Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?

[havok579257]

Wages are considered sticky, so it's unlikely many current employees would actually get a wage cut.  However, looking at it from a different angle, what you are likely to see over time is the following:

 

- Most entry-level positions will retain the same wage

- Some entry-level positions will lower the wage for new hires

- There will also be new entry-level positions created at these lower wages that did not exist before

 

Keep in mind that most workers stay at minimum wage for less than 6 months before they get a raise.  It's just a way for unskilled employees to get their foot in the door.  Lowering or eliminating the minimum wage is not dooming anyone to a lower wage for life.  In fact, in all likelihood it would mean increased opportunity for low-skilled workers via job creation.

 

i think you give business owners way to much credit.  i believe they would drop wages.  maybe not for current employees but for any new employee.  this would get them bigger profits which lots of business's care about more than the human element.  they would have people being working for wages that one can not live off of.  something which the church is against if i am not mistaken.  

 

created at wages that are not a liveable wage you mean.    again if i am not mistaken the church is against unliveable wages.

 

also most workers do not stay at minimum wage for 6 months and then get a raise.  look at mcdonalds.  how many workers stay at minimum wage forever.  

 

new jobs would be created but the problem would be now the average worker who used to work for minimum wage now has to work 2 jobs to make the same amount of money as before. 

 

this is where i have an issues.  profits are put before the human being.  now i apologize for forgetting who said this but it was a rich business owner around the 1800-1900.  he said a 10% profit is enough.  he didn't believe in keeping more than 10% profit for ones self.  he believed the excess profits should be re-invested in employees to improve their work enviornment/jobs.  i agree with this idea.  i have issues with rich business owners who are making record profits, taking home record profits and the work enviornment and the employees get the shaft.  i don't think a work should be just given money.  although i don't think its fair that they continue to lay off workers, refuse to give them healthcare, paid time off for maternity/paternity leave and the such all the while giving themselves and their share holders massive bonus's.  i believe all workers should have basic rights guarentted to them such as healthcare coverage(so they don't go broke in an emergency), not be forced to work on ones own time for fear of being laid off(pay them for the work they actually do) and paid maternity/paternity leave(this strengthens the family unit, helps the bonding between father and mother and child and starts children down the right road to become better citizens instead of forcing people back to work to early and forcing children into daycare and not being raised by their parents).  i believe these should be guarentted rights to all workers and that should come before larger profits.  people first, massive profits 2nd.

[havok579257]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, havok.  All you've done is rant an ignore my very basic questions to you that began with the first reply to your post. 

 

i answered your question as a yes.  i don't know how else you want me to answer it.  you asked if i understand it enough to talk about it.  i said yes.  so i answered your question. nice try though.

[RC Patriot]

essential services are money for for people who can not support themselves or have no one to support themselves.  the mentally or physically handicap who can not completely care for themselves.  would it be ideal if this support could come through church's? absolutely.  although if tomorrow alll government aid stopped, there is no way the church's could help all those in need.  

 

the government has a role in society providing for those who can not help themselves because that is the way government is utilized in america today.  its the way we the people, the majority for years have set up the government.  to help those who can't help themselves.  ideally this help would come from churches but that's not possible today.  so we make do the best we can.  right now that means taxes to help those who can not support themselves and who could not survive without aid.

 

in your example above that's a great idea.  although in the current system we have it would never work.  politicians for the vast majority don't actually look out for the citizens, they look out for themselves and being re-elected.  

 

and here we go with the rehtoric again.  this is why it gets harder and harder to talk to tea party like people.  they just spew rehtoric and make stuff up.  my tag says church militant.  so why on earth would you think i disagree with the church on abortion, contraception, disrespecting our Lord in urine and the such.  your all rehtoric and should run for office. you would fit right in.  its becoming a running joke with tea party like people.  if you don't support all their ideas it means your a liberal, abortion providing, contraception demanding, anti religious person.  although if you go to church, well your not really a christian because political conservatism comes first, religion comes 2nd.  maybe i should be like you and say your evil person because you are a racist, you hate women, you think all blacks are lazy criminals and you only care about the rich.  i mean you obviously don't want to talk, you just want to make stuff up since your making up stuff that i support that goes against church teachings.    

