The Populism of Billionaires

Cato wrote:Ziggy,

What you posted is nothing but pure BS. You can say all you want about the American economic system, but in the end that does excuse anyone from not succeeding if they desire to and work hard at it. The fact of the matter is people don't succeed because they don't try. Instead they have bought into a political system that steals from the productive and gives to the unproductive.

Now, again I ask you by what moral authority do you or anyone else have to take from the productive and give to those who are not productive?

I have already answered that question, Cato. You just refuse to acknowledge that the system is managed to assure that some percentage of the people have no way to "try" because they are locked out of the managed system of economics in this country. As long as you are in denial about the way the system works, then your question is false and so there is no answer to it.

Bullshit. You've offered nothing beyond your opinion. And while you're certainly entitled to it, that makes it no less the BS that it is.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Yes I have. I have explained how the system is managed to insure that some 4 to 10 percent of people are unemployed at any one time. And if you don't believe it happens that way, then you have not been paying attention over the past 40-50 years.

You haven't explained anything. You have expressed your opinion and that is all.

My opinion is based on directly observing several cycles of manipulations of the U.S. economy to assure sometimes higher, sometimes lower rates of unemployment- but always some managed level of deliberate unemployment.

Aaron wrote:Bullshit. You've offered nothing beyond your opinion. And while you're certainly entitled to it, that makes it no less the BS that it is.

It isn't BS if that is the way it is. And you have not even denied that the employment segment of the economy has, for decades, been managed as I have described it.

My apologies. I did not see your link.

The first paragraph of your article states...

In macroeconomics, full employment is a condition of the national economy, where all or nearly all persons willing and able to work at the prevailing wages and working conditions are able to do so.

You have not provided me with anything that shows all persons are so willing but are kept from working by a managed economy.

And yes I have denied it, each and every time you've posted that tripe. You claim that D~5% of the population is kept from working by those who manage the economy as such. I believe from years of experience of dealing with unskilled workers, often the least trained and educated that ~5% of the population is worthless, unwilling to work and expect someone to take care of them. In addition to those unwilling to work, there is a segment of the population that for a variety of reasons is not able to work. Your theory does not take those individuals into account nor does it take into account the number of new workers entering the workforce vs retiring employees.

So while the Fed does interfere in employment, I do not believe for a second that they keep anyone from working to get ahead as you state and you've provided nothing for me to think otherwise.

ziggy wrote:Yes I have. I have explained how the system is managed to insure that some 4 to 10 percent of people are unemployed at any one time. And if you don't believe it happens that way, then you have not been paying attention over the past 40-50 years.

Sorry bout that, .... but, ....... "association does not equal causation".

Lefty socialists are really good at squeezing "pseudo-facts" out of anything if their "facts" support their agenda.

That is what has gotten the proponents of CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming in trouble. They have been basing their whole argument on the association of the increase in atmospheric CO2 as being the cause of increasing average global temperatures.

Their big problem is, it is the increase in temperatures that is causing the increase in CO2, ........ as per Henry's Law.

ziggy wrote:

I have already answered that question, Cato. You just refuse to acknowledge that the system is managed to assure that some percentage of the people have no way to "try" because they are locked out of the managed system of economics in this country. As long as you are in denial about the way the system works, then your question is false and so there is no answer to it.

Bullcrap, Bullcrap, Bullcrap. You haven't answered the question, you've continued to dance around it and make excuses. The time for excuses is over. Now, explain to me the moral authority you or any other person has to take from me the reward of my labor and give it some another who chooses not to be productive.

None is so blind as he who refuses to see.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Yes I have. I have explained how the system is managed to insure that some 4 to 10 percent of people are unemployed at any one time. And if you don't believe it happens that way, then you have not been paying attention over the past 40-50 years.

Sorry bout that, .... but, ....... "association does not equal causation".

So those who strive mightily to maintain a "full employment" rate of four percent or higher of unemployment have failed at that goal? Then do unemployment rates remain at four percent or higher because of something other than deliberate economic manipulations? What do you know that the Federal Open Market Committee does not know?

