We MUST Get A Handle On This (problem)!

The dollar is only backed by the force the government can use to collect taxes. If one state were to allow it's citizens to forego paying federal income tax, the federal government would lose it's credit and instantly go bankrupt.

Get the refund son!

 

Ensuring competition is what the US did before this wave of deregulation started. Deregulation has allowed companies to become so big that they are able to run out competition. Perfect competition requires companies have free access to enter and exit a market. This is one of the main the fallacies of Milton Friedman economics. His models don't include access to markets. Liberals do not desire to place any barriers on people from entering markets, liberals desire is to help foster and create competetive markets by requiring all companies follow the same rules, and companies aren't allowed to operate in a way that is monopolistic. The bariers to entering a market are created by economies of scale and the price for a firm to enter a market compared to the cost that a company is expected to profit by the sale of goods. If each company is operating by the same regulations, it doesn't inhibit free flow of companies entering and exiting a market.

 

Amen and of course!!

 

What wave of deregulation?

 

What that makes no sense. First off states can not allow it's citizens to fore-go paying federal income tax. So right there, there is no reason to continue on with this nonsense.

Listen the only people who don't like our economy are poor people. And if you can't make money in America, you will be poor regardless of the system we use. Going to a gold standard does not change the basics of supply and demand. Our economic system is used to provide the widest range of wealth, with the highest standard of living for a country.

I absolutely am blinded by people's hatred of America. Life is about utility, and as long as the dollar provides people with utility, people will always want it. You notice how there aren't any rich people, businesses, or corporations that are willing to give up on the dollar.

 

Do you know that his economic advisors left because they disagreed with Obama's political advisors and Obama in each case decided to follow the recomendations of the political advisors and ignored the warnings of his economic advisors. This is why liberals are pissed off at Obama. His economic advisors warned that a stimulus of 1 trillion was to small, and that putting most of the stimulus in the form of tax breaks would not be the best allocation of that money. His political advisors thought they could score points with conservatives by making 2/3 of the stimulus tax cuts. The stimulus, as told by his economic advisors, would fall short of it's goal. His economic advisors have been correct. He just chooses not to listen to them because he is trying to score political points with the right of center moderates in this country.

 

His advisors should have been advising that "departments" and "administrations" do not create wealth for the nation.

http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending

 

Deregulation has been immense since the 70's. Transportation, Energy, Communication, and Finance have been the sectors that have deregulated the most. Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys were the champions of deregulation and the philosophy of deregulation was popular among both political partys for 40 years. Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton both strongly believed in dereglation and enacted policy that was for the purpose of deregulation. Obama today anounced that he is deregulating industry even further by removing unnecsary regulation to help companies. There are efficient and inefficient regulations. So if the regulation reform is designed to make things more efficient with out ignoring externalities that the regulations were designed to protect, them I'm all for it. But mass deregulation like what has been done since 1970 for the purpose of opening a total "Free Market" such as Milton Friedman championed, just doesnt' work.

 

The government spawned all kinds of business. Did you know the department of Navy practically invented the television industry. How about the Army getting boeing started. Did you know that NASA developed the microwave and flat panel televisions. Research and Development doen by the United States government has helped launch some of the biggest industries of the 20th century. The goverment helped turn America into the lone superpower in the world through research and development that launched industry that dominated the world.

 

The free market is the only one that works, do you like the internet? It's highly unregulated yet it works quite well, don't you think? What will happen when the government starts regulating it (and it will)? Do you think it will improve or be ruined by the negative Midas touch of the state?

 

He asked you...WHAT deregulation? What regulations were removed that you believe don't fit your description of "making things more efficient"?

 

Sorry, but even your analogy is wrong. The internet in America is horribly inneficent. We are the only country that has a completely deregulated internet and it's effects are quite telling. In South Korea, you can get broadband internet at 60MBPS for $30/mo. In Japan, you can get 45MBPS for around $25/mo. In Ameria, we get 5MBPS for around $40/mo.

Also, the internet is another industry that was created by the government. Thanks ARPA and the National Science Foundation.

 

I was kind enough to give enough of a history lesson. If you want more information look it up for yourself. I gave you the industries. It's not like the information is that hard to find. I'm not here to hold your hand and I'm not here to determine what is or is not efficient or innefiecient deregulation. His assertation is that no deregulation has taken place. I provided examples of industry that has been deregulated over the last 40 years. If you want to look at specifcs, you can look that up yourself. If you find specific deregulation that you think provides a good example of deregulation, we can discuss that in a thread with a differnt topic.

