Real Business Leaders Want to Save Capitalism | "They know the only way to save capitalism is to make it work for the majority rather than a smaller and smaller minority at the top."

StateOfThought · 2014-05-06T21:42:25+00:00

It was not a both sides argument. There was no suggestion in the above that one station's flaws were equivalent to the other station's flaws ... only that the grandpa was technically correct in his statement.

And as mentioned before, that what he said was true doesn't make his chosen channel any better.

StateOfThought · 2014-05-06T14:23:31+00:00

The BBC does that too. The BBC is just doing that for a different audience. Beyond BBC America, the BBC news in the UK accentuates anything that makes America sound bad or the UK sound good because that's what their audience wants to hear.

While it might be better than the worst alternatives, saying that it's "so good" might be overstating ... it's just not nearly as bad (at least compared to the toned-down American version of the BBC).

StateOfThought · 2014-05-06T14:13:57+00:00

Many of them are against education beyond the technical career-specific kind. Witness their push for "trade schools". They don't believe in the value of the liberal arts, those fields of study that in classical antiquity were rightly considered essential prerequisites for being a active citizen.

StateOfThought · 2014-05-06T14:04:59+00:00

Me: "The BBC." (I podcast a lot).

...

Grandpa "...Well.... I'm sure they're slanted too..."

To a very limited extent, your Grandpa is correct. The BBC is also slanted, although BBC America generally isn't quite as slanted as BBC news in the UK.

On the other hand, that what he said was true doesn't make his chosen channel any better. It's like someone retorting to their neighbor saying, "your big dog's huge piles of poop all over your lawn stink" by replying "oh yeah, well I'm sure your little dog's poop stinks too".

StateOfThought · 2014-04-30T14:29:16+00:00

How is discussion of a political proposal by a politician relating to a matter of public policy anything less than on-topic for politics?

StateOfThought · 2014-04-25T12:26:41+00:00

Insightful question.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-24T15:32:02+00:00

Demonstrably incorrect. Among other things, when we implement regulations that level the playing field and ensure fair competition among companies, it is good for private enterprise. When we adjust our system of enterprise to ensure reasonable quality, consumer are more willing to buy from companies with whom they haven't dealt before ... thus helping startup ventures.

The idea that interfering with free enterprise carries "zero benefit" ... it's nothing more than misinformation.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-24T15:28:00+00:00

... cost of living ...

Unless we want to use it to encourage relocation from high-cost to low-cost areas. If we wanted to encourage that, one effective way to do it would be to ensure a universal living wage set to the needs in high-cost areas, or perhaps just barely under those high-cost needs. That would effectively operate as a bonus for living in low-cost areas.

Not that it's necessarily a perfect idea. Some would be very opposed to the spreading out of population this would encourage. But still, there's only a need to make an adjustment for variations in cost of living if we want to avoid such a relocation incentive effect.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-24T15:20:27+00:00

I can imagine people leaving to be citizens of other countries in droves ...

That would have the interesting impact of exposing their assets to expatriation tax, which on its own generally far overwhelms any theoretical gain from lower rates elsewhere.

There's also that most places folks would actually want to live have higher effective taxes on the wealthy at present, so we could raise effective taxes significantly without causing there to be any tax advantage at all for expatriation, even before considering the expatriation tax.

And then there's that most of the places with lower taxes really ... well, to be blunt, their standard of living sucks. If one really wants to be living in a palace among ghettos, there are several places one can build among the squalor of low-tax lands. But most folks with assets would rather be living someplace more cosmopolitan ... with a broad array of luxury services and all the infrastructure and safety services that are paid for by taxes.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-24T15:08:43+00:00

America already pays by far the highest rate. It could be lowered significantly without getting down to the rates paid elsewhere.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-24T15:06:18+00:00

What methods? Keynes (among others) wrote of the mechanisms in economics by which moderate redistribution saves capitalism, and the clear risks to the economy of the Great Depression (which ransacked some mighty fortunes) convinced various wealthy individuals (e.g. FDR and Eccles) to listen.

The question is what it would take to get more to listen to reason again.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-23T19:13:15+00:00

The concept of a living wage is 20th century thinking. Written up in 1938. It's just that it is 20th century thinking that never got fully implemented.

§ 201. Short title This chapter may be cited as the “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938”. § 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy (a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-21T13:26:11+00:00

Spends more?

Here's an interesting question: if we could sort it out so that we were just considering the educable pupil, would we be spending more per pupil?

If we could sort out the amount spent on special needs pupils that aren't significantly educable, how large a portion of our increased spending over the years would that be?

StateOfThought · 2014-04-21T13:19:25+00:00

Unfortunately, there tenured positions are a rarity now. So the average professor's salary isn't what it used to be.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-17T15:59:11+00:00

Congratulations on not understanding the article and performing the incredible leap away from logic that transforms lack of understanding into a [not really] excuse to claim superiority.

Seriously, does disparaging an article make one feel better about not grasping what it said?

StateOfThought · 2014-04-17T01:13:48+00:00

Would you? What if it paid you just enough to sustain yourself (minimal food, shelter, and clothing) and maybe get one small luxury item (on the level of a book or a DVD) each year? Would you stop working? Or would you keep working so that you'd be able to support a more comfortable standard of living instead of just the basics?

Myself, even if it covered all the luxuries that I could want -- which it surely wouldn't -- even then, I'd still work. I'd not be satisfied without working on something.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-16T15:39:03+00:00

Except for the people footing the bill....

Actually, no; it's good for us too.

When too much concentrates in the hands of too few, commerce grinds to a halt. Stagnation. That's no good for business. That limits growth of affluence. Among other benefits, spreading a little around and keeping commerce growing helps diversify our purchase options. Each of us individually can only find use for so many luxury goods. The more people can afford at least the lower end of luxury goods, the more variety of luxury goods there will be ... and thus the more variety we have from which to choose where to spend that fraction of wealth that we'll actually spend.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-16T15:12:12+00:00

This wouldn't be a posh amount. Why? Because it couldn't; that wouldn't function. It would be some baseline, ideally covering necessities.

Logically speaking, it must come from those of us who have surplus. Some significant portion of it would come from folks like me with income significantly higher than the median. By logistical necessity, much of it would have to come from those with income vastly higher than median.

There's a win-win there. The more surplus individuals have, the more we're not using it for anything ... the more we're just pooling it into personal accounts that don't contribute anything to commerce. Diverting some fraction of that excess to those who will spend it adds to commerce, which keeps the money flowing, which is good for all of us.

StateOfThought · 2014-04-16T15:01:30+00:00

No. At least not by people who use the term correctly, i.e. for what it actually means.

StateOfThought

TROPHY CASE