GG Posted January 24, 2019 Author Posted January 24, 2019 12 minutes ago, TPS said: It's NOT a simple question. The question should be: is the average person better off from an economy that is dominated by monopolies? Your question, which is behind the law and econ movement, became the focus in order to allow corporations to get bigger and bigger, and as we already argued, there are plenty of economists for hire who will testify that a merger is good for the consumer, though there is no way to quantify the effects through time. The effects on the macroeconomy are now pretty clear. As the book suggests, it is what underlies the rise in inequality. Economic power allows the powerful to extract more and more "economic rent", whether it's the monopolistic prices it can charge because there's no competition, or the monopolistic power it can use to dictate prices to producers. Both of which create more profit for the monopolist. The average person, the bottom 99%, is worse off now than they were 20 years ago, and the top 1% has been the beneficiary, as the gains from economic rent flow to the top. As Tasker stated, those with economic power make the rules because they have more free speech ($$) than the rest of us. Bezos/Amazon gained his advantage by paying off legislatures to prevent interstate taxation of online sales, providing a "competitive advantage." Walmart destroys small businesses wherever they locate. I know the average person should be thankful that they can buy the cheap Chinese crap sold at Walmart because that's the only way they can afford to survive on the ***** wages they receive from Walmart. But, yeah, let's be thankful for the company store.... You say the author's argument is BS, and I say the excuse that monopolies benefit the average consumer is BS. We disagree, as usual. But I'd still buy you a beer... It is a simple question that you're overcomplicating with unnecessary qualifiers. The big companies' size, market cap and by extension their owners' wealth has absolutely no bearing on the consumers' standard of living. Using the examples above, are consumers better off with WalMart's dominance or having Bradlees, Ames, Woolworth, and Kmart adding to competition? Just because now there's one superstore replacing four, doesn't mean the consumers' choices are worse. In fact, they're monumentally better than before. By any stretch of measurements, US standards of living keep improving with every day items become more widely available and more affordable. The only statistics that you can point to that show a worsening financial position is where you include education, housing and healthcare costs. Important ones, for sure. But also the ones that have the heaviest government hand in them. So maybe that should prompt a former trader to reconsider what the real impediments to consumer choices are.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, TPS said: We agree on the main point. I'd certainly like to hear what you think about "free exchange" between individuals in the market if it's understood that, in the labor market for example, one side has more power over the other. My position is two fold. First, in terms of skilled and specialized labor, that power proposition is not necessarily true. Second, in terms of unskilled labor, I believe in the right of free association (a necessary component of any free society) which encompasses the right to unionize in order to shift power balances. Quote Regarding the first point, you would have to provide more info since people have interpreted these conclusions different ways. I've certainly read enough criticisms of their use of statistics. There are other criticisms as well. For example, if one believes that IQ is related to race, however defined, then that must also mean we human beings are NOT the descendants of the same ***** sapiens. If IQ is based on "race," then how could we all have the same forefather/mother (Lucy)? Unfortunately this will probably take us away from the other topic... I'm happy to have two conversations with you. I haven't completely formed my position on the issue, and more work certainly needs to be done. Murray's work is so important because it attempts to smash down a barrier and discuss important ideas which have been regarded as too taboo to consider, which is a terrible starting point in honest dialogue. I would disagree, however, with the conclusion that it would mean we don't have a shared lineage. There are many social, logistical, and economic impacts which have played out to contribute. Intergenerational malnutrition, difference in selective breeding amongst tribes, inbreeding etc. which cause lasting and ongoing impacts. My only argument is that the topic is far too important to be ignored, and that it's being broached is not a weaponization of race, but rather a conversation that may be vital to a human race without a harijan. Edited January 24, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker
/dev/null Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Foxx said: somewhere in my annals, i have a whole bunch of items on this topic. it is controversial for sure. amazing how removing a single letter could drastically change a sentence 2
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: My position is two fold. First, in terms of skilled and specialized labor, that power proposition is not necessarily true. Second, in terms of unskilled labor, I believe in the right of free association (a necessary component of any free society) which encompasses the right to unionize in order to shift power balances. I'm happy to have two conversations with you. I haven't completely formed my position on the issue, and more work certainly needs to be done. Murray's work is so important because it attempts to smash down a barrier and discuss important ideas which have been regarded as too taboo to consider, which is a terrible starting point in honest dialogue. I would disagree, however, with the conclusion that it would mean we don't have a shared lineage. There are many social, logistical, and economic impacts which have played out to contribute. Intergenerational malnutrition, difference in selective breeding amongst tribes, inbreeding etc. which cause lasting and ongoing impacts. My only argument is that the topic is far too important to be ignored, and that it's being broached is not a weaponization of race, but rather a conversation that may be vital to a human race without a harijan. I agree with you it's something that should be talked about. So much ignorance is taken for granted that more knowledge and information could shine light on the subject.
