You think the USA does not have Oligarchs ? We just call them Corporations

Well, I'm not arguing that business doesn't need capital.
But you seem to be implying that consumers don't need money to sustain an economy that's driven primarily by consumption.

Right now the band aid is in the form of low interest debt and government cash infusions. Is this the ideal result of the accumulation of capital goods in your view ?

I suspect a self sustaining model is possible but I don't actually know that. It could be that capitalism is going to wreak havoc on the population every decade or two and that's that.

Grandma can eat cat food. If she can afford it.....

The US has always had it Oligarchs, both corporate and Individuals.

But my point is that while the Oligarchs will always win, you can make it more of a win/win by investing in the Middle Class and allowing much of the growing wealth base to Trickle Up.

The dynamic DOES in fact work.

The rising tide that is the increased wealth of the Middle Class, does raise ALL ships.

The system, in the past at least believed the Middle Class should grow and benefit and the GOP generally supported that, even if there was always favoritism for the rich.

The Oligarch model says loot the Nation and just give it all to us. It gives them MORE in the short term but harms the country over all thus making it not a good play for the long term greedy.

But the Oligarchs would argue 'we are grabbing up MORE money now than we will ever be able to spend, so who cares if we harm the long term asset base. If the roads are unusable, I am rich enough and can fly over them. That is someone else problem. '

Except it's not. The economy is primarily driven by spending on production:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i...diate-good.asp

Intermediate Goods and Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Economists do not factor intermediate goods when they calculate gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is a measurement of the market value of all final goods and services produced in the economy. The reason why these goods are not part of the calculation is that they would be counted twice.

Intermediate Goods Example
Consider a farmer who grows wheat. The farmer sells his crop to a miller for $100 giving the farmer $100 in value. The miller breaks down the wheat to make flour—a secondary intermediate good. The miller sells the flour to a baker for $200 and creates $100 in value ($200 sale - $100 purchase = $100). The final good, which is sold directly to the consumer, is the bread. The baker sells all of it for $300, adding another $100 of value ($300 - $200 = $100). The final price at which the bread is sold is equal to the value that is added at each stage in the production process ($100 + $100 + $100).

So in addition to whatever the farmer spent growing wheat, the miller spent $100 along with the baker's $200 spend. In other words, we spend way more producing final goods than GDP takes into account.


Trump's corp tax cuts isn't the problem; it's what they did with the proceeds, eg, buybacks instead of investing in more efficient means of production. But generally I think developing more efficient means of production ought to be the primary goal, if that's what you meant.

So the perfect economy is one that produces goods so efficiently that no one can afford to buy them ?

That seems about right. We should be there in a decade or two.

Well something like that anyway. From Marx’s The Fragment on Machines:

Labor in the proper sense, serves only within production and for production, and has no other use value. But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.

The saving of labour time is equal to an increase of free time, i.e. time for the full development of the individual….

Yes, in the sense that a hermit living in the dessert on locust and honey is free to fully develop himself. At the end of the day, capitalism seems to promise nothing.

Interesting really.

It wouldn't be that drastic. With today's productivity we could probably reduce labor by 75% or basically a 10-hour work week and sustain a '60s middle-class standard of living for everyone.

Oh sure. I agree.

But how's that working out for us ?

I'm sort of trolling you because standard of living is going up, but there are costs. Stress etc.

I get what you're saying. I just think it's people gonna people in the sense of (economic) materialism, with capitalism serving less as a first cause of materialism but more as a best means to the ends of ever increasing material prosperity.

Or he asks if dinosaurs and man roamed the earth at the same time, 4,000 years ago. But that would just be silly, right?

I mean....it is quite amusing watching people that know nothing about nothing argue about these things. Just break out the popcorn and laugh.

The more interesting point is that no one tried to counter the OP and say it was wrong and that some of those prior GOP/Conservative principles have endured.

No, I think you just have people trained to not bother trying to unwind the inherent bias or knock down any strawmen in your OPs because you're immediately ready with a 1000 word retort. You've fallen victim to having too much free time on your hands. The normal people just can't compete.

If you think today's GOP holds anywhere near the same standpoint on these issues below you are just ignorant of the changes in the GOP.

Sorry Inso. Not everyone has to be knowledgeable and clearly you are not.

1 - Smaller Gov't
2- Debt/Deficits
3 - Keeping the GOv't or State out of our lives
4 - Minimum Wage resistance and Trickle Down economics
5 - Tariffs/Protectionism
6 - Immigration and GDP growth

I don't think positions such as being in favor of a free market or small government are bad in and of themselves, but the conservative versions of these policies are increasingly dubious.

First and foremost, conservatism is a moral political position, not an economical one. Its reigning views on economy fluctuate with the times.

Since the 70s, conservatives in "western" democracies have largely adopted a free-market rhetoric, but actual implementation of free market policy is so-so. These days for example, it tends to go the route of of mercantilism and protectionism, more so than a free market. Behind rhetoric about "deregulation" we tend to find strong political support for big capital; success is measured in the weekly numeric movements of big markets and behemoth companies rather than innovation, competition and startups.

Where we might see a superficial intersect between the conservative right and the economic right is in taxes, but as you note in your OP, conservatives don't really have a stellar record when it comes to deficits or government spending, a trend that has been persistent in the last 5 decades or so.

With the obliteration of the economic right in terms of political power that has happened the last decades (it has largely been gobbled up by conservative parties), these distinctions might seem largely irrelevant. Still, I think they are important: The overarching goal of conservatism has always been to narrowly frame acceptable culture, acceptable moral values and either increase or keep the power vested in authority, usually with language that claim some sort of golden legacy from the past. Whatever economic policy is in vogue in conservative movements are just a means to an end.

I think the Conservative/Religious elements gobbled up the economic conservatives as they ended up being hollow talking points over time with no substance. As such they could not sustain support. I do think they tended towards more libertarian belief sets, even if they did not practice them.

Whereas the religious elements have been consistent as you say. That has allowed them to hold their support and win incrementally more and more over time until now the party is consumed.

When you take the libertarian and conservative movement , seeing they praise a guy like trump for his economic views , a guy that made 7 bankruptcies, complain throughout his mandate that the fed with Powell should lower more the interest rates ( lol !) and than , claiming during his first 3 years it was the greatest economy the US ever had or close to it , while he made 4 trillions of deficit during those first 3 years ….

No wonder trump made so many bankruptcy.
I’m not even talking about is tax issues either .

How can you take any of them seriously who praises trump as a economic guru .…
It’s a brain washed crowd as deep as the talibans .

It's an ironic discussion when we all live in countries where the whole ****ing conservative system/principles keeps enduring to the point where most dont even seem to notice it anymore.

did you mean to say 'eroding' where you said "enduring"?

No

Possibly I should have said 'oblivious'

So what is it about nothing that we should know ?

Wait, you're saying you're not going to bother unwinding his inherent bias or knock down his strawmen because he's going to respond ?

I'd like to see someone discuss the state of the conservative party at this moment. We do it all the time with the Dems. But most conservatives are like you and Nick. You just need to be told what to think and then you think it.

Coming from the party who is told what to think all day by the mainstream media. Oh, that is just classic. lol

[stiffled giggles]