[Yinekol]

timj219
So as long as we comply with the wishes of big business we will get our reward in the end? Before I say anything else I will admit that apart from reading "secrets of the temple" (about the federal reserve) and paying fairly close attention to current events, I know nothing about eonomics. I highly recommend two books by Thomas Sowell:

Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One

Both are excellent

[Grieryaliny]

Hold the train! HOLD THE TRAIN!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....9bzctfvz.html

According to THIS set of economists, the US Economy is set to ROAR BACK in 2006.


Well there you have it. I have a website source. It is FACT! End of discussion!!!!

[tpdirorg]

I highly recommend two books by Thomas Sowell:

Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One

Both are excellent

Is there really any educational meat to these two books or is it strictly like his columns where he will say things like "the political left has virtually no interest in the creation of wealth" or claim that the furor over illegal wiretaps is a "phony crisis"? Having read his stuff fairly regularly I know I will need to tie myself to the chair to keep from tipping over on my right side while I read Every time I'm about to admit how smart the man is I bump up against the question of how anyone as intelligent as he seems could possibly spend so much time writing partisan invective.

So I guess my real question is are these really explanations of economics for the layman or just a few hundred pages of why I would be better off if GE and Exxon didn't have to deal with all these awful labor laws, environmental regs and product liability claims?

[AntonayPina]

Is there really any educational meat to these two books or is it strictly like his columns where he will say things like "the political left has virtually no interest in the creation of wealth" or claim that the furor over illegal wiretaps is a "phony crisis"? Having read his stuff fairly regularly I know I will need to tie myself to the chair to keep from tipping over on my right side while I read Every time I'm about to admit how smart the man is I bump up against the question of how anyone as intelligent as he seems could possibly spend so much time writing partisan invective.

So I guess my real question is are these really explanations of economics for the layman or just a few hundred pages of why I would be better off if GE and Exxon didn't have to deal with all these awful labor laws, environmental regs and product liability claims?

wanna learn about economics? Start here: http://www.mises.org/
Real economics, no politics.

[ptolerezort]

With that caveat, I guess it seems backward to me. You claim that it is investors who drive the economy but is that really true? Isn't it really the productivity of the other 95% of the people who receive wages that drives the economy?

I am in the same boat you are in timj219. I was actually told that it is the consumers who drive the economy, thus the 95% of the people who receive wages.

Indeed it is the investors who create the jobs, but as more of these jobs are sourced to other countries, will you not lose your consumer base?

[jhfkgkfdvjk]

timj219
With that caveat, I guess it seems backward to me. You claim that it is investors who drive the economy but is that really true? Isn't it really the productivity of the other 95% of the people who receive wages that drives the economy? What I said was that it is investors/entrepneurs who are the engine of GROWTH in the economy.

What comes before you can have a consumer? You need a product or service offered, this is offered by entrepreneurs who either invest their own capital or that of other investors. Do you think that people are just standing around in empty lots waiting for restaurants/stores/etc. to spend money in, investors then see the consumer and rush in to build the business around them? No, the business is created first, and in almost every instance a new business benefits OTHER people (by creating jobs and products for consumers) before the owner/investor ever sees a profit.

How about this for "fair and balanced" when it comes to bashing "big business"--I will concede it is perfectly ok to bash "big business" for "obscene" and "excessive" profits if all of those who do that bashing admit it is greedy and selfish of workers to expect to be paid when the business is not making a profit.

[Tactattcahhaw]

I'm not following every caveat of this conversation but let me throw this out anyway:

It appears to me that Liberal Democrats believe that wealth is finite, and for Paul to get rich he must take from Peter. Do y'all support this theory?

[ReginaPerss]

What I said was that it is investors/entrepneurs who are the engine of GROWTH in the economy.

What comes before you can have a consumer? You need a product or service offered, this is offered by entrepreneurs who either invest their own capital or that of other investors. Do you think that people are just standing around in empty lots waiting for restaurants/stores/etc. to spend money in, investors then see the consumer and rush in to build the business around them? No, the business is created first, and in almost every instance a new business benefits OTHER people (by creating jobs and products for consumers) before the owner/investor ever sees a profit.

How about this for "fair and balanced" when it comes to bashing "big business"--I will concede it is perfectly ok to bash "big business" for "obscene" and "excessive" profits if all of those who do that bashing admit it is greedy and selfish of workers to expect to be paid when the business is not making a profit.

