# Mitt Romney's candidacy

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, mitt, romney
P: 1,414
 Quote by Jack21222 Santorum swept Romney in todays primaries/caucuses. Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri all went to Santorum. Romney is only at 16.9% in Minnesota, behind Ron Paul at 27.1 and Santorum at 45.0 (with 88% of the precincts reporting). In Missouri, Santorum won every county in the state, scoring 55% to Romney's 23%. Colorado was closer; Santorum scored 40% while Romney scored 35%. Looks like the "anybody but Romney" vote is strong.
Wow, that's sort of surprising.
P: 771
 Quote by ThomasT Wow, that's sort of surprising.
Even more surprising than Santorum's victories is the margin of those victories. Romney at 17%? Those are the numbers you'd expect from some fringe candidate.
P: 1,123
 Quote by ThomasT This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has. The cost of living is continually increasing. Artificially so. This is called inflation. The wages and salaries of the mass of American workers increase at a slower rate than inflation. Therefore, the buying power of the mass of Americans, the aggregated demand wrt the general economy, continually decreases.
It seems to me that if the Government has to borrow money - it's because they spent more than they had at the time the took out a loan - correct?
P: 1,414
 Quote by Jasongreat So the answer to governmental monetary inflation, is governmental wage inflation?
Raising the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation wouldn't be inflation.

 Quote by Jasongreat Why dont we kill two birds with one stone, and keep our government in check? I would like to see a law that prohibits inflation, then the minimum wage could disappear as well. Inflation is nothing more than theft, If I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and the government inflates the dollar by 1%, I have been robbed of 100 dollars. Granted I still have the same 10,000 dollars, but I can only purchase 9,900 dollars worth of product. We can keep this misery-go-round going, government makes our money worth less, then turns around and increases our wage by the same amount, are we not in the same situation as before?
Wage and price controls have been tried before. The federal government simply doesn't have enough power to make it work. It isn't the government that causes inflation. It's the greed of business owners.
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee It seems to me that if the Government has to borrow money - it's because they spent more than they had at the time the took out a loan - correct?
No. It's that they anticipate having to spend more money than they currently have to spend. So, they take out a loan.
P: 771
 Quote by Jasongreat I would like to see a law that prohibits inflation
A law that prevents prices from rising? Are you high? What kind of iron-fisted dictatorship do you think we're living in.

I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having, but a law to "prohibit inflation" sounds batcrap crazy to me.
P: 1,414
 Quote by Jack21222 I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having ...
The essential point of the discussion is whether the federal government can do anything to reduce healthcare costs. Ie., how that might be done.
P: 75
 Quote by ThomasT This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has.
Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars? Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?

When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesnt have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.
P: 1,414
 Quote by Jasongreat Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars?
Well ... yeah.

 Quote by Jasongreat Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?
Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?

 Quote by Jasongreat When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesnt have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.
Inflation refers to increases in the cost of goods and services. The government doesn't control this (for the most part). It's a function of players in any market charging prices that they think the market will sustain.
P: 75
 Quote by Jack21222 A law that prevents prices from rising? Are you high? What kind of iron-fisted dictatorship do you think we're living in. I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having, but a law to "prohibit inflation" sounds batcrap crazy to me.
It would not neccessarily keep prices from rising, it would keep prices from rising without added value though. Do we get more, from a house that costs 5000 dollars, like they cost in the twenties, or the same house which now costs 500,000 dollars? sure it makes us feel better having big values in the bank, although once we start spending it disappears just as quick. I dont understand our love affair with inflation, does it help having a million dollars that will only buy 10,000 dollars worth of goods? Or could we accomplish the same thing by keeping the 10000 dollars buying 10,000 dollars worth of goods?
P: 75
 Quote by ThomasT Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?
Not once I paid off the loan, and interest, I would have a loss of the interest, which would cause me to end up worse off than when I started. If I could invest the money into the market and get a high enough return to pay the interest and to make up for the amount government inflated my dollars during the same time, I could make a profit. The problem comes when it is government borrowing the money, since there is no hope of a return on our investment, governments are liabilities, not assets. In fact arent those things we place under the umbrella of government, there because in the free market a return on investment is warranted, therefore if we have things which cannot profit, they become governments duty to provide those services?
P: 1,414
 Quote by Jasongreat I dont understand our love affair with inflation ...
Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say,$5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.
P: 1,123
 Quote by ThomasT Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say,$5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.
I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.
P: 1,123
 Quote by ThomasT So, back to Romney. I just finished watching a video on Ralph Nader entitled "An Unreasonable Man". It makes me somewhat angry that the American public votes for people like Romney, Obama, Bush, etc., and marginalizes truly great Americans like Nader. Clearly, Romney is no Nader. But then who is? But Romney isn't even, imho, a marginally interesting candidate for president. His proposals are predictably predominantly pro big business, pro finance, and anti the average working American. He's a rich guy, who, as he's wont to tell everybody, has spent his life in business, as an executive, getting rich.
Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.
Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?
All the stuff that is pro business and finance, and anti labor and regulation.
P: 1,414
 Quote by WhoWee I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.
To return to this, I've owned businesses also. I charged whatever I thought I could get away with.
P: 1,123
 Quote by ThomasT Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.
I've owned retail businesses that employed predominately minimum wage workers - Government mandated pay increases don't just raise the lowest wage - it also forces the owner to pay more to established workers that have earned increases.

Cost of goods sold typically increase when commodity, production and delivery costs increase - a small business can't control these costs.

As for why did utilities cost increase - are you joking? A small business has very few options beyond strict reduction of use.

 Related Discussions Current Events 578