Could The GOP get Teddys Seat???

[kalm]

I'm not sure consumerism is the right basis for a healthy economy. Shit you don't need but want is just like capital, it's the gravy on top.

Here's an interesting piece for you from one of the 20th centuries leading economists on the role of marketing:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 72743.html

Well then we truly are **** as a country, since consumerism has been the basis and backbone for the American Economy for about the last 50 years. Hell, it's why Bush sent out the "stimulus checks"....gotta get the consumers....consuming.

Quite a bit of truth to your statement Z, and that's why some economists are predicting a very long recovery and/or a double dip recession.

[YoUDeeMan]

If you're going to regurgitate emails my right wing friends and relatives sent me 5 years ago, at least have the humility to not present them as an original thought or pretend they are anything resembling humor.

You're correct that a capitalist would not provide food to the starving since their is no money to be made.

And here I was all along describing economics from an egalitarian point of view.

I thought you wanted to discuss economics from a modern standpoint?

Does this make you a neo-feudalist or a neo-colonialist?

Just for shits and giggles, what's your free market resolution to solving world hunger?

I'm not sure consumerism is the right basis for a healthy economy. Shit you don't need but want is just like capital, it's the gravy on top.

Here's an interesting piece for you from one of the 20th centuries leading economists on the role of marketing:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 72743.html

Galbraith was a piece of crap when I read him in high school and college. He even says as much in that very dated article you quoted...he was always behind the times.

Not sure what e-mails you got 5 years ago, but perhaps you are stubbornly resisting the obvious...labor is controlled by money...money creates jobs. 5 years ago, 50 years ago, 500 years ago, 5 minutes after the first person got the idea to gather some extra stuff and use it to get others to get him some more stuff...it is all the same...capital would overtake need as the main creator of jobs. You seem like a bright guy who is stuck in the past and denying reality. Egalitarian economics? You are indeed a silly soul.

I have no free market solution for solving world hunger...frankly, I do not care about everyone. And if you want to talk modern economics, then you might as well get on board with the idea that most people don't give a sustained damn about most other people. Theories are fun, but they don't hold up in the real world.

[kalm]

Galbraith was a piece of crap when I read him in high school and college. He even says as much in that very dated article you quoted...he was always behind the times.

Yeah, that's why he served as an economic advisor to 4 presidents and received the presidential medal of freedom twice.

Galbraiths ideas are being proven accurate more than ever now except to those holding on to the failed policies of deregulation and low taxes on the rich.

Marketing plays a role in convincing people to go into unneccessary debt over homes and cars beyond their means. It created a perception that owning your own home or a big home was a need, which it clearly is not. People need a roof over their heads and four walls, but they can obtain that with a smaller home or by renting. In this way, marketing is what helps drive a bubble economy. Or have you been asleep for the last decade.

Not sure what e-mails you got 5 years ago, but perhaps you are stubbornly resisting the obvious...labor is controlled by money...money creates jobs. 5 years ago, 50 years ago, 500 years ago, 5 minutes after the first person got the idea to gather some extra stuff and use it to get others to get him some more stuff...it is all the same...capital would overtake need as the main creator of jobs. You seem like a bright guy who is stuck in the past and denying reality. Egalitarian economics? You are indeed a silly soul.

And that first person used labor to create capital which in turn helped him to increase his capital through...further use of labor. But if there is no demand or real need for the fruits of that labor, his capital disappears, while demand for things truly needed remains.

Sure rich dudes with extra bucks have created jobs and even entire markets, but the basis of an economy, or the "real economy", or "main street", or a healthy economy should be driven by what everyday people actually need, not desire. Like I said before, the rest is gravy.

That's why industrialized nations have less hunger, more freedom, and a higher standard of living for everyone. You know...more egalitarian.

I have no free market solution for solving world hunger...frankly, I do not care about everyone. And if you want to talk modern economics, then you might as well get on board with the idea that most people don't give a sustained damn about most other people. Theories are fun, but they don't hold up in the real world.

Of course you don't, that's because your idea of economics in the end is a failure for all but the wealthy. It's utopic and is best represented by countries like Mexico, which is the direction we are slowly heading.

Like I asked, feudalism or neo-colonialism? Or better yet, objectivism?

Capital overtaking need that's the reason you have starving people you dolt.

[TribeNomad]

You use Utopic??? Capitalism is not the cause of starvation. Let's look back in history a bit deeper than the
last couple of hundred years.....sadly, humans have been starving since the beginning of time---and the fat cat from the Monopoly game is not the cause..........but let's all grow our hair out, rage against the man, and launch into a verse of cum-bay-a---and all will be peace in the world........

