MovieChat Forums > I Want Your Money (2010) Discussion > Conservatives... where is the demand?

Conservatives... where is the demand?

posted 14 years ago by Kagekuro
19 replies | jump to latest

I'm going to be respectful... I just want your opinion here.

Demand is needed to get the US out of this financial hole; demand for the goods we manufacture and our services. Unfortunately, the "free" market has failed to provide sufficient demand, and here's why.

Under Reagan's gutting of government and slicing of tax rates for the top %1, corporations started shipping jobs over seas to China, Mexico, India and other places, wiping out America's manufacturing base and making obscene profits while working families scambled to find employment. Libertarians who think they'll be rich someday (most won't) just said, "Find another job, lazy" as more and more companies used foreign labor and kept the spoils.

Labor unions weakened and voters became apathetic, ensuring our corporate masters continued the trend. Now, thanks to the deregulation that allowed them to fool around with derivatives and bet against banks on bad morgage loans, people have lost their homes and jobs, and there is no demand to create because everybody is saving money.

They say we should cut taxes on the rich further so they will use that money to innovate and create jobs... but studies show they are saving that money instead. That goes for small businesses, too. They are failing because people are only spending on essentials and saving whatever they can. They are not spending to provide Americans with employment so their families don't starve. If the "free" market won't spend to create, who else but government can?

[–] bdwickizer 14 years ago

Are you implying that higher taxes and more regulations will keep corporations from shipping jobs overseas? The fact of the matter is, companies will do business wherever it is most profitable to do so. There may be correlative evidence that "corporations started shipping jobs over seas to China, Mexico, India and other places, wiping out America's manufacturing base and making obscene profits while working families scambled to find employment..." while regulation and tax rates dropped, but if you are able to think logically you understand that this is only correlation, not necessarily causation.

Since a company will do business in whatever region (country, state, whatever) is most profitable for it, it logically follows that companies will desire to do business wherever tax rates are lowest, and regulations are minimal. Taxes and regulations are barriers to entering a market. That is, if there are higher taxes and more regulations, it makes it harder for companies to operate or to open up shop. So the assertion that lowering taxes and rolling back regulations are responsible for shipping jobs oberseas simply does not make logical sense. Yes that may have happened, but it is a misnomer to blame low taxes and deregulation for it.

But you do make a good point about our "coporate masters." Most large corporations are definitely not friends of the common man. However, large corporations ARE responsible for creating a hell of a lot of jobs (in the US and abroad). The question we have to ask is, "how did these corporations become so big?" We talk about the evil corporations and how they exploit us, and typically the "free" market is blamed. But corporations don't want "free" markets. That means they have to compete. One of the most hated corporate masters in history books is JD Rockefeller, who has the infamous line of, "competition is a sin." That's because big corporations do not want competitors. Therefore, they look to government for help. Look at Pharmaceutical companies. They are in business because of government. There's hardly any competition (except for huge corporation vs huge corporation) in Pharma because the government restricts the market to such a degree (through taxes and regulations). Open competition keeps companies honest because they must respond to consumer's demands in order to stay in business. Unfortunately, however, government typically gets involved (in most industries), and ends up creating monopolies by making extremely restrictive barriers to entering the market (usually through taxes and regulations).

I also wanted to address your last paragraph. You complain that companies aren't spending enough, etc. So your solution is to have the government steal (literally, that is what taxation is) more from them, because they know how to use it best? Is that money not rightfully the company's property?

Furthermore, if you get the government spending money because "the 'free' market won't spend to create" you'll get these economic bubbles that we've been facing. These bubbles are what's called "market corrections." With the housing bubble, for example, the economy was artificially stimulated because people were spending money they did not have. The policies of the Federal reserve permited (and pushed, through low interest rates) high-risk, low-interest loans. Loans which, given normal market circumstances, would not have been granted. This contributed to the creation of the "hhousing bubble" which we are now still suffering from. The point is, if you use government to "stimulate" the economy it is entirely artificial stimulation. Natural market forces will eventually compensate for artificial stimulation, and the suffering will be much worse than it would have been if the artificial stimulation didn't happen in the first place.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WolfofWar 14 years ago

The problem is simple, our country strives on innovation, not labor. Sadly, innovation has been lacking in recent years. A business is solely interested in the highest return of it's efforts. If it can cut labor costs to increase profit margins, it will. There is no regulation in the world that will keep businesses from using foreign labor, and the tighter you squeeze the faster they will evacuate. What America needs is to innovate once more and produce a new industry that requires domestic labor.

