Job Market Picking Up Steam (just in time for the election)

[DudeMan]

Gain of 308,000 jobs in March far exceeds Wall Street expectations. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Uh oh, the last remaining argument by the libbos about the economy is beginning to lose its lustre, too. ("yeah, we're getting economic growth, but it's a jobless recovery!")

Senator Kerry, you may not want to send out change of address cards just yet.

[DudeMan]

FYI, employment (# of jobs) and the unemployment rate (% of job-seeking population without job) are calculated separately. The 308K are bodies, the 0.1% is a statistical blip.

But don't let that stop you -- please continue.

[Duemellon]

I'm sure that working will making everyone forget about the 600 dead US soldiers, the 87bil dollar cost of war that we are publicly about, and the fact that an intern gave him head in the Oval office.

[DudeMan]

Sigh. Rightstarter, I really don't give a rat's if you agree with my opinions, assertions or predictions.

But facts aren't up for debate -- if you're not sure about the facts like how the denominator used to derive the unemployment rate (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Unemployment+rate) is calculated, why don't you do yourself a favor and look them up before you make yourself look silly by mis-stating the definition?

PS: And here's another (http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php) good website, Billionaires for Bush!

[DudeMan]

Here's a pretty good line you laid on me a couple of months ago:
Originally posted by rightstarter

also, I love how you were a man and stepped up to the plate and admitted you were wrong about the shells found by the danish army.

You were right then, but I guess you were only talking about the 'other guy' as opposed to yourself? Bringing up Secretary Powell was a nice attempted pirouette to another subject though, i'll give you that... ;)

[BigSugar]

don't forget that they also revised up the Jan/Feb. numbers by something like 150,000 jobs. the uptick in Unemployment was caused by more people re-entering the job market and searching for jobs. seems that people are starting to believe in the job growth myth i guess. :)

<GRENADE!!!>

[solomon]

I have an idea!

Lets build a new Great Pyramid in Arizona! Without modern tools, just like the Egyptians did! That will create AT LEAST ten thousand jobs.

That's how it works right?

Sol

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
FYI, employment (# of jobs) and the unemployment rate (% of job-seeking population without job) are calculated separately. The 308K are bodies, the 0.1% is a statistical blip.

But don't let that stop you -- please continue.

I wouldn't exactly call it a blip. In theory, the unemployment rate is the better number. It's not enough for there to be more jobs-- the growth in the number of jobs has to match the growth in the labor force.

The job growth is the superior indicator of economic health because its a broader and more accurate survey. So yes this is good news but I wouldn't outright dismiss the unemployment rate either-- it gets at something that you can't capture simply by looking at job growth.

As for the effect on the election, we'll have to see. The day before the numbers came out, a bunch of polls showed that people are about as dissatisfied with the economy as they have been in years. The rosy numbers might change some people's minds. . . but on the other hand it's not like all those jobs were made the last day. Job growth was occuring throughout the quarter but people were STILL dissatisfied with the economy.

Almost every state is in a huge budget crunch, so it could be the gain in jobs and income might be offset by tax raises or loss in government services. It's like I got a job or better pay now now, but now my kid's tuition was raised $2000 so I'm still unhappy. Or it could be that people are just idiots. The point is, those numbers eventually have to translate into voter satisfaction and we'll have to see the next poll to know for sure.

Bush needed this BAD to prevent himself from losing any more votes as election time approaches. A bad quarter might have killed him, a good one just sort of stems the tide of dissatisfaction. It's a big positive for the Bush camp. But if he's looking towards the economy to ice the election, he's going to need another kick-ass quarter.

At this point, I still think Bush takes the election but it's a lot closer than I thought it was going to be 6 months ago.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


I wouldn't exactly call it a blip. In theory, the unemployment rate is the better number. It's not enough for there to be more jobs-- the growth in the number of jobs has to match the growth in the labor force.

The job growth is the superior indicator of economic health because its a broader and more accurate survey. So yes this is good news but I wouldn't outright dismiss the unemployment rate either-- it gets at something that you can't capture simply by looking at job growth.

I'm not dismissing the unemployment rate, RVA. I'm saying that a 0.1% increase in a month when 300K+ jobs were created is a blip. Very different things.

One could posutulate any number of reasons -- it could simply be seasonal, for example. Or, you could even go so far as to put a positive Karl Rove-type spin on it, such as, "hey, the economy is picking up steam so much that people who had given up looking for a job and essentially taken themselves out of the labor market, have started looking again. so that's good news!" Now, i'm not saying that's the case because we don't know.

Point is we don't know, but again, 0.1% change up or down is not a significant digit. But, 300K new jobs in a month is significant and hard to poo-poo.

[Johnnylama]

Just because Wal-mart hired a few more stockers doesn't mean the country's headed in the right direction.

People are still upset because they're not finding REAL jobs!

What's his net loss, like two million something? Give me a break. Clean house. Bush didn't even really win the first time.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Johnnylama
Just because Wal-mart hired a few more stockers doesn't mean the country's headed in the right direction.wordPeople are still upset because they're not finding REAL jobs!re-word!What's his net loss, like two million something? Give me a break.that's a word hat-trick!

[tobedawg]

I second 'dat Word..

"WORD TO YO! GRANDMOTHA'!"

[mikeatthemadfro]

Originally posted by Johnnylama
Just because Wal-mart hired a few more stockers doesn't mean the country's headed in the right direction.

People are still upset because they're not finding REAL jobs!

What's his net loss, like two million something? Give me a break. Clean house. Bush didn't even really win the first time.


absolutely manufacturing job growth continued not to exist...


the rich are still getting richer...the gap continues to grow...and after bush is out...it's time to get started on getting rid of JC and the dems and working on a revolution....

whoops I sounded like Yosh for a second...

[Fourthisto]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I'm sure that working will making everyone forget about the 600 dead US soldiers, the 87bil dollar cost of war that we are publicly about, and the fact that an intern gave him head in the Oval office.

Which prez are we talking about again???? Adjust those two numbers you threw out, and you could be talking about every single one since JFK.

Except maybe Reagan, he couldn't remember to hire interns that were easy.

Touchdown, I win.

Vote for Yeltsin, kids.

[solomon]

absolutely manufacturing job growth continued not to exist...

So?

the rich are still getting richer...the gap continues to grow...

Do you know why that is, really? And the gap between rich and poor means far less today than it did in the past.

Sol

[The Mad Hater]

why is everyone expecting the President to "make" manufacturing jobs? they're not going to materialize. Carrey won't bring them either. this is an economy that has succumbed to the demands of the public: lower prices. this means cheaper manufacturing. this means technology developed for the sake of making manufacturing more efficient, thus less costly. this means closing down plants and factories in the US and shipping them overseas. is a different President going to convince manufacturers that higher costs is the wave of the future? "bring your jobs back stateside, raise your costs, raise your retail, and go bankrupt when people suddenly stop buying your products." what a plan. that'll give our economy a good kick in the ass.

[onest2.0]

Originally posted by The Mad Hater
Carrey won't bring them either.

I didn't know the pet detective was running for office...

Anyway, I say let's wait for the revised jobs numbers to come out before we start pouring the celebratory champagne.

[Duemellon]

all in all I'm confused about how the conservatives were blasting the liberals for saying the job loss was Bush's fault and continued about how the pres has no effect on jobs...

but now when there's news in his favor they're implying that it's because of Bush's efforts

whaeva

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by solomon


So?



Do you know why that is, really? And the gap between rich and poor means far less today than it did in the past.

Sol

Wha!?!?!?

Well, guess it's time for a Sociology lesson. Enjoy the cute little charts and graphs, ya'll:

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/strat.html

Ya know, I was raised to be a Republican, social Darwinism, strong eat the poor kind of guy, but when I grew up and got in the real world (aka "oh look! poor people!"), I realized that we could do a much better job of distributing our wealth in this country.

Something I'd like the Bushies to explain: How come Clinton created 11 million new jobs in this country without giving the rich huge tax breaks? Economies work in cycles. They go up, they go down. Sure, government needs to manipulate things to help this process along, but there are always consequences. Slash taxes for people who don’t need the breaks = huge deficits. Deficits = big problems down the road. Supply-side economics = bad idea.

[The Mad Hater]

Originally posted by onest2.0


I didn't know the pet detective was running for office...



yep. bumblebeetuna.

for the record, I personally am not exalting Boosh for this new statistic. however, I also don't think he should be pegged as the culprit in the dip in manufacturing jobs.

[DudeMan]

Hey Due, you need to look up the words "imply" and "infer" in that dreaded book you hate so much, the Dictionary. I never said that the jobs were directly attributable to President Bush, and I also didn't imply it.

But, the economy is unquestionably picking up steam as the election nears, and that can only bode well for his re-election efforts. The litany against the President's handling of the economy becomes less and less tenable as the economy adds more jobs and picks up steam.

Due, thanks for sending the love.

Rightstarter, I agree with the first part of your post, by the way, but just not the second part.

[DudeMan]

You're a dorkus malorkus, Rightstarter. You're probably putting tape on the middle of your glasses right now to hold them together, aren't you?

Of course I have a point of view, and you do too. All in all, President Bush has done a great job and I agree with him a helluva lot more than I agree with Jim Carrey.

As it looks right now, it's going to be a close election, no doubt. But I'll give the President about a 75% chance of winning. The economy is doing well and that more than anything will likely be the chief issue in the election. Kerry saying "I disagree" to everything Bush says or does isn't going to be enough to get him over the finish line.

[DudeMan]

Righty,

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ooitsashley/random/699.jpg

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Johnnylama
Something I'd like the Bushies to explain: How come Clinton created 11 million new jobs in this country without giving the rich huge tax breaks? Economies work in cycles. They go up, they go down. Sure, government needs to manipulate things to help this process along, but there are always consequences. Slash taxes for people who don’t need the breaks = huge deficits. Deficits = big problems down the road. Supply-side economics = bad idea.

Clinton slashed the capital gains tax. This more than offset the 1% increase in the highest income tax rate. Those in the highest brackets merely shifted their compensation from high salaries to stock grants, options, deferred compensation, etc... and received a fat windfall.

On the manufacturing tip -- Manufacturing employment in the United States has been in decline since the late 1960s. Why would anyone expect it to increase now?

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter


link with graphs?

i've heard that before, but i'm curious to see the rate.

if it was like a steady rate of decline, then all of a sudden tanked when captain caveman got in office......

Wha...!!! how darez u challenge me on sumthinz all pplz no is true.

Why u got to be such a hata??!!.....

Take up a hobby or something man. For real. Just let it go.


http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/507803.gif


U.S. manufacturing has undergone significant change over the past 40 years. Relative to other sectors of the economy, it has shrunk substantially. Employment has declined from 26% of all workers in 1960 to 14% in 2000, while output as a share of GDP has fallen from 27% to 16%.

http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/2003/03-3.pdf


Raw data on manufacturing employment can be found at:

www.bls.gov

[dcXhc]

More:


In the 23 most advanced economies, employment in manufacturing declined from about 28 percent of the workforce in 1970 to about 18 percent in 1994. Among individual economies, deindustrialization started at different times and has progressed at varying speeds. It started earliest in the United States, with the share of manufacturing employment falling from a peak of 28 percent in 1965 to only 16 percent in 1994.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues10/

_________________

While academics and policymakers have been engaged in a long-standing debate over the importance, extent, and causes of the decline in manufacturing output and employment in the U.S. economy,’ some facts are undisputed. Since its peak, manufacturing employment in the United States has fallen by almost 3 million-from 21 million jobs in 1979 to 18 million jobs at the end of 1992 (U.S. Department of Labor, 1993).

http://www.lights.com/epi/virlib/WorkPapers/1993/employmentm.PDF
__________________

The expansion of manufacturing employment in the wake of the industrial revolution and continuing into the 1960s was a result of two main forces of change. First, the demand for manufactured goods was rapidly increasing as growing incomes allowed people to spend proportionally less money on necessities, such as food and shelter, and more on non-necessities, such as consumer durables. Unlike agricultural commodities, therefore, demand for manufactures was income elastic -- a condition that is known as Engel's Law. Secondly, because the perceived need for material goods was high, demand for manufactures was price elastic: lower relative prices translated into large increases in demand. The latter condition is important because it created a positive link between productivity growth, demand, and employment. As long as wage increases did not absorb the entire improvement in productivity in the most dynamic sectors of manufacturing, the resulting reduction in relative prices could support an expansion of employment in these sectors. In turn, rapid productivity growth permitted real wages to grow and thus secured expanding markets and rising employment. Empirically, these relationships have been convincingly documented by Salter(7) and by other economists since then.(8)

In contrast to this golden age of industrial expansion, the period since the early to mid 1960s has been marked by decreasing income- and price-elasticity for manufactured goods. The decline is due to a combination of market saturation and increasingly wealthy and choosy consumers who are more concerned with the quality than with the quantity of manufacturing consumption. Under these conditions productivity increases will no longer result in sufficient increases in demand to compensate for their labor-saving effects. Appelbaum and Schettkat(9), for example, have found a significant negative relationship between manufacturing productivity growth and employment in most OECD countries during the 1980s -- a relationship that stands in sharp contrast to the golden age of industrialization. As a consequence, manufacturing wages keep improving while employment declines (just as was the case for agriculture in the first half of this century).

