News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[mheslep]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0910.pdfOf course it is contrary to Republican orthodoxy of always wanting less regulation.

Honkapohja (2009) cites deregulation of the financial
system in the 1980s as the root of both the economic downturn and the financial crisis.3

That reference is about the Nordic countries and their banking problems in the 1990s. Footnote #3 from the St Louis Fed article also states an alternative view even for the Nordic banking issues:

3 While noting the correlation between deregulation and the crisis, Drees and
Pazarbaşioğlu (1998) place more weight on deteriorating macroeconomic conditions,
declines in income (particularly oil, in the case of Norway, but also in the
terms of trade for commodity exporters such as Sweden), and depressed asset
markets.

 

[WhoWee]

Nope, but it makes one worth listening to. More people know who "Snooki" is than Milton Friedman.

It might be worth noting Friedman was awarded in 1976(?) - Krugman was 2008. Given their (IMO) premature award to President Obama in 2009 - I have to wonder if the standards haven't changed?http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

 

[FlexGunship]

It might be worth noting Friedman was awarded in 1976(?) - Krugman was 2008. Given their (IMO) premature award to President Obama in 2009 - I have to wonder if the standards haven't changed?http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Are you suggesting that the Nobel prize committee has become pro-big-government over time? Don't be ridiculous... if there was a major global economic shift towards big-government tendencies in recent years, then I'm sure we'd see some sort of global economic collapse.

 

[mheslep]

Nope, but it makes one worth listening to.

Makes them worth listening to in their area of expertise, and even then only in scholarly articles for subjects with a sharp political bent. On the subjects such as the "treason" of climate change skeptics or 911 "fake" hero's, these guys are just bloggers, often flirting with crack-pottery.

 

[FlexGunship]

Makes them worth listening to in their area of expertise, and even then only in scholarly articles for subjects with a sharp political bent. On the subjects such as the "treason" of climate change skeptics or 911 "fake" hero's, these guys are just bloggers, often flirting with crack-pottery.

I'm afraid I might have missed your point. Are there Nobel Laureates that claim either of these things?

 

[daveb]

It's really quite an absurd mentality, you know, to just walk away from your responsibilities on a whim.

EDIT: Again, don't jump down my throat with the: "maybe they're just doing what they believe in!" I get it! It doesn't make it responsible behavior. And the idea that they would exercise IRRESPONSIBLE behavior to protest IRRESPONSIBLE behavior is ironic beyond expression.

Why does quitting your job make it irresponsible? Perhaps they don't NEED to work, and only work becasue they want to (or don't now I suppose). Yes, it might be irresponsible, but it also might not.

 

[daveb]

Nope, but it makes one worth listening to. More people know who "Snooki" is than Milton Friedman.

To be fair, I only know who Snooki is from the "It's a Jersey Thing" episode of South Park

 

[MarcoD]

When you say liberal, I am assuming you mean the classical definition of it...? Because here in America, a person would interpret that as meaning a left-leaning economy. I would disagree with you. Part of what engendered this whole problem in the first place was the government trying to get everyone a home, something the other countries did not try to do. It ended up blowing up in our faces. As the economist Raghuram Rajan has said, "The problem, as often is the case with government policies, was not intent. It rarely is. But when lots of easy money pushed by a deep-pocketed government comes into contact with the profit motive of a sophisticated, competitive, and amoral financial sector, matters get taken far beyond the government's intent" (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rajan7/English).

No I agree with that sentiment. But the problem was implementing a neoliberal solution to home ownership; i.e., milling debt around instead of implementing taxes to go on home stimulation programs - which a lot of economies in Europe do. (Btw, yeah, in Europe liberal ~ right-wing ~ US republican.)

There are a variety of books on the problems caused by a welfare state. One simple aspect though is that if you pay people not to work, they won't. You thus end up with generations on welfare. That's a bad thing if it is structured like that. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all government programs to help people are bad, but that a great many of them will do the opposite of what they were meant to do.

Which is again the same problem. [I am pretty sure that] 99.99% of economic books you read in the US are neoliberal interpretations of what happened, there are no unorthodox interpretations. As they say: Economists are only good at predicting the past, and even that they do badly.

