81%, no, now 85% of Americans Increasingly See Corporations Being Greedy as Cause of Inflation

Americans Increasingly See Corporations Being Greedy and Raising Prices to Make Record Profits as a Cause of Inflation

Since January, there has been an 8-point increase in the share who say corporate greed is a cause of inflation (from 73% to 81%).

https://navigatorresearch.org/concerns-about-inflation-soar-among-americans/

Polling trends suggest that voters don’t believe inflation is President Joe Biden’s fault. Corporate greed is to blame—in a very big way. Navigator Research issued new results this week finding that since the beginning of May “there has been a 5-point increase in the share who say they are ‘very concerned’ about inflation, with the greatest increase coming from independents (9-point increase, from 51% to 60%).” They identify gas and grocery prices as particular areas of concern.

What’s really significant is the 8-point increase since January in the share “who say corporate greed is a cause of inflation (from 73% to 81%).” Yes, 81% say that it’s corporate greed running up prices. That’s a “7-point increase among Republicans (from 64% to 71%), a 13-point increase among independents (from 67% to 80%), and an 8-point increase among Democrats (from 82% to 90%).”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/5/2101938/-Voters-overwhelmingly-know-what-is-to-blame-for-inflation-Corporate-greed

Interesting.

Looks like the Democratics are controlling the narrative on this.

This is great news that more people are seeing behind the curtain.

Good post Floyd.

Unfortunately the lower income voters who support ‘Murcan Business can understand economics according to the GOP where Betsy DeVos, the Kochs, Waltons and others enjoying the economic windfalls that are delivered in 30 second “opinion” sound bytes by conservative talkers and their guests like Kudlow.

Not 18 minutes of real data.

As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

Unfortunately there is a large percentage of Americans that think it’s Biden’s fault for not doing anything about it. They have no clue it takes 60 votes to do so

It’s just a bunch of bullshit. We can all acknowledge there a wage gap. As soon as that gap was closed a little when the American worker gain some leverage, corporations simply raised prices to put profit margin back to making the wage a gap a real thing again. As long as there is money flowing into Washington the gap will never close. As a result  Water will always find its level on Wall Street in favor of the investor and it’ll only get worse.

Floyd Robertson wrote:This is great news that more people are seeing behind the curtain.

Dr Reich provides a reasonable explanation of why inflation is occurring without judging those who are causing it.

Very much a "just the facts" presentation.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:This is great news that more people are seeing behind the curtain.

Dr Reich provides a reasonable explanation of why inflation is occurring without judging those who are causing it.

Very much a "just the facts" presentation.

I like how he deftly sidestepped Graham's attempt to turn the discussion into building the wall.

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

If corporations have a tax rate that makes them actually think about taking profits vs anything else they do....(reduce prices, pay employees more, etc) Then it pushes everything down as a benefit for everyone.
Fucking GM used to have a damn bowling alley in the Cadillac place to entertain their employees... let alone paying for employees kids college and pensions and other great benefits they used to prefer spending their money on over taxes...
When most major companies are oligopolies and or monopolies protected by law, seems like forcing the record profits downward doesn't seem like something too over reaching. Especially since the current true benefits only go to a handful.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

If corporations have a tax rate that makes them actually think about taking profits vs anything else they do....(reduce prices, pay employees more, etc) Then it pushes everything down as a benefit for everyone.
Fucking GM used to have a damn bowling alley in the Cadillac place to entertain their employees... let alone paying for employees kids college and pensions and other great benefits they used to prefer spending their money on over taxes...
When most major companies are oligopolies and or monopolies protected by law, seems like forcing the record profits downward doesn't seem like something too over reaching. Especially since the current true benefits only go to a handful.

This is a major part of the issue that Republicans do not want to discuss. Cutting the tax rate that businesses pay actually lessens the incentive to spend on employees.

The word "greedy" is being used in this thread to describe corporations. I don't like that. It's not greed; it's nature - corporations exist to maximize profits. Our laws, especially our tax laws, should reflect that reality. We should be making it financially beneficial to spend more on employees, but the Republican corporate tax cut did the opposite.

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

And thinking inflation is caused by Biden is ridiculous.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Dr Reich provides a reasonable explanation of why inflation is occurring without judging those who are causing it.

