A Brief History of Capitalism

[JohnStOnge]

And I have no doubt that if I were to make an effort to look it up I'd find that they have at least as much access to health care as they did then.

Well go ahead and look it up then. Support your opinion with facts, otherwise it's just opinion.

I'll concede on that one because I did make an effort to look it up and I do have doubt as to being able to find that. Part of it is the fact that, when you think about it, "access to health care" is hard to measure. If one defines it as having health insurance, a higher percentage of people in the United States under 65 were without health care in 2007 than in 1978 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Figure 1). That doesn't mean fewer were without health insurance overall because there are people over 65 and over to consider. The percentage of people 65 and over increased over time and they are covered by Medicaid. But it introduces doubt...at least in terms of health insurance.

Also, if you look at having health insurance as the measure of access, it depends on what part of the "glory days" you look at. I identified the perceived "glory days" of the middle class as 1950 through the mid 1970s. Legislation establishing Medicare and Medicaid was passed in 1965.

There's also the question of whether or not having health insurance equates to "access to health care." So I concede that this is not an easy one that I have no doubt about.

However, the same standard should be applied to anyone who wishes to claim the contrary.

[Ivytalk]

And I have no doubt that if I were to make an effort to look it up I'd find that they have at least as much access to health care as they did then.

Well go ahead and look it up then. Support your opinion with facts, otherwise it's just opinion.

I'll concede on that one because I did make an effort to look it up and I do have doubt as to being able to find that. Part of it is the fact that, when you think about it, "access to health care" is hard to measure. If one defines it as having health insurance, a higher percentage of people in the United States under 65 were without health care in 2007 than in 1978 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Figure 1). That doesn't mean fewer were without health insurance overall because there are people over 65 and over to consider. The percentage of people 65 and over increased over time and they are covered by Medicaid. But it introduces doubt...at least in terms of health insurance.

Also, if you look at having health insurance as the measure of access, it depends on what part of the "glory days" you look at. I identified the perceived "glory days" of the middle class as 1950 through the mid 1970s. Legislation establishing Medicare and Medicaid was passed in 1965.

There's also the question of whether or not having health insurance equates to "access to health care." So I concede that this is not an easy one that I have no doubt abou

However, the same standard should be applied to anyone who wishes to claim the contrary.

http://www.brucespringsteen.com/glorydays" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

So I see your son in law was a parasite.

Perhaps he is. I probably have been for most of my life too in the terms I'm talking about. By that I mean people who live in this country while paying less than their share of the cost of running the country.

But that's the system. The system makes that the case. It's a system whereby government does way more than it should be doing and the wagon is hitched to a small percentage of the population to pull. All you can do is oppose the system. And no I really don't even know if my son in law opposes the system. But I do. And I'm working on him.

Keep on spinning, you are quite the auger.

[YoUDeeMan]

Health care is more expensive because health care is far more advanced than 20-30 years ago. And then there are the lawyers. Have a pain in your side? Let's toss you into the CAT scan and give you a battery of other expensive tests...or someone will sue us.

Same with cars. Government regulations have added air bags and other features, along with a ton of emissions limitations, yet somehow people expect a car to be the same price it was before.




BTW< whoever posted that article...WTF? Did that guy repeat himself a lot? Did that guy repeat himself a lot? Did that guy repeat himself a lot?

[Baldy]

But you have said countless times that Reagan raised taxes too. Besides, there have been monstrous bubbles in all economies of the world since the early 17th century, does Reaganomics get the blame for those too?

Anyway, I'm really curious how the repeal of Glass-Steagall affected the burst of the real estate bubble and was the root cause of the "Great Recession".

We went 60 years without a crash. There were a few minor bubbles, but nothing until the crash of 87 which coincided with financial deregulation under Reagan. Deregulation of financial markets and high end tax cuts were nothing new, but Reagan did a magnificent job of selling them.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal and the CFTA turned a housing bubble into a flow blown world wide economic meltdown. There were many factors that led to the Great Recession but those two acts were among the largest contributors.

We also went through extended periods of economic stagnation. 10 years after the "Great Depression", and the mid 1970's to the early 1980's (thank god we were the only functioning economic power after WWII). Reforms were needed, the Fed had too much power, deregulation was necessary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Glass-Steagall had very little (if anything) to do with economic meltdown in the late 2000's. The two main purposes of Glass-Steagall was to strengthen the Fed by bringing more banks under it purview and to put up a wall between investment banks and commercial banks.

