Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

It's not decoupled for the rich. It's still associated with the rich, the upper middle class and the middle class as well. How does a society continue to grow and advance with an effortless based economy that no longer has any financial initiative?

The same way it has done so throughout history. Just because some financial incentive can have social benefits does not mean more is better. Things that are good in at one level can be harmful at higher levels like vitamins or medications. If you have the money providing your children with some spending money or perhaps co-signing for a car loan/insurance can be a good thing, but too much and you could spoil them. The business and financial elites fifty years ago did a better job at enabling prosperity that those of today and yet earned far less. It's quote possible that the business and financial elites of today are spoiled, and that's why they don't perform as well as their predecessors.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of course, they also have to live in a society that is crumbling, and one that can go violent if the many are dispossessed and desperate. Why are a few more trinkets -- even valuable trinkets -- important enough to risk anyone's personal security, especially for those with so much already?

Rational behavior, especially in contemplation of the consequences of horrible behavior for which one thinks oneself unaccountable if one sees oneself in an all-powerful elite, is not a reasonable assumption. Ruling elites often assume that the police and the military can squelch any revolt because such people are degraded into dependent retainers.

If revolutions of such disparate people as Vladimir Lenin and Corazon Aquino can allow us to derive any conclusion, it is that once the revolutionaries start paying the police and the soldiers or make convincing promises to do so, the revolution is decided.

God help us if America ever goes that bad, with cops and soldiers being told to prepare themselves to mow down peaceful protesters. But if I were the revolutionary leader, my first promises would be to the police and the military -- that they can have more dignity after the revolution by not being seen as retainers of selfish plutocrats or cruel kleptocrats, and that the first step to achieving such dignity is to disobey those who have given cruel and unconscionable orders and that the second step is to arrest such people. Then, and only then, can I have the revolution that fits my core beliefs, whether those be Marxist or liberal.

The selfish plutocrats will find that they can't take the land with them and that the currency of the old era is worthless*... and their bank accounts are frozen. Add to that, their precious heirlooms have to be sold cheaply because so many are selling and few are buying.

*Coins and small-denomination banknotes of Imperial Russia are valuable for numismatic purposes, but large-denomination banknotes with pictures of Nicholas II on them are practically worthless.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Government driven economics, baseless driven economics and effortless entitlement programs is voodoo economics.

No, because government spending helps the economy, by priming the pump. Those who receive the spending spend in turn. The government has always been a vital part of the economy since the days of hunting and gathering. It's only crazy Republicans today, hooked on utopian libertarian ideas and baited by racial resentments, who think that government is not part of economics (or more-correctly, libertarians think government is part of the economy, but shouldn't be).

But not taxing the rich at a higher rate, and cutting off government programs, in the hope that the "job creaters" will cause the money they "save" in those taxes and dropped regulations will trickle down to the 99%, IS voodoo economics, and was properly so-named. Giving the money to the rich, in lower taxes and subsidies, as the representatives of the rich (Republicans) want, does NOT trickle down to the rest of us. It is spent acquiring other businesses and sending jobs overseas, buying stuff for themselves, speculating and gambling, automating and otherwise cutting jobs, etc. "Job creaters" are job-killers, in fact, and Republican policies enable their "work."

Entitlement programs are called that because people are entitled to them, because they have paid for them. Government safety nets protect all of us, not just those who can't or "won't" work. It is better to have safety nets that can help you, than to expect total self-reliance. Total self-reliance is voodoo thinking. It does not exist. We are all in this together, as Democrats rightly point out, and as Republicans refuse to realize.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

It's not decoupled for the rich. It's still associated with the rich, the upper middle class and the middle class as well. How does a society continue to grow and advance with an effortless based economy that no longer has any financial initiative?

The success of an economy depends upon the dedicated toil of non-elites. Maybe a slave system like the planter order of the Old South can threaten the use of the lash, or the slave order of Hitlerland can kill people who falter at mandated efforts. Such still wears people down, and productivity has its limitations. Honest pay for honest efforts, whether as well-paid industrial workers or as small-scale entrepreneurs with the incentive of profit, works.

British, American, and Canadian workers were far more efficient than their German and especially slave counterparts despite the brutal management characteristic of Nazi-dominated industry. Such would give the British, Canadian, and American forces more copious supplies for the victory that they eventually won. Besides, slave laborers and people avoiding call-ups for slave labor make an excellent fifth column for any conqueror.