TPS Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 56 minutes ago, GG said: It is a simple question that you're overcomplicating with unnecessary qualifiers. The big companies' size, market cap and by extension their owners' wealth has absolutely no bearing on the consumers' standard of living. Using the examples above, are consumers better off with WalMart's dominance or having Bradlees, Ames, Woolworth, and Kmart adding to competition? Just because now there's one superstore replacing four, doesn't mean the consumers' choices are worse. In fact, they're monumentally better than before. By any stretch of measurements, US standards of living keep improving with every day items become more widely available and more affordable. The only statistics that you can point to that show a worsening financial position is where you include education, housing and healthcare costs. Important ones, for sure. But also the ones that have the heaviest government hand in them. So maybe that should prompt a former trader to reconsider what the real impediments to consumer choices are. I'm not over-complicating, I'm considering ALL impacts which is typically ignored by the so-called hired guns who "prove" the average consumer would be better off. It's BS. It's like free trade arguments that say on average we're better off, but it just so happens millions of people will lose high-paying jobs and industrial cities will be decimated, but we get cheaper goods from Walmart.... Btw, if the criteria is improved benefits for the "average" consumer, shouldn't you support single payer health insurance? The average consumer would have access to healthcare at lower cost....
Foxx Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, /dev/null said: amazing how removing a single letter could drastically change a sentence well that could be said to be accurate as well. 44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: ... My only argument is that the topic is far too important to be ignored, ... start a thread, please. give it a funky name though. Edited January 24, 2019 by Foxx
GG Posted January 24, 2019 Author Posted January 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, TPS said: I'm not over-complicating, I'm considering ALL impacts which is typically ignored by the so-called hired guns who "prove" the average consumer would be better off. It's BS. It's like free trade arguments that say on average we're better off, but it just so happens millions of people will lose high-paying jobs and industrial cities will be decimated, but we get cheaper goods from Walmart.... Btw, if the criteria is improved benefits for the "average" consumer, shouldn't you support single payer health insurance? The average consumer would have access to healthcare at lower cost.... The model you're advocating for was blown up in the '70s when the rest of the world started to catch up to US manufacturing. It's a pipe dream to think that you can stand vanguard and maintain the same employment in the same industries and grow wages. It just doesn't work. Doesn't mean that there aren't temporary economic dislocations which naturally mostly hurt the least able and the least prepared. That's why there should be a temporary social safety net. As for the last point, single payer health insurance will only mean broader access to worse healthcare. That's why I don't support it.
Foxx Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 my biggest pet peeve with regard to consumerism is, built in obsolescence. i understand the why. that however, does not mean i have to like nor agree with it.
TPS Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 35 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: My position is two fold. First, in terms of skilled and specialized labor, that power proposition is not necessarily true. Second, in terms of unskilled labor, I believe in the right of free association (a necessary component of any free society) which encompasses the right to unionize in order to shift power balances. I'm happy to have two conversations with you. I haven't completely formed my position on the issue, and more work certainly needs to be done. Murray's work is so important because it attempts to smash down a barrier and discuss important ideas which have been regarded as too taboo to consider, which is a terrible starting point in honest dialogue. I would disagree, however, with the conclusion that it would mean we don't have a shared lineage. There are many social, logistical, and economic impacts which have played out to contribute. Intergenerational malnutrition, difference in selective breeding amongst tribes, inbreeding etc. which cause lasting and ongoing impacts. My only argument is that the topic is far too important to be ignored, and that it's being broached is not a weaponization of race, but rather a conversation that may be vital to a human race without a harijan. On skilled labor, big corps are always trying to gain the upper hand. For example, Silicon Valley and non-compete agreements between the big tech firms. And, unfortunately, government given their money and power, government tends to side on the side of business over workers. You did surprise me with your unionize answer. The Bell Curve has been attacked on many levels. I think the conversation above has highlighted some. The environment has a significant impact on IQ at conception. What the mother takes in influences the child. There are so many different environmental factors that have been shown to influence development it is difficult to provide legitimate data to test for a CAUSAL relation. Ceteris Paribus as we say in economics, all else equal. It's not a scientific test where most other variables can be held constant and then test the specific factor. What it does is raise all of those questions. We found this relationship, what is the cause? To what extent is it environmental vs genetic? It's impossible to isolate the factors. I'll check the video out when I have some time too.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, TPS said: On skilled labor, big corps are always trying to gain the upper hand. For example, Silicon Valley and non-compete agreements between the big tech firms. And, unfortunately, government given their money and power, government tends to side on the side of business over workers. You did surprise me with your unionize answer. Non-compete agreements, as you allude to, are not a function of capitalism, but rather government intervention showing preference (picking winners). The Bell Curve has been attacked on many levels. I think the conversation above has highlighted some. The environment has a significant impact on IQ at conception. What the mother takes in influences the child. There are so many different environmental factors that have been shown to influence development it is difficult to provide legitimate data to test for a CAUSAL relation. Ceteris Paribus as we say in economics, all else equal. It's not a scientific test where most other variables can be held constant and then test the specific factor. What it does is raise all of those questions. We found this relationship, what is the cause? To what extent is it environmental vs genetic? It's impossible to isolate the factors. I'll check the video out when I have some time too. I think you'll find it very interesting.
