Market Observations

[Great-Kazoo]

That's not really fair. It's Sunday and it's nice out. I didn't stay tied to my computer all day.

.

Well that explains it. Here i am believing it's monday No wonder my rep wasn't answering their phone.

[spqrzilla]

But I get tired of hearing people bitch about companies moving overseas also. They blame it on the "corporations" because we all know that's become a dirty word. Of course they move overseas. The environment here is just hateful to business.

The market for capital is global. Some people are entirely too stupid to understand what they means. In 2012, 52% of America demonstrated that level of stupidity.

[Great-Kazoo]

The market for capital is global. Some people are entirely too stupid to understand what they means. In 2012, 52% of America demonstrated that level of stupidity.

Again !

[Hound]

Actually for those paying bills at the time way before cell phones. The break up of Ma bell in to what was then called The Baby Bells, caused rate increases for use of service. No matter what you read, unless you were there, it wasn't for the better of mankind, after it was said and done. Our monthly phone bill was testament.

Actually I was there and remember when even calling out of your area code from say (303) to (720) was considered long distance and could cost you dollars per minute. A call to say San Francisco or New York was serious money that would necessitate keeping the call short or collect. Now we can call anywhere in the US for as long as we want with unlimited plans and even call to other countries for pennies. Ya, I am thinking the breakup of that monopoly was a good thing.

Who determines MODERATION, You, the market, buyer seller? personally, between you and a few other members, i am surprised (or not) the "progressive view" touted . You and others may not see , and or vehemently deny it. The same buzz words permeate almost every other post made. Hell you even managed to include Income Redistribution / EQUALITY, in this last post

The original question was not how to fix it. The original question was if gouging was real or myth. The answer is clear and to deny it is ignorant. Websters defines it as

: to subject to extortion or undue exaction : overcharge

— goug·ernoun

Where that point is, is not what was being asked and is often hard to define. This is not left or right or even up for debate. It is clearly defined in economics, the dictionary and by the common man when they know/feel they are being taken advantage of.

I have to agree with Kazoo. Your post if full of leftist myths...the largest of which is the 90% tax rate. First of all, virtually no one paid 90%.

So it did exist, meaning not a myth

There were so many deductions that it was nearly impossible. Secondly, tax receipts/revenues in post war America (since 1945 until now) have stayed in the range of 15% to 20% of GDP. Secondly, for many years after the war there was no competition to US businesses because of the destruction from WWII. Another example, in 1944 the highest tax rate was 94%. In reality, the avg tax rate paid for people in that bracket was only 40% due to all of the deductions available. That continued into the 50s in terms of deductions available.

And during the time I was talking. Thank you for the conformation although you are wrong here. Actually this is what Reagan killed when he cut taxes. So no, the tax's were cut, while Social security was raided due to 'surpluses' that 'our children will pay for', which is what is now happening with SSN becoming insolvent. My generation ARE those children.

The top 10% of income earners in the country already pay 70% of all taxes. That means the remaining 90% pay only 30% of taxes. And don't forget the 47% who pay nothing or nearly nothing in income taxes. It's not about the rich paying their fair share...another liberal myth to appeal to their low-information base. Even CNN, hardly a hotbed of conservatism, agrees with those tax numbers.

Numbers can be used by both sides but the reality is that that 47% are at or near poverty and that 10% you conveniently used includes a good portion of the middle class that are nowhere near the top 1%er's that own so much of the wealth yet pay so little comparatively. Good try, but that BS tactic is easy to call out. The Bloombergs and Koch's of the world pay little by percentage…. just ask Mitt, he will tell ya all about it.

It sounds to me like you're a firm believer in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

Did you not read my post? I am not against capitalism, I just believe that there should be limits so there IS opportunity. Do you really think somebody can go toe-to-toe with a Bloomberg or Koch….. or their children? That the mom and pop shops can compete with a WalMart opening up in a small town? I believe in the little guy and giving them a chance. I don't support To-Big-to-Fail…. we already tried that one.

And you've gone way beyond the scope of the OP. We're not talking about corporate monopolies and whether or not they're good or bad. There are plenty of monopolies that make products/services less expensive for people...utilities are a prime example. Patents are another example of how a monopoly, encouraged and managed by the federal gov't, provides incentive for invention and innovation. It's true the tradeoff is sometimes higher prices for a product...but that's the incentive to create.

Funny how you keep trying to cry out-of-bounds when if you actually read what I said it is spot on to what the OP started with. Monopoly's are a prime example of the fact that gouging happens. There would not be an 'Apple' if the regulations against monopolies had not kicked in just before they were going to cut up Microsoft they way the did MaBell. I was there during that one too. You can try to re-write history all you want but the facts are again clear.

Furthermore, capitalism does not squelch entrepreneurism. I'd venture to say it does just the opposite. And while I am a supporter of the military I'd really like to hear why a CEO (and I'm going to assume you're talking about a CEO of a very large corporation making millions of dollars) responsible for a billion dollar corporation and the thousands of people employed there relates to a military member who volunteered not only to join the military, but also to do a particular job. That's a real stretch that I seriously doubt you can explain rationally. I happen to think many entertainers (sports figures, movie stars, etc...) make WAY too much money but others don't. That's why a football player makes millions and your same EOD guy gets paid on the military wage scale.

Never said capitalism squelches entrepreneurism, read it again. What I said was unbridled capitalism would, meaning Monopolies. What you and the rest have done is not actually read and understand what was said because you assume talking points that are not there. All of my statements have been toward moderation because absolutes generally lead to the worst of whatever is being debated. But now days nobody seems to be able to find a middle ground to agree on and move down the road. We have to be crabs in a basket pulling each other down in the false belief that one day our side will win at the cost of the 'other side'.

