"Yes, if technology causes people to become be permanently pushed out of the labor force, I expect that to show up in some statistics over the span of decades. "
But of course they are showing in the statistics from the last few decades: where do you think the wealth gap, the increased debt, the stagnating wages or the lowered labour conditions come from? It is a multifactor problem, on a buffered system, with long running effects so don't expect a big flashing neon saying "look at me".
"Both GDP and labor force participation rate have been steadily climbing over most of the last several decades."
Even in your graphs, force participation rate has been stagnant since the late eigthties and given that in the previous decades the real participation potential rose about 50% because of women, even before that we need to look suspiciously at the relationship between headcount and gross output.
"Even if we did see that kind of effect, it wouldn't necessarily be bad"
No, of course it wouldn't necessarily be bad, only it looks like dangerously being for the bad. Of course *some* people are coasting more or less fine (i.e.: baby boomers, probably you and me...), and of course is not blatantly obvious... yet (or else, we wouldn't be having this conversation), and it might even happen that a decent solution is found (I don't think it's too late). As of now -pardon me for the stupid comparison, it's like warning a tsunami is coming and some people saying "bollocks! look the sea level: is not only not growing up but the coastal line has receded one hundred feet".
"Long term unemployment is, in fact, much less of a problem in the US than in other countries."
Like this... both this and the graphs you linked to: do you really think this is an American-only problem, or a problem that USA can deal with on its own instead of a global one with consequences that, while already showing, if you are a bit lucky, only your children of even your grand-children will feel to full effect?
"If all the corporations are getting taxed, there is no competition."
How is it? Corporations *are* already taxed and they still compete.
"You would end up with more companies leaving the country, or going out of business."
I carefully talked about conditions for them not to go out of business (which, on the other hand, is pretty obvious, since they already are taxed and still there are companies around). With regards to off-shoring, governments have more than one tool for their policies. In this case, i.e. sane import tariffs could be part of a solution.
I'm with you in that taxes should be strongly biased towards direct and personal and less towards indirect taxes, but I don't think it's a black-or-white situation: all available tools at hand should have to be properly used.
Is there any internal coherence in your message or is it merely a rant?
You talk about monetary policy, and then exemplify it by their environmental regulations. You mention the labour conditions on a paragraph that looks like word by word taken out from a Dickens novel and then contrast it saying that corporations used to have to serve the public good.
Not saying what China is doing is OK nor that occidental governments aren't bought by big corps to allow it but then, do you think China is doing anything even remotely original? They have bought the occidental industrial revolution book and put it in practice to the comma, so it's difficult to blame them for that.
And it's been decades that the paint has been in the wall (since more or less Reagan/Tatcher's presidency in the economy side and since Windows 95, or maybe Google, on the technology one, to make two clear marks). So? You don't think these kind of changes happen overnight, do you?
"I should hope not. Productivity is an intensive quantity, while number of people is an extensive; the two are largely unrelated."
Ok. I'll give you that; it's my fault for not using the proper term. Gross production income, then. And effects of scale too. These used to be related to the headcount but that's changing at a fast pace.
"Two centuries spans a lot more than the industrial revolution."
If you mean the industrial revolution itself (i.e.: going from a rural-based economy to an industrialized one) you are right, but we have been in the industrial era for more or less these last two centuries and that's what matter: the ways of the economy, and those are the ones that probably are changing now, just like Watt's steam engine back in 1775 opened the change back then, so what's being a useful predictor for these two centuries is a good predictor no more.
"increasing minimum wages impacts the profit for the capitalist but, since it's something that goes through all industries [...] Except the ones abroad."
Yes, increasing minimum wages only impacts costs for industries increasing minimum wages.
"I'm always amazed by the consumer who thinks that he can demand production and enjoy the benefits of other people's capital."
Given that as of now, and since quite long time, "capital" is nothing but a fiat convention, I'm always amazed by the capitalist who thinks he in fact owns anything unless a majority of people abides by it.
"No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't do it *automatically*. That's what competition is about.
Competition doesn't help, if all companies are taxed equally."
Since not all companies are equal they are not going to be taxed equally either.
