How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

[Jim Kata]

First off mheslep, you never answered my question on how the Romney tax plan was any different than Supply Side economics or Trickle Down economics. The cutting of marginal tax rates and increasing deregulation are the tenets of supply side and trickle down economics and neither of those worked so what makes you think this will?

Let's take a quick look at the history of the Tax Foundation since these are the experts you have cited. The Tax Foundation was founded by the chairman of General Motors, the president of Standard Oil (Exxon) and some other high ranking ceos. Since 1990 the Tax Foundation has operated as a separate unit of Citizen's for a Sound Economy. Citizen's for a Sound Economy was a conservative political group founded by David Koch and Charles Koch. In 2004 Citizens for a Sound Economy split into Freedom Works whose chairman is Dick Army and everyone's favorite political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity. So forgive me if I am a little incredulous of this economic think tanks claims because even if they are non partisan the source of their funding is definitely agenda driven. I trust their opinion's on the economy about as much as I trust Koch brother's think tanks opinions on climate change. To me these are not objective sources but just toadies for Koch industries agendas.

To the question of revenues, the Bush tax cuts claimed that they would be revenue neutral through the idea of the Laffer curve, but let's look at the evidence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

To the sources that say Mitt Romney's tax plan's don't add up most sources agree on this so just pick one.

Use common sense. If you give a 20% tax cut across the board and increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars that puts you something like 7 trillion dollars in the hole. Do you think you can dig out of a 7 trillion dollar hole with increased economic activity and the closing of a few loopholes? If you do, just look at the Bush tax cuts of the last decade and notice that they added 1.7 trillion dollars to the national debt, and the tax cuts Romney are proposing are even more drastic than them. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein.

 

[Jim Kata]

You mean with the 80's and 2003 tax cuts? Please show where revenue loss occurred that caused large deficits?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure why you posted the graph in post #52 (but I'd been missing that one!) since it doesn't address the question asked in the quote, but the one you posted in post #51 shows that tax revenue under Reagan, as a % of GDP, was flat despite cuts in taxes. It also shows that the biggest contributor to the debt under Obama was a large increase in spending as a fraction of GDP -- like none seen in the past 30 years. In the previous two recessions, there was no similar increase in spending -- though Bush did increase spending a little due to his wars and creation of the Homeland Security Dept, that was nothing compared to what happened under Obama.

Bush's term unfortunately included a very short economic growth period (4 years) due to the long-simmering housing bubble, but you can see from the spending and income graph you posted that another year or two of growth would have had us back in the black. By comparison, During Clinton's term it took 5 years for growth to result in a balanced budget (starting with a year or two left in Bush I's term). So the two trajectories are pretty comparable to each other.

 

[mheslep]

http://xoutsocialism.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/debtchart.jpg[/QUOTE]

JK, you stated before that "tax plans" ... "exploded the deficit." Taxes provide the revenue side of the deficit. If revenue increases, but spending explodes then it is hardly the fault of the tax plan that the deficit increases. So, here is federal revenue over time (constant dollars).

2000-2012. Bush tax cuts went into effect starting in 2001, fully in 2003:

1980-1990. Kemp-Roth tax cuts were 1981; 2nd tax cut was 1986.

 

[mheslep]

First off mheslep, you never answered my question on how the Romney tax plan was any different than Supply Side economics or Trickle Down economics. The cutting of marginal tax rates and increasing deregulation are the tenets of supply side and trickle down economics and neither of those worked so what makes you think this will?

Let's take a quick look at the history of the Tax Foundation since these are the experts you have cited. The Tax Foundation was founded by the chairman of General Motors, ...

Yes in 1937, and irrelevant. Here are the bios of the http://taxfoundation.org/staff/stephen-entin

... So forgive me if I am a little incredulous of this economic think tanks claims because even if they are non partisan the source of their funding is definitely agenda driven. ...

Which is to say, what, i) you read the report and are incredulous, or ii) you declined to read it because of perceived bias and are uninformed about its contents?

