Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

[misskitty]

Burnsys, wher eso you think these companies get all their money? Do you think the grow it on trees and pick it off when they need to pay people or cover costs or whatever?

No, these companies get their money from THE CONSUMER...YOU, ME, RUSS, MOONBEAR; EVERYONE is a consumer.

So the market is driven by the POPULATION. What the companies DO with their profits is a different story.

 

[russ_watters]

Burnsys, wher eso you think these companies get all their money? Do you think the grow it on trees and pick it off when they need to pay people or cover costs or whatever?

No, these companies get their money from THE CONSUMER...YOU, ME, RUSS, MOONBEAR; EVERYONE is a consumer.

Therein lies another beauty of capitalism: in order for it to work (for companies to profit), the consumers need money. If a company exploits its workers, the company harms itself.

 

[misskitty]

Thus making the economy a consumer driven institution. :biggin: The companies still have an influencing hand in how the cosumers decide to spend their money, but they don't dictate it. The consumers dicate how they want to spend their funds.

 

[plover]

I'm here for to be talking at you capitalism, capitalism, capitalism...

"Capitalism", as it has been used in this discussion, is pretty much a null word, a cipher onto which people are projecting whatever good/evil (per their taste) they are seeing in some economic order. There was a time when "capitalism" and "communism" could effectively summarize the distinctions between two dominant systems of economics being used by different countries, but at this point this dichotomy is, in most cases, just a historical bogey-man. (There are what, four (China, Vietnam, Cuba, N. Korea), countries nowadays that would call themselves communist? And the only one of those with a sizable effect on the world economy is currently only arguably under a system that corresponds to any meaningful historical sense of the word.) To say anything about capitalism, it is necessary to ask: under what conditions? by which rules? The U.S. was a capitalist country in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 but the rules changed significantly between each of those dates.

(Hmm... should I hope that russ, if he chooses to respond to this, will pleasantly surprise me by not attributing bizarre motives to me, not painting me with inappropriate liberal stereotypes, and not making a priori assumptions concerning my agreement/disagreement with others in this thread? Maybe he'll even read the whole thing before starting his response.)

My point/justification is simple: providing someone who has no food with a means of getting food is a good thing.

When the situation can be reduced to this: sure, some solution is better than no solution. But why were these particular people starving? Because they lived in a region that historically had poor resources, and the population is now too high? Because environmental degradation (caused perhaps by a neighboring country's resource usage) has rendered their traditional lifestyle unviable? Because their government is/was despotic and has drained their wealth? Because international corporations are moving too much wealth out of their country for the government to maintain a decent infrastructure? The answer to this will determine whether some of the viable solutions (and there is always more than one) are more moral than others. And a solution that (sustainably, and as a start) moves local economic levels from starvation levels to (say) $3/person/day will (almost?) always be more moral than one that raises those levels to $2/person/day. There can also be something in this of the old saw about giving a person a fish vs. teaching a person to fish. I certainly have my doubts as to whether most corporations moving into a poor country would prefer the local population to have independence rather than be dependent on (and thus subservient to) said corporation. Certain kinds of investment mostly distort a local economy rather than moving that economy toward its own robust, sustainable dynamic.

Corporations benefit from the fact that there is a lot of poverty in the world. That is true. But in the same act that causes them to benefit, the poor also benefit. This is one of the beautiful things about capitalism: the corporations don't have to care abou the little guy to improve conditions for him.

This is true in some circumstances, false in others. And someone does have to look out for the little guy. History shows that capitalists are perfectly happy to let their workers (metaphorically, and in some historical cases, literally) live out their lives from generation to generation without ever leaving the coal mine—the workers don't escape until someone changes the rules. It could perhaps be argued that such changes are driven by other economic changes that are caused by other capitalists shaping the economy; however, someone still has to make sure those rules get changed, and it's rarely the mine owners that do it.

You really think an American company can bully a country like China?

Given the degree to which they own us, it will soon be getting so America itself can't economically bully China...

a system who has billions of people starving obiusly is not working right.

That system is called "communism" - you're arguing against the wrong thing. Capitalism is causing the improvement, not causing the problem.