Here I was not talking about "niche competition" i.e. this fast food company against that other fast food company, but about "competition for money", i.e. where will you invest you capital.
Say you have a business sector where you can get a 20% profit margin and then another sector where profit is just 10%. Of course you would put your money in the 20% sector. But then, say you increase costs in the 20% sector (i.e. by increasing taxes, wages, costs of raw materials... whatever). Of course the natural tendency of the agents on that market will be to load the increased costs into the price tag to retain their 20% cut on profits. Here is were competition comes: say one company absorbs the increased costs and goes with just a 15% profit margin. Within its sector it will outprice its competition out, but it still will get investing money since the alternative is moving it to the other sector where profit is even lower at a 10%.
On a side note, that's why traditionally increasing the minimum wages work *provided there's no market substitution*, instead of being the apocalypse some armchair economists tend to say: increasing minimum wages impacts the profit for the capitalist but, since it's something that goes through all industries (at least those strongly dependant on lowly qualified labour as it was the case along most of the industrial revolution), the capitalist has no better place to move his money to and just accepts the reduced profits and overall society takes the benefit in the long run (even the capitalist, since the more evenly spreaded wealth returns in more and better investment opportunities).
The problem here, of course, is that markets are like "traditional industrial revolution" no more: on one hand, the pool of "new customers" is depleting (capital is working on that by pushing for outsourcing and globalization -and it's working for them... for a while); on the other, technology has came to a point where new technology doesn't mean new classes of low qualified labour-intensive niches appearing as it used to be the case, so all minimum wages laws can achieve is a higher rate of automation adoption (the market substitution I talked above).
It is obvious -at least it is obvious to me, that the only rational output is for a society organization where subsistence and work are not tied (be it by means of basic income, moving "standard of living" producings from private to public hands, or whatever), but it is also obvious that society is still not ready (and, maybe, never will be) to plan and act in the "as-is -> to-be" project for that.
" Over the past couple of centuries, automation has never shrunk the available work pool. Why would it start doing that now?"
Because now, and that's qualitatively different from the past, two things have been achieved: 1) A fair share of society already is above the starving level (capital is already countering this by outsourcing -which can't work for always) 2) The machines' support itself is also automated (mainly by software).
These two taken together mean that you don't have an "unexploted pool of customers" just waiting for the industrialization to take place and buy your products and that there's no relationship at all between productivity and number of people employed.
So, no, the industrial revolution can't be taken here for an example of what will happen in the future.
"The fact that abortion kills a fetus is not in dispute regardless of whether you approve of it or not."
In fact, no, it isn't undisputed. Some people will argue that, at least before certain date, taking out a fetus is not qualitatively different to cutting your nails or taking out a wart.
"If they're receiving "free" money or services from the government, then they most certainly ARE taking money from those that are actually working hard and paying into the system."
The fine point being here that NO, NOBODY is ACTUALLY WORKING HARD and paying into the system since it is MACHINES the ones doing the actual hard work.
Of course, there still would be people that can and want to go beyond "average standards" that could actually work and they would get also beyond average rewards for their efforts.
"I'd love to live in your hypothetical world where the majority of people can just loaf around because they don't have to really work, yet our economy still won't collapse into the shitter. I just don't believe it's realistic."
That's exactly the lack of imagination about how things could eventually be that the parent poster sets as "we're too fucking up our own asses"
"Can't wait to see grandma and grandpa walk up to RoboCarlz and then turn around when they see a machine that they have no idea how to use to get what they want."
You mean, like they would never go to a self-service gas station, or they would never go to a supermarket where they need to pick everything on their own instead of being serviced by an attendant, or that they would never take a soda or a sandwich or a chocolate bar from a machine?
"Let's wait and see how these burgers taste and whether I don't like them over there at [other burger joint] better even if they cost 30 cents more but taste like a burger and not like the bag it came in."
On one hand, it is a damn flipped burger: with enough incentives (or just time going by) you can bet a machine-cooked burger will taste as well if not better than the humanly flipped one and, as a very nice side effect for a branded chain, each and every burger will look and taste exactly the same no matter where you get it. In fact, everything but the flipping is *already* managed by machines -or do you think the raw burgers are produced by hand? so, why do you think flipping it on the grill will be any different?