One thing the FMOC knows is that anything above 4% is hard to achieve no matter how you manipulate the numbers as 5% of the population is worthless. They also know that anyone who wishes to better themself can if they so choose.

Aaron wrote:One thing the FMOC knows is that anything above 4% is hard to achieve no matter how you manipulate the numbers as 5% of the population is worthless.

What has the FMOC published to verify your opinion on this to be what they "know"?

They also know that anyone who wishes to better themself can if they so choose.

Again, what has the FMOC published to verify your opinion on this to be what they "know"?

They've published nothing that calls that segment worthless. That's my words. As for the FMOC, I have no idea what they've published but your link yesterday did state that full employment is a condition of the national economy, where all or nearly all persons willing and able to work at the prevailing wages and working conditions are able to do so which comes about as close to saying they're worthless as you can whereas willing in no way implies a segment is held down by the governemnt.

So what have they published to back your opinion that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

Put up or shut up time, hold the jell-o please.

There is no particlular "Put up or shut up time"- as you and Cato demonstrate almost every day here. And there is always a time for jell-o- as almost everyone here except maybe OC and Sheik demonstrate on a regular basis.

Aaron wrote:They've published nothing that calls that segment worthless. That's my words. As for the FMOC, I have no idea what they've published but your link yesterday did state that full employment is a condition of the national economy, where all or nearly all persons willing and able to work at the prevailing wages and working conditions are able to do so which comes about as close to saying they're worthless as you can whereas willing in no way implies a segment is held down by the governemnt.

So what have they published to back your opinion that the U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

I did not say they did, nor that they "know" that or anything else. You did. Why is it "Put up or shut up time" for me, but not for you and Cato?

Aaron,

It seems to me you and Ziggy are drawing from different numbers. Clearly there is a certain percentage of the US population who are either unable to work, or unwilling to work. Those people are never counted in unemployment figures. In order to be counted in unemployment figures, an individual must be seeking work. It seems to me those are the people you are primarily discussing.

Certainly there are some people not suitable for long-term employment who repeatedly enter the ranks of the unemployed. Being married to a chef, I am very familiar with these people. The food service industry is loaded with them. In full service restaurants they are frequently employed as dishwashers and servers and the like. In fast food restaurants they can frequently be found flipping burgers or asking you if you'd like fries with that.

That does not change the fact that when unemployment figures drop to a level that those in power deem too low, they take action to supply business and industry with a larger pool of people seeking employment. One of the most effective ways of doing this is increasing the cost of credit and decreasing the supply of currency. The Federal Reserve is always tinkering around with our economy in such a fashion.

That said, I don't think that Ziggy wants the free market to resolve this issue. I don't think he's interested in that at all. I could be wrong, but I suspect he'd much prefer a system where the unemployed were given jobs created for them by the government. Perhaps he'll tell us.

That would be a good question to pose to people like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Jay Rockefeller.

Oh, no. That's different. Those wealthy people used their fortunes to advance social justice (Soros funded MoveOn.org) and the redistribution of other people's wealth. Those people are off-limits and immune to criticism. It's only the people with whom he disagrees that have no right to speak freely.

No Stephanie, I am referring to the 5% of the population that bounce from job to job looking for someone to pay them to do little to nothing, hoping they can find either the job that allows them to do as little work as possible for an acceptable wage or one where they can hang around long enough to get "injured" on the job.

You see them in their early 20's with 10 to 15 jobs on their resume (if they're truthful), by their early 30's, they've spent time on workers comp or long periods on unemployment without looking for a job until they can get to the point that they find a good reason for being disabled.

I think you're referring to the group that has kids and gets on Welfare and never works and just so you understand, that is not the group that I am referring to. The workforce doesn't have to deal with those deadbeats but they do have to deal with the deadbeats I'm referring to.

From this conversation and the 3 Ziggy and I have had over the years when he makes his bullshit claim that the government purposefully keeps a segment of society from getting ahead, I take it that he means the same group I do but as he talks in circles so much, I guess I could be wrong. He'll have to clarify that.

