Job Losses Demystified ! - By Peter Schiff

Lamarr

Star
Registered
As the unemployment rate crossed the double digit barrier for the first time since Michael Jackson learned to moonwalk, President Obama announced that he will convene a "jobs summit" to finally bring the problem under control. Using all the analytic skill that his administration can muster, the President is determined to figure out why so many people are losing their jobs and then formulate a solution. That's a relief; for a while there, I thought we were in real trouble! In fact, the absolute last thing our economy needs is more federal government interference. If Obama really wants to know what's behind entrenched joblessness, he should start by looking at the man in the mirror.

Obama is pursuing, with unprecedented vigor, the same policies that have for decades undermined our industrial base and yoked us to an unsustainable consumer/credit driven economy. This doubling down on Washington's past failures is destroying jobs at an alarming rate. Today we learned that the September trade deficit surged by 18.2%, the largest gain in ten years. Much of the deficit resulted from Americans spending Cash-for-Clunkers stimulus money on imported cars — or "American" cars loaded to the sunroof with imported parts. In exchange for more domestic debt, we have succeeded only in creating foreign jobs.

An article in this week's New York Times by veteran writer Louis Uchitelle confirmed a fact that I have been alleging for years. Uchitelle pointed out that foreign outsourcing of component manufacturing has led to consistent overstatement of U.S. GDP and productivity. The connection goes a long way to explain why we keep losing jobs even as GDP is apparently expanding.

As our economy becomes less competitive due to higher taxes, burdensome and uncertain regulations, and capital flight, more manufacturing and services will be outsourced to foreign firms. However, the flaw in GDP calculation allows the output of those foreign workers to be included in our domestic tally. Since we count the output but not the worker responsible for it, government statisticians attribute the gains to rising labor productivity. To them, it looks like companies are producing more goods with fewer workers.

The reality is that we are producing less with fewer workers. The added "productivity" comes from higher unemployment and larger trade deficits. This is a toxic formula that will have lethal economic consequences.

Don't expect the brain trust at the President's job summit to fret much about these details. That public relations stunt will likely ignore the root cause of the economic imbalances and instead stress the need for government spending on training and education, i.e. more public debt. The unemployed do not need government theatrics, they need actual jobs. But as long as the government props up failed companies, soaks up all available investment capital, discourages savings, punishes employers, and chases capital out of the country, jobs will continue to be lost.

To really fix the unemployment problem, the President must look past his peers in government and academia to understand how jobs are actually created. In the private sector, all individuals have a choice to either work for themselves or someone else. Since labor is far more productive when combined with capital (office equipment, machinery, business models, and intellectual capital), those who lack these assets themselves often choose to work for others who have sacrificed to accumulate them. This increased productivity is shared between the worker and the owner of capital, and both are better off.

However, for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital. In the first place, employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.

If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed. Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire.

Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Barack Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation.

If the President's summit truly intends to find the root cause of unemployment, his advisers don't need Bureau of Labor statistics or complex modeling software, just the courage to drop their dogmatic belief in central planning and embrace the laws of economics.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=358
 
I don't understand this hero worship for Schiff. I'm from Stamford, Ct and he and all of the other carpetbaggers that moved in to my hometown during the 1990s and later have raised the cost of living of an already astronomically expensive region to levels only Wall Street speculators and media stars can afford. Aside from that personal rant, he and other libertarians claim the demises of jobs are directly related to high taxes. Has anyone actual read that GW cut taxes for the top 5% to the lowest levels in 25 years? What has that done American jobs?
 
Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY

Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing."

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"

Beginning in the economic expansion of the early 1990s [ CLINTON], Saez argues, the economy began to favor the top tiers American earners, but much of the country missed was left behind. "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes.

Despite a rising stock market, largely growing employment and a historic housing boom things were not nearly so rosy for the rest of U.S. workers. This trend, according to Saez, only accelerated during the George W. Bush's tenure as President:


We got played.We let the wrong people lead. Now these people are so entrenched they've become too big to fail.
 
hell to the yeah we got played, and continue to get played as long as we think we need elected officials.

we need officials just to make sure what the people decide to do is carried out.
 
I don't understand this hero worship for Schiff.