 

[WhoWee]

Why does quitting your job make it irresponsible? Perhaps they don't NEED to work, and only work becasue they want to (or don't now I suppose). Yes, it might be irresponsible, but it also might not.

my bold
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-street-protesters-dont-quit-their-day-jobs/

"These committees, which have attracted the support of many new to political organizing, are also counting on the support of protesters who prioritize activism over professional obligations. Indeed, many of the protesters point to the national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent as a motivation for their commitment. But they also say that their unemployment enables them to take part. After working for 10 years helping sell books for Avery Publishing on topics related to holistic health, 48-year Richard Degen was laid off during the Great Recession. He now lives off disability in a low-rent building on Pitt Street in Manhattan."

 

[MarcoD]

Either way, you're still confusing extremes. A welfare state CAN'T work, by definition, because there's no work being done.

That's nice. But doesn't explain Sweden.

Considering facts, I suppose if you want proof of stuff, just ask. A lot of stuff is just well-known, sometimes has a different interpretation, so it doesn't really make sense to post every little detail. If we disagree, then I suggest you ask.

 

[FlexGunship]

To be fair, I only know who Snooki is from the "It's a Jersey Thing" episode of South Park

And I only know Milton Friedman from his pie-eating contest video on YouTube.

That's nice. But doesn't explain Sweden.

Do you mean the doctor shortage in Sweden?

One of the reasons for this is the shortage of health care personnel, caused by a relatively low number of newly examined physicians compared to a relatively high number of physicians retiring. The fact that there is an increased interest among Swedish health care personnel in working abroad, for example in Norway, motivated by better education opportunities, shorter working hours, higher salaries, lower taxes, makes the picture more complete. The shortage of health care personnel results in long queues for patients as well as stress and work overload for health care personnel.

(Source: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr8/berbyuk.htm)

In a "welfare state", highly-contributing members of society usually leave for better opportunities. Sweden isn't even really a "welfare state" although it is strongly socialist. Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about the idea... can't remember the name... something about an Atlas rocket, or something. Pretty obscure.

Considering facts, I suppose if you want proof of stuff, just ask. A lot of stuff is just well-known, sometimes has a different interpretation, so it doesn't really make sense to post every little detail. If we disagree, then I suggest you ask.

Bolding is mine. "Common sense" is too frequently wrong. CAC was the one who gave a perfect example of how a "common sense" solution to a problem has damaged generations of working class Americans. You can't appeal to "popular knowledge" as an authority. Ghosts are well-known, too.

 

[MarcoD]

Do you mean the doctor shortage in Sweden?

Of course not, and I never claimed a welfare state is without problems.

In a "welfare state", highly-contributing members of society usually leave for better opportunities. Sweden isn't even really a "welfare state" although it is strongly socialist. Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about the idea... can't remember the name... something about an Atlas rocket, or something. Pretty obscure.

Bolding is mine. "Common sense" is too frequently wrong. CAC was the one who gave a perfect example of how a "common sense" solution to a problem has damaged generations of working class Americans. You can't appeal to "popular knowledge" as an authority. Ghosts are well-known, too.

From Wikipedia: The typical worker receives 40% of his income after the tax wedge. The slowly declining overall taxation, 51.1% of GDP in 2007, is still nearly double of that in the United States or Ireland. The share of employment financed via tax income amounts to a third of Swedish workforce, a substantially higher proportion than in most other countries. Overall, GDP growth has been fast since reforms in the early 1990s, especially in manufacturing. The World Economic Forum 2009–2010 competitiveness index ranks Sweden the 4th most competitive economy in the world.

51.1% GDP goes to government and a third is employed by the state and it is one of the most competitive economies in the world.

If that doesn't show that welfare states exist, work, and are competitive, I don't know what would.

 

[daveb]

my bold
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-street-protesters-dont-quit-their-day-jobs/

"These committees, which have attracted the support of many new to political organizing, are also counting on the support of protesters who prioritize activism over professional obligations. Indeed, many of the protesters point to the national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent as a motivation for their commitment. But they also say that their unemployment enables them to take part. After working for 10 years helping sell books for Avery Publishing on topics related to holistic health, 48-year Richard Degen was laid off during the Great Recession. He now lives off disability in a low-rent building on Pitt Street in Manhattan."

Yes? And how is that irresponsible (since you quoted me, I assume you're saying this is irresponsible)? He is on disability, he didn't quit to join OWS. There's a difference.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes? And how is that irresponsible (since you quoted me, I assume you're saying this is irresponsible)? He is on disability, he didn't quit to join OWS. There's a difference.

