Great. Now if you spent less time posting to an Internet message board telling us all how much of our money and property you intend to help others confiscate, you could do something about it.
Incidentally, most children who grow up beneath the poverty line do not stay there, at least in this country. The United States has more income mobility than most nations. In fact, 85% of the people who were in the bottom income quintile in 1975 were in the top 3 quintiles in 1988.
That’s actually false. 85.8% of the people in the bottome 20% moved up, that includes into the 4th quintile.
Also here are some other facts.
[ul]
[li]The inflation-adjusted earnings of the median worker in 1997 were 3.1 percent lower than in 1989. Over the same period, real hourly wages stagnated or fell for the bottom 60 percent of workers, except for low-wage workers, whose wages rose 1.4 percent during that time.[/li]
[li]Median family income was $1,000 (2.3 percent) less in 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available) than in 1989. By this point in every prior recovery, the income of the typical family had surpassed its previous peak.[/li]
[li]The typical married-couple family worked 247 more hours (over six weeks) per year in 1996 than in 1989, despite an 8 percent growth in the economy’s productive capacity over the same period.[/li]
[li]Income inequality has continued to grow rapidly in the 1990s, but at a somewhat slower rate than in the 1980s.[/li]
[li]Jobs have grown more insecure in the 1990s as the share of workers in “long-term jobs” (those lasting at least 10 years) fell from 41 percent in 1979 to 35.4 percent in 1996, with the worst deterioration having taken place since the late 1980s.[/li]
[li]The typical middle-class family had nearly 3 percent less wealth in 1997 than in 1989, despite the stock market boom. This is because the richest 10 percent of households in the U.S. have reaped 85.8 percent of growth in the stock market since 1989.[/li]
[li]CEO pay continues to skyrocket, having more than doubled between 1989 and 1997, and rising to 116 times the pay of the average worker - an almost eightfold increase since 1965. The average CEO’s salary, bonus and returns from stock plans grew 100 percent between 1989 and 1997.[/li]
[li]The record profitability of companies in the 1990s has come partly at the expense of their workers. Had profitably grown at historically normal levels, hourly compensation could have been 7 percent higher in 1997 than it actually was. [/ul][/li]
And there are plenty of other statistics. But, I won’t go into those. Also, anyone who denies that having children grow up in poverty isn’t detrimental to their future chances is living in a fantasy world.
So you want to have a revolution, the purpose of which is to re-distribute the money? Seems to me that your main concern is how much money people have, or don’t have.
Seems a contradiction that you want to take away rich people’s money, but that you find it wrong to forcibley take people’s money.
I probably don’t need to tell you that are a total pie in the sky, believing in the tooth fairy utopian. Which is fine. I just don’t buy any of your solutions.
Does that imply that parents who are poor commit some sort of child abuse by having children, or that children just fall off trees?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**
**
Actually I said wars fought over money, somthing that is different. And it’s not a contracidction. If adoctor wants to end the pain of an impacted tooth, sometimes they have to cause a little pain themselves, in the long run it’s better though. In the fight to end oppression in France they oppressed the minority of the nobles. I haven’t heard you decrying that yet.
**
Nope. Not my concern at all. My main one is securing a world where the majority is in contol. I will sometimes talk about poverty and the abuses that wealthy people carry out, but that’s not my main concern.
Hey that’s ok. I don’t buy any of yours either.
**
What only two options. So I have to choose one? Either poor parents are commiting child abuse or children are growing on trees. Both seem pretty ridiculous to me. How about you Lib? Do you honestly believe those things. Or do you belive that poor children have exactly the same opportunities as the wealthy?
Maybe people who can’t afford to give their children better opportunities should wait to have them until they can. Children aren’t playthings, you know.
What Phil said.
I swear it seems like left liberals don’t understand where kids come from. Egad! Maybe they really do believe that society is a rights bearing entity rather than what it really is: a group of entities each with the same rights to what they are and what they own. It is anthropomorphizing gone mad. It’s as thought they think society gets pregnant and delivers kids to our collective care.
Scratch, if you start a war to institute your political scheme, then you are fighting over money. Every example you give about the injustices in our society have to do with money. People can’t afford this service, or that item, or this substance. The control you are asking for is manifested as money. In essence you are saying that the majority should have more and the minority less.
The peasants did violate the rights of the nobles in France. But people have a right to revolt against tyranny. I am not the one who has a problem with violence.
Scratch, IMHO what you really want is to end scarcity. This is best done through invention and economy of scale…both of which are most encouraged by a free market and performed by corporations. Without industrial farming, the poor couldn’t afford as much food as they can now.