On the other hand, reality shows time and again that the masses will happily exchange quality for price any day of the week.
You used to have attendants at a lot of business that already have gone automated/self serviced so it is not that automation self/servicing hasn't probed itself as doable.
"He has bought the politicians. So he thinks he is covered there on the tax issue. But the damn fool does not realize, his machines won't need food, would not buy entertainment, would not buy a home or pay for college."
How's this any different to how it has been for ages? And the one-percenters haven't suffered too much for that being the case, right?
"It is really very short sighted of a food industry CEO"
It is really very short sighted to think about this man as a "food industry CEO" when he's just "a CEO that happens to be in the food industry right now". On one hand, he'll still be a one-percenter even if his current company folds; on the other, he still can move to a different sector as CEO if the food business fails.
"The captains of these industries should be lobbying for increased government spending on welfare, if they have any sense."
The one advantage about money is that it is not tied to any specific good: money is agnostic, as it is usually said. So these people can either stick to their current industry or take their money anywhere else, at their choice.
"Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer."
No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't do it *automatically*. That's what competition is about.
Currently we all see how high officials' overall wages and shares' profits are increasing well over average/median salaries. This means that given strong competition they can absorb increased costs by reducing their profit margins and still stay in business (of course, this doesn't mean they would accept it out of their free will, but that they'll do if there's no other way).
"A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it."
Exactly this. Which in turn means that, as long as the profit margin is higher than "the fair profit for money" (in Adam Smith's words), they can possibly reduce their margin and still stay in business (because it's still better to accept the reduced profits than putting their money anywhere else with even lower margins). As an extreme example, you can see how as of now "the money" is accepting even negative returns on long term bonds from healthy economies.
"Never going to happen though. Once someone as much as mentions a potential risk, the result with the current culture is an overreaction to avoid it."
Truly. Perception is all: on one hand, increasing danger is strongly negatively seen and, on the other hand, massive wrekages are overestimated when compared to "light rain", i.e.: an airplane crash makes in the news, while 1.000 car deaths go unnoticed. That means that even being twice as secure as cars is not enough when talking about buses that can kill about 50 people in one round.
"If it's a "Free market", I assume they *paid* for the sherriff service"
A Free Market is where you pay what it costs. If they don't have to pay, Free Market means not to pay. Paying when there's no obligation to pay is welfare, not free market.
"did they externalize the cost to the local taxpayer?"
Or was the local taxpayers by means of their local elections the ones that decided who were to pay what?
You might replay something like "Oh! but the big corp bought his way so they ended up paying little or no taxes!" See? Free Market in action again.
"What's going on in the U.S. is socialism for the rich (and since corporations are people, they're rich) and capitalism for everybody else."
No. What happens in USA is that it is *so* capitalist that the rich have been able to buy even their own government.
"Adam Smith would not agree that what Hertz is doing is capitalism."
I read "The Wealth of Nations" from cover to cover (more than once) and I think Adam Smith would very much agree on what's happening in USA (and most of the world) is basically an unavoidable outcome of capitalism. But just to know your position: do you think Adam Smith was a proponent of capitalism as a way to produce an enhanced society? I can say, after my readings of the wealth of nations that I don't think so.
"If people actually looked and made 1/3/5/10 year plans, like companies do"
There are two *slight* differences between people and corporations: 1) the former come with a date of expiry. 2) the former lives a life.
I really don't expect you see either the difference or the importance of those two facts since you say in a seemingly straight face things like "I can afford the interest-rate of 3% on this house" - Well, spread this out over time and see what those 3% could have become if invested properly. 3% on a $300k house/flat is $9000 per year.. 10 years == almost 30% of what the house price was." but I promise, the difference is important and it is there.
Oh, and by the way, it's been ages since companies doesn't really plan 3/5/10 years in advance, much less publicly traded ones: that's part of the problem.
"people always seem to want to complain and fail to realize that they can affect their lives in a big way with minor effort.. it just takes a bit of time..."