[houndawg]

Cluck, you're cut too badly to continue. Referee stops contest.

[houndawg]

Who said anything about corporate tax rates?

But I do get your point on trade policy. Ford probably also pays a tariff on cars sold in Germany.

We need to protect domestic industry. Perhaps instead of taxing overseas profits, we should penalize American companies that manufacture products overseas for sale back in the U.S.

Kalm, I'd agree with you with one exception-

Before penalizing US companies for shipping the work offshore, I would also want to look at the reasons behind their decisions to do so. Has our government made it prohibitively expensive to do business in America? Do non-skilled Americans REALLY deserve to be paid 40+ dollars per hour with exorbitant benefits and 20 year retirement plans at 80-90%? There are jobs requiring college degrees that do not offer that. Some of the more notoriously organized labor fields have driven a lot of business out of the country.

Sometimes we have a habit of penalizing the effects without giving any consideration to the causes. There are a number of reasons why American companies do their manufacturing overseas, and profit maximization is one of them (some people would call thisa greed in spite of the fact that they invest in 401Ks). However, for some companies the choice is to either build the widgets overseas, or not build widgets at all.

Has it? The whining I hear from big bidnizz is about wages.

[kalm]

You use Utopic??? Capitalism is not the cause of starvation. Let's look back in history a bit deeper than the
last couple of hundred years.....sadly, humans have been starving since the beginning of time---and the fat cat from the Monopoly game is not the cause..........but let's all grow our hair out, rage against the man, and launch into a verse of cum-bay-a---and all will be peace in the world........

Regulated capitalism and mixed economies, the kind that create a strong middle class and maintain democracy, are wonderful. That's not what Cluck is advocating here.

I like Monopoly, it's a fine game, but as wealth and power consolidate, the ability of the rest of players to stay even is diminished until in the end there is only one winner.

Thanks for the example.

[native]

...Capital overtaking need that's the reason you have starving people you dolt.

kalm exposed.

The truth is quite the opposite of kalm's patently absurd assertion. When "need" overtakes capital, catastrophe including genocide and starvation inevitably ensues, as has been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated by more than a HUNDRED MILLION DEAD non-combatant victims of communism in the Twentieth Century.

[YoUDeeMan]

You use Utopic??? Capitalism is not the cause of starvation. Let's look back in history a bit deeper than the
last couple of hundred years.....sadly, humans have been starving since the beginning of time---and the fat cat from the Monopoly game is not the cause..........but let's all grow our hair out, rage against the man, and launch into a verse of cum-bay-a---and all will be peace in the world........

Regulated capitalism and mixed economies, the kind that create a strong middle class and maintain democracy, are wonderful. That's not what Cluck is advocating here.

I like Monopoly, it's a fine game, but as wealth and power consolidate, the ability of the rest of players to stay even is diminished until in the end there is only one winner.

Thanks for the example.

You would, of course, need to put words in someone's mouth to prove yourself right.

I am not a huge fan of monopolies, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel good. I do however, like a system that allows people to make as much money as they can. And I do believe that concentrated amounts of money can make things go a lot more smoothly than a few mom and pop stores running everthing. Oh, and I do think mom and pop stores are good also, but they certainly can't transform an economy on their own.

BTW, Galbraith himself says he missed the boat (a pretty big fvcking boat, at the time ) on the Japanese...his words, not mine. So instead of me having some discussions with Abe and Co., YOU should read his materials and figure out where he's been off the chart (so many times). He also missed the boat on a whole host of other things...but you keep right on believing that antiquated theories are where it's at. Jesus, did you bother to read the interview (and that was from 1989)?

And people are starving because of capital taking over need? That is the most idiotic thing ever written. You're going to look back on that with shame when you put down your flask and sober up. You reached and exposed yourself on that one.

Hey, once again, we both agree that labor came before capital. I get it. It is the only point that you have adn that is why you keep repeating it. But once capital got rolling, it was, and will be, capital that creates jobs. Ignoring the examples every third world country provides, and every broken city in more the more advanced economies provides, doesn't make it all go away.

Cry all you want about, "Sure rich dudes with extra bucks have created jobs and even entire markets, but the basis of an economy, or the "real economy", or "main street", or a healthy economy should be driven by what everyday people actually need, not desire" but that is not reality. People should get off their asses and work...but many don't. People should invest their money instead of buying a big screen TV...but many people don't. People should by a smaller car to conserve gas, pay less in insurance...but they don't. The list goes on and on and yet you want to play god and insist your theories would work if only everyone changed their behavior and played along.