You don't understand ? ? ? :hmm:

Quite simply, when Greenspan, Bernanke, Dodd, Dubya, Summers, Rubin & Paul Krugman were telling the public "The fundamentals were sound", Schiff wrote a book in 2006 predicting everything we are seeing today. Watch his old clips when people are laughing at him when he is hitting these clowns with truth!

When these people say "No one could've forseen what what coming" they obviously didn't listen to Schiff. Schiff saw it but the tripped out part is: Pres. Obama should just ask Schiff what to do cause all his committees are failing him right now.
 
You don't understand ? ? ? :hmm:

Quite simply, when Greenspan, Bernanke, Dodd, Dubya, Summers, Rubin & Paul Krugman were telling the public "The fundamentals were sound", Schiff wrote a book in 2006 predicting everything we are seeing today. Watch his old clips when people are laughing at him when he is hitting these clowns with truth!

When these people say "No one could've forseen what what coming" they obviously didn't listen to Schiff. Schiff saw it but the tripped out part is: Pres. Obama should just ask Schiff what to do cause all his committees are failing him right now.

You don't have to re-quote last year's history for me. In fact your revisionist commentary leads me to question your knowledge of history. Schiff claims to be an Ayn Rand follower. Greenspan boasted his worship for ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand. Both are part of the problem. Krugman predicted the Bush tax cut debauch long before they were enacted. Do you give credit to Krugman? Schiff can do a lot of talking now, but until he shows me something else he is just another Wall Street libertarian leech.
 
Krugman predicted the Bush tax cut debauch long before they were enacted. Do you give credit to Krugman?

Credit for what? Lets reflect: Krugman In '02: 'Greenspan Needs To Create A Housing Bubble' http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6

Schiff can do a lot of talking now, but until he shows me something else he is just another Wall Street libertarian leech.

I see you still don't wanna believe Schiff, I guess you will be in the next "Peter Schiff Was Right" video. Face it Thought, Obama should just ask Schiff what to do at his "Jobs Summit"

How can he be a Wall Street Libertarian Leech if he's betting against the dollar? Buy Gold, you'll thank me later. Your politicians are creating a currency crisis as we speak!
 
Credit for what? Lets reflect: Krugman In '02: 'Greenspan Needs To Create A Housing Bubble' http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6



I see you still don't wanna believe Schiff, I guess you will be in the next "Peter Schiff Was Right" video. Face it Thought, Obama should just ask Schiff what to do at his "Jobs Summit"

How can he be a Wall Street Libertarian Leech if he's betting against the dollar? Buy Gold, you'll thank me later. Your politicians are creating a currency crisis as we speak!

Come on Lamarr, your “I gotcha” indictment is based on a false premise. Read the entire story…

source: New York Times

June 17, 2009, 9:00 am

And I was on the grassy knoll, too

One of the funny aspects of being a somewhat, um, forceful writer is that I’m regularly accused of all sorts of villainy. I was personally responsible for the demise of Enron; my nonexistent son worked for Hillary; etc.. The latest seems to be that I called for the creation of a housing bubble — in fact, the bubble is my fault! The claim seems to be based on this piece.

Dubya's Double Dip?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: Friday, August 2, 2002

If the story of the current U.S. economy were made into a movie, it would look something like ''55 Days at Peking.'' A ragtag group of ordinary people -- America's consumers -- is besieged by a rampaging horde, the forces of recession. To everyone's surprise, they have held their ground.

But they can't hold out forever. Will the rescue force -- resurgent business investment -- get there in time?

The screenplay for that kind of movie always ratchets up the tension. The besieged citadel fends off assault after assault, but again and again rescue is delayed. And so it has played out in practice. Consumers kept spending as the Internet bubble collapsed; they kept spending despite terrorist attacks. Taking advantage of low interest rates, they refinanced their houses and took the proceeds to the shopping malls.

But predictions of an imminent recovery in business investment keep turning out to be premature. Most businesses are in no hurry to go on another spending spree. And those that might have started to invest again have been deterred by sliding stock prices, widening bond spreads and revelations about corporate scandal.

Will the rescuers arrive in the nick of time? Not necessarily. This movie may not be ''55 Days at Peking'' after all. It may be ''A Bridge Too Far.''

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

On the surface, the sharp drop in the economy's growth, from 5 percent in the first quarter to 1 percent in the second, is disheartening. Under the surface, it's quite a lot worse. Even in the first quarter, investment and consumer spending were sluggish; most of the growth came as businesses stopped running down their inventories. In the second quarter, inventories were the whole story: final demand actually fell. And lately straws in the wind that often give advance warning of changes in official statistics, like mall traffic, have been blowing the wrong way.

Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic. Should you be reassured?

Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.

Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened.

Update: A gracious, sensible explication from Arnold Kling.

Defending what Paul Krugman Wrote
Arnold Kling

In 2002, he passed along a joke that the economy needed a housing bubble. Krugman is controversial, so the post generated comments on this blog and elsewhere, some of which are overly "gotcha" in character.

Some points I would make:

1. Krugman was mainly expressing pessimism. He was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur.

2. In the event, we had a housing bubble and we got out of the recession. To me, this raises the question of whether a distorted recovery is better than an undistorted recession. That question might be asked in the context of fiscal stimulus as well--at what point do the distortions of the stimulus outweigh getting out of a recession?

3. I personally do not think that Greenspan caused the housing bubble. I do not believe that monetary policy and short-term interest rates are as all-powerful as many economists do. What I was writing in August of 2002 was this.

4. Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong thought that Greenspan kept rates too high in 2002. This makes them poorly positioned to criticize Greenspan now for keeping rates too low. I am pretty sure that Brad is guilty of this hypocrisy. I believe that Paul is not.
[UPDATE: Brad denies committing this hypocrisy, and he is right. He has stood by his views that interest rates in 2001 and 2002 were, if anything, too high. I stand corrected.]

5. The main reason I put Paul's quote on my blog was because I am compiling a history of the events that caused financial crisis. I have a paragraph that says:



the current crisis led to a sharp recession that could not be mitigated with monetary expansion. This suggests that in hindsight more should have been done to prevent the housing bubble from expanding as much as it did. This in turn suggests that the monetary easing that took place from 2001-2003 was excessive. However, at the time, the sluggish growth in employment (the 2001-2003 period was commonly referred to as a "jobless recovery") was thought to justify the monetary expansion and low levels of interest rates.


The Krugman quote can help to support that paragraph. I can pick other quotes, obviously, but the one about needing a housing bubble is particularly poignant.

Lamarr I keep telling you, these right wing Republicans/Libertarians and yes corporatist Democrats are not your friend. They have nothing in common with you or me, the average everyday working individual. All they care about is trying to capitalize on people’s healthy fear of the government coming to ruin you. The wealthy have no need for the government other than to manipulate the laws to shit on the people that made them rich. How is Schiff going to bring back jobs to the USA by betting on gold? In fact it is in his best interest to fuck up the system even more so the gold he bet on rises in value. You have got to think my brother. We have been through this before. Study the Crash of 29 and the Great Depression.
 
Lamarr I keep telling you, these right wing Republicans/Libertarians and yes corporatist Democrats are not your friend. They have nothing in common with you or me, the average everyday working individual. All they care about is trying to capitalize on people’s healthy fear of the government coming to ruin you. The wealthy have no need for the government other than to manipulate the laws to shit on the people that made them rich. How is Schiff going to bring back jobs to the USA by betting on gold? In fact it is in his best interest to fuck up the system even more so the gold he bet on rises in value. You have got to think my brother. We have been through this before. Study the Crash of 29 and the Great Depression.

Bruh, as long as Schiff's advise is increasing my family's portfolio, he is my friend! Of all the clowns & infobabes out here discussing the economy, Peter (and his type) are the only ones trying to bring the truth to the public.

Being from Detroit, I saw first-hand the effects of NAFTA. We also survived the Bush administration, so no effort is needed to "capitalize on my fear of the govt". I'm terrified of what these people are doing to the dollar, not from a position of weakness but as an individual who has worked, saved, and for the most part, tried to be a productive citizen.

Presently, Schiff is limited as to what he can do to bring jobs back. However, he has made several suggestions to improve conditions but the govt (Repubs & Dems) are not promoting policies that would create economic growth. So when the govt is doing the opposite of what needs to be done, the only safe bet is gold & silver, and markets who advocate policies that support economic growth.

I want you to think, my brotha. What policies have either party put in place that will create sustainable economic growth? Go back 20 yrs, it doesn't matter, these people have systematically destroyed the middle class. And Schiff is telling us how to rebound and he does have a track record of being correct, unlike Geithner & Bernanke!
 