Yes. My own calculations demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that I could be economically affluent if only I lived like an hermit till a mere 50 years after my life expectancy date.
"The vast majority of citizens did not want to bail out the idiot banks and a good many people"
Are you sure? Who bailed out the idiot banks? Obama. Who the people voted the next time they had the chance? Obama.
Therefore...
"Pay close attention to the primaries and, come November, the presidential election [a rant follow on how Reps and Dems are the same rubbish, therefore there's nothing to be done]"
When they called it "Democracy" they meant that the power remains on the people, not that the power remains on the people... for free. Yes, it takes effort and responsibility to make Democracy work for the people, and people seem not to want to expend the effort nor to take the responsibility, so others do. Ranting like a little boy when he doesn't want to accept the consequences of his bad-thought actions are not going to make them disappear.
"If you fire all your employees, who's going to buy your product and raise the company value ?"
Whoever happens to have the money, maybe those little Indians I'm outsourcing to. Or you mean in the far future, when it is mad-max style post apocalyptic all around the world? I'll be a dead (by old age) billionaire by then, so I don't give a damn.
"The corporations should pay for the public schools, the police, the firemen, etc. that do not get their wages cut."
Depending on the implementation, that's communism or fascism, both already tried in real world. What's the one you support?
And if you mean it in a "soft" way, they *already* pay for public schools, police, firemen... it's called taxes. "Oh! but they don't pay enough taxes!" you say. They pay exactly the taxes the representatives *you* vote allow and make into legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes, if technology causes people to become be permanently pushed out of the labor force, I expect that to show up in some statistics over the span of decades. "
But of course they are showing in the statistics from the last few decades: where do you think the wealth gap, the increased debt, the stagnating wages or the lowered labour conditions come from? It is a multifactor problem, on a buffered system, with long running effects so don't expect a big flashing neon saying "look at me".
"Both GDP and labor force participation rate have been steadily climbing over most of the last several decades."
Even in your graphs, force participation rate has been stagnant since the late eigthties and given that in the previous decades the real participation potential rose about 50% because of women, even before that we need to look suspiciously at the relationship between headcount and gross output.
"Even if we did see that kind of effect, it wouldn't necessarily be bad"
No, of course it wouldn't necessarily be bad, only it looks like dangerously being for the bad. Of course *some* people are coasting more or less fine (i.e.: baby boomers, probably you and me...), and of course is not blatantly obvious... yet (or else, we wouldn't be having this conversation), and it might even happen that a decent solution is found (I don't think it's too late). As of now -pardon me for the stupid comparison, it's like warning a tsunami is coming and some people saying "bollocks! look the sea level: is not only not growing up but the coastal line has receded one hundred feet".
"Long term unemployment is, in fact, much less of a problem in the US than in other countries."
Like this... both this and the graphs you linked to: do you really think this is an American-only problem, or a problem that USA can deal with on its own instead of a global one with consequences that, while already showing, if you are a bit lucky, only your children of even your grand-children will feel to full effect?
""The fact that abortion kills a fetus is not in dispute" did you not understand?"
The part that this is, in fact, disputed.
"If all the corporations are getting taxed, there is no competition."
How is it? Corporations *are* already taxed and they still compete.
"You would end up with more companies leaving the country, or going out of business."
I carefully talked about conditions for them not to go out of business (which, on the other hand, is pretty obvious, since they already are taxed and still there are companies around). With regards to off-shoring, governments have more than one tool for their policies. In this case, i.e. sane import tariffs could be part of a solution.
I'm with you in that taxes should be strongly biased towards direct and personal and less towards indirect taxes, but I don't think it's a black-or-white situation: all available tools at hand should have to be properly used.
Is there any internal coherence in your message or is it merely a rant?
You talk about monetary policy, and then exemplify it by their environmental regulations. You mention the labour conditions on a paragraph that looks like word by word taken out from a Dickens novel and then contrast it saying that corporations used to have to serve the public good.