Play all of the "shoulds" that you want, but it isn't going to change people's behavior. People are sheep. They want the latest gadget, and they want it now. They sit in front of the TV and watch advertisements and decide that they need something to make themselves feel good. They watch the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc. give multi-million dollar contracts to people for nothing more than entertainment...and the public willingly goes along with it and buys up $150 shirts, $200 shoes, and will sell their souls to support their habits. Yes, billion dollar industries arise from pure marketing of non-necessities, but klam refuses to acknowledge any of it. Sport franchises, Hollywood, and Opera are only a few of the things that don't exist in kalm's world.

But hey, kalm is going to rewire every human being on the planet and let them know what is best for them so that his old school theories will actually mean something.

You are spitting into the wind, kalm. And you've been joined by a dolt who believes that unions are the best thing in the galaxy. That alone should make you shudder.

Thanks for the laughs, kalm.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, I'm glad this happened because to me the Democratic Party is the greatest of all evils. But to me it's just one more piece of evidence suggesting that an awful lot of people in this country have absolutely no idea as to what they really want out of government in terms of the general direction of the nation. The funny thing is that, as everyone knows, if Kennedy was still alive he'd have won the seat and be gearing up to support all the stuff many of the people who voted for the Republican claim they're all upset about. And he'd have won in a landslide.

[kalm]

.

[kalm]

You would, of course, need to put words in someone's mouth to prove yourself right.

I am not a huge fan of monopolies, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel good. I do however, like a system that allows people to make as much money as they can. And I do believe that concentrated amounts of money can make things go a lot more smoothly than a few mom and pop stores running everthing. Oh, and I do think mom and pop stores are good also, but they certainly can't transform an economy on their own.

Hey, I'm all for people making a buck too. But remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

BTW, Galbraith himself says he missed the boat (a pretty big fvcking boat, at the time ) on the Japanese...his words, not mine. So instead of me having some discussions with Abe and Co., YOU should read his materials and figure out where he's been off the chart (so many times). He also missed the boat on a whole host of other things...but you keep right on believing that antiquated theories are where it's at. Jesus, did you bother to read the interview (and that was from 1989)?

Unfortunatly, the article is no longer available from the link I posted so I forget about the part on Japan and will not comment on it. But I do respect an expert, correct most of the time (especially concerning marketing and the context of our arguement) that is also willing to admit when he's wrong. Perhaps you can shed some additional light on how Galbraith's Japanese analysis proves your theory?

And people are starving because of capital taking over need? That is the most idiotic thing ever written. You're going to look back on that with shame when you put down your flask and sober up. You reached and exposed yourself on that one.

What would compel a for profit corporation to feed the starving when they can make a greater profit in other markets?

Hey, once again, we both agree that labor came before capital. I get it. It is the only point that you have adn that is why you keep repeating it. But once capital got rolling, it was, and will be, capital that creates jobs. Ignoring the examples every third world country provides, and every broken city in more the more advanced economies provides, doesn't make it all go away.

Excellent, we're getting closer! Now, what creates poverty and hunger in third world countries and broken cities? Are there not enough rich people, or are the taxes too high?

Cry all you want about, "Sure rich dudes with extra bucks have created jobs and even entire markets, but the basis of an economy, or the "real economy", or "main street", or a healthy economy should be driven by what everyday people actually need, not desire" but that is not reality. People should get off their asses and work...but many don't. People should invest their money instead of buying a big screen TV...but many people don't. People should by a smaller car to conserve gas, pay less in insurance...but they don't. The list goes on and on and yet you want to play god and insist your theories would work if only everyone changed their behavior and played along.

Uh, you're kind of proving my point about marketing and Galbraith here, not sure if you want to continue down that track. But I agree, spending habits and priorities have also had a negative effect on the wealth of the middle class.

Play all of the "shoulds" that you want, but it isn't going to change people's behavior. People are sheep. They want the latest gadget, and they want it now. They sit in front of the TV and watch advertisements and decide that they need something to make themselves feel good. They watch the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc. give multi-million dollar contracts to people for nothing more than entertainment...and the public willingly goes along with it and buys up $150 shirts, $200 shoes, and will sell their souls to support their habits. Yes, billion dollar industries arise from pure marketing of non-necessities, but klam refuses to acknowledge any of it. Sport franchises, Hollywood, and Opera are only a few of the things that don't exist in kalm's world.