Under your "gouging" explanation in the gun/ammo world, explain why it's bad for prices to go up and consumers have to pay more, but it's not bad for prices to come down to the point where suppliers (retailers and manufacturers) make less. It should be apparent that some are struggling to sell inventory...that will likely lead to layoffs or even downsizing if it continues. Who's getting hurt if that happens?

I thought that was the point of capitalism, to come to the best product at the lowest price for the betterment of the whole. Not just make a few rich off the backs of everybody else.

Lastly, if another revolution is imminent, and I have my doubts (I'd go so far as to say it won't happen in my lifetime), it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that gun prices were high while supplies were low. Capitalism is the best economic system yet devised by man that ensures everyone has a shot not only at wealth but the fruits of competition.

ya…. "that ensures everyone has a shot" if only that were true now. The point of a monopoly is to crush all competition and make sure nobody has a shot. Corporations never buy off either side of the the Gov to further their iron grip and stiffel competition. I guess you like the way the government works now?

So where's the hound? He like others, seem to fade out after FACTS are presented, time and time again.

Actually I was ending up my travels from Europe…. you know…. working??????

Wonder if the mods might start another Forum. We can call it I'm in Denial. Or How being a progressive has worked for me.

Even better............................................ ... Boozin Pound Puppies.Since the free thinkers have cute,puppy names and a thing for the cheese head state.

My name comes from when I was much younger being so persistent and keeping on when others quit. It's not a noun, it is a verb. I guess when your responses are so weak you need to resort to name calling…... You'er a real class act there. Even after I was sticking up for you recently. I still would again if I saw somebody attacking you or another member for no real reason. Bailey, we might not agree on things but that really was a class act, a good/clean debate should be possible without resorting to that level.

In the end I get that most on this forum have a different view on economics, that is fine. I doubt either side will budge much. The original statement was that gouging is a myth. That is patently not true, economic classes or a common dictionary prove this. Where it becomes gouging, what to do about it, etc that is a different discussion. When somebody posts an $8000 Keltec KSG [that should sell for somewhere in the $8-900 dollar range] on Armslist (that gets taken down for gouging) we all know it is gouging. We don't have to stop it, buy/not buy it or even say anything to know what it is and that is not a myth.

[Great-Kazoo]

Actually I was there and remember when even calling out of your area code from say (303) to (720) was considered long distance and could cost you dollars per minute. A call to say San Francisco or New York was serious money that would necessitate keeping the call short or collect. Now we can call anywhere in the US for as long as we want with unlimited plans and even call to other countries for pennies. Ya, I am thinking the breakup of that monopoly was a good thing.

.

Um incorrect. You can call anywhere with unlimited time because COMPETITION forces one to keep up with their business rivals. If you look back X years Verizon was one of the last cell providers to do unlimited talk / text.

You're unicorn logic, IE limits, so there is opportunity is Income Redistribution. Those who have need to be sharing or stepping back so others can become "equals" is pathetic. Why should my successful business step back so a competitor, who runs a shitty business plan. becomes a better income earner than me ?
Your logic says that's "fair" Fuck Fair. There's a reason it's called COMPETITION.

[Hound]

Um incorrect. You can call anywhere with unlimited time because COMPETITION forces one to keep up with their business rivals. If you look back X years Verizon was one of the last cell providers to do unlimited talk / text.

You're unicorn logic, IE limits, so there is opportunity is Income Redistribution. Those who have need to be sharing or stepping back so others can become "equals" is pathetic. Why should my successful business step back so a competitor, who runs a shitty business plan. becomes a better income earner than me ?
Your logic says that's "fair" Fuck Fair. There's a reason it's called COMPETITION.

Do you even read your own posts? We were talking about the breakup of MABELL, which had NO COMPETITION........ Monopoly... Ringing a bell? The courts said they were gouging people.... In a legal decision. The reason there IS a Verizon and competition is because it is a 'Baby Bell'........ The result of the anti-competitive breakup of the monopoly called MABELL. I know you are old enough to remember the break up.... Maybe too old?

[Great-Kazoo]

Sorry hound. This is my last reply in he said , she said.

I read your opinions and all I hear is Pelosi saying, as she embraces those ILLEGALS "This is an Opportunity" really, for what?

[Hound]

Sorry hound. This is my last reply in he said , she said.

I read your opinions and all I hear is Pelosi saying, as she embraces those ILLEGALS "This is an Opportunity" really, for what?

Wow... And I got accused of being off topic?

[jhood001]

Companies move overseas because their shareholders don't give two shits about where their profits come from. There is a disconnect between the every day American's beliefs and where their money can and does come from.

I was a little shocked when I read about Hobby Lobby's alleged investment practices today. While I agree with the ruling in their case, I'll be looking at my own investments in great detail over the next week in order to make a determination as to whether I am or am not supporting companies that don't coincide with my beliefs.

I'll give Hobby Lobby a pass because 'they didn't know' just like I don't know when it comes to some of the funds I have money in. But it will take me about a week to get my investment affairs in order. I would think a corporate entity could make their changes as fast if not faster than I can make my own.

So what is the relevance of my post in this thread? Blind investment empowers all of these companies whether they are good or bad. Whether you agree with them or not.


Reference: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-drug-makers

In hindsight, I probably should have started a new thread for this. Sorry for the semi-derail.

It's a Mother Jones article, but I have no reason to doubt their investigative journalism at this point.

[MrPrena]

The Stolper-Samuelson and Rybczynski theorem proves what is happening with capital and labor market right now in US.

concept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolper...uelson_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rybczynski_theorem
basic math
http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch115/T115-2.php
http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch115/T115-3.php