What has bashing "big business" got to do with anything I posted?

I don't see how any of what you just said addresses my question about why we measure the health of the economy strictly in terms of what benefits owners and investors instead of what benefits wage earners. I know I'm ignorant but even I know that without workers and consumers no investment will ever earn a dime. Will investors take their ball and go home if we decide that the well being of workers should be the primary measure instead of just an unintended consequence of our economy?

[enurneAcourdy]

I'm not following every caveat of this conversation but let me throw this out anyway:

It appears to me that Liberal Democrats believe that wealth is finite, and for Paul to get rich he must take from Peter. Do y'all support this theory?

I have no idea if anyone believes wealth is finite. But I think most Pauls find it alot easier to take from Peter than to create new wealth.

[erepsysoulptnw]

I have no idea if anyone believes wealth is finite. But I think most Pauls find it alot easier to take from Peter than to create new wealth.

Wealth is infinite, since it is created by man.

[LindaSmithIV]

Wealth is infinite, since it is created by man.

OK then

[taesrom]

I'm not following every caveat of this conversation but let me throw this out anyway:

It appears to me that Liberal Democrats believe that wealth is finite, and for Paul to get rich he must take from Peter. Do y'all support this theory?

Wealth is truly unlimited. Here is a pretty good analogy to help visualize. Wealth is like the ocean. You can bring a thimble or you can bring a billion gallon container to fill up, either way the ocean doesn't care. Wealth is the same way. The only limits on oneself are self imposed. Me, I prefer abundance, that is why I enjoy an abundance of everything that matters to me.

[antonyandruleit]

Will investors take their ball and go home if we decide that the well being of workers should be the primary measure instead of just an unintended consequence of our economy? Many will. One buys stock, builds factories, or whatever else with the thought "I wonder how much money I can make?" not "I wonder many people I can employ?" While the latter is nice, for most people, their biggest and often only employment concern is their own employment. If there is not a decent prospect of making more money, the initial money will go elsewhere.

On an economy-wide level, protecting the jobs of buggy-whip makers means we will miss out on the development of automaking jobs. One would not hear an instant great sucking sound as capital left the country, but as more and more investors realize that such policies are causing us to slow and eventually fall behind other countries in economic productivity, investment (and perhaps even investors) will shift to foreign countries at an accelerating pace. By the time buggies are Completely obsolete, we're completely screwed, as we have no auto jobs and nobody willing to invest in plants or training. (Unless perhaps we can guarantee they'll pay substandard wages for our sub-standard workers, but then that doesn't seem to further your goal of providing for the workers, does it?)

[bixlewlyimila]

What I said was that it is investors/entrepneurs who are the engine of GROWTH in the economy.

What comes before you can have a consumer? You need a product or service offered, this is offered by entrepreneurs who either invest their own capital or that of other investors. Do you think that people are just standing around in empty lots waiting for restaurants/stores/etc. to spend money in, investors then see the consumer and rush in to build the business around them? No, the business is created first, and in almost every instance a new business benefits OTHER people (by creating jobs and products for consumers) before the owner/investor ever sees a profit.

How about this for "fair and balanced" when it comes to bashing "big business"--I will concede it is perfectly ok to bash "big business" for "obscene" and "excessive" profits if all of those who do that bashing admit it is greedy and selfish of workers to expect to be paid when the business is not making a profit.

I am a little confused by your post (bolded part).


In Post 18 you stated What drives growth in the economy are investors/risk takers who create new wealth Are you talking investors like the little guy who takes a chance on opening a store or the power trader who started with nothing but grew his money through risky stocks?

[Soresbox]

Many will. One buys stock, builds factories, or whatever else with the thought "I wonder how much money I can make?" not "I wonder many people I can employ?" While the latter is nice, for most people, their biggest and often only employment concern is their own employment. If there is not a decent prospect of making more money, the initial money will go elsewhere.

On an economy-wide level, protecting the jobs of buggy-whip makers means we will miss out on the development of automaking jobs. One would not hear an instant great sucking sound as capital left the country, but as more and more investors realize that such policies are causing us to slow and eventually fall behind other countries in economic productivity, investment (and perhaps even investors) will shift to foreign countries at an accelerating pace. By the time buggies are Completely obsolete, we're completely screwed, as we have no auto jobs and nobody willing to invest in plants or training. (Unless perhaps we can guarantee they'll pay substandard wages for our sub-standard workers, but then that doesn't seem to further your goal of providing for the workers, does it?)