Not saying what China is doing is OK nor that occidental governments aren't bought by big corps to allow it but then, do you think China is doing anything even remotely original? They have bought the occidental industrial revolution book and put it in practice to the comma, so it's difficult to blame them for that.
"It may be obvious, but you missed it in your analysis where the investor's funds go."
Except, of course, I didn't.: "capital is working on that by pushing for outsourcing and globalization -and it's working for them... for a while"
"That situation has existed for decades."
And it's been decades that the paint has been in the wall (since more or less Reagan/Tatcher's presidency in the economy side and since Windows 95, or maybe Google, on the technology one, to make two clear marks). So? You don't think these kind of changes happen overnight, do you?
"I should hope not. Productivity is an intensive quantity, while number of people is an extensive; the two are largely unrelated."
Ok. I'll give you that; it's my fault for not using the proper term. Gross production income, then. And effects of scale too. These used to be related to the headcount but that's changing at a fast pace.
"Two centuries spans a lot more than the industrial revolution."
If you mean the industrial revolution itself (i.e.: going from a rural-based economy to an industrialized one) you are right, but we have been in the industrial era for more or less these last two centuries and that's what matter: the ways of the economy, and those are the ones that probably are changing now, just like Watt's steam engine back in 1775 opened the change back then, so what's being a useful predictor for these two centuries is a good predictor no more.
"increasing minimum wages impacts the profit for the capitalist but, since it's something that goes through all industries [...] Except the ones abroad."
Yes, increasing minimum wages only impacts costs for industries increasing minimum wages.
Thank you, Rear Admiral Obvious.
"I'm always amazed by the consumer who thinks that he can demand production and enjoy the benefits of other people's capital."
Given that as of now, and since quite long time, "capital" is nothing but a fiat convention, I'm always amazed by the capitalist who thinks he in fact owns anything unless a majority of people abides by it.
"No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't do it *automatically*. That's what competition is about.
Competition doesn't help, if all companies are taxed equally."
Since not all companies are equal they are not going to be taxed equally either.
Here I was not talking about "niche competition" i.e. this fast food company against that other fast food company, but about "competition for money", i.e. where will you invest you capital.
Say you have a business sector where you can get a 20% profit margin and then another sector where profit is just 10%. Of course you would put your money in the 20% sector. But then, say you increase costs in the 20% sector (i.e. by increasing taxes, wages, costs of raw materials... whatever). Of course the natural tendency of the agents on that market will be to load the increased costs into the price tag to retain their 20% cut on profits. Here is were competition comes: say one company absorbs the increased costs and goes with just a 15% profit margin. Within its sector it will outprice its competition out, but it still will get investing money since the alternative is moving it to the other sector where profit is even lower at a 10%.
On a side note, that's why traditionally increasing the minimum wages work *provided there's no market substitution*, instead of being the apocalypse some armchair economists tend to say: increasing minimum wages impacts the profit for the capitalist but, since it's something that goes through all industries (at least those strongly dependant on lowly qualified labour as it was the case along most of the industrial revolution), the capitalist has no better place to move his money to and just accepts the reduced profits and overall society takes the benefit in the long run (even the capitalist, since the more evenly spreaded wealth returns in more and better investment opportunities).
The problem here, of course, is that markets are like "traditional industrial revolution" no more: on one hand, the pool of "new customers" is depleting (capital is working on that by pushing for outsourcing and globalization -and it's working for them... for a while); on the other, technology has came to a point where new technology doesn't mean new classes of low qualified labour-intensive niches appearing as it used to be the case, so all minimum wages laws can achieve is a higher rate of automation adoption (the market substitution I talked above).
It is obvious -at least it is obvious to me, that the only rational output is for a society organization where subsistence and work are not tied (be it by means of basic income, moving "standard of living" producings from private to public hands, or whatever), but it is also obvious that society is still not ready (and, maybe, never will be) to plan and act in the "as-is -> to-be" project for that.
" Over the past couple of centuries, automation has never shrunk the available work pool. Why would it start doing that now?"
Because now, and that's qualitatively different from the past, two things have been achieved:
1) A fair share of society already is above the starving level (capital is already countering this by outsourcing -which can't work for always)
2) The machines' support itself is also automated (mainly by software).