The decline in manufacturing has been accompanied by a shift of demand towards services, and in this sense the service sector has assumed the role previously played by manufacturing as the main source of employment growth. This fact is brought out clearly in Table 1 which shows the rate of growth in employment in manufacturing and services for 13 OECD countries during 1970s and 1980s. With few exceptions, manufacturing employment has declined or stagnated while service employment has been rapidly expanding. The rate of growth in service employment slowed down somewhat in the 1980s, but at the same time the decline in manufacturing actually accelerated thereby leaving a gap in growth rates at roughly 3 percent. Considering the deep structural causes of declining manufacturing employment -- market saturation and declining price elasticity of demand -- it is hardly realistic to hope for sustained future employment expansion except through services.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/wppap.htm
________________________

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Righty,http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ooitsashley/random/699.jpg he whipped out Oolong on you.

I wouldn't take that.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by DudeMan
the libbos

Can I start calling you the "servos"?

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Duemellon
all in all I'm confused about how the conservatives were blasting the liberals for saying the job loss was Bush's fault and continued about how the pres has no effect on jobs...

but now when there's news in his favor they're implying that it's because of Bush's efforts

whaeva

ahh....typical red herring. Due, you should re-read the posts. Not giving Bush credit, just saying that it gives the liberal morons one less thing to bitch about. RS, care to respond!? :)

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by butter_of_69

Can I start calling you the "servos"?

or maybe the "con-men?" ;)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
ahh....typical red herring. Due, you should re-read the posts. Not giving Bush credit, just saying that it gives the liberal morons one less thing to bitch about. RS, care to respond!? :) so, u'r acknowledging that the libs associate job loss/w Bush so pointing out that the jobs are increasing should dismiss their claims?

u'see, we're workin on other ppl's perception of things. Me? I kno the prez has direct effect on the job market and having 22% of the jobs lost in his presidency be returned with less pay, less benefits, and less mobility, in the last year of his presidency doesn't impress me much.

Of course, by going down this path you'll say the prez has no influence.

If u want to look at the pres as being separate from job growth then the job market is just a needless distraction and he's doing a terrible job at everything else.

If u want to say he's directly responsible a 22% return isn't impressive to me.

[BigSugar]

you asked for facts. dchxc gave you facts. too stunned by the truth to talk about it? :D besides, you respond to everything. i thought my question was more facetious than anything.

oh, and Due.......HUH?? i really tried to understand your post, but it was like watching a movie recorded entirely in aramaic.....difficult.....could you please subtitle your unintelligible posts so the common man can understand your genius?

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by BigSugar
i really tried to understand your post, but it was like watching a movie recorded entirely in aramaic.....

Aramaic is the new Esperanto. Shatner's already got a movie lined up...

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by BigSugar
you asked for facts. dchxc gave you facts. too stunned by the truth to talk about it?

He simply asked me to provide support to my claim. I frequently make the same request of others. When I do it, I'm not challenging what the person has claimed, I'm just not familiar with the basis on which they made the claim. I assume it is the same with RS.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
oh, and Due.......HUH?? i really tried to understand your post, but it was like watching a movie recorded entirely in aramaic.....difficult.....could you please subtitle your unintelligible posts so the common man can understand your genius? read slower kid.

[Duemellon]

consider it an easy layup after the assist from RightFroster.

[Duemellon]

someone help me understand this statement from him plz:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME

"Terrorists can't stand freedom," said Bush, declaring that he will "stay the course" and bring democracy to Iraq. "We're still being challenged in Iraq and the reason why is a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of freedom."

?? huh ?? a free Iraq will be a major defeat for freedom?

and terrorists can't stand freedom?

wha?

[Fourthisto]

Originally posted by Duemellon
?? huh ?? a free Iraq will be a major defeat for freedom?


Truer words never spoken, my friend. psst. we are friends, right?

"We'll fight for freedom, wherever theres trouble....."

I guess that was COBRA's anthem after all. They've screwed with our minds all this time. Bastards.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
so again(or perhaps for the first time if the question was misunderstood), did manufacturing lose jobs at a higher rate once bush got into office?


Yes. The decline has been greater since Bush took office.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5078&sequence=0

There is a graph on that page that shows the absolute numbers of jobs.

But looking at absolute numbers can be deceptive -- as Kerry knows very well.

The point of showing manufacturing as a percentage of all jobs is to show that there has been (and continues to be) a paradigm shift from a manufacturing economy to a service-based economy.

Using the number of manufacturing jobs in 2004 as an economic barometer would be like a candidate in the beginning of the twentieth century pointing to the decline in horse-drawn carriage production as a measure of economic health.

The production of horse-drawn carriages wan't coming back unless one planned on turning back technology and outlawing cars. Similarly, manufacturing jobs aren't coming back unless we decide that we are going to reverse the last forty years of economic advancement, productivity gains, trade policies, and our personal buying habits.

The biggest drain on manufacturing employment has been the phenomenal growth of China since 1998. They are a manufacturing beast and can outmaneuver the U.S. at any turn. U.S. companies need to recognize and adapt to this. General Electric was the premier U.S. manufacturing company for decades. Now they are primarily a financial services company. General Motors now makes as much money from non-auto business such as mortgage financing and investment management as it does from building cars.

Showing that manufacturing employment has fallen rapidly under Bush only shows that manufacturing employment has fallen rapidly under Bush. If anything, the fall in manufacturing employment will hopefully get even faster. If it doesn't, we are just prolonging the inevitable and natural progression of the economy.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
did our president create programs to teach horse-drawn carriage production employees how to work at automobile factories? after all, the trend has been well noted.

He has created new funding for community colleges, where traditional vocational training occurs.

Originally posted by rightstarter
did he, instead of going with the trend, try to fend it off by creating programs to help horse-drawn carriage companies *specifically* prosper? (not a $30 general tax cut ;) ).

Bush, like most Republicans (and many center-Dems) probably felt that you shouldn't fight the trend. Propping up dying industries just leads to trouble down the line. Like the steel and mining companies who had huge pension liabilities but have no current assets to match them. They eventually default as their industry dies and the government is left to pick up the tab for the pensioners.

Originally posted by rightstarter
or did he basically do nothing specifically to address the situation?

This would lead to a "role of government" argument. First principles and what not.

Liberals find job programs to be the purview of government. Conservatives believe these are wasteful government programs that are more efficiently handled by the private sector or the individual.

Originally posted by rightstarter
additionally, are car manufacturers losing jobs too at the moment? if so, that points to an overall problem, not an issue of a shift.

Are you speaking of "car manufacturers" in the metaphorical sense? If so, the answer is part yes, part no. Unemployment rose across both service and manufacturing since 2000, however, service sector employment has picked up several hundred thousand jobs since last summer.

[onest2.0]

Does anyone have a link for the community college funding?

I've heard Bush talk about it, but I haven't seen what he is actually talking about.

[72valiant]

Job Market Outlook (http://www.nationalcity.com/xcontent/corporate/economist/archives/outlook/currentfmo.pdf)

haven't been following this but thought y'all would find this interesting. for what it's worth, the report is from this guy..


DeKaser Places Third in USA Today's Ranking of Top 2003 Economic Forecasters
03/30/04--Richard DeKaser, chief economist of National City, placed third in the USA Today ranking of top 2003 economic forecasters. Forty other economists were surveyed by USA Today. The ranking was derived by economists at the Philadelphia Federal Reserve using the "EWZ method" of forecast evaluation. Experts regard this comprehensive approach as more valid than those which arbitrarily weight one aspect or another. DeKaser is the only bank economist ranked in the top 10.

[Docta]

Originally posted by onest2.0
Does anyone have a link for the community college funding?

I've heard Bush talk about it, but I haven't seen what he is actually talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush.html

actually, this is "training" funding in "hot" areas like healthcare and other services not education funding. it will be delivered through the department of labor but using community colleges to provide the training. i was recently reading in the chronicle of higher education where other republicans were complaining that by offering this through community colleges they feared the programs would be "too academic." who'd have thought anything bush proposed would be seen by anyone as "too academic?"

the administration does this while funding for traditional higher education is cut dramatically. allowed to continue, this will setup (perpetuate) a scenario where only the rich will be able to afford a traditional bachelors+ education thereby continuing their hold over weatlh and power in this country.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Docta
allowed to continue, this will setup (perpetuate) a scenario where only the rich will be able to afford a traditional bachelors+ education thereby continuing their hold over weatlh and power in this country.

DAMMIT!! Dudeman, did you give Docta the minutes from the last vast right-wing conspiracy meeting??

i mean.....uhhh......nevermind.....ignore what i just wrote....lesseee....where is that delete key?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by rightstarter

so the bottom line, to me, is that bush came into office, and manufacturing jobs went bye-bye. not transitioned into another sector. bye-bye.


I think you have to allow for a time factor there. Unless Bush handed out the pink slips himself it's highly doubtful he could turn the job market inside-out like that within a few months of office.

There's no doubt in my mind that whatever happened to the job market in 2001 was a result of economic factors occuring during Clinton's watch. Not that I think he's at fault either.

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar


DAMMIT!! Dudeman, did you give Docta the minutes from the last vast right-wing conspiracy meeting??

ah but of course i did not say it was a conspiracy. i do not have the notion that this is being done specifically with it in mind to "keep down the lower class." many of the policies put forth by the right in my mind however unknowingly result in creating such a situation.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by BigSugar

DAMMIT!! Dudeman, did you give Docta the minutes from the last vast right-wing conspiracy meeting??

i mean.....uhhh......nevermind.....ignore what i just wrote....lesseee....where is that delete key?
Sorry BS, I f'ed up. I posted the minutes to the Bulletin Board on Friendster because a few conspirators like Ann Coulter, Mel Gibson and Monkeyneck couldn't make that meeting. But, silly me, I forgot that Docta added me to to his Friend List just the day before & he saw them before I realized my error.

F'ing Friendster!

[DudeMan]

One can't help but appreciate Rightstarter's logic: the more ridiculous a conspiracy theory is and the more people scoff at the notion, that's all the more PROOF that it must be real!

I probably shouldn't tell Righty that I went to a Jesuit school for grad school 'cause well, we know all about them.

Now if you'll please excuse me, I'm late for my Opus Dei meeting.

[RichmondVA]

First, I don't think GM really cares THAT much who the President is that their plans change so readily. Maybe Bush is less friendly to unions, but he's no less friendly to big business. It was Reagan who bailed out Chrysler after all.

But more importantly, the downward spike you're looking at would have to have occurred immediately upon Bush taking office. Bush has to take office, appoint all his staff, get the bills passed through Congress, etc. And in the meantime the businesses have to rearrange their financial structures, line up factories in other countries or buy equipment to replace workers, etc. Because the election was so close, it's not as if the business could have foreseen this coming. ANWR is a good example actually, because businesses STILL don't know what's going to happen there.

There's simply no way in my opinion that things can restructure themselves that quickly and that radically to a change.

[Duemellon]

The economy is strongly influenced by confidence.

All it takes is for money flow to be slowed down and the economy takes a hit. That really can happen overnight and due to something that indirectly effects the economy if at all.

There was a major drop in the econ immediately after 9/11. There were no bills passed, no financial switches going on or off, it was just a reaction of opinion on the future.

So, yes, the econ can react on intuition and doesn't always react to reason.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by rightstarter
People with power usually want to keep it.
Their actions will reflect this.

So you're trying to tell me that people generally act in their own best interest? As shocking as that revelation is, what does that prove, and why do you think that one person being better off necessarily makes another person worse off? The economy isn't a zero-sum game.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by DudeMan
The economy isn't a zero-sum game. we've had this discussion before and you refuse to look at it from a different viewpoint.