It's not only industrial workers. During the Civil War areas liberated by the Union Army became safe havens for slaves escaping the plantations that provided the food for the Confederate Army. Escaped slaves got honest pay for building fortifications and for working the ports of liberated New Orleans and other cities. By the end of the Civil War the escaped, emancipated ex-slaves were better fed than Confederate troops.

...One can create models of economic activity, but without devoted and motivated work behind those models, those models are as suitable for realization as the architectural or engineering rendering of the artist M. C. Escher:



(The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies just about as well to economics as to classical mechanics, which should not surprise those who recognize that much of the basis of quantitative economics was developed by academics in chemistry) . The humor in Escher's renderings is evident to anyone who did well in high-school physics.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies just about as well to economics as to classical mechanics, ...

One has to be cautious when invoking the Second Law of Thermo in more subjective subjects. There are constraints and assumptions that go with Thermo that aren't well understood by layfolk. What most think the Second Law of Thermo says, is that stuff just gets more disordered over time. There's a bit more to it than that.

Originally Posted by TnT

One has to be cautious when invoking the Second Law of Thermo in more subjective subjects. There are constraints and assumptions that go with Thermo that aren't well understood by layfolk. What most think the Second Law of Thermo says, is that stuff just gets more disordered over time. There's a bit more to it than that.

I think I have a justification. Every object of marketable value and every productive process tends to deteriorate or become increasingly ineffective (easily one possible definition of 'disorderly') over time unless energy is put into it. But maintenance, renovation, and improvement all have real costs, too, and investment in one thing means disorder elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The same way it has done so throughout history. Just because some financial incentive can have social benefits does not mean more is better. Things that are good in at one level can be harmful at higher levels like vitamins or medications. If you have the money providing your children with some spending money or perhaps co-signing for a car loan/insurance can be a good thing, but too much and you could spoil them. The business and financial elites fifty years ago did a better job at enabling prosperity that those of today and yet earned far less. It's quote possible that the business and financial elites of today are spoiled, and that's why they don't perform as well as their predecessors.

The business and financial elites are more detached than they were 60 years ago. Today, the bulk of them are workers and not business owners. The bulk of the business owners today are groups of distant shareholders who aren't emotionally attached to the business or its workers. The elites aren't spoiled. The elites have a job to do for the companies and the shareholders who employ them today.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The success of an economy depends upon the dedicated toil of non-elites. Maybe a slave system like the planter order of the Old South can threaten the use of the lash, or the slave order of Hitlerland can kill people who falter at mandated efforts. Such still wears people down, and productivity has its limitations. Honest pay for honest efforts, whether as well-paid industrial workers or as small-scale entrepreneurs with the incentive of profit, works.

British, American, and Canadian workers were far more efficient than their German and especially slave counterparts despite the brutal management characteristic of Nazi-dominated industry. Such would give the British, Canadian, and American forces more copious supplies for the victory that they eventually won. Besides, slave laborers and people avoiding call-ups for slave labor make an excellent fifth column for any conqueror.

It's not only industrial workers. During the Civil War areas liberated by the Union Army became safe havens for slaves escaping the plantations that provided the food for the Confederate Army. Escaped slaves got honest pay for building fortifications and for working the ports of liberated New Orleans and other cities. By the end of the Civil War the escaped, emancipated ex-slaves were better fed than Confederate troops.

...One can create models of economic activity, but without devoted and motivated work behind those models, those models are as suitable for realization as the architectural or engineering rendering of the artist M. C. Escher:



(The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies just about as well to economics as to classical mechanics, which should not surprise those who recognize that much of the basis of quantitative economics was developed by academics in chemistry) . The humor in Escher's renderings is evident to anyone who did well in high-school physics.

The American, Canadian and British workers outnumbered the German workers and the slave workers. Plus, the American, Canadian and British factories weren't getting pounded and relocated by bombing like the Germans were. Plus, the products turned out by American mass production were simpler, engineered less advanced and had more interchangeable parts than the German products as well.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Government driven economics, baseless driven economics and effortless entitlement programs is voodoo economics.

Government can invest in schools, streets, and sewers... generally the most productive activities even if they are unglamorous. Show projects are of course low in yield for the cost and wasteful in cost. War? War can stimulate an economy, but not very effectively for the monetary expenditure... and today the cost includes those of coffins of soldiers who died for their countries. Of course, losing a war to an enemy who would dispossess and enslave the defeated people is a bad idea.