TPS Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, GG said: The model you're advocating for was blown up in the '70s when the rest of the world started to catch up to US manufacturing. It's a pipe dream to think that you can stand vanguard and maintain the same employment in the same industries and grow wages. It just doesn't work. Doesn't mean that there aren't temporary economic dislocations which naturally mostly hurt the least able and the least prepared. That's why there should be a temporary social safety net. Free Trade argument was used just like the law and econ "what's best for the average consumer" argument to justify outsourcing our industrial base. Except the benefits of free trade are based on the assumption that nations trade goods produced in respective countries--both nations benefit in this case. When you allow for capital to move, one nation (China) tends to benefit at the expense of another (US). This is why I am okay with Trump going after China, even though it was US corps who moved. With monopolies, by focusing solely on the question is the average consumer better off, you ignore the macro effects of monopolies which has harmed the average consumer over time. If the average consumer has been made better off, then why is all of the income being more and more concentrated at the top? There are all kinds of problems with monopolies and the overall impact on the macroeconomy AND therefore the average consumer. Your simple question simply supports the continued concentration of economic power, and they get away with it because they can pay economic consultants a lot of money to provide the results they ask for... As for the last point, single payer health insurance will only mean broader access to worse healthcare. That's why I don't support it. Your criteria--the average consumer. The US has the worst health outcomes ON AVERAGE of the developed world. The average consumer would be better off under single payer. YOU might not be better off, but you're not average joe...
TPS Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Non-compete agreements, as you allude to, are not a function of capitalism, but rather government intervention showing preference (picking winners). I think you'll find it very interesting. The ones I'm referring to are illegal and Apple and a few others were fined when emails surfaced of their collusion. Just as Adam Smith said: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, TPS said: The ones I'm referring to are illegal and Apple and a few others were fined when emails surfaced of their collusion. Just as Adam Smith said: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” I misunderstood your references initially, and the Smith quote is apt. The fines (again, a government directive), need to be punative enough that a company can't simply absorb them as a cost of doing business. They also need to be addressed as a criminal infraction as opposed to a civil one. 2
TPS Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I misunderstood your references initially, and the Smith quote is apt. The fines (again, a government directive), need to be punative enough that a company can't simply absorb them as a cost of doing business. They also need to be addressed as a criminal infraction as opposed to a civil one. Would you please stop saying things i agree with... ?
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, TPS said: Would you please stop saying things i agree with... ? I suppose I could, but then you'd be wrong.
plenzmd1 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: The black middle class barely existed in 1965. Since the Civil Rights movement they have greatly expanded as they were allowed opportunity. 1 I don't know that that is correct. Only reason I say that is was watching some documentary the other day on Netflix by some rapper and his contention was that in segregation, dollars tended to stay in the black community and there was, in fact, a very robust black middle class. Black folks went to black dentists, white folks went to white dentists type of thing. I will research the name of the documentary and link it here. To be fair, I watched all of 10 minutes and the premise was stupid to me...he was going to try buying "only black"..and it grew boring very quickly.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: I don't know that that is correct. Only reason I say that is was watching some documentary the other day on Netflix by some rapper and his contention was that in segregation, dollars tended to stay in the black community and there was, in fact, a very robust black middle class. Black folks went to black dentists, white folks went to white dentists type of thing. I will research the name of the documentary and link it here. To be fair, I watched all of 10 minutes and the premise was stupid to me...he was going to try buying "only black"..and it grew boring very quickly. What's really interesting is that there was a fairly robust black middle class in much of the antebellum South, that was largely destroyed by the Civil War. In Charleston, SC, where secession and the Civil War started, some 40% of slaveholders were middle-class blacks. *****'s always more complex than you think. Or were taught.
plenzmd1 Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What's really interesting is that there was a fairly robust black middle class in much of the antebellum South, that was largely destroyed by the Civil War. In Charleston, SC, where secession and the Civil War started, some 40% of slaveholders were middle-class blacks. *****'s always more complex than you think. Or were taught. Is that right??? I truly have never heard that.
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Is that right??? I truly have never heard that. You wouldn't have heard of it. I found it digging through census data. I've never seen it anywhere else.
The_Dude Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 9 hours ago, DC Tom said: What's really interesting is that there was a fairly robust black middle class in much of the antebellum South, that was largely destroyed by the Civil War. In Charleston, SC, where secession and the Civil War started, some 40% of slaveholders were middle-class blacks. *****'s always more complex than you think. Or were taught. Whoa fella, you need a citation for that nonsense. Ive heard of onsies and twosies here and there...but 40%! That cannot be.
Recommended Posts