Crony Capitalism to em refers to a relationship between government and private companies in which the government passes legislation that leads to benefits for said company (bailouts, tax breaks, market regulation all fall under this umbrella). I would agree with this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism Companies lobby to receive the above mentioned things (bailouts, tax breaks, market regulation). If government would not provide these then companies would have very little reason to lobby. As to why these things lead to wealth disparity; market regulation not always, but usually benefits large companies while hurting smaller ones (mom and pop stores). Large companies have a much easier time coping with regulations than small ones. Here is a tobacco example and toy making example by John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obWWToITkg&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKkjuMJp8s8&feature=related This may be the intention of market regulation, but like many pieces of federal legislation it does the opposite of what is intended.
But my problem with your argument is that you are advocating getting rid of regulation. I would argue that one should always try and IMPROVE the regulation, not get rid of. Do you see what I mean? and yeah I would agree with you on the bit of crony capitalism, it's just I always heard it in the context of businesses favouring their family or friends for business deals rather than cosying up to the government.
Not at all. Just calling it like it is. I feel like it goes something like this. There is a question for what is the answer of 1 + 1 * 2 and some random idiot came in here with "IS 1 + 1 = 2." Your little interjection had nothing to do with the discussion. NOTHING. And let me remind you, the top is TAXATION and its effects, NOT whether Canada is more fiscally responsible when you didn't know jack about what you were talking about. Then instead of conceding defeat, immediately went ahead and made it worse for yourself. Agree to disagree then. But once again, the point isn't Canada versus the US. Never was. It could have been the US versus whomever, except I thought that Canada is the closest in relative lifestyle to the US such that we can control some of the variables. But no, it never was about Canada. Because the working class didn't pay for the excess of the rich. I've addressed this point before. The rich are being permitted to keep a larger share of their wealth. Is it a bad time to do it? I think so. Which is why I say the US is not fiscally responsible. But do I agree with eventually (Say during a more economically prosperous time) do it? Absolutely. What really vexes me is how some people (I don't mean you, so don't get offended) ignore the fact that it is an equation. The taxation side never fail to be brought up, but the spending side is glossed over; or worse, when it is brought up, it is stated to be "the way it should be" or (as you've seen) "civilized." Here are the facts though. Here is our total spending. If you want a balanced budget, you have to find the revenue in order to equal that total spending. Taxation is merely how you slice it so you can still get elected. It's not like say, cigarette tax, which we're trying to encourage certain positive behaviour here. It's pretty much simple math. Lastly but not the least, do not confuse a conservative with a Republican (which is a joke). I extend the same courtesy by assuming your not a Democrat (which is also a joke). I strongly disapprove of education spending cuts.
Those who have no argument are forced to resort to insults. In some ways, yes. You won't go broke if you get sick in Canada, I consider that "more civilized" than here, where the number one cause of bankruptcies is medical bills. I did, you are the one who had to twist and turn my words in order to have anything approaching a reasonable response. We all pay taxes. In fact, the bottom 80% of the economic spectrum pays 32% of the federal taxes before we ever start talking about income taxes. The rich have been taking more and more of my money for decades, why is it OK for them to "steal" from me by getting their tax rates lowered?
For the record, there was nothing at all insulting about my post. It was really an exact quote of something big_texxx has posted many, many times. He says "same old tired class warfare," followed by his favorite emoticon, the roll eyes. If a quotation is insulting, well... that's probably at the feet of the quoted individual. Interesting that you leapt to his defense, especially given the lack of anything approaching an insult. Hmmm.
after the financial meltdown three years ago as a result of deregulation that started 30 years ago, anyone arguing that less regulation will help close the income gap is an idiot. sorry
you are not sorry or you wouldn't of called me an 'idiot'. Anyways, if you think the financial meltdown was caused by deregulation, well than I guess you are confused to be begin with. Over the past 30 years no American market has become more deregulated.
are you kidding. clinton and the republicans broke up glass stegall. ever heard of it. it erased the line of commercial and investment banking allowing those to banks to merge create and offer all types of investment products in a commercial bank setting. that's just one example
secondly, what government entity was regulating mortgage backed securities and the equity created by debt products offered to insure them.
No I am not kidding. The banking industry is far more regulated today than it was 30 years ago. The Federal Reserve is far more powerful than it has ever been.
You seriously need to read this book if you think the banking collapse was NOT caused by deregulation. Or to be precise, it was caused by a lack of regulation of financial products. Although in a strange sense, the banking collapse could also be attributed to more regulation as well. Home ownership was pushed through by the Clinton administration meant that home ownership was pushed as an agenda far beyond what people's ability to actually pay for the home went.
*damnit wish I have an edit button, guess I have to donate to tip jar some time soon* anyway, there's little point in binging up what an organisation is SUPPOSED to do, because they rarely do that anyway. The real culprit behind the meltdown and the bank's trading is more for the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Chuckles. This must be a monumental joke of some kind. I've responded to every one of your idiotic points. I've used economic theories, data, statistics all the way down to simple additions and subtractions. I posted you the US Federal budget. I recommended a book on governmental taxation. I showed you how SS benefits are calculated. I showed you the projected government budget, spending and future shortfalls through 2018. My god, I even took the time to respond to your idiotic supposed Marie Antoinette quote. What did you do? Move from distraction to distraction whenever it because clear your position is indefensible. At the end of the day, it's pretty clear why I call you and idiot. BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE. Well, why stop there? What if we line up the rich and just kill them all? Then use their money to pay the medical bills that caused all those bankruptcies? Pray do tell, which one of your words did I twist exactly? Based on even this post, it's pretty clear that I understood you perfectly fine. Let me put those two quotes next to each other: Yep, sounds like I got it exactly right. Why stop at income taxes? It is only 42% of the federal tax receipts? It's like a smoker saying "look, I paid 100%, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, of all cigarette taxes." Not to mention we've already been through this over and over and OVER before. You already had your SS rant. It was already established long ago that whether it's income tax or SS or Medicare/Medicaid the rich draw far less than they put in. End of story. [/quote] They stole from you how? Did you generate their income? Did you operate their business? So how did they steal from you? They earned their income. They were taxed for them. Now they're being taxed a little less for them. That's IT. There's ZERO relation between you and their income and their tax. What you deserve through wages had already been paid to you.
Do you speak like this to people in person, or are you just one of those internet tough guys? It's funny, even with all your bravado, you've really brought very little to this conversation except for a few insults surrounded by comments that would only be made from a person with the world view of a three year old. Humanity is to be cherished. No person should lose their ability to support him-or-herself or their family because of an illness. This Earth has plenty to offer to everyone on it. Most of the wealthy people in this country have done very little to improve society. Creating a new financial instrument does not better society, I'm sorry. So why are many of our best and brightest working in Finance? Taking resources from our Earth shouldn't be so damn profitable either. Deregulation has led us to a system that rewards people, not for innovation that is beneficial to society, but for innovation that is to the detriment of our society.