WTF? Are you saying that everything done by "capitalism" (i.e. capitalist countries) during the Cold War was ipso facto good ("an improvement") and everything done by "communism" (i.e. communist countries) ipso facto detrimental ("the problem")? That would be, pardon my French, just plain silly.

And why can't capitalism be the source of both improvements and problems? The idea that some definition of capitalism exists (that isn't so general as to be useless in practice) such that it is everywhere an unalloyed good (if that is, indeed, what you are saying) just seems like quackery:

It's CAPITALISM! The miracle cure-all!
The panacea for all economic ills!
Whatever your troubles, whatever clouds darken your skies,
just add a little CAPITALISM and soon sunny days will return!
​

We've had that discussion before. It quite simply isn't true. Heck, the numbers are here in this thread: poor Chinese are getting richer and Americans are getting richer. Who then is getting poorer?

Well, sometimes it's poor Americans. Over the period 1977-94, the bottom (in economic terms) 60% of Americans saw real income loss, and the closer to the bottom end of the scale, the steeper the decline. In the same period the top 1% of Americans saw vastly greater gains than even those in the 95-99 percentile. As a contrast, over the period 1945-77, all strata of Americans saw similar (as a percentage) wealth gains. (The source for these figures is the Congressional Budget Office, but my reference is in a book, so I don't have a link.)

In any case, however, it is true that capitalism is not a zero-sum game.

So what? An improvement is still an improvement!

Perhaps—when the issue is moving people from starvation to subsistence. But even then questions can still be asked. Why this ratio and not another? Who set up the rules and who do they favor?

That specific thing is a crime and is irrelevant to the question I asked. Your claim was that the system of capitalism is causing this problem. Someone committing a crime is no obeying the system.

Is it a crime? It's horrible, yes, but under the international law of the time being discussed, was it explicitly illegal? Was there any system in place to enforce such a law? Capitalism pretty much always obeys the dictate of "whatever you can get away with", precisely because it is amoral (i.e. neither moral nor immoral). So until there is an enforceable legal code controlling a given means to some economic advantage, that means is pretty much by definition "part of the system". The rules change; there is no unitary "capitalism".

Why is it not ok that a company profits a lot while a an individual profits a little ...?

Another question that should be answered case by case.

That's another factually incorrect statement. Unemployment in the US reamains at near historical lows. Even with a lot of jobs being shipped overseas, the economy is still humming right along.

Ooh yeah, temp jobs, service jobs with no benefits, great stuff there. All boats are really being lifted.

Note: I'm not saying that no jobs would be better, I'm saying that rules that encourage the creation of jobs with no security need serious improvement.

Besides - don't you want us to fail?

You don't really believe this kind of Fox/Limbaugh BS, do you?

The alternative to American companies shipping their jobs overseas and paying people enough to eat is for American companies to not ship their jobs overseas, causing people to starve to death.

And other sayings from the land of daft, simplistic dichotomies...

I hope you realize that I have not once said here that "capitalism" is de facto "bad" or "evil", just that, like every other powerful idea, it requires a certain amount of attention to detail for its benefits to reach the greatest number, and its failures the least.

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, wher eso you think these companies get all their money? Do you think the grow it on trees and pick it off when they need to pay people or cover costs or whatever?

No, these companies get their money from THE CONSUMER...YOU, ME, RUSS, MOONBEAR; EVERYONE is a consumer.

So the market is driven by the POPULATION. What the companies DO with their profits is a different story.

No. money grow in the federal reserve and then in private banks, Then the private banks decide who they give the money and what amount..

But anyway yes they get the money from the consumer, but when corporations are an oligopoly, and 5 or 6 coporations controls 90% of their market then you are a hostage and you and me simply don't drive anything they drive you...

And most of their profits are used to pay advertising an tricking the people to buy their products, of course you will never see an advertisment of nike showing you a vietnam factory with womans working 14hs all days under the worst conditions. so how do you decide?? (when i mean you i mean the 90% of people who all information they get. came from the tv) who is also controlled by 7 or 8 big corporations...

they did it simple in argentina... corporations came at the same time that private foreing banks... the banks give them really bigs loans and corporations bougth all their most rentable competitors... that is the free market...

