. Any investor can buy stock in any corporation regardless of location.

Libs think that the goal should be to change human nature. That is illogical and unnecessary. Just pure hubris.

I don't know that a new man can be created. I think we are what we are. The systems and institutions around us are window dressing.

You said it's illogical and unnecessary to change human nature, but said if you think cheating is the problem to punish the cheaters - wouldn't the objective of the punishment be to change cheating behavior? I'm just not finding consistency in your response.

I just can't reason out how government is the root disease. You can have people without government. You can't have government without people. Ergo, any flaw in people will emerge as a flaw in government.

I did acknowledge that we compete in a global economy. I even said "We do compete in a global economy.":noidea: That global economy is by no means a free market though, and very powerful interests don't want it to be a free market.

 

[AlaskaSU]

1) The problem is too much restriction on individual freedom. Gvt takes 40% of GNP. That is a serious burden to economic growth. How can you not see that? What would be too high for you: 45%, 50%, 90%? There is probably not a single lib that will try to answer that question. To a lib the world is filled with problems needing gvt solutions. Free health care, free housing, guaranteed job: once you start the expansion there is no logical way to put an end to it. That is why our Forefathers defined freedom as equal opportunity, rather than guarantees or what libs call 'freedom from...' or positive freedom. Gvt guarantees are tyrannical; the opposite of classic liberty. Funny how libs have co-opted the term 'liberalism'even though its classic meaning is the opposite of what they think it is. In classic terms, freedom and liberty mean equal opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes. Society cannot function if not grounded on individual responsibility. That is why socialism always destroys the human spirit.

2) The objective of punishment is to discourage others from said behavior. That is why the state is the prosecutor.

3) 'Powerful interests'? Please explain. Free markets mean that capital can flow without restrictions, consumers can buy from whomever. In short, there is competition. Do some Nations have competitive advantages? Of course. That is why free trade is beneficial. It allows consumers to improve their lot. Here is a rule of thumb: when there is a choice as to which group should benefit, always go with the consumer. We are all consumers. Wal Mart is a net benefit.

The economy is dynamic. People want progress but they fear change. Economic growth comes from creative destruction. Mom and pop stores may be romantic, but they are inefficient. May I suggest reading Schumpeter's Theory of Economic Development? It is the classic on this topic.

 

[SWC75]

Ask a person in a third world country if they want that Nike factory. You bet they do. It beats the alternatives. It gives them a chance to save money. Cheap labor can be parlayed into economic improvement. If Nike had to pay US abroad wages it would not be in the third world. The lib position is well meaning but illogical.

It's time the Unions with "?International" in their names lived up to it and organized the people in those countries, as well, so that companies would have to pay a living wage wherever they put their factories. The fact that companies do this illustrates that they cannot be relied upon to make decisions in the best interests of the people of this country by themselves.

 

[AlaskaSU]

So you want our jobs sent overseas? How does that help Detroit? :crazy:

If another country can produce comparable cars at a lower price it is to our benefit to buy them. The Nation will be better off for it.

Protective tariffs are self-defeating. In a 1993 study of the economy of the Island of Mauritius, which for a century had maintained a wall of tariffs to protect local industry - it was shown that the tariffs were not beneficial to the economy. In 1970, the gvt created a special enterprise zone, free of tariffs. The zone soon came to employ a third of all jobs on the Island. The same story holds throughout the developing and developed world. A successful economy cannot resist change, it should adapt to it.

If Detroit workers wanted the highest wages in the industry, they needed to have the highest productivity. Detroit failure was self-imposed. Subsidies would not have helped. The remaining population, as evidenced by the idiots on the City Council, appears to lack the knowledge necessary for effective self-governance. The solution of appointing a special manager, bypassing the local gvt. and declaring bankruptcy is the best solution. Existing contracts have to be voided, the budget needs to be cut, taxes have to be lowered, crime has to be lessened and the business climate has to improve. Until that happens, the population will continue to decline as it should. It is a failed City. I just hope that California, another anti-business left wing loonybin, does not become a failed State. It is not inconceivable that the Democratic Party will bring down the whole Nation. Our debt is staggering and what is on the books pales in comparison to what is off the books.