Look at the main players of the latest crash. Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs; all pure investment banks with no commercial banking operations...Glass-Steagall doesn't apply.
AIG...Insurance
New Century Financial...Real Estate Investment Trust
No Glass-Steagall in either case.

Wachovia and Wa-Mu...they went under the old fashioned way. By making shitty loans to homeowners.

Bank of America almost went tits up not because of investments, but because they bought Countrywide Financial. Glass-Steagall didn't apply in any of those cases, and it has to be the biggest political red herring of the past 25 years.

Was deregulation a major cause of the "Great Recession"? You betcha, but it was also the major reason we got out from under "stagflation", the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates in the late 1970's.

[Baldy]

No wonder kalmy, Chizz Stain, jizzkid, and Comrade Cat are forming a circle jerk of appreciation.

I call the article interesting and you respond like this ^
Only a person who's terrified of something behaves like this
A dog is mean because its afraid
(what are you so afraid of?)

Ummm, dogs are mean because they were bred and trained that way.

[JohnStOnge]

Keep on spinning, you are quite the auger.

It's not spin. When I say the majority of the people in this country are parasites I'm talking about a situation in which the majority of the people of this country pay less towards running the country than their share; with "their share" defined by taking what it costs to run the country then dividing that by the number of people. That circumstance is due to a system through which politicians over many decades provided benefits in terms of government doing/providing more while making sure most people didn't have to pay for it through 1) making "the rich" pay way more than anybody else for living here and 2) borrowing.

No individual can unilaterally do anything about that. All an individual can do is oppose that approach. And there's not much opportunity for meaningful opposition because there are no realistic alternatives who would campaign on saying they're going to make everybody pay their share. They'd never get elected because most people are in full support of doing things the way they've been done.

I came across an example of what the American mentality has become yesterday while I was looking for answers to the question of health care access. It's in a report at https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wo ... 1/7871.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Here's the quote:

Over the years the American public, as measured in opinion polls as far back as the 1930s, has generally been supportive of the goals of guaranteed access to health care and health insurance for all, as well as a government role in health financing. However, support typically tapered off when reforms were conditioned on individuals needing to contribute more to the costs.

And that, unfortunately, has become what the majority of the people in this country are. Give us stuff. But don't ask that we bear any of the cost of it. Tax the rich. Make them pay for my stuff.

When you think like that you're not only a parasite by virtue of the system. You're a full blown voluntary parasite. You're one of the people who have actually fostered the system. It's what you want. You WANT to suck the resources of others.

[JohnStOnge]

We're getting off into the weeds but back to the major point: The middle class has not been evaporating. There hasn't been any long term trend towards a "declining" middle class resulting in a situation whereby the middle class now is a smaller proportion of the population and/or is not as materially well off in general as the middle classes of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were. Not in the United States.

And based on a report that was the subject of another thread we had not in Europe either. That thread was about how the "typical" European as defined by median income has gained ground with respect to the "typical" American with residents of some European countries surpassing residents of the United States by that measure.

Also, it's clear that declining middle class income was not a factor in the increase in the income gap over 1979 through 2010. In order for middle class people having lower income later in the period to be a factor they'd have had to have lower incomes later in the period. And they didn't. They had inflation adjusted incomes that were substantially higher later in the period.

[kalm]

We went 60 years without a crash. There were a few minor bubbles, but nothing until the crash of 87 which coincided with financial deregulation under Reagan. Deregulation of financial markets and high end tax cuts were nothing new, but Reagan did a magnificent job of selling them.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal and the CFTA turned a housing bubble into a flow blown world wide economic meltdown. There were many factors that led to the Great Recession but those two acts were among the largest contributors.

We also went through extended periods of economic stagnation. 10 years after the "Great Depression", and the mid 1970's to the early 1980's (thank god we were the only functioning economic power after WWII). Reforms were needed, the Fed had too much power, deregulation was necessary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Glass-Steagall had very little (if anything) to do with economic meltdown in the late 2000's. The two main purposes of Glass-Steagall was to strengthen the Fed by bringing more banks under it purview and to put up a wall between investment banks and commercial banks.

Look at the main players of the latest crash. Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs; all pure investment banks with no commercial banking operations...Glass-Steagall doesn't apply.
AIG...Insurance
New Century Financial...Real Estate Investment Trust
No Glass-Steagall in either case.

Wachovia and Wa-Mu...they went under the old fashioned way. By making shitty loans to homeowners.

