7
   

Role of government when "unfettered market is not enough"

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 05:20 pm
@ossobuco,
Hi Osso, yes, there are exceptions to every generalisation Smile

And it has been a while. I visit sporadically. At the moment I have a fancy new DSLR, and I've been learning about it / playing with it lots !
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2013 05:47 pm
@vikorr,
I'm more interested in that than economics, so posts about that would be good.
I'm going backwards, used to be swift with cameras and now not so.
Still photography tuned..

Ok, back to fettered markets..
a gallery I used to like -
http://www.peterfetterman.com/

(pardon me, wandel)
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 09:36 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:

Re: Thomas (Post 5512131)
Some government regulation is necessary, at least in America, as not every capitalist has the best intentions of the workers in mind. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone is a white hat wearing do-gooder. That's why business needs a certain level of oversight.

BUT...

Government should not become a hindrance to the business world either. When companies actively work to reduce employee hours, keep employee levels below a certain number due to government constraints and regulations and when government regulations swamp business in hours upon hours of paperwork you know that there is too much over sight.

so, it's good for someone else's business, but not mine.

When you get your OSHA inspection and the fine is only $5000 and you are HAPPY about that, there is too much oversight... read that sentence again... now read it like this... No matter what, OSHA WILL find something wrong. There is no business that gets an OSHA inspection and is not fined for something. It's become a self-feeding monster.

I don't know what business you are in, but I worked in manufacturing for 35 years and OSHA fines were rare.



Yeah, we need government for sure. We need a certain level of oversight, but that is not what we have now.

So far as taking care of those that need it? Hell yeah. Get those folks the leg up they need. But, why are there now 10 million people on disability? That's the same as the population of Greece. Imagine that. The entire population of Greece could have moved to America and just gone on disability...

American dream, be gone with you. It's easier, though not as pretty, to just collect the check instead of working hard, saving money and bettering your position. That's only for immigrants now. People moving here from a place where they know actual misery. They move to the US, work their asses off and become successful. Natural born Americans have become the Weebels of the world. It's a real shame.
Just collect the check? You should try govt assistance and see how pleasant it is. Try working hard for minimum wage and save money. What's changed in America is the lack of opportunity to climb up the ladder.


0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2013 09:45 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
To expect any head of government to be able to significantly reverse income inequality in their term, is unrealistic. But making it a headline topic, and making a start is worthwhile, is it not?

This isn't one of those initiatives from the Obama administration that has been thwarted by the Republican-led House. Instead, Obama hasn't had any initiatives to thwart. His late conversion to the church of income inequality is welcome, I suppose, and it's nice that he has adopted some of the rhetoric of the left, but Obama has historically been long on words and short on deeds. I'm not optimistic that his change in rhetoric marks a change in policy.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 05:12 pm
Quote:
As congressional negotiators work toward a budget deal to avoid another government shutdown, a majority of Americans appear to want some sort of agreement to be struck that would avoid triggering another round of automatic government budget cuts.

According to the most recent United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, a commanding majority of those surveyed, 61 percent, would undo all or some of the automatic sequester cuts, which remain the law of the land. Just 18 percent favored enacting all of the required cuts.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-majority-of-americans-say-bag-sequestration-20131209
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2013 05:59 pm
US
OBAMA ADMIN. REPORTEDLY WANTS ‘RADICAL NEW POLITICAL POWERS’ FOR CORPORATIONS IN SECRET TRADE DEAL: HUFFINGTON POST

The Obama administration reportedly wants new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, up the cost of prescription medications, and restrict bank regulation — and apparently with hardly any international support — The Huffington Post reported, noting two internal memos it said it obtained.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 05:13 pm
@edgarblythe,
Business as usual among the capitalists.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2013 04:33 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) assailed conservative groups Thursday for opposing the latest budget deal, saying they had crossed a line and lost their credibility.

"This budget agreement takes giant steps in the right direction," Boehner said at a press conference. "But when groups come out and criticize something they've never seen, you begin to wonder just how credible those actions are."