To the question of revenues, the Bush tax cuts claimed that they would be revenue neutral through the idea of the Laffer curve, but let's look at the evidence.

I think the straight revenue figures are more to the point as opposed to revenue/GDP , but either way, what happened? Where does revenue from tax policy change explode the deficit?

[...]

To the sources that say Mitt Romney's tax plan's don't add up most sources agree on this so just pick one.

That's the second time you've made the statement that "most sources" agree with your assertion that Mitt Romney's tax plan will run up the deficit, but without providing any sources despite a request.

If you give a 20% tax cut across the board and increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars that puts you something like 7 trillion dollars in the hole. Do you think you can dig out of a 7 trillion dollar hole with increased economic activity and the closing of a few loopholes?

That's a gross misstatement of the proposal (one proposal):

"What are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number—$25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it."

A hard cap on *all* deductions is not closing a few loopholes.

With regards to military spending, I think it should be cut, actually cut, but have not seen anywhere where Romney favors a $2 trillion increase (over what, ten years?).

 

[Jim Kata]

Which is to say, what, i) you read the report and are incredulous, or ii) you declined to read it because of perceived bias and are uninformed about its contents?

I think the straight revenue figures are more to the point as opposed to revenue/GDP , but either way, what happened? Where does revenue from tax policy change explode the deficit?

[...]

That's the second time you've made the statement that "most sources" agree with your assertion that Mitt Romney's tax plan will run up the deficit, but without providing any sources despite a request.


That's a gross misstatement of the proposal (one proposal):



A hard cap on *all* deductions is not closing a few loopholes.

With regards to military spending, I think it should be cut, actually cut, but have not seen anywhere where Romney favors a $2 trillion increase (over what, ten years?).

Mheslep you still haven't explained how the Romney tax plan is different than Supply Side or Trickle Down economics.

I know you're trying to argue that Supply Side economics and Trickle Down economics had a very limited effect on the debt and the fact that the debt exploded both times these economic policies were tried is sheer coincidence due to reckless spending not a shortage of revenue. In the national debt 1.7 trillion of it is directly due to the bush tax cuts, 678 billion is due to other tax cuts, and 391 billion was due to the 2010 tax deal. That is a total of 2.77 trillion dollars that is directly due to tax cuts.

I read the Tax Foundation's proposal, and don't agree with their conclusions. Whenever deficits have gotten out of control in the past government has raised taxes to increase their revenue. This was done by both Reagan and Bush 41. In times of slow economic growth the government usually gets involved in the economy to spur growth. This leads to an increase in government spending. To offset this increased spending the typical response has been to raise revenues to keep the deficit in check as Bush 41 and Reagan both did. I am not an economics expert so I do not have the authority to judge the findings of the Tax Foundation, but when Paul Krugman an economist whose opinion I truly respect says "the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source" I take heed.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/the-greek-menac.html

As far as what sources claim Mitt Romney's tax plan is not deficit neutral, there are some listed in this New York Times article that are not the Tax Policy Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/business/tax-policy-center-in-spotlight-for-its-white-paper.html?_r=0

Some of the experts who say they don't see the math working out come from far left wing fringe think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

Also everyone's favorite Ferris Bueller high school teacher economist Ben Stein lent his opinion on the subject on Fox news. "I hate to say this on Fox- and I hope I will be allowed to leave here alive- but I don't think there is anyway to cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference." "We are going to have to raise taxes on very rich people, people with incomes like say 2,3 million a year and up, and then slowly move it down." This man can't even figure out that evolution is real, but is smart enough to figure this one out.

Even though I know I'll never be able to establish the causality between Supply Side policies and the debt to your liking, I have anecdotal question for you? When was the last time there was a budget surplus? Was it under the economic policies of Reagan or either of the Bushes?

 

[Jim Kata]

one more interesting chart

 

[mheslep]

Mheslep you still haven't explained how the Romney tax plan is different than Supply Side or Trickle Down economics.