Very much a "just the facts" presentation.

I like how he deftly sidestepped Graham's attempt to turn the discussion into building the wall.

Even though it is edited that seems like the stupidest question, still Reich pointing out that immigration is very good for the US economy was a slam dunk on the question.

PennSpartan wrote:

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

And thinking inflation is caused by Biden is ridiculous.

The President, regardless of which party they are in, always gets blamed for a bunch of stuff way beyond their control.  All that Biden can do is to have as much PR out there controlling the narrative, which he is doing.  That PR is one reason that so much of the population, 81%, sees corporate greed as the root cause.

note on the use of the word "Greed" - Greed is the basic driver of the particular "brand" of capitialisum currently practiced.  It is supposed to be offset by competition between sellers, which would hold profits down, however, as Dr. Reich points out in his testimony, due to market consolidation allowed since the Reagan administration, there is little meaningful competition in a number of commodity markets, like energy, food & medicine.   Thus, in these markets the sellers can increase profits with no fear of a competitor undercutting them.  

Furthermore, from my reading, not Dr. Reich's testimony, all these markets are financed by the same finance guys, who in many instances are "calling the shots" for the markets by not allowing spending by the corporations to create competition.  In the oil business this is why drilling shut down in 2017, which is part of the cause of less supply now.

edit - one item Dr. Reich didn't mention about the 1% who own a majority of the stocks, about 30% of them are not US citizens and live in other countries, thus the question of sending money to them instead of lowering prices is about sending money out of the country.

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

My word, are you dumb.

First hand experience is its true. My company is raising prices because they can right now, that's it.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

My word, are you dumb.

First hand experience is its true. My company is raising prices because they can right now, that's it.

This is what Free Market Economic Theory says is supposed to happen.

What is supposed to happen next is that competitors are supposed to flood into the market, increasing competition and driving profits back down.

This theory might work if there were unlimited access to the means of creating more competitors, however that is not the case in the modern economy.  edit - there is also always a time lag for new competitors to enter the markets which the "Free Market Idealists" ignore, but about which a very famous economist said "in the long term we will all be dead"

Entry of new competitors into modern markets is limited due to the cost of entry, including the unwillingness of the financial poohbahs to fund more competition which would reduce their ROI, and the unlimited consolidation of market suppliers, who, if a new competitor becomes a threat, simply buy that competitor to keep control of the markets.

Thus, the "Free Market Ideals" which some Economists, and by influence Republicans, support, are a fraud.  The markets are not operating in a real "Free Market" way.

I understand that most of this board are not as interesting in analysis as I am, and thus I have changed my posting style.

However, it is clear that the "owners" are screwing the rest of the country for their own enrichment.

Here is an article with a link to a study supporting that.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/21/study-shows-excess-corporate-profits-us-have-become-widespread

Good stuff, Trapper.

It would be nice if the general public does indeed understand this. Time will tell.

I see one of the deniers of this idea. Dr Paul Krugman, has, in today's column, switched and now is agreeing that greed is a major factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/opinion/inflation-corporate-profits.html

I think with the refinery situation, both greed and the on coming electric vehicle revolution have something to do with it.

More the reason the federal govt should get into the refining business. Buy the shuttered refineries, have the military refine their own fuel. Put pressure on the market to compete with less of a profit motive... Then Biden or whomever can turn the spicket when this sort of shit hits the fan in the future, OR just lets the industry die it's slow death from electrification (but covering it's ass for jet fuel and whatever wacky fuel needs the military has)...

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I think with the refinery situation, both greed and the on coming electric vehicle revolution have something to do with it.

More the reason the federal govt should get into the refining business. Buy the shuttered refineries, have the military refine their own fuel. Put pressure on the market to compete with less of a profit motive... Then Biden or whomever can turn the spicket when this sort of shit hits the fan in the future, OR just lets the industry die it's slow death from electrification (but covering it's ass for jet fuel and whatever wacky fuel needs the military has)...

Here is a chart of sales of gasoline ...

The huge drop in 2021 is a puzzle ...



https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M

Here is another chart, on gasoline consumption ...



https://www.mcoscillator.com/learning_center/weekly_chart/gasoline_consumption_rebounding_but_still_down/

Totally confused about what is going on, but it is clear that we are using much less gas than we were, working from home having a big impact?

