Greed Is Good. What?

[Qqmike]

Speechless. Realizing how naive I must be.

Some of you have posted about the outrageously strong, greed-is-good influence on America and on US politics, influence from a small upper percent of wealthy Americans. Of course, we know that. But after watching this PBS Independent Lens presentation, I really get it now.

Why isn't this stuff more widely distributed to the public? Why wasn't Paul Ryan's record of extreme beliefs made more public by liberal special interest groups? Is the influence of the upper 1-3% on so-called independent-Libertarians not known? or its influence on the Tea Party? How can you support maintaining the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy? And one of "my" liberal guys, Senator Charles Schumer, shame on him.

About 45 minutes; other material (e.g., interview transcripts at the website):

Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/p...enue/film.html

I'd say there's little chance of the country moving toward socialism (hell, we may be lucky to keep even some of the food stamp program if the conservatives keep going they way they seem to be). If socialism scares you, why are you not even more afraid of the other extreme, the Ayn Rand protege-extremists (assuming, that is, you are a regular low-to-'middle class' citizen, and not one of the upper 1-3%, or even 'safe' with the upper 10%, for that matter)?

I really don't care to get into the usual conservative vs liberal thing again; but I would like to learn more about the material exposed in this presentation, and the effects it may have on the future of not only the middle class but on American democracy.

Are 'we' asleep at the wheel? or are 'we' even "at the wheel"?

[luckyone]

They-seem-to-have-bought-the-country-fair-and-square.

[bsniadajewski]

I think the main reason people would be afraid of Socialism was becuse of Stalin and Mao. The way they ruled their countries and satellites made people here in America equate socialism with a type of authoritarianism.

There are aspects of socialism and social democracy that I like (like emphasis on sommunity over individual, while stressing individual rights), and may have influenced Christan Democracy (a good mix of moral convervatism, economic liberalism and socailism).


Reason: Forgot to add link.

[Qqmike]

But, I wonder whether the average conservative (Republican, Tea Party, or even Libertarian) voter (follower) is aware of who is driving their party ideology? And who that ideology benefits.

[dibl]

I may or may not fit perfectly someone's notion of "average conservative", but it's a reasonable description of my outlook, especially in the economic domain. (I run more liberal/libertarian on social stuff -- I think women's reproductive health and decisions are none of the government's business, for example). I'm not a registered Republican or Tea Party member, because I prize my individuality and independence more than I value whatever the benefits of group membership may bring.

So, Mike, here's a few average conservative thoughts. I watched the trailer, but not the movie, and I looked over the list of contributors. I recognized a couple of names -- Jeffrey Sachs is a smart and thoughtful guy, for example, and Abramoff certainly knows a thing or two about using other people's money to enrich himself. I'm not going to launch a diatribe against socialists and their liberal fellow-travellers -- first and foremost I believe in, and respect, the right of thoughtful people to their opinions. I will merely point out a few of the more obvious problems that I personally have with their vision of "the way things ought to be".

- our American ancestors and predecessors built this mighty economy primarily with personal industry and ingenuity, in the private sector. The federal government had very little to do with the development of our economy, historically. Most economists who could reasonably be characterized as "experts" will tell you that it was WW II, and the resultant industrial mobilization, that ended the Great Depression, not any of FDR's vaunted social programs that still bring misty tears to the eyes of modern liberals. So I always have to scratch my head when hearing the liberal propositions of how the Government is going to do this or that to improve the economy, given that there's such scant evidence in history to support the theory.

- private enterprise in a free market generally works for the common good. The desirable characteristics of it are:

-- goods and services are offered by sellers in competition, such that buyers are able to maximize their economic well-being
-- goods and services that don't offer a desirable value proposition (and their sellers), get extinguished from the market
-- individuals and enterprises that efficiently deliver desirable goods and services are rewarded with economic profits
-- new wealth is created by expansion of the market, coming from individual and organizational ingenuity and excellent management practices, in developing and offering new and better goods and services
-- new wealth creation (as opposed to greed) is a very, very desirable attribute of a national economy
-- it is otherwise known as "growth" and it is the only possible solution to the question of how a growing nation/population can maintain a given standard of living. Even the Soviet Union figured this one out, and China is busily following suit, in their own way.