 

also your tea party buddies are for cuts to the blind and handicap.  they are doing this in kansas.  

 

yes, your right, i get all my information from the huffington post.  let's not take into account i live in the state this is happening.  let's not take into account that i see this stuff as i am right here as it happens.  instead let's twist it so i must be a liberal.  an evil liberal who is just out to hurt the honest altruistic tea party people who only want to make this a utopia and would do it if not for those dastardly liberals.  i mean of course anyone

who doesn't support tea party is a liberal.  tea party are good people, all liberals are evil.  if your not with us, your evil.  there are no moderates, not moderate republicans, not moderate democrats.  there is only the good tea party and the rest of the evil dooers of this world.  

 

I don't doubt that you have all the best intentions. I am quite sure that you want to help people at all levels of income. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here waving the flag for higher minimum wages. While I extend that courtesy to you freely, I have not seen the same courtesy from you extended to "tea party people."

 

You seem to have this "binary thinking" where everything is either all good or all bad. You also assume that I have the same binary thinking. I don't. So, cut the crap. We're both Catholic. I did a google search for "tea party are for cuts to the blind and handicapped in kansas." You know what comes up? An article from Huffington Post. This is not an unbiased news source. So you tell me, where is your information coming from? And have you seen the other side's opinion?

 

Now, let's get back to reality... you and I both agree that the government spends money on things that are against Church teaching. I never said you support those things. What I am saying is that the Tea Party might actually be on your side.

[4588686]

No, but I worked many in my youth.  How about yourself?

 

 

Which was how long ago?

 

Yes.  Less than a year ago.  

[CrossCuT]

I have to run, so I don't have the time this answer deserves, but in a nutshell, not only are student loans regulated, but most the industry was (for lack of a better term) nationalized.  T

 

This means that the majority of student loans came and still come directly from the government.  I assume this qualifies as being "regulated."

 

 

No, we arent talking about where the loans are coming from, the problem is that we have to take them out to afford freaking education because of how expensive it is.

 

And no, regulations does not refer to the fact they are from the government, that would refer to where they came from aka federal loans.

 

Please offer some sources to the tons regulations youre claiming. Regulations are more like the confines in which they can be subsidized, handed out, interest rates etc.

 

The fact that the government has to loan so much money is a result of poor regulation.

 

Sallie Mae is a government corporation designed to facilitate federal student loans and guess who started it? Nixon (exactly the time period and presidential party I explained earlier) and today (as of 2004, Bush's term) it is no longer a federally tied organization but a publicly traded corporation... just like a bigass bank.

 

[RC Patriot]

But wait, you're talking about govt colleges... aren't they regulated by definition?

[havok579257]

I don't doubt that you have all the best intentions. I am quite sure that you want to help people at all levels of income. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here waving the flag for higher minimum wages. While I extend that courtesy to you freely, I have not seen the same courtesy from you extended to "tea party people."

 

You seem to have this "binary thinking" where everything is either all good or all bad. You also assume that I have the same binary thinking. I don't. So, cut the croutons. We're both Catholic. I did a google search for "tea party are for cuts to the blind and handicapped in kansas." You know what comes up? An article from Huffington Post. This is not an unbiased news source. So you tell me, where is your information coming from? And have you seen the other side's opinion?

 

Now, let's get back to reality... you and I both agree that the government spends money on things that are against Church teaching. I never said you support those things. What I am saying is that the Tea Party might actually be on your side.

 

 

the source comes from the local kansas city newspaper and local news stations about the cuts.  i don't read the huffington post so i have no idea what it says.  i have seen the other side and heard from it.  it talks about government wasteful spending.  i am all for cutting wasteful spending.  although cutting essential money to the handicap to save money is not alright with me.  you want to make cuts to other areas of government spend that are not essential to people, go for it.  just dont cut from a small group of people who need the money but who's voice matters the least to politicians because they are such a small voting block, losing those votes won't effect the election outcome most of all in a red state like kansas.  