Well, I find it pretty interesting, then, that the more conservative elements of the right wing are opposed to distribution of condoms, teaching of safe sex, and abortion. All these things would help prevent unwanted children–and the problem is especially prevalent in poorer areas. Of course, there’s the whole “teach abstinence instead” thing…but that isn’t all that realistic.
Well, you can rest easy in that I’m not opposed to any of those things.
Not saying you were…most people aren’t, really. It’s just worth noting…
BTW: I’m amused to note the relevance of my sig to the topic at hand; I didn’t even think about that when I clicked the button. 
Oh, Lordy! Don’t get me started on Conservatives! We’d have to move this to the Pit! 
OK, in an earlier thread I promised that I would post about the benefits/costs of regulation. I am doing this because it seems that there are some arguing for near-total regulation (planned economy) and some arguing for the near dismantling of all kinds of regulation. You know who you are.
Marginal Costs and Benefits
First, a concept. For the benefit of those who aren’t economists and also for those who may have forgotten:
Marginal costs are the infinitesimal extra costs (be they wealth or utility) incurred when output increases infinitesimally.
Marginal benefits are the infinitesimal extra benefits (be they wealth or utility) incurred when output increases infinitesimally.
If you have a problem with ‘infinitesimal’, instead think in terms of how many units of utility are added for one extra unit of output.
Suppose marginal benefits are larger than marginal costs. Then if output is increased by one unit, utility has a net increase. This is good. We should therefore increase output.
Suppose marginal costs are larger than marginal benefits. Then if output is decreased by one unit, utility has a net increase. This is good. We should therefore decrease output.
The optimal situation then is one for which marginal costs = marginal utility.
What is the point of this? Well regulation has marginal costs and benefits too. The optimum level of regulation is that for which the marginal costs and benefits are in synch.
Personal philosophy affects to what extent you believe the marginal costs and benefits exist and how strong they are. Clearly Oldscratch will end up firmly on the side of lots of regulation, Libertarian on the side of little. My aim with this is just to clarify.
Anyhow, on with the benefits:
Benefits of Regulation
[ul]
[li]Confidence is key to our financial system. There is always the risk of wholesale collapse of faith resulting in economic ruin. Regulation seeks to ensure that failure of one participant in the market does not threaten the whole system. Parties therefore have increased faith in participating.[/li]
[li]Asymetric information – particularly in retail markets (individuals rather than institutions). If suboptimal choices are made then we have an inefficient allocation of financial resources. This is particularly important when the choices have significant impact on the future economic welfare of individuals (think choices about investment, life assurance, pensions). A regulator can insist on full information disclosure in an understandable form.[/li]
[li]Conflicts of interest – regulation enforces ‘Chinese walls’ to stop insider information giving unfair advantage (which would cause loss of faith in the system).[/li]
[li]Negotiation – individuals are weak compared to institutions. Regulators can redress this balance, for example by insisting on price controls, regulation of selling practices, right to terminate agreements, cooling-off periods etc.[/li]
[li]Capital adequacy – (for those into Captial Asset pricing theories, this is the reduction of systematic risk). Regulation can ensure that institutions hold sufficient capital to cover their liabilities. I’m thinking in particular here of the insurance and pensions industries.[/li]
[li]Competence and Integrity of financial practicioners – Regulators will insist of qualifications and membership of a professional body and prevent and individual from working in a particular industry if they are not ‘fit and proper’ to hold that position.[/li]
[li]Compensation schemes – Regulators can insist companies pay into a central fund for compensation of those who suffer due to company failure.[/li]
[li]Stock exchange requirements – Regulator will insist that companies fulfil entry and stability criteria and give disclosure. Individuals can then invest with the confidence that the company is being monitored for wrong practice.[/li]
[li]other – market should be transparent, orderly and provide protection from disaster in the case of failure by a third party.[/li][/ul]
Phew! Well that covers the benefits. Each of the above helps to increase utility. How about the costs?
Costs of Regulation
Direct Costs:
[ul]
[li]Regulation costs money. The regulator incurs considerable costs in regulating the system[/li]
[li]Companies incur considerable costs ensuring that they comply with the regulations.[/li][/ul]
The above results in higher taxation and higher fees for consumers.
