(07-30-2018 01:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 04:56 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is in the private sector. It is these corporations that wanted these NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade deals where they can ship jobs outside this country, and lay off many people. The problem is the corporations that caused all of this as well for making people become poor. Many people who worked at these factories have been there for decades and still in their 50s and not at a retirement age. These people face discrimination in finding jobs because of their age. Even people with disabilities will not get hired. When you still have sectors in the private sector who refuses to hire certain people? It would be a problem. We need CEOs and board directors in these companies in there who are not looking to lining their pockets, but to help grow the business, hire people from this country and stop outsourcing jobs or bring illegals in semi-trucks for factories, and we could see the jobless rates go back down.

But that is not the goal of businesses, nor is it realistic to rely on a system that requires such thinking in order to work. If only people in business stopped worrying about making money, lots of left wing ideas might work. But they don't, and won't. In the end self-interest prevails, and any system that assumes otherwise fails.

It's not that greed is good, but that greed is universal. The question is whether greed can be harnessed to serve the universal good. It can, and capitalism is the one system works on that principle. For that reason, capitalism has improved the lot of more people, and done so more consistently, than any other economic system. That is the real beauty of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The problem is that we haven't pursued that kind of approach. At the end of WWII, Europe and much of Asia were in shambles after being bombed to smithereens in WWII. We basically bribed them. We would agree to economic policies favorable to them, and protect their supply lines militarily, in exchange for their support in the Cold War. We had so many advantages in terms of geography, infrastructure, and demographics that we could still maintain a healthy economy, and beating the Russkis was more important than making money. So economic policy became a derivative of national security policy.

The problem is that we won that war, and nobody planned on what to do next. About the same time as we won that war, the rest of them figured out that consumption taxes had mildly protective effects on their trade, and also raised enough money that they could drastically lower taxes on businesses and investment and still afford a social safety net. They could offer both a better safety net to those on the bottom and a more attractive return on investment for those at the top. And doing those two things attract the kind of economic activity that make a vibrant middle class possible.

NAFTA and TPP and the like are not so much the problem as symptoms of a larger problem. When your tax and regulatory policies are inherently unfavorable to your economy, you must negotiate trade deals from a position of extreme weakness. Trump is right, as far as he goes, to favor lower taxes and less intrusive regulations, and to attempt to negotiate better trade deals. But that's not enough. If we want industries and jobs to come here, we need to offer them a more attractive deal than anybody else does. We can do that without selling out to them. Our natural advantages mentioned earlier put us in a position where all we need is a somewhat level playing field in order to be extremely competitive.

The problem is not that the private sector makes decisions in its own best interests. That is to be expected. The problem is that our public policies are not set up to encourage the private sector to make different decisions in pursuit of that goal.

That is the problem with businesses for a very long time. They do not know how to police themselves. That is why we have regulations in place for the safety of workers and all that. Look at the oil rig explosion in the gulf og Mexico a few years ago? The company was sited for safety violations in the place, and they have not fixed the issues. The company ignored the issues, and it caused all that damage. We the tax payers wound up paying for some of the disasters. There are still oil washing up on the shores. It is one of the reasons why people have been protesting about the Keystone Pipeline. The issues is that these companies are looking for shortcuts to get richer and ignoring safety issues.

What alternatives do you propose - that do not include capitalism - to maintain our current standard of living or improve it?

I really hope he answers.....

(07-30-2018 01:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 04:56 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is in the private sector. It is these corporations that wanted these NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade deals where they can ship jobs outside this country, and lay off many people. The problem is the corporations that caused all of this as well for making people become poor. Many people who worked at these factories have been there for decades and still in their 50s and not at a retirement age. These people face discrimination in finding jobs because of their age. Even people with disabilities will not get hired. When you still have sectors in the private sector who refuses to hire certain people? It would be a problem. We need CEOs and board directors in these companies in there who are not looking to lining their pockets, but to help grow the business, hire people from this country and stop outsourcing jobs or bring illegals in semi-trucks for factories, and we could see the jobless rates go back down.

But that is not the goal of businesses, nor is it realistic to rely on a system that requires such thinking in order to work. If only people in business stopped worrying about making money, lots of left wing ideas might work. But they don't, and won't. In the end self-interest prevails, and any system that assumes otherwise fails.

It's not that greed is good, but that greed is universal. The question is whether greed can be harnessed to serve the universal good. It can, and capitalism is the one system works on that principle. For that reason, capitalism has improved the lot of more people, and done so more consistently, than any other economic system. That is the real beauty of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The problem is that we haven't pursued that kind of approach. At the end of WWII, Europe and much of Asia were in shambles after being bombed to smithereens in WWII. We basically bribed them. We would agree to economic policies favorable to them, and protect their supply lines militarily, in exchange for their support in the Cold War. We had so many advantages in terms of geography, infrastructure, and demographics that we could still maintain a healthy economy, and beating the Russkis was more important than making money. So economic policy became a derivative of national security policy.

