FINALLY! A great retort to "...taking money from those who work hard - giving to those who don't"
Imagine if every liberal on every talk show would say this over and over, and make it a talking point...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Good thinking FredStembottom! 
often.
Is it an absolute statement that there should be no business owners?
Worker ownership, instead?
Just re-state, if you care to. I am not getting it.
And shared on FB.
has some very good characteristics. Mainly, in the "traditional" industries like chemicals, car manufacturing and the like, they have unions play an almost equal role as does the management on the boards of companies. So it becomes a much more "joint" approach as opposed to an adversarial one. Richard Wolff also pegs this as a key reason why Germany is doing well - he sees this system as a step on the way to worker-owned companies or cooperatives.
What is spoken of much less when discussing the German model is the fact that they have big and rising numbers of working poor, with the so-called mini-jobs that pay 4 euro per hour. So whilst for example in Belgium, the German model is always touted as the example, critical voices are on the rise.
Yes, on August 15th, 1971 Nixon took the US off the Gold Standard set by FDR in 1934 and left the Dollar "Float" in relations to Gold. Nixon did this for economists had LONG determined that the Gold Standard was to restrictive, i.e. caused more economic damage then it prevented.
The best example of this was the History of the US Boom of the 1850s. This boom was created do to the massive expansion of the Railroads in that decade. This improved transportation that the economy boomed. The key to that boom was the massive amount of INFLATION that incurred in that decade. Yes we had inflation, but NOT in terms of gold. Gold remained at $20 an ounce of gold all through the 1850s, but what you could buy for $20 decreased do to the drop in value of gold do to the massive increase in the amount of gold do to the California Gold Rush.
In 1850 the price of gold was $20 to an ounce of gold, in 1860 the price of gold was $20 to an ounce of gold. Yet that $20 could buy more other goods then it could in 1860. The reason this was the case was it was FEDERAL POLICY to make sure the price of Gold was always at $20 to an ounce of gold. If the price dropped below that price, the Federal Government would spend money to buy gold til it was back at being $20 to an ounce of gold. If the price of gold exceeded that price, the Federal Government sold gold till it returned to $20 to an ounce of gold.
This was easy in the 1850s, revenue was up do to inflation and the price of gold was always DROPPING in relations to other goods. As long as the Government made no effort to curtail inflation no problem. The more gold that came out of California meant more gold in circulation and thus more dollars in circulation (Classic inflation, more money chasing less goods).
During the US Civil War the US abandoned the Gold Standard but after the Civil War made a strong effort to restore Gold to the $20 to an ounce of gold standard. Since the Gold from California had fallen to a trickle at that time, inflation came to a standstill and deflation took over. This deflation was just terrible, prices dropped in relation to Gold (as gold increased in value) and given the Dollar was set at $20 to an ounce of gold you had deflation in terms of Dollars.
The US had the worse internal rebellion (excluding the Civil war) in 1877, called the General Strike. Strikers took over complete cities from Baltimore to St Louis. Given that most people in the 1870s still lived on the farm, this rebellion was put down, but followed by a rural "rebellion" in form of the "Free Silver" movement. In 1857 the Silver in a Silver dollar was valued just less then $1. By the 1870s, do to massive silver mining in Nevada, the value of that silver had dropped to 55 cents, yet the US government refused to mint Silver Dollars for it to many were minted it would affect the price of dollars in relations to gold.
Most economist looking back at the "Long Depression" of 1873-1896, said inflation is what the Nation needed (and in affect received in the late 1890s with the Alaska, South African and Australia Gold fields coming on line, you again had Gold Inflation and thus Dollar inflation and with that inflation the US pulled out of the"Long Depression" .
During WWI, every nation except the US went off the Gold Standard. Winston Churchill would late said his greatest mistake as to support going back in the Gold Standard in 1925. England had never really recovered from the recession that followed WWI and by going back in the Gold Standard all Churchill managed to do was to force England into the Great Depression early (The US had entered WWI late, but long after US banks and loaned massive amount of money to the Western Allies, thus by the 1920s the US for the first time in its history cease being a net importer of credit and became a net exporter thus able to stay on the Gold Standard till the Great Depression hit. FDR then lowered the price of dollars to $35 an ounce, a price it would stay till 1971.
