Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP seems to be laboring under the notion that there really is more to the "free market" than a mythological construct often utilized as a ruse to convince others of the "dream world" wherein humanity isn't greedy, selfish, and conniving. The formation of today's capital markets didn't simply arrive in the dark of night as part of the great American salvation.
No, it grew from a premise of power and politics, welded together in order for one to make the necessary laws that enable the lop sided gains of the other, when compared to the odds of success without that power. The power of law has traditionally been less of a handicap on business, and more of an enabler in the pursuit of squashing real competition.
I can't recall a time in our history when we ever had an economy that wasn't tied to the alliance of banking and government. The creation of the Fed simply cemented the loose ends of the pre-Fed economy that allowed a less strict entry criteria for membership to that circle of power. I'm left to wonder how many posters really have thought out their positions that seem to be claiming a poverty of profit brought by government, against our largest corporations.
Does anyone really think that said corporate entities are hurting at present and hoping for a kind of flat out competitive beat down brought on by a true free market construct? It's been a long held belief of mine that the upper levels of corporate governance includes a penchant for collusion over real competition, hence the term, "capital cronyism."
I keep saying that we should let the markets decide.
Instead of forcing a business to do x, y, z, let the markets decide. If a business is making the majority unhappy, the business will not survive. Instead of trying to legislate everyone to being who you (these are all general "you"s, not specific ones) want them to be, understand and accept that not everyone will think and do just like you, and it's ok. We don't all have to be like you. Stop trying to control people, let the market decide if they will get their comeuppance or if maybe you blew it all of proportion.
Instead of forcing a minimum wage on people, where businesses will get nice and comfy with that, let the markets decide. And by the way, that's already going on with many "crowd sourced" work that you can find on the internet. A job can be posted, but if the pay is too low, most won't take it. The ones that do, the person who posted that job is going to get what they get for that kind of pay. It takes some awhile, but they all eventually learn that if you want good work, you're going to pay for it. Letting the market decide actually works, and works well. It's already being proven online.
Of course there's the b***hers who grind on others who take the work for pay that doesn't reach some arbitary "per hour" amount that they think they "deserve". They get upset, try to bully them, insult them, etc, but at the end of the day, they aren't paying the bills of the person who took the job for the lower pay. And the person who took the job for the lower pay is getting paid while the person who is holding out for their magical $15 an hour, is sitting around writing out nasty comments towards those who are working. I've seen it hundreds of times.
Some may think that if everyone holds out, the wage will go up. Yep, it will. But guess what happens then? There's not as much work, or they limit who can work on their jobs by only allowing trusted workers...so all of those b***hing about making more per hour just b***hed themselves right out of a job...again.
I point this out simply to explain that allowing the free market to work is already underway with a lot of freelance, independent contracting, online jobs/work/tasks. It's been like this for years. People still manage to make a LOT of money despite all the jobs that some consider to be "too low in pay" to do. Puts a damper on the idea that no one will make any money, and that no Americans will work for wages that are under $X per hour.
As an aside, the ones who *****, moan, and complain about how some jobs pay too low, or aren't worth it so they never do them? If you pay close attention over time, you'll see that they DO those jobs...they slip up every once in awhile and talk about a job they just did.
Yes, the people creating the jobs are keeping more money for themselves by offering low pay on their jobs, but no amount of b***hing about it has ever paid the rent.
More competition breeds greater inventions, greater products, greater ideas.
And as you, OP, stated in another thread, the social problems are indeed a direct result of the economy. A thriving economy typically shows less social issues. A weak economy displays a lot of social problems. I actually believe that some people are happiest when there's a weak economy so they have something to complain about. What would SJWs do in a booming economy? They'd have to start taking it out on their 40 cats.
The problem is that people need jobs so they can not just not take jobs when bills have to be payed especially when there are plenty of people who will take that job if someone else does not. If businesses really saw that if they wanted better workers they would pay more would mean we would see higher wages now but it has not happened in many places. If you can not pay your bills with the wage you make not sure how that is much better then unemployment. Free Market has worked for the upper %1 not so much everyone else. People who want a free market are pretty much saying we want businesses to do whatever and pay whatever they want.
I asked you to explain it to us in your own words. Please, by all means... explain to us how you interpret the graph and what you think it tells us, what it means and how that supports whatever argument you would make.
I already explained exactly that in post #13:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
The graph looks pretty self-explanatory to me. At the height of the recession in terms of job losses, about 59% of whites were employed and 52% of blacks were employed (roughly 2009). Today, that disparity is more like 60% vs 57%.
In the 1940s, many white workers lobbied for their to be a minimum wage because they couldn't compete with black workers who were working for less. That was the creation of minimum wage. It probably wasn't the first laws that was put in place to "protect" a certain group of workers and it wouldn't be the last. However what minimum wage did was destroy the bargining power of black workers, and this lead to biased hiring. Because most employers would have preferred white workers over black workers anyway, the only chance black people had to get hired was to largely underbid white workers. A business owner who is going to think about maximizing profit really couldn't refuse this offer, and it lead to the employment of many black workers, who had skills and could actually go out and start their own business.
