Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Ok, so I understand what you mean when you say "privilege". I think I would use the qualifier "economic" or "economic privilege" when using the term. Personally, I think there is a lot of "cultural baggage" attached to the term given recent uses of the term with respect to statements like "white privilege". I think the term "privilege" tends to foster resentment and I don't think it's the best way to approach the problem if actually solving the problem is the goal.

Having said that, I was at the local high school the other day with some children where there is a running track with several lanes (just like you see in the Olympics). As I'm sure you are aware the starting points of each lane are staggered with the outside lane starting ahead of the other runners. The children (who were young) were only able to process what they saw in front of them and they felt it was unfair to start the outside runner so far head.

This is an exercise in equity vs equality. We stagger the lanes because it's obvious that equity is more important than equality at the start. The Children were demanding equality oblivious to the reality each runner faces.

This is exactly what we have today. People who either cannot see the problem of equality or who simply don't care.

My approach to this problem focuses less on the injustice of the issue and focuses more on how EVERYONE is better off under a system of equity.

 

Well, an understanding of our own nature is obviously important.

Empirically, you can see how vigorously people resist redundancy or displacement,
or how much they appreciate the chance to participate in rewarding employment.

{Prince Charles has apparently refurbished a formerly aristocratic 18th century house
(Dumfries House) in a depressed mining area of Scotland with high youth unemployment.
The manner in which the youth have responded to new employment possibilities created
by the project demonstrates a fundamental desire of people to participate.]

Inadequate proposition, in the real world (see the Dumfries House example above) .

The responsibility is contained in a two-way process between the individual and the community

I disagree with the first part of that sentence (except for the most-severely disabled).

As to the 'value' of an individual's participation, that can be adjusted to above poverty level, provided
you adjust your economic model to allow it.

(Is Loyd Blankfein's participation , whose company needed a taxpayer funded bailout during the GFC,
worth a thousand times that of his office cleaner? It's an insane proposition)

 

I would instead say that 'The responsibility is contained in a two-way process between the individuals living in the community.'

In the first part of my sentence "Not everyone is capable of participating" I was referring solely to those who are physically/mentally incapacitated.

The 'value' of an individual in a community is the sum total of of what their employer is willing to pay and what aid/assistance other members of the community are freely willing to contribute to retain them as a member of the community.

If the company, Goldman Sachs in that case, is/was willing to pay him a thousand or even more times that of his office cleaner I have no complaint. Personally, I would rather government refrained from bailing out any business or individual, leaving it to the private sector if they wish to do so.

 

The first part of that sentence suggests a willingness to acquiesce in gross misallocation of resources (we agreed - theoretically at least - there are sufficient resources to eliminate poverty, but resources are not infinite); the second part avoids the fact that govt. was forced to bail out private sector financial institutions during the GFC, unless you would also acquiesce in the massive social upheaval that would have followed the collapse of the global economy.

 

Let's see: lower business taxes, lower wages, less govt. regulation. But notice Trump does not seem all that confident with his (projected) supply-side plan; he's already accusing successful free-traders like China and Germany of unfair play despite their WTO membership. Meantime poor global economic conditions are resulting in loss of confidence in the political process everywhere.

If only supply-side actually worked in the real world - of course everyone would embrace it whole-heartedly.
But as George Blackford pointed out in his recently quoted article (above), supply-side must fail amid the complexities of real economic life.

 

You clearly know nothing about supply side principles, objectives, and results.

Supply side economic policies result in economic growth rates ~ 3 times that of Obamanomics and Western European economics.

 

Mostly true, and yet Wall Street insists on massive immigration and millions of green cards anyway, so we don't have to care about them or their needs, they're creating their won serious political problems and problems of those kind never work out well, and no, babbling ideological platitudes and memes about 'free markets n stuff' isn't going to do a damn bit of good against the kind of existential realities generated by mindless self-indulgence and narcissism, and hiding behind private armies in gated communities isn't going to help, either.

