"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."
Not even their mothers can tell them apart.
What you didn't address was the point that statement was addressing, that the notion of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to the corporations does not have a significant positive effect on job growth. Horded money doesn't create demand.
Grr, again quote function isn't working for me. Anyway, here goes.
"We need to get better people involved to create laws that do a better job of maintaining some kind of sensible balance that allows corporations to profit while at the same time protect the working class from the avaricious profit taking that has seen CEO compensation make incredible leaps in recent decades while workers' pay has remained relatively stagnant."
CEO compensation has nothing to do with workers' pay being stagnant. Goldman Sachs executive payment is, to put it mildly, very generous. At the same time, you have extremely intelligent and highly educated people lining up to get entry level analyst positions. You also have no shortage of people without much of an educational background lining up to get secretarial positions there. In any event, you could reduce the compensation package of the CEO of McDonalds to $100k per year, and it won't do a thing for the company's lowest paid employees. Otherwise, there is no group of sage politicians that will be able to come up with a number that represents reasonable corporate profit, and "the people" would be even worse at it. So this is just demagogery of the worst sort.
"The supply side makes the rules curently with little regard to how it affects the rest of us. The bottom line is king and any negative effects on the citizenry is usually disregarded."
This is a non-sequitor. On its own terms, supply side is designed to create more goods at lower prices, generally by means of encouraging production through low taxes and reducing regulatory costs. You can debate whether regulatory costs or taxes are too high or too low at any given time, but regulations or high taxes do not uniformly benefit or harm "the rest of us", whatever that means. For example, you might want oil companies to face greater environmental regulations and greater taxes, but that results in higher gasoline prices for "the rest of us". Or, you could just put a price ceiling on gasoline. They do that in Venezuela, but, as economics 101 teaches us, if you put a price ceiling on something, you reduce supply, hence shortages of basic commodities in all of those workers' paradises.
"I think we're working with different definitions here. Anytime I hear anyone talking about the need for more regulation, I infer that to mean "better" regulation in opposition to the decades of deregulation that has occured since over the past few decades. For example, getting rid of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to take high risks with our money rather than limit those high risk investments to the banks' own money."
Even Elizabeth Warren has admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing, or very little to do with the financial crisis. If anything, it was caused in large part by governmental policies that were designed to increase demand for real estate, such as governmental policies that encouraged banks to underwrite subprime mortgages and to securitize mortgages.
"I wholeheartedly agree on that point, and it's one of the reasons I'd love to see someone like Elizabeth Warren in the White House. Unfortunately, too few in Washington are wiling to talk to the monied interests or to those whose salaries we pay to police the financial institutions the way that she is. If any of us committed crimes on the scale that the banks have, we'd be in jail for a very long time."
Elizabeth Warren's initial claim to fame was a law review article that put out a bogus claim that many if not most personal bankruptcies were the result of unpredicted medical bills. And Washington's bread and butter is going after "monied interests". Rich people, oil companies, bankers and whoever are easy scapegoats, as you can tell by virtually every political advertisement that goes on the air. Regulate them more, tax them more, or even put them in jail if it makes you happy. It just won't improve your lot in life one bit. Or maybe it will, I don't know your personal circumstances. But "the people" by and large don't benefit from that sort of thing.
"What you're describing was a tactic used by monopolies to eliminate competition; it was not the norm once that competition was forced out of the market. For example, Standard Oil would open up shop in some area where they didn't control the market and for some length of time would sell at a loss. The smaller companies couldn't afford to match prices, nor could they weather the losses for the same length of time that Standard Oil could, and eventually they'd have to shut their doors."
This is a theory called predatory pricing. It's difficult to find an example of it ever working. Amazon, some theorize, is attempting to do it. So we'll see if it turns out to be the only place where you can buy certain goods and at exorbitant prices.
"I assumed we were talking about private sector jobs, therefore, I omitted any reference to government jobs. But if it pleases you, I'll amend my statement to say "Jobs are created through demand for goods and services unless illegal means are employed." That said, breaking windows isn't a prescription for a healthy economy."
Well, you had a respected Keynsian economist like Paul Krugman saying that 9/11 would ultimately benefit the economy because of all the people that would be put to work rebuilding. It's the same idea behind the theory that WWII, the most destructive event in the history of humanity, was good for the US economy.
"What you didn't address was the point that statement was addressing, that the notion of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to the corporations does not have a significant positive effect on job growth. Horded money doesn't create demand."
This presumes that there is a "right" level of taxation. And money is "hoarded" either as a result of bank panics, escaping taxation or sheltering it from liability. Most rich people are not putting their money under their mattresses or in super secret Swiss bank accounts. It's put in banks, that, in turn, loan that money out to people that use it.
"And that's a method of separating the rest of us from our money since we often get left holding the bad when the doors shut."
Look at most of things that you own. The phone you own, the home you live in, the car you drive, and the food you eat. If investors could not limit their liability, you would not have any of that. And if the rest of us were really "holding the bag" as you suggest, plaintiff's attorneys would be out of business.
"The airwaves belong to us. The government licenses them out, but the country retains ownership. The rules can be changed to reign in the propaganda that goes out over our airwaves. Or the rules can be changed to force equal or near equal time. Or we can define what is an "election cycle" and put rules in place to govern just that period. There are all sorts of solutions, some more heavy-handed, some much less so. But in the end, it's just another problem to address."
The airwaves make up less and less up of the means of communications every single day. And, it's laughable that you trust a government bueurocrat, the same person that I'm told answers to "monied interests", to decide what constitutes equal time. But really, this reflects supreme arrogance. Basically, you're assuming that your political views are correct and that if it was only if I only got more airtime, that those rubes would see the light of day.