 

True, the origins of the internet was a public/private collaboration, but when NSFET was decommissioned in 1995, it has been very much private. Since then it has been mostly unregulated and the closest thing to a free market there is.
The analogy stands.

 

So you think that having internet at 1/10th the speed and at a 25% higher cost proves your theory. If you really think that slower speed at a higher cost is good, then we are going to have to just agree to disagree. I have nothing further to add.

 

Thanks for sharing, jwhitesj.

If a a stimulus of 1 trillion was deemed to be to small, what value of stimulus did his economic advisors actually recommend?

Also, I thought the tax breaks proposed by Obama amounted to only 40% of the first stimulus. Where did you read the tax breaks instead amounted to most of the stimulus?

Just curious!

James Cessna

 

I don't know, I have a fiber optic connection and the speed is pretty good, I haven't been to Korea or Japan so I couldn't objectively compare.

I don't think any sort of government regulation would improve it.

 

Okay lets take trucking, since it was deregulated trucking exploded with individuals jumping into the business. All those truck stops on the Interstate were not there before deregulations of the trucking industry and price of service for the most part went down. The entire business exploded from small to large, other industries such as truck stops exploded! Now of course government actions as in energy is now diminshing the industry and driving people out and causing prices to go up, it isn't the industry but government involvement.

 

I meant to type 1/3 so that was a typo. Most economist have said the stimulus was only 50% of what was required so most agree that a minimum of 1.5 trillion would have been better.

 

Wait second, so let me get this straight...what organizations who motive is profit (other than politicians) run our nation?...

and secondly, if you want to eliminate all profit-motived organizations then that means you would have to eliminate all businesses in the country and put 99% of the country out of work.

Good plan?

 

Trucking actually has relatively easy access to enter and exit the market because the main source of capital required to open a trucking company is money to buy the truck. Trucks being relatively innexpensive serve Friedmans model very well because it is easy to enter and exit the market. Energy however is a type of industry where Friedmans model doesn't work. The deregulation of energy and turning over control of energy to for profit companies has gone horribly wrong. It's nearly impossible for any one to enter the market because of the need of electric lines and powerplants.

I would agree that deregulation on something like trucking is a good thing, but deregulation on something like electric supply is a bad thing. Also financial markets collapsed because of the dergeulation of Wall-Street. Wall Street had rules in place to prevent consumer banks from investing. When that regulation was taken away, we ended up with too big to fail banks that turned Wall Street into a Casino. We all sufered as a result.

 

He didn't say he wanted to elimnate comapanies from making a profit, he said he wanted to remove coroporate intrest from being the primary motivator of politicians. We have a big problem in this country because of how are political process is run and how money influences those in power. This is a problem of both parties, so this isn't an attack on one party. This isn't an attack on corporations from making profits either. He is simply stating that he wants to ensure that big corporations aren't the ones who make all the decisions of our society. He is stating that he wants the direction of are country and the laws and regulations that we decide, to be based on what is best for our society as a whole, not just a few of the priviliged class.

 

I don't care about the HUMAN factors because I respect HUMAN factors enough to let them care for themselves. I may offer help, but I am not going to support legislation that would oppress all to mitigate the ultimate downside of the few.

I don't care about money as money is just a magicians tool to further lower the net worth of those with little to begin with.

If you see others as callus, perhaps it is because you are a anchorless ship in a sea of emotion. Casting your short sighted judgments, shooting from the hip is probably not a great method for successful results.

By the way, you might want to study Austrian Economics before you accuse folks of ignoring behavioral effects.

 

Why do so many people believe this? If you are a large company, you only benefit from further regulation. Your position atop the market share pyramid is solidified through artificial barriers to entry.

I have no idea how this statement could be made after your last one.

Are you saying that the government does not offer special subsidies or tax provisions to particular companies? Also, regardless of whether the rules are the same for everyone or not, if the rules make it particularly hard to achieve a viable bottom line, established companies will be more likely to succeed. Thus the consolidation of market share we see in the US today in almost every industry.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but this proves you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

Essentially unlimited, but to start 2.5T dollars spent over 5 years and continue until Morning in America.

That is the Democrat plan.