We cannot begin to have any kind of national dialogue regarding economic inequality and ailments . .

[HughBeaumont]

. . . until the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", Libertarians and hyper-Republican pundits stop treating the notion of the "Free Market" as a religious fundamentalist treats their Bible; infallible and incapable of error or corruption.

[newfie11]

1. Hiding behind the bible as usual

Standard procedure.

[badtoworse]

2. As opposed to what? A large, centrally controlled economy with the state dictating everything?

Where have we seen that before?

[99Forever]

3. Sure...

... because those two extremes are the only possible options.

[HughBeaumont]

7. False Dilemma Economics. It's Not Just for Republicans.

[HughBeaumont]

5. Familiar with the term "False Dilemma"?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore . . . you know, besides your fervent defense of laissez-fail, job offshoring and other such Repub-ready economic failure policies.

[badtoworse]

9. Familiar with the term "incrementalism"?

Government intrusion and control only ratchets one way and the government is big enough and intrusive enough already.

[laundry_queen]

11. lol nt

[HughBeaumont]

13. Yes, it's how the laissez fail right wing wealthy seized our government to benefit them.

See: Regan, Donald and Powell, Lewis.

Oh, it's also how they seized control of the media; highly instrumental in creating "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" to defend laissez fail.

[badtoworse]

15. So you think we went from more government control to less government control? Seriously?

In any case, whatever dialogue you have would need to address concerns about government size and intrusiveness, because whether you like it or not, a substantial portion of the population is concerned about those things. Ignore them and they won't participate in the dialogue and nothing will happen.

If you want to see a good example of this dynamic in action, look at gun control and why nothing is happening there. It's easy for the gun control crowd to scream that gun people are unreasonable and the NRA has Congress by the short hairs, but there is more to it than that. The gun people aren't stupid and they see the incrementalism in action, so they won't give an inch. The answer, of course, is to make a deal, but that would mean that each side would give up some things to get some things. That sort of dialogue never happens and the stalemate continues.

My suggestion is that you choose a different path.

[HughBeaumont]

20. Uh, NO, I'm saying we went from less CORPORATE control to MORE CORPORATE control.

This is a textbook example of "I don't like the answer, so I'm re-writing the question".

It goes back to my original statement:

We have a nation where a higher-than-usual contingent steadfastly refuse to implicate corporations or the wealthy (acting in the interests of a "Free Market" that only benefits them) in the role of governmental corruption; despite the FACT that, each time such corporate interference happened in this and other countries governments, historically and currently, it's resulted in nothing but pain, stagnation/regression and hardship for America's middle/working/poor. Meanwhile, the players who helped write the laws got and get off scot-free each and every time while Joe and Jane Taxpayer's stuck with their bill. The U.K., Latvia, Iceland, Spain, a few South American nations in the 1960s and America since 1981 come to immediate mind.

With the dearth of progressive voices, an obviously corporate-purchased SCOTUS and it's million-dollar entry fee even on local levels, I can accept that government has been compromised.

Where the vast disagreement comes from is which egg beget what chicken; WHY did it become corrupted in the first place?

It's because of players throughout history (most of them corporate and Republican) infiltrated government to act in the interests of the "Free Market" and to employ market-based solutions to an entity that had no business being run like it was a for-profit corporation.

The refusal of the Free Market fundamentalists to admit that their religion (and make no mistake, it IS one) is infallible and can only be sullied due to governmental interference (they call it "cronyism&quot completely misses the forest for the trees: Government is corrupted BECAUSE the wealthy got so wealthy that the only thing left to BUY WAS the government and to run it like it WAS a "Free Market" . . . unto themselves.

I am not the one who needs to accommodate people who are completely off the mark and traded one cross for another. Your precious "Free Market" and the players who run and benefit from it is the goddamned problem, and on that, I give not one single INCH. America has given enough quarter and sacrificed enough flesh on this rotted altar. Time to puck up and admit your religion's a sham.