If he can't work - he might not be irresponsible? On the other hand, I'm not sure why he can't sell books if he can protest?

Regardless, considering his income is subsidized and housing sounds either rent controlled or subsidized - perhaps he should be more grateful?

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes? And how is that irresponsible (since you quoted me, I assume you're saying this is irresponsible)? He is on disability, he didn't quit to join OWS. There's a difference.

He's creating a contrast for you.

But they also say that their unemployment enables them to take part.

And in CONTRAST, some participants are CREATING their own unemployment by quitting.

 

[mheslep]

Sweden was definitely the welfare state model twenty, thirty years ago. That characterization is getting harder to support now, especially since the 2006 election of the center-right Reinfeldt government. As I've posted elsewhere, the Sweden of the last ten years includes:

• Universal grade school vouchers, established since 1992, allowing children to attend any school: public, private for profit, even religious.
• Partially privatized pension system
• Privatization of business. In process of selling off/privatizing state owned companies and assets, bringing in revenue in the process
• Taxes. Though the top income tax rate is still 57% to the US's 35%, taxes in Sweden are on the way down. Sweden has been sharply cutting income and business taxes, completely eliminating gift and inheritance taxes. Furthermore Swedish taxes are considerably flatter than the US system. Obviously the VAT tax is not progressive, but neither are the income taxes compared to the US. That is, there's less attempt at wealth transfer, instead people largely get back the same money they pay in (less govt overhead).
• Deregulated airlines, telecom, electricity.
• Cuts in public spending.

The idea as posited by the taxes portion of Wiki article on Sweden that total Swedish taxes are "double" the combined federal, state, and local taxes is nonsense.

References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/world/europe/14iht-sweden.html"

The collectivist, egalitarian ideas that have been associated with Sweden for decades are fading. The debate over immigration in Sweden mirrors the debate elsewhere in Europe, where economic pressures have exacerbated tensions over the role of Islam on the continent.

“There is a general change in Swedish society,” Ms. Madestam said. “Social democratic ideas are losing their grip on Sweden, and we are getting more and more individualistic. These collectivist ideas are not so strong.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493443146054692.html"

According to figures used by the Swedish national broadcaster SVT, 34 billion kronor ($4.8 billion) has been cut from sickness and unemployment benefits since the last election.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/16/interview-swedish-pm-look-greens-majority/"

"If we get a surplus in place we, will deliver on tax cuts for 6.1 million workers and pensioners."

"[URL OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.

[/URL]

https://www.clevelandfed.org/research/policydis/pdp21.pdf
http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869

 

[MarcoD]

Sweden was definitely the welfare state model twenty, thirty years ago. That characterization is getting harder to support now, especially since the 2006 election of the center-right Reinfeldt government.

But it is still a welfare state in US, and probably even Dutch, terms. And for the fact that they're blowing up their own society, I just feel sorry.

[Actually, 'educational vouchers' I would expect in a welfare state? What was the model they were coming from then? And concerning taxes, back up your claim that it is nonsense. Someone has to pay for the third employed by the government.]

 

[mheslep]

[Actually, 'educational vouchers' I would expect in a welfare state? What was the model they were coming from then?]

Socialized education: run, owned, and controlled by the state, just as in the US. In a voucher system the state only finances education; it does not necessarily run it.

 

[MarcoD]

Socialized education: run, owned, and controlled by the state, just as in the US. In a voucher system the state only finances education.

Hmm. I don't know the intricacies of the Dutch system, but we've been working with vouchers for years too. It doesn't mean a lot, except for that the distinction between private and public schools mostly disappear - all schooling is still payed by the government. If anything, it's an example of 'socialist' funding of free education.

 

[mheslep]

Hmm. I don't know the intricacies of the Dutch system, but we've been working with vouchers for years too. It doesn't mean a lot, except for that the distinction between private and public schools mostly disappear - all schooling is still payed by the government. If anything, it's an example of 'socialist' funding of free education.

Only if socialism means whatever you want to mean, changing from one minute to the next, and not the ownership and/or control of the means of production by the state. Privately run schools are not socialist, even if the student tuition is paid for by the government, unless government funding comes with so many strings that the private ownership becomes a fraud.