Those are the reasons why I'm a free market advocate, and always will be. However, we know from experience that all markets are not free, and all sellers are not competing, and maybe some buyers are not competing either. It is distortions and constraints on the freedom of markets that leads to manipulation, non-competitive practices, and abuse of various parties, the private citizen being the most numerous of the victims. By the way, one of the hugest distorters and constrainers of markets is guess who? The federal government, that's who. How do they do it -- just look at the Jack Abramoff case. The Indians (native Americans) needed Congress to write legislation that would support establishment of gambling casinos, so Abramoff took advantage of that circumstance to enrich himself at the tribes' expense. Why should the U.S. Congress have anything to do with the establishment of gambling casinos? If they were barred from such interference in the private sector, then there would have been no scandal and no screwing and no multi-million dollar waste of taxpayer money prosecuting people. So, there's one example of why average conservatives hear liberals jabbering about "more regulation" and kind of just roll our eyes. Because it translates to "more dorking around with the markets to induce distortions, constraints, and non-competitive situations that will foster corruption and wasteful prosecutions".

And by the way, since I've gone this far, YES, wealthy people and corporations should pay the same rate of earnings taxes as common laborers, regardless of the source of the earnings.

And one more thing -- earnings taxes are all evil. We should transition to a national sales tax, or VAT, or whatever you wish to call it. I personally call it the "Materialist Society Tax". ;-)

Now I'll go back to lurking mode, where I belong.

[HalationEffect]

We should transition to a national sales tax, or VAT, or whatever you wish to call it.

The only problem with that is that the less you earn, the more (as a percentage of your income) you get taxed under such a scheme. It would serve only to further widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

[dibl]

The only problem with that is that the less you earn, the more (as a percentage of your income) you get taxed under such a scheme. It would serve only to further widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

That's a fair point, and needs to be considered. However, I've thought about it and the reasons I don't find it persuasive are:

1. The truly poor who only can afford to buy foodstuffs, minimal rented housing, and essential utilities, would pay zero in taxes, so it's not to their disadvantage.

2. Rich people buy more stuff than average people, so they would pay more taxes. I'd want to see the system loophole-free, no purchasing-by-proxy or stuff like that.

3. The average conservative is absolutely no more than lukewarm about the desirability of having the government attempt directly to manipulate the size of the wealth gap between rich and poor. I'm very afraid that a government-engineered solution to this "problem" would produce the result that everyone is poor.

[kubicle]

- private enterprise in a free market generally works for the common good. The desirable characteristics of it are:

-- goods and services are offered by sellers in competition, such that buyers are able to maximize their economic well-being
-- goods and services that don't offer a desirable value proposition (and their sellers), get extinguished from the market
-- individuals and enterprises that efficiently deliver desirable goods and services are rewarded with economic profits
-- new wealth is created by expansion of the market, coming from individual and organizational ingenuity and excellent management practices, in developing and offering new and better goods and services
-- new wealth creation (as opposed to greed) is a very, very desirable attribute of a national economy
-- it is otherwise known as "growth" and it is the only possible solution to the question of how a growing nation/population can maintain a given standard of living. Even the Soviet Union figured this one out, and China is busily following suit, in their own way.

The 19th century called, they want their economic theories back :P

[oshunluvr]

Also, income tax is a dis-incentive to earn while a vat (or national sales tax) is an incentive to save (which is more money in the system - a benefit). not to mention sales taxes are collected from all persons in the country - including tourists, undocumented, criminals or others living off-the-grid - not just those who choose to be honest.

[dibl]

The 19th century called, they want their economic theories back :P

LOL -- of course -- that's when I learned them in school!

[Qqmike]

Well, dibl, ol' pal, you come out of hiding! AND, you actually responded to one of our messy Social topics! Good for you.
;-)

Very well thought-out response you have there. The FDR example is more complex, I think. And there are other 'other' examples on BOTH sides. For example, happen to see Ken Burns, Dust Bowl? How the fiercely independent and proud farmers ended up begging the government to step in and even--in a sense--take over to fix it. Lately, food stamps -- 40 million fellow Americans in need right now -- in these modern times, there should be some safety net. I do NOT have any faith whatsoever that the average American corporation can be counted on to do what is best and (morally) right (or fair) for the worker--not health care, not security, not retirement, not a fair income, not infrastructure, not research, nothing. Oh, yes, the corporation will give something to the worker; but hardly adequate in many cases. Best that a typical American worker these days have two F-T jobs with double the benefits to make ends meet. But I'm getting off-track here, as this sort of thing could go on without end or resolution.

Let's look at the pudding. After all, that's usually where the proof is.