"the optimist believes this is the best of all worlds. The Pessimist fears this is true."

[–] texastreasure517 14 years ago

America BEGAN Because of High Taxes! We didn't want to be like Europe, yet the President, Congress and even SCOTUS (citing foreign law in briefs!) seems determined to drag us back to the 1600s and bind us to them...again.

Why should people be innovative, when the Obama Administration is just going to take it away from you and give it to people who can angle their way into gov't benefits? It's human nature: something for nothing....

Yes, business hates competition, but needs it. Ford wants (at least) GM, Toyota wants Honda. BECAUSE, if they have a monopoly 1) The temptation is too easy to veer away from excellence and 2) the gov't could file anti-trust suits. Products are better if there is somewhere else for the consumer to go. Economics 101.

[–] joegray-1 14 years ago

Okay, TexasTreasure, you're the lucky one to draw my ire and receive a little historical smackdown.

America did not begin because of high taxes. It began because of the desire to be free of rule by those unlike oneself. A growing heterogenous population (which now grows ever moreso) determined rule by a foreign king was untenable such that independence was won by violent revolution taking nearly four decades to entirely conclude. To be like or unlike Europe was far from the point though many of the founders' affinities to the ideals driving much of the French Revolution would speak directly to your claim being hogwash. Given our nation does not exist in a legal vacuum it is natural and desirable to look upon those nations from which we draw much of our cultural underpinning when they have already addressed some of the issues we only now countenance. This inclination to continually reinvent the wheel because WE as Americans have not already done so is puerile.

The Obama Administration is going to take innovation away from you? How? What on earth are you on about? Where is your proof? Enough of your bogus pontifications spewed without fear of recrimination: you are called out!

And where do you get off with your closing paragraph? Business hates competition, but needs it? Ford wants GM? Toyota wants Honda? Rubbish. You speak as though they give two whits about excellence. Any product is fine for the consumer if there is no other product.
Anti-trust? Really? Business has bought the legislative branch. As often as not our executive is drawn directly from its ranks. The judiciary at the highest level, at least, is now clearly under its sway with the Roberts' court ruling on Citizens United; corporations are NOT people. Even the fourth estate is severely threatened as those campaigning on views in common with your own refuse to even answer questions presented by journalists.

Ronald Reagan is a douche.

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

Why was the economy so much healthier during the 1990s, when the taxes were higher than they are now? Why do conservatives love to attack government entities bought off and corrupted by corporations, but they never want to even say "boo" to the corporations who are doing the buying and corrupting? Why was innovation during the Bush years so lacking? And by the way, how does one go about being a Nazi AND a Commie, when in actual fact Nazis and Communists have been mortal enemies from their inception?

Just wondering.

[–] DisturbedPixie 14 years ago

where I live I am forced to deal with monopolies.

I am forced to deal with PG&E and if I don't, I can't bath myself or feed myself, or comment on a message board.

If the government could just do the things they said they'd do, like stop monopolies, then maybe we'd trust them more, whoever is in charge.

Neither the republicans or the democrats are right, and that's why we need to revolutionize.

And something that always bothered me is why someone thinks they should be able to go on vacation for a month at a time, and make millions a year, while a guy that has to rip the dirty kleenex off the bottom of a garbage can gets less than $10 an hour? How is that fair? How does whatever the guy that makes millions justify the suffering of those who do work hard every minute of their work day? It's so easy to turn your back on hard workers and assume that maybe God, wants you to have a 3rd vacation home? These people only care about themselves, and they deserve to have higher taxes to bring them back to reality, and others closer to the chance at fulfilling their dream through hard work, something the wealthy really don't seam to understand. I don't mean rich, I mean wealthy. Like Chris Rock said before, not the rapper who made it to the top, but the guy in the designer suit signing his checks.

[–] mastermike14 14 years ago

corporations hate competition. Me competing with someone else means less money in my pocket.

