Yeah, yeah, the source aside you can just watch the video here:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836&start=0&end=5202

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/29/831890/-Video:-Obama-at-GOP-House-conference-meeting

Quote :

"Taking a page out of Question Time with the Prime Minister, President Obama addressed the House GOP conference in Baltimore earlier today. He delivered a speech that pulled few punches at the recalcitrant stances taken by the Republicans in Congress since Obama took office. But what was even more compelling was the Q&A session after the speech. It represented the type of interaction between a sitting President and the opposition party that we NEVER get to see. I suspect that the President did not persuade many in the GOP conference of his positions, but the wider audience of actual voters, especially independents, heard his point loud and clear. Obama called out the GOP for party-line opposition to proposals that originated out of their own caucus. He pointed out many members were all too happy to get their photos taken at ribbon cutting ceremonies funded by the stimulus bill they voted against. When questions came out that were merely talking point, Obama swatted them down, called them out for the distortions they are, and gave his perspective of the facts of the matter. I urge you to watch and share this video with friends and family. I'm sure some enterprising souls will pull the choice soundbites from today, but it is the totality of the performance that was inspiring. From the New York Times The Caucus blog: “I don’t believe the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security,” he said, drawing applause from the Republicans. “I don’t think they want more gridlock. I don’t think they want more partisanship. I don’t think they want more obstruction. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of steel-cage match to see who comes out alive.” Mr. Obama complained to the Republicans about their opposition to his economic stimulus plan last year, noting that it included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks as well as spending for infrastructure and other programs. He chided them in particular for, in some cases, showing up for ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus package that they had voted against. And he complained that a bipartisan budget commission was killed in the Senate. ************************ I was told that Fox cut away from the Q&A while MSNBC and CNN (and obviously CSPAN) stuck with it. I guess Fox was afraid their viewers might hear the truth for once."

The bolded part... Burr has done that.

I haven't finished watching the whole thing yet, but I'm glad the President is taking the chance to engage in direct debate with & listen to GOP questions in person.

1/29/2010 6:57:30 PM

Soapbox, aim & a miss... anyone want move this over?

1/29/2010 7:01:47 PM

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

1/30/2010 12:00:47 AM

and the Democrats have made it equally hard to work on bipartisan efforts by demonizing Republicans and not allowing them into the process at all, going so far as to lock the doors to the rooms in which they meet. What is your point?

1/30/2010 12:24:39 AM

The GOP is already regretting they did this:

http://twitter.com/RussertXM_NBC/status/8380253627


Obama made them look like a bunch of fools for all the things they've been saying about him.


P.S. is anyone willing to call him the Teleprompter President after watching this?

Quote :

"and the Democrats have made it equally hard to work on bipartisan efforts by demonizing Republicans and not allowing them into the process at all, going so far as to lock the doors to the rooms in which they meet. What is your point?"

That's a bunch of crap. The current plan looks more like a GOP bill than Hillary-care.

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 7:42 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 7:40:57 AM

Quote :

"P.S. is anyone willing to call him the Teleprompter President after watching this? "

i came in here to post this. No OMFTELEPROMTER during this smack down. I highly recommend watching this whole thing. It's long, but worth it, especially if you're a critic, because he's talking to you and answering your questions.

1/30/2010 8:53:10 AM

Obama knows he has to have the GOP to support some of his legislation to get it through. But he is not going to convince the GOP to magically say you know what he is right lets line up and pass this Healthcare plan that really does nothing outside of getting rid of the preexisting conditions clause to reform healthcare, increases the tax burden on the middle class and decreases Medicare benefits for Seniors (the people who typically vote for the GOP).

Does it look bad for the GOP it depends the media is trying to demonize them as not doing their jobs, but I personally think they are. I assume the piece of legislation you are talking about that was co-sponsored by Republicans was the one that was voted down this week to budget committee. Even though Obama signed an EO it still will not have the power that bill would have had.

I wish both sides would play ball but Obama has pushed his agenda so far left that Republicans have no choice but to oppose almost everything. I think if he works on small chunks instead of the whole pie he might get GOP support on certain things. He won't get any GOP support for Cap and Trade and this version of Healthcare which has 0 GOP input, if its not Hilary Care its not to please the GOP its to get Blue Dog and Moderate Dem support.

Make no mistake Obama is campaigning again instead of being a President (and I know Party Chief is part of his duties). He is trying to protect his majority so he can ram through his agenda regardless of GOP support. I would like to see more bipartisan support but that intro he did was very condescending to the GOP and you want their support good luck. The old saying you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

1/30/2010 9:40:51 AM

wow. you fell for it. all of it.

did you watch the Q&A? You know, that's what this thread is about.

1/30/2010 9:53:27 AM

I really liked this. Both sides were respectful, but still good at putting their side across. I'll give props to Obama, he spoke very well off-the-cuff. Much more natural.

I think they should have more of these types of events. It's too easy to give speeches which launch nasty attacks against people when you don't have to do face-to-face.

This seemed like a press conference where reporters actually asked pointed critical questions.

I'd like to see...a president sit down with opposition leadership and discuss their political philosophy..the foundation for their policies.