Imagine you had 100 people who believed everything you said. They were so dependent on you that whatever you did was okay. You could tell them things like

'Give me 10% of your earnings and I will put in a good word to god for you'. They would give you 10% every week.

Or you could say 'This is our country and in order for me to protect it I'm taking 50 cents out of every dollar you earn. I will invest the money in schools, hospitals, roads and create jobs'.

You could even tell them 'I need a yearly $10.00 donation for miscellaneous expenses'.


If you had that kinda influence there's not much you couldn't do to your followers. As long as they don't start thinking for themselves.
 
Bruh, as long as Schiff's advise is increasing my family's portfolio, he is my friend! Of all the clowns & infobabes out here discussing the economy, Peter (and his type) are the only ones trying to bring the truth to the public.

Being from Detroit, I saw first-hand the effects of NAFTA. We also survived the Bush administration, so no effort is needed to "capitalize on my fear of the govt". I'm terrified of what these people are doing to the dollar, not from a position of weakness but as an individual who has worked, saved, and for the most part, tried to be a productive citizen.

Presently, Schiff is limited as to what he can do to bring jobs back. However, he has made several suggestions to improve conditions but the govt (Repubs & Dems) are not promoting policies that would create economic growth. So when the govt is doing the opposite of what needs to be done, the only safe bet is gold & silver, and markets who advocate policies that support economic growth.

I want you to think, my brotha. What policies have either party put in place that will create sustainable economic growth? Go back 20 yrs, it doesn't matter, these people have systematically destroyed the middle class. And Schiff is telling us how to rebound and he does have a track record of being correct, unlike Geithner & Bernanke!

Presently, Schiff is limited as to what he can do to bring jobs back.

Ya damn skippy! Because he, like all right wingers/libertarians believe in treating labor like hand tools. The cheaper hand tools are made in china, but they break most of the time. Is Schiff against NAFTA?

unlike Geithner & Bernanke!

I really don’t inkstand your argument. I agree those clowns are the wrong ones to put this country back on the positve economic track. A supply sider like Schiff will only repeat the Reagan voodoo economic debacle over again.
 
Ya damn skippy! Because he, like all right wingers/libertarians believe in treating labor like hand tools. The cheaper hand tools are made in china, but they break most of the time. Is Schiff against NAFTA?

Sometimes I read your posts and come away thinking you don't believe a person with a "democrat" ideology can successfully operate a business.

Of course Schiff is against NAFTA

I really don’t inkstand your argument. I agree those clowns are the wrong ones to put this country back on the positve economic track. A supply sider like Schiff will only repeat the Reagan voodoo economic debacle over again.

My only argument is the Pres. is only listening to people who have gotten this ALL wrong. When will some logic come into play? We "spent" our way into our current problem, so it's ridiculous to think we can spend our way out. Schiff's common-sensical approach is that we must "produce our way out of this, and every dim-witted economist (on the right & left) is simply pursuing a deeper depression with these "spending" policies! (as seen in the following clip

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlYnmQsy_io&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlYnmQsy_io&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Sometimes I read your posts and come away thinking you don't believe a person with a "democrat" ideology can successfully operate a business.

Of course Schiff is against NAFTA



My only argument is the Pres. is only listening to people who have gotten this ALL wrong. When will some logic come into play? We "spent" our way into our current problem, so it's ridiculous to think we can spend our way out. Schiff's common-sensical approach is that we must "produce our way out of this, and every dim-witted economist (on the right & left) is simply pursuing a deeper depression with these "spending" policies! (as seen in the following clip

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlYnmQsy_io&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlYnmQsy_io&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sometimes I read your posts and come away thinking you don't believe a person with a "democrat" ideology can successfully operate a business.

I have no idea what that means, any way...

We "spent" our way into our current problem, so it's ridiculous to think we can spend our way out.

Not 100% true. We spent are way into it, but didn’t pay for it. Despite Clinton’s short comings, when he left office the budget was balanced with balanced budgets predicted into the future, the national, debt was shrinking and the dollar was stronger than it was in 10 years. Even during the dot com bubble and the Enon fiasco the economy was nowhere near what we are experiencing today. Then came Bush, The cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars off the books, the 2002 trillion dollar tax cuts on capital gains and the increase in the military budget among other things. The reality is that with bridges falling down, our dependence on foreign oil and unemployment at record levels, we have to spend money. I don’t like debt and the problems it brings, but the long term of repairing issues of the last 10 or more years is more important than quick Wall Street betting on gold, even though I have bought in to commodities too.
 