I don't disagree with the theory, the philosophy, the Wild West spirit, the economic principles (that you outlined) of how the free market SHOULD work (but kubicle has a good observation on this). I agree that " ... new wealth creation (as opposed to greed) is a very, very desirable attribute of a national economy..." And " ...it is otherwise known as 'growth' and it is the only possible solution to the question of how a growing nation/population can maintain a given standard of living."

And so on, right down the list--freedom, hard work, Democracy, capitalismo, god, mommy, and apple pie. But ... something is wrong, something about it is not working for the so-called middle class. And with the conservatives in Congress pushing in the directions they seem to be pushing, the future doesn't look much better (for the "middle class"). The net result of all the haggling, the bottom-line: the existence of our strong middle class is at risk now (not to speak of what to do with large numbers of uneducated and very poor people populating the streets).

[dibl]

Let's look at the pudding. After all, that's usually where the proof is.
.
.
.
But ... something is wrong, something about it is not working for the so-called middle class. And with the conservatives in Congress pushing in the directions they seem to be pushing, the future doesn't look much better (for the "middle class"). The net result of all the haggling, the bottom-line: the existence of our strong middle class is at risk now (not to speak of what to do with large numbers of uneducated and very poor people populating the streets).

Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement on these points. I'm far from in love with everything the Replublican house caucus has advocated in the past term, nor with some of the tactics I've seen employed. I think our present economic woes are attributable to out-of-control spending, and over-regulation, during the past 20 years by both wings of the Establishment Party. Actually Warren Buffett had a great idea last week -- a constitutional amendment that says any person who served in a Congress that authorized a federal budget deficit of more than 3% of the GDP is permanently ineligible for another federal office. I would actually invest time and energy supporting that one, something I've not done for any political purpose for quite a few years.

[blobfish]

Capitalism suffers the same problem as democracy: It requires an educated consumer/voter.

I read a lot of these political threads and one thing has been bothering me: Once in a while someone will use the word "socialist" or "socialism" in a derogatory manner. Does anybody else see the irony of this on a linux forum? Isn't linux grown out of socialist ideas? Can't everybody here say that we are socialists to some extent, even if it is minute?

[dibl]

Can't everybody here say that we are socialists to some extent ...

Sure -- we're all socialists, to some extent.

But where's the Linux tax collector, and where do I go to prison for not paying my Linux tax in full?

There's a huge difference between voluntary social communities (e.g. Amish, Mennonites, Open Source) and socialism coerced by a central government.

[luckyone]

I'll preface my comment with the fact that I voted for Barry Goldwater and if they dig him up and reanimate him I'd vote for him again.

Talk of business 'building' wealth reminds me of where that wealth came from. Stolen by political fiat from Native Americans. Now I won't complain about that as it appears that it was stolen fair and square using the government and their hired guns (literally).

If you haven't bothered to read the history of the late 1800's you really should. It would open an eye or two. I'll mention the people who used their companies to run ruffshod over their workers. Had them murdered. The company store was a reality not a figment of someone's imagination. Kids that were 8 years old working 12 hours and sleeping on the floor of the factory. Whole industries were taken over by groups that had no agenda except getting a door that was plated with gold for their house. Of course then there was the 'person' that had to have and went out and got a platinum one.

Regressive taxes like VAT are not the answer. Perhaps a transaction tax? I mean if you want to fix the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade situation just eliminate the cap on taxable income. Along with removing the special treatment for investment profits. Wala! Fixed in one fell swoop. Along with the deficit and deficit spending. For this I'd vote for an Amendment for balancing the budget.

Give me a break. There always seems to be mention of Communism. It's a scare tactic. Because it was nothing but a bloody dictatorship. Not socialism. A lot of countries simply stolen from their citizens. But there never seems to be much mention of Norway, Sweden, Finland. Which are all successful socialist-based Democracies. With high standard of livings for their citizens. For instance Finland has the best school system in the world. The others are not far behind.
I won't even mention that they have better outcomes for the health of their citizens. I won't mention that no kid dies of lack of dental care. That families aren't driven into backruptcy by bad health.

No, I won't mention those things. There's really no need. You all read the newpapers. At least the parts you agree with. Try some facts for a change.

Currently the United States of America has been bought by the Establishment party. I see little difference between the two except in professed ideals. When it gets to the down and dirty they both write laws for those who pay them. And that is not the citizens of this nation.

Sorry to be so blunt, but anyone expousing the return to the late 1800's economically simply doesn't give a damn about his fellow man. It's intregueing for a majority professed Christian nation. Those souless Swedes, Norwegians, and Finlanders seem to be one up morally. Actually several up. Actually they're in a different ballpark altogether.