Something that I stated before is that as the wealthy get more the poor get less. You combat that with the "not a zero-sum" thing.

Look at it from this view then:
If the entirety of the economy was viewed at this microsecond the wealthy would own more than the poor. Regardless of the size of the economy.

By the design of this system (most done well after the original blueprint) those same wealthy ppl increase their share of the common wealth.

This may mean that the individual poor person controlled 0.01% of this "microsecond snapshot" of the economy while an individual rich person owns 10%.

Wait the next microsecond and you'll see the individual poor owns 0.009% while the wealthy controls 10.001%.

That's what's going on. So stop dismissing the statements about the wealthy getting wealthier at the expense of the poor by saying it's not a zero-sum, because it is.

The wealthy are our competitors, if their power increases proportionately more then we are losing. (give me a $1 raise but give them a $1.50, what did I gain in comparision to my competition?)

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Duemellon
So, yes, the econ can react on intuition and doesn't always react to reason.

Believe me, I would never accuse the market of acting according to reason.

But you can't compare 9/11 and Bush in terms of it's impact on the American psyche. Presidents get elected every four years and nothing major happens even when the office switches parties. Anyway, Bush is big-business friendly so you would think that instead of laying everyone off, they'd be gearing up to hire more people.

Even with 9/11 I would argue that a lot of the decreases happened because we were in a bit of a downturn anyway. 9/11 magnified it a bit, but the recent gains we've seen have probably gotten us back. Beating the bigger recession issues will take awhile. And no, that's not Bush's fault either.

As for the zero sum game-- it depends on how you look at it. The pie can get bigger or smaller. The poor and rich can both be made better off. If you're looking at slices of the pie, obviously you've only got one pie no matter the size so if someone takes a proportionately bigger slice, then someone has to take less-- it can only add up to 100 percent.

But this is a faulty analogy: The wealthy are our competitors, if their power increases proportionately more then we are losing. (give me a $1 raise but give them a $1.50, what did I gain in comparision to my competition?).

An extra $1.50 in the hands of the extremely wealthy is likely to be less powerful because the percentage gain is less. If I have $20 and you have $5, you have 80% of the wealth and I have 20%. Give us you a $1.50 and me $1 and you'l have $21.50 and I'll have $6.00. You now control only 78% of the wealth while I control 22%. Add to that the fact that the wealthy are at the point of diminished marginal returns and the poor gain even more.

[DudeMan]

Due, you have updated Zeno's Paradox with the economy in place of the arrow. Heh. But what was a clever question by a philosopher over 2000 years ago doesn't mean you're making any sense today.

Your attitude reminds me of the Russian fable where a peasant was granted a wish with the caveat being that his next door neighbor would get 2x whatever he himself got. So, he wished to have one of his eyes gouged out because he couldn't bear to think that someone else would be better off than he.

Over time, Due, the economy grows. Technology improves. The human race's lot in life gets better. Life expectancies and quality of life improves, across the board. Go through the poorest slum in new york city and you'll see the tell-tale flicker of television-light against the blinds of almost every house or apartment you pass. Charlemagne was an emperor of most of europe, and yet he couldn't rent Switchblade Sisters at the local blockbuster like you can, and didn't get to trade quips over the internet or get to take penicillin when he got an infection.

If I'm successful, it's due to a combination of being lucky to be born in this country, and the fact that I've worked my arse off my whole life. My success didn't come at anyone else's expense, and your simplistic view of the economy being a fixed-size pie doesn't change that.

And Rightstarter, I honestly don't think the government should be funding secondary education, other than through quid pro quo agreements like the GI bill. I worked my way through college w/out help from the gov'mint or my parents, and if I can, so can anyone else.

[The Mad Hater]

Originally posted by rightstarter


sure bush favors big businesses. but what on earth possesses you to think that big businessmen enjoy hiring workers?

no! with few exceptions they want as much profit as possible and as low wages as possible so they can pocket that dough.

read the artice 72valiant posted-- or maybe it was dx's. it says that one factor in the lack of jobs is that productivity is at an all time high.

basically- they're cracking the whip that much harder & the more people in the job pool(after losing their jobs), the less companies have to spend to attract employees while those employees must simultaneously work that much harder to keep their positions for fear of being unemployed. "and the white man get paid off of all of that", as Kanye likes to say.


very well put.

my question is this: I'm not rich. I'm not the guy cracking the whip. I'm not the white man getting paid off of all of that. isn't that my fault, and not the President's? my feeling is that if you were born at least semi-privelaged, as I was- by that I mean with a fighting chance...ten fingers and toes, raised in an emotionally healthy environment, and never worrying about lack of food, water, shelter, clothing, and a basic education- doesn't the level of your financial success as an adult depend more upon your ambition and self discipline in early adulthood? or, like myself, developing those qualities when an extended adolescence comes to an overdue end?

I work for a mediocre wage to support my kids and home and car. in the next ten years, my company will need less of me. I'm anticipating this trend by seeking positions where I will be safe as a laborer for another ten years, and so on. I'm not blaming the government because I'm "financially insecure," and I won't blame the government if I lose my job due to high productivity in my department. I've kept my job thus far by proving to be one of the elite best at what I do, not based on talent but based on ambition and ethics. I've recognized that in spite of this it's time to move on. new employees in my department are getting far better training than I ever received. when they are deployed into my field, they will have the knowledge that it took me three years to gain by experience. that's my cue to get out now. I'm an old-timer now by these new standards. old-timers get laid off. I know this. you won't see me at a John Kerry speech lapping up his promise to find me gainful employment again. you'll see me busy working on new skills that will make me relevant again.

it's not the government's job to keep you employed. it's your own.

[dcXhc]

So many points to touch on....

1. I can dunk. I'm 6'5".

2. Productivity has been increasing for years and bears part of the burden of slow rebound in employment. So does globalization (meaning the integration of world markets), so does the strong dollar, etc... But the biggest reason we haven't seen a good rebound is that the boom of the late '90s resulted in massive capital investment. There's still an overhang and until excess capacity is fully utilized, there's no sense hiring people to build more capacity.

3. The downward move in manufacturing employment started in late 1998. http://www.bls.gov/data/

4. The slowdown in the economy started in March of 2000. Growth rates in GDP went negative before the election and, more importantly, growth rates of investment (which is what leads to GDP growth) were negative in three of the four quarters of 2000. Investment rebounded in most of 2002 and has been particularly strong in the last two quarters. Growth will continue regardless of who is elected in November. www.bea.gov

5. #'s 2, 3 & 4 are not insinuations that anything is Clinton's fault. They are indications that manufacturing employment (like all economic conditions) is a complex multi-factor model. If you believe that Bush bears all (or even most) of the responsibility and, further, believe that John Kerry (or anyone else) is going to restore manufacturing jobs, well then, you've been suckered by politicians.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by rightstarter
i've seen wealthy people purchase things in bulk and end up paying pennies per unit, while poor people pay full and most times over price.

hell, 60 minutes just did a story Two Days ago about how minorities, the poor and poor minorities get fleeced the worst on car loan financing, the biggest industry(per 60 minutes) in America currently.

Sure, there's an economies of scale argument you could throw in there. If cd's are $1.00 a pop or $25 for 50, the poor person can 2 cd's now but the rich person can suddenly buy 50 cd's. If there things goin gon in the pricing structure and in the utility structure then those have an effect.

But in terms of raw proportion, an extra $1.50 in the hands of the rich doesn't necessarily mean they are getting proportionally richer if the poor get $1.00. That's all I meant.

In the general scheme of things Bill Gates or whoever is about as rich as he can get and powerful as he can get. Raise Gate's wage a $2.00 an hour and he doesn't really feel it. Raise the miniumum wage a dollar an hour and suddenly the poor a lot more powerful in proportion to gates. I mean in the practical schme of things they are still gnats and I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But still, raising Gates $2.00 and minimum wage $1.00 has bigger efffect on redistribution of income than rasing Gates 1 penny and the minimum wage 25 cents.

As for the graph, it doesn't necessarily mean that much. You could see a huge spike in terms of Cubs playoff victories after Dust Baker took over, but that doesn't mean anything. I would say that the spike is really a result of factors Prior to his appointment (namely Wood's recovery from Tommy John, Sosa 'roiding up, drafting Prior, etc.)

I don't think Bush's election drastically altered the power structure between unions and private companies. Even if the companies decided they could now crack the whip on their employees, they'd have to do a lot of restructuring and reconfiguring of factories and lots of other infrastructure type stuff to gear themselves up for the new economy.

But it's a valid point of debate. I'm not saying Bush didn't or couldn't have an effect on industry, just that in my opinion that seems like an awfully huge, awfully fast reaction. Policy changes take time and people have a habit of looking at graphs and not taking that into account. If you believe that the economy really CAN react that quickly then fine-- you're raising valid points about this being a special circumstance. I disagree, but until someone does a time-series analysis we won't know the answer. I just think the majority of people don't think about response time at all and just assume things happen instantaneously whenever a President takes over. Or to put it another way:

Alas despite countless hours at the gym,
I can barely dunk on an eight foot rim
My ups are weak and my hands too small
But my dad almost played Olympic basketball! (or so he claims)

He stressed fundamentals and hated players with flair
"Too much fancy!" he'd scream if I caught any air
His basketball parenting took all the the fun out of the game,
but now I play a mean one-guard even if I can't drive the lane

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by rightstarter

"check out your bootstraps!" the scary-crow says
"use them to pull yourself up, as i does!"
talks out the side of his neck like a pez
i'll kick this off of the dome like a fez:

I can do dunks on most rims of 10 feet
I did some practice and played in the street
let's see you dunk cause i bet that it's sweet!
post pics of you as you dunk and compete.

I know you can and sir rva too
everyone can! if they try then they do!
dx is dunking and sug is a fool!
one of us just took the other to school.
Nice try, Frosty Shakes. Except, you unwittingly painted yourself into a corner.

At least once or twice a day you enjoy noting how stupid I am. So, if we stipulate that you're right and I am stupid, then that only proves my point further that *anyone* can get through college and figure out a way to pay for it. I mean, if a Triceratops Brain like me can pay his way though college and grad school and then stumble into a job, then can't anyone?

Whilst reading your rhymes
It's not bootstraps that I need
But rather, mudflaps.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan
I mean, if a Triceratops Brain like me can pay his way though college and grad school and then stumble into a job, then can't anyone?


The size of your brain does NOT equal the size of your wallet.

Didn't you take a Logic class in all those years you were in school?

[Duemellon]

Well RVA,
Interesting point about individual proportional spending power related to income. However, I will point out that even tho the increase will only increase the wealthy's spending power by a fraction while even 50% of that literal increase would increase the poor's power by more...

the wealthy were already at the point the poor were trying to get to long LONG ago

In other words, in comparison to their competitors it was an individual proportional gain but they'll never catch up.

Never.

And yes, the wealthy and poor are direct competitors. If it wasn't for the wealthy the poor wouldn't have to pay so much. Really, does gas have to be $2/gal? It is that way b/c they kno they're total sales will still increase. The poorer ppl have stopped buying gas at $1.70, but it's the fact the rich have the $$ to spend that will keep the prices going up.

TMH,
You have just pointed out something that I have said awhile ago that ppl thought was just plain cookoo.

You consider yourself normal.

Albiet you make statements that you have some form of privilage, but you marginalize that by saying you had to work on top of that privilage to get what you have.

Now, I'm not saying you need to rebuke your privilage and match the oppressed, I'm saying: "You're normal, these other ppl aren't. They should be normal like you."

A black man in this society would love to be assured that their efforts will be rewarded at the same rate as their white competitors when considering luck. But it's not. B/c they aren't normal like you.

DM,

Again, rich are our competitors. That simple. We might all have 30" televisions in our house due to cheap goods, greater overall quality of living, etc. but the rich are still my competitors.

When someone points out to me that toilet paper costs $5 a roll in Kabul, I say to myself: "That's strange, no one here is paying $5/roll. What does that have to do with me?"

Nothing.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
#3- i thought it started years ago? what happened with the graph i posted from the article you linked? is it wrong or misleading?

If you drew a trendline through the graph, it would be downward from 1979. However, in one of your posts, you stated that it only spikes downward when Bush took office.

Originally posted by rightstarter
#4- the slowdown in the economy started in march of 2000, you let me know. .... 6 months before the election of 2000.