 

if say we are both catholic how come you go down the road of me supporting planned parenthood and condoms.  you said it not me.  i don't support things that go against church teachings and would never consider them essential.  

 

the tea party on some issues are on my side and the churches side.  some things its not.  same with the democratic party.  some things they are on my side and some things they are not.  i don't agree with either group for the majority of their platform.  i think both sides are ruining the country.  both don't want to comprimise with each other which means the country continues to get worse.  also and this is just a personal thing, but the tea party puts up some candidates who say the dumbest things and cost themselves elections.  i mean its really hard to show support for a candidate when they talk about how if a woman is legitimately raped she has ways of stopping pregnancy(todd akin vs claire mcaskall in missouri).  the genious had the race women before the campagin even started because of how bad mcaskill was but they he says something dumb like this and loses the election letting mcaskill, an obama cronny win re-election.  at the end of the day the democratic party and the republican party are bad for america. the tea party section of the republican party is acting dumb and giving liberals easy wins.  they are refusing to comprimise and entering no win situations(the debt ceiling fiasco).  so even if i could agree with most of what they say, i still can't support a group which puts so many people who do dumb things up as the face of the party.

[havok579257]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, havok.  All you've done is rant an ignore my very basic questions to you that began with the first reply to your post. 

 

 

now correct me if i am wrong but wasn't it you who asked what i would rather have instead of capitalism.  i would rather have distributism.  This is a better model I believe for society.  Here is a excerpt about the concept for wikipedia:

 

Distributism (also known as distributionism^[1] or distributivism^[2]) is an economic ideology that developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.^[3]

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right^[4] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism therefore advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership^[5] and, according to co-operativeeconomist Race Mathews, maintains that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.^[6]

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,^[7][8] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.^[9] Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".^[10]

Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.^[11]Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc,^[9]the Chesterbelloc, two of distributism's earliest and strongest proponents.^[12][13]

More recently Pope Francis brings distributism back to the discussion, denouncing unfettered capitalism as tyranny in his 84-page apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Edited March 15, 2014 by havok579257

[CrossCuT]

But wait, you're talking about govt colleges... aren't they regulated by definition?

 

We are talking about loans

[NotreDame]

But wait, you're talking about govt colleges... aren't they regulated by definition?

 

To a certain extent, yes.  You have the government lending money to students in order to hand it over to universities (a large percentage of which are gov't run) and meanwhile you have people blaming it's problems on "capitalism" and saying it needs "regulation.

 

Sorry Crosscut, I made a real effort, I really did.  I showed you how the student loan industry is not just regulated, but essentially nationalized.  How numerous government agencies are in charge.  It is, by definition, regulated.  I'm not sure what else you are looking for. 

[NotreDame]

Wages are considered sticky, so it's unlikely many current employees would actually get a wage cut.  However, looking at it from a different angle, what you are likely to see over time is the following:

 

- Most entry-level positions will retain the same wage

- Some entry-level positions will lower the wage for new hires

- There will also be new entry-level positions created at these lower wages that did not exist before

 

Keep in mind that most workers stay at minimum wage for less than 6 months before they get a raise.  It's just a way for unskilled employees to get their foot in the door.  Lowering or eliminating the minimum wage is not dooming anyone to a lower wage for life.  In fact, in all likelihood it would mean increased opportunity for low-skilled workers via job creation.

 

OK, so let me follow this up with a little more detail. 

 

When you lower (or eliminate) the minimum wage, 3 things can happen:

 

- Some/none/all positions keep the same wage

- Some/none/all positions have wage lowered

- New jobs are created below the previous minimum wage

 

When you raise the minimum wage, two things can happen:

 

- some/none/all positions have the wage increased

- some/none/all positions are eliminated

 

I don't think any of this ^^^^ can be debated, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

Now what mix of responses occur after changing the minimum wage?  First off, nobody can know.  These are what I think they call "counter-factuals" which is a non-intuitive academic word that basically means you are talking about hypothetical situations.   Nonetheless, nobody can know what would happen for sure.