You never say anything that doesn't lead to talking in circles Ziggy. You've been making this bullshit claim that the government is purposefully keeping a segment of society down and as such those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistence. I'm saying emphatically and unequivocally that your claim is pure and utter bullshit and that the reason you don't back it up is because you can't.

ziggy wrote:There is no particlular "Put up or shut up time"- as you and Cato demonstrate almost every day here. And there is always a time for jell-o- as almost everyone here except maybe OC and Sheik demonstrate on a regular basis.

I disagree. While I don't speak for Cato, I think I'm pretty good at 1) distinguishing between what I state is my opinion and what I believe is fact and B) I provide substantive back-up when needed thank you very much.

ziggy wrote:So those who strive mightily to maintain a "full employment" rate of four percent or higher of unemployment have failed at that goal?

What do you know that the Federal Open Market Committee does not know?

Well now, if that is a Federal Committee then it probably doesn't know very much of anything ........ but that would still be far more than you know.

Who other than you ever heard & believed anything as asinine and silly as anyone (excluding Obama & his Czars) "striving mightily to maintain a "full employment" rate of 4% (9%++) or higher of unemployment "?

ziggy wrote:None is so blind as he who refuses to see.

Are you afraid to answer or just to stupid, which is it. I asked about the moral authority to take from a productive individual and give it to a person who is unproductive. You producted some BS about how the economy is managed to always have a protion that is unemployed. What you haven't done is answer my question. Personally, I think you are afraid to answer.

Cato wrote:Are you afraid to answer or just to stupid, which is it.

Well, I have never denied being stupid. So whatever you want to believe is OK with me.

I asked about the moral authority to take from a productive individual and give it to a person who is unproductive. You producted some BS about how the economy is managed to always have a protion that is unemployed.

So how can people be economically "productive" if they are unemployed because of systematically induced unemployment?

Stephanie wrote:That said, I don't think that Ziggy wants the free market to resolve this issue. I don't think he's interested in that at all. I could be wrong, but I suspect he'd much prefer a system where the unemployed were given jobs created for them by the government. Perhaps he'll tell us.

20 years ago I might have said that government should employ the people who are not employed by the free market- who are otherwise unemployed. I do not particulary believe that today.

I believe that the system as we know it today- an economy managed to keep a handle on inflation (runaway wages and prices)- with some minimum level of "unemployment compensation" or other stipend paid to those who are deliberately and systematically locked out of employment- is maybe as viable and sustainable as we know how to make it.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:One thing the FMOC knows is that anything above 4% is hard to achieve no matter how you manipulate the numbers as 5% of the population is worthless.

What has the FMOC published to verify your opinion on this to be what they "know"?

They also know that anyone who wishes to better themself can if they so choose.

Again, what has the FMOC published to verify your opinion on this to be what they "know"?

Aaron wrote:They've published nothing that calls that segment worthless. That's my words.

So then how do we know that your "words" are what FMOC knows?

I believe that the system as we know it today- an economy managed to keep a handle on inflation (runaway wages and prices)- with some minimum level of "unemployment compensation" or other stipend paid to those who are deliberately and systematically locked out of employment- is maybe as viable and sustainable as we know how to make it.

That's as succinct and direct an answer I've ever seen you post.

I saw an article recently by an economist that made the argument that societies whose currencies were not governed by a central bank did a little better, on average, than those who did. For many years Canada did not. But unemployment would (if the system really is effective at all) have to be more volatile than it is right here and right now. By the way, even though you accept it as "maybe" the best...etc., you're still not fond of it, are you?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The tea party, if it is unified in any way, prides itself on being a populist movement. So it is odd that many of its candidates and financial backers are well-heeled and pedigreed. What, one has to ask, do these people know — or care, beyond their own political aspirations — of the struggles of working-class Americans?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Opinion/The-Populism-of-Billionaires,153110

That would be a good question to pose to people like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Jay Rockefeller.

Cato, I salute you. Having considered this for several days now, I think this response is perhaps the most appropriate one that could have been offered to my initial post on this subject thread.