 

Mostly true, and yet Wall Street insists on massive immigration and millions of green cards anyway, so we don't have to care about them or their needs, they're creating their won serious political problems and problems of those kind never work out well, and no, babbling ideological platitudes and memes about 'free markets n stuff' isn't going to do a damn bit of good against the kind of existential realities generated by mindless self-indulgence and narcissism, and hiding behind private armies in gated communities isn't going to help, either.

 

Triplpost

 

DBlpost

 

This is actually pretty good for a short piece. It certainly meshes with the problems Robert Morris faced when he was chosen to figure out how to finance the American Revolution, but was supposed to do it without any tax revenues, which of course was a very formidable proposition. His only viable solution was of course one, to finance some of it himself, and he wasn't that rich, and two, form a bank. Contrary to many Americans' belief, the Bank he formed was a huge success, and still has the same name today, and Andrew Jackson's hatred of banks was badly misplaced, based entirely on his own incompetent failure at speculation.

 

But, of course, there would be Dollars.

Currency is simply a medium used to conduct and facilitate trade. The intrinsic value of the currency is related to the GDP.

 

Money is Capital, when it is used to generate income. I'm not seeing where Capitalism or competition negates the formation of monopolies. Plenty of monopolies have existed, or do exist today.

Wealth is acquired. You have to want to acquire Wealth in order to have Wealth. Acquiring Wealth is a personal choice. Many people have no desire to acquire Wealth for any number of reasons, including the fact that acquiring Wealth may cause "personal hardships." One can spend $120/month on cable/satellite TV, or one can use that $120/month to purchase stocks or save it to purchase property that would create Wealth and also perhaps generate Income (in the case of Rental Property).

 

What exactly are you looking at when you "look around?"

Well, the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973 would see to disprove that statement.

That more or less is true, especially with the Internet availability.

External costs can be built into pricing. External benefits are effectively a windfall for benefactors.

The Poor™ would be an example of group who consistently behave irrationally.

 

Money is capital in a limited sense - to purchase raw materials to be processed using capital equipment and human capital for resale which generates income as you point out.

Governments are the only entity that can create monopolies. If a certain company does produce a product exclusively at a profit then competitors will enter the market with improvements in process or technology to produce that product at lower prices. Monopolies may exist for "short" periods of time but in a true free market system without gov interference competitors will enter the market and the original company may actually go out of business if they cannot compete. That's of course Schumpeter's creative destruction.

Wealth is produced. Most people do so by trading their human capital for wages which are used to purchase houses, cars, bank accounts, stocks, etc ...

 

False.

Patent pooling and harassing smaller poorer companies with frivolous lawsuits is very effective at bankrupting competitors; just ask Apple, Microsoft, and Intel.

Unequal bargaining power makes that a very lop-sided 'trade', and essentially worthless as a 'talkng point'.

 

Let me clarify and I'll wait for your response before I say more.

Without debt, there would be no US government dollars

As a minor point of correction, the value of the US dollar is extrinsic, not intrinsic. Having said that, I think what you're trying to say, and I invite you to correct me, is that at least part of the value of the dollar is proportional to what it can buy.

 

What resources are you referring to? How are you implying such resources were grossly misallocated?
What resources are you referring to that would eliminate poverty?
When you claim government was 'forced' to bail out private sector financial institutions, was that money not provided in the form of a loan, to be repaid?
As I said, I have no complaint on how a private business puts to use the money it earns in carrying out its business, period. Speaking about misallocation of resources, in which I am forced to unwillingly acquiesce, would have to refer to government who alone has the power to confiscate from me money/wealth that I have lawfully earned.

 

Then why isn't supply side adopted everywhere?

 

And this is gov creating monopolies. ^^

 

Free market economic policies/supply side economics (which you still do not understand) and the process is documented in the book "The Commanding Heights - The Battle for the World Economy."

 

"Supply side" is an ideological position, not an economic position.

 

Another ^^ who does not understand supply side economic policies.

 

I think it was Einstein who said, if you can't explain something in a way that others can understand it, you don't understand it.

Can you explain supply side to us? Convince me.

 

I have no interest in convincing you. Do your homework on the subject.