Xfinity News (AP): Davos elite: Capitalism has widened income gap

[elkabong82]

I would say that the people gaming the system have shifted pure capitalism into a more elitist form and that has widened the gap. Pure capitalism is dependent on equal access, so there actually does have to be some regulation to ensure equal access. That's not socialism, it's ensuring fair play in a competition-based economical system.

For example, in a poker game everyone stands a fair chance based on their knowledge and skills, but only a couple will actually stand a chance if they're getting away with cheating.

The right type of regulations can protect capitalism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or that the papers supporting high pay for top executives are considered to be right?

....by the people who have the money to publish those papers....i.e. the top execs who benefit the most from those papers being published.

[endzone_dave]

I think a big part of the growing income gap is the global economy. It used to be you come make good money standing in an assembly line putting things together. With people in other countries willing to do it for much less and a steady flow of unskilled labor coming across our border, that decent paying job no longer exists.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think a big part of the growing income gap is the global economy. It used to be you come make good money standing in an assembly line putting things together. With people in other countries willing to do it for much less and a steady flow of unskilled labor coming across our border who pick our vegetables, that decent paying job no longer exists.

Out sourcing US jobs has an infinitely greater impact on the gap and lack of good jobs in the US than those dirty Mexican'ts.

[GibbsFactor]

I'd like to think the framers didn't envision American Corporate Capitalism. With limited government, you'd have less chance a "speculator" would be able to influence policy simply because that policy didn't exist.

It's obvious that Washington is only working for those that can afford them. Obviously the have nots cannot afford representation on the hill. Heck, even the haves (middle class can be a have) can't afford representation on the hill. Only these companies that can afford an army of lobbyists get representation. Of course, legislation ultimately favors them. And you get what we have today. American Corporate Capitalism.

This ain't your great great great grandfathers capitalism.

I am in favor increasing capital gains rates by 30% for 1,000,000 earned. I believe that if you have income or gains of over 1 mil, you must pay 30% at a minimum. I'm sorry to those that think putting a governor on the "job makers" will make them contract. It might. But we are in serious debt and someone's going to have to get us out of it. So what if you can only by 7 Ferrari's instead of 10. Suck it up.

[Jumbo]

I'd like to think the framers didn't envision American Corporate Capitalism. <edit>
I am in favor increasing capital gains rates by 30% for 1,000,000 earned. I believe that if you have income or gains of over 1 mil, you must pay 30% at a minimum. I'm sorry to those that think putting a governor on the "job makers" will make them contract. It might. But we are in serious debt and someone's going to have to get us out of it. So what if you can only by 7 Ferrari's instead of 10. Suck it up.

A lot I agree with in that entire post, and per "Obviously the have nots cannot afford representation on the hill", I liked Stewart's line last night, "poor people have really ****ty lobbyists." Like you, I would so do the middle class.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'd like to think the framers didn't envision American Corporate Capitalism. With limited government, you'd have less chance a "speculator" would be able to influence policy simply because that policy didn't exist.

It's obvious that Washington is only working for those that can afford them. Obviously the have nots cannot afford representation on the hill. Heck, even the haves (middle class can be a have) can't afford representation on the hill. Only these companies that can afford an army of lobbyists get representation. Of course, legislation ultimately favors them. And you get what we have today. American Corporate Capitalism.

This ain't your great great great grandfathers capitalism.

I am in favor increasing capital gains rates by 30% for 1,000,000 earned. I believe that if you have income or gains of over 1 mil, you must pay 30% at a minimum. I'm sorry to those that think putting a governor on the "job makers" will make them contract. It might. But we are in serious debt and someone's going to have to get us out of it. So what if you can only by 7 Ferrari's instead of 10. Suck it up.

Who are you and what did you do with Gibbsfactor?

[mcsluggo]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/...um.Capitalism/

YOur blurb says << bla bla this slowdown has lasted longer than economists had predicted bla bla>>>


it seems to me that MOST economists were parrotting the empirical observation that historically it has taken economies 10ish years to recover from a financial crisis that has a housing component. Furthermore those analyses of historical crises focused on relatively small economies (sweden, Finland, Thailand... etc... ) that could rely on demand from teh rest of the world to continue to pull the econmies along. Since this was a housing induced meltdown in THE engine for world demand (the USA) we can only assume that the base case scenario is even longer.

so... optimistically speaking... if we get back to "long run trend" around 2017, we are ahead of the curve.

[DjTj]

We have so many regular-posting models of more the opposite, that I always enjoy (as zoony often echoes too) when DjTj brings his intelligent, informed, and behaviorally admirable participation to a thread.

I still hold the naive belief that I can actually learn something from intelligent discussion in this forum.