Again, I agree. See my above point about marketing. Those billion dollar industries are not a good sign of a healthy economy.

But hey, kalm is going to rewire every human being on the planet and let them know what is best for them so that his old school theories will actually mean something.

Fundamentals don't change because they are...well, fundamentals.

[Baldy]

I'm not sure consumerism is the right basis for a healthy economy. Shit you don't need but want is just like capital, it's the gravy on top.

Here's an interesting piece for you from one of the 20th centuries leading economists on the role of marketing:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejourna ... 72743.html

Galbraith??? You might as well use Karl Marx as your example.

Galbraith was a poor man's anti-Capitalist. He basically viewed Capitalism as a semi-necessary evil that should be heavily regulated and controlled by the government, and those controls include price controls.

He was an elitist who believed that the average American consumer was gullible and not intelligent enough to make sound economic choices.

He was your typical far left wing Liberal Keynesian...a very pro big government "economist". He has not been held in high regard by many of his colleagues over the years. He's even been criticized by his fellow Keynesian economists for refusing to use technical analysis and mathematical models to support his hypotheses. Because of this, he's gotten the reputation of being more of a political economic 'talking head' than intellectual economist.

[YoUDeeMan]

Hey, I'm all for people making a buck too. But remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Unfortunatly, the article is no longer available from the link I posted so I forget about the part on Japan and will not comment on it. But I do respect an expert, correct most of the time (especially concerning marketing and the context of our arguement) that is also willing to admit when he's wrong. Perhaps you can shed some additional light on how Galbraith's Japanese analysis proves your theory?

What would compel a for profit corporation to feed the starving when they can make a greater profit in other markets?

Excellent, we're getting closer! Now, what creates poverty and hunger in third world countries and broken cities? Are there not enough rich people, or are the taxes too high?

Uh, you're kind of proving my point about marketing and Galbraith here, not sure if you want to continue down that track. But I agree, spending habits and priorities have also had a negative effect on the wealth of the middle class.

Again, I agree. See my above point about marketing. Those billion dollar industries are not a good sign of a healthy economy.

Fundamentals don't change because they are...well, fundamentals.

Speaking of fundamentals...there have always been people starving...WAY before the accumulation of wealth. Can't get any more fundamental than that...and that means you can't blame starvation on capitalism.

If you can't agree on that, then you might as well accept your "F" on this thread and go home.

Galbraith...correct most of the time? Sure he hit a few nails, but for the most part he was way off target. You certainly are stuck in the past. As Baldy correctly observes, most people now recognize that Galbraith was not a very astute economist. Actually, the other part you missed in the article was that Galbraith didn't see himself as much of a serious economist...he described himself as more of an observer or commentator (don't tell me you missed that part, too? ). So it is quite telling how you and a bunch of political and social hacks give him much more credit than he gave himself (Obama Nobel Peace Prize, anyone?).

"He is one of those unfortunate people who lived long enough to see many of his ideas discredited," says Doug McWilliams of the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

That about sums it up.

Wealth creates jobs. If demand, or need, drove jobs, third world countries would have plenty of jobs providing food and shelter. Detroit would have hope. Of course, that isn't happening in real life. Ignore reality and stick to your broken theories if they make you comfortable, but your assertation was wrong and outdated.

I've never tried to talk a homeless man out of his cardboard palace...so perhaps I should stop trying to reason with you.

[kalm]

Hey, I'm all for people making a buck too. But remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Unfortunatly, the article is no longer available from the link I posted so I forget about the part on Japan and will not comment on it. But I do respect an expert, correct most of the time (especially concerning marketing and the context of our arguement) that is also willing to admit when he's wrong. Perhaps you can shed some additional light on how Galbraith's Japanese analysis proves your theory?

What would compel a for profit corporation to feed the starving when they can make a greater profit in other markets?

Excellent, we're getting closer! Now, what creates poverty and hunger in third world countries and broken cities? Are there not enough rich people, or are the taxes too high?

Uh, you're kind of proving my point about marketing and Galbraith here, not sure if you want to continue down that track. But I agree, spending habits and priorities have also had a negative effect on the wealth of the middle class.

Again, I agree. See my above point about marketing. Those billion dollar industries are not a good sign of a healthy economy.

Fundamentals don't change because they are...well, fundamentals.

Speaking of fundamentals...there have always been people starving...WAY before the accumulation of wealth. Can't get any more fundamental than that...and that means you can't blame starvation on capitalism.