A couple more links to charts - which show that inventories are down as is refining, slightly, but that the inventory drop is a long-term trend from 2016.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=C100000001&f=M

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFSXUS1&f=M

RWNJ Link About USA Exporting Oil

Oil News wrote:The U.S. oil and natural gas industry long fought for and in the last decade finally won release from federal restrictions that limited exports. The ostensible reason was that because of the so-called "shale revolution" in the country's oil and gas fields, the United States would have plenty of oil and gas to spare for export. The real reason behind the push was that the oil and gas industry wanted what almost every other industry in America already had: The right to sell their products to the highest bidders no matter where they lived on the globe.

This made it almost certain that as U.S. prices rose to match world prices, U.S. consumers would feel the pain. And, since energy prices affect everyone who votes, they are always politically consequential.

... it has long been the policy of the United States to allow the export of refined (as opposed to crude) petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and heating oil. The country has a refinery capacity significantly in excess of domestic needs and so exports a considerable volume of refined products including about 1 million barrels per day (mbpd) of gasoline and 1.4 mbpd of diesel and heating oil (for the week ending June 10). If the U.S. were to curtail such exports in order to reduce prices at home, the country would be violating long-term commitments to free trade and free markets, and would be reducing supply and thus raising prices for customers abroad.

Exports Causing Gas Prices to Rise

NEW YORK (AP) — Oil companies swam in record profits over the last few months at a time when Americans struggled to pay for gasoline, food and other basic necessities.

https://apnews.com/article/sports-swimming-e71ce380df372fa2ba257a3175ff0f49

LONDON (AP) — BP’s earnings tripled in the second quarter as the British energy giant profited from oil and natural gas prices that soared after Russia invaded Ukraine.

London-based BP said Tuesday that underlying replacement cost profit, which excludes one-time items and fluctuations in the value of inventories, jumped to $8.45 billion from $2.80 billion in the same period a year earlier.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-london-earnings-7173f177d4ccf8aba02fb456b62c864a

[tw]1562818171140440064[/tw]

Trapper Gus wrote:

Americans Increasingly See Corporations Being Greedy and Raising Prices to Make Record Profits as a Cause of Inflation

Since January, there has been an 8-point increase in the share who say corporate greed is a cause of inflation (from 73% to 81%).

Polling trends suggest that voters don’t believe inflation is President Joe Biden’s fault. Corporate greed is to blame—in a very big way. Navigator Research issued new results this week finding that since the beginning of May “there has been a 5-point increase in the share who say they are ‘very concerned’ about inflation, with the greatest increase coming from independents (9-point increase, from 51% to 60%).” They identify gas and grocery prices as particular areas of concern.

What’s really significant is the 8-point increase since January in the share “who say corporate greed is a cause of inflation (from 73% to 81%).” Yes, 81% say that it’s corporate greed running up prices. That’s a “7-point increase among Republicans (from 64% to 71%), a 13-point increase among independents (from 67% to 80%), and an 8-point increase among Democrats (from 82% to 90%).”

Interesting.

Looks like the Democratics are controlling the narrative on this.

You see overwhelming economic ignorance of the populace as a good thing if it's politically lucrative to your tribe?

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

My word, are you dumb.

First hand experience is its true. My company is raising prices because they can right now, that's it.

This is what Free Market Economic Theory says is supposed to happen.

What is supposed to happen next is that competitors are supposed to flood into the market, increasing competition and driving profits back down.

This theory might work if there were unlimited access to the means of creating more competitors, however that is not the case in the modern economy.  edit - there is also always a time lag for new competitors to enter the markets which the "Free Market Idealists" ignore, but about which a very famous economist said "in the long term we will all be dead"

Entry of new competitors into modern markets is limited due to the cost of entry, including the unwillingness of the financial poohbahs to fund more competition which would reduce their ROI, and the unlimited consolidation of market suppliers, who, if a new competitor becomes a threat, simply buy that competitor to keep control of the markets.

Thus, the "Free Market Ideals" which some Economists, and by influence Republicans, support, are a fraud.  The markets are not operating in a real "Free Market" way.