Our government of course has significant forms on subsidy and involvement with private corporations already.The question (for me) is if we're more productive on the world stage these days using an intervention model arguably based much more on self-gain for the individual companies and individual beneficiaries (like the politicians involved via lobbying) versus a model based more on a clear and openly acknowledged/identified-as-such government support with an overall national/social gain as the main intent (even while individuals after their own self-interests are a reality in those "commie"outfits too). It's about to which end of that line the pendulum is poised now for us and how far should it swing in the other direction.

There is no simple answer to this question because the government is unquestionably in a better position than private industry to pursue long-term goals that may be critically important but don't produce immediate profits e.g. the space program (eventually paving the way for satellites that are an essential part of the modern world) or the Manhattan Project (eventually paving the way for nuclear power). But whether a particular goal or project (e.g. clean energy, Humane Genome Project, Superconducting Super Collider, space shuttle) falls within that category is unclear.

And of course other nations take a different view where building electronics, drilling for oil, or investment banking takes on a public interest rather than a private one. What's troubling for us, as we try to get corporations out of our government, is when our corporations appear to be losing to their foreign counterparts who are only more entwined with their governments. It's not hard for American corporations asking for favors to point to their foreign competitors and say that they can't compete without some bending of the rules.

I'd like to think the framers didn't envision American Corporate Capitalism. With limited government, you'd have less chance a "speculator" would be able to influence policy simply because that policy didn't exist.

They also didn't really envision American corporations growing to be the largest in the world, or the kind of large-scale global trade we have today.

We started this country by throwing big corporate (East India Company) tea in to Boston Harbor, but now we are the home of the modern East India Companies (Walmart, Exxon, Microsoft, Apple, JP Morgan, Bank of America). Mo' money mo' problems.

[mcsluggo]

but.. overall the only logical conclusion is that we, as a world community, clearly should hunt down all of the economist dogs and kill them forthwith and free our planet from this plague of dismal demagoguery

[twa]

I am in favor increasing capital gains rates by 30% for 1,000,000 earned. I believe that if you have income or gains of over 1 mil, you must pay 30% at a minimum. I'm sorry to those that think putting a governor on the "job makers" will make them contract. It might. But we are in serious debt and someone's going to have to get us out of it. So what if you can only by 7 Ferrari's instead of 10. Suck it up.

The problem there is of course both money and the rich are mobile in many cases,and unless it is a captive market or there is a lack of better options,it will simply relocate if the incentive is there.

the inverse is true if conditions are favorable and money and the rich are drawn in.

[mcsluggo]

...and Christian white males being held back.

Ultimately, capitalism is flawed. We know that. We've always known that. By it's very definition you're going to have "haves" and "have nots." But by the same token, let's ask the USSR how communism is working out for them. My Encyclopedia Brittanicas make it sound pretty good.

this is all true, as far as it goes. But...................................

1) the choice is not Commmie Pig versus Libertarian uuber freedom das state----- there are MANY shades of grey in between.
2) as you say, there are well known flaws with capitalism. Policy cohices in a capitalist oriented economy can either exacerbate or help alleviate these flaws... and many of the changes over teh last decade or so have resulted in the former ratehr than the latter (tax cuts for the rich when the economy is already steaming along above full employment is one that quickly jumps to mind...)

---------- Post added January-25th-2012 at 10:12 PM ----------

It's not a simple question of communism vs. capitalism. It is now state capitalism vs. liberal capitalism. http://www.economist.com/node/21542924

using Russia as your example of "efficient state capitalism" is ohhhhh so incredibly ridiculous.

---------- Post added January-25th-2012 at 10:17 PM ----------

I see what you did there. Cute using "liberal" and "capitalism" together.

I guess what concerns me is this. Is there anything that was private at one point, that the federal government has taken over and run better?

given that in our system the government steps in and takes over when there is A) a market failure or B) an industry failure in a market that is considered strategically vital.... we wouldn't really expect a good self selected pool of profit centers, no?

(as opposed to the case in cleptocracies like Putin's Russia, where the state EXPLICITLY steps in and takes over in industries that have the indecency to demonstrate profit making potential....)

[Corcaigh]

but.. overall the only logical conclusion is that we, as a world community, clearly should hunt down all of the economist dogs and kill them forthwith and free our planet from this plague of dismal demagoguery

And then we can start on the lawyers.

[Bang]

This is EXACTLY why Danny Smith needs to be fired.

~Bang

[Predicto]

but.. overall the only logical conclusion is that we, as a world community, clearly should hunt down all of the economist dogs and kill them forthwith and free our planet from this plague of dismal demagoguery

And then we can start on the lawyers.

Oh noes. Please promise me you won't kill the costume designers too.