Republicans have not been any model to aspire to. Perhaps Democracy is not a stable system. The urge to tax and spend runs deep.

 

[SWC75]

If another country can produce comparable cars at a lower price it is to our benefit to buy them. The Nation will be better off for it.

Protective tariffs are self-defeating. In a 1993 study of the economy of the Island of Mauritius, which for a century had maintained a wall of tariffs to protect local industry - it was shown that the tariffs were not beneficial to the economy. In 1970, the gvt created a special enterprise zone, free of tariffs. The zone soon came to employ a third of all jobs on the Island. The same story holds throughout the developing and developed world. A successful economy cannot resist change, it should adapt to it.

If Detroit workers wanted the highest wages in the industry, they needed to have the highest productivity. Detroit failure was self-imposed. Subsidies would not have helped. The remaining population, as evidenced by the idiots on the City Council, appears to lack the knowledge necessary for effective self-governance. The solution of appointing a special manager, bypassing the local gvt. and declaring bankruptcy is the best solution. Existing contracts have to be voided, the budget needs to be cut, taxes have to be lowered, crime has to be lessened and the business climate has to improve. Until that happens, the population will continue to decline as it should. It is a failed City. I just hope that California, another anti-business left wing loonybin, does not become a failed State. It is not inconceivable that the Democratic Party will bring down the whole Nation. Our debt is staggering and what is on the books pales in comparison to what is off the books.

Republicans have not been any model to aspire to. Perhaps Democracy is not a stable system. The urge to tax and spend runs deep.

Should American workers demonstrate a willingness to work for the wages of workers in poor countries so they can get jobs?

Regarding productivity, according to this, the productivity of American workers has risen 80-% since the 1970's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0
Of course productivity increases with better education, and training and better health care.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Should American workers demonstrate a willingness to work for the wages of workers in poor countries so they can get jobs?

Regarding productivity, according to this, the productivity of American workers has risen 80-% since the 1970's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0
Of course productivity increases with better education, and training and better health care.

An enduring business cannot pay wages that exceed the marginal rate of productivity of the last worker hired. That means that some industries are not viable and should not be pursued.

Wages do not stagnate in industries with increasing labor productivity.

Living wage? Higher wages cannot be legislated or forced by unions. Raising the price of anything decreases its purchase - including labor. Ever wonder why the Soviet Union didn't make it? A command economy is a stagnant economy. Always the same excuse - corruption. Just one more purge and every thing will be fine. All of this pro command economic sentiment makes me sad for the failure of the American education system. Individual freedom and free markets are the culmination of western civilization.

 

[SWC75]

An enduring business cannot pay wages that exceed the marginal rate of productivity of the last worker hired. That means that some industries are not viable and should not be pursued.

Wages do not stagnate in industries with increasing labor productivity.

Living wage? Higher wages cannot be legislated or forced by unions. Raising the price of anything decreases its purchase - including labor. Ever wonder why the Soviet Union didn't make it? A command economy is a stagnant economy. Always the same excuse - corruption. Just one more purge and every thing will be fine. All of this pro command economic sentiment makes me sad for the failure of the American education system. Individual freedom and free markets are the culmination of western civilization.

An unregulated free market economy resulted in what we had 100 years ago: monopolies, trusts, robber barons, child labor,the Haymarket Riot, the Ludlow Massacre, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, etc. etc. It's just like unrestricted states rights resulted in slavery. There was nothing free about it. One of the biggest myths is that the biggest businessmen and corporations want a free market. They want a market they can control, with nobody doing anything about it. The only freedom they want is the freedom to abuse and exploit. The abuses of 100 years ago produced government regulation, unions and the various social movements which in turn produced the middle class, which produced the greatest era of prosperity any nation has ever known. If the American educational system doesn't teach that, that it is a failure.