Boehner has been reticent in the past to criticize conservative outside groups, such as Heritage Action and Club for Growth. Some of the groups have had a considerable influence on the tea party faction among House Republicans, and were the rallying force behind the effort to either defund Obamacare or shut down the federal government.

For the first time, Boehner acknowledged that these groups pushed Republicans into an unsuccessful strategy that he didn't favor. He expressed particular outrage that one of the groups later said it knew the shutdown strategy wasn't going to work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/boehner-conservative-groups_n_4433631.html
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 01:52 pm
@joefromchicago,
I disagree that Obama has been short on efforts to bring about equality. The problem is that the Republicans have decreed that there shall be no cooperation with any Obama (or Dem) initiatives, and have killed most things that Obama has sought to accomplish. He has tried economic stimulus, raising taxes on the wealthy, the ACA, etc., with little to show for it. He is now trying to increase the minimum wage.

There may be an equality movement (including the $15 an hour initiative) that has staying power. The public seems to be catching on that the middle class is rapidly disappearing.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:13 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I disagree that Obama has been short on efforts to bring about equality. The problem is that the Republicans have decreed that there shall be no cooperation with any Obama (or Dem) initiatives, and have killed most things that Obama has sought to accomplish. He has tried economic stimulus, raising taxes on the wealthy, the ACA, etc., with little to show for it. He is now trying to increase the minimum wage.

The economic stimulus wasn't aimed at achieving economic equality. It was aimed at ending the recession primarily by rescuing creditor institutions, many of which used the stimulus funds to reward themselves. If its intent was to narrow economic inequality, it was poorly conceived and criminally managed.

Obama only managed to raise income taxes on those making $250,000, and didn't raise tax rates at all except for those making more than $400,000 (individuals) or $450,000 (joint filers). As such, the tax system is less progressive than it was in 2001, when the first wave of Bush tax cuts were passed. It's a small step in the right direction, but Obama hasn't even brought us back to where we were in the Clinton administration.

The ACA wasn't really intended to lessen the wealth gap, although that may be one of its side effects. Right now, the only ones who are benefitting directly are insurance companies.

Advocate wrote:
There may be an equality movement (including the $15 an hour initiative) that has staying power. The public seems to be catching on that the middle class is rapidly disappearing.

They caught on a lot faster than Obama did.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
I am afraid you are wrong on everything. For instance, he did push for higher rates for the rich, but, with the filibuster, there was no chance for success.

He proposed infrastructure projects to get, and keep people, into the middle class (and also spur the economy). But the GOP made sure that nothing happened.

The healthcare industry in the country is 20 percent of GDP. When it was only 10 percent, economists said this was unsustainable. I think the ACA will go a long way to lessen the income going to the super rich who benefit from this industry.

You seem to be an outright Obama hater.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:20 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I am afraid you are wrong on everything. For instance, he did push for higher rates for the rich, but, with the filibuster, there was no chance for success.

Obama said, over and over, that he wanted higher rates for those making $250,000 or more, and most intelligent observers believe he could have gotten that. Instead, he caved in to minimal pressure from the GOP and settled for $400k/$450k.

Now, apart from the obvious fact that Obama is a terrible negotiator, what did we learn from that episode? Well, it wasn't that Obama is some kind of champion of the middle class. As I said before, in terms of tax rates we're still not back to where we were when Clinton was in office. And the money that is gained from the increased taxes isn't intended to redress income inequality in America. It's largely intended to pay debts, which are, in turn, owed to rich people and nations.

Advocate wrote:
He proposed infrastructure projects to get, and keep people, into the middle class (and also spur the economy). But the GOP made sure that nothing happened.

Again, that wasn't intended to achieve any kind of long-term reduction in income inequality. It was intended to pump money into the economy. At no time has there been any attempt by the Obama administration to address the fundamental inequalities built into that economy.

Advocate wrote:
The healthcare industry in the country is 20 percent of GDP. When it was only 10 percent, economists said this was unsustainable. I think the ACA will go a long way to lessen the income going to the super rich who benefit from this industry.