 

[Burnsys]

One question. may bee it's a stupid question, but anyway..

Why do china need American dolars to put his own people to work?
What is the problem.. people would only work for american folars in china? or what??
And in that case, so american solution to world poverty is pure american investments in poor countrys?

 

[russ_watters]

(Hmm... should I hope that russ, if he chooses to respond to this, will pleasantly surprise me by not attributing bizarre motives to me, not painting me with inappropriate liberal stereotypes, and not making a priori assumptions concerning my agreement/disagreement with others in this thread? Maybe he'll even read the whole thing before starting his response.)

Jeez, I know I have this reputation, but it really is undeserved. In fact, I agree with far more than I disagree with in your post. Even some of the points that you disagreed on, you just misinterpreted and we actually agreed. Furthermore, I much prefer someone present an argument (as you generally do) than just state an opinion without explanation, expansion, or justification. So with that, assume if I don't comment on it, I agree with it...

But why were these particular people starving?

Yes, I've been talking simply and its more complicated than I have characterized it - but until now, I haven't seen any discussion and you have to start somewhere... Your characterization is accurate (the questions imply answers, and they are pretty much correct) - though I will say, we're talking specifically about China at the moment.

This is true in some circumstances, false in others.

I prefer to say its a more-often-than-not true oversimplification designed to provoke a discussion. Until this point, I have been unsuccessful...

WTF? Are you saying that everything done by "capitalism" (i.e. capitalist countries) during the Cold War was ipso facto good ("an improvement") and everything done by "communism" (i.e. communist countries) ipso facto detrimental ("the problem")? That would be, pardon my French, just plain silly.

It is silly and its not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying overall, China was where it was 20 years ago primarily because of its government. I'm also saying that the improvements in the past 20 years have, by and large, been due to reformations that have made China more capitalistic.

And why can't capitalism be the source of both improvements and problems? The idea that some definition of capitalism exists (that isn't so general as to be useless in practice) such that it is everywhere an unalloyed good (if that is, indeed, what you are saying) just seems like quackery:

Capitalism does have good and bad points and I never suggested otherwise. The US (for example) has put limitations on pure capitalism because of flaws such as the propensity for the growth of monopolies.

Well, sometimes it's poor Americans. Over the period 1977-94, the bottom (in economic terms) 60% of Americans saw real income loss, and the closer to the bottom end of the scale, the steeper the decline. In the same period the top 1% of Americans saw vastly greater gains than even those in the 95-99 percentile. As a contrast, over the period 1945-77, all strata of Americans saw similar (as a percentage) wealth gains. (The source for these figures is the Congressional Budget Office, but my reference is in a book, so I don't have a link.)

The numbers I cited say otherwise (already linked, but here are the numbers):

Bracket: 20%...40%...60%...80%...Top 20%..Top 5%
1977...$9,411..$22,212..$36,625..$53,628..$94,009...$138,751
1994...$9,530..$23,603..$39,761..$61,874..$130,076..$224,736
Gain/yr:..0.1%...0.3%...0.5%...0.9%...2.1%...3.4%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03ar.html is the specific table (bottom table). Yes, the numbers are inflation adjusted. And though the improvements are small on the lower end, the reason is that you (or whoever you got the numbers from) specifically selected that time period to get the most unfavorable numbers: the numbers are selected from the height of one economic cycle to the recession of the next (its 1.5 cycles). If you look at a broader time period, you'll see much bigger gains across the board (even as a % per year). Ie:

Bracket: 20%...40%...60%...80%...Top 20%..Top 5%
1967 ...$7,589..$20,690..$33,035..$46,220..$83,758...$133,507
2002...$9,996..$25,678..$43,588..$68,994..$147,078..$253,239
Gain/yr:..0.9%...0.7%...0.9%...1.4%...2.2%...2.6%

I didn't compound the growth rate (I'm lazy), so the growth numbers actually would compress a little as you go up if done correctly. And they don't list the top 1%.

Frankly, I think you've been manipulated by a biased book (author).