Bank of America almost went tits up not because of investments, but because they bought Countrywide Financial. Glass-Steagall didn't apply in any of those cases, and it has to be the biggest political red herring of the past 25 years.

Was deregulation a major cause of the "Great Recession"? You betcha, but it was also the major reason we got out from under "stagflation", the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates in the late 1970's.

Wow! It's amazing how quickly history gets revised!



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... ial-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I remember when Farmers required our insurance agent to become certified in selling securities in the early 2000's.

[kalm]

Keep on spinning, you are quite the auger.

It's not spin. When I say the majority of the people in this country are parasites I'm talking about a situation in which the majority of the people of this country pay less towards running the country than their share; with "their share" defined by taking what it costs to run the country then dividing that by the number of people. That circumstance is due to a system through which politicians over many decades provided benefits in terms of government doing/providing more while making sure most people didn't have to pay for it through 1) making "the rich" pay way more than anybody else for living here and 2) borrowing.

No individual can unilaterally do anything about that. All an individual can do is oppose that approach. And there's not much opportunity for meaningful opposition because there are no realistic alternatives who would campaign on saying they're going to make everybody pay their share. They'd never get elected because most people are in full support of doing things the way they've been done.

I came across an example of what the American mentality has become yesterday while I was looking for answers to the question of health care access. It's in a report at https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wo ... 1/7871.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Here's the quote:

Over the years the American public, as measured in opinion polls as far back as the 1930s, has generally been supportive of the goals of guaranteed access to health care and health insurance for all, as well as a government role in health financing. However, support typically tapered off when reforms were conditioned on individuals needing to contribute more to the costs.

And that, unfortunately, has become what the majority of the people in this country are. Give us stuff. But don't ask that we bear any of the cost of it. Tax the rich. Make them pay for my stuff.

When you think like that you're not only a parasite by virtue of the system. You're a full blown voluntary parasite. You're one of the people who have actually fostered the system. It's what you want. You WANT to suck the resources of others.

Rich or poor, everyone wants as little skin the game as possible. But when you go into bankruptcy over medical bills, you definitely have skin in the game.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Ok I read it. You know, you guys bitch at me because I try to back up what I write. That guy wrote a whole bunch of stuff without substantiating any of it. Like saying, "the so-called 'middle classes' are evaporating." that's just objectively false. I won't post references because you guys don't like that but it's just false. You look at income distributions and there is absolutely no support for that statement...at least not in the United States.

That article is complete crap. He just makes a bunch of unsubstantiated statements then follows that with a bunch of other unsubstantiated statements submitted to explain the other unsubstantiated statements.

You keep saying this, but you've never really proved it. Wages have pretty much been stagnant when compared to other countries and the cost of things like housing, education, insurance, etc. Christ, countries like Sweden and Canada have seen stronger growth with greater social spending and wealth distribution as noted here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/up ... rrer=&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

America! We're number 7 or 8...perhaps top 15!!!!

Thanks conks...

Nice comparison...

Sweden has a population of 9 million and Canada 35 million. US has well over 300 million. Dump 15-25 million illegals into their countries and get back to me.

But I guess everyone deserves to start at the 'management' level....

[kalm]

You keep saying this, but you've never really proved it. Wages have pretty much been stagnant when compared to other countries and the cost of things like housing, education, insurance, etc. Christ, countries like Sweden and Canada have seen stronger growth with greater social spending and wealth distribution as noted here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/up ... rrer=&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

America! We're number 7 or 8...perhaps top 15!!!!

Thanks conks...

Nice comparison...

Sweden has a population of 9 million and Canada 35 million. US has well over 300 million. Dump 15-25 million illegals into their countries and get back to me.

But I guess everyone deserves to start at the 'management' level....

Hey, I'm all for illegal employers paying workers the same wages that law abiding employers such as myself have to. But I'm not sure jobs taken by illegals are middle class jobs.

As for the size argument…meh. Take the EU as a whole and I'm guessing you'll find similar results. We have our Mississippis and they have their Greeces. The point being that higher wages are sustainable even in the face of higher social spending. It can be done and has been done in this country as well.

[Baldy]

We also went through extended periods of economic stagnation. 10 years after the "Great Depression", and the mid 1970's to the early 1980's (thank god we were the only functioning economic power after WWII). Reforms were needed, the Fed had too much power, deregulation was necessary. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Glass-Steagall had very little (if anything) to do with economic meltdown in the late 2000's. The two main purposes of Glass-Steagall was to strengthen the Fed by bringing more banks under it purview and to put up a wall between investment banks and commercial banks.