330,000 jobs were gained and the economists started to say the economy was starting to really rebound in march of 2004, 6 months before the presidential election.

maybe, just maybe you and rva should consider the internet and other systems of mass communication as possibly being a way to achieve these economic shifts.

or is this just another "coincidence" ?


I'm not clear on what you're saying here.

Originally posted by rightstarter
#5- I don't think you'll find more than 1 of my posts that even mentions john kerry. go ahead-- do a search for it on here. i'm not touting his policies at all. this is a discussion of the results of the transition, and the feelings around the possibility of a coming transition then and the coming transition now. you'll notice i don't mention bill clinton much either, or rave about him. i was never a big fan of his.

You're right -- you didn't mention Kerry and Clinton. I was just trying to point out the folly of looking at the national economy and believing that one factor (the President) can have a great amount of sway over it.

It wasn't directed toward you, as I think you have done the admirable thing in looking past the rhetoric and into the underlying causes (if only everybody did so). But I first posted on this topic in response to a statement about manufacturing jobs, which Kerry is using as a main campaign platform. He's not going to bring those jobs back. Not because he isn't bright or honest or resourceful, but because it's a complex situation driven by far larger powers than who is residing at 1600 Penn.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by dcXhc
If you drew a trendline through the graph, it would be downward from 1979. However, in one of your posts, you stated that it only spikes downward when Bush took office.and if u drew a line from 1992-ish to 2000 there would be an upward line.

If you drew it from 2000 to present u'd see a completely opposite slope dropping below the 1960 to 1967-ish upwards spike.

If you drew a line from 1950 to present u'd see it maintained...

etc. etc...

In other words, manipulate it however you like to better suit the point your making. You, and others, have noted the major drop in 2000. So we aren't debating that, just the reasons why.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
In other words, manipulate it however you like to better suit the point your making.

Someday, I hope to draw a trendline from my foot to your ass.

Rightstarter stated in a previous post that manufacturing jobs were simply shifted into service jobs, until Bush took office, when the jobs simply started disappearing. I was pointing out that it was a) a long-term trend; b) the actual date of the onset of the current downward trend was 1998.

I know it's difficult for a natural jackass like yourself, but try reading everything before shifting into knobwad* gear.




* "knobwad" was shamelessly pilfered from Cockney Rebel because: a) it's a great word. Say it out loud -- it has a great rhythm to it. b) it's the perfect adjective for describing duemellon.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by rightstarter
fair enough. what effect do you think the transition had? the transition from clinton to bush. ?

I think Bush is more unabashed in his policies.

Clinton adopted a lot of traditionally Republican pro-big business policies -- slashing capital gains taxes, removing barriers between industries (such as banks and brokerages, telecoms, etc..), repeal of the Glass-Steagal act, corporate tax reforms, etc... But he also couched it under populist rhetoric and offsetting policies of superficial effect -- raising the top income tax rate by 1%.

Bush isn't a good politician. He has his political compass and tries to implement it in a no holds barred manner. Look at his foreign policy - it's handled the same way. With a sledgehammer.

The rich got infinitely richer under Clinton, but, as I have said before, Clinton was the consummate politician. He played the game of politics better than anybody since Kennedy -- better even than Reagan. Bush has no talent in that area. He can't spin anything in a positive light.

Look at the big corporate scandals. Most of the nefarious activity occurred under Clinton's watch. But since Clinton was smart enough to cast himself as a common man -- and Bush wasn't smart enough to play down his connections with corporate executives -- the taint of the scandals fall on Bush.

I don't think Clinton could have stopped the fall in manufacturing employment -- nor do I think he would have wanted to. But he would have been able to make it look like a good thing.

[72valiant]

i am underemployed and not by choice or lack of effort. therefore, in my expert opinion - the job market sucks. and i choose to blame gwb. if you ask me tomorrow, i might blame the pope. but i will not accept any personal responsibility.

yeah, whatever. i started out w/ a clever post but it kinda seeped out while i was typing. 9 minutes to lunch.:o

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Rightstarter stated in a previous post that manufacturing jobs were simply shifted into service jobs, until Bush took office, when the jobs simply started disappearing. I was pointing out that it was a) a long-term trend; b) the actual date of the onset of the current downward trend was 1998.I pointed out the longer-term trend was that we maintained from the 50's until now. Did you like that? nope.

Why didn't you like that? Well, I took something that I wanted to prove and used the same information you took to prove your point.

I also proved that during the Clinton admin jobs increased.

Still didn't like that?

Dude, don't be upset b/c I'm playing your game. You wanted to use a trendline as ammo for your argument so I used one that defeated your argument using the same information. After 50 years we've gone nowhere, or... worse... during Clinton's admin we experienced an increase that was like the spike the 60's, shortened by 2000.

Heh, don't be mad at me, just playing with your toys.

[dcXhc]

http://www.etchalon.com/random/netprayer.gif

[RichmondVA]

You do realize you're looking at the wrong chart, right Due?

During the Clinton administration, manufacturing jobs increased because ALL job increased. During the Bush administration, manufacturing jobs decreased because ALL jobs decreased. I don't think there's any arguing about that. Whether you want to credit Clinton or Bush for the boom or recession is part of the issue, and its what RS and dcXhc are debating

The other part of the issue is whether or not Bush has been especially evil to the manufacturing sector. And there has been a definite longterm trend since the 1950's. Check the OTHER chart-- the long term downward trend that dcXhc is talking about is the ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment. This has in fact been trending downward at a consistent rate.

Yes, the line dips downward more sharply post-2000, but there's no way that manufacturing made any gains against other jobs under Clinton's administration. And there's no way we are where we are at in 1950.

Look at it this way: there are about the same number of manufacturing jobs now as there were in the 1950's. Think how much biggger the labor force, economy and population is now.

[Duemellon]

RVA, just messing with the chart & information, that's that.

I was using this chart:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5078&sequence=0

regarding manufacturing jobs, the one that Dc posted himself?

He just doesn't like someone pointing out that data can be manipulated, or viewed from different points. They talked about production and employment, I was just talking about employment.

Oh well, Dc gets a lil' sensative when I point out when he's being a "know-it-all" while showing his perspective of the truth.

[RichmondVA]

Yes, but that's not the right chart.

What dcXhc and RS are debating is the the effect Bush has had on manufacturing jobs. Rightstarter correctly observed that the first chart dcXhc put up concerned job ratios and asked for raw number of jobs period. This is valid for several reasons:

1) In the short term, people can't transition that quickly. So manufacturing jobs lost since 2001 have a good chance of simply being lost jobs.

2) There IS a sharper downward turn in the manufacturing to overall job ratio right around 2000. So the question is why?

The economy right now is not THAT much different from the way it was 1997. Sure, there was a bust and there's been a continued shifting away from manufacturing. So the debate is more or less limited as to who was responsible for the bust, and whether the bust had more of an impact on manufacutring and why. Rightstarter and DcXhc are arguing at the margins-- looking strictly at the last ten or so years and limiting to the debate to HOW BAD the loss in manufacturing is and what to attribute it to, not whether manufacturing has gone down at all.

Those are all reasonable questions brought up by looking at the data. I don't think anyone is playing numerical games here.

When you start going back 50 years and claim that "we maintained from the 50's until now" because there's the same amount of manufacturing jobs that's preposterous. The economy is so much larger now, the labor force is so much bigger, and the whole structure of technology (machines vs. man) is so different that looking at raw number of jobs is useless.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by duemellon
He just doesn't like someone pointing out that data can be manipulated, or viewed from different points. They talked about production and employment, I was just talking about employment.

Oh well, Dc gets a lil' sensative when I point out when he's being a "know-it-all" while showing his perspective of the truth.



No. I just don't like the fact that you enjoy taking excerpts of threads out of context in an attempt to hijack an otherwise constructive thread just to garner some attention on yourself.

But I should stop being surprised when you act like an utter and complete asshole. It's just who you are, as you have shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
When you start going back 50 years and claim that "we maintained from the 50's until now" because there's the same amount of manufacturing jobs that's preposterous. The economy is so much larger now, the labor force is so much bigger, and the whole structure of technology (machines vs. man) is so different that looking at raw number of jobs is useless. I agree.

Sorry, my argument is more about how the information is used than the numbers. After all, that's what spin is about.

They're busy arguing over who caused the downturn, I'm not arguing that. I am just focusing on that one point that Dc made about the trendline. That's what this tangent is all about.

I mean, the Earth's general outline is a sphere, but it aint one.

My two cents about where the jobs went? It was due to the change of the guard. An irrational reaction to the changing of the guard while dealing with the tech decline. I think the alteration of the administration to the conservative side altered that.

In all actuality this was the punchline I was looking for:No. I just don't like the fact that you enjoy taking excerpts of threads out of context in an attempt to hijack an otherwise constructive thread just to garner some attention on yourself.

b/c I'll use that quote against Dc, Weez, and a few others later.

edited to add:
basically, my initial post about the trendline was a sidebar. It was not my intent to have a lengthy discussion. I was hoping that Dc would agree that those facts could be looked at many different ways and that his use of them to reinforce his point was still an opinion.

I don't really disagree with either of them. I'm just following along with an interesting and civil discussion. He took it personal, or something.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
In all actuality this was the punchline I was looking for:

Which is an admission that you were just trolling.

As usual......

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Which is an admission that you were just trolling.

As usual...... nah, my initial post was what it was: and observation that you were using a manipulative tactic by chosing those points to create your trendline.

After you got all in a tivvy, then I was looking for that punchline.

Honestly, it started innocently, your overreaction drove me to it! You're the DEVIL! the DEVIL i tell yah!

[RichmondVA]

It would have been manipulative if he hadn't posted the whole trend line. But he did.

He's looking at the same chart Rightstarter is. dcXhc is giving his interpretation of when a trend started. Rightstarter has that exact same line and can draw his own conclusions and make his counterargument.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
It would have been manipulative if he hadn't posted the whole trend line. But he did.

He's looking at the same chart Rightstarter is. dcXhc is giving his interpretation of when a trend started. Rightstarter has that exact same line and can draw his own conclusions and make his counterargument. yeah, his interpretation, that's my point.

Why are we making this the subject of this thread? That wasn't my intent.

RVa, I appreciate that you were trying to build a bridge between me and Dc's views/statements on this one but it wasn't worth it. It really was only a sidebar. I'm not disputing either of their argument just sniping at stat interpretation.

[solomon]

a president can't point his finger and "poof", there are jobs, but a president CAN create policies, environments and precedents that encourage job production & economic expansion.

Actually a president CAN go "poof" and there are jobs.

And the government can encourage REAL job production and expansion, but only by taking its hands off since the ONLY thing they can do by acting upon it is hamper it. It can also cause faux-expansion, which is manifested in the boom-bust cycle.

Sol

[solomon]

Well, guess it's time for a Sociology lesson. Enjoy the cute little charts and graphs, ya'll:

I never said there wasn't a gap. What I asked you was if you knew WHY the gap was larger. And I meant what I said about it not being as important as it was in the past.

Ya know, I was raised to be a Republican, social Darwinism, strong eat the poor kind of guy, but when I grew up and got in the real world (aka "oh look! poor people!"), I realized that we could do a much better job of distributing our wealth in this country.

I'm not a Republican. I see poor people. But I also know why there are poor, and I also see that the majority of our "poor" are hardly poor at all in the scheme of things. How should we distribute our wealth in this country? Are you aware of the law of unintended consequences? What about the philosophical considerations?

Economies work in cycles. They go up, they go down. Sure, government needs to manipulate things to help this process along, but there are always consequences.

This is a myth. the State creates business cycles through inflation/fractional-reserve banking.

sol

[solomon]

If the entirety of the economy was viewed at this microsecond the wealthy would own more than the poor. Regardless of the size of the economy.

Hi

That's true of course, that's the idea. A wealthy person has more money than a poor person, so has control over more resources.

By the design of this system (most done well after the original blueprint) those same wealthy ppl increase their share of the common wealth.

That's not true wealthy people lose control of resources all the time with bad business decisions.

Wait the next microsecond and you'll see the individual poor owns 0.009% while the wealthy controls 10.001%.
That's what's going on. So stop dismissing the statements about the wealthy getting wealthier at the expense of the poor by saying it's not a zero-sum, because it is.

No Due I don't think that's what's going on. Say a rich person makes a terrible investment, and a poor person finally gets a steady job or moves up a position where they work. The rich person has just lost a bit of control while the poor person has gained.