Not 100% true. We spent are way into it, but didn’t pay for it. Despite Clinton’s short comings, when he left office the budget was balanced with balanced budgets predicted into the future, the national, debt was shrinking and the dollar was stronger than it was in 10 years. Even during the dot com bubble and the Enon fiasco the economy was nowhere near what we are experiencing today. Then came Bush, The cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars off the books, the 2002 trillion dollar tax cuts on capital gains and the increase in the military budget among other things. The reality is that with bridges falling down, our dependence on foreign oil and unemployment at record levels, we have to spend money. I don’t like debt and the problems it brings, but the long term of repairing issues of the last 10 or more years is more important than quick Wall Street betting on gold, even though I have bought in to commodities too.

not Clinton again, we both know the national debt increased each year of his presidency, but compared to Dubya, Clinton looks like a fiscal conservative :)

I'm not giving him a pass on NAFTA or Glass-Steagall but I'll save that for another thread.

The issue is this:
Bernanke "the recession is over"
Geithner "we have a strong dollar policy"
Dodd "the fundamentals are sound"
Schiff "we need more production & savings, not more borrowing to consume"

Quite simply, who do you believe? If you don't side with Schiff, you're clearly not thinking rationally. America needs to go back to work, period. But we need policies to support the uphill climb we have in front of us. You mentioned our dependence on foreign oil, which is true, but I'd like to emphasize our dependence on foreign goods period. America needs to go back to work! Stop propping up this phony service sector economy with bailouts and stimulus'
 
Sometimes I read your posts and come away thinking you don't believe a person with a "democrat" ideology can successfully operate a business.

Interesting. Some believe that Democracy is at odds with Capitalism.

Why?

Democracy has little respect for private property. Democracy is tyranny for the minority.

However, capitalism (supposedly) requires private property for business to operate.
With Democracy, everything is decided by the majority.

Democracy and Capitalism are incompatible in their pure forms.

So, a businessman who believes in Democracy is a strange thing, indeed.
 
Information economy is a term that characterizes an economy with an increased emphasis on informational activities and information industry.



Post-Fordism is the name given to the dominant system of economic production, consumption and associated socio-economic phenomena, in most industrialized countries since the late 20th century. It is contrasted with Fordism, the system formulated in Henry Ford's automotive factories, in which workers work on a production line, performing specialized tasks repetitively. Definitions of the nature and scope of Post-Fordism vary considerably and are a matter of debate among scholars.

Post-Fordism is characterized by the following attributes[1]:

Small-batch production.
Economies of scope.
Specialized products and jobs.
New information technologies.
Emphasis on types of consumers in contrast to previous emphasis on social class.
The rise of the service and the white-collar worker.
The feminization of the work force.

Originally Posted by nittie
We got played.We let the wrong people lead. Now these people are so entrenched they've become too big to fail.


There is no mystery to job losses. They were sent overseas as America transformed into a so-called information economy.
 
Interesting. Some believe that Democracy is at odds with Capitalism.

Why?

Democracy has little respect for private property. Democracy is tyranny for the minority.

However, capitalism (supposedly) requires private property for business to operate.
With Democracy, everything is decided by the majority.

Democracy and Capitalism are incompatible in their pure forms.

So, a businessman who believes in Democracy is a strange thing, indeed.

Witness China's Capitalism. China has more billionaires except one country, the US. Capitalism is tyranny of the powerful. Witness the influence of the highly paid interests of lobbyist in our government funded by Capitalists over the interests of the typical American worker. This is the natural conclusion of capitalism.
 
Witness China's Capitalism. China has more billionaires except one country, the US. Capitalism is tyranny of the powerful. Witness the influence of the highly paid interests of lobbyist in our government funded by Capitalists over the interests of the typical American worker. This is the natural conclusion of capitalism.

For the last time, Capitalism died when the Banksters got bailed out last fall. What we have now is a form of "neofacism" for lack of a better term.

I know this is for another thread but here goes:

Socialism is tyranny for the powerful
Facism is tyranny for the powerful
Communism is tyranny for the powerful
Capitalism only improves when you let the incompetent operations FAIL! It breeds the next Michael Jordans, Oprah Winfreys or even a Master P. You will never see that kind of success under the above three!
 
Back
Top