 

We can, however, use reason and economics to infer what would happen qualitatively.  Very quick summary of this follows....

 

In a high growth environment, raising the minimum wage would probably have little effect.  Even if the marginal cost/employee was raised past marginal revenue, in a growth environment most managers/owners would assume that marginal revenue would increase enough to outweigh the cost of employee turnover.

 

In low growth environment, raising the minimum wage would probably have the opposite effect for the same reasons (they aren't sure marginal revenue/employee will increase enough or at all.)

 

Again, I don't think most will debate this ^^^, but I could be wrong.

 

Now what's my personal opinion? 

 

Right now unemployment is high, underemployment is higher, and the labor participation rate is at something like 30-40 year lows.  Job growth is really, really lagging.  Real GDP growth is also lagging tremendously.  This would be a very bad environment in which to raise the minimum wage.  More jobs would get eliminated.

 

What about eliminating the minimum wage?  First off, the cuts have already been made.  Companies are lean right now, productivity is high... There are fewer employees at the margin right now then there normally would be.  So I don't think eliminating the minimum wage would result many folks having their wages lowered (outside of some specific verticals.)

 

However, I personally don't think wages are the biggest barrier to hiring right now.  I think uncertainty (both macro and regulatory) and lack of growth are the larger concerns....  So I wouldn't expect lowering the minimum wage to increase job growth in this environment, all else being equal.

 

Of course, I could be wrong.

[CrossCuT]

Sorry Crosscut, I made a real effort, I really did.  I showed you how the student loan industry is not just regulated, but essentially nationalized.  How numerous government agencies are in charge.  It is, by definition, regulated.  I'm not sure what else you are looking for. 

 

No you didnt. You said there are tons of regulations...too much regulation. Show me.

[NotreDame]

Crosscut, specifically, what exactly do you think "capitalism" does poorly?  What system other than "capitalism" would you propose to fix it?

 

If college education is your example, it's a very bad example of "capitalism" failing.  The US was one of the most free-market countries in the world during the 20th century (admittedly a low bar) and we quickly outpaced Europe (in part thanks to wwii, et al) in higher education. 

 

Education costs have greatly outpaced inflation increasingly over the last 25-30 years, but they have done so precisely because of the many byzantine loan and grant programs at both the state and local levels (programs which were all legislated and give the private lenders involved a nice guaranteed return, subsidized by the government in many cases.)

 

As I pointed out early when explaining CDO's and CDS's to you it's not lack of regulation that's causing these problems, it's actually the increased government involvement (increasingly being referred to as crony capitalism) that's giving birth to these excesses.

 

 

The US did indeed outpaced Europe in higher education after WWII, but it did this because higher education was NOT treated as a private investment. In the decades following WWII, state colleges were created and were fully (or almost fully in some cases) funded by the state and federal governments. Which means the reason we outpaced Europe was because higher education in America was essentially free.

 

Wow, there are lots of problems with this ^^^, but let's table it for the moment to focus on the following:

 

In the last 30-40 years (beginning around the Nixon era, and taken to a new extreme during the Regan years) education has become increasingly less affordable due to many factors (one such example is a lack of regulation on student loan interest rates, another is lack of regulation of tuition rates for state and federally funded educational institutions).

 

There is not any "lack of regulation on student loan interest rates."  It's exactly the opposite.  Student loans are incredibly regulated, subsidized, there are special rules carved out in bankruptcy law, etc., and almost all methods of paying tuition nowadays are programs that are the direct result of regulation and legislation. 

 

This is not a "lack of regulation", but an abundance of it.  It's also not "capitalism", in the free market sense.  You realize this right? 

 

 

No you didnt. You said there are tons of regulations...too much regulation. Show me.