I'd prefer that we had an economy based upon solid pay, savings, and investment instead of monetary legerdemain. But in view of the sorts of people who dominate American politics we are better off to have an economy bloated with monetary expansion despite low real wages than to have a constrained economy with low real wages and mass unemployment. We certainly don't want an economic order that resembles the Marxist stereotype of early capitalism.

Effortless entitlement programs? People generally earned their Social Security and Medicare... and if we have to choose between welfare and mass starvation there is but one moral choice.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The American, Canadian and British workers outnumbered the German workers and the slave workers. Plus, the American, Canadian and British factories weren't getting pounded and relocated by bombing like the Germans were. Plus, the products turned out by American mass production were simpler, engineered less advanced and had more interchangeable parts than the German products as well.

The Luftwaffe was bombing the Hell out of Britain in late 1940 and early 1941. The greater interchangeability of parts (and ammo) made maintenance and supply much easier for the US. The Liberty Ships of the US Navy were terribly unsophisticated, but sheer numbers of vessels originally designed for rum-running were something that the Germans did not think of.

But let's remember that the British recognized the concept of diminishing returns and actually cut back hours in munitions plants when they found that the last hour of work hurt the other hours. Contrast what the Nazis did in working people to exhaustion on short rations. So what? One could always replace one Polish slave with another. Rationality works more effectively than cruelty.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Government can invest in schools, streets, and sewers... generally the most productive activities even if they are unglamorous. Show projects are of course low in yield for the cost and wasteful in cost. War? War can stimulate an economy, but not very effectively for the monetary expenditure... and today the cost includes those of coffins of soldiers who died for their countries. Of course, losing a war to an enemy who would dispossess and enslave the defeated people is a bad idea.

I'd prefer that we had an economy based upon solid pay, savings, and investment instead of monetary legerdemain. But in view of the sorts of people who dominate American politics we are better off to have an economy bloated with monetary expansion despite low real wages than to have a constrained economy with low real wages and mass unemployment. We certainly don't want an economic order that resembles the Marxist stereotype of early capitalism.

Effortless entitlement programs? People generally earned their Social Security and Medicare... and if we have to choose between welfare and mass starvation there is but one moral choice.

If we get to the point where you have to choose between keeping your social security and medicare benefits or the welfare programs, which would you choose?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

It's not decoupled for the rich.

On the contrary, not only is it decoupled (income and work, that is) for the rich, but it always has been. Profit comes from other people's work, not one's own. The upper reaches of the economy make most of their money from returns on investments, not from pay for their labor, even if they have jobs at all, which of course many do. But not all.

How does a society continue to grow and advance with an effortless based economy that no longer has any financial initiative?

Innovation and creativity will continue to be rewarded, at least for now. Those are very difficult to automate. It's only work that's becoming superfluous. Speaking as someone who puts a lot of effort into creativity and innovation, that ain't work. It's fun.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Luftwaffe was bombing the Hell out of Britain in late 1940 and early 1941. The greater interchangeability of parts (and ammo) made maintenance and supply much easier for the US. The Liberty Ships of the US Navy were terribly unsophisticated, but sheer numbers of vessels originally designed for rum-running were something that the Germans did not think of.

But let's remember that the British recognized the concept of diminishing returns and actually cut back hours in munitions plants when they found that the last hour of work hurt the other hours. Contrast what the Nazis did in working people to exhaustion on short rations. So what? One could always replace one Polish slave with another. Rationality works more effectively than cruelty.

We weren't directly involved in the war during 1940 and early 1941. Did the Luftwaffe still bomb the hell out of Britain in 1942 or were they busy defending their cities and troops from getting the hell bombed out of them? I'm sure the British recognized that our workers were directly involved in the war effort and their workers didn't need to work overtime to supply their troops any longer. After all, the American workers at that time were now working around the clock to supply the whole war effort vs working enough to sustain Britain's war effort and it's survival.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Luftwaffe was bombing the Hell out of Britain in late 1940 and early 1941. The greater interchangeability of parts (and ammo) made maintenance and supply much easier for the US. The Liberty Ships of the US Navy were terribly unsophisticated, but sheer numbers of vessels originally designed for rum-running were something that the Germans did not think of.