Look at the main players of the latest crash. Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs; all pure investment banks with no commercial banking operations...Glass-Steagall doesn't apply.
AIG...Insurance
New Century Financial...Real Estate Investment Trust
No Glass-Steagall in either case.

Wachovia and Wa-Mu...they went under the old fashioned way. By making shitty loans to homeowners.

Bank of America almost went tits up not because of investments, but because they bought Countrywide Financial. Glass-Steagall didn't apply in any of those cases, and it has to be the biggest political red herring of the past 25 years.

Was deregulation a major cause of the "Great Recession"? You betcha, but it was also the major reason we got out from under "stagflation", the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates in the late 1970's.

Wow! It's amazing how quickly history gets revised!



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... ial-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I remember when Farmers required our insurance agent to become certified in selling securities in the early 2000's.

Revised history?

Be my guest, please show me where Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Bear Stearns, or Merrill Lynch opened a commercial bank or even an ATM.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist ... -persists/

Oh as far as your agent is concerned, he had to get certified in selling securities because of an SEC rule change reclassifying fixed index annuities as securities. That decision has since been vacated by a federal appeals court.

[Baldy]

Nice comparison...

Sweden has a population of 9 million and Canada 35 million. US has well over 300 million. Dump 15-25 million illegals into their countries and get back to me.

But I guess everyone deserves to start at the 'management' level....

Hey, I'm all for illegal employers paying workers the same wages that law abiding employers such as myself have to. But I'm not sure jobs taken by illegals are middle class jobs.

As for the size argument…meh. Take the EU as a whole and I'm guessing you'll find similar results. We have our Mississippis and they have their Greeces. The point being that higher wages are sustainable even in the face of higher social spending. It can be done and has been done in this country as well.

It's not just the illegals, it's also the pervasive culture of all too many in the US that getting an education or even a job is acting "white". We have our Mississippi's, but we also have our Chicago's and Detroit's and New Jersey's of the world too.

Get used to having your income inequality hard-on, kalm. With the invasion to the south only getting worse and the anti-education culture prospering, the only growing demographic in the US now is the dumb and uneducated (oh of course the Democrat voting base) and that certainly isn't going to bring increasing wages.

[kalm]

Wow! It's amazing how quickly history gets revised!



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... ial-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I remember when Farmers required our insurance agent to become certified in selling securities in the early 2000's.

Revised history?

Be my guest, please show me where Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Bear Stearns, or Merrill Lynch opened a commercial bank or even an ATM.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist ... -persists/

Oh as far as your agent is concerned, he had to get certified in selling securities because of an SEC rule change reclassifying fixed index annuities as securities. That decision has since been vacated by a federal appeals court.

You mean to tell me The Objectivist column written by members of the Ayn Rand Institute fail to recognize the influence of deregulation? GTFO!

Yet another big bank spokesman says that nonbanks such as Lehman and Bear Stearns were more to blame for the crisis. This ignores the fact that nonbanks get their funding from banks in the form of mortgages, repurchase agreements, and lines of credit. Without the big banks providing easy credit on bad collateral like structured products, the nonbanks would not have been able to leverage themselves.

It is true that the financial crisis has enough blame to go around. Borrowers were reckless, brokers were greedy, rating agencies were negligent, customers were naïve, and government encouraged the fiasco with unrealistic housing goals and unlimited lines of credit at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yet, the fact that there were so many parties to blame should not be used to deflect blame from the most responsible parties of all—the big banks. Without the banks providing financing to the mortgage brokers and Wall Street while underwriting their own issues of toxic securities, the entire pyramid scheme would never have got off the ground.

It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Nice comparison...

Sweden has a population of 9 million and Canada 35 million. US has well over 300 million. Dump 15-25 million illegals into their countries and get back to me.

But I guess everyone deserves to start at the 'management' level....

Hey, I'm all for illegal employers paying workers the same wages that law abiding employers such as myself have to. But I'm not sure jobs taken by illegals are middle class jobs.

As for the size argument…meh. Take the EU as a whole and I'm guessing you'll find similar results. We have our Mississippis and they have their Greeces. The point being that higher wages are sustainable even in the face of higher social spending. It can be done and has been done in this country as well.

It still has an effect.

So, more 'social spending' will increase everyone's wage in this country just because it has a little bit in Sweden and Canada where our middle class is probably 80-90X larger than Sweden's and 10X Canada's?