The problem is that we won that war, and nobody planned on what to do next. About the same time as we won that war, the rest of them figured out that consumption taxes had mildly protective effects on their trade, and also raised enough money that they could drastically lower taxes on businesses and investment and still afford a social safety net. They could offer both a better safety net to those on the bottom and a more attractive return on investment for those at the top. And doing those two things attract the kind of economic activity that make a vibrant middle class possible.

NAFTA and TPP and the like are not so much the problem as symptoms of a larger problem. When your tax and regulatory policies are inherently unfavorable to your economy, you must negotiate trade deals from a position of extreme weakness. Trump is right, as far as he goes, to favor lower taxes and less intrusive regulations, and to attempt to negotiate better trade deals. But that's not enough. If we want industries and jobs to come here, we need to offer them a more attractive deal than anybody else does. We can do that without selling out to them. Our natural advantages mentioned earlier put us in a position where all we need is a somewhat level playing field in order to be extremely competitive.

The problem is not that the private sector makes decisions in its own best interests. That is to be expected. The problem is that our public policies are not set up to encourage the private sector to make different decisions in pursuit of that goal.

That is the problem with businesses for a very long time. They do not know how to police themselves. That is why we have regulations in place for the safety of workers and all that. Look at the oil rig explosion in the gulf og Mexico a few years ago? The company was sited for safety violations in the place, and they have not fixed the issues. The company ignored the issues, and it caused all that damage. We the tax payers wound up paying for some of the disasters. There are still oil washing up on the shores. It is one of the reasons why people have been protesting about the Keystone Pipeline. The issues is that these companies are looking for shortcuts to get richer and ignoring safety issues.

What alternatives do you propose - that do not include capitalism - to maintain our current standard of living or improve it?

maybe a national form of socialism trying to think of a catchy symbol.....it will come to me

(07-30-2018 05:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 01:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 04:56 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is in the private sector. It is these corporations that wanted these NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade deals where they can ship jobs outside this country, and lay off many people. The problem is the corporations that caused all of this as well for making people become poor. Many people who worked at these factories have been there for decades and still in their 50s and not at a retirement age. These people face discrimination in finding jobs because of their age. Even people with disabilities will not get hired. When you still have sectors in the private sector who refuses to hire certain people? It would be a problem. We need CEOs and board directors in these companies in there who are not looking to lining their pockets, but to help grow the business, hire people from this country and stop outsourcing jobs or bring illegals in semi-trucks for factories, and we could see the jobless rates go back down.

But that is not the goal of businesses, nor is it realistic to rely on a system that requires such thinking in order to work. If only people in business stopped worrying about making money, lots of left wing ideas might work. But they don't, and won't. In the end self-interest prevails, and any system that assumes otherwise fails.

It's not that greed is good, but that greed is universal. The question is whether greed can be harnessed to serve the universal good. It can, and capitalism is the one system works on that principle. For that reason, capitalism has improved the lot of more people, and done so more consistently, than any other economic system. That is the real beauty of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

The problem is that we haven't pursued that kind of approach. At the end of WWII, Europe and much of Asia were in shambles after being bombed to smithereens in WWII. We basically bribed them. We would agree to economic policies favorable to them, and protect their supply lines militarily, in exchange for their support in the Cold War. We had so many advantages in terms of geography, infrastructure, and demographics that we could still maintain a healthy economy, and beating the Russkis was more important than making money. So economic policy became a derivative of national security policy.

The problem is that we won that war, and nobody planned on what to do next. About the same time as we won that war, the rest of them figured out that consumption taxes had mildly protective effects on their trade, and also raised enough money that they could drastically lower taxes on businesses and investment and still afford a social safety net. They could offer both a better safety net to those on the bottom and a more attractive return on investment for those at the top. And doing those two things attract the kind of economic activity that make a vibrant middle class possible.

NAFTA and TPP and the like are not so much the problem as symptoms of a larger problem. When your tax and regulatory policies are inherently unfavorable to your economy, you must negotiate trade deals from a position of extreme weakness. Trump is right, as far as he goes, to favor lower taxes and less intrusive regulations, and to attempt to negotiate better trade deals. But that's not enough. If we want industries and jobs to come here, we need to offer them a more attractive deal than anybody else does. We can do that without selling out to them. Our natural advantages mentioned earlier put us in a position where all we need is a somewhat level playing field in order to be extremely competitive.

The problem is not that the private sector makes decisions in its own best interests. That is to be expected. The problem is that our public policies are not set up to encourage the private sector to make different decisions in pursuit of that goal.

That is the problem with businesses for a very long time. They do not know how to police themselves. That is why we have regulations in place for the safety of workers and all that. Look at the oil rig explosion in the gulf og Mexico a few years ago? The company was sited for safety violations in the place, and they have not fixed the issues. The company ignored the issues, and it caused all that damage. We the tax payers wound up paying for some of the disasters. There are still oil washing up on the shores. It is one of the reasons why people have been protesting about the Keystone Pipeline. The issues is that these companies are looking for shortcuts to get richer and ignoring safety issues.