But let's remember that the British recognized the concept of diminishing returns and actually cut back hours in munitions plants when they found that the last hour of work hurt the other hours. Contrast what the Nazis did in working people to exhaustion on short rations. So what? One could always replace one Polish slave with another. Rationality works more effectively than cruelty.

I have read that British war production peaked at 12 hours/day( 84 hours/week).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

On the contrary, not only is it decoupled (income and work, that is) for the rich, but it always has been. Profit comes from other people's work, not one's own. The upper reaches of the economy make most of their money from returns on investments, not from pay for their labor, even if they have jobs at all, which of course many do. But not all.



Innovation and creativity will continue to be rewarded, at least for now. Those are very difficult to automate. It's only work that's becoming superfluous. Speaking as someone who puts a lot of effort into creativity and innovation, that ain't work. It's fun.

Profit comes from management and quality of employees. A dip shit can work all day long and not earn a cent of profit for a person or a company that doesn't care about profit. How much should we invest in the dip shit working for a dip shit or a dig shit company? The bulk of workers have a hard time managing themselves, their lives and their check books and aren't interested in management positions or ownership positions. BTW, it's fun when ones creativity and innovation is generally appreciated or accepted without much work and delivers some positive results either financially or emotionally.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Profit comes from management and quality of employees.

Which you can hire someone else to take care of. See the pattern here? The rich make money on their money. The rest of us make money on our work. If we start getting paid without working, we'll all be in the same situation (in that respect) as the rich have always been.

BTW, it's fun when ones creativity and innovation is generally appreciated or accepted without much work and delivers some positive results either financially or emotionally.

I find that writing stories (which is my version) always pays off emotionally. I wouldn't mind if it paid better financially than it has so far, but this is definitely something I'd do for free -- I almost do.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Which you can hire someone else to take care of. See the pattern here? The rich make money on their money. The rest of us make money on our work. If we start getting paid without working, we'll all be in the same situation (in that respect) as the rich have always been.

True, I could hire and pay a manager to do my job as CEO and manage her/him and those below them instead of managing the entire company myself. See the pattern here? My job shifts to managing the CEO that I hired to run the company. We all make money on our work.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I find that writing stories (which is my version) always pays off emotionally. I wouldn't mind if it paid better financially than it has so far, but this is definitely something I'd do for free -- I almost do.

That's fine. I'm glad you're able to do something constructive for yourself that pleases yourself.

Originally Posted by radind

I have read that British war production peaked at 12 hours/day( 84 hours/week).

The Germans went far over that -- and stayed there. Much of the work of slaves was designed to kill them from overwork.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

True, I could hire and pay a manager to do my job as CEO and manage her/him and those below them instead of managing the entire company myself.

If you actually are the CEO of a big corporation, and aren't just stating a hypothetical, you know that:

1) Your income from investments far exceeds your salary;

2) Your labor for the company, while important, is quite replaceable and also represents a small minority of the total; and

3) Thus, you could not work at all and still make most of the income you do.

This is what I'm saying. The very rich don't see income as a product of work, because for them it mostly isn't. The only reason it is for the non-rich is that most of us don't have enough capital to invest and live off the investments. Do rich people work? Some don't, but most do, especially when you count charitable activities and creative work. Since rich people, who already don't need to do anything productive to live extremely well, tend to do productive things nonetheless, the fear that the rest of us, if placed in the same situation of non-need, would sit around, watch the tube, and drink beer all day, can be seen as unrealistic.

Unless the economy goes into a recession over the next year and a half, Hillary Clinton is probably going to win the presidential election. The United States has polarized into stable voting blocs, and the Democratic bloc is a bit larger and growing at a faster rate.

Of course, not everybody who follows politics professionally believes this. Many pundits feel the Democrats’ advantage in presidential elections has disappeared, or never existed. “The 2016 campaign is starting on level ground,” argues David Brooks, echoing a similar analysis by John Judis. But the evidence for this is quite slim, and a closer look suggests instead that something serious would have to change in order to prevent a Clinton victory. Here are the basic reasons why Clinton should be considered a presumptive favorite:

1. The Emerging Democratic Majority is real.



(Democrats simply need get out the vote, and 2016 will be at the least a repeat of 2012...)

2. No, youngsters are not turning Republican.



(Chait does not identify generations as Howe and Strauss do... but Republicans have an edge only among the Silent and early Boomers. This bodes ill for Republicans for at least the next five years).