You seem to be completely ignoring, to me, the existence of the middle class, and class mobility. (which of course has been restricted due to legislation.)

Sol

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by solomon
That's not true wealthy people lose control of resources all the time with bad business decisions. The things that keep the wealthy wealthy are set in place. When they make a bad business decision very few of them put up their entire wealth to do such. They might risk 1% - 99%, but even if they held 1% of their wealth many are still better off than the poor.No Due I don't think that's what's going on. Say a rich person makes a terrible investment, and a poor person finally gets a steady job or moves up a position where they work. The rich person has just lost a bit of control while the poor person has gained.the situation was hypothetical and these were the assumed truths in that hypothetical situation:

the wealthy gets a $1.50 raise and the poor gets a $1.00 raise.

What the wealthy does with it is not addressed. In this hypothetical situation all other unmentioned variables remain constant.You seem to be completely ignoring, to me, the existence of the middle class, and class mobility. (which of course has been restricted due to legislation.)wha? there's a middle class?

:P

u knew that was coming.

We have class mobility as an option but as the gap gets bigger the journey becomes more unlikely.

Back to the "bad business decision" thingy...
There are many rules and such that prevent the rich from being ass-out. Incorporation, the many variations of bankruptcy claims, off-the-books & foreign investments, liquid/fixed/depreciating assets, etc. etc. Some wealthy folks, especially those with "new wealth" don't have the knowledge or access to those resources. When they make a bad business decision they end up ass out, but "old money" well, that's just entrenched in all these things and is virtually unbreakable.

[DudeMan]

Rightstarter, you're a regular Jonathan Kozol. Or no, you're more of a Bruce Hornsby type, and President Bush is the man in the silk suit who hurries by as he catches the poor old lady's eye and says "get a job" just for fun.

But getting back to your point, why are you somehow more virtuous than me just because you want to take more of my money and decide what to spend it on and whom to give it to? And why am I somehow greedy because I think that I should be able to direct my wealth as I see fit rather than you and Due doing it for me?

[solomon]

Believe me, I would never accuse the market of acting according to reason.

Nor should it be expected to. The market reacts to the values of the people which can be all over the board and appear irrational.

I work for a mediocre wage to support my kids and home and car. in the next ten years, my company will need less of me. I'm anticipating this trend by seeking positions where I will be safe as a laborer for another ten years, and so on.

WHAT!?! You mean it's POSSIBLE to look further ahead than 6 months and try to anticipate change? This is something that humans can do??? How??? [/sarcasm]

it's not the government's job to keep you employed. it's your own.

Very well put.

Raise the miniumum wage a dollar an hour and suddenly the poor a lot more powerful in proportion to gates.

Why not raise it $100?

And yes, the wealthy and poor are direct competitors.

Maybe in how they compete over handouts with the government and protection from competition yes. Otherwise, everyone is in competition with each other. rich vs poor, rich vs rich, poor vs poor, etc.

If it wasn't for the wealthy the poor wouldn't have to pay so much.

Huh?

Really, does gas have to be $2/gal? It is that way b/c they kno they're total sales will still increase.

Do have any basis for this statement? What gives you any right or knowledge to say how much gas SHOULD cost?

match the oppressed

You guys crack me up.

When someone points out to me that toilet paper costs $5 a roll in Kabul, I say to myself: "That's strange, no one here is paying $5/roll. What does that have to do with me?"

Due I don't think that's fair. You competely discount the incredible general rise in health and standards of living that capitalism has provided. All you're worried about is comparing people. Is the fact that not everyone has a yacht really THAT big a deal? when everyone has their basic needs met and a lot of their wants? LIke tvs and radios and cars and computers? Ease up a little. Do you realize what kind of achievement that is in the history of the world?

Sol

[solomon]

The things that keep the wealthy wealthy are set in place. When they make a bad business decision very few of them put up their entire wealth to do such. They might risk 1% - 99%, but even if they held 1% of their wealth many are still better off than the poor.

What kinds of things? Legislation.

the situation was hypothetical and these were the assumed truths in that hypothetical situation:

I didn't see those assumptions in the original post, and they are just that, assumptions. What do they have to do with anything in reality? In MY hypothetical, the rich gets a reduction in pay, and poor gets a raise. Can that happen?

There are many rules and such that prevent the rich from being ass-out.

That's all I'm trying to point out. There are rules in place, put there by government.

there's a H.U.G.E. gap between the life the poor lead and the life the wealthy or even moderately wealthy lead.

I don't believe that's true. In the past, the difference was HUGE. it meant eating vs not eating. Traveling vs not traveling at all. Today the rich and poor have cars, the rich just have fancier ones. They both have homes, the rich just have fancier ones. They both eat. They both have clothes, the rich have brand names. The absolute difference is not what it was.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
And why am I somehow greedy because I think that I should be able to direct my wealth as I see fit rather than you and Due doing it for me?

And somehow you aren't dictating where my money goes? No taxes, no national defense. This little affair in the mideast is isn't exactly free.

[solomon]

No taxes, no national defense. This little affair in the mideast is isn't exactly free.

No taxes, no sticking troops all over the world where they don't belong, stirring up bee hives all over gods green earth. The "terrorists" don't have the Jamaicans in their sights.

sol

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

And somehow you aren't dictating where my money goes? No taxes, no national defense. This little affair in the mideast is isn't exactly free.
Your taxes have been cut three times in this administration, which means your forced spending is less not more.

[Duemellon]

If it wasn't for the wealthy the poor wouldn't have to pay as much.In the capitalist model the producer/seller sells his goods for what he can get in an attempt to make the most money. If he had 100 widgets for sale and he sold them at $1 each, then he might try to bump that up to $1.25 each and see if he still sells out.

The typical consumer might only have $1 to spend on widgets, but the rich consumer might have $300 to spend. Both want/need as many widgets as they can get their hands on.

The producer/seller has already priced the widgets out of the typical consumer's range by putting it at $1.25 instead, but sees no drop in sales b/c the rich ones are still buying all $100. The producer/seller has no incentive to reduce the price.

If it wasn't for the wealthy the poor wouldn't have to pay as much.Do have any basis for this statement? What gives you any right or knowledge to say how much gas SHOULD cost? this was an example. Not really trying to talk about the gas market specifically. The typical US consumer can still afford $2 gas, but the increase has just left others behind. They can still produce/sell gas for much less but have no incentive to cater to those they just outpriced b/c they're sales won't drop enough for them to care.Due I don't think that's fair. You competely discount the incredible general rise in health and standards of living that capitalism has provided.It is fair. When I'm out looking for a job, education, or other goods, no one from Jalallabad is out there putting down their rupees in an attempt to get the same goods & services. The price and availability is specifically catered through circumstance and intent to the market where they're trying to sell to me or you.

The cost of living here is huge-fuckin-mongous in comparison to most of the world. I mean, $460 rent/month! OMG! If you were paying that much in Turkmenistan you'd be Donald Trump!

So this market, selling necessary, luxurious, and relevent goods/services still only produces X amount of product/cycle.

So, assuming the producer/seller hasn't overproduced (which, you know, they try their best not to do) there is a limited amount of goods/services to get.

Sure, the quality of the internet connx here is much better than in Pyongyang, and the cheap-ass health care I complain about getting is still better than the most expensive medical attention possible in Zaire, but those in Zaire aren't trying to buy it. They don't effect the medical market in an impactful way as Sol does.

So, your existance here, as a consumer, trying to get the same goods that I want, you are a competitor for those limited resources.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Your taxes have been cut three times in this administration, which means your forced spending is less not more.

No, it just means that I have to pay even more later on for interest. Bush is spending a ton. He's just charging it rather than paying cash.

[RichmondVA]

There's several false assumptions in your capitalist model, Due.

1) In a capitalist market there's competition between sellers. If a rich dude has the means to pay me $1000 for a widget, but someone down the street is selling them for $1.00, why would buy from me?

2) What good is out there that I "want as much as I can get my hands on," and there's no substitute?

3) Finally, let's suppose I did have a product for which I can always meet demand, can name my price, and people will spend all their money on it. And let's say the split between rich and poor is extreme-- there are 1,000,000 people each with $1, and there's 2 people with 1,000,000.

I would price my widget at $1. The two rich guys would both buy 1,000,000 of them PLUS I'd get the poor people's cash. Revenue=$3,000,000. If I charged $50, right away I've lost a huge portion of my market.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
There's several false assumptions in your capitalist model, Due.

WHAT??????

Wait, that didn't capture the incredulousness well enough.

*ahem*

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
There's several false assumptions in your capitalist model, Due. false assumption for the ideal capitalist model, but in action it's something different, isn't it?

sorry Bo69, not all that incredulous, b/c really we know we're dealing with capitalism in the real world not in the place where all sociopolitical models work just fine: theory.In a capitalist market there's competition between sellers. If a rich dude has the means to pay me $1000 for a widget, but someone down the street is selling them for $1.00, why would buy from me? real world time
In the US we have monopolies, oligopolies, and such. A painting really doesn't take $400 to make, and the gas at Ridge & Madison's BP doesn't take more effort to distribute than the gas at Montgomery & i-71 but they price it differently.

We have collusion, gouging, and monopolies. They wouldn't exist in a puritanical capitalist society.What good is out there that I "want as much as I can get my hands on," and there's no substitute? gasoline to groceries. They're trying to make cars disposible like they made televisions, clothes, and diapers.

However, you are neglecting another point I made that the producer/seller intentionally doesn't put out more product than they can sell. They'd rather underproduce and make their profit off of limited product than risk overproduction and risk obsolecence, spoilage, or loss of value. That's not necessarily a capitalist model's pure view, but it's what companies focus on.Finally, let's suppose I did have a product for which I can always meet demand, can name my price, and people will spend all their money on it. And let's say the split between rich and poor is extreme-- there are 1,000,000 people each with $1, and there's 2 people with 1,000,000.

I would price my widget at $1. The two rich guys would both buy 1,000,000 of them PLUS I'd get the poor people's cash. Revenue=$3,000,000. If I charged $50, right away I've lost a huge portion of my market.I have expenses. These expenses are incurred by the development, production, delivery and storage of the product. If I can reduce those things and still show an increase on last year's profit I am profitable.

If I can produce the same amount using all the previous resources (incurring no increase in expense) but with a higher margin then I will. Heck, if I can sell 90% of last year with a 20% markup, I'm still ahead. If I reduce my workforce, produce only 90% of what I did last year, but still sell them all with a 20% markup I'm ahead.

Remember who's running the companies nowadays. It's not the owner, it's ppl who are tied to stocks. Many of them have shown they could care less about the future or overall income if the stock won't be in their favor.

That is the Capitalist model being done by humans not by theory.

[RichmondVA]

real world time
In the US we have monopolies, oligopolies, and such. A painting really doesn't take $400 to make, and the gas at Ridge & Madison's BP doesn't take more effort to distribute than the gas at Montgomery & i-71 but they price it differently.

We have collusion, gouging, and monopolies. They wouldn't exist in a puritanical capitalist society.

The price for an oil painting and gas are driven by demand. People are willing to pay more for gas at certain locations because it's convenient. That's necessarily an indication of a monopoly.

gasoline to groceries.

But I don't want as much gas or groceries as I can get my hands on. I only want as much gas as I need in my car, or as much groceries as I can consume-- especially since groceries spoil and storing gas in my house is a fire hazard.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by rightstarter
can we please move this to a different thread?
...
plus i'm just curious if this is just general arguing or actually has an overarching question u can't really control the direction a thread goes. You can complain, but c'mon man, relax. If you guys were still talking about the Job market thing then you'd have something to post. But that discussion is over. This has since become something else.

izokay.

And if this was just some reason to argue we'd be calling each other poopyhead and dilznick a bit more.The price for an oil painting and gas are driven by demand. People are willing to pay more for gas at certain locations because it's convenient. That's not necessarily an indication of a monopoly.I added "NOT" b/c your ending statement seemed wierd. Unless you really meant it was a sign of a monopoly.

No, it's not a sign of a monopoly b/c there are other gas stations next to it matching their prices, but it is a sign of the seller trying to mark up the prices to reach the highest amount they can get per unit and still move enough units to maintain or increase total profits.