You stated earlier you were aware Romney's plan was an across the board rate cut (and deductions cap)? Isn't trickle down supposed to be about taxes breaks just for the 'rich'? Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing vague labels, even less about which labels do not apply.

I know you're trying to argue that Supply Side economics and Trickle Down economics had a very limited effect on the debt and the fact that the debt exploded both times these economic policies were tried is sheer coincidence due to reckless spending not a shortage of revenue.

I did not argue the revenue figures, they are what they are and I referenced them. Once there's agreement on the basic numbers, then a productive argument is possible.

In the national debt 1.7 trillion of it is directly due to the bush tax cuts, 678 billion is due to other tax cuts, and 391 billion was due to the 2010 tax deal. That is a total of 2.77 trillion dollars that is directly due to tax cuts...

More assertions made as fact, so I'll move on ...

 

[Jim Kata]

You stated earlier you were aware Romney's plan was an across the board rate cut (and deductions cap)? Isn't trickle down supposed to be about taxes breaks just for the 'rich'? Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing vague labels, even less about which labels do not apply.

The 2003 Bush tax cuts, trickle down, was for everyone. These are not just vague labels it's important for people to know what the Romney tax plan is really about. It's Supply Side and Trickle Down with a new name. The same ideas as before with a new name.

You said that it's not a fact that the Reagan and Bush tax plans added to the debt I'll post one more source and be done with it.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/306215_3671363777996_1091927144_33446125_1631130008_n.jpg

 

[Jim Kata]

One more time, to show how the tax plans have directly affected the debt.

That's, add it up, 2.77 trillion dollars due to tax cuts.

 

[RabbitWho]

They're just trying to appeal to the hyper-individualists. It has nothing to do with age or gender or intelligence or pretty pie charts. It rages from "hur-dur I don't want nobody telling me what to do, no government, nobody" to people who are intelligent but not so interested in politics to people who are well-read highly educated libertarians to people who are living in holes in the ground surrounded by 100 years worth of baked beans.

So even though it seems like deregulation isn't going to affect their freedom, it fits in with their life philosophy.

 

[mheslep]

One more time, to show how the tax plans have directly affected the debt.


That's, add it up, 2.77 trillion dollars due to tax cuts.

Debt is $16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph?

 

[Jim Kata]

Debt is $16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph?

I think it came from Time magazine, but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. Since you question my sources here's a source you might understand

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/sites/foxbusiness.com.on-air.stossel/files/images/Graph%201.preview.jpg

The vertical axis I think is debt to GDP ratio.

Here is another one

Here are some projections if the Bush tax cuts stay in place.

 

[RabbitWho]

I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see how the concepts of either deregulation or regulation are very meaningful alone. There's good and bad versions of each. It's the implementation and integration of them that determine how they affect social values like freedom. Deregulation that gives corps political power is bad, regulations that give bureaucrats power are bad. They each have potential to take away freedoms from the public.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed

Do colorful graphs count? Here's an old one I put together 2 days before Halloween last year:

Let's see if anyone can remember what it represents.

hint: edward, george Carlin, and I, all seemed to be on the same page that day.

ps. Looking at the name of the image is cheating.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim.

So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim.

So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.

Ha ha! Ellipses can come across as very disingenuous.

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosing

perhaps should have been called:

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosingthebattlefortheirshareofthepie

The original file has disappeared from the CBO. But being the pack rat that I am...

after-tax_income_shares.pdf

Even my text describing the graph was a bit erroneous

post tax income since 1979 until 2007
bottom 5 lines are quintiles
top 3 lines are 1%, 5%, & 10%
I'm sure you can identify which is which. (Who knows how to say; Cha-Ching!)

hmm... I must have been very emotional.

2 gaffes in one day? Inexcusable! Where were the PF mentors when I needed them?

------------------------------
not baby-sitting your ****-***... Om...

 

[enosis_]

Does economic freedom = deregulation?

The two may be related - doubtful they are equal.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth...

(ref)

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

hmmm...