But the rich do not pay their 'fair share' right? Just tax them 70% or 80% or 90% and that will solve all of our 'social problems' and wage inequality.....

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Hey kalm.

I know you love your western European socialist model but this country is the gold standard.

I'll take 'capitalism' over anything else or over any other gov model. The 'American Dream' is still alive and well here.

You don't need a 4 year college degree to move up thru the 'middle class' and make a very good living. You can do it thru hard work, perseverance, dedication. But it seems like those attributes do not exist with most Americans now.

Buddy of mine started a landscape business and he has no college education but he busts his ass and makes well over 6 figures. So the 'American Dream' is out there for anyone.

[kalm]

Hey, I'm all for illegal employers paying workers the same wages that law abiding employers such as myself have to. But I'm not sure jobs taken by illegals are middle class jobs.

As for the size argument…meh. Take the EU as a whole and I'm guessing you'll find similar results. We have our Mississippis and they have their Greeces. The point being that higher wages are sustainable even in the face of higher social spending. It can be done and has been done in this country as well.

It still has an effect.

So, more 'social spending' will increase everyone's wage in this country just because it has a little bit in Sweden and Canada where our middle class is probably 80-90X larger than Sweden's and 10X Canada's?

But the rich do not pay their 'fair share' right? Just tax them 70% or 80% or 90% and that will solve all of our 'social problems' and wage inequality.....

Did I say any of that, Champ?

A broader middle class and increased wages are where I'd like to see us heading. You should too as it would sell more honey.
It would also help broaden the tax base taking some pressure off the rich.

Rather than snipe at each other, how's about we work on a solution. I'll go first:

Gannonfan has always preached innovation as a potential strength. I think that's a good start so increased emphasis and yes perhaps spending on practical education.

I also think we should penalize any company that moves its operations or manufacturing offshore and yet still wants to sell their shit here.

Now, your turn.

[kalm]

Hey kalm.

I know you love your western European socialist model but this country is the gold standard.

I'll take 'capitalism' over anything else or over any other gov model. The 'American Dream' is still alive and well here.

You don't need a 4 year college degree to move up thru the 'middle class' and make a very good living. You can do it thru hard work, perseverance, dedication. But it seems like those attributes do not exist with most Americans now.

Buddy of mine started a landscape business and he has no college education but he busts his ass and makes well over 6 figures. So the 'American Dream' is out there for anyone.

Shit, that's what I get for trying to be nice in the above post.

Good God, do you think you're the only one who appreciates entrepreneurialism and hard work. Just because I can see attributes in other countries doesn't mean I'm anti capitalism. But it requires smart regulation and control of monopolies. BTW, the US is a mixed economy just like those Europeans. And they even have capitalists over there.

Thought you'd like to know.

[Baldy]

Revised history?

Be my guest, please show me where Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Bear Stearns, or Merrill Lynch opened a commercial bank or even an ATM.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist ... -persists/

Oh as far as your agent is concerned, he had to get certified in selling securities because of an SEC rule change reclassifying fixed index annuities as securities. That decision has since been vacated by a federal appeals court.

You mean to tell me The Objectivist column written by members of the Ayn Rand Institute fail to recognize the influence of deregulation? GTFO!

Yet another big bank spokesman says that nonbanks such as Lehman and Bear Stearns were more to blame for the crisis. This ignores the fact that nonbanks get their funding from banks in the form of mortgages, repurchase agreements, and lines of credit. Without the big banks providing easy credit on bad collateral like structured products, the nonbanks would not have been able to leverage themselves.

It is true that the financial crisis has enough blame to go around. Borrowers were reckless, brokers were greedy, rating agencies were negligent, customers were naïve, and government encouraged the fiasco with unrealistic housing goals and unlimited lines of credit at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yet, the fact that there were so many parties to blame should not be used to deflect blame from the most responsible parties of all—the big banks. Without the banks providing financing to the mortgage brokers and Wall Street while underwriting their own issues of toxic securities, the entire pyramid scheme would never have got off the ground.

It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.

Ummm well uhhh I hate to break the news to you, but Glass-Steagall never prevented banks from being able to invest in residential mortgages and residential mortgage backed securities. To further burst your bubble, even the the object of your masturbatory fantasies, Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren, stated that Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the meltdown.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

It still has an effect.

