Pure economics is a very inexact science. Its forces must be bent to fit in with social benefit .

Below is a little article which may help educate the open minded & intelligent members of this forum.


http://www.rossgittins.com/2014/02/d...nd-social.html

 

interesting OpEd.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to make your point.
If anything, it enforces my point.

Thanks for playing.

 

Please explain young fella.

 

From the linked article:I couldn't agree more. The only problem with this fellow is that while he recites quite sound truisms (that so many people find far too tiresome to actually follow), he slips into very thinly veiled socialist doctrine to conclude that the government needs to step in to prevent big, bad, greedy, money-grubbing companies from forcing their poor, downtrodden workers to work on weekends. Here's an idea: if you don't want to work on weekends, how about finding a job that goes from Mon - Fri? If business shut down on weekends, the economy would crash.Of course those with money do well. That's the way it is and the way it should be. And when they do, the entire economy does well. Which, as stated before, means that society as a whole does well. Even those who still struggle in a strong economy benefit because there are more resources available to help them (not to mention those who just won't help themselves, but that's for another thread). As previously requested, I'd like the name of one country where socialism, let alone communism, has worked better than the US economy.

The quoted excerpt is just another version of the far left's most popular refrain: "Help, help! I need the government to protect me from the awful corporations (and everything else that I don't like) and to support me so I don't have to do that awful, inhumane thing called...work. My god, I can't be expected to, you know, work, provide for myself and take responsibility for my life. Heavens no! That's the government's job. This is Europe...oops, I mean America...after all."

And there is another thing about this fellow. He seems to have a poor understanding of what triggered the financial meltdown. More than likely, he understands it, but it doesn't fit with far left dogma so he makes things up:The American collapse was triggered when the housing market cratered and took the entire economy with it. The housing market cratered because so many defaults occurred and it became a vicious cycle until entire economy fell. The defaults occurred because the far left and very powerful nutcases in Congress exerted so much pressure on Fannie, Freddie and the mortgage industry in general to lend mortgage money to pretty much anyone with a pulse...all in the name of giving everyone in America a shot at the American dream of home ownership whether they could afford it or not...that the system was doomed to collapse as soon as housing prices inevitably stopped appreciating at double digit annual rates.

The reality is that it's not the corporations from whom we as individuals need protection. It's the far left (and far right, for that matter) nut jobs in Congress. So long as companies aren't working in collusion with each other (and we have anti-trust laws to handle that problem), good, self-interested business decisions not only benefit the company, they benefit the entire economy and, thereby, all of us.

 

Having said all that, I really need to start taking my own advice.

 

Since you posted it as proof of your point, why don't you narrow down where it supports your point.

 

The economic expert is at a loss for words. Well. Well.!!

All through these discussions you are only good for one liners!!

 

Thanks for reading & commenting in depth on this article.

I think by your comments that we will have to agree to disagree on the amount of Govt. intervention that is required to provide a workable & stable society.

Here is another take on the cause of the GFC:-

'The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[5][6]'

Ie MORE FINANCIAL CONTROL WOULD HAVE AVOIDED IT

 

Not this piece:To oppose virtually all government regulation or to think more regulation is never enough.

Nope, not here either: This is why I've been thinking I want to live in a market economy, but not a market society. I like the commercial to be commercial, but I don't want the non-commercial made commercial just because business people imagine it would increase their profits (and the economists' model tells them it would be more "efficient").

As a matter of fact, that paragraph mostly agrees with what I have been saying.


So, exactly where in this article mostly about labor the supposed nugget of wisdom on "corporate greed" and "gouging"???

 

Well done .Glad you had the last word !!

 

Why?


I was hoping you would have pointed out just where you found support for your premise in that article you posted.


Guess you figured out it was not there.


I have little trouble finding support DIRECTLY APPLICABLE to my position.


http://economics.fundamentalfinance....ce-gouging.php


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell091404.asp


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072000.asp

 

Sorry DR200 for having your thread hijacked by "bush" economists !!

 

Try "Smith" economists.


Only an idiot would align "Bush" with Classic Economics.

 

You hopped in there my grumpy little friend ." bush" as in country , rural, back woods ...got it ? Ha Ha .

But as you do mention it :-

Web definitions

(Bush economy) The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_economy
Shot down again .

 

Now what was your point again?

 

Hey, all you tin-foil hat, corporate conspiracy, economic PhD, liberal/socialist, spread the wealthers: given that oil companies manipulate the markets and just raise prices when the CEO needs another yacht or corporate jet...ummm...how do you explain the current price of oil at just over $30/barrel (down from over $110/barrel about 18 months ago) and the oil industry in a huge tail spin? For oil industry conspirators who have the power to jack up prices at their whim, it seems they certainly made a muck of it.

 

Any of you lefties out there care to donate every cent you make over the US average per capita income of $46k to those who make less (or those who think working is for suckers so long as our Great Society provides welfare sufficient to make working a moot point)? I mean, how greedy of you to keep all that money that, you know...you earned...for yourself. In fact, how about if you march into your boss's office in the morning and demand that your salary be lowered to $46k/year?

And I just thought of another thing: for all you lefty business owners (it's hard to imagine there are such creatures, but there are, at least until it comes to spreading their own wealth around) - are you paying your employees the same amount you make? You can't have income inequality, you know.

 

"Never argue with ignorant people. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Dog hauler

 

Do they ever "explain" anything?

 

No, see above. It's really, really hard to make a reasoned argument to support knee jerk populism. Just being ignorant and shouting nonsense louder is so much easier.


Thanks for the advice. I really should follow it. Anyway, it's good that you recognize the ignorance of your position. It's the first step to reality.

So just how do you explain the current price of oil and the oil industry depression if the greedy, heartless corporate bast*rds have the power to raise prices whenever the whim strikes? No, seriously, please bring all your economic genius to bear and explain it. And I must admit to it: I was wrong. The current price of a barrel of oil is under $30/barrel, not "just over $30" as I so wrongly asserted yesterday.

Come to think of it, why is it that there are no Congressional hearings about the sad plight of the oil industry? Whenever the price of oil is high, Bernie and his buddies want oil executives dragged in by their necks to answer for why they are screwing the poor people of America by arbitrarily jacking up the price.

Oh, by the way. Perhaps you'll start spreading the wealth and reducing the dreaded income inequality problem on your way to vote for Bernie? When you encounter a street corner panhandler...you know, the one who has 5 kids and can't find a job even though the Mac's down the street has a help wanted sign in the window...just hand over the keys to your Merc. That would be a good start. Not feeling The Bern quite that much? Didn't think so. It's so much easier to re-distribute everyone else's money.

 

Go & pat your dogs . They have a calming influence.

 

A little hard pressed for an answer, are we?

 

Answers will never be seen from those who believe that the government is a better control of market dynamics than free market actions.

 

For instant gratification try adding another tat or some chop chop in the back yard.