Perhaps—when the issue is moving people from starvation to subsistence. But even then questions can still be asked. Why this ratio and not another? Who set up the rules and who do they favor?

I have not claimed that the current system is perfect: merely that it is an improvment (a vast improvement) over communism (in this particular case, Maoism).

Is it a crime? It's horrible, yes, but under the international law of the time being discussed, was it explicitly illegal?

The thread had a lot of examples, but among them were bribery, extortion, and rackettering. Those are certainly a crime everywhere, whether enforced or not...

Was there any system in place to enforce such a law?

Therein lies one of the biggest flaws of the system. But where does the flaw lie? In the US we have laws and we enforce them, but international commerce is international: if somoen bribes a Chinese official, its up to China to prosecute them. As usual, the flaw lies in the country (China) that is in transition from a deeply flawed and corrupt system, to functional capitalism. International law on the subject is not very strong, but should it be? People are already claiming that its stealing their sovereignty!

Another question that should be answered case by case.

Why? This is a conversation about general principles. Why can't you give a general answer? My answer is that in general, market forces should be allowed to drive the market.

Ooh yeah, temp jobs, service jobs with no benefits, great stuff there. All boats are really being lifted.

[shrug] Stats are above. If you can find justification for your objection, please show it to me.

Note: I'm not saying that no jobs would be better, I'm saying that rules that encourage the creation of jobs with no security need serious improvement.

[shrug again] The generation X culture has abandoned job loyalty. Its a two-way street and you can't pin it all on the employers.

You don't really believe this kind of Fox/Limbaugh BS, do you?

That was a question, not a statement, but it is relatively clear to me that Burnsys is interested only in equality of outcome and not the reality that comes with it. The choice really is that simple: communism and failure or capitalism and wealth.

And other sayings from the land of daft, simplistic dichotomies...

Feel free to clarify/expand/correct me on that...

 

[plover]

The numbers I cited say otherwise

I wrote part of a long post (no really, this one is much shorter ) about the differences between the Census numbers and the CBO numbers and what they might mean, but laying out the complexities, and finding the rest of the data that goes along with my underlying point is more work than I really want to do right now. Here's the short version:

1. I found what is probably the original CBO data. Most of it is in this dataset of effective tax rates (mostly Table 3), but some probably comes from this report on tax liabilities. The book (Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips, 2002) gives a list of sources for the chapter rather than detailed footnotes, so it's possible that the specific numbers came from some analysis in one of the other sources.
2. If it is based on those CBO documents, then there is definitely something weird about the chart in the book. (For one thing, there's no 1994 data in the documents.) However, some of the data points in the chart correspond to a linear interpolation of the 93 and 95 data, and the points that don't differ in such a way as to understate the author's point rather than exaggerate it. There are also inconsistencies in the text that make me think some kind of editorial snafu may have happened in relation to this particular chart, but nothing that looks biased per se.
3. Deriving figures directly from the CBO data for 77-95 produces numbers more or less qualitatively consistent with my original statement. (Though the 3rd quintile ends up with 0% change rather than being slightly negative.)
4. The main reason why the CBO figures differ from the Census figures is that the Census figures are gross earned income (i.e. not including capital gains and such), and the CBO data used for the chart is total disposable after-tax income. (See Table 3 of the CBO dataset.)
5. Phillips is not using the data for the same thing I was using it for, and as presented in the book, it supports his point better than mine.

In the end, I still think what I intended to say is correct, but I think my point was made over-hastily, somewhat unclearly, and would take more effort to clarify and defend (to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's) than is likely to happen in the context of this thread.

Frankly, I think you've been manipulated by a biased book (author).

In general, thank you for a measured response, this is the only point where you seem to have dragged in some completely unwarranted assumption. But really, if I made such an accusation on a similar amount of evidence, you'd likely call it a conspiracy theory. You can't have it both ways. Ask to have a source clarified if you're not satisfied, sure, but why not wait for some tangible evidence before throwing accusations around. This subject is complicated enough that it might be pretty much expected that a discrepancy like the one you noted would be caused by datasets measuring differing quantities.