What alternatives do you propose - that do not include capitalism - to maintain our current standard of living or improve it?

I really hope he answers.....

I don't.

Don't think I can take that next level of mind-numbingness...

(07-30-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I fully on board with her last assertion of "reprioritizing" where we are spending our money...especially in regard to defense spending. Surely there are plenty of places to cut military spending without sacrificing security. We all know the tail is wagging the dog here. The IM complex is running our defense department and has for decades. It needs to stop and we need to either make the countries we are protecting PAY for that protection or they can protect themselves without us. We simply can not afford this level of spending anymore.

But here's the problem. We are not just protecting ourselves. We are also guaranteeing the safety and security of worldwide trade. Without that, the global economy would be seriously threatened with collapse.
For that reason, we cannot simply exit the playing field. The other countries have to pick up the slack BEFORE we can leave. But when Trump suggests that, he is accused of wanting to destroy NATO. We can't afford this level of spending, but we can't afford NOT to do it if we leave a vacuum.

Quote:The rest of this woman's assertions are poppycockish, pipe dreaming, socialist nonsense.

Absolute f-ing idiot. But she's the future for the democrats. If so, I can never be a democrat.

All I ask is that the countries we protect including those sea trade issues.. pay for that protection. I don't think that is too much to ask. We have done our part forever. It is time our "Allies" step up to the plate and shoulder some of this either with their own military assets or their financial support. No damn wonder these countries afford some of the stuff they do in regard to health care and other social programs. They spend very little on defense.

Actually, we subsidize them for a lot of what they do spend.

In my fcked up world there would be NO foreign aide outside of a humanitarian nature and that verified rigorously. You want our soldiers,sailors and airmen to protect you? Pony the hell up.

(07-30-2018 06:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I fully on board with her last assertion of "reprioritizing" where we are spending our money...especially in regard to defense spending. Surely there are plenty of places to cut military spending without sacrificing security. We all know the tail is wagging the dog here. The IM complex is running our defense department and has for decades. It needs to stop and we need to either make the countries we are protecting PAY for that protection or they can protect themselves without us. We simply can not afford this level of spending anymore.

But here's the problem. We are not just protecting ourselves. We are also guaranteeing the safety and security of worldwide trade. Without that, the global economy would be seriously threatened with collapse.
For that reason, we cannot simply exit the playing field. The other countries have to pick up the slack BEFORE we can leave. But when Trump suggests that, he is accused of wanting to destroy NATO. We can't afford this level of spending, but we can't afford NOT to do it if we leave a vacuum.

Quote:The rest of this woman's assertions are poppycockish, pipe dreaming, socialist nonsense.

Absolute f-ing idiot. But she's the future for the democrats. If so, I can never be a democrat.

All I ask is that the countries we protect including those sea trade issues.. pay for that protection. I don't think that is too much to ask. We have done our part forever. It is time our "Allies" step up to the plate and shoulder some of this either with their own military assets or their financial support. No damn wonder these countries afford some of the stuff they do in regard to health care and other social programs. They spend very little on defense.

Actually, we subsidize them for a lot of what they do spend.

In my fcked up world there would be NO foreign aide outside of a humanitarian nature and that verified rigorously. You want our soldiers,sailors and airmen to protect you? Pony the hell up.

Remember, we bought their loyalty to win the Cold War. Problem was, nobody bothered to figure out what to do next if it worked.

(07-30-2018 07:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 06:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:39 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 12:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But here's the problem. We are not just protecting ourselves. We are also guaranteeing the safety and security of worldwide trade. Without that, the global economy would be seriously threatened with collapse.
For that reason, we cannot simply exit the playing field. The other countries have to pick up the slack BEFORE we can leave. But when Trump suggests that, he is accused of wanting to destroy NATO. We can't afford this level of spending, but we can't afford NOT to do it if we leave a vacuum.
Absolute f-ing idiot. But she's the future for the democrats. If so, I can never be a democrat.

All I ask is that the countries we protect including those sea trade issues.. pay for that protection. I don't think that is too much to ask. We have done our part forever. It is time our "Allies" step up to the plate and shoulder some of this either with their own military assets or their financial support. No damn wonder these countries afford some of the stuff they do in regard to health care and other social programs. They spend very little on defense.

Actually, we subsidize them for a lot of what they do spend.

In my fcked up world there would be NO foreign aide outside of a humanitarian nature and that verified rigorously. You want our soldiers,sailors and airmen to protect you? Pony the hell up.

Remember, we bought their loyalty to win the Cold War. Problem was, nobody bothered to figure out what to do next if it worked.

which I believe DJT is trying to accomplish to them gaining the ability to become more self sustaining....