4 ms·

The miscalculation that I believe economists are making is the massive shift in leverage between the laborers and the owners. Historically, the two were balance

The miscalculation that I believe economists are making is the massive shift in leverage between the laborers and the owners. Historically, the two were balanced to the point that creating greater economic growth would tip the scales in the laborers' favor, thus increasing wages and inflation. What's happening now is that, due to many factors including outsourcing, illegal immigration, lobbying(bribery), capital concentration, anti-union legislation, anti-small business legislation, and a lot more, the scales are tipped so far in big business's favor that monetary policy is having a limited effect. I honestly don't know if this trend can be reversed without something major happening.

aswanson 9y ago
That sounds like a suggestion that something very bad has to happen.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Nothing _has_ to happen. Mass media makes propaganda much easier to spread, and I consider it very likely that nothing will happen and inequality will strengthen for a long time. My point is that the system seems to be stuck in a positive feedback loop where greater capital concentration strengthens the system that created capital concentration in the first place. _Something_ would need to facilitate the movement out of that loop, and historically events required to lower inequality(world war, civil war, lower-class uprisings) haven't been pleasant.
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    >(world war, civil war, lower-class uprisings) You forgot plagues, not that those are more pleasant.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It almost always is.
gragas 9y ago
>lobbying(bribery), capital concentration, anti-union legislation, anti-small business legislation We've learned through the decades---and especially through the bailouts in the late 2000s---that slapping big business on the wrist is not enough to stop cronyism and government-enabled monopoly. The only way to eliminate that is to cut the snake off at its head; if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist. If the government can't choose who succeeds and who fails, then only those who provide value can succeed. The only way to grow a business without a monopoly is to employ people (whether directly, or indirectly by investing capital).
- Dangeranger 9y ago
  This statement is a bit nonsensical, because most lobbying has to do with encouraging the creation of laws that are favorable to a business and unfavorable to a businesses competitors. Your statement; > if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist. Implies that the government is picking the winner, when in fact they are writing and passing a law or regulation/deregulation. Any of these actions have effects that favor one group over another. In order to have "no power to dole out" the government would need to not pass ANY laws, which isn't possible as that is critical to a governments function. So it's a paradox. A government cannot function without the process of creating laws and all laws will inevitably favor one party or another no matter the effort to avoid such an outcome.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    businesses also lobby against anti-labor laws like 'right to work' and other measures to prevent organization
  - gragas 9y ago
    There is obviously a gradient of how impactful laws are on businesses. Federally insuring speculative businesses directly affects who wins and who loses in an industry. On the other hand, laws against fraud and bribery cannot negatively affect industries which provide value. Regulation is fine, but only to the extent that it cannot pick winners and losers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

aswanson 9y ago

That sounds like a suggestion that something very bad has to happen.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Nothing _has_ to happen. Mass media makes propaganda much easier to spread, and I consider it very likely that nothing will happen and inequality will strengthen for a long time. My point is that the system seems to be stuck in a positive feedback loop where greater capital concentration strengthens the system that created capital concentration in the first place. _Something_ would need to facilitate the movement out of that loop, and historically events required to lower inequality(world war, civil war, lower-class uprisings) haven't been pleasant.
- lazerpants 9y ago
  >(world war, civil war, lower-class uprisings) You forgot plagues, not that those are more pleasant.
QAPereo 9y ago
It almost always is.

gragas 9y ago

>lobbying(bribery), capital concentration, anti-union legislation, anti-small business legislation We've learned through the decades---and especially through the bailouts in the late 2000s---that slapping big business on the wrist is not enough to stop cronyism and government-enabled monopoly. The only way to eliminate that is to cut the snake off at its head; if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist. If the government can't choose who succeeds and who fails, then only those who provide value can succeed. The only way to grow a business without a monopoly is to employ people (whether directly, or indirectly by investing capital).

Dangeranger 9y ago
This statement is a bit nonsensical, because most lobbying has to do with encouraging the creation of laws that are favorable to a business and unfavorable to a businesses competitors. Your statement; > if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist. Implies that the government is picking the winner, when in fact they are writing and passing a law or regulation/deregulation. Any of these actions have effects that favor one group over another. In order to have "no power to dole out" the government would need to not pass ANY laws, which isn't possible as that is critical to a governments function. So it's a paradox. A government cannot function without the process of creating laws and all laws will inevitably favor one party or another no matter the effort to avoid such an outcome.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  businesses also lobby against anti-labor laws like 'right to work' and other measures to prevent organization
- gragas 9y ago
  There is obviously a gradient of how impactful laws are on businesses. Federally insuring speculative businesses directly affects who wins and who loses in an industry. On the other hand, laws against fraud and bribery cannot negatively affect industries which provide value. Regulation is fine, but only to the extent that it cannot pick winners and losers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]