So, more 'social spending' will increase everyone's wage in this country just because it has a little bit in Sweden and Canada where our middle class is probably 80-90X larger than Sweden's and 10X Canada's?

But the rich do not pay their 'fair share' right? Just tax them 70% or 80% or 90% and that will solve all of our 'social problems' and wage inequality.....

Did I say any of that, Champ?

A broader middle class and increased wages are where I'd like to see us heading. You should too as it would sell more honey.
It would also help broaden the tax base taking some pressure off the rich.

Rather than snipe at each other, how's about we work on a solution. I'll go first:

Gannonfan has always preached innovation as a potential strength. I think that's a good start so increased emphasis and yes perhaps spending on practical education.

I also think we should penalize any company that moves its operations or manufacturing offshore and yet still wants to sell their **** here.

Now, your turn.

IMO, innovation is alive and well in this country. People start businesses all the time....some make it some do not but the point is, they have the opportunity to do it. Come up with and idea and go with it. Yes, the government could facilitate some 'innovation' with grants or very low interest loans or whatever 'subsidy' you want to call it but that should not be the driving factor in the discussion.

How about a fair and efficient tax system. As other's have said on here before...."everyone needs skin in the game". Does it mean a national sales tax? I don't know. But what I do know is that the current system is a total joke/failure. I'm all for everyone paying fair taxes.

Changing the mindset of Americans. What I mean by this is that Americans are lazy. Just speaking for me now....Like I have mentioned before on here, I bring in 10 foreign workers to help me in my business thru the H2A program. I advertise in local/regional papers to 'Americans' so they have the opportunity to do that job. Take a guess on how many people have inquired about my openings in the 15 years I have done this? THREE. Two I hired and they made it one week before I never heard from them again.... Now do I pay 100K for these jobs? Heck no but for a full year contract it would be around 50K but the potential for a lot better wage would be there if they stayed and worked hard. Now 50K in MN/ND is pretty good if you do not have a college degree....that is more than almost all of the teachers here in town... My point is, if you work hard there are jobs out there and you can achieve the 'American Dream'.......I did it.

IMO, in order for the middle class to increase their wage, these things would go a long way:

Simplify tax code
Innovation - I'll go with your idea but many other facets tie into this.
Health Care - If ACA is the way to go then lets modify it to make it better. We have the best health care in the world.
Create jobs - Different ways of doing it but this is a must.

[Ivytalk]

All of the government subsidies and "tax expenditures" that constitute crony capitalism have to go. Starting with the "carried interest" boondoggle for hedge fund moguls.

Cut the corporate tax rate in half and the "inversion" stampede should stop. This should be a fair tradeoff for the cuts described in the last paragraph.

No more bailouts for inefficient industries. If GM doesn't survive the latest round of recalls, let the bankruptcy laws take their course, and don't favor the unions at the expense of forcing "cram downs" on other creditors.

Education: channel resources toward teaching and away from administrators. Permitting mergers of small, inefficient school districts might be a good start. Are property taxes the best way to fund schools equitably?

[kalm]

You mean to tell me The Objectivist column written by members of the Ayn Rand Institute fail to recognize the influence of deregulation? GTFO!

Ummm well uhhh I hate to break the news to you, but Glass-Steagall never prevented banks from being able to invest in residential mortgages and residential mortgage backed securities. To further burst your bubble, even the the object of your masturbatory fantasies, Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren, stated that Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the meltdown.

I read that in your link too although Warren's point was that Glass-Steagal wouldn't have prevented the crisis on it's own but would have lessened the blow which is certainly true. There's a reason the financial sector spend $5 billion in the 90's to deregulate and get Glass-Steagal repealed. They're not stupid…at least when it comes to making themselves money and running a casino.

[kalm]

All of the government subsidies and "tax expenditures" that constitute crony capitalism have to go. Starting with the "carried interest" boondoggle for hedge fund moguls.

Cut the corporate tax rate in half and the "inversion" stampede should stop. This should be a fair tradeoff for the cuts described in the last paragraph.

No more bailouts for inefficient industries. If GM doesn't survive the latest round of recalls, let the bankruptcy laws take their course, and don't favor the unions at the expense of forcing "cram downs" on other creditors.

Education: channel resources toward teaching and away from administrators. Permitting mergers of small, inefficient school districts might be a good start. Are property taxes the best way to fund schools equitably?

Very solid, IT.

[Ibanez]

Got a free piano recently. It's about 65 yrs old and looks great. Sold it for a few C notes. 'Merica! Capitalism!!!!!!