M & Ridge's BP costs the same per gal for them to get as the M & 71 BP. However, one of them knows that if the increase their margin they'll still sell enough units to justify it. In this case if the one with the increased margin actually exceeds the ability for me to purchase it I can go to the other one. The one with the higher margin probably won't care that I went somewhere else if 98% of their customers still buy it at the increased margin. They lost my $21.50, but they gained $3,580.39 over the sales the week before.

Now, the other station sees the success and increases their margin. Now I can't afford gas at either location but they still get 98% of their customers and increased their profits from the previous week. What incentive do they have to get my $21.50? For them to get my $21.50 they'd have to reduce their margin and also their profits.The price for an oil painting and gas are driven by demand. Someone must set the price and someone must agree to it.

The seller is trying to get the greatest margin. However, the typical private citizen is more concerned about their remaining available money from the expected cost than best price. The ppl who will spend 2 hours shopping to save $10.00 on a $700.00 purchase are few. Of course the amount of ppl willing to spend 12 hours saving $5.00 on a $6.00 purchase is higher.

Also the impact the purchase has on disposible income is considered.

It's been my experience that for most ppl the actual price point of items between competitors is a 3rd consideration, not the first.

[solomon]

hey due

In the capitalist model the producer/seller sells his goods for what he can get in an attempt to make the most money. If he had 100 widgets for sale and he sold them at $1 each, then he might try to bump that up to $1.25 each and see if he still sells out.

The typical consumer might only have $1 to spend on widgets, but the rich consumer might have $300 to spend. Both want/need as many widgets as they can get their hands on.

The producer/seller has already priced the widgets out of the typical consumer's range by putting it at $1.25 instead, but sees no drop in sales b/c the rich ones are still buying all $100. The producer/seller has no incentive to reduce the price.

If it wasn't for the wealthy the poor wouldn't have to pay as much.


As RVA pointed out you are missing the competition between sellers. And you are forgetting that sometimes the producer/seller has no CHOICE but to reduce the price. The thing you are forgetting, and it's what I mean when I say the profit/loss signal guides production, is that the profit will attract more widget makers. This increased supply will necessarily bring down the price, whether the producers like it or not. You seem to think that capitalism is producer driven and it's actually consumer driven. Producers have about as much actual control of the price as consumers do. Supply and Demand set it.

They can still produce/sell gas for much less

How do you know that?

Sure, the quality of the internet connx here is much better than in Pyongyang, and the cheap-ass health care I complain about getting is still better than the most expensive medical attention possible in Zaire, but those in Zaire aren't trying to buy it. They don't effect the medical market in an impactful way as Sol does.

This is an unfortunate fact of reality that not everyone lives in freedom with protected property rights. The problem you cite above is the result of not having a worldwide free market.

false assumption for the ideal capitalist model, but in action it's something different, isn't it?

No, false assumptions period due. You aren't remembering all the factors that go into setting a price and then the effect that price has on production. True Capitalism makes no unrealistic assumptions, it harnesses natural, realistic behavior.

sorry Bo69, not all that incredulous, b/c really we know we're dealing with capitalism in the real world not in the place where all sociopolitical models work just fine: theory.

A good theory is completely applicable in reality. Otherwise how can it be true? Capitalism does work in reality.

In the US we have monopolies, oligopolies, and such. A painting really doesn't take $400 to make, and the gas at Ridge & Madison's BP doesn't take more effort to distribute than the gas at Montgomery & i-71 but they price it differently.

We have collusion, gouging, and monopolies. They wouldn't exist in a puritanical capitalist society.

Due you are forgetting that BOTH SIDES of price, supply and demand. They price the gas differently because of the different demand, and supply, factors of each location. And a painting might not cost $400 to make, but DEMAND, the other crucial factor, can drive the price up that far.

And Price Gouging is usually just the market at work. Raising the price effectively rations a small supply of goods, so the people who need it most have a chance to get it. Remember, when you underprice something, you get a shortage.

However, you are neglecting another point I made that the producer/seller intentionally doesn't put out more product than they can sell. They'd rather underproduce and make their profit off of limited product than risk overproduction and risk obsolecence, spoilage, or loss of value. That's not necessarily a capitalist model's pure view, but it's what companies focus on.

I fail to see how this is bad. Why waste resources, time, labor making too much of something? This is one of those "guiding factors" of capitalism that socialism lacks. Capitalism tells you when to stop.

If I can produce the same amount using all the previous resources (incurring no increase in expense) but with a higher margin then I will. Heck, if I can sell 90% of last year with a 20% markup, I'm still ahead. If I reduce my workforce, produce only 90% of what I did last year, but still sell them all with a 20% markup I'm ahead.

Large profits attract competition and increased supply which drive down profit. And you should be ahead. You're getting your job done using less resources, more resources which are free now to get OTHER jobs done. That's the whole idea.

That is the Capitalist model being done by humans not by theory.

In the true capitalist model, done by humans, you can't DO what you say above.


Sol

[solomon]

Now, the other station sees the success and increases their margin. Now I can't afford gas at either location but they still get 98% of their customers and increased their profits from the previous week. What incentive do they have to get my $21.50? For them to get my $21.50 they'd have to reduce their margin and also their profits.

Due honestly if they can raise their price and INCREASE their profit, then this is what they should do, and what it means is that you need to either work more hours or get a more valuable job or a more fuel efficient car. You can't expect them to give gas away. Because if the demand is so high that they can make more of a profit by increasing price, this shows there is a great demand, and by giving the gas to you on the cheap, someone who contributes more, or NEEDS the gas more, won't be able to get it. The price system guides production, and rations it.

Now, the other station sees the success and increases their margin. Now I can't afford gas at either location but they still get 98% of their customers and increased their profits from the previous week. What incentive do they have to get my $21.50? For them to get my $21.50 they'd have to reduce their margin and also their profits.

Due it seems what you're ultimately complaining about is the fact that there's a price at all. So you're priced out at $21.50, but surely that prices out someone who can only pay $19, and if it was $19 surely that would price out someone at $5.00. What about these "Oppressed"? THe conclusion of this is, of course, free gas for everyone and you get the same problems with socialism that we've been over 100 times here.

Someone must set the price and someone must agree to it.

Right, Is there something wrong with this?

The seller is trying to get the greatest margin.

And the buyer is trying to get the greatest deal. It's an interaction.

However, the typical private citizen is more concerned about their remaining available money from the expected cost than best price. The ppl who will spend 2 hours shopping to save $10.00 on a $700.00 purchase are few. Of course the amount of ppl willing to spend 12 hours saving $5.00 on a $6.00 purchase is higher.

I don't really follow how you arrived at this conclusion or what you think it means.

SOl

[solomon]

what is the overarching question being argued here?

Well as everyone knows here, my claim is that you cannot improve upon the free market, and that people 99% of the time confuse government-created problems with market ones.

sol

[Duemellon]

Sol, we don't disagree. You see it, I see it.

The point I was making is that the rich dictate the cost of living by being rich. If we really didn't have rich ppl everything would cost less.

now I'm sure some of u will infer that I'm saying "get rid of the rich" which I'm not. Never have. The solution isn't to punish the rich, it's to have a more honest market.

I didn't ask not to pay for something. That's silly too. I also recognize that if I can't purchase a necessary item then I have to adjust my living habits to get it. If I can't adjust it, I'm ass-out. Even if the honest cost to produce the necessary item would be within my reach.

The seller wants to make the most money and they don't really care that I can't afford it b/c they're making up for the money they would've gotten from me hand-over-fist.

[solomon]

The point I was making is that the rich dictate the cost of living by being rich. If we really didn't have rich ppl everything would cost less.

Ok. But I still don't think that's true. What ends up happening is you get a seller who caters to the rich (these are often your name brands or exceedingly luxurious versions of basically day to day items), and a seller who caters to discount. One seller has fewer customers but makes up for it with higher prices catering to the rich, while the other has lower prices but makes up for it with volume. No market goes untapped.

Sol

[Duemellon]

The idea that "No market goes untapped" is only in the capitalist model, not in application.

There is nothing to drive the gas prices lower, towards a smaller margin, at this point. I'm starting to get edged out and I'm reconsidering the Metro (which wouldn't be that bad, really, except for being flexible & brief).

They're gonna hike gas up, and we're gonna pay. Swifty and others will try to cater to those under, but will also take advantage of the situation.

Rolls Royces really don't take $150,000 to make, u'kno. Sure, there's the Yugo and Escort for everyone else, but if a RR is what you really need to drive (beats me why, but let's say it's a medical condition) they aren't going to lower the price just for you, u'kno?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Jobless claims jump by 30,000
April 15, 2004: 10:25 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment insurance jumped by 30,000 last week to the highest level since February, the government reported Thursday, with the figure well above economists' expectations.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to 360,000 in the week ended April 10 from a revised 330,000 the previous week, the . Labor Department reported. The figure was above economists' estimates of 335,000 first-time claims, according to Brieifing.com. The increase in initial claims was the largest weekly rise since December 2002.

A Labor Department analyst cautioned, however, that the first full week of April was "pretty unpredictable" and difficult to adjust for seasonal variations. Still, he said there were no special factors to explain the jump in claims.

[RichmondVA]

See that tiny line on 04/03? That was the lowest it's been in three years. Bush deserves every bit as much credit for that as for this jump. That is to say: none.

[solomon]

The idea that "No market goes untapped" is only in the capitalist model, not in application.

But don't you see that that doesn't make sense? It's in entrepreneurs' best interest to make sure every potential market is tapped. It's not just theoretical. That's the thing about capitalism, all you have to do is follow incentives and what they lead to.

Rolls Royces really don't take $150,000 to make, u'kno. Sure, there's the Yugo and Escort for everyone else, but if a RR is what you really need to drive (beats me why, but let's say it's a medical condition) they aren't going to lower the price just for you, u'kno?

I don't see what the use is in creating these hypotheticals that have nothing to do with reality. No one needs to drive a rolls for medical reasons. Rolls is what a niche market is.

Sol.

[Duemellon]

I see those untapped markets all the time.

Niche products are just a different terminology for micro-monopoly. Within a range of products your product has an attribute only it can deliver. The laws prevent others from duplicating it. It's a monopoly.

There are instances where this niche provides a difference that only certain consumers can buy. Due to allergies, availability, skills, etc. No one else can provide this characteristic so the consumer is stuck paying the prices set by the provider.

And it's not necessarily in the interest of all sellers to sell every unit, or tap every market. That's just a model/theory. There may be an incentive to, but not one that outweights the benefit of being specific.

[solomon]

Niche products are just a different terminology for micro-monopoly. Within a range of products your product has an attribute only it can deliver. The laws prevent others from duplicating it. It's a monopoly.

Due, What are you talking about? Niche markets aren't micro-monopolies. There is competition within niche markets. I swear I don't know where you get this stuff sometimes ; ) I'm not saying that legislation doesn't prevent free entry, it does absolutely, all over the market, but niche markets aren't intrinisically micro-monopolies nor is there an absense of any competition in niche markets presently.

And it's not necessarily in the interest of all sellers to sell every unit, or tap every market. That's just a model/theory. There may be an incentive to, but not one that outweights the benefit of being specific.

Well, of course, that's the meaning of the phrase "everything else being equal." But the competition of sellers makes this true much more often than not. If a seller's religion says he can only sell 4 out of the 10 shirts he makes, then he will only sell 4 out of 10. But he will likely go out of business.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

For you to provide a solution, you'd have to know what you're talking about. Since you don't, let Solomon and Duemellon go.

If you need me to clue you in:

Solomon postulated a weird example where a seller will ONLY sell 4 shirts and make 10-- no matter what the demand or profit margin. He did that to throw Duemellon a bone and advance the discussion.

If your point is that if there is a religious enclave that will buy 10 shirts and then the seller will be only to happy to unload 10-- you've made Solomon's point. And if one particular seller doesn't do it, someone else will step in. Solomon has absolutely no problem with that, and that's exactly what the free market principles predict he will do.

It's DUE that is saying that sellers will not tap into an untapped market.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Frost
johnson and johnson hasn't made a band-aid that isn't for white people yet, have they? they still calling white skin "flesh colored"?

That may be true, but the beauty of capitalism is that if there's a market gap, someone will fill it (http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokorhi/lifescience/medi/ebon-aide.htm) with a new product.

[RichmondVA]

All that capitalism says is that some seller somewhere will fill that gap if it is profitable for them, personally. It may be Johnson and Johnson, it may be someone else.

It's like this. Sellers will NOT sell all they possible can. They will only sell the amount that will make them the highest profit. Sellers will NOT seek out every market. Just the markets that are profitable for them. I don't think Solomon will argue that.