 

[mheslep]

But it is still a welfare state in US, and probably even Dutch, terms.

As I suggested that is not an easy case to make anymore; old assumptions don't hold. Per the OECD the US tax system is more 'progressive' than Sweden's; Dutch did away with the publicly controlled portion of their health system, while the US portion (Medicare/Medicaid) remains enormous.

And for the fact that they're blowing up their own society, I just feel sorry.

Which? Blowing up or most competitive?

... and [Sweden] is one of the most competitive economies in the world
If that doesn't show that welfare states exist, work, and are competitive.

 

[MarcoD]

I've read the links, except for the walled wsj article. Looks to me the Swedes are doing the same national reforms as the Dutch did. My personal opinion on most privatizations in my country is that it gave us some money on the short term, but is more expensive in the long run.

"[URL OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

[/URL]

https://www.clevelandfed.org/research/policydis/pdp21.pdf
http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869

I was surprised about this, but I think this is about the rate of progressiveness, not the amount of taxes, right? I already stated once that I personally believe that the rate is not as important as the amount of taxes; i.e., I really think the wages of people adjust to the taxing rate.

I believe it is mostly what you do with your taxes, not how they are collected. I wouldn't know how to substantiate that claim, though.

 

[MarcoD]

As I suggested that is not an easy case to make anymore; old assumptions don't hold. Per the OECD the US tax system is more 'progressive' than Sweden's; Dutch did away with the publicly controlled portion of their health system, while the US portion (Medicare/Medicaid) remains enormous.

As I stated before, the privatization of healthcare in the Netherlands also brought forth an explosion in cost. And it isn't as if the healthcare is now still completely private; on the radio, recently, there was news that community doctors are now cut Euro 20,000.- each annually since their cost exploded too. I don't know how they do that, but it implies the system is hardly as private as one would expect.

Which? Blowing up or most competitive?

Nah, I don't like the privatization part. I agree that in a social democracy, you need to keep on 'pruning the tree' since there is no market doing that for you. But privatization? Hell no. Now the Dutch are stuck with lots of companies which will do the same as all companies in public sectors - capitalize on the future by not investing in maintenance, and sell scraps as pieces of gold. I just don't believe in it, and that prediction now seems to come true.

 

[mheslep]

concerning taxes, back up your claim that it is nonsense. Someone has to pay for the third employed by the government.]

All government spending in the US, federal, state, and local: ~41% of GDP 2011.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2012USp_12s1li111mcn_F0t

That spending load is equal to the sum of all combined tax revenue (income personal and corporate, sales, property, tariffs) plus borrowing from the future (i.e. future taxes).

 

[MarcoD]

All government spending in the US, federal, state, and local: ~41% of GDP 2011.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2012USp_12s1li111mcn_F0t

That spending load is equal to the sum of all combined tax revenue (income personal and corporate, sales, property, tariffs) plus borrowing from the future (i.e. future taxes).

I concur, it shouldn't matter that much with respect to Sweden. We all live in welfare states, except that the US uses a rather big credit card?

 

[vici10]

Again I do not know anyone who uses their abilities to the full potential for free unless it’s at a hobby and they do something else to make a living. But is that really using your abilities to their full potential?

Grigory Perelman comes to mind. Also Douglas C. Prasher who contributed to discovery that won a Nobel prize and had to work as a driver, since he could not find a job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/16prasher.html

Farnsworths, one of the inventors of TV died financially broken.
There are many people, who contributed a lot to humanity by their discoveries and hard work, but did not get a penny from it. Other people, not original inventors, profited from their labour and made plenty of money . For example: http://www.therichest.org/business/they-could-have-been-billionaires/

And these are just famous inventions, I guess there are many people that we just do not know who contributed a lot to humanity and never seen a penny of profit from it.

 

[CAC1001]

Keep in mind regarding Sweden that Sweden is a smaller country with a population of around ten million people, and a nation that has been fairly homogenous for a long time regarding things like race, religion, culture, language, etc...give it the kind of racial, religious, cultural, language, etc...diversity of say New York City alone and watch all the problems that will pop up.

 

[WhoWee]

Keep in mind regarding Sweden that Sweden is a smaller country with a population of around ten million people, and a nation that has been fairly homogenous for a long time regarding things like race, religion, culture, language, etc...give it the kind of racial, religious, cultural, language, etc...diversity of say New York City alone and watch all the problems that will pop up.