Wouldn't there have to be some semblance of a free market in our economy to apply what "Free Market Economic Theory" says is supposed to happen?

When you have a government that has a monopoly on currency manipulation, creates barriers to entry in the most important industries to protect their corporate partners, having the legal fiction that is the "corporation" in the first place then of course the incentive structure is going to be skewed into not operating in the manner it would if consumers determined which companies rise or fail based on the value they create.

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

This is what Free Market Economic Theory says is supposed to happen.

What is supposed to happen next is that competitors are supposed to flood into the market, increasing competition and driving profits back down.

This theory might work if there were unlimited access to the means of creating more competitors, however that is not the case in the modern economy.  edit - there is also always a time lag for new competitors to enter the markets which the "Free Market Idealists" ignore, but about which a very famous economist said "in the long term we will all be dead"

Entry of new competitors into modern markets is limited due to the cost of entry, including the unwillingness of the financial poohbahs to fund more competition which would reduce their ROI, and the unlimited consolidation of market suppliers, who, if a new competitor becomes a threat, simply buy that competitor to keep control of the markets.

Thus, the "Free Market Ideals" which some Economists, and by influence Republicans, support, are a fraud.  The markets are not operating in a real "Free Market" way.

Wouldn't there have to be some semblance of a free market in our economy to apply what "Free Market Economic Theory" says is supposed to happen?

When you have a government that has a monopoly on currency manipulation, creates barriers to entry in the most important industries to protect their corporate partners, having the legal fiction that is the "corporation" in the first place then of course the incentive structure is going to be skewed into not operating in the manner it would if consumers determined which companies rise or fail based on the value they create.

Without some sort of government there is no "economy" per say.  Just gangs or tribes fighting each other with violence, thus the concept of the government, just by being a government, being the bad guy that you are making just does not work. It depends on what the government does.

Agree that the government allowed the oligarchies to control the various markets following the failed theory that private business is the best solution along with another failed theory about low cost of goods in the short term being the only measure for anti-trust control.  

However, right now we have oligarchies controlling the various markets, and thus they can charge more to reap huge profits without fear of competition.  It is the function of government not to allow this to happen, but ever since the Reagan Administration, until Biden, you are right, the government has been encouraging this to happen.

The answer is a hard left turn on the basics of how the markets are regulated, back to the anti-trust enforcement and economic theories of the pre-Reagan years.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:

Wouldn't there have to be some semblance of a free market in our economy to apply what "Free Market Economic Theory" says is supposed to happen?

When you have a government that has a monopoly on currency manipulation, creates barriers to entry in the most important industries to protect their corporate partners, having the legal fiction that is the "corporation" in the first place then of course the incentive structure is going to be skewed into not operating in the manner it would if consumers determined which companies rise or fail based on the value they create.

Without some sort of government there is no "economy" per say.  Just gangs or tribes fighting each other with violence, thus the concept of the government, just by being a government, being the bad guy that you are making just does not work. It depends on what the government does.

Agree that the government allowed the oligarchies to control the various markets following the failed theory that private business is the best solution along with another failed theory about low cost of goods in the short term being the only measure for anti-trust control.  

However, right now we have oligarchies controlling the various markets, and thus they can charge more to reap huge profits without fear of competition.  It is the function of government not to allow this to happen, but ever since the Reagan Administration, until Biden, you are right, the government has been encouraging this to happen.

The answer is a hard left turn on the basics of how the markets are regulated, back to the anti-trust enforcement and economic theories of the pre-Reagan years.

Don't strawman my argument. I never suggested anarchy.

There's a large gap between complete anarchy and not having government create tens of thousands of pages of regulations for each industry, in bed hand-in-hand with the corporations, to stifle competition and disallow new companies from entering markets.
They didn't just "allow" it, they intentionally facilitated it. It wasn't some organic happenstance, that is the incentive structure of government.

You're making bold statements. Where is this failed theory that private businesses are a failure at delivering goods and services demonstrated?

The oligarchs are politician's golf buddies, Christmas card exchangers, swapping between public and private sector back and forth.

Reagan? My man, this has been occurring since the turn of the century (the 19th century) and the trajectory has been consistent.