By the way, government spending has actually been reduced under Obama, but increased substantially under Reagan and Bewsh the Dumber. But hey, let's not mention that, right?

[badtoworse]

23. No point arguing about how we got here

You make it sound like some grand conspiracy being orchestrated by a group of super-elites. I see it more as the result of dynamic forces (e.g numerous third world countries expanding their economies and becoming viable places to to do business) acting on the global economy and various economic stakeholders responding to those forces. It doesn't really matter who's right - we are where we are.

Where do you want to go from here and how do you plan on getting these?

[HughBeaumont]

25. Well, we can start by not associating factual history with "Conspiracies".

It almost sounds like further belittling and dismissal; like I'm suggesting the monied cabal are all sneering and twirling their mustaches in some dim-lit Eyes Wide Shut-fashioned room, taking their marching orders from "The Rothschilds and Bilderbergs" COME on.

The well-monied class IS actively working hand over fist for an ever-growing list of political and corporate advantages that they do not need while America and it's workers, seniors and children slowly and collectively starve.

What, did Donald Regan NOT manipulate the tax code as Reagan's treasury secretary? Did Phil Gramm not cause sub-prime shenanigans and make it harder for billionaires to be audited as opposed to normal folks when he downsized the IRS (and after this, fled to UBS to service that overseas money)? Reagan and Bush II's economic teams? The Garn-St.Germain Bill? Reagan firing air traffic controllers to destroy unions and corporate America following suit ever since? Neutron Jack Welch and Chainsaw Al Dunlap becoming corporate rock-stars for throwing families out of work? The Whiner CEOs equating economic equality to Hitler stirring up beer halls? NAFTA? GATT? Gramm/Leach/Bliley? Clinton working hand-in-hand with Gramm, Angelo Mozilla and others to deregulate real estate? Corporate-promoting (two networks outright Republican promoting) cable news? Corporations getting tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas? The whole "Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders" myth (that's a corporate choice and not a law like most free marketeers think it is)?

THIS is what your amazing "Free Market" did and is doing . . to the private AND public sectors.

"various economic stakeholders responding to those forces." I see, so the zero-sum game that results from this is all just a means to an end. Again . . . more patent refusal to admit error. MORE "infallible word of Gawd" nonsense . . . more addicts refusing to admit they're addicted.

If Free Marketers never concede that their religion is capable of corruption and long-term economic agony, then there isn't any chance of obtaining any kind of serious dialogue.

I don't want to hear any "Oh, it can work for you, if YOU make the CHOICE for it to work." I don't want to HEAR it. Degreed professionals making 13-15 dollars an hour is proof positive that this doesn't work. Workers with Master's degrees getting fired to save a precious bottom line is proof positive that this doesn't work. Rampant ageism in the workplace is proof positive this doesn't work. A Supreme Court ruling that money = speech is proof that this doesn't work. Businessmen whining like loaded diapers that a 10 dollar minimum wage, which isn't even a proper inflation correction, is "just too high" is proof positive that this doesn't work. Demand drying up, businesses shuttering, low-wage service sectors proliferating, indebting an entire generation to the point that they're not going to be able to consume or buy big ticket items all for the crime of wanting to improve themselves is proof positive that THIS PLAN DOES NOT WORK!

The Free Marketers MUST ADMIT ERROR FIRST. THE FREE MARKET CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. The Free Market is the reason doors and opportunity is being closed to everyone except the upper middle class and above (and pretty soon, not even the upper middle class).

You want solutions? Get money OUT of politics. Public-funded elections. Tax the wealthy heavily - start with 50% on income, 30% on capital gains and work your way UP (yeah, good luck with THAT corporate-purchased Congress). Force the greed elite to expand and put back in their businesses rather than have them pocket free money and increase the National Debt and their bank accounts. Make the minimum wage at least 12 dollars an hour to start. Institute Universal Health Care . . . we're heading that way anyway, so those who don't want it (primarily because it would create an emploYEEs market) are just going to get buried.

