How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

[russ_watters]

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

 

[OmCheeto]

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

Well, presumably, we lowered the taxes on the wealthiest the most, as there was supposed to be some trickle down effect. It appears to me,

that it simply trickled into their bank accounts.

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.
What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

 

[Pythagorean]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

 

[OmCheeto]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

All I know is that we are trading information, on a platform, created by, whom I would now call, hippies.

There are those with ideas, that change the world for the better. And there are those with ideas, that suck the life out of it.

Regulation decides, or, IMHO, should decide, who profits more.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.

How can you show the impact of a change with a chart that shows one moment in time?

Also, distribution of wealth is a very poor indicator because standard of living does not correlate well with wealth, particularly after the popping of the housing bubble inverted a lot of mortgages.

What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

How is that useful?

 

[OmCheeto]

How is that useful?

Election's tomorrow.

You don't like poor people that don't pay federal taxes.

I don't like crackheads, as they steal my **** when I'm at work.

I thought maybe we had something in common.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea what the median income is for crackheads, but it sounds like you are implying some sort of corellation... You're kind of all over the place though, so I don't see your point.

 

[Naty1]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. [/QUOTE]too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.

 

[Bacle2]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post.

too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself.

 

[Naty1]

Just heard a report on the news: Regulatory rules cost US business about $1 trillion annually in regulatory compliance costs.

It was not specified, but I assume this is beyond IRS tax requirements. In a $15T economy, that can't help competitiveness.

 

[DosCadenas]

Everyone.

That's what across-the-board tax cuts do, for example. A trillion dollars in tax cuts and a trillion dollars in stimulus have the same initial effect on the country's balance sheet, but the tax cuts give you the choice of how to spend the money whereas the direct stimulus is the government choosing where to spend the money (on failing alternate energy companies...?).

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

 

[enosis_]

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

Where is the multiplier in a failing alternate energy company (the example cited by Russ Waters in the post you responded to)?

 

[Bacle2]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

 

[ImaLooser]

How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

 

[enosis_]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

 

[Bacle2]

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

Sorry, I meant individuals, not corporations.

At the end of the day, I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent anyone institution from gaining too much power.

 

[Bacle2]

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

 

[Bacle2]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

But, do the shareholders know about this?

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower high school dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.
See if you can find a story on MSNBC on the family court system and how it favors women,or the stories about false accusations (proven false) of violence and rape by women ( they somehow forgot to include provisions for this in VAWA . Of course,no provisions for violence against men.) that have destroyed men's lives, etc. , or stories questioning the rationale for war , or how oil companies who are making trillions in profit are receiving tax breaks, on pedophile priests etc. on Fox.
But, hey, I had insomnia , but not enough money for premium cable, and did not want to watch infomercials at 5 a.m . Now I just read.

 

[enosis_]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

 

[Naty1]

I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent anyone institution from gaining too much power.

No question: Any single entrenched all powerful hierarchy of elites collects billions for themselves and their chosen allies...Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese communist party elites...Hitler, Stalin, Musssoli of an earlier era lived pretty well,too. Just look at the way US political parties reward their supporters and allies...Obama is a master of that if not much else. But by international standards of theft, he's just a lowly also ran.

Wanna see the effects of 'regulation'??...follow the plight of Obamacare [the Affordable Care Act] and watch it flounder, especially the state pools which are already delayed...

The US does somewhat better because power is spread among states, courts, feds and local governments via what is left of the Constitution. So Scott Walker in Wisconsin gets to do what he does [balance the budget] and mayors in Stockton, Detroit, Oakland, Pittsburgh,New Orleans, Baltimore,etc run their cities into bankruptcy.

 

[Bacle2]

No question: Any single entrenched all powerful hierarchy of elites collects billions for themselves and their chosen allies...Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese communist party elites...Hitler, Stalin, Musssoli of an earlier era lived pretty well,too. Just look at the way US political parties reward their supporters and allies...Obama is a master of that if not much else. But by international standards of theft, he's just a lowly also ran.

Wanna see the effects of 'regulation'??...follow the plight of Obamacare [the Affordable Care Act] and watch it flounder, especially the state pools which are already delayed...

The US does somewhat better because power is spread among states, courts, feds and local governments via what is left of the Constitution. So Scott Walker in Wisconsin gets to do what he does [balance the budget] and mayors in Stockton, Detroit, Oakland, Pittsburgh,New Orleans, Baltimore,etc run their cities into bankruptcy.

Well, I don't know if you can give as evidence something that has not yet happenned. Who knows how it will turn out. Still, there are problems also from a complete lack of regulation; it is an art to get it just right.