Mistakes are made. Sometimes a demand goes unmet for awhile because people don't see it. Sometimes people think there's a demand but they're wrong.


All this niching out Due is talking about is an example of precisely that. Nike is like, oh you got tennis shoes? Well they don't work so hot for basketball-- try these Air Jordans. aw damn, everyone else has basketball shoes well how about patent leather-- that's cool. Oh wait you like the spinners more than the patent leather? Fine don't buy our basketball shoes, try our golf clubs! They're looking for gaps and trying to fill them.

Due is right that there are some gaps Nike isn't interested in filling. Like there might be a need for really cheap gym shoes for the unathletic. Nike's not going to pursue that because it messes up their brand identity. But I'm sure N1ke shoes will be happy to market a pair of Air Jardans. If there's a profit to be made, someone(s) will eventually take it.

[Duemellon]

Thnx Frost for the example...
After all J&J didn't come out with the non-Eurocentric band-aid, and their competitors didn't produce their niche-market product until many years after J&J's.

In other words, it took a mighty long time for someone to develop that product to tap into that untapped market. How many other markets aren't tapped into b/c no one sees a possible profit, legally defensible niche, or even see the want/need?

The idea that someday at sometime every hole in want/need supply will be filled by a product is impossible. The things ppl will demand are as multitudinous as their imagination. The suppliers are behind the curve on new demands and must make decisions based on projected best results before committing to make them.

Therefore, there will always be a blind spot in want/need & supply. The companies have limited R&D & advancement capital as well as an aversion to risk. This creates a behavior where companies will reproduce rip-offs and last-year's-products with trivial new features and higher margins.

ex: Civic and the Escort. Both were cheap piece-o'-craps when the came out but the car companies have been milking those model-names to death. They're afraid to come out with another model-name, I guess.

Micro-monopoly:
To my understanding, there are laws to protect innovations that occur within product types. If these innovations are dramatic enough that it's actually a brand new product all together, then they must chose certain features that are unique.

P&G makes dozens of liquid dish soap. They all do the exact same thing. However, they have to have different ingredients with different intents to be sold under different labels. If Joy was made/w the exact same ingredients as Dawn, they'd be in violation of these laws. If Palmolive (a competitor) made a product with the exact same ingredients (ratios and all) then Palmolive would be in violation.

Those are minor innovations that the producers tout as if they are major differences and are protected by law. Therefore they have a monopoly on producing that product that produces that specific result.

To some consumers these minor differences really are important. Allergies, moral stances, and availability, can create the need to only get a specific product that is legally protected. Therefore, for that rare category of ppl they face a monopoly. (don't say that's a terrible example b/c Bell Telephone Co. had a monopoly over telephones, something everyone doesn't really need).

I think you just took what I said as "all niche markets = micro-monopolies" which isn't what I said. Due to patents and copyrights, however, there are some specific products you can only buy through a specific provider. Therefore they are a monopoly.

Competitive Sales != Market saturation
They are not always directly related.

Diamonds are easily the most overpriced precious stone available. The demand for them has driven the cost up higher than other stones, but this pricing has made diamonds unavailable to many consumers. A stone-dealer really interested in making the "big bucks" under the itheoretical model would undercut his competitors so brutally that the consumer would feel a major price drop.

However, they won't. They don't need to. They aren't selling every diamond they put out, but they make enough money from the ones they sell. They might lower prices to increase sales but even that dip will not reflect their actual value.

Retailer diamond sales are competitive, but no one is competing close to the margin.

[DudeMan]

So Frost, that's a long exposition of how you purport things to be.

Now let's stipulate that we buy your premise... what's your solution? Do you think a massive dirigiste policy is the answer? Should we divert money away from the EEOC so that we can police product designs instead of hiring practices? Something else?

Here's another blown-up myth, btw: it's okay to read in dim lighting. Doesn't do a damn thing to your eyes in the long run, and may even help. But don't tell your mom she was wrong all those years, 'cause I don't want to be responsible for her smacking you!

[Duemellon]

Theoretic capitalism doesn't work in application.

Just like every other socialeconomic model the problem is the same: people.

Time for a new paradigm.

[RichmondVA]

Why does everything have to turn into a race argument?

In a free-market system consumers dictate what will be produced by "voting" with cash. The poor have less purchasing power, so the poor get little say over product choice.

In the US, blacks have less purchasing power for reasons NOT having to do with the free-market. You can't take people's property rights by force. Blacks should never have been enslaved and should have had equal rights all along. It was the Government that took away the rights, not the market.

If we'd a socialist economy this whole time, with slaves and unequal rights, etc., etc. would we be any better off? We've never had the kind of free-market system Solomon is talking about and that Duemellon is criticizing, so to pin the race problem on a free-market is a bit off-the-track.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
the better question is- why don't any of *your* posts turn into race arguments? why don't you reference race? how many degrees do you have again? check out that book by charles mills.

you're missing this component.
you don't bring it up, you don't address it or consider it, and if I went back through your posts, I'd bet(though I'm not a betting man) the times you initiated a discussion of it are slim to none, though it's a huge factor in the way the world works today and in the past.

hell, I'm probably guilty of not bringing up sex enough, because I'm sure there are issues around that as well, albeit different ones. Breach brothaman PREACH!

Keep 'em comin!

Amen... one 'mo 'gain!

We in church today baby!

[RichmondVA]

I'll post about race when I goddam feel like it. Forgive me if I don't feel compelled to talk about it non-stop. Especially when every conversation is the same. It's about "experience" with racism. Fine-- I don't have it and you do, thus I don't know what I'm talking about. You win. That pretty much closes out the discussion, doesn't it?

It's like Solomon was talking how fast Ferrari's go. Duemellon said they don't actually go that fast. Then you busted in and said "my car only goes 60mph. Black people can't afford Ferraris!" It's probably true. And it's a problem with America. Does that make Ferrari's go any more or less fast?

Since you and Due feel compelled to turn everything into a discussion about present race problems in America why even confine yourself to the current event forum? "I think the Modest Mouse album is great." "Yes, but it doesn't solve racism in America! Can't you see how racist America is?"

As for theory vs real-life. Solomon's theory has never been tried in real-life. Whether it's actually possible to have a free-market system is a legitimate question. Like you, I think the answer is "no." If that's your point, then fine.

If you're saying our economy has race-related problems, I don't think you'll draw an argument from Solomon. He can speak for himself, but I'll bet he thinks a free-market would SOLVE racism. Like I said, the majority of race problems today can be traced back to the Government taking away rights from minorities. In Sol's system the government wouldn't have the power to do that.

Duemellon never said jack-shit about racism. He made the claim that sellers won't supply something even if there is an incentive do so. Well, it's true that sometimes sellers make mistakes and they don't respond right away to a need. And sometimes sellers think there's a need and they're wrong. There's no system in the world where goods are distributed perfectly all the time. The fact that sellers screw up and make mistakes isn't a criticism of the free-market. It's built into the model. The free-market gets around it by postulating that those sellers will eventually go under and the market becomes efficient again.

I'm not defending free-market capitalism per se. I'm just saying the objections you and Due are raising come from a) a misunderstanding of the model or b) don't have anything to do with the model at all.

[Duemellon]

RVa, the "model" of capitalism is our socioeconomic basis. It's the theory that drives us. Sure, we don't adhere to it, to a "T" because we are humans.

Someone didn't adhere to it, so we made a law to correct that. A law that isn't part of the model but we included to make humans behave the way the legislaters felt they should.

&/r

A part of the model's application didn't yield the consistent results needed to sustain the civilization, so rules were made to compensate.

We had the idea of capitalism from the start, and from the start humans fucked it up. We've never really had Sol's theory, and I'm not going against Sol's theory. I'm going against the actual application of it.

The rich effect the price of things, even as consumers.

Niche service/product providers have a micro-monopoly sanctioned by the government

(most) Manufacturers are not concerned with selling all items, market shares, or profits, theyr'e concerned about appearing financially attractive to investors. All those others are secondary.

and other things I've said.

BTW, even though I wasn't talking about racism, Frost's introduction of the subject was well timed as an example of how the suppliers of products/services just don't really care to cater to all possible consumers.

I see you guys like Frost, but just like Hitler, he takes it too far.


thanks Marge. :P

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
hitler?

really, that's uncalled for. (ring ring..."hitler?")sorry, just feigning that I understand their complaint. Won't happen again.

[DudeMan]

You're really a piece of work, Frost. First you tell me to stfu because you don't like/agree with what I'm saying and I should be more concerned with Children Starving Somewhere than economic policy. And then you turn around and chastise RVA for NOT talking about something.

Which is it? STFU or talk more? Stop having the temerity to disagree with you, or stop avoiding getting dragged into yet another race discussion?

[DudeMan]

No problem -- we've all been there; I wasn't fishing for an apology, but that's nice of you to give one anyway.

[DudeMan]

I'm sorry, but Yoshie asked me to the Anarchists' Ball next weekend and I therefore feel I'm spoken for. But don't think I haven't been tempted...

[solomon]

Theoretic capitalism doesn't work in application.

Just like every other socialeconomic model the problem is the same: people.


Due, with all due respect, after all I've done explaining pure capitalist theories on this board, you have explained NOTHING to support these claims above.

One model IS true and IS applicable and it's exactly why knowing which theory is correct is important because it lets you know which part of your reality really DOES need to be attacked to make things better, and where you are spinning your wheels, or even making things worse.

It's 3:30 am, but there will be some LONG posts coming from me tomorrow dealing with this mess, so be ready ;)

Sol

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by solomon
Due, with all due respect, after all I've done explaining pure capitalist theories on this board, you have explained NOTHING to support these claims above.no, correct your statement:

It's not that I have explained nothing that supports these claims, it's that you don't believe that what I posted is correct.

I've given you clear examples, others have supported it, and can see what I'm saying, you just refuse to acknowledge them b/c they don't jibe with what you believe.

I had to post this b/c that overarching dissmissive tone is used to often saying "you've said nothing so far" when it really means: "You've said nothing so far I want to acknowledge".

[solomon]

Part 1 :)

but if there is an argument is that companies will always tap into markets where goods can be sold because of some hypothetical capitalistic rule, then i can tell you right now that shit isn't true. johnson and johnson hasn't made a band-aid that isn't for white people yet, have they?

I had NO IDEA that current band-aids were "for" any particular race. It's not like they blend in with white skin either. You can spot bandaids easily on everybody.

that's why i said johnson and johnson, since those band-aids aren't available anywhere i've lived, and i've lived all over the country.

YOu really think J&J doesn't sell black bandaids just because they are racist? Does an item have to BE black for it to be FOR black people? popsicle sticks aren't black either, closer to white, so do you interpret that as a sign of racism?

In other words, it took a mighty long time for someone to develop that product to tap into that untapped market. How many other markets aren't tapped into b/c no one sees a possible profit, legally defensible niche, or even see the want/need?

Exactly due but this is the problem capitalism deals with - the uncertain future. Uncertain demand. This is the job of the entrepreneur to attempt to fish out demands and supply them, or spot resource misallocation and anticipate the future. Sure there will be mistakes, but the over-arching motive of human self-interest assures that there are a LOT of people every moment trying their hardest to fish out and supply demands.

Micro-monopoly:

I did misunderstand you, sorry. You're bitching about patent and copyright law and I totally agree.

A stone-dealer really interested in making the "big bucks" under the itheoretical model would undercut his competitors so brutally that the consumer would feel a major price drop.

The stone-dealer can't because he can't get them cheap either. DeBeers has a monopoly or very nearly a monopoly on diamonds right.

capitalism "works so well" for some people in here, and provides such great benefits because certain people are at the top of it. For those who have been specifically and purposefully excluded, as John Sibley butler details in this book, eh...not so much.

First I think you need to understand that when I talk about capitalism I certainly am NOT talking about "America." America is largely socialistic at this point. So a lot of your gripes with "america" i might be able to identify with, but don't confuse them with gripes with "capitalism."

The point I alluded to previously about bandaids is that in this nation, which people trumpet as wildly successfully capitalistic, I can't get a bandaid that works like other people's. I can't get a haircut that I want.

Then where do you get your haircut?

I have multiple tales of how I go into national haircut chains and suddenly, all the stylists want to go on lunch because they "don't know how to cut black hair."

