2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Esten; 421197]Jackson,

It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about [u]shifting[/u] Wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain [i]is[/i] Another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?[/QUOTE]At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;421203]At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.[/QUOTE]What you write is reasonable and is validated by history. Capitalism and free market has allow America to become the most prosperous country in the world.

But everything has a shelf life, and that includes all the "isms" There has to be some new tinkering to meet new challenges Globalization, resources, cultural and population changes within the country are some that come to mind. Dysfunctional political system? So all the shouting and name calling is just everyone looking out for themselves. It is really part of the evolution or revolution until we redefine ourselves again.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;421203]Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. [/QUOTE]Of course capitalism is a net wealth creator. Powered by the forces of innovation, competition and productivity. It is a great thing. Nobody argues that. But the same forces also result in continual shifting of wealth from one individual and group to another. Both happen. You may argue that as wealth is created and moved around, it all works out and everybody benefits. That depends. It was more true in the post-WWII economic expansion. It is less true today. While capitalism is still creating wealth, it is also shifting wealth to the top and to other countries. If capitalism is still raising the standard of living in the US, why are statistics like average hourly earnings, median household income, and poverty rate almost flat over the past three decades? Please, pull up a chart that shows how great the middle class is doing.

You guys need to study the details of how capitalism has been working in recent decades. The pie is growing, but also changing in how it gets divided.

Montana judge, Richard F Cebull and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, two of America finest.

America is alive and well. 2012.

[QUOTE=Esten; 421196]I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.

Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, [u]because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success[/u]. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.

But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.

So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.[/QUOTE]I am going to kick myself for responding to such a birdbrain analysis. Of course everyone in sports is interconnected. If they were not Michael Jordan would have no one to practice with and Michael Jordan´s abilities would go unnoticed on an empty court.

Esten, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with your razor sharp mind I think you better get used to the lower income tax brackets for the rest of your life.

It is amazing that as human beings, we can rationalize our every motivation and action. No different from Castro, Assad, Khadaffi, Mubarak and all other dictators, he comes back for another 6 year term. Of course, lest we forget, Putin will tell us Mother Russia is a democracy now and he is just a caretaker of the constitution.

Looks like Newt and Rick are assuring their own defeat by staying in the race, splitting the conservative vote. Doesn't seem like they are thinking strategically. They both say only a real conservative can offer the contrast needed to defeat Obama. That's probably also what they'll be saying if Romney loses to Obama.

223,000 jobs in December
284,000 jobs in January
227,000 jobs in February
8.3% Unemployment (down from peak of 10.2% in October 2009)

Remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka Stimulus? The package of spending and tax cuts, about 450B and 300B respectively accounted for to date. Republicans were fond of repeating their "failed stimulus" messaging, but I bet you haven't heard that for awhile. Because it flies in the face of the economic data.

There is more ground to recover, but these numbers are respectable. We probably would have got to this point sooner without last summer's debt ceiling debacle. Does Obama get all the credit? No, but he definately gets some.

With large corporations increasingly dominating market share, globalism and job automation, it's hard to see how we ever get back to 6% unemployment. Only the hand of government can offset those job-killing forces of capitalism.

There is no question the Stimulus did its job of stabilizing the economy and getting us back on a trajectory of growth. The only serious debate is whether it was worth the tradeoff of higher debt.

Sheldon Adelson is backing Newt so that the Conservative votes get split, assuring Romney the prize. He is too smart to back a loser (Newt). He is only pretending to. Shell Game.

Ken

I will say it again. The 2012 election is over. 2012 will be a mirror image of 2010.

Obama is like Tebow. Both are likeable and both have their supporters. However, Tebow cannot pass and Obama cannot govern.

[QUOTE=Esten;421318]the job-killing forces of capitalism.[/QUOTE]WHAT?

Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?

The job-killing forces of capitalism?

I guess that means that the country needs some more of the "[i]job-creating forces of liberals[/i]"?

Or perhaps the "[i]job-creating forces of socialists[/i]"?

Esten, with all due respect, you're clueless.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 421353]WHAT?

Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?

With all due respect, you're clueless.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I suggest you go back and read Adam Smith, who authored the original capitalist manifesto. Capitalism seeks profits and tries to minimize the costs of production. Most critically, the cost of labor. Capitalists kill jobs when it helps their bottom line. Any one with half a brain gets it.

Smith also called for workers to fight for just compensation and called for the state to provide a safety net to correct for the inevitable societal dislocations that flow from capitalism. He was quite prescient.

Too bad so many self proclaimed champions of capitalism are so clueless about how it actually works and hide behind ideological nostrums to excuse the greed that really underpins their behavior and belief systems.

Yes Esten, unemployment is down but why? It has more to do with a much larger number of people dropping out of the workforce than the number of folks finding employment.

So your contention is Obama has done a great job lowering unemployment by so discouraging workers they no longer seek employment or they remove themselves from the unemployment rolls by going on disability under Social Security? You really want to make that argument?

The Stimulus is, was, and continues to be a failure. The answer to your question about if the debt increase was 'good' or 'bad' has already been answered, Obama doubled the national debt all by his little self and the country will suffer under its weight for years to come with little appreciable growth or employment. We would have been better off to have simply handed out checks to everyone making them 1%ers than what the Obamation has done!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 421353]The job-killing forces of capitalism? [/QUOTE]
Modern capitalism is more complex than just some system that creates wealth and prosperity. Both job-creating and job-killing forces are at work. I can understand how a small businessman, an entrepreneur, might not appreciate this. But small business is just one segment of capitalism. I happen to work in big business. I have extensive experience with our US and Global operations, and some insight into the operations of the numerous vendors we deal with. My opinions on capitalism are not just based on reading the news.

Look at automation. This is largely a phenomenon with big business, but we can all see some of the examples. We've heard about ATMs replacing bank tellers. Another example: self-service checkouts. Ten years ago I never bagged my own groceries. Now I often do. Why? The big supermarkets understaff the checkouts, creating line-ups and waiting which incentivize people to use self-checkout. The supermarket chain is being more efficient and productive. Hallmarks of capitalism. But jobs are lost (and / or not created). They transferred the labor from a worker to me (and the help of a computer).

BTW Jackson, there's one example right there where Bill Gates' wealth can be linked to job loss. Automation is run by software. Yes, software has enabled the success of website operators like yourself. That's why you see the rosy side. You should look more at how large corporations have used software. And guess what, the savings from automation do [i]not[/i] necessarily get distributed back into the economy. Yes in some cases new industries are created (e.g. makers of automation equipment). But often a good chunk of the savings will end up in the hands of wealthy individuals and Wall Street firms. Not all of that flows back into the economy, and what does may not necessarily flow back into the same economy from where the efficiencies were realized.

I've personally signed off on paperwork approving a wide range of automation projects where I work. It's a small piece of what I do, but I've seen plenty of it. If these projects don't eliminate jobs, they typically allow the company to grow with minimal new hires.

I know you small business guys like to think you know everything about capitalism. It just ain't true.

Fess up Esten, you are really Thomas Friedman from the NY Times just trying to give all us conseratives a hard time.

Need to check your figures, small business is the major generator of new jobs in the economy not large companies.

Yea, automation is a *itch, we need to go back to making cars by hand one at a time. Automation really killed the auto industry didn't it.