We have the largest, most well funded government in the history of the world. It is unprecedented how involved our government is with regards to what control they exhibit with deliberate regulation to achieve a result, deliberate taxation (and targeted tax breaks) to achieve a result, and government mandated requirements that keep all but the most connected individuals able/chosen to play ball.

The government has a monopoly on currency (federal reserve), they have a monopoly on property you acquire (property taxes), they fine you for producing (income tax), and tax every dollar you acquire multiple times on its way to being exchanged.

We live in a state run command and control economy. It bears no resemblance to a free market economy outside of maybe the price mechanism. Which is wildly manipulated through the various vehicles of government influence that occur.

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Without some sort of government there is no "economy" per say.  Just gangs or tribes fighting each other with violence, thus the concept of the government, just by being a government, being the bad guy that you are making just does not work.  It depends on what the government does.

Agree that the government allowed the oligarchies to control the various markets following the failed theory that private business is the best solution along with another failed theory about low cost of goods in the short term being the only measure for anti-trust control.  

However, right now we have oligarchies controlling the various markets, and thus they can charge more to reap huge profits without fear of competition.  It is the function of government not to allow this to happen, but ever since the Reagan Administration, until Biden, you are right, the government has been encouraging this to happen.

The answer is a hard left turn on the basics of how the markets are regulated, back to the anti-trust enforcement and economic theories of the pre-Reagan years.

Don't strawman my argument. I never suggested anarchy.

There's a large gap between complete anarchy and not having government create tens of thousands of pages of regulations for each industry, in bed hand-in-hand with the corporations, to stifle competition and disallow new companies from entering markets.
They didn't just "allow" it, they intentionally facilitated it. It wasn't some organic happenstance, that is the incentive structure of government.

You're making bold statements. Where is this failed theory that private businesses are a failure at delivering goods and services demonstrated?

The oligarchs are politician's golf buddies, Christmas card exchangers, swapping between public and private sector back and forth.

Reagan? My man, this has been occurring since the turn of the century (the 19th century) and the trajectory has been consistent.

We have the largest, most well funded government in the history of the world. It is unprecedented how involved our government is with regards to what control they exhibit with deliberate regulation to achieve a result, deliberate taxation (and targeted tax breaks) to achieve a result, and government mandated requirements that keep all but the most connected individuals able/chosen to play ball.

The government has a monopoly on currency (federal reserve), they have a monopoly on property you acquire (property taxes), they fine you for producing (income tax), and tax every dollar you acquire multiple times on its way to being exchanged.

We live in a state run command and control economy. It bears no resemblance to a free market economy outside of maybe the price mechanism. Which is wildly manipulated through the various vehicles of government influence that occur.

Okay - I take it you agree that some form of government is necessary to have an ordered economy.

Assuming this is the case, then that government is in place to issue "regulations" as you are calling them, but in reality, they are laws, and they are "ideally" in place to deal with the common good of the people verses the good of those with the power to disturb that common good.

Since this is a world of people, not angels, there are always those who would enrich themselves at the expense of others, and contrary to the preservation of the common good.  This is why we have regulations.

I agree that history shows us why various ideal systems do not work in the real world, such as money controlled only by private banks.

We also can be thrown off track by concretive efforts, as we have been since the 1960's and especially since the 1980's.

However, the movement to blame the idea of regulation as evil is a foolish one.

Within certain bounties we do have a market-based economy, however, the lack of regulation of the size of corporation has distorted it to be controlled too much by the owners, and not enough by labor & the consumers.

?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:

Don't strawman my argument. I never suggested anarchy.

There's a large gap between complete anarchy and not having government create tens of thousands of pages of regulations for each industry, in bed hand-in-hand with the corporations, to stifle competition and disallow new companies from entering markets.
They didn't just "allow" it, they intentionally facilitated it. It wasn't some organic happenstance, that is the incentive structure of government.

You're making bold statements. Where is this failed theory that private businesses are a failure at delivering goods and services demonstrated?

The oligarchs are politician's golf buddies, Christmas card exchangers, swapping between public and private sector back and forth.

Reagan? My man, this has been occurring since the turn of the century (the 19th century) and the trajectory has been consistent.