That's a pipe dream. The ones who will get rich off the ACA are insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care companies.

Advocate wrote:
You seem to be an outright Obama hater.

No, just a realist.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 08:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Advocate wrote:

I disagree that Obama has been short on efforts to bring about equality. The problem is that the Republicans have decreed that there shall be no cooperation with any Obama (or Dem) initiatives, and have killed most things that Obama has sought to accomplish. He has tried economic stimulus, raising taxes on the wealthy, the ACA, etc., with little to show for it. He is now trying to increase the minimum wage.

The economic stimulus wasn't aimed at achieving economic equality. It was aimed at ending the recession primarily by rescuing creditor institutions, many of which used the stimulus funds to reward themselves. If its intent was to narrow economic inequality, it was poorly conceived and criminally managed.

In addition, the Obama administration never claimed that it wanted more stimulus, but couldn't have possibly gotten it past Congress Republicans. Only the liberal commentariat did. The Obama administration's talking point was always that they had all the stimulus they wanted and needed. It had totally deluded itself about the extent of the economic crisis. Obama's stimulus programs were poorly conceived and criminally managed even on their own, modest, recession-fighting terms. Does it really take hate to hold an administration to its own talking points? If so, that condemns the administration more than the putative hater.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 07:47 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Hoping to lay a politically bruising year to rest, President Obama on Tuesday declared a “year of action” in which he said he would work with lawmakers when he could, but would sidestep them to move proposals to help low- and middle-income families share in the economic recovery.
In his State of the Union address, Obama promised to flex his power to boost wages, protect the environment and channel resources to education, starting with an executive order to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.
Before a joint session of Congress, Obama told lawmakers in the House chamber that he was eager to have their help to strengthen the middle class, but that he wouldn't be clipped by Congress in his drive to “reverse these tides” of economic inequality.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-state-of-the-union-obama-2014-20140128,0,2195484.story#ixzz2rnLaEyV3
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jan, 2014 04:41 pm
From an essay by Julian Bond and Elisabeth Mason in today's Congress Blog on TheHill.com:
Quote:
Each year we leave billions of dollars of unclaimed benefits on the table. This money lies beneath layers of bureaucracy. It requires a Herculean effort even to identify a fraction of the resources.

Studies have shown that participation rates in these programs vary wildly. Even in a program as critical as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps), only 75 percent of eligible Americans received assistance in 2012. In other words, millions of eligible Americans end up not using the benefits and services that are there to help stave off poverty and focus on economic opportunity as opposed to subsistence. We must show our elected representatives the value of these benefits and the ability they have to make our economy stronger.

For too long these programs have been the fodder of partisan debate. The truth is that these should be the very programs that bring both sides together.

These programs are more important than ever: real wages for all but the elite in American society have been stagnant for three decades.

Students comprise a substantial number of Americans who need these benefits, but simply don’t know how to access them. Today’s benefits can sustain a new generation through the process of education and (re)investment in high-skills, high-tech sectors. So, in a very real sense, they hold the key to the long-term stability and success of our society.

The outcomes of even limited efforts to increase access speak for themselves. For example, the average community college student we’ve worked with is eligible to draw down an additional $5,400 in benefits or a total of nearly $195 million, making it more likely they will graduate and enter the job force.

The same is true for veterans and their families, many of whom are eligible for critical benefits. Surely we owe the men and women who fought for our country a decent chance to reintegrate into civilian life in a troubled economy.

As the president said, "America does not stand still. And neither will I." Neither should we. It is up to us to harness the reality that change can begin today.

Here are just a few things we can do right now: First, we need to make sure people know that these programs exist. Second, we must pressure our government to streamline the process of accessing these programs. Third, we must be ready to fight to ensure the funding for these critical benefits does not fall victim to politics.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/196984-upward-mobility-need-not-wait#ixzz2s1DENFgh
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
0 Replies
 
mdespai
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 10:54 pm
@vikorr,
After reading your insightful comment, I am curious how you feel about the economic theories of Micheal Porter?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2018 at 01:30:30