Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(06-29-2017, 03:21 PM)David Horn Wrote: (06-29-2017, 03:20 AM)Galen Wrote: (06-28-2017, 06:06 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (06-27-2017, 06:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: That this mechanism can "keep corporations in line" is disputed by the trend in fraction of output that goes to worker, which has steadily declined over the past 30 years showing that bosses have had the upper hand over the employees. In general management typically has the upper hand as they are many (they represent shareholders and management who are thousands of people controlling billions of dollars) against one (the employee, who if he controlled significant wealth would not need the job).
The size disparity was just as true 50 years ago, and back then employees were getting a much larger share of productivity improvements, so that's not what's driving the issue. What has changed has been high levels of immigration, undermining employees' bargaining position by providing more competition. That has everything to do with government coercion and little to do with business coercion.
You are also leaving out the massive increase in crony capitalism and the exponential increase in the size of the Federal Register. Then there is that huge debt sucking capital out of the private sector along with the rounds of QE which were explicitly done to push up asset prices. Care to take a guess at who that helps out? It sure isn't small business.
So to recap: buzz words followed by unfounded conclusions.
You do realize that QE was implemented explicitly to keep asset prices up don't you? That regulations have costs and unintended consequences?
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(06-29-2017, 01:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: (06-28-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote: I think there is a lot of similarity between today's social mood and the 1850s. Trump is basically Buchanan if Buchanan had been an evil narcissist.
If that's true, and I truly hope its not, then the corrective maybe just as excessive as the ACW. Let's hope that we avoid massively killing one another, but some form of violence seems baked into that scenario.
A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(06-30-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote: (06-29-2017, 01:46 PM)David Horn Wrote: (06-28-2017, 07:04 AM)Odin Wrote: I think there is a lot of similarity between today's social mood and the 1850s. Trump is basically Buchanan if Buchanan had been an evil narcissist.
If that's true, and I truly hope its not, then the corrective maybe just as excessive as the ACW. Let's hope that we avoid massively killing one another, but some form of violence seems baked into that scenario.
A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'
I have heard far worse coming from the left.
It is surprising how often the comedian gets it right.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(06-30-2017, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote: You do realize that QE was implemented explicitly to keep asset prices up don't you? That regulations have costs and unintended consequences?
QE was intended to raise the money supply at a time of low monetary velocity, so yes, there was an anti-deflationary intent. You find that bad? Of the options, deflation is vastly worse than inflation.
On regulations: they have unintended consequences, and need to be updated to account for negative issues that may arise. Lack of regulation also has unintended consequences, but short of imposing regulations, there is no corrective. So, in short, regulation is virtually mandatory in an advanced economy.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(07-05-2017, 11:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: (06-30-2017, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote: You do realize that QE was implemented explicitly to keep asset prices up don't you? That regulations have costs and unintended consequences?
QE was intended to raise the money supply at a time of low monetary velocity, so yes, there was an anti-deflationary intent. You find that bad? Of the options, deflation is vastly worse than inflation.
On regulations: they have unintended consequences, and need to be updated to account for negative issues that may arise. Lack of regulation also has unintended consequences, but short of imposing regulations, there is no corrective. So, in short, regulation is virtually mandatory in an advanced economy.
It's far from clear that deflation is worse than inflation. The deflation of the 1920s didn't cause any major issues, while the inflation of the 1970s did.
That said, quantitative easing did not cause any big inflationary problems, either. What it did do was skew different types of securities, as the Fed preferentially invested in housing securities. This kept the housing bubble going to some extent, with attendant economic distortions.
Lack of regulations do not have a big unintended consequences issue, since you know the starting situation before regulations are imposed. Removing long standing existing regulations might theoretically have some unintended consequences, but they would still be less than with new regulations since one does have a baseline one knows about, even if it is an old baseline.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-06-2017, 09:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (07-05-2017, 11:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: (06-30-2017, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote: You do realize that QE was implemented explicitly to keep asset prices up don't you? That regulations have costs and unintended consequences?
QE was intended to raise the money supply at a time of low monetary velocity, so yes, there was an anti-deflationary intent. You find that bad? Of the options, deflation is vastly worse than inflation.
On regulations: they have unintended consequences, and need to be updated to account for negative issues that may arise. Lack of regulation also has unintended consequences, but short of imposing regulations, there is no corrective. So, in short, regulation is virtually mandatory in an advanced economy.
It's far from clear that deflation is worse than inflation. The deflation of the 1920s didn't cause any major issues, while the inflation of the 1970s did.
I don't know which is worse myself. But I'd say the 1929 crash and Great Depression that followed the "1920s deflation" was pretty serious. The crash itself was caused by rampant speculation; inflation of stock prices and buying on margin.
Quote:That said, quantitative easing did not cause any big inflationary problems, either. What it did do was skew different types of securities, as the Fed preferentially invested in housing securities. This kept the housing bubble going to some extent, with attendant economic distortions.
Right; QE was supposed to be inflationary, and it wasn't. It was the only game in town to stimulate the economy, after the Obama stimulus was blocked on Nov.2, 2010. But is there a housing bubble now in places that are not already the most-attractive and prosperous places with diminishing available housing there, plus rampant real-estate speculation?
Quote:Lack of regulations do not have a big unintended consequences issue, since you know the starting situation before regulations are imposed. Removing long standing existing regulations might theoretically have some unintended consequences, but they would still be less than with new regulations since one does have a baseline one knows about, even if it is an old baseline.
The consequence of lack of regulations are well-known and obvious. One doesn't need to speculate further. Pollution, un-healthy conditions and outbreaks, unsafe products, bad products sold, unfair discrimination, unfair and unsafe treatment of and pay for workers, too many advantages for the already-wealthy, rampant and destructive speculation, un-fair competition and ownership of the economy by a few, resulting in more of all the previous conditions; these and other events are the results of lack-of and de-regulation.
|