If you can't agree on that, then you might as well accept your "F" on this thread and go home.

Galbraith...correct most of the time? Sure he hit a few nails, but for the most part he was way off target. You certainly are stuck in the past. As Baldy correctly observes, most people now recognize that Galbraith was not a very astute economist. Actually, the other part you missed in the article was that Galbraith didn't see himself as much of a serious economist...he described himself as more of an observer or commentator (don't tell me you missed that part, too? ). So it is quite telling how you and a bunch of political and social hacks give him much more credit than he gave himself (Obama Nobel Peace Prize, anyone?).

"He is one of those unfortunate people who lived long enough to see many of his ideas discredited," says Doug McWilliams of the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

That about sums it up.

Wealth creates jobs. If demand, or need, drove jobs, third world countries would have plenty of jobs providing food and shelter. Detroit would have hope. Of course, that isn't happening in real life. Ignore reality and stick to your broken theories if they make you comfortable, but your assertation was wrong and outdated.

I've never tried to talk a homeless man out of his cardboard palace...so perhaps I should stop trying to reason with you.

I’m intriguiged by people who predicted this economic crisis and it’s historic parallels to other recessions. And you know what, none of them thought the reason was a lack of capital while the bubble was rising. Do you think the reason jobs aren’t recovering now is because rich people lack the capital, or is the demand for products diminished because working people lack jobs and money to create the demand?

In The New Industrial State (1967), Galbraith argues that very few industries in the United States fit the model of perfect competition. In The New Industrial State Galbraith expanded his analysis of the role of power in economic life. A central concept of the book is the revised sequence. The conventional wisdom in economic thought portrays economic life as a set of competitive markets governed ultimately by the decisions of sovereign consumers. In this original sequence, the control of the production process flows from consumers of commodities to the organizations that produce those commodities. In the revised sequence, this flow is reversed and businesses exercise control over consumers by advertising and related salesmanship activities.
The revised sequence concept applies only to the industrial system - that is, the manufacturing core of the economy in which each industry contains only a handful of very powerful corporations. It does not apply to the market system in the Galbraithian dual economy. In the market system, composed of the vast majority of business organizations, price competition remains the dominant form of social control. In the industrial system, however, composed of the 1,000 or so largest corporations, competitive price theory obscures the relation to the price system of these large and powerful corporations. In Galbraith's view, the principal function of market relations in this industrial system is not to constrain the power of the corporate behemoths but to serve as an instrument for the implementation of their power. Moreover, the power of these corporations extends into commercial culture and politics, allowing them to exercise considerable influence upon popular social attitudes and value judgments. That this power is exercised in the shortsighted interest of expanding commodity production and the status of the few is both inconsistent with democracy and a barrier to achieving the quality of life which the new industrial state with its affluence could provide.

Ring a bell? Is this perhaps describing the banks today? Going back to predictions, I find it striking almost none of those who predicted this crisis including politically liberal economists as well as true conservatives thought that bailing out the banks - you know where all the capital lies - was a good idea. Ever heard of the terms unemployment and jobless recovery?

Again, that’s not to say that rich people and capital don’t create jobs. But they’re not the basis for long term economic stability. So returning to my original statement concerning demand creating jobs, I was of course speaking in broad macroeconomic terms. But since you’re real smart you probably realized that didn’t you?

[houndawg]

Regulated capitalism and mixed economies, the kind that create a strong middle class and maintain democracy, are wonderful. That's not what Cluck is advocating here.

I like Monopoly, it's a fine game, but as wealth and power consolidate, the ability of the rest of players to stay even is diminished until in the end there is only one winner.

Thanks for the example.

You would, of course, need to put words in someone's mouth to prove yourself right.

I am not a huge fan of monopolies, but go ahead and make up whatever you want if it makes you feel good. I do however, like a system that allows people to make as much money as they can. And I do believe that concentrated amounts of money can make things go a lot more smoothly than a few mom and pop stores running everthing. Oh, and I do think mom and pop stores are good also, but they certainly can't transform an economy on their own.

BTW, Galbraith himself says he missed the boat (a pretty big fvcking boat, at the time ) on the Japanese...his words, not mine. So instead of me having some discussions with Abe and Co., YOU should read his materials and figure out where he's been off the chart (so many times). He also missed the boat on a whole host of other things...but you keep right on believing that antiquated theories are where it's at. Jesus, did you bother to read the interview (and that was from 1989)?

And people are starving because of capital taking over need? That is the most idiotic thing ever written. You're going to look back on that with shame when you put down your flask and sober up. You reached and exposed yourself on that one.