When my hair gets to be a certain length, I wear braids. Cornrows whatever you want to call them. Most chains and hair places don't do that, but it doesn't offend me. But I can find some who DO just that. They satisfy a smaller, niche market. Tons more people want a regular haircut than cornrows.

I could go into the store right now and probably find tons of baubles and random shit, but I can't find products that black people use all the time. So then your assertion would be that "oh, a business will spring up that will take care of those needs".

Maybe those stores don't have a high black clientele? What black products can't you find?

because the national chains, much like johnson and johnson felt no need to ever make bandaids for anybody other than white people, even though non white people make up over 35% of the market

How are you so sure that other black people are as riled up as you are about the lack of black bandaids? I've never heard this complaint before. Are you sure other black people aren't fine with bandaids how they are? I think the demand is probably WAY smaller than you think.

these chains felt no need to have employees learn how to cut a black mans hair, though it would likely take no more than an hour of training. no fucking excuse for that shit, but it demonstrates the point that it's not all just economics.

If they were getting 15 black guys in there a day asking for haircuts I have a feeling they would learn how to do it. I'm pretty confident that I could get the phone book out RIGHT NOW and find a place that cuts hair for black people.

White ceo's and executives are indeed hoarding profits, ignoring the way capitalism is "supposed" to work.

No they aren't "ignoring it" the legislation and laws have allowed this to happen, that's what most people mix up, are capitalism problems and government/legislation problems.

As duefmellon says, the wealthy do cause prices to be higher.

I just got done showing before how that's not true. You can make money off volume or price. There are tons of thrift-store type stores that the rich do NOT shop at.

Now, if you want to say that's not capitalism's fault, sure, it's not. but that's the people that capitalism is serving, and that situation(people *normalized* to live above their means) isn't likely to change barring a major cultural overhaul. so these trends will continue.

Sorry but I don't buy the idea that people are helpless in the face of advertising. No one said EVERY want gets satisifed, that's impossible. Everyone wants things above their means, this isn't something new.

with rampant downloading and cd burning, the riaa frequently documenting the loss in sales, prices should have dropped accordingly.

How are you sure that prices CAN drop? Why do you think so many of them are merging or on the verge of going under? The labels are in deep trouble.

[solomon]

Part 2

they're creating an unnecessarily high price, by spiking demand via their practices of severely undershipping their product.


So what are they doing with the other shoes? Why make product you don't want to sell?

my understanding of overpricing is wherever you can show the intersection of supply and demand, if the price is appreciably higher than that, especially when you can point to a company's own practices, then that's overpricing.

This is something that can't be shown. The intersection of supply and demand IS the "price". All you can show are how outside forces are AFFECTING or influencing supply and demand factors and thus how they are affecting the price.

the biggest thing people could stand to learn is that there is no such thing as a norm. white people are not 'the norm'.

White people might not be the norm, but they may very well be a significantly higher percentage of the demand in certain products and industries.

why did they try to charge a black woman for requesting a flesh colored prosthesis, charging that she had to pay extra to have it "colored" ?

Because maybe it takes more work. THey have to set up their equipment differently? They buy the "white" paint in bulk and so they get a discount, since they find that they are needing to make more white prosthetics than black ones, so smaller amounts of black paint cost more. It could be any number of things.

Theoretic capitalism doesn't work in application. Just like every other socialeconomic model the problem is the same: people.

We've had this discussion before due. "People" can be crossed out of both sides of the equation. It's useless when comparing different theories, because all political/economic theories have "people" in them. BESIDES, capitalism doesn't assume that people don't act like people for it to work. The people who "mess up" are called criminals and there's a way to deal with them too, within the framework of the system. Capitalism makes no unrealistic assumptions about the behavior of people in order for it to work.

In the US, blacks have less purchasing power for reasons NOT having to do with the free-market. You can't take people's property rights by force. Blacks should never have been enslaved and should have had equal rights all along. It was the Government that took away the rights, not the market.

Exactly this is how I mainly feel with Frost's argument. The situation with whites and blacks in this country isn't one that came about naturally or through voluntary contracts etc but through force and murder etc. So dealing with it is difficult. And it makes the principles I'm talking about harder to discern.

so it works in theory, but not in real life.

No it does work in real life. I think you are confusing "american capitalism" with capitalism.

so it works in theory, not in real life. never has- is that what you're saying?

It does work in real life, but it's never been allowed to work. Someone in the past has always used force to assume control and monopolize into a state.

Like I said, the majority of race problems today can be traced back to the Government taking away rights from minorities. In Sol's system the government wouldn't have the power to do that.

Exactly.

and i'm saying it hasn't been working for quite some time and the sellers haven't gone under. additionally, with megacorporations, they pretty much can do what they feel like and still make enough revenue to continue their practices.

Mega-corporations are the result of law and legislation, not intrinsic to the system. Like I said, sure, american mercantilism hasn't been working, I'm with you there, but PURE capitalism does work.

Someone didn't adhere to it, so we made a law to correct that. A law that isn't part of the model but we included to make humans behave the way the legislaters felt they should.

No due, laws are a PART of the system. We didn't make laws ON TOP of the system to deal with it. They are within it. I think that's what makes you think the theory is not applicable. Politicians make laws "on top" of the system because they are a) ignorant, b)unfairly trying to steal peoples money and labor c) pitting one group against another and creating problems for election purposes.

We had the idea of capitalism from the start, and from the start humans fucked it up. We've never really had Sol's theory, and I'm not going against Sol's theory. I'm going against the actual application of it.

They fucked it up because of monopolists and barbarians, it's not that the system itself didn't work. That's not why governments came into power.

The rich effect the price of things, even as consumers.

Not true. The rich do not drive up the prices of big macs. Demand and supply sets the price. THe mistake you are making is that just because someone is rich, it doesn't increase their demand. They are able to pay more IF their demand happens to get to a certain height, but just having money doesn't increase their demand for a whopper. A white castle costs what, 60 cents or something?

(most) Manufacturers are not concerned with selling all items, market shares, or profits, theyr'e concerned about appearing financially attractive to investors. All those others are secondary.

Then why MAKE extra items? And profit and market share are what make you appear financially attractive to an investor.

I've given you clear examples, others have supported it, and can see what I'm saying, you just refuse to acknowledge them b/c they don't jibe with what you believe.

Ok didn't mean to offend. But, your examples again are of state-influenced capitalism, or situations that have resulted from state-influeced capitalism. and I don't think you have shown that capitalist theory is not applicable, because you haven't show that capitalist theory makes unrealistic assumptions about the nature and behavior of humans. Capitalism doesn't require that people don't 'mess up', they are dealt with accordingly. So can you please either explain again your basic reason for believe this...show me which unrealistic assumptions about people capitalism makes that make it inapplicable.

You can't say a theory is right but inapplicable. Because that means either the theory is wrong, or the assumptions it makes are wrong, which means they need to be corrected. Knowing the right theory lets you know what needs to be changed. Thanks

SOl.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Frost
i think you're confused here. perhaps it's just unimportant to them because they value their white clients and not their black ones.

This provides a golden opportunity for an entrepreneur. There are 30+ million black clients in the U.S. whose needs are not being met by J&J. There is nothing in the capitalist system that prevents anyone from creating and selling "black" band-aids (except you couldn't call them band-aids due to trademark issues).

I think Solomon's point is that capitalism is uniquely suited to filling these kinds of needs. A socialist system would likely strive for the largest market (meaning the white market) but would also prohibit others from tending to the underserved markets. In the capitalist structure, Frost Inc. could see this need, create the product for it, hire Nelly for marketing, and fill the void.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Frost
at any rate, we've already covered this ground and i've already referenced the concept of "economic detour", talked about the denial of business loans and still, the point remains.

why wouldn't j&j tap into that, as you put it "golden opportunity" ?

Because they don't see it as a need. But so what? Is J&J running your life?

Perhaps it's completely impractical. What in the American system says that every individual is guaranteed a low-cost adhesive bandage in the pigmentation of their choice?

Not every desire is met in any system. Nor should it be. But if there truly were a lot of blacks clamoring for band aids in darker tones, J& J or anybody else would scoop it up.

Originally posted by Frost
hell, you're basically saying nothing was wrong with "white only" restaurants and water fountains-- it was a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for black people to set up their own restaurants and water fountains, no matter how long it took!

The difference being that in the '60s there were legislated prohibitions. These don't exist today. Is there absolutely equality in access to capital today? No, certainly not. But you're comparing apples to kumquats.

Originally posted by Frost
well damn!, that whole 60's civil rights thing was a total waste! too bad you weren't born back then, you could have radically altered the course of history!

You don't believe that black entrepreneurs working outside the white system contributed a great deal to that civil rights movement?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Frost
well damn!, that whole 60's civil rights thing was a total waste! too bad you weren't born back then, you could have radically altered the course of history!

Speaking of civil rights, I seem to remember something about boycotts. . .

[Duemellon]

Person A has a jug of water
Person B has a pound of dry noodles
Person C has a box of matches and a kettle

Who has the most power?

That's what the capitalist model is banking on, that all ppl are created equal in different ways and their interests are just as important as everyone else's around them.

But it's not true in real life.

Due to location, birthright, intelligence, or luck, the power a person or a group wields changes. It can change for their children, call it a predisposed lack of equality due to misfortune or intentional calamity. I mean, if person C got their matches wet, they have less power. However, those same children inheirent the only kettle so they have a reusable resource.

The water guy is controlling an unlimited resource.

The noodle guy has a limited amount, once it's gone it's gone and they're ass-out.

They have the same power, temporarily, but once items start getting swapped a ranking of influence starts to happen.

Anyway, that's really an aside...
Racism isn't good for our economy. Racism is prevailent throughout our country and manifests itself in ways our society excuses, or renames, or condones through absurd & faulty "imperical" assumptions/theories. To claim that racism actually creates economic opportunity actually screams of a reason to perpetuate it. Even though this opportunity generates second-rate products, distributing, and attention in a "afterthought" kinda'v "thought".

This particular discussion stemmed from the statement that rich ppl make life harder for poor people simply by being rich.

[DudeMan]

I am *this* close to deleting this whole thread. Why? Because I love power!! Muah ha ha ha ha!!

Plus, despite my love for noodles and water, this thread has degenerated considerably from its original lofty tone and I tire of it.

Any recommendations? Shall I pull the plug and we all just pretend this never happened?

[slow-dog]

But how does the existence of clear bandages and camoflauge bandages affect this discussion?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Person A has a jug of water
Person B has a pound of dry noodles
Person C has a box of matches and a kettle

It's not an assumption of captalism that people will become equal in power or wealth. Obviously some people are rich and some are poor, and free market fans could care less. In this odd situation all three people are screwed. If you have no food your kettle won't help you. But assuming either A has access to food besides dry noodles then Person B is screwed.

So Person B has an incentive to try and find something else useful. If he can't then he dies. The question is whether or not we should care. I don't think this means that capitalism is "wrong" in that it's internally inconsistent or it doesn't meet it's goals. It's more a moral issue of whether the goals it sets to achieve are correct.

The only assumption capitalism makes on this issue is that those who have the most power are also those that contribute the most to society. Clearly A and C can screw over B. But at some point all the B-types will die out and the people left with ALL have food and water and thus be equal in power. For someone to get more power, they have to come up with something the rest of society wants.

I don't think anyone has claimed racism "creates" economic opportunity. Sure it might create a market that needs to be filled but that's like saying going 0-16 "creates" winning opportunity so why don't we all lose all our games?

[solomon]

so you would not like me to respond to you and due's points?

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
http://www.as.ucsb.edu/aspb/images/past/HUMPTY.gif
Oooh!....Ooh-OOh! Translation for those Mid-school Hip-Hop deficient folk:

Dowatchalike

[DudeMan]

Source please?

oh wait, you do have a source... :D

[RichmondVA]

Yeah, the economy may now the least of Bush's worries. It's all flip-flopped now.

[bjk15]

this may sound stupid, but i know from personal experience that there was a mass influx of jobs in march b/c as a backup plan from being my dorky pharma chemist was to be a sales person for those companies, and while chemist openings are slimmer pickings, there were and have been a ton of sales jobs automatically e-mailed to me. and when a huge cog like pharma does well, then that helps to keep the wheels greased.

and speaking of which, the companies in which i have interviews coming up better hire me or i will have to do something very horrible like make you listen to korn over and over again, um, i won't post during office hours if any potential future boss is on here, and um, i will work very, very hard and efficient, and the bestest of the ... average