Om: Mr. Peterffy, what are your opinions on taxing the rich.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/billionaire-peterffy-says-1-dot-9-billion-taxes-support-poor: The rich support the poor primarily via taxes. I paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime.
Om: Bloomberg, how rich is Mr. Peterffy?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/billionaire-peterffy-says-1-dot-9-billion-taxes-support-poor: He has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion.
Om: NPR, how did he make his fortune?
NPR: He didn't want to type in the orders. He and his engineers hacked into the NASDAQ terminal and wired it up to their own computer, which traded automatically based on algorithms.
Om: Algorithmic trading? Sounds like the stuff of Quants.
Om: Quant, what do you think of these quants?
Quant: I think its fantastic, that people who take risks, should be compensated for taking risks. But only if they are taking risks themselves. Taking risks with other peoples money, you should not get compensated for. I'm sorry. ... Sadly though, it does in this business.
Om: Mr. Peterffy, do you think we need more regulations in the stock market?
TP: We are competing at milliseconds. And whether you can shave three milliseconds of an order, has absolutely no social value.
Om: No social value? hmmm... What are you personally doing about this?
TP: I am voting Republican.
Om: I see. OmCheeto, what is your take on Mr. Peterffy?
OmCheeto: Well, this is just my humble opinion, but I think Mr. Peterffy would be penniless if the stock market had been well regulated, rather than a virtual gambling casino for the wealthy.
Om: You sound like a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think Mr. Peterffy isn't sincere in his statement that "America is on a slippery slope, headed towards becoming a Socialist, failed state, like his homeland of Hungary"?
OmCheeto: Several reasons:

a. America has one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. Ergo, we are far from being socialist.
b. Mr. Peterffy is a Wall Streeter. Wall Streeters don't want rules that impede their accumulation of wealth.
c. Other Wall Streeters use their financial power to try and influence elections, when it suits their financial interests.
d. If the Democrats had their way, as in, implementing a transaction fee on trading on the stock market, Mr. Peterffy would be broke.
e. Money is power
f. Power corrupts
g. Gob loads of money corrupts, a lot
h. Since I became an investor in the stock market, I haven't given 1/10 of what I used to, to charitable organizations. I now understand greed.​

Om: Wow. You are a whack job Mr. OmCheeto.
OmCheeto: I don't know what that means, so I'll take it as a compliment.



--------------------------------
ok to delete.

 

[russ_watters]

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

 

[OmCheeto]

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

Well, presumably, we lowered the taxes on the wealthiest the most, as there was supposed to be some trickle down effect. It appears to me,

that it simply trickled into their bank accounts.

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.
What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

 

[Pythagorean]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

 

[OmCheeto]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

All I know is that we are trading information, on a platform, created by, whom I would now call, hippies.

There are those with ideas, that change the world for the better. And there are those with ideas, that suck the life out of it.

Regulation decides, or, IMHO, should decide, who profits more.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.

How can you show the impact of a change with a chart that shows one moment in time?

Also, distribution of wealth is a very poor indicator because standard of living does not correlate well with wealth, particularly after the popping of the housing bubble inverted a lot of mortgages.

What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

How is that useful?

 

[OmCheeto]

How is that useful?

Election's tomorrow.

You don't like poor people that don't pay federal taxes.

I don't like crackheads, as they steal my **** when I'm at work.

I thought maybe we had something in common.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea what the median income is for crackheads, but it sounds like you are implying some sort of corellation... You're kind of all over the place though, so I don't see your point.

 

[Naty1]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. [/QUOTE]too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.

 

[Bacle2]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post.

too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself.

 

[Naty1]

Just heard a report on the news: Regulatory rules cost US business about $1 trillion annually in regulatory compliance costs.

It was not specified, but I assume this is beyond IRS tax requirements. In a $15T economy, that can't help competitiveness.

 

[DosCadenas]

Everyone.