Hey, once again, we both agree that labor came before capital. I get it. It is the only point that you have adn that is why you keep repeating it. But once capital got rolling, it was, and will be, capital that creates jobs. Ignoring the examples every third world country provides, and every broken city in more the more advanced economies provides, doesn't make it all go away.

Cry all you want about, "Sure rich dudes with extra bucks have created jobs and even entire markets, but the basis of an economy, or the "real economy", or "main street", or a healthy economy should be driven by what everyday people actually need, not desire" but that is not reality. People should get off their asses and work...but many don't. People should invest their money instead of buying a big screen TV...but many people don't. People should by a smaller car to conserve gas, pay less in insurance...but they don't. The list goes on and on and yet you want to play god and insist your theories would work if only everyone changed their behavior and played along.

Play all of the "shoulds" that you want, but it isn't going to change people's behavior. People are sheep. They want the latest gadget, and they want it now. They sit in front of the TV and watch advertisements and decide that they need something to make themselves feel good. They watch the NBA/NFL/MLB, etc. give multi-million dollar contracts to people for nothing more than entertainment...and the public willingly goes along with it and buys up $150 shirts, $200 shoes, and will sell their souls to support their habits. Yes, billion dollar industries arise from pure marketing of non-necessities, but klam refuses to acknowledge any of it. Sport franchises, Hollywood, and Opera are only a few of the things that don't exist in kalm's world.

But hey, kalm is going to rewire every human being on the planet and let them know what is best for them so that his old school theories will actually mean something.

You are spitting into the wind, kalm. And you've been joined by a dolt who believes that unions are the best thing in the galaxy. That alone should make you shudder.

Thanks for the laughs, kalm.

My,my, my, cluckster, talk about putting words in somebody's mouth.

[YoUDeeMan]

[And you've been joined by a dolt who believes that unions are the best thing in the galaxy.

My,my, my, cluckster, talk about putting words in somebody's mouth.

At least you identified yourself from the "dolt" part.

[YoUDeeMan]

I’m intriguiged by people who predicted this economic crisis and it’s historic parallels to other recessions. And you know what, none of them thought the reason was a lack of capital while the bubble was rising. Do you think the reason jobs aren’t recovering now is because rich people lack the capital, or is the demand for products diminished because working people lack jobs and money to create the demand?

In The New Industrial State (1967), Galbraith argues that very few industries in the United States fit the model of perfect competition. In The New Industrial State Galbraith expanded his analysis of the role of power in economic life. A central concept of the book is the revised sequence. The conventional wisdom in economic thought portrays economic life as a set of competitive markets governed ultimately by the decisions of sovereign consumers. In this original sequence, the control of the production process flows from consumers of commodities to the organizations that produce those commodities. In the revised sequence, this flow is reversed and businesses exercise control over consumers by advertising and related salesmanship activities.
The revised sequence concept applies only to the industrial system - that is, the manufacturing core of the economy in which each industry contains only a handful of very powerful corporations. It does not apply to the market system in the Galbraithian dual economy. In the market system, composed of the vast majority of business organizations, price competition remains the dominant form of social control. In the industrial system, however, composed of the 1,000 or so largest corporations, competitive price theory obscures the relation to the price system of these large and powerful corporations. In Galbraith's view, the principal function of market relations in this industrial system is not to constrain the power of the corporate behemoths but to serve as an instrument for the implementation of their power. Moreover, the power of these corporations extends into commercial culture and politics, allowing them to exercise considerable influence upon popular social attitudes and value judgments. That this power is exercised in the shortsighted interest of expanding commodity production and the status of the few is both inconsistent with democracy and a barrier to achieving the quality of life which the new industrial state with its affluence could provide.

Ring a bell? Is this perhaps describing the banks today? Going back to predictions, I find it striking almost none of those who predicted this crisis including politically liberal economists as well as true conservatives thought that bailing out the banks - you know where all the capital lies - was a good idea. Ever heard of the terms unemployment and jobless recovery?

Again, that’s not to say that rich people and capital don’t create jobs. But they’re not the basis for long term economic stability. So returning to my original statement concerning demand creating jobs, I was of course speaking in broad macroeconomic terms. But since you’re real smart you probably realized that didn’t you?

Once again, you fail to see the light.

Your theories only work in an alternate reality.

Nothing is more democratic than giving people what they want...even if that "want" was artificially created by money. The people are voting with their pocketbooks. You just don't like their choices.