Wealth Distribution in the USA

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are no laws of economics - the 'law' of supply and demand is a theory, which has exceptions that disprove it.

That is a 'textbook' example of flawed theory being taken as reality, which you might want to deprogram yourself from, if you want to say anything relevant to the real world.

In the real world, companies are not slaves to supply and demand curves, seeking only that which is cheapest, and none of (for instance) the massive fast food conglomerates, will have any problem with their profit levels, if they spare a small slice of their profits using a more health sweetener.

It is a choice. The companies, many of them with a perfectly good profit margin to be able to make this choice, chose to go with the selection that is more harmful to consumers health - thus deserving a share of the blame.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Government did not put a gun to the company execs head and say "go buy high fructose corn syrup", and these companies do not blindly follow supply and demand curves in determining what they will buy.

They have a choice, and the choice was between a cheap good that is more harmful to health, or a more expensive one that isn't - they chose profit over their customers health.

Really simple stuff - just look at the large fast food conglomerates, nothing stopping them choosing the healthier alternative, they are not going to suddenly pack in if they start dong that.

Permabear wrote: »

Regardless of whatever alternative economic theory you're espousing this week, everyone else reading this thread will recognize this basic law of economics: If something is cheap, people will consume more of it. If something is expensive, they will consume less of it. More to the point, government policy is designed around those realities, hence my example of attempting to deter people from smoking by jacking up the price of cigarettes.

If the cost of sugar goes up, and the cost of corn syrup goes down, and the latter can be substituted for the former, then that is what will happen.

You follow a silly 'theory' though, in support of the mythical concept of 'free markets', whose very existence is a literal impossibility, so long as the state exists (because if you have any state and any laws at all, with laws inherently being regulations, then the markets aren't 'free').

You discuss economics in terms of the benefits of your 'theory', but your theory is impossible to bring about in reality, and every time a step closer to it is taken (such as escalating deregulation), it ends in economic disaster like we have now.

Your theory is so silly, that you think a company that can perfectly afford a more healthy (but expensive) ingredient, is incapable of exercising the choice of choosing that ingredient, if there is a cheaper one available - that the company is a slave to supply and demand curves and utility maximization.

Funny thing is: Assuming that is true, is exactly what your theory depends upon, in order to survive - so instead of facing up to a failed theory, the fact that this is not true in reality, you assume the theory trumps reality (which pretty much describes the sorry state economics is in today).

That's the fault with economists and assumptions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I know you were aware - not like we haven't discussed that before I didn't know that detail before though, that's interesting.

It's hard to pick, to ask what issues you may have a problem with, as there's so much:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Industries

So I can assume you don't have any problems associating with them?

Got any problem with fraud, bribery, or outright theft?

One whistle-blower detailed her termination after her compliance check had discovered a number of bribery payments made in order to secure contracts in six countries, including Nigeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Reporters also discovered that Koch companies had traded with Iran through foreign-held subsidiaries, possibly violating US law. Other sources within the article detailed a culture of poor ethics and allegations of outright theft.

In 2008, an internal investigation found numerous instances of bribery to foreign officials to secure contracts by Koch Industries subsidiary Koch-Glitsch. One incident which came under investigation was the payment of an unusually high premium to a sales agent who admitted in a French court that the payment had been passed on to someone representing a partially state-owned Egyptian company in order to secure a contract there.

The company attempted to blame the sales agent and terminated him with a six page letter detailing the company's illicit payments to interests in Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia and placing blame for them on the sales agent. However, the court found that "[the sales agent] was not giving authorizations" for the payments, instead indicating that Charles Ender, a major Koch executive and president of Koch-Glitsch for Europe and Asian operations at the time, was responsible.

Directly stealing oil?

In May 1989, the Senate held hearings on what the Senate special committee on investigations called "a widespread scheme to steal oil on Indian land." According to data the committee compiled, Koch took 1.95 million barrels of oil it didn’t pay for from 1986 to 1988.

The Senate referred the case to the Justice Department, but no indictment followed. In December 1999 in a civil trial, the jury found that "Koch Industries had made 24,587 false claims in buying oil, underpaying the U.S. government for royalties on Native American land from 1985 to 1989." Koch settled the case in 2001 for $25 million.