 

Look at what I said above.  To that you said - and I quote - "I don't believe you."  I then proceeded to show you that the government itself, not "capitalism", is the primary student loan lender and originator - with 93% of all student loans in 2011 coming directly from the government.   

 

This isn't just the government regulating private industry, this is the government nationalizing the industry.  Since the loans come from government agencies they are, by definition, regulated.  I'm honestly not sure how to get ahold of their working regulations online (even if I could, I'm not sure I could read them), but you can read through the wikipedia article and google all the relevant legislation it references.  Here you can read up on bankruptcy law and student loans.

[RC Patriot]

the source comes from the local kansas city newspaper and local news stations about the cuts.  i don't read the huffington post so i have no idea what it says.  i have seen the other side and heard from it.  it talks about government wasteful spending.  i am all for cutting wasteful spending.  although cutting essential money to the handicap to save money is not alright with me.  you want to make cuts to other areas of government spend that are not essential to people, go for it.  just dont cut from a small group of people who need the money but who's voice matters the least to politicians because they are such a small voting block, losing those votes won't effect the election outcome most of all in a red state like kansas.

 

I believe that creating a strawman out of  a partial quote and spreading it to every voting person affects voting outcomes even more. I'm still skeptical that this was even said, and I'm having a hard time finding any mention of it outside of the generic Huffington Post article. Obviously, you know the details better than I do, and the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Give me a link or something....

 

if say we are both catholic how come you go down the road of me supporting planned parenthood and condoms.  you said it not me.  i don't support things that go against church teachings and would never consider them essential.

 

I said the government supports Planned Parenthood and condoms through redistribution of income, which we call taxes. Don't you see that this is "essential services" to those in power? Ultimately, my point is that you're going to need to come up with a different excuse for taking other people's money than "essential services," because those words are being abused.

 

the tea party on some issues are on my side and the churches side.  some things its not.  same with the democratic party.  some things they are on my side and some things they are not.  i don't agree with either group for the majority of their platform.  i think both sides are ruining the country.  both don't want to comprimise with each other which means the country continues to get worse.  also and this is just a personal thing, but the tea party puts up some candidates who say the dumbest things and cost themselves elections.  i mean its really hard to show support for a candidate when they talk about how if a woman is legitimately raped she has ways of stopping pregnancy(todd akin vs claire mcaskall in missouri).  the genious had the race women before the campagin even started because of how bad mcaskill was but they he says something dumb like this and loses the election letting mcaskill, an obama cronny win re-election.  at the end of the day the democratic party and the republican party are bad for america. the tea party section of the republican party is acting dumb and giving liberals easy wins.  they are refusing to comprimise and entering no win situations(the debt ceiling fiasco).  so even if i could agree with most of what they say, i still can't support a group which puts so many people who do dumb things up as the face of the party.

 

I'd love to hear what your vision for the country is, if you think both parties are ruining the country. My thinking is that if you're going down the freeway in the wrong direction, you have to turn around. "Compromise" isn't going to get you anywhere. But seriously, look into your sources. It didn't take long for me to find these:

 

Sarah Steelman was the Tea Party chosen, not Todd Akin

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-express-endorses-sarah-steelman-u-senate-212100508.html

 

Democrats spent $1.5 MIllion to help Todd Akin win the primary... gee, I wonder why....

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dems-Spent-1-5-Million-to-by-Rob-Kall-120821-873.html

 

I sucks when your own party doesn't support you, eh?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/todd-akin-on-today-this-is-not-about-my-ego/

 

To his credit, he tried to take it back. "Apology not accepted," said the media which controls the mass of votes.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/todd-akin

 

Todd Akin, not exactly the "face of the party."

[4588686]

I'll go back to my question about working a low skill job.  The idea that lowing the minimum wage will help anyone get their foot n the door is silly.  Those jobs have almost no future.  Maybe if you stuck with it and did great you'd get a managerial position where you'd get guaranteed a little over (paid) 35 hours a week (while also being on call and actually working much more).