We have the largest, most well funded government in the history of the world. It is unprecedented how involved our government is with regards to what control they exhibit with deliberate regulation to achieve a result, deliberate taxation (and targeted tax breaks) to achieve a result, and government mandated requirements that keep all but the most connected individuals able/chosen to play ball.

The government has a monopoly on currency (federal reserve), they have a monopoly on property you acquire (property taxes), they fine you for producing (income tax), and tax every dollar you acquire multiple times on its way to being exchanged.

We live in a state run command and control economy. It bears no resemblance to a free market economy outside of maybe the price mechanism. Which is wildly manipulated through the various vehicles of government influence that occur.

Okay - I take it you agree that some form of government is necessary to have an ordered economy.

Assuming this is the case, then that government is in place to issue "regulations" as you are calling them, but in reality, they are laws, and they are "ideally" in place to deal with the common good of the people verses the good of those with the power to disturb that common good.

Since this is a world of people, not angels, there are always those who would enrich themselves at the expense of others, and contrary to the preservation of the common good.  This is why we have regulations.

I agree that history shows us why various ideal systems do not work in the real world, such as money controlled only by private banks.

We also can be thrown off track by concretive efforts, as we have been since the 1960's and especially since the 1980's.

However, the movement to blame the idea of regulation as evil is a foolish one.

Within certain bounties we do have a market-based economy, however, the lack of regulation of the size of corporation has distorted it to be controlled too much by the owners, and not enough by labor & the consumers.

I'm agnostic to your first point. If we are going to have a special class of people we gift monopoly control over our resources to, their powers should be limited to prosecuting theft/fraud and violence/threat. They shouldn't be playing god with privileges and favors to enrich who will return the favor. That's the incentive structure the public sector operates under and is not conducive to organic resource allocation.

There is no "common good" because it's defined differently by each individual. Allowing the government to define the "common good" immediately places us into circular logic territory.
People are not angels, so why gift a group of people special class to determine how someone else allocates their own resources? Are the types of individuals attracted to the incentive structure of government, where wealth and power can be achieved without providing any value in demand going to be closer to angels or closer to oligarchs?

I don't know. We had the wildest increase in standard of living and drastic crashing of poverty rates prior to the public sector getting as involved in who gets to win and who has to lose in the economy.

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay - I take it you agree that some form of government is necessary to have an ordered economy.

Assuming this is the case, then that government is in place to issue "regulations" as you are calling them, but in reality, they are laws, and they are "ideally" in place to deal with the common good of the people verses the good of those with the power to disturb that common good.

Since this is a world of people, not angels, there are always those who would enrich themselves at the expense of others, and contrary to the preservation of the common good.  This is why we have regulations.

I agree that history shows us why various ideal systems do not work in the real world, such as money controlled only by private banks.

We also can be thrown off track by concretive efforts, as we have been since the 1960's and especially since the 1980's.

However, the movement to blame the idea of regulation as evil is a foolish one.

Within certain bounties we do have a market-based economy, however, the lack of regulation of the size of corporation has distorted it to be controlled too much by the owners, and not enough by labor & the consumers.

I'm agnostic to your first point. If we are going to have a special class of people we gift monopoly control over our resources to, their powers should be limited to prosecuting theft/fraud and violence/threat. They shouldn't be playing god with privileges and favors to enrich who will return the favor. That's the incentive structure the public sector operates under and is not conducive to organic resource allocation.

There is no "common good" because it's defined differently by each individual. Allowing the government to define the "common good" immediately places us into circular logic territory.
People are not angels, so why gift a group of people special class to determine how someone else allocates their own resources? Are the types of individuals attracted to the incentive structure of government, where wealth and power can be achieved without providing any value in demand going to be closer to angels or closer to oligarchs?

I don't know. We had the wildest increase in standard of living and drastic crashing of poverty rates prior to the public sector getting as involved in who gets to win and who has to lose in the economy.

The politicians who created the laws for this country did what they could, it was and is by no means perfect, however, it is based on some pretty good principles, such as the "Rule of Law" being paramount. As I first said, without government there is nothing, which you agreed with, unsure why you are backtracking now. The argument becomes which form of government is the best one, and there I will stick with the one we have, as long as "the people" believe in it.