Oh, and question I always have about publicly financed campaigns, which I believed was mentioned earlier, that never gets answered. In the last presidential election, my parents' ballot listed the candidate for the "NSA Committed 9/11" party. How does one determine how many tax dollars that political party gets to run for office?
I do, however, appreciate your acknowledgment of Krugman as a respected economist. I read his column often and agree with much of what he says. I'd very much like to see him in a government role someday.
Regarding how banks work, I wasn't referencing banks giving out car loans and mortgages. I was referencing high risk investments in which banks were prohibited from engaging except with their own money.
Jay Fiedler can take his'n and lose to your'n.....or take your'n and lose to his'n.
"Since Amazon cannot legally create a monopoly, we talking apples and oranges. At the time John Rockefeller was building Standard Oil, he was openly engaging in building a monopoly since they were legal at the time. But what I described is accurate. Under selling was a tactic to drive out competition. Yes, it was an advantage to the consumers in the area at the time, but it was a short term tactic that was followed up with higher prices once market control was achieved."
Monopolies are not necessarily illegal, and never have been. It depends on how one might be created, and if the FTC exercises its authority to break one up. You didn't seem to dispute that Rockefeller and Standard Oil resulted in lower oil prices, which benefits consumers. The theory you're left with, is that if it weren't for the government breaking up Standard Oil, it would have controlled the oil market and raised prices at will. I don't think there is any evidence to support this. What some people theorize that Amazon is doing is lowering prices below market level, to put its competitors out of business, and in turn be the only company left in certain markets that can charge whatever it wants. What it is doing is only illegal is if there is some evidence that that's its evil plan, since it would otherwise be bizarre to punish businesses for having prices that were too low. Which kind of explains the incoherence of much antitrust law.
"You mentioned something about a non-sequitur? Because unless you're proposing that we should be blowing up our own infrastructure or engaging in war solely for the economic benefits, I don't see how this is germane to the issue."
No, what I was addressing is this idea that the amount of jobs they produce is ultimately what decides whether corporations are good or bad for "everyone else" at any given time.
"It's all relative and I suppose it comes down to priorities concerning who and what we care about most. I'm all for corporations making profits, but they also need to bear some social responsibility as well."
What constitutes "social responsibility" and who gets to decide what that is? It's always the other guy that isn't "socially responsible" enough or isn't paying his fair share. You need to look no further than Harvey Weinstein begging California and LA to lower taxes for movie productions. The candidates that he is well known to give donations to speak endlessly of corporations and the rich not paying their fair share. I'm sure he still believes that, it's just that his industry is special and is otherwise "socially responsible". These are difficult questions that you just assume could be answered if evil rich people weren't controlling the agenda.
"I'm not opposed to limited liability, but better rules need to be in place to guarantee the rest of us don't get holding the bag. Currently, they're not. For instance, the company that recently polluted all that fresh water in West Virginia has folded up shop and now the taxpayers are going to have to deal with the mess. The people making the decisions that led to that disaster aren't likely to be hurt by it. They'll be inconvenienced by having to find other jobs, but it's the people in the community who are going to bear the brunt and they had nothing to do with creating the problem."
I'm not aware of that particular case, but I'll assume you have your facts correct, or that the sources you're reading are correct. The people that are responsible for the polluting the water, depending on the circumstances, can be sued, and bear personal liability. The problem is that the amount of money they personally have won't provide much in the way of compensation. My grandfather owns stock in Exxon. Should those fishermen in Alaska be able to sue him for the Valdez, if Exxon happens to go under? There is no rule that you can possibly come up with that will ensure corporate or personal solvency to ensure that all tort claims are paid in full. Complain about it if you want, but you might as well scream that something needs to be done about earthquakes.
"No, but many do. A bill recently introduced in Congress would have made it easier to identify and prosecute American citizens using Swiss banks to evade paying taxes, but it was blocked by the GOP."
Ok fine, but it has very little effect on anything that effects the well being of "the rest of us". The vast majority of 1% do not have their taxable income in Swiss bank accounts, so it's not this enormous problem. It's red meat for politicians to throw out at election time, although I understand why the IRS has to go after that stuff, the same way the IRS will go after people that have tax bills of $30,000.
"Regarding how banks work, I wasn't referencing banks giving out car loans and mortgages. I was referencing high risk investments in which banks were prohibited from engaging except with their own money."
As I mentioned, and as your hero Elizabeth Warren admitted, banks supposedly engaging in high risk investments with depositor's money had nothing or very little to do with the financial crisis if that's what you're referring to. In any event, the point is that money that rich people are spending or paying to Uncle Sam is not "hoarded".
"I should believe Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch? Talk about laughable."
Wow, the Fox News dog whistle. First off, Fox news is cable, so except for their local affiliates, which Ailes and Murdoch don't have much editorial control over anyway, have nothing to do with the airwaves that belong to all of us. In fact, the three major news networks all have incredibly liberal newsrooms, it's not even debatable. But the bottom line is that there are more means than ever for different political views to reach a mass audience. So the fairness doctrine is of virtually no use, even if it was of any use before. And yes, I trust Ailes and Murdoch, or the heads of MSNBC, the editorial boards of the Nation, Mother Jones or the National Review to decide their own editorial content much, much more than the FCC.
"Why would we fund the parties? Fund the people running and get rid of the herd mentality that parties create. Political parties aren't essential to a well run government; just the opposite."
Ok, so how much should the candidate who ran on the NSA Committed 9/11 party get to personally run for president or congress or mayor? Or, how many of my tax dollars should have gone to pay for David Duke's govenatorial campaign? I got time, and think I have some good ideas, how much money should I get to run for President? You're avoiding addressing the real issues here.