That's what across-the-board tax cuts do, for example. A trillion dollars in tax cuts and a trillion dollars in stimulus have the same initial effect on the country's balance sheet, but the tax cuts give you the choice of how to spend the money whereas the direct stimulus is the government choosing where to spend the money (on failing alternate energy companies...?).

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

 

[enosis_]

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

Where is the multiplier in a failing alternate energy company (the example cited by Russ Waters in the post you responded to)?

 

[Bacle2]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

 

[ImaLooser]

How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

 

[enosis_]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

 

[Bacle2]

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

Sorry, I meant individuals, not corporations.

At the end of the day, I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent anyone institution from gaining too much power.

 

[Bacle2]

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

 

[Bacle2]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

But, do the shareholders know about this?

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower high school dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.
See if you can find a story on MSNBC on the family court system and how it favors women,or the stories about false accusations (proven false) of violence and rape by women ( they somehow forgot to include provisions for this in VAWA . Of course,no provisions for violence against men.) that have destroyed men's lives, etc. , or stories questioning the rationale for war , or how oil companies who are making trillions in profit are receiving tax breaks, on pedophile priests etc. on Fox.
But, hey, I had insomnia , but not enough money for premium cable, and did not want to watch infomercials at 5 a.m . Now I just read.

 

[enosis_]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

 

[Naty1]

I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent anyone institution from gaining too much power.

No question: Any single entrenched all powerful hierarchy of elites collects billions for themselves and their chosen allies...Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese communist party elites...Hitler, Stalin, Musssoli of an earlier era lived pretty well,too. Just look at the way US political parties reward their supporters and allies...Obama is a master of that if not much else. But by international standards of theft, he's just a lowly also ran.

Wanna see the effects of 'regulation'??...follow the plight of Obamacare [the Affordable Care Act] and watch it flounder, especially the state pools which are already delayed...

The US does somewhat better because power is spread among states, courts, feds and local governments via what is left of the Constitution. So Scott Walker in Wisconsin gets to do what he does [balance the budget] and mayors in Stockton, Detroit, Oakland, Pittsburgh,New Orleans, Baltimore,etc run their cities into bankruptcy.

 

[Bacle2]

No question: Any single entrenched all powerful hierarchy of elites collects billions for themselves and their chosen allies...Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese communist party elites...Hitler, Stalin, Musssoli of an earlier era lived pretty well,too. Just look at the way US political parties reward their supporters and allies...Obama is a master of that if not much else. But by international standards of theft, he's just a lowly also ran.

Wanna see the effects of 'regulation'??...follow the plight of Obamacare [the Affordable Care Act] and watch it flounder, especially the state pools which are already delayed...

The US does somewhat better because power is spread among states, courts, feds and local governments via what is left of the Constitution. So Scott Walker in Wisconsin gets to do what he does [balance the budget] and mayors in Stockton, Detroit, Oakland, Pittsburgh,New Orleans, Baltimore,etc run their cities into bankruptcy.

Well, I don't know if you can give as evidence something that has not yet happenned. Who knows how it will turn out. Still, there are problems also from a complete lack of regulation; it is an art to get it just right.

 

[aquitaine]

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

In most authoritarian countries they use their political connections to get such favors as monopolies in their home markets, tax subsidies, and/or preference for government contracts. In return the regime usually expects certain things from the company, often including such favors as not permitting unions, not causing political trouble, permitting the regime's lackeys to get favorable appointments. There very much is a quid pro quo at work.

What excessive regulations usually do is stifle big companies' startup competitors. Each regulation has a compliance cost and when that cost starts getting into the millions of dollars, a Fortune 500 company can afford to shell it out but its startup competition with a highly disruptive product often cannot. The best example of this would be the airline industry prior to Carter's deregulation, we didn't really start to get companies like Southwest until after that happened. Before that it was a small club and they all charged really high prices. Here's an excerpt from an excellent take down from a lawyer.