Koch's current PR line on the scandal? Melissa Cohlmia, Koch’s director of corporate communications, said in an email to Bloomberg reporters, "We believe that our practices were consistent with industry practice."[10]

Directly promoting stealing as part of business:

In detailing past regulatory action against Koch businesses, the article interviewed whistle-blowers who had testified about their role in actions that drew enforcement. Court testimony details one man who testified under oath that he was taught to steal and cheat in business dealings, using techniques he was taught by superiors, who referred to them as the "Koch Method."

Any problem with pollution?

In 2010, Koch Industries was named one of the United States' top 10 air polluters in a study released by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute.

A bonus picture, showing how their wealth translates to them being 'job creators':
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/File:Koch_Net_Worth_vs_Unemployment.jpeg

Any problems with promoting FUD about climate change?

Koch Industries is an aggressive opponent of climate legislation and a major funder of climate skeptics, including the Cato Institute.

For people who think the Tea Party is a grassroots movement:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) was started by David Koch and Richard Fink, a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries. AFP helps fund activities related to the "Tea Party" efforts.

"The Koch brothers use their considerable wealth to bankroll the right wing, including the Tea Party. This serves the purpose of furthering not only their right-wing ideology but also their bottom line. Koch Industries has a lot to gain from gutting government oversight and electing candidates who oppose government regulation, especially in the oil-and-gas industry."[40] Carrk & others have identified "at least $85 million the Koch brothers have given to at least 85 right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups over the past decade and a half."

Nope, they are a Koch-funded astroturf movement.

Got a problem with them lobbying government in their favour?

Koch Industries is the single largest oil company contributor to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $1,065,750 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) for $42,950. Rep. Tiahrt, for his part, has consistently voted with the oil industry on energy, war and climate bills.

Got a problem with them fighting internet neutrality, supporting unlimited lobbying, fighting reform of finance?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/94/Issue_Agenda.jpg

Coercing employees into voting a particular way, with threats?

"on the eve of the November midterm elections, Koch Industries sent an urgent letter to most of its 50,000 employees advising them on whom to vote for and warning them about the dire consequences to their families, their jobs and their country should they choose to vote otherwise."

Blocking any/all climate change political reforms?

A 2012 report by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) describes the role of David and Charles Koch as leaders in the opposition to climate change policy in the U.S. The report, titled Behind a Global Crisis: U.S. Carbon Billionaires and the U.N, Climate Deadlock, explains how the Kochs are using their immense wealth to kill U.S. climate legislation and convince America that "energy independence" is more important than addressing adverse climate change. Contained in the report are details of how the Kochs' activity in campaign contributions, lobbying legislators, funding climate denialists, attacking clean air laws, and stopping the shift in subsidies from fossil fuels has helped to halt any serious progress on climate policy in the United States. The result is a deadlock in addressing the global climate crisis.

Any problem with either of these?

AFP's message is in sync with that of other groups funded by the Koch family’s other special interest groups working against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment.

This is only the start of what I could ask as well, because there are hundreds of interconnected think-tanks out there, supporting all sorts of dodgy crap.

You know, this is sounding a lot more like what I think Libertarianism really is right now, and a lot less like the one advocates here talk about. Who, upon reading that, is left with the same view of Libertarianism as they had a few minutes ago?

I don't know how a blind eye, or a favourable view, can be given to any of that - it seems like rampant lawless profiteering and powergrabbing. Anyone think a worthwhile society could come about, with that kind of stuff as a template? (remember, the Koch's are inextricable from Libertarianism)

Permabear wrote: »

Of course, as far as you're concerned, the only people/corporations with an "extremely bad history" are those on the right — while those on the left, like Soros, get a free pass. Since this line of logic is self-evidently silly, any further response to it would be equally silly.

So you don't care about associating with the Koch's and their bad history, it's just whataboutery instead?

Personally, I don't know Soros at all, so I don't know what kind of a history he has.

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What is so hard, about the idea that both government and members of private industry can be at fault? I've given a pretty non-grudging, total agreement with your criticisms of government on the HFCS issue - I just think private industry deserves criticism too.

Permabear wrote: »

I believe that any government interference with private markets is both damaging and immoral.

The very existence of government is interference in private markets though, and it is impossible to have a working system without at least a public legal system, which requires a state (this is because private property is something that must be legally defined, and if you have private legal systems competing with each other, you will inevitably have them competing over who has authority to assign property rights for the same piece of land, until there's violence).

The theory you support is good on paper, but it can't be made work in reality.