There are all sorts of things that are owned, if one insists that everything is owned, by the people in common. Air, water, land, space, radio frequencies and on and on. Reality is owned in common. We make laws to divide it up so that it can be used by individuals whom we are giving license to use it, assuming their use will create betterment for many. As you are pointing out, we do not give unlimited ownership to individuals for much of anything. This is because, when it comes down to it, the unit of society that most responsible for our survival are not the individuals. In it the cooperative group.

The period in the United States between 1940 to 1970 was that "golden age" of which you speak. It was caused partly by strong labor union & laws and by income equality measures, such as extremely high taxes on the highest earners.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:?

I'm agnostic to your first point. If we are going to have a special class of people we gift monopoly control over our resources to, their powers should be limited to prosecuting theft/fraud and violence/threat. They shouldn't be playing god with privileges and favors to enrich who will return the favor. That's the incentive structure the public sector operates under and is not conducive to organic resource allocation.

There is no "common good" because it's defined differently by each individual. Allowing the government to define the "common good" immediately places us into circular logic territory.
People are not angels, so why gift a group of people special class to determine how someone else allocates their own resources? Are the types of individuals attracted to the incentive structure of government, where wealth and power can be achieved without providing any value in demand going to be closer to angels or closer to oligarchs?

I don't know. We had the wildest increase in standard of living and drastic crashing of poverty rates prior to the public sector getting as involved in who gets to win and who has to lose in the economy.

The politicians who created the laws for this country did what they could, it was and is by no means perfect, however, it is based on some pretty good principles, such as the "Rule of Law" being paramount. As I first said, without government there is nothing, which you agreed with, unsure why you are backtracking now. The argument becomes which form of government is the best one, and there I will stick with the one we have, as long as "the people" believe in it.

There are all sorts of things that are owned, if one insists that everything is owned, by the people in common. Air, water, land, space, radio frequencies and on and on. Reality is owned in common. We make laws to divide it up so that it can be used by individuals whom we are giving license to use it, assuming their use will create betterment for many. As you are pointing out, we do not give unlimited ownership to individuals for much of anything. This is because, when it comes down to it, the unit of society that most responsible for our survival are not the individuals. In it the cooperative group.

The period in the United States between 1940 to 1970 was that "golden age" of which you speak. It was caused partly by strong labor union & laws and by income equality measures, such as extremely high taxes on the highest earners.

I never agreed to that. "Without government there's nothing." You're starting to sound religious regarding this entity.

Jacques D'Gatineaux wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The politicians who created the laws for this country did what they could, it was and is by no means perfect, however, it is based on some pretty good principles, such as the "Rule of Law" being paramount. As I first said, without government there is nothing, which you agreed with, unsure why you are backtracking now. The argument becomes which form of government is the best one, and there I will stick with the one we have, as long as "the people" believe in it.

There are all sorts of things that are owned, if one insists that everything is owned, by the people in common. Air, water, land, space, radio frequencies and on and on. Reality is owned in common. We make laws to divide it up so that it can be used by individuals whom we are giving license to use it, assuming their use will create betterment for many. As you are pointing out, we do not give unlimited ownership to individuals for much of anything. This is because, when it comes down to it, the unit of society that most responsible for our survival are not the individuals. In it the cooperative group.

The period in the United States between 1940 to 1970 was that "golden age" of which you speak. It was caused partly by strong labor union & laws and by income equality measures, such as extremely high taxes on the highest earners.

I never agreed to that. "Without government there's nothing." You're starting to sound religious regarding this entity.

Because, to me, you have presented a couple of positions on this.

So, the basics.

There are lots of different ways people can be organized in groups, every one of them requires a set of rules for behavior and a consequence if a person does not follow the rules. The entity that has the agreed to power to enforce the rules is called a government.

Here is the United States the US Government is the sovereign government which establishes the rules.

There are other ways of forming governments, however, without a government there is no assurance in the real world that people will follow the rules.

Inflation is meaningless. It affects everyone, including corporations. People got a $2k stimulus last year, more for families. And the Trump tax cuts a few years ago, which I’m told made everyone rich. Quit your bitching, people (mostly Republicans).

