I think there are a lot of benefits to capitalism. Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element. But capitalism does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the unprotected are abused or that our citizens are not educated. Capitalism just cares about profit. I recognize that profit and incentive are important and need to be maintained for an effective economy. But I also believe people have a value that is not simply a function of the current market value for their skills or services. I recognize that clean air and water have values over just profit margins. I like the fact that hordes of the aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck are not living under freeways begging for food at stoplights, that our air and water are cleaner, that workers and investors and consumers have some basic rights and protections against sweatshops and ripoff and frauds, that people don't bleed to death outside a hospital because they don't have health care coverage, and that a little boy doesn't have to forego education because his parent is too poor. And so I believe that society is enhanced when you provide social programs and regulations that limit some of the defects of laizzes-faire capitalism. So in my view, to have an optimal system for Americans, we have system that provides tremendous wealth and rewards for production and adding economic benefit, but as quid pro quo for living in a society that provides this benefit, the quid pro quo is that you share a portion of it for systems that apply to the benefit of others so they have the same opportunity, or at least a marginally decent standard of living and share in the growth of the economy. And a benefit to all is we don't have to see grannie living in a cardboard box under the freeway. Furthermore, with growing middle class incomes comes more spending increasing growth and profit to benefit all. And that is a fair deal, in my mind.
There was definitely a foundational change of policy in the early 1980s that has gone more or less unabated since then. Microsoft is just one example, not representative of the entire economy. We have seen less economic growth in the past two decades. 70% of the economy is based on consumer spending. The middle classes are the great engine of spending. So when our policies stunt the growth of middle class incomes, it should be no surprise that we see economic growth slow as well. No.
totally wrong of course. if one company cares about its profits and its competitor cares about its customers guess which one will go bankrupt. Guess what they teach you in MBA school class one day one??
Companies care about customers to the extent that they can make a sale which increases profits. But if that customer is dying outside a hospital because he doesn't have health insurance, the companies couldn't care less.
Please elaborate. We might just have an agreement. I do believe those who remember the fifties remember a much more egalitarian .
So heavily taxing the unwealthy is a way to close the gap? That makes no sense As they put up the risk and should But there isn't. It is the massive creation of currency and the avaiability to the ultra rich at minimal cost, with vast leverage causing unstable economic conditions, and government back stops when they implode their portfolios that is driving the wealth gap. Failing to tax the **** out of a guy making a few hundred grand is not the cause of the wealth gap
Elaborate on what? I posted the chart showing income share of the top 10% vs bottom 90%. The bottom 90% shared in the growth of the economy until the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. Here's some more stats: Family median income 2012 dollars http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls Year - income 2012 62,241 1979 57,734 1953 31,929 In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%. In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%. That equates to 0.25% growth per year. http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4% In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9% That equates to 2.75% annual GDP growth. The real income of (the bottom of the) top 5% grew 308% in that same time period. That is 4.5% annual growth of the top 5%. http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/ The trillions of growth in income and wealth have not been shared with the middle classes since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.
absurd!! as if capitalism is supposed to replace mothers taking care of their babies or take care of their spiritual life. Capitalism is not supposed to care about most things
defects??? what are you are commie? Communism just starved 120 million to death while Republican capitalism just saved another 120 million from slow starvation and you talk about capitalism's defects? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
perhaps but since liberals love using the taxing power think we should encourage them to use to encourage success rather than failure
total liberal lie of course. Top 1% pay 44% of taxes now but only 22% under Reagan. There was revolution under Reagan taxing and spending went up!! Who told to you tell that lie?
Exactly why we need social programs and mechanisms to more fairly distribute the income that all workers help produce.
Strange, you seem to know what I'm talking about, yet asked what it was I was talking about. You Krugman worshipers are always looking to blame your failed results on innocent tax payers
I've put the stats as the sources for the figures. Do you have any argument other than to call me a liar? Bogus figures on your part. But the top 1% is getting twice as large a piece of the total US gross personal income pie, so it is completely reasonable that they should be paying twice the amount of taxes. In fact, more, arguably, since everyone else (bottom 90%) is getting less.