Please turn off Fox News. Please tell me what new entitlement programs Obama has created. Please tell me how Obama is taking your money and giving it to the poor. Social Security, Welfare, etc, is as much Obama's fault as it is Boehner's fault(actually more closer to Boehner's/Congress's fault as they are really the only ones that can remove those programs.). Define for me Socialism(socialism is not redistribution of wealth by the way), and tell me how Obama is a socialist. If you wanna complain about the bailouts then dont complain about the economy or unemployment. Do you really think we would be better off with a crippled financial industry?

[–] Kagekuro 14 years ago

You know, I learned the other day that the Obama Administration gave everybody a secret tax cut by adding it to their regular paychecks. They didn't tell the public about it. This way, people would be more willing to spend the money and stimulate the economy than save it.

On one hand, it helps rebuild the economy, but on the other, the public don't realize their taxes have been cut and percieve that they have not changed. Got to give Barack credit for doing the right thing instead of the politically advantageous thing.

[–] Dean72756 14 years ago

The War for Independence was a war against a big, centralized government. A government that placed restrictions on your education, your profession, where you could live, permission to open a business, which religion you must practice. Living under a malevolent government believing in its practice to be benevolent became intolerable for many Americans.

We argue today over the same exact issues we fought for/against in the late eighteenth century.

There are people who believe that education, health care, owning a home, and having a job are rights. They are not. They are priviledges that freedom and liberty offer its citizens.

If we allowed government to provide us these rights, we will have a government big enough to take them away.

For 125 years our government was fueled by less than 5% of GDP, and our free market capitalism changed the western world. We did not invent all of the modern luxuries, but we fostered an economic environment where people from all over the world could come to America and create their inventions, and thus raise the standard of living for millions of people around the world.

It is at the beginning of the 20th century that our government began to leave behind the principles of the Constitution, when our elected representatives began to deviate from a tested and true formula for success. Whatever issues or problems America has the private sector can correct it and heal it. We proved it for 125 years.

In the past 100 years we have followed a Progressive/socialist plan which has corrupted many of our elected representatives, and bankrupted every level of government.

If we remove government from our education, healthcare, homes, jobs, and religion and allow people to work out their issues on their own, we will be returning to a formula that once worked for 125 years, right here in the good old USA.

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

You know nothing about history. Most specifically, world history. Just for starters, America did not become a world power until the 20th century. It began with "progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt. And free market capitalism also did not change the world until the 20th century. Until after WWI the world was dominated by imperial powers, mainly from Europe. What kind of "free market capitalism" do you think dominated the world before 1914?

Have you heard of Tammany Hall? The Dred Scott decision? The Johnson County Range Wars? The lynching of blacks? Hell, how about the Civil War? America is a great country, but it didn't reach it's full potential on the world stage until the end of the Second World War, and no amount of revisionist history by Glenn Beck & co. can change that.

[–] jgrge3 14 years ago

And Reagan's policies did nothing to break the back of the USSR. Niether did the states have any manner of growth in the GDP during his administration. The socialist/communist-lite model is proven to work so well, why should'nt America try to emulate it? Such power houses like San Marino, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuala. Everybody is just dying to get in there, so of course these ridiculous conservatives need to rewrite history and spin current events. They even propose that the term "progressive" meant something different in Teddy Rosevelt's time. How dare they? Wasn't he in favour of same sex marriages, redistributing wealth, and renting unborn children from the womb of their mother with a pair of forceps? The next thing you know these wacky conservatives will promote the idea that civil liberties are actually important, and that individual citizens are not property of their government.

"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

Wow. To coin a phrase, what a great example of extrapolation ad absurdum.

But then, I must remember that anyone who dares challenge a conservative is a fascist commie baby killer.

[–] WolfofWar 14 years ago

It didn't become a world power due to progressive ideas, unless you count Woodrow Wilson's lust for imperialist expansion to counteract communism. America became a world power due to the gaining of productivity of both World Wars, where we began massive arms buildups, stimulated tons of industry, and had no global competition when the rest of our European competitors were forced to deal with the reconstruction. Thomas Friedman in his book "The Earth Is Flat" points to the agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill that essentially gave the US the majority of Britain's foreign ports in exchange for help in WW2. Britain literally gave us it's world superpower status. And of course, lets not forget the impact that the Cold War had on our buildup.

"the optimist believes this is the best of all worlds. The Pessimist fears this is true."