Why do I mention this? Because this is the power of the market. The power of the free market, where competition has a strange habit of trumping bias. A good business will always maximize profit, even if this means that they have to do so at the cost of their personal prejudices.
However what we have in America now days has nothing to do with the power of the market. We have a system where the government controls the economy, and they pick winners and losers. Sometimes it's a black winner and sometimes it's a white loser. Who they pick doesn't really matter. The key point to be made is that they're in a position to decide someone's value, and that goes against the very nature of economics.
TLDR; Only the market should decide winners and losers. The government has no concept of value or any concept of the market. Look at all of the attempts from politicians to "fix" the economy.
We need to return to a pure free market, where the market decides everything. This means no more public schools, no more public housing, no more public police force, or public firemen, and no more public military. It should all be privatized and it should all be decided by the market.
So is the rest of the world going to do the same? Otherwise, it's pointless.
The source provides no evidence to its position. It is also a graph without explanation. So Mr. Wizard, care to explain it to us? Or are pretty pictures your defense?
Not at all. What we have now is Capitalistic Cronyism.
Instead of the people deciding who wins and who loses based on their interest in a given product, we have government dictating who wins and who loses by the handouts and deals they make with big business.
Want to truly understand? Read up on CA and PG&E, the Blackout, Grey Davis Collusion, Environmentalist attacks on new Energy companies in CA and who is funding them, etc....
Welcome to the world my friend, Government is not your freedom, it is your slave. Wake up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Oh please Mr. Instructor. Explain that graph to us.
Can you, or did you just rip it off some site with some claim and think you could drop it off here?
I really don't think you have a clue of what you even linked.
/facepalm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Why is that? What are the variables? Where was the data taken? etc..
Sorry, but I am not impressed by graphs without proper citation WHICH can show its methodology.
So again, could you explain the data or am I supposed to be impressed by pretty pictures? Some of us have an IQ above our shoe size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
The source provides no evidence to its position. It is also a graph without explanation. So Mr. Wizard, care to explain it to us? Or are pretty pictures your defense?
Speak up, explain, stop being a puppet!
OK its understandable that you have your mind made up about this subject and you don't want facts to get in the way of your ranting, but give me a break!
All the answers to these ridiculous questions you are asking are obvious, some even included in bold letters in the graph itself!
In the 1940s, many white workers lobbied for their to be a minimum wage because they couldn't compete with black workers who were working for less. That was the creation of minimum wage. It probably wasn't the first laws that was put in place to "protect" a certain group of workers and it wouldn't be the last. However what minimum wage did was destroy the bargining power of black workers, and this lead to biased hiring. Because most employers would have preferred white workers over black workers anyway, the only chance black people had to get hired was to largely underbid white workers. A business owner who is going to think about maximizing profit really couldn't refuse this offer, and it lead to the employment of many black workers, who had skills and could actually go out and start their own business.
Why do I mention this? Because this is the power of the market. The power of the free market, where competition has a strange habit of trumping bias. A good business will always maximize profit, even if this means that they have to do so at the cost of their personal prejudices.
However what we have in America now days has nothing to do with the power of the market. We have a system where the government controls the economy, and they pick winners and losers. Sometimes it's a black winner and sometimes it's a white loser. Who they pick doesn't really matter. The key point to be made is that they're in a position to decide someone's value, and that goes against the very nature of economics.
TLDR; Only the market should decide winners and losers. The government has no concept of value or any concept of the market. Look at all of the attempts from politicians to "fix" the economy.
We need to return to a pure free market, where the market decides everything. This means no more public schools, no more public housing, no more public police force, or public firemen, and no more public military. It should all be privatized and it should all be decided by the market.
You are romantizing being a black man and the only way to survive being able to work for significantly less(and most likely be in extreme poverty).
I'm sorry if this is your idea of paradise I'll pass.
Your hypothesis really doesn't make much sense. The quality of life for black people is much better today than in the 1950's(and really for everyone else as well).
All the evidence points that being "saved" would result in a much lower quality of life. So I'll pass on your version of being saved.
Yup and that arrangement would not be capitalism but fascism.
All parties in capitalism are entitled to negotiating power when it concerns them and trade pacts certainly concern them.
Labor never had a say in the trade pacts we have.
The trade pacts should be abolished and the people that made them thrown in prison
Yes, exactly. I've never understood why people want to take bargaining power away from the producers in an economy. I understand why Big Business does - it's favorable for them to not have to negotiate with workers. But why workers rail against having bargaining power is something I just don't get. Talk about being against your own self interest.
People say, "Take away currency and everyone will be equal."
No, I don't believe that to be true. We have many examples of people who have very little money, but lots of land and property. If its not one item being used as currency/a tool of power, its another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