Don't forget targeted legislation that favors some groups over others - in the name of fairness and equality - and super-charge the new mix with a litigious enthusiasm - and label it all IMO.

 

[chiro]

Just a quick comment for the people blaming the capitalist system and/or rich people.

If a person has created wealth in a fair manner without any special treatment by anybody like say a government or special interest group that wields power that could be seen as an unfair advantage, then they deserve their wealth.

In a fair capitalistic system, people are rewarded when they make things that other people want, and that should not change. If you make crap that no-one wants, then you should go down. In this system, people are not entitled to wealth, they earn it, and personally I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with, is when the fairness breaks down. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is called croney capitalism if I recall correctly. Businesses and corporations that get special treatment in the forms of new legislation, tax breaks, or otherwise are the ones that do not deserve to be in business.

Right now, some of these organizations are acting like spoilt children who are crying to their parents for more candy, and they are getting it. If you bring up a kid and let them think it's ok to do whatever the hell they want to do, it's not really hard to see what effect this will have on the thoughts and values of that kid.

In the same way, we have let the financial system get completely out of control, and the fact that they are getting away with the kind of stuff they are getting away with explains their behavior, arrogance, and disregard for anyone else. Just like smacking a child for doing nasty **** can help them avoid the situation in the future, disciplining people who commit fraud can them from committing it and potentially worse acts in the future.

 

[OmCheeto]

Grigory Perelman comes to mind. Also Douglas C. Prasher who contributed to discovery that won a Nobel prize and had to work as a driver, since he could not find a job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/16prasher.html

Farnsworths, one of the inventors of TV died financially broken.
There are many people, who contributed a lot to humanity by their discoveries and hard work, but did not get a penny from it. Other people, not original inventors, profited from their labour and made plenty of money . For example: http://www.therichest.org/business/they-could-have-been-billionaires/

And these are just famous inventions, I guess there are many people that we just do not know who contributed a lot to humanity and never seen a penny of profit from it.

shhhhh... (this is not supposed to be a logical discussion)

ps. I'd never heard of Grigori Perelman until about 2 weeks ago.

I would tell you what else my friend Vlad had to say, but it was all bad, and might make Wall Street get more(?) jittery.

 

[ParticleGrl]

In a fair capitalistic system, people are rewarded when they make things that other people want, and that should not change. If you make crap that no-one wants, then you should go down. In this system, people are not entitled to wealth, they earn it, and personally I have no problem with that.

Even in a hands-off capitalistic system, luck plays a huge role. The best product often doesn't win, hence the rise of marketing. Even great businessmen can go bust (especially early on in the life of a company).

Part of the reason for a safety net in my opinion is to ENCOURAGE entrepreneurship. If you try and get unlucky, how hard should we make it to dust yourself off and try again? How many people don't start companies because they are worried about health insurance? People are risk averse, psychological studies have shown it- they weight the downside heavier than the upside. There is a reason, after all, that Europe has a larger small business sector than the US.

I think in general people underestimate the role of luck in life.

 

[WhoWee]

Even in a hands-off capitalistic system, luck plays a huge role. The best product often doesn't win, hence the rise of marketing. Even great businessmen can go bust (especially early on in the life of a company).

Part of the reason for a safety net in my opinion is to ENCOURAGE entrepreneurship. If you try and get unlucky, how hard should we make it to dust yourself off and try again? How many people don't start companies because they are worried about health insurance? People are risk averse, psychological studies have shown it- they weight the downside heavier than the upside. There is a reason, after all, that Europe has a larger small business sector than the US.

I think in general people underestimate the role of luck in life.

I understand why you've made these statements PG. However, I've been involved with enough start-ups and franchise ventures to know a false sense of security can be very dangerous. I recently helped renegotiate finance terms for a friend that (didn't tell anyone) was 100% dependent upon the revenues from the first day in business to pay for inventory - and nobody walked through the door. This fellow absolutely knew better. He has over 20 years of experience and a great operating concept. He figured he could open on a shoestring (no partners) and make it work - then unexpected delays prevented opening on time then rent and utilities took his bank. I found out he opened with less than $35 in the cash register for change. While he may not be the individual you're thinking of generally - he is a good case study where all he needed was more time and money to make it work. The people that might be most damaged by a safety net are the ones that don't know when to pull the plug - that don't have the skills or a viable plan and dig a very deep hole.