"You can't legislate egalitarianism" is something Libertarians like to say that simply isn't true.

[badtoworse]

35. Nice rant, but too much to address it all.

The last two paragraphs, however, say a lot. What you're basically describing is a large centrally controlled economy where the government takes (taxes away) upside and uses it to promote egalitarianism. You're also having the government dictate the business decisions that business owners make and I assume by "Universal Health Care", you mean single payer run by the government. I'm assuming you would also want to seize assets that exceed a certain level of wealth, but just forgot to include it. (I agree about the minimum wage - we do need to increase it.)

As a practical matter, I don't see much difference between you're approach and a Marxist state where the government owns all of the production capabilities. In the Marxist state, the government gets all the revenue decides who gets what. You allow private ownership, but tax away the upside above a certain level. In the Marxist state, the economy is centrally planned and the state makes all the business decisions. You would use government policy to force businesses to make the decisions you want. Health care would be a wash and in a Marxist state, private wealth would be seized early on, something I assume you would do if you could. Bottom line is that you really do want a large, centrally controlled economy despite your claim that I created a "False Dilemma" in Post 2.

You really missed the mark with the last sentence in your post. It's not that Libertarians believe egalitarianism can't be legislated, it's that Libertarians don't want the government to have that much power. Jefferson was a wise man and on this point, he had it 100% right.

We need to do something wealth and income disparity, but the fix you're proposing is worse than the disease.

[HughBeaumont]

39. Aaaaaaand we're red-baiting.

Was the American economy in the 1950s, minus the Universal Health Care, "centrally planned"? I went EASY on my tax rates compared to those of the 1950s-1970s and the businessmen back in their day blathered on with the same red-baiting hilarity about "Marxism" just as you're doing. Fact is, they too didn't care about national responsibility and maintenance of the infrastructure, public services and legislation that they used hand over fist, directly or indirectly, to make their fortunes.

Why is taking corporate money and lobbying out of elections and government a bad idea?

Are the regulated capitalist nations of Europe, Scandinavia, Iceland and the U.K. somehow "centrally planned" because they choose not to be barbaric regarding what the U.N. in 1948 deemed a human right as we're doing?? I'm not understanding how Universal Health care would hurt businesses when they're the ones that whine the most about health care and legacy costs.

Or is that whole "Big Club, and you're not invited" really a THING?

What, are the wealthy going to starve or will their businesses shutter if we make things an atom speck more fair for their workers? Is that where you're seriously going with this?

[DanTex]

31. Yes, we did.

We've just been through decades of deregulation (i.e. less government control). An obvious example of this is financial markets, where, based on "free market" principles, regulations were steadily eroded, culminating in the worst financial crisis and economic downturn since the great depression.

In any case, whatever dialogue you have would need to address concerns about government size and intrusiveness, because whether you like it or not, a substantial portion of the population is concerned about those things. Ignore them and they won't participate in the dialogue and nothing will happen.

Yes, there are a lot of Ayn Rand worshipping idiots in America. This is exactly the problem that the OP is talking about.

[badtoworse]

37. Idiots or not, they still vote in numbers that impact the national debate.

You post on gun issues - don't you see a parallel?

[DanTex]

40. I'm not sure what your point is. That there are a lot of Republicans?

Yes, that's true. There are a lot of people who want to prevent women from having abortions, who don't believe in climate change, who want to teach creationism in school. These are usually the same people who believe in free market absolutism, and oppose any kind of gun restrictions.

Yes, there are a lot of them. And, more to the point, they are very well funded.

[Maedhros]

26. When you speak of "government intrusion and control" with regard to the economy,

Reagan smiles in his grave.

Thank you for repeating Republican talking points! Yay!

[badtoworse]

28. I see it as more than just the economy. It's impacting virtually every area of our lives.

[Maedhros]

29. I do pretty well ignoring Republican talking points.

No reason to stop now.