These two taken together mean that you don't have an "unexploted pool of customers" just waiting for the industrialization to take place and buy your products and that there's no relationship at all between productivity and number of people employed.
So, no, the industrial revolution can't be taken here for an example of what will happen in the future.
"The fact that abortion kills a fetus is not in dispute regardless of whether you approve of it or not."
In fact, no, it isn't undisputed. Some people will argue that, at least before certain date, taking out a fetus is not qualitatively different to cutting your nails or taking out a wart.
"If they're receiving "free" money or services from the government, then they most certainly ARE taking money from those that are actually working hard and paying into the system."
The fine point being here that NO, NOBODY is ACTUALLY WORKING HARD and paying into the system since it is MACHINES the ones doing the actual hard work.
Of course, there still would be people that can and want to go beyond "average standards" that could actually work and they would get also beyond average rewards for their efforts.
"I'd love to live in your hypothetical world where the majority of people can just loaf around because they don't have to really work, yet our economy still won't collapse into the shitter. I just don't believe it's realistic."
That's exactly the lack of imagination about how things could eventually be that the parent poster sets as "we're too fucking up our own asses"
"Can't wait to see grandma and grandpa walk up to RoboCarlz and then turn around when they see a machine that they have no idea how to use to get what they want."
You mean, like they would never go to a self-service gas station, or they would never go to a supermarket where they need to pick everything on their own instead of being serviced by an attendant, or that they would never take a soda or a sandwich or a chocolate bar from a machine?
"Let's wait and see how these burgers taste and whether I don't like them over there at [other burger joint] better even if they cost 30 cents more but taste like a burger and not like the bag it came in."
On one hand, it is a damn flipped burger: with enough incentives (or just time going by) you can bet a machine-cooked burger will taste as well if not better than the humanly flipped one and, as a very nice side effect for a branded chain, each and every burger will look and taste exactly the same no matter where you get it. In fact, everything but the flipping is *already* managed by machines -or do you think the raw burgers are produced by hand? so, why do you think flipping it on the grill will be any different?
On the other hand, reality shows time and again that the masses will happily exchange quality for price any day of the week.
You used to have attendants at a lot of business that already have gone automated/self serviced so it is not that automation self/servicing hasn't probed itself as doable.
"He has bought the politicians. So he thinks he is covered there on the tax issue. But the damn fool does not realize, his machines won't need food, would not buy entertainment, would not buy a home or pay for college."
How's this any different to how it has been for ages? And the one-percenters haven't suffered too much for that being the case, right?
"It is really very short sighted of a food industry CEO"
It is really very short sighted to think about this man as a "food industry CEO" when he's just "a CEO that happens to be in the food industry right now". On one hand, he'll still be a one-percenter even if his current company folds; on the other, he still can move to a different sector as CEO if the food business fails.
"The captains of these industries should be lobbying for increased government spending on welfare, if they have any sense."
The one advantage about money is that it is not tied to any specific good: money is agnostic, as it is usually said. So these people can either stick to their current industry or take their money anywhere else, at their choice.
"Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer."
No, they don't. Or, at least, they don't do it *automatically*. That's what competition is about.
Currently we all see how high officials' overall wages and shares' profits are increasing well over average/median salaries. This means that given strong competition they can absorb increased costs by reducing their profit margins and still stay in business (of course, this doesn't mean they would accept it out of their free will, but that they'll do if there's no other way).
"A corporations job is to make money, that means that we take what ever expenses we have including taxes, add them up, attach a profit margin to it, and sell it."
Exactly this. Which in turn means that, as long as the profit margin is higher than "the fair profit for money" (in Adam Smith's words), they can possibly reduce their margin and still stay in business (because it's still better to accept the reduced profits than putting their money anywhere else with even lower margins). As an extreme example, you can see how as of now "the money" is accepting even negative returns on long term bonds from healthy economies.
"Never going to happen though. Once someone as much as mentions a potential risk, the result with the current culture is an overreaction to avoid it."