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, WolfofWar, although you can't underestimate the role of the US government in building our world standing. But America's conservative isolationist tendencies before the Second World War certainly cost it in terms of counterbalancing the negative forces at work in the world in the early 20th century. And while I never said the US became a world power solely due to progressive ideas, it remains a fact that progessive ideas were definitely a positive influence on the US growth as a superpower. The way we rebuilt Japan and Germany after the Second World War is a prime example of this. Not only did we re-define how you treated beaten enemy countries after war, we also created two prime markets for our goods. That was purely a national effort, not a private sector achievement. Of course, we also created two major economic competitors, but economic competitors are far preferable to military competitors. Germany between WWI and WWII proved that.

[–] WolfofWar 14 years ago

For every plus there is a consequence. Woodrow Wilson's extreme anti-socialist ideology formed his decisions on violently involving the US in South American affairs as well as supporting (with armed forces mind you) the Czars during the Russian Revolution. These events had sent ripples through both our current affairs with the South American and Caribbean Islands as well as with the former Soviet Union. The progressive movement and the desire to expand outside of isolationist principles, through Wilson, brought us the modern Cold War and by proxy the American pre-emptive interventionist policies of McCarthy's era, which brought about the overthrow by us of the democratically moderate leader of Iran with a despot, whom was overthrown for a religious radical under a platform attacking US violent intervention. These type of policies helped strengthen the Taliban and formed Al Qeada. Yes we became a world power, but at the cost of making much of the world outside of the west a flash-point. It's 6 minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock, and it's been over twenty years since the end of the Cold War.

I know you aren't arguing that it was all sunshine and lollipops, and I'm not insinuating you were; I just want to remind people that there are always consequences, both good and bad, for every action.

"the optimist believes this is the best of all worlds. The Pessimist fears this is true."

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

True. You do a good job, Wolf, of pointing out America's own culpability in the growth of many of it's enemies. But America's flaw has not been that it has sought to intervene in international affairs in a progressive manner. America's flaw is that in it's international interventions it has routinely exhibited a staggering ignorance about the world it is seeking to influence, as well as a vast oversimplification of the causes of world strife.

America wants to be the world's savior, but too often we just end up as the bull in the china shop.

[–] WolfofWar 14 years ago

Absolutely agree. Ultimately I feel the blame falls on the American voters. We keep on voting in the old guard, to continue to make the same mistakes.

"the optimist believes this is the best of all worlds. The Pessimist fears this is true."

[–] gengar843 8 years ago

Answers for you:
(1) Demand is not the answer. Look at China. High demand, central government, no great rise in the standard of living as you and I would probably envision for them. Only a proportional rise which makes good fodder for propping Marxist-Maoist economics. All hoax and mirrors. They prop also their currency, which is based not on - surprise! - demand but on MEETING demand.

(2) Jobs left America to different places at different times. Reagan did some things wrong, as did Nixon. Clinton did things wrong, whether NAFTA or China. Obama has done things wrong, with heavy regulations and calls for taxes, and curtailment of some of our remaining industry due to ideology (guns, coal). You may say his pronouncements have only put profits in the pockets of those he says he hates, but you've then proven the point that Obama is a shill and a liar.

(3) Labor unions CAUSE apathy and anger. Their usefulness for organization is over in America and has been. Too much security, too little merit.

(4) Voters are apathetic not due to corporate masters but their own apathy, and corporations run wild, as do politics, including Obama, because the people are weak, slothful, and immoral, just the way Rousseau and Marx wanted it.

(5) I don't believe in taxes period. I believe in printing money and internalizing our economy. If you print but don't internalize, as Obama does to the nth degree, all that potential wealth goes to Mexico via Western Union, Colombia via nose, China via Walmart, Nicaragua for your damn Nikes.

(6) You know nothing about small business, how they spend money, or why. I own a small business, we pay well, our workers are loyal, and we are constantly looking for new business which constantly is undercut in Mexico and China. You want a revolution? Don't set fire to America. Set fire to China! But we know how your loyalist friends there would treat you.

(7) About government spending, you can't have it both ways. You can't say government is run by corporations and then say you want government to spend and create. That means you want corporations to spend and create. In your vernacular, they are the same thing. So government cannot be the answer either. Next!