Indirect Costs:
[ul]
[li]Investors and consumers may suffer a reduction in the level of care they take with respect to their choices, eg of their financial services provider. Protection reduces adverse consequences of bad decisions.[/li]
[li]There is an undermining of the sense of professional responsibility amongst intermediaries and advisers – “if my advice is bad then they’ll still be okay”[/li]
[li]There is a reduction in the consumer protection mechanism developed by the market itself. The idea that alienating your consumers is bad business practice, so the market would develop its own (possibly more efficient) checks and measures.[/li]
[li]Reduced product innovation – companies must comply with regulation; they may be worried that new products will not stand up to this or may be unprofitable because of it.[/li]
[li]Reduced competition – regulation is a constraint on the market and causes a barrier to entry.[/li][/ul]
The above indirect costs are all examples of moral hazard – a change of behaviour for the worse due to knowing that the consequences have been dulled.
Summing up
Firstly, apologies for the length of this post. I hope however that I have helped to identify the playing field, if not the goalposts. Additions/refutations/comments are of course welcomed.
Regards,
pan
Following on from the last post (I know, I know…), it is worth considering the advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation:
Advantages
[ul]
[li]Implemented by those with the greatest incentive to achieve the maximum cost-benefit ratio.[/li]
[li]Responds rapidly to changes in market needs.[/li]
[li]Easier to persuade firms and individuals to co-operate with a self-regulatory organisation than a government bureaucracy.[/li]
[li]Governments may impose rules that are unnecessarily costly without achieving the desired aim.[/li][/ul]
Disadvantages
[ul]
[li]Closeness of regulator to the industry it is regulating. Danger that regulator accepts the industry’s point of view and is less in tune with views of third parties.[/li]
[li]Can lead to a weaker regime than is acceptable to customers and other members of the public. Even if operating efficiently, it can still lead to low public confidence. It is not enough that it is fair and objective – it must be seen to be fair and objective.[/li]
[li]May inhibit new entrants to the market by framing rules in such a way as to act as a barrier to entry.[/li]
[li]Regulatory body may be more efficiently run by achieving economies of scale through grouping its activities by function (ie regulation of all industries done centrally) rather than type of business.[/li][/ul]
As above, thoughts/comments/insults welcome.
Regards,
pan
As a conservative, I couldn’t agree more. IT is the tyranny of the conservative minority. There are many republicans who are for these things, and I am one of them.
I hope that Bush can pull the republicans to the right on fiscal policy and to the left on social policy (but not in terms of affirmative action.)
I predict that this is exactly what will happen.
First, in response to Kabbes, cause it’s easy. Nice two posts. However, I would like to point out that I’m not for slowly increasing government regulation. I’m for overthrowing the government. Given the options ‘a’ or ‘b’, I’m a ‘c’. But, very inforative posts.
**
No I’m not. That’s like saying that the French Revolution or the American Revolution were fought over money. There was an aspect of it involved, they wanted to take he money out of the hands of the nobility. But, saying that they were simply fighting over money is a gross misrepresentation. If we, at this instance, took all the money in the world and gave everyone an equal share, nothing much would change.
**
No.
[quote]
**
The peasants did violate the rights of the nobles in France. But people have a right to revolt against tyranny. I am not the one who has a problem with violence.
[/quote**
Nice to see you talking some sense for a change 
(just kidding). but you raise a good question/point. If we had an uprising in this country, where the majority of the working class revolted against the government… Would you be supportive of the tyranny of the majority, which would be largely non-violent and democratic. Or would you support the violent undemocratic tyranny of the minority as happened in Chile, Spain, and Germany among other places.
I will admit, as I have before, that capitalism has a progressive quality. It’s better than what came before. However there is still much lacking in it. Any system that puposely keeps people unemployed is just slightly fucked in my opinion. And I’ve already gone over many of my other objections.
Oops sorry. I believe my brain is slightly more addled than normal.
When I replied No to Mr. Z, the full response should have read something like this.
**
No. If Iraqi children had more money they would still be dying from the sanctions. Money will not erase racism, sexism, etc. People with money still get lousy HMO service. The only way to change it is to give the majority control over the means of production and over the government. Both of those are non-existant right now. I’m saying that the majority should be freer, have actuall control over their lives and society, and shouldn’t have to suffer scarcity.
Well scratch Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. I for one am calling for the overthrow of the tyrannical viruses and bacteria that have taken over our lives.
Personally, I would take up arms to avoid whatever wierdness you want to inflict on society with your ideas of "the control of the people over the means of production. Actually, the coprorations of the world are currently amassing at the boarder to erase all control by the people. But then, you knew that already.
Excellent. That’s exactly why most people joined the fascists. Nice one Mr. Z. Nice.
Kabbe- a few nitpicks. Global maxima aren’t necessarily critical points, and critical points aren’t necessarily global maxima. And, of course, regulation isn’t completely continuous. These points probably won’t relevant in finding the optimal level of regulation, but they should be included in any rigorous mathematical examination of the situation.