Given the decision that the Dollar would be valued at $35 an ounce instead of $20 an ounce and FDR's refusal to do the massive Stimulus program needed to get the US out of the Depression till 1938, the true value of the dollar was always more then $35 to an ounce of gold (There are cases of people smuggling Gold into the US so they could sell it at $35 an ounce instead of the much lower international price) till the early 1970s. At that point Nixon was President and had a choice, either accept that the Dollar will exceed $35 an ounce (Which he ended up doing) OR cut defense spending (for it was spending overseas that was causing the Dollar to drop in relation to Gold NOT Domestic Spending).
Side note: Dollars have always been priced in terms of an ounce of gold. Due to it is DOLLARS to an Ounce, you have a reverse affect. Prices of dollars in terms of gold is going DOWN as the number of dollars per ounce of gold increase. i.e. It is an DECREASE in the price of Dollars when Dollars went from $20 to an ounce of gold to $35 to an ounce of gold. i.e. it now took $35 dollars to buy what $20 could do before. That's inflation, but since we are talking of DOLLARS to an ounce as oppose to Ounces to a dollar the increase in number of dollars is a decrease in the number of dollars to an ounce of gold. The opposite is also true, the decrease in the price of dollars is an increase in the number of Dollars to an ounce of gold.
1, Chervoelt Cruze 40 mpg (Miles per gallon)
2. Cherolet Suburban 10 mpg (Miles per gallon)
3. M113 APC 1 mpg (Miles per gallon)
4. M2 Bradly 2 gpm (Gallons per Mile) or .5 mpg (Miles per gallon)
4. M1 Tank 5 gpm. (Gallons per Mile) or .2 mpg (Miles per gallon)
Notice as you switch from Miles per Gallon to Gallon per miles the numbers reverse. When it comes to the price of Gold we were already in the area of the bottom two vehicles but we are use to seeing other prices in terms of dollars per item, not items per dollar.
Nixon could also increase taxes, but at the upper end of the economic span, for taxing the poor would NOT reduce the demand for imports for at that time period the poor did not buy that much imported items (For example most of the poor purchase USED cars, thus the sale of such used imports was "domestic" in nature, i.e. the affect on exchange rates was when the car was imported, when it was purchased NEW not when it was sold as a USED car).
Side note: Imports only started to be a factor in the late 1960s and mostly in California. Thus most poor were buying domestic used cars for they buy cars till the late 1970s.
Since 1971, the Dollar AND EVERY OTHER CURRENCY IN USE IN THE WORLD have been free floating against each other. When people want paid they want paid in their own local currency or US Dollars. Gold is no longer acceptable for it is hard to exchange compared to Dollars.
As to Head of the Federal Reserve, "The job of the Federal Reserve, is to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going",William McChesney Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McChesney_Martin,_Jr.
By making sure no bubble lasts any length of time, the affect of any bursting of that bubble is minimized. This is the rule the last two heads of the Fed refused to follow. McChesney also accepted the economic concept that some inflation is good but to high it is dangerous (like aspirin, two is great, a bottle full will kill you and the LACK of aspirin means you can suffer some dangerous problems that the Aspirin can solve, just like a little bit of inflation).
Ideally the ideal inflation rate is about 2-4 percent. More then that prices go up to fast, less then that people hold on to items that have declined in value to long.
As to taxes, the big advantage of high top end tax rate (it was 90% under FDR) was it took most of the money away from speculators for they had to pay 90% of anything over the top rate to the Federal Government. Now, FDR also adopted a "Long Term Capital Gain" reduction, i.e. if you kept an investment five years or longer, you were only tax on 50% of the net gain. i.e. the effective top end tax rate was 45% not 90% if the investment was for five years or longer.
This two stick policy killed off most speculators till Reagan eliminated the Capital Gain Reduction when he reduced the top rate to 35% (Capital gain has come back, but as a shadow of what it was pre-Reagan).