Only reluctantly did the CAB give up the concept that, in any of these charter fares, each charter passenger had to pay an equal share of the full cost of the charter, instead of a fixed price for his ticket. Thus, if someone canceled at the last minuted and the carrier had not already received that passenger's money or couldn't find a replacement, the fare for everybody else on the charter went up! That is a good example of how excessive regulation had been crippling the air carriers in the marketplace.

The second and third factors prompting deregulation are two different types of "Entry".

First there was the difficulty—read inability—to get into the trunk airline business at all. I have already mentioned that the CAB did not admit any new trunk carrier after 1938. To be sure, by 1975, there were eight regional service carriers, some quite large (e.g., Frontier), and there were ten supplementals, a few intrastate carriers in Texas and California, and air taxis. But when, for example, World Airways, a charter airline, applied in 1967 to fly a scheduled service between New York and Los Angeles at low prices, the CAB "studied" the matter for six and a half years and then dismissed the application because the record was "stale".

Secondly, even if you were a member of the club there was the difficulty—read forget it—to obtain CAB approval for a new route. At the same time, under CAB regulation an air carrier that wanted to deploy its assets more efficiently would have difficulty obtaining CAB authority to abandon a route. It was the same problem that the railroads had with the ICC. As an example of the difficulty of securing approval of a new route, Continental had to wait eight years to add San Diego/Denver to its system, and finally succeeded only because a U.S. Court of Appeals told the CAB to grant the authority.

 

[ImaLooser]

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

 

[ImaLooser]

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower high school dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.

I'm curious about that too. I dunno. Women didn't even have the vote for quite some time. Women were explicitly excluded from most institutions of higher education, and there were very few women CEOs and so forth. I can remember when all radio disk jockeys were men. All TV announcers were men. Politicians, managers, and doctors were almost all men, etc. etc.. There was not equal opportunity. A cousin of mine got a degree in dentistry, which was unusual in those days, and had great difficulty getting a loan to start a practice.

But as to whether Jill working next to Jack doing the same thing gets paid less, I don't know how much that ever happened. I think it was more that there were traditionally men's jobs and women's jobs, and a few mixed jobs like teaching.

 

[enosis_]

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

Are you certain about this claim - any support?

 

[ImaLooser]

Are you certain about this claim - any support?

I like the example of Lester Maddox, who shut down his business rather an integrate it. Subsequently he was elected governor of Georgia.

Businesses in the South strongly opposed integration even though it would increase the number of potential customers. Maintenance of the social hierarchy of status was more important.

 

[Naty1]

Quote by enosis_

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

who cares...it's a private business...if they choose not to treat people equally, that should be their own business. Most businesses want a diverse workforce and a diverse customer base.

Meantime, recent analyses have show a dearth of top women in the Obama administration and lower pay for those they do have...

I know three companies very well...and those companies bend over backwards to pay equally and foster minority and female developmental growth and advancement...AT&T is one.

 

[Bacle2]

who cares...it's a private business...if they choose not to treat people equally, that should be their own business. Most businesses want a diverse workforce and a diverse customer base.

Meantime, recent analyses have show a dearth of top women in the Obama administration and lower pay for those they do have...

I know three companies very well...and those companies bend over backwards to pay equally and foster minority and female developmental growth and advancement...AT&T is one.

Oh, here we go again. Do we really need to have the proportion of men to women be 1-1 in every subset of the job market? Were there enough women interested/able-willing in those positions as men at the moment in which those jobs needed to be filled? Seriously, as a result of expecting every single business to have a 1:1 gender distribution in employment, now we have male Hooters waiters, and men in tight orange shorts as waiters . Yikes! ( no more Hooters for me. )

 

[aquitaine]

I like the example of Lester Maddox, who shut down his business rather an integrate it. Subsequently he was elected governor of Georgia.

Businesses in the South strongly opposed integration even though it would increase the number of potential customers. Maintenance of the social hierarchy of status was more important.

Its worth mentioning that the social hierarchy in the south was also enforced by the state government and businesses that wanted to break it would not only have that to deal with, they would have also been boycotted by their other customers. Jim Crow was very much a political problem that required a political solution.