 

[humanino]

I think in general people underestimate the role of luck in life.

Maybe you already know this quote

If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.

 

[chiro]

Even in a hands-off capitalistic system, luck plays a huge role. The best product often doesn't win, hence the rise of marketing. Even great businessmen can go bust (especially early on in the life of a company).

Part of the reason for a safety net in my opinion is to ENCOURAGE entrepreneurship. If you try and get unlucky, how hard should we make it to dust yourself off and try again? How many people don't start companies because they are worried about health insurance? People are risk averse, psychological studies have shown it- they weight the downside heavier than the upside. There is a reason, after all, that Europe has a larger small business sector than the US.

I think in general people underestimate the role of luck in life.

Ever heard the quote "The harder I work, the luckier I get"?

 

[chiro]

Even in a hands-off capitalistic system, luck plays a huge role. The best product often doesn't win, hence the rise of marketing. Even great businessmen can go bust (especially early on in the life of a company).

Part of the reason for a safety net in my opinion is to ENCOURAGE entrepreneurship. If you try and get unlucky, how hard should we make it to dust yourself off and try again? How many people don't start companies because they are worried about health insurance? People are risk averse, psychological studies have shown it- they weight the downside heavier than the upside. There is a reason, after all, that Europe has a larger small business sector than the US.

I think in general people underestimate the role of luck in life.

I see what you are saying, and I do agree that it is ridiculously hard to start a business or generate personal wealth for yourself nowadays than it used to be. If you or anyone had ideas for making it easier, even if it was just legally to start a business and commence trade with ease, then this environment would provide everyone a fairer way to do the above.

Part of this problem is debt and how it is issued and controlled. All debt is not created equal. Special interests borrow at nearly zero, and the rest of us are borrowing at double digit rates: in a fair and equitable society, this wouldn't happen.

Also since credit is the lifeblood of a business, they are forced to take on debt, which further exacerbates the problem.

It's interesting though because most of us are as you say risk-averse, but the people access to lots of this stuff, like some people in banks, are really not that risk averse at all.

Peter Schiff gave a good statement to members of congress that outlined some of the problems and some solutions to help encourage business activity in the United States and I thought his suggestions were very good.

Also one thing you should realize is that being able to run your own business and generate your own wealth (I am talking about true wealth) is not something that everybody wants.

I say that with complete honesty, and if you really need to see this in action, then look at the riots happening, look at what institutions like the IMF are doing when they lend money to governments and look at the exact conditions of the loan. Look at what real assets are being used as collateral against a made-up debt.

If everyone had the chance to start a business of their own in a truly free and fair way, we would all prosper like no other time in the history of the world, and if I had one suggestion to make this happen, it would be to abolish the whole system of the creation of debt and credit and get a lot of people with diverse experiences and roles across many areas to structure something that gives people a fair go.

 

[Oltz]

Grigory Perelman comes to mind. Also Douglas C. Prasher who contributed to discovery that won a Nobel prize and had to work as a driver, since he could not find a job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/16prasher.html

Farnsworths, one of the inventors of TV died financially broken.
There are many people, who contributed a lot to humanity by their discoveries and hard work, but did not get a penny from it. Other people, not original inventors, profited from their labour and made plenty of money . For example: http://www.therichest.org/business/they-could-have-been-billionaires/

And these are just famous inventions, I guess there are many people that we just do not know who contributed a lot to humanity and never seen a penny of profit from it.

Not making a profit and working hard and using your full potential are 3 separate issues. Do we know what other choices theser people made did Farnsworth try to do it all by himself and fail to market or budget properly? Maybe he did not have enough production capacity that even if he sold every unit it would not cover the costs? Maybe he liked gambling?

Lots of people work hard and make bad choices. Some people use their full potential and make bad choices.
Some people only do enough to make a profit but live in their means and are able to save enough and have a diverse portfolio and realize long term growth.

I do not know anyone who does not want to make a profit do you? Plenty of people in history have contributed but died in the gutter because of choices they made.

 

[FlexGunship]

Even in a hands-off capitalistic system, luck plays a huge role.

I find that I hear this most from people who are having trouble succeeding with their chosen life plan.