PennSpartan wrote:Inflation is meaningless. It affects everyone, including corporations. People got a $2k stimulus last year, more for families. And the Trump tax cuts a few years ago, which I’m told made everyone rich. Quit your bitching, people (mostly Republicans).

Inflation isn't meaningless while it is happening, as the time disconnects mean some people make out like bandits, aka the owners who are setting the prices, and some people get screwed aka th people who saved up their money during the pandemic.

Far from reducing extreme poverty, the expansion of capitalism from the 16th century onward was associated with a dramatic deterioration in human welfare. This is according to a study carried out by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) in collaboration with Macquarie University, Australia, which shows that this new economic system saw a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and a marked upturn in premature mortality.

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-expansion-capitalism-deterioration-human-welfare.html

New inflation numbers were released Wednesday. TL;DR: while the rate of price increases is slowing down, it remains stubbornly high.

The most common traditional explanation is an imbalance between supply and demand — “too much money chasing after too few goods,” as Milton Friedman put it. Most economists say that the supply chain disruptions contribute as well. But supply chain problems have eased in recent months, easing some supply concerns, and the Federal Reserve has been steadily raising interest rates, slowing job growth as a way to balance out the demand part of the equation. So why are prices still so high?

Tracy Alloway, a Bloomberg journalist and co-host of the financial podcast Odd Lots, thinks the answer may be, in part, the fact that many companies are increasingly turning to a strategy known as “price over volume.”

Translate that into plain English and you get something like “chasing fat profits.”

“So you’re selling fewer products, but you’re selling them at higher prices,” Alloway told Today, Explained co-host Noel King on a recent episode of the show. “It’s a viable strategy in the current environment.”

https://www.vox.com/podcasts/23682466/inflation-prices-us-economy

Trapper Gus wrote:

New inflation numbers were released Wednesday. TL;DR: while the rate of price increases is slowing down, it remains stubbornly high.

The most common traditional explanation is an imbalance between supply and demand — “too much money chasing after too few goods,” as Milton Friedman put it. Most economists say that the supply chain disruptions contribute as well. But supply chain problems have eased in recent months, easing some supply concerns, and the Federal Reserve has been steadily raising interest rates, slowing job growth as a way to balance out the demand part of the equation. So why are prices still so high?

Tracy Alloway, a Bloomberg journalist and co-host of the financial podcast Odd Lots, thinks the answer may be, in part, the fact that many companies are increasingly turning to a strategy known as “price over volume.”

Translate that into plain English and you get something like “chasing fat profits.”

“So you’re selling fewer products, but you’re selling them at higher prices,” Alloway told Today, Explained co-host Noel King on a recent episode of the show. “It’s a viable strategy in the current environment.”

https://www.vox.com/podcasts/23682466/inflation-prices-us-economy

And to combat that, COMPETITION!!! (Oh wait, conglomerates are still eating up smaller companies at will...)

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:


https://www.vox.com/podcasts/23682466/inflation-prices-us-economy

And to combat that, COMPETITION!!! (Oh wait, conglomerates are still eating up smaller companies at will...)

Deep in the linked article is says small businesses have learned to not compete with each other and they all win. Free market competition is a learned behavior, it isn't automatic.

RQA wrote:As Bob says:

"America is a stupid country"

Thinking inflation is caused by corporate "greed" is the clincher.

Noted economist, RQA....

Why Is Inflation So Sticky? It Could Be Corporate Profits

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/why-is-inflation-so-sticky-it-could-be-corporate-profits/ar-AA1aCVno

According to economists at the European Central Bank, businesses have been padding their profits. That, they said, was a bigger factor in fueling inflation during the second half of last year than rising wages were.

Reading the whole article, the businesses are practically bragging that they are doing this, they certainly are admitting it.

The sad thing is that it hasn't been a secret for more than the last year, yet not one government, and certainly not the US government, though Joe did jawbone about it for a few weeks, has done anything about it regarding gas prices.  Price gouging is now a business model.

Studies I have seen say each business is getting about 50% of the price increases back in profit.  When there is a supply chain and each step of it has added a 50% profit "tax" to their part of the product and the products go through a number of supplies before they are sold to the end user it is clearly the largest part of inflation.