 

[aquitaine]

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

In most authoritarian countries they use their political connections to get such favors as monopolies in their home markets, tax subsidies, and/or preference for government contracts. In return the regime usually expects certain things from the company, often including such favors as not permitting unions, not causing political trouble, permitting the regime's lackeys to get favorable appointments. There very much is a quid pro quo at work.

What excessive regulations usually do is stifle big companies' startup competitors. Each regulation has a compliance cost and when that cost starts getting into the millions of dollars, a Fortune 500 company can afford to shell it out but its startup competition with a highly disruptive product often cannot. The best example of this would be the airline industry prior to Carter's deregulation, we didn't really start to get companies like Southwest until after that happened. Before that it was a small club and they all charged really high prices. Here's an excerpt from an excellent take down from a lawyer.

Only reluctantly did the CAB give up the concept that, in any of these charter fares, each charter passenger had to pay an equal share of the full cost of the charter, instead of a fixed price for his ticket. Thus, if someone canceled at the last minuted and the carrier had not already received that passenger's money or couldn't find a replacement, the fare for everybody else on the charter went up! That is a good example of how excessive regulation had been crippling the air carriers in the marketplace.

The second and third factors prompting deregulation are two different types of "Entry".

First there was the difficulty—read inability—to get into the trunk airline business at all. I have already mentioned that the CAB did not admit any new trunk carrier after 1938. To be sure, by 1975, there were eight regional service carriers, some quite large (e.g., Frontier), and there were ten supplementals, a few intrastate carriers in Texas and California, and air taxis. But when, for example, World Airways, a charter airline, applied in 1967 to fly a scheduled service between New York and Los Angeles at low prices, the CAB "studied" the matter for six and a half years and then dismissed the application because the record was "stale".

Secondly, even if you were a member of the club there was the difficulty—read forget it—to obtain CAB approval for a new route. At the same time, under CAB regulation an air carrier that wanted to deploy its assets more efficiently would have difficulty obtaining CAB authority to abandon a route. It was the same problem that the railroads had with the ICC. As an example of the difficulty of securing approval of a new route, Continental had to wait eight years to add San Diego/Denver to its system, and finally succeeded only because a U.S. Court of Appeals told the CAB to grant the authority.

 

[ImaLooser]

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

 

[ImaLooser]

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower high school dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.

I'm curious about that too. I dunno. Women didn't even have the vote for quite some time. Women were explicitly excluded from most institutions of higher education, and there were very few women CEOs and so forth. I can remember when all radio disk jockeys were men. All TV announcers were men. Politicians, managers, and doctors were almost all men, etc. etc.. There was not equal opportunity. A cousin of mine got a degree in dentistry, which was unusual in those days, and had great difficulty getting a loan to start a practice.

But as to whether Jill working next to Jack doing the same thing gets paid less, I don't know how much that ever happened. I think it was more that there were traditionally men's jobs and women's jobs, and a few mixed jobs like teaching.

 

[enosis_]

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

Are you certain about this claim - any support?

 

[ImaLooser]

Are you certain about this claim - any support?

I like the example of Lester Maddox, who shut down his business rather an integrate it. Subsequently he was elected governor of Georgia.

Businesses in the South strongly opposed integration even though it would increase the number of potential customers. Maintenance of the social hierarchy of status was more important.

 

[Naty1]

Quote by enosis_

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

who cares...it's a private business...if they choose not to treat people equally, that should be their own business. Most businesses want a diverse workforce and a diverse customer base.

Meantime, recent analyses have show a dearth of top women in the Obama administration and lower pay for those they do have...

I know three companies very well...and those companies bend over backwards to pay equally and foster minority and female developmental growth and advancement...AT&T is one.

 

[Bacle2]

who cares...it's a private business...if they choose not to treat people equally, that should be their own business. Most businesses want a diverse workforce and a diverse customer base.

Meantime, recent analyses have show a dearth of top women in the Obama administration and lower pay for those they do have...

I know three companies very well...and those companies bend over backwards to pay equally and foster minority and female developmental growth and advancement...AT&T is one.

Oh, here we go again. Do we really need to have the proportion of men to women be 1-1 in every subset of the job market? Were there enough women interested/able-willing in those positions as men at the moment in which those jobs needed to be filled? Seriously, as a result of expecting every single business to have a 1:1 gender distribution in employment, now we have male Hooters waiters, and men in tight orange shorts as waiters . Yikes! ( no more Hooters for me. )

 

[aquitaine]

I like the example of Lester Maddox, who shut down his business rather an integrate it. Subsequently he was elected governor of Georgia.

Businesses in the South strongly opposed integration even though it would increase the number of potential customers. Maintenance of the social hierarchy of status was more important.

Its worth mentioning that the social hierarchy in the south was also enforced by the state government and businesses that wanted to break it would not only have that to deal with, they would have also been boycotted by their other customers. Jim Crow was very much a political problem that required a political solution.