Don't get me wrong, your post is insightful and truthful. Certainly, a safety net for entrepreneurs is important; but it's not a good final resting place. The problem is that they're rewarded for failure, and punished for success.

 

[mheslep]

... except that the US uses a rather big credit card?

Agreed!

 

[mheslep]

There is a reason, after all, that Europe has a larger small business sector than the US.

Could you please point to a reference on that?

 

[WhoWee]

I see what you are saying, and I do agree that it is ridiculously hard to start a business or generate personal wealth for yourself nowadays than it used to be. If you or anyone had ideas for making it easier, even if it was just legally to start a business and commence trade with ease, then this environment would provide everyone a fairer way to do the above.

Part of this problem is debt and how it is issued and controlled. All debt is not created equal. Special interests borrow at nearly zero, and the rest of us are borrowing at double digit rates: in a fair and equitable society, this wouldn't happen.

Also since credit is the lifeblood of a business, they are forced to take on debt, which further exacerbates the problem.

It's interesting though because most of us are as you say risk-averse, but the people access to lots of this stuff, like some people in banks, are really not that risk averse at all.

Peter Schiff gave a good statement to members of congress that outlined some of the problems and some solutions to help encourage business activity in the United States and I thought his suggestions were very good.

Also one thing you should realize is that being able to run your own business and generate your own wealth (I am talking about true wealth) is not something that everybody wants.

I say that with complete honesty, and if you really need to see this in action, then look at the riots happening, look at what institutions like the IMF are doing when they lend money to governments and look at the exact conditions of the loan. Look at what real assets are being used as collateral against a made-up debt.

If everyone had the chance to start a business of their own in a truly free and fair way, we would all prosper like no other time in the history of the world, and if I had one suggestion to make this happen, it would be to abolish the whole system of the creation of debt and credit and get a lot of people with diverse experiences and roles across many areas to structure something that gives people a fair go.

It sounds great - not realistic - but great.

 

[WhoWee]

Feeding Time occupiers - here's the one guy you wanted. Can you go home now or is there something else?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-seeks-record-sentence-hedge-fund-boss-ny-070133030.html

" A hedge fund founder once recognized as one of the country's richest citizens would serve the longest sentence in history for an insider trading conviction if a federal judge grants the government's request to send Raj Rajaratnam to prison for two decades.
Rajaratnam's sentencing was scheduled for Thursday in Manhattan."

 

[ParticleGrl]

Ever heard the quote "The harder I work, the luckier I get"?

Of course I have, but I've met very hard working, very smart people who did everything right and failed to get lucky. Anyone who has ever spent some time working in science knows these people. A small bit of luck is the difference between a nobel prize and working for $8.50 as a shuttle driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Prasher

Certainly, a safety net for entrepreneurs is important; but it's not a good final resting place. The problem is that they're rewarded for failure, and punished for success.

Only if you decide to spin it that way. Failing doesn't mean 'reward' it just doesn't meant crippling punishment. Right now, if your business even STARTS to fail you probably don't have health care (everyone i know who has started a business has gone without health insurance in bad times to cut costs). Also, you aren't 'punished' for success, no one is suggesting 100% marginal rates, so maximizing profits puts more money in your pocket.

Could you please point to a reference on that?

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

 

[FlexGunship]

Only decide to spin it that way. Failing doesn't mean 'reward' it just doesn't meant crippling punishment. Right now, if your business even STARTS to fail you probably don't have health care (everyone i know who has started a business has gone without health insurance in bad times to cut costs). Also, you aren't 'punished' for success, no one is suggesting 100% marginal rates, so maximizing profits puts more money in your pocket.

You're right, of course. I didn't mean to make it sound black-and-white, but the fact remains... a government will give you money when you falter, and take your money when you succeed. It's absolutely true that the amount taken and the amount given are vastly different, and the circumstances under which it happens leads to very different outcomes, but the premise is the same.

I make no judgments about whether it's good or bad (or even fair) with the above paragraph.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

Interesting link - couldn't help but notice Greece is the clear leader in self employment on the chart.

Also, don't they have a social safety net in place? Given they are (financially) near collapse - I'm not sure what can be learned from this information?

 

[WhoWee]

I never said the TEA Party wasn't helped by organizers or promoters - and that's exactly what is happening to the Occupy Wall Street group.