Sorry, I liked FDR tax policy. Most people making the top rate are NOT getting that income from Salary, but investments. Why should someone pay the same tax rate for winning a "bet" as someone who put his money into a project that turned out well? The former is almost always an investment of less then five years (and often an investment of less then one year), the latter often is something someone invested years into. I would advocate to restore the tax rate of FDR (through adjusted for inflation for example the top rate should only kick in at one million dollars) along with the 50% disregard for long term capital gains. Such a tax policy would reduce speculation in the stock market (For 90% of any gain would go to the Federal Government) and increase investments in US businesses, for even to build a store it takes five years from the date it is decided a store is needed and to wait to see when it first turns a profit (The actual constructions may be done in three months, but planning researching the location, the design and what to stock takes years of planning).
As to Socialism. Go into a speech that points out no society has even been 100% Socialist (not even the Soviet Union) or 100% Capitalistic for both are unrealistic ideal situations. All Societies have to balance between Capitalism and Socialism. The Army is the Classic Socialistic situation, would soldiers fight and die for the idea that they widow and orphans should die for they did not save enough for them to live? No, thus Soldiers must known that they widows and orphans will be taken care of by society as a whole, i.e. Socialism. The next situation is local roads. They are NOT tolled for it was found to be cheaper to collect a tax on gasoline to pay for those roads, even if the buyer of gasoline never uses them. Furthermore local roads are paid for by local real estate taxes not gasoline taxes. The reason none of the local roads are tolled is that it is more cost effective for the GOVERNMENT to collect taxes to pay for their upkeep then to toll them and collect tolls.
The same with public schools, do you want to have to pay for your child to go to school or have the STATE make that payment. As to people who have no children in public school, ask them do they want those children working and later paying taxes or do they want them to be a constant tax drain on society do to an inability to function in society?
Every society has tended to make Schools, Armies and Roads social responsibilities for that is the most cost effective way to handle all three areas. Another area is the area of care of the less fortunate, we want orphans to be taken care of, not dying in the streets. Since the Great Depression we have extended this to include people who are disabled and over age 65 (i,e, in the form of Social Security). If the Government did not provide these services we would have to go back to the way it was prior to the 1930s, senior citizens were the responsibilities of their adult children.
All Societies have had to balance between Capitalism and Socialism. Sometime Socialism is so successful that Capitalism embraces it (This is what has happened in Europe). When Socialism tends to fail, it fails more do to excessive Military spending (Which is what happened to the Soviet Union) then anything harmful from the extensive Socialism of the Economy (In fact the Soviet Union cut back on Medical Care for its Citizens so they could pour more money into its Military, thus starting in the 1960s the life span of a Russian started to drop do to this reduction in health care). Most of the non-military larger entities of the Soviet Union survived the fall of the Soviet union and made themselves independently owned capitalistic corporations and are booming to this day.
In any speech on Socialism you may want to mention the Soviet Union first, saying its collapse had more to do with excessive military spending then its socialism. Then go to Western Europe and mention all the States provides people in Germany, France the Scandinavian countries and those countries are booming even through socialistic for the simple reason they have kept military spending down. It was NOT socialism that lead to the Fall of the Soviet Union but excessive spending on Defense.
Then go into socialistic policy that the US should embrace, including Universal Health Care (Doctors independent the Government is the payer for the Service requested), Free Collage education for the present system of forcing students to borrow money is not sustainable and increase spending on public transportation project for while the US may become an net Oil exported by 2017, that is NOT going to last and it is expected that by 2025 the US oil production will return to what it was in 2012 (The recent Shale Oil Boom is of limited duration driven by the high price of oil AND the lack of any other option to obtain oil). The reason for increase public transportation for we are about to enter a world of high oil prices, not within the next five years, but afterward and we have to start to prepare for it TODAY.
Just some comments on your comments. Be careful avoid the world Socialism for it is tossed out like it is an evil thing. An example of this is an article that from Detroit Free Press Report on why Detroit is in bad shape, in the comments following that article people posted that it was all the Fault of "Socialism". No details on why Socialism was at fault, for Detroit took over no businesses, they did NOT provide medical care for all of its residents (Restricting medical care to that provided by the State), they did NOT provide housing for all of its residents (Again, restricting such housing to that provided by the Federal Government via the State). Detroit did NOTHING advocated by Socialists, but it was all the fault of the Socialists.