3. Clinton isn't that unpopular.

(Although her favorables are evening out, those of all potential Republican nominees are worse).

4. Obama is trending up.



(Not bad for being frustrated at every turn by a Party that absolutely refuses to cooperate with him on anything -- he can't be wrong 100% of the time -- and copious poison pen [or more reflecting contemporary technology, "poison mike"] assaults on his policies and personality. At this point the Republicans do not seem in position to exploit an unpopular failure of a President as challengers were capable of going after the unpopular incumbent in 1952, 1980, 1992, or 2008. Republicans are seen culpable for the absence of legislative successes of anyone).

5. Is it time for a change?

(The electorate is too polarized to change its mind, barring some unforeseen calamity).

6. There's no alternative.

"...The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics. There is only one choice for voters who want a president who accepts climate science and rejects voodoo economics, and whose domestic platform would not engineer the largest upward redistribution of resources in American history."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ng-to-win.html

For discussion of the "Democratic firewall" in Presidential elections:

A composite of Presidential elections, 1992-2012:



Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race.
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race.
White -- always went with the winner
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all but one election, but in that exception went for the Republican
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green)
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race.
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race.

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha on the Iowa state line.

There is no marked drift away from the Democratic Party in Presidential elections in any state in deep red.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If you actually are the CEO of a big corporation, and aren't just stating a hypothetical, you know that:

1) Your income from investments far exceeds your salary;

2) Your labor for the company, while important, is quite replaceable and also represents a small minority of the total; and

3) Thus, you could not work at all and still make most of the income you do.

This is what I'm saying. The very rich don't see income as a product of work, because for them it mostly isn't. The only reason it is for the non-rich is that most of us don't have enough capital to invest and live off the investments. Do rich people work? Some don't, but most do, especially when you count charitable activities and creative work. Since rich people, who already don't need to do anything productive to live extremely well, tend to do productive things nonetheless, the fear that the rest of us, if placed in the same situation of non-need, would sit around, watch the tube, and drink beer all day, can be seen as unrealistic.

What you do if you didn't have to work? I'd spend the bulk of my time hunting and fishing and spending quality time with a woman or two and fucking around on the internet doing stuff like this. I'm the CEO and majority shareholder of a small business (S-corp) and a very skilled worker as well. As the CEO, I sign all legal documents and represent the company in all it's business and legal dealings. As the owner, I back up/secure the company financially with personal assets and provide extra working capital or investment capital as it's needed. The way I see it, the money earned while working, the future proceeds accumulated from/for working and whatever else that is gained financially by working are all tied to working and therefore very hard to decouple.

Hillary Clinton may or may not be a popular as Obama among younger and non-white voters. But if she is not as popular in that demographic, she could more than make up for it as the first woman president. Independent and even some Republican women will vote for her, even secretly. Hillary's appeal to women voters could be nothing short of spectacular.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary Clinton may or may not be a popular as Obama among younger and non-white voters. But if she is not as popular in that demographic, she could more than make up for it as the first woman president. Independent and even some Republican women will vote for her, even secretly. Hillary's appeal to women voters could be nothing short of spectacular.

Depending on who the larger 3rd parties not to mention the GOP put in the ring, heck, I might vote for her!

I see no cause to see that she would do as badly among (Bill) Clinton-but-not-Obama voters. Showing the states in green from the above map, I am guessing that Barack Obama did unusually badly for a Democrat in the states in green. How badly?


Year \\ State AR KY LA MO TN WV US
1972 -- McGovern 31 35 28 38 30 37 38
1988 -- Mondale 38 39 38 40 42 35 41
2004 -- Kerry 45 40 42 46 43 43 48
2012 -- Obama 37 37 41 44 39 35 51

Numbers under the states' postal abbreviations are percentages for the Democrat that year. "US" is for the United States at large.

All of these states, which gave execrable results for George McGovern in 1972, went to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
All of these states, which gave execrable results for Walter Mondale in 1988, went to Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

No state goes from ultra-conservative to 'liberal', at least in economics in one election and stays there indefinitely. These states seem to swing wildly. Politicians who offend the cultural sensibilities of Backwoods America (Louisiana is more Deep South than the others) lose these states -- often catastrophically.

All of these states have a populist history. They swing wildly based, it seems, against what they see as politicians seeming too cerebral. (Carter and Clinton were smart folks, but they also played the plain-folk game well).