/ignore.

[Hissyspit]

44. Like

coal ash spills, poison leaked into drinking supplies, unions busted, fertilizer plants exploding, coal miners sacrificed with no accountability... etc.

Unregulated markets NEVER impact people's lives.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Nonsense. Privatisation is much easier than nationalisation. N.T.

[Hissyspit]

42. Oh, good grief.

[el_bryanto]

6. The free market isn't like virginity - it doesn't disappear at the first hint of govt. intrusion

I apologize if that metaphor is offensive. But what we need is a well regulated economy, and that's impossible of people believe (as some clearly do) that the Market's wisdom will always lead to the best solution. We've seen historically that that's just not true.

Bryant

[HughBeaumont]

8. Which is why I laugh when The Gilded Age is bandied about as an example of Free Market Utopia.

Yeah, if you were a well-monied industrialist.

Histories of how big cities, towns and rural areas alike operated without any kind of governmental services or regulatory agencies whatsoever prove that, if you were anyone besides a well-monied industrialist, life was not only difficult and destitute, but dangerous and often times life-threatening.

[GOPee]

16. Lets limit the Frederal Government to just Tanks and Bombs.. REALLY?

We need to take a breather and look around to see how much we need what our Government does that keeps us safe, sound, and free.

Where would we be without the EPA, USDA, FDA, FAA, FCC, etc. This is so frustrating, listening to the doom and gloom mantra.. Give it a rest..

[bemildred]

17. How about a well-regulated economy that enforces real competition, instead of promoting monopoly? nt

[badtoworse]

18. Personally, I'm a big supporter of real competition

I think you will find, however, that competition does not enjoy much support on DU.

Competition is probably the main reason why so many jobs have been offshored. American labor now has to compete in a world market against overseas workers who will do the same job for less money. When the jobs go overseas, many on DU are screaming about corporate greed, but the reality is that the manufacturers also compete in a world market and need to keep their costs as low as possible to stay in business. The bottom line: Competition in the labor market is bad.

Education is another good example. Most here are fine with private schools competing with public schools, but only the parents who want private school for their kids get no credit for school tax. Is that fair competition? How many parents can afford to pay school tax AND private school tuition? If you were to propose vouchers which would level the playing field, most on DU would scream foul.

I could go on, but I'm interested in the kind of competition you would promote.

[bemildred]

19. Competition between businesses enjoys great support on DU.

It leads to efficient pricing.

Competition between employees, instigated by the boss, we think that is bad. We like unions, because they have the power to enforce fair and humane treatment of employees. We think lazy and greedy rich people are much more of a problem than lazy and greedy workers, and we generally oppose inhumane treatment of anybody in the name of "efficiency" or competition, because we are all aware of the fact that we start and end our lives in a helpless condition, completely unfit to compete economically.

What I think is that IF we are to have a global workforce, as you say, then we need global unions, and likely a global government to save the planet as a livable space.

[HughBeaumont]

21. You'd actually have a case if our workers made what they did and LIVED in the Third World.

Unfortunately, we live in America, where you sort of need a living WAGE that meets AMERICA'S cost of living (which we haven't had since 1979).

You'd also have a case if the incestuous corporate boards of these manufacturers didn't vote themselves exorbitant salaries, perks, options and exit packages. But hey, I guess "costs" are all relative, right?

Call me one of those "moonbats", but I'm kind of failing to see how this plan creates "demand", especially when it comes to medium-to-large ticket products that the Third World can't afford.

[badtoworse]

22. There are areas where America can be very competitive, but labor costs aren't usually on the list.

Competition in the global marketplace is a complex, dynamic matter. We could spend a lot of time discussing the details and the right / wrong of it, but in the end, it won't matter - it's not going away and we, as a country need to deal with it.