So do you think the US has an "Auto" or that it has to work towards one?

Should there be more R&D funding then?

[EnubreBense]

Many will. One buys stock, builds factories, or whatever else with the thought "I wonder how much money I can make?" not "I wonder many people I can employ?" While the latter is nice, for most people, their biggest and often only employment concern is their own employment. If there is not a decent prospect of making more money, the initial money will go elsewhere.

On an economy-wide level, protecting the jobs of buggy-whip makers means we will miss out on the development of automaking jobs. One would not hear an instant great sucking sound as capital left the country, but as more and more investors realize that such policies are causing us to slow and eventually fall behind other countries in economic productivity, investment (and perhaps even investors) will shift to foreign countries at an accelerating pace. By the time buggies are Completely obsolete, we're completely screwed, as we have no auto jobs and nobody willing to invest in plants or training. (Unless perhaps we can guarantee they'll pay substandard wages for our sub-standard workers, but then that doesn't seem to further your goal of providing for the workers, does it?)

Businesses already move everything offshore that can be done profitably. Other countries already offer businesses a combination of low wages and absence of safety and environmental regs that can't be matched here. You make it sound llike we have no choice but to engage with workers world-wide in a race to the bottom.

This country offers an unmatched infrastructure and the most productive work force in the world. That combined with things like great schools, low crime, relatively unpolluted environment and uparralleled cultural opportunities make America the best place in the world for anyone with the money and the ambition to create more wealth for themselves. Much of this is due to the efforts of the 95% of americans who receive their income from wages.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that in order to preserve that state of affairs we measure our economic strength by the well being of those people

[ruforumczspam]

So do you think the US has an "Auto" or that it has to work towards one? I used an example that would have been applicable a hundred years ago, because I'm not sure what 'should be disappearing' jobs would be protected from what 'not yet here' innovation under such a misguided policy - I'm smart, but my future-telling abilities are rather limited. Perhaps a more timely observation would compare steel-mill jobs to internet jobs, tho that's still rather dated.

Should there be more R&D funding then? Perhaps. But what in, and who should pay for it? Using my example above, the government would most likely pour lots of taxpayer money down holes like 'improved buggy-whips', 'improved buggies', and 'horse hybridization' rather than internal combustion engines, mass production, and other innovations that private industry brought forth at no or minimal cost to the taxpayer.

You make it sound llike we have no choice but to engage with workers world-wide in a race to the bottom. That is the end result of policies your type typically promote; look at the stellar standard of living in such workers' paradises as the Soviet Union, China, and various third-world economies that have 'benefitted' from socialism over the years.

This country offers an unmatched infrastructure and the most productive work force in the world. That combined with things like great schools, low crime, relatively unpolluted environment and uparralleled cultural opportunities make America the best place in the world for anyone with the money and the ambition to create more wealth for themselves. Agreed.

Much of this is due to the efforts of the 95% of americans who receive their income from wages. Actually, that 95% benefits from the above environment, enabling them to Be more productive, then benefit from the advances introduced by those industrious entrepreneurs, which leads to an even better environment, creating an upward spiral until laziness and/or corruption intervene. (And/or the given member of that 95% shifts gears to become an entrepreneur, innovator, and/or investor, but then they're not part of the 95% anymore.)

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that in order to preserve that state of affairs we measure our economic strength by the well being of those people If you want to measure it that way, you're more than welcome to do so. If you want to administer policy designed to promote that goal at the expense of those ambitious entreprenreurs and investors, you're promoting an economic body that will be all muscle with atrophying intelligence and coordination, and will go the way of the neanderthal rather than the way of an Olympic athlete.

[estheticianI]

I used an example that would have been applicable a hundred years ago, because I'm not sure what 'should be disappearing' jobs would be protected from what 'not yet here' innovation under such a misguided policy - I'm smart, but my future-telling abilities are rather limited. Perhaps a more timely observation would compare steel-mill jobs to internet jobs, tho that's still rather dated.

Perhaps. But what in, and who should pay for it? Using my example above, the government would most likely pour lots of taxpayer money down holes like 'improved buggy-whips', 'improved buggies', and 'horse hybridization' rather than internal combustion engines, mass production, and other innovations that private industry brought forth at no or minimal cost to the taxpayer.