Truly. Perception is all: on one hand, increasing danger is strongly negatively seen and, on the other hand, massive wrekages are overestimated when compared to "light rain", i.e.: an airplane crash makes in the news, while 1.000 car deaths go unnoticed. That means that even being twice as secure as cars is not enough when talking about buses that can kill about 50 people in one round.
"So purely out of self interest, those who don't own it should stamp out Capitalism by any means necessary."
Seems quite a logical conclusion.
But beware the law of unintended consequences!
"If it's a "Free market", I assume they *paid* for the sherriff service"
A Free Market is where you pay what it costs. If they don't have to pay, Free Market means not to pay. Paying when there's no obligation to pay is welfare, not free market.
"did they externalize the cost to the local taxpayer?"
Or was the local taxpayers by means of their local elections the ones that decided who were to pay what?
You might replay something like "Oh! but the big corp bought his way so they ended up paying little or no taxes!" See? Free Market in action again.
"What's going on in the U.S. is socialism for the rich (and since corporations are people, they're rich) and capitalism for everybody else."
No. What happens in USA is that it is *so* capitalist that the rich have been able to buy even their own government.
"Adam Smith would not agree that what Hertz is doing is capitalism."
I read "The Wealth of Nations" from cover to cover (more than once) and I think Adam Smith would very much agree on what's happening in USA (and most of the world) is basically an unavoidable outcome of capitalism. But just to know your position: do you think Adam Smith was a proponent of capitalism as a way to produce an enhanced society? I can say, after my readings of the wealth of nations that I don't think so.
"If people actually looked and made 1/3/5/10 year plans, like companies do"
There are two *slight* differences between people and corporations:
1) the former come with a date of expiry.
2) the former lives a life.
I really don't expect you see either the difference or the importance of those two facts since you say in a seemingly straight face things like "I can afford the interest-rate of 3% on this house" - Well, spread this out over time and see what those 3% could have become if invested properly. 3% on a $300k house/flat is $9000 per year.. 10 years == almost 30% of what the house price was." but I promise, the difference is important and it is there.
Oh, and by the way, it's been ages since companies doesn't really plan 3/5/10 years in advance, much less publicly traded ones: that's part of the problem.
"people always seem to want to complain and fail to realize that they can affect their lives in a big way with minor effort.. it just takes a bit of time..."
Yes. My own calculations demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that I could be economically affluent if only I lived like an hermit till a mere 50 years after my life expectancy date.
"The vast majority of citizens did not want to bail out the idiot banks and a good many people"
Are you sure? Who bailed out the idiot banks? Obama. Who the people voted the next time they had the chance? Obama.
Therefore...
"Pay close attention to the primaries and, come November, the presidential election [a rant follow on how Reps and Dems are the same rubbish, therefore there's nothing to be done]"
When they called it "Democracy" they meant that the power remains on the people, not that the power remains on the people... for free. Yes, it takes effort and responsibility to make Democracy work for the people, and people seem not to want to expend the effort nor to take the responsibility, so others do. Ranting like a little boy when he doesn't want to accept the consequences of his bad-thought actions are not going to make them disappear.
"If you fire all your employees, who's going to buy your product and raise the company value ?"
Whoever happens to have the money, maybe those little Indians I'm outsourcing to. Or you mean in the far future, when it is mad-max style post apocalyptic all around the world? I'll be a dead (by old age) billionaire by then, so I don't give a damn.
"Yeah, all the poor people should just buy more shares."
No, they certainly shouldn't. They just better do it *if* they want to stop being poor.
"They should be working multiple minimum-wage jobs to buy more shares, right?"
I am no one to say what others should do, nor I'm trying to do so.
But then, Capitalism is not about social welfare. It is about Capital and bringing profit for those that own it.
"The corporations should pay for the public schools, the police, the firemen, etc. that do not get their wages cut."
Depending on the implementation, that's communism or fascism, both already tried in real world. What's the one you support?
And if you mean it in a "soft" way, they *already* pay for public schools, police, firemen... it's called taxes. "Oh! but they don't pay enough taxes!" you say. They pay exactly the taxes the representatives *you* vote allow and make into legislation.