Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Monopoly and monopsony are joined at the hip. If one has a monopsony on the labor to produce goods then one would have a monopoly on goods produced. I assumed you used the term monopsonistic somewhat loosely as it would otherwise not have any relevance to your discussion with longshot.

 

Nope. One is demand-side, the other is supply-side.

Nope. Skills are fungible and therefore we can work in multiple industries. It should also be noted that Burdett and Mortensen actually show how monopsony power is higher in apparently competitive industries (reflecting how wage underpayment and firm size tend to actually be negatively related)

Nope. I used it quite specifically to show how fake libertarianism can coerce an inefficient outcome. You've simply confused monopsony with monopoly.

 

More "shoulds". Since when do we have any chance? This is not "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

 

Yes, more "shoulds". That's kind of the whole point of a political discussion.

One should not initiate aggression against peaceful people. Agree? Disagree?

 

Agree, but how do we force needed and obvious reforms?

BTW, I have a bandage on my index finger. I edited my post the you quoted. It seems I "fat fingered it". I don't know if the correction would alter your reply.

 

What then are you suggesting to be the answer?

Yes.

Untrue.

I don't view taxation as a solution to growing wealth inequality.

The problem is governmental, not corporate.
You have to look at the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act combined.
The people have little contact/access with their 'representatives' in the Federal government.

Banks!

Without people there would be no problem.

Always.

I've never discredited anything which is useful. More along the lines of a NYC high rise dweller buying a Sherman tank would be wasteful and useless but would not be discrediting Sherman tanks.

 

Educate people about the need to eliminate government aggression against peaceful people.

 

Interesting reference to education programmes! Perhaps also have a summer camp with a shared brown uniform to celebrate freedom?

 

Stop being tricked. Stop begging for reforms that you'll never get. Recognize that this system is the problem. It has outlived its use and creates more problems than it solves. And then start building the new system right here in the midst of this decaying one.

-he says without qualification or evidence. You criticized me for answering without substantiation yet you do the same. Let's see you detail-out the connections and show how those 2 amendments produce those problems. Connect the dots.

Again. No substantiation. Name the country where capitalism doesn't grow and the economy is doing fine.

But it is. It has always worked and it still works in other countries.

Trouble deciding? Way back in this discussion you said "I did indeed say that "living beyond our means, not capitalism, is the cause of our problems".

So then with all the money and all the lobbyists, it's pretty obvious government serves the b biggest capitalists.

You're going in circles. Above you said the problem is governmental. Now you say that without people there would be no problem. And I guess you're right because without people there would be no population, no cities, no states, no government, no businesses, and no forum for saying dumb things.

 

Two questions for you:

1) For whose benefit does the government commit aggression against peaceful people?

2) How do you see such education spreading, and how do you see it leading to change?

Ok that was 3 questions.

 

I would have thought that those who see the use of the club and gun against peaceful people as a means to an end would be the ones wearing the brownshirts.

 

For its own and for those of special interests it favors.

Through the various communications media. Pretty much the same way all ideas spread.

Once people realize that a government is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large, it will lose its legitimacy. Then the idea of using aggression against peaceful people as a means to an end will be looked at with the same revulsion as we look back at slavery now.

 

That works both ways.
'This' system is rooted in the year 1913, Not at all the same as what preceded it.
What 'new' system are you referring to?

Not just those 2 amendments, but our fractional reserve banking system created under the Federal Reserve Act.
Government of and for the people BY the people requires representatives faithfully represent the will of their constituents.
Monies needed to pay the costs of government within each State should be acquired within each State, and monies required to fund the costs of our Federal government should be assessed each State proportionate to the number of people for which protection is being provided, with the only exception being a natural disaster or major war allowing a temporary tax on the wealthiest.
Each State would then be required to tax their constituents relative to the spending demanded within each State by a majority of that States population and repay any debts acquired without Federal assistance.
Each States government, if represented in the Senate as before, would be answerable to the State government and even if the peoples representatives in the House approved demands of their constituents to empower or raise spending at the Federal level of government which would take power or require more revenue to be collected from the State which would cause hardship on the State, the Senate would serve as a check and balance.
Fractional reserve banking is simply the driver of inflation.

Name one country whose currency buys what it bought 100 years ago, or 75 yrs ago or 50 yrs ago.

No substantiation? Raising taxes increases the wealth of others?

None at all, $21 trillion of debt should indicate living well beyond our means.
Capitalism works well when inflation is allowed to correct naturally by periods of offsetting deflation.

Government has to maintain a source from which to acquire the bulk of its revenue. How many individuals can afford or pay $12,000 a year in taxes? Or how many families of 3 persons can afford or pay $36,000 a year in taxes. The bottom 50% of tax returns for 2014 averaged about $540 in taxes. The next 25% of returns averaged about $4,125 in taxes, while the top 25% of returns averaged about $34,183 per return, the equivalent of what the Federal government spends per 2.8 members of our population.

Of course, no people would mean no government. Centralization of government is like chaining everyone together to those who administer our government and if our government jumps off a cliff we all follow behind. We need to get our Federal government under control, and then State governments, and lastly local governments if, when, and where the people who live within them find necessary.

 

You're the one referring to education programmes!

 

I think you were one who brought up the phrase "education programmes", my brownshirted friend.

So, in your avatar, you're the guy on the left, right? The guy who uses guns and clubs against peaceful people as a means to an end?

 

You and bringiton are peas in the pod aren't you? You're both reliant on using a sense of righteousness to hide from economic reality.

 

Your arguments for initiating aggression against peaceful people really all boil down to "the ends justify the means". Such an argument is very unconvincing, as it can be used to condone any number of atrocities.

 

This is just repetition of your self righteous denial of economic reality

 

"Special interests" says "big business" to me. (?)

OK.

I'm all for a greater such awakening. But I think for it to be effective it will be necessary for the public to organize, coordinate, and present a huge, broad front.

 

More of your calls for initiation of aggression against peaceful people based on your denial of economic reality to achieve your desired ends.

 

Okay

So we agree that the government is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large and that its acts of aggression against peaceful people ought to be stopped?

 

You haven't mentioned this aggression that I apparemtly call for. Let's have some detail. Try to involve economic comment for a change!

 

Certainly. One example: You call for aggression against peaceful people who pay people to perform tasks. You call for them to be aggressed against if they don't pay what you want them to pay.

 

The minimum wage which actually increases cases of mutually beneficial exchange? You only show hypocrisy!

Anything else? Something that makes sense this time!

 

So, that was the example you asked for. You want to initiate violence against peaceful people to achieve your ends, in this case exerting authority over what people pay others. And ironically, your ends are based on a denial of economic reality.