I followed your "auto" analogy quite well (good choice) and tried to continue it simply because I don't know what the next innovation will be either. I can understand letting go of the "horse and buggy" jobs to make room for the newer state-of-the-art jobs so long as they are already available. Even the internet jobs, call centers etc.. have been sent to India and such.

I suggested the R&D because there is no new innovation that I am (or you are) aware of. Even if one did develop, who is to say those jobs don't get outsourced as well? As far as who should pay for it I don't know either. If it is left to industry leaders there is no guarantee the new product will be produced in the US so it may not help create jobs. Hybrid vehicles are one option but it is very easy for foreign manufacturers to do the same as the goal is global, and market share will depend on it in a few years.

I see the concern of jobs being outsourced as the long term problem. Perhaps I am worrying for nothing, but I would rather do that than get caught off-guard.

You offer interesting outlooks, thank you.

[vvxtiopmx]

That is the end result of policies your type typically promote; look at the stellar standard of living in such workers' paradises as the Soviet Union, China, and various third-world economies that have 'benefitted' from socialism over the years.

I'm really not sure what policies my "type" promotes but I personally have never thought dictatorships like the soviet union and china had anything to recommend them.

Actually, that 95% benefits from the above environment, enabling them to Be more productive, then benefit from the advances introduced by those industrious entrepreneurs, which leads to an even better environment, creating an upward spiral until laziness and/or corruption intervene. (And/or the given member of that 95% shifts gears to become an entrepreneur, innovator, and/or investor, but then they're not part of the 95% anymore.)

If you want to measure it that way, you're more than welcome to do so. If you want to administer policy designed to promote that goal at the expense of those ambitious entreprenreurs and investors, you're promoting an economic body that will be all muscle with atrophying intelligence and coordination, and will go the way of the neanderthal rather than the way of an Olympic athlete. If wealth and power were always the result of hard work, intelligence and merit under the current system you would have a point. If the people who run companies were always smarter and harder working than their employees you would have a point. Frankly I'm shocked that anyone could be so naive as to think that being an investor implies any advantage over their fellow citizens other than money. The biggest diffference between an entreprenuer and a wage worker is sales ability, not intelligence or hard work.

Most of the economic muscle in todays world comes not from bright innovative entrepreneurs risking everything to chase the big bucks but from established multinational corporations who by definition can have no concern for what is best for america as a whole.

[HartOvara]

I'm really not sure what policies my "type" promotes but I personally have never thought dictatorships like the soviet union and china had anything to recommend them. My apologies if I'm mistaken about you in particular, but most 'pro-worker' and/or socialist posters advocate centralized control and/or societally unnatural policies that have naturally foreseeable outcomes similar to those countries.

If wealth and power were always the result of hard work, intelligence and merit under the current system you would have a point. It typically is, if one uses the expanded, and by many measures perverted, definition of 'merit' of our society. Some of these sub-definitions include the ability to suck up to the right people, to look pretty for the camera, and/or to lie convincingly, and having the right parents counts as well.

If the people who run companies were always smarter and harder working than their employees you would have a point. Among smaller businesses, one or both is usually true. In larger businesses, one or both is probably true when compared to the employee average.

Frankly I'm shocked that anyone could be so naive as to think that being an investor implies any advantage over their fellow citizens other than money. Frankly I'm shocked that anyone could be so naive as to think that the only thing that makes an investor is money. I admittedly don't work as hard as many people, perhaps even most people. But I make very good use of what money I do make. Bars, new cars, plasma TVs, trips to Vail, etc all appeal to me, but I have sense to stay home, drive used, watch small, go to the pool, and buy mutual funds. Start-up money helps, but the biggest difference is the attitude towards money. Most millionaires work hard, are first-generation 'rich', drive used cars, live in rather average houses, and, oh-yeah, are worth a million dollars. The biggest difference is their attitudes about money, hard work, and/or success.

The biggest diffference between an entreprenuer and a wage worker is sales ability, not intelligence or hard work. True. They tend to have more intelligence and/or work harder, but the sales ability is definitely the biggest and most consistent factor.

Most of the economic muscle in todays world comes not from bright innovative entrepreneurs risking everything to chase the big bucks but from established multinational corporations who by definition can have no concern for what is best for america as a whole. I disagree. The most noticeable and/or coherent muscle, yes. But smaller companies add up to a lot. (Tho you're right about attitudes towards America, with the exception of public relations towards a large consumer base.)