It started out local and small (without a coherent message) and now the political heavy weight promoters are helping them organize bigger events - such as the 10/5/11 event. They might not have "organized" the original meeting or the core group - but the aforementioned heavies and the unions are certainly organizing and promoting activities to move them onto the national stage.

It seems reporters are starting to "follow the money" - we'll see where it leads.

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html

"There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.

Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.

"I can understand their sentiment," Soros told reporters last week at the United Nations about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, which are expected to spur solidarity marches globally on Saturday.

Pressed further for his views on the movement and the protesters, Soros refused to be drawn in. But conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh summed up the speculation when he told his listeners last week, "George Soros money is behind this."

Soros, 81, is No. 7 on the Forbes 400 list with a fortune of $22 billion, which has ballooned in recent years as he deftly responded to financial market turmoil. He has pledged to give away all his wealth, half of it while he earns it and the rest when he dies."

 

[russ_watters]

Only if you decide to spin it that way. Failing doesn't mean 'reward' it just doesn't meant crippling punishment.

I really hate liberals' abuse of these words. An objective definition would have a positive incentive be an award and a negative incentive a penalty. Only when you infuse a liberal sense of entitlement can you shift the baseline to the right and call money given a penalty.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

Interesting and surprising data, but incomplete, seeing as how "...every measure of small business employment..." does not include a measurement of total small business employment!

It is also tough to use self employment as a proxy, since the difference between self employed contractor and employee is a simple matter of paperwork motivated primarily by govenment regulation.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's that missing data. It doesn't change the conclusion much.
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/09/2...usiness-sector-in-the-world’s-rich-economies/

Something still unclear to me is how government employment fits into the data. It is either hidden or excluded and if excluded, would probably explain the deviation from conventional wisdom.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I really hate liberals' abuse of these words. An objective definition would have a positive incentive be an award and a negative incentive a penalty

If you read the post, I was suggesting LESSENING the negative incentive of failure. Even with universal healthcare (for instance), there are plenty of negatives associated with having a business fail.

Similarly, there is no penalty for success. If your business does better, you make more money, regardless of the marginal top rate.

By your definitions, there is still a punishment for failure and a reward for success.

And besides semantics, we need to ask ourselves a policy question- Do we want to encourage small business growth and entrepreneurship? If we do, the current policy is not working. As far as I can tell, there is very little (basically no) data suggesting that top marginal tax rates have much impact on productivity or entrepreneurship- so why focus on top marginal tax rates as any kind of driving factor? There appears to be a stronger correlation between health care and a thriving small business sector.

This shouldn't be about ideology, it should be about goals. Do we want to encourage small business growth? If no, then fine, reduce healthcare spending and cut taxes. If yes, then maybe we should look at a universal healthcare system.

Something still unclear to me is how government employment fits into the data. It is either hidden or excluded and if excluded, would probably explain the deviation from conventional wisdom.

Its total employment, so it should be included. You can do some of the analysis yourself if you like on the OECD stats page. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx We live in an age of data.

Also, I'm not sure why the conventional wisdom is US dynamism. Europe had been closing the unemployment gap for years, and now is comparable to our unemployment rate.

 

[John Creighto]

It seems reporters are starting to "follow the money" - we'll see where it leads.

http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html

"There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.

Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.

"I can understand their sentiment," Soros told reporters last week at the United Nations about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, which are expected to spur solidarity marches globally on Saturday.

Pressed further for his views on the movement and the protesters, Soros refused to be drawn in. But conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh summed up the speculation when he told his listeners last week, "George Soros money is behind this."

Soros, 81, is No. 7 on the Forbes 400 list with a fortune of $22 billion, which has ballooned in recent years as he deftly responded to financial market turmoil. He has pledged to give away all his wealth, half of it while he earns it and the rest when he dies."

What is the point you are trying to make. So, someone with money may have contributed some to getting it started. So what?

 

[Galteeth]

What is the point you are trying to make. So, someone with money may have contributed some to getting it started. So what?

Soros donates to Ad-busters. Soros donates to lots of liberal/progessive outfits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters

Adbusters came up with the original idea for the protest. The idea got picked up by AnonOps and it went viral.
It is a stretch to suggest this means Soros is "funding" the protest. The idea implies that he would be giving money to supply the food protestors eat, or that he was involved in the planning somehow. He supports the magazine

"So, someone with money may have contributed some to getting it started"
In a very roundabout way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Wall_Street