I want to see American workers make a living wage and do well as much as anyone, but ignoring competition and just focusing on corporate greed isn't going to get it done. We need to find ways to make America more competitive on a total cost of doing business basis or the jobs are going to stay overseas. We have a huge advantage in energy costs that we should exploit as much as we can. There are other areas, but these would involve concessions in areas that are near and dear to the Progressive heart and I don't feel like getting into that now. Some years ago, Obama made some noise about starting a dialogue with business along these lines, but I don't think anything came of it.

[DanTex]

30. How about, you know, neither one.

Neither a state-planned economy nor an unregulated free market. It's pretty hard to argue right now that the US is too far in the direction of a centrally planned economy. The fact of the matter is, too little regulation and too much regulation both produce poor outcomes. And it's pretty clear that the US right now is on the side of too little regulation.

A great example of this is health care. Before ACA, the free market for health care we had simply wasn't working. A lot of people couldn't get coverage in the individual market, and costs were exploding. On the other hand, health care in places like Canada and the UK, which is basically "centrally controlled with the state dictating everything" works quite well.

The point of the OP is that it is axiomatic for many Republicans and libertarians that state intervention is always bad, and letting the free market do it's thing is always good. But that's very far from the truth.

[badtoworse]

36. Read Posts 25 and 35

IMO, the OP would go too far and would greatly over-regulate the economy. As far as the ACA goes, I think the jury is still out - it's not yet clear that costs will come down, at least not to me.

[DanTex]

38. Well, the OP doesn't specify how far the economy should be regulated.

Just that the ideology of free market fundamentalism is a big part of the problem.

But, I'll repeat, it is quite clear that the economy is currently under-regulated. The health care sector before ACA, and the financial sector are prime examples, as well as the lack of adequate environmental controls. Also, the safety net is too weak, and the tax code should be made more progressive, the minimum wage is too low, etc.

As far as the slippery slope argument, it's even more silly now than when Reagan famously predicted that Medicare would be the first step towards the end of freedom in America.

On edit: Re: Obamacare, OK, the jury may still be out on the extent of cost savings. The jury isn't out, however, on whether it is better than what we had before, because already there are millions of people covered who weren't covered in the previous system. And the jury also isn't out on whether the previous more unregulated system was working. It wasn't. However Obamacare turns out, it is a fact that the previous system we had was the least efficient in the developed world, given that we had at best average healthcare delivery (compared to other advanced nations), while spending far more per capita, and leaving a significant part of the population without coverage.

[BuelahWitch]

4. K&R!

[randome]

10. We cannot begin to have that conversation until the GOP is kicked out of the House.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[HughBeaumont]

14. As with everything Democratic in the 21st century, that's going to be quite the uphill battle.

Between gerrymandering, Citizens United and McCutcheon vs FEC, I hope we still have the Senate.

[AcertainLiz]

12. Personally there's a lot of things that need to be reformed

From the economy to municipalities to schools to the military before we can address both social and economic inequality. Admittedly I'm only 19 and I'm no expert on anything, so my ideas and such may be misinformed, and some of my ideas would probably be unpopular and never happen, but I do feel we need a lot of reform in the country.

[Rex]

24. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT millionaires!

SPOT ON! I love watching free market types cry like babies. As usual, they have no ideas how to fix things...just cry and cry and cry on national TV.

Those poor abused billionares...excuse me while I find the worlds smallest violin.

[Maedhros]

27. What's wrong with workers controlling the means of production?

You put in the blood, sweat, and tears, you should get the lion's share of the rewards.

[Populist_Prole]

33. K&R. Hugh you are a tremendous asset to DU

I could read your posts all day. Quote you even.

Up the proles!

[tiredtoo]

34. my thoughts exactly. N/T

[HughBeaumont]

41. Like.

[malaise]

43. Stop calling them millionaires and billionaires for starters

They are oligarchs, plutocrats. Educate citizens on the real meanings of those words.
Everyone wants to be a millionaire but they don't want to be oligarchs or plutocrats.