Good job GOP and Obama!

1/30/2010 10:03:46 AM

Quote :

""P.S. is anyone willing to call him the Teleprompter President after watching this?"

The Republicans started believing their own bullshit and probably actually thought that Obama couldn't talk without a teleprompter, because that's what they've been repeating on Fox News for the last 2 years. They were probably like "ohhh, we'll get him here - we'll throw questions at him left and right, and without his prompter, he'll stumble and bumble like a fool and won't know what to say!"
yeah, well.... we'll see if they make that mistake again.

1/30/2010 10:28:27 AM

Very impressive. He came off kind of patronizing, but he played ball and won.

It was in stark contrast to the poignant, yet hollow lip-service sessions that are his speeches.

1/30/2010 10:56:24 AM

This kind of was unfair. Some of the congressmen present and trying to ask questions were horribly unfamiliar with the format. They are trained in the interaction of congressional panels, since that is all they know, while Obama was in question-time mode. I liked it a lot, but realized from the event that unless they are made to do this, Congress is not going to let this become a common occurrence, since the current leadership on both sides of the isle cannot look good doing it. Maybe they can find lower party members buried in the house somewhere to take the place of party leadership at these exchanges. Then maybe this format could stay.

1/30/2010 10:58:11 AM

reiterating for Wolfey:

Quote :

" I highly recommend watching this whole thing. It's long, but worth it, especially if you're a critic, because he's talking to you and answering your questions."

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

1/30/2010 11:04:08 AM

Quote :

"I really liked this. Both sides were respectful, but still good at putting their side across. I'll give props to Obama, he spoke very well off-the-cuff. Much more natural. I think they should have more of these types of events. "

I believe heard that the President said he'd be up for doing it more often, maybe as a monthly event.

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2010 3:09:52 PM

Well, as was discerned from some of the exchange, on some issues Obama needed to be debating the House Democrats, not the GOP.

1/30/2010 4:29:43 PM

Good luck getting the GOP to do this again. It was great, but no way.

1/31/2010 12:45:30 AM

Good luck getting the GOP to do this again. It was great, but no way.

1/31/2010 12:46:26 AM

Good luck getting Obama to do this again. It was great, but no way.

1/31/2010 11:00:03 AM

Good luck getting Obama to do this again. It was great, but no way.

1/31/2010 11:34:28 AM

I have no idea why Obama wouldn't want to do this again because he completely came out of it smelling like roses???

1/31/2010 1:25:06 PM

Quote :

"I really liked this. Both sides were respectful, but still good at putting their side across. I'll give props to Obama, he spoke very well off-the-cuff. Much more natural. I think they should have more of these types of events. It's too easy to give speeches which launch nasty attacks against people when you don't have to do face-to-face. "

1/31/2010 1:29:47 PM

Quote :

"Good luck getting Obama to do this again. It was great, but no way."

Given the outcome, I'd imagine he'd do it again tomorrow if allowed.

2/1/2010 9:29:14 AM

republicans have already said it was a mistake to allow cameras in. they're not going to initiate it like they did this time certainly. only if obama/dems make a big stink about it in the press for weeks on end will it happen again. and i just don't see the dems playing their cards that smartly.

2/1/2010 9:32:17 AM

Quote :

"But I've got a question for them: What's your answer? What's your solution? The truth is, they don't have one. It's do nothing."

^^ Really? Nevermind All Those Opposition Solutions; Obama's Opposition Has No Solutions! Except I guess for Rep Paul Ryan's, or any of the others he could have found through a Google search.

2/1/2010 9:41:12 AM

I haven't watched it, and I can't watch it right now, but everyone makes it seem like Obama made the GOP looks like fools. That wouldn't be surprising. I suspect that it was a bunch of dumb mainstream Republicans asking the wrong questions. The #1 issue is the economy, and I guarantee Obama doesn't have the right solution for that. His solution is, and has always been, more legislation and regulation. The possibility that some of the current laws and regulations on the books have contributed to the problem is never considered, but until we address those root problems, we can't come up with a real solution.

2/1/2010 9:48:57 AM

"I haven't watched it... I guarantee Obama doesn't have the right solution"

The answer to a well running market is leave it alone to do its thing, the answer to a market failure can be regulation. We had one heck of a market failure. Maybe there are rules that need to be addressed/removed, but overall a failure on that scale requires more oversight for a time, not less.

2/1/2010 3:17:46 PM

But the market wasn't such a failure back when there was less oversight.

Your reasoning is logical. That is why it is "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ,.,]

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/1/2010 5:54:00 PM

Saying the market wasn't a failure when there was less oversight is like saying that Enron and WorldCom were doing fine. Yeah, they were not KNOWN to be hollow and empty and headed for a huge crash, because the lack of oversight meant no one was paying attenton. It's like a train where the conductor is dead. For a while everything seems fine, but when it's time to stop and there's nothing you can do, the shit hits the fan.

The financial markets need heavy regulation. The idea that they won't make money if they are regulated is bullshit, because they'll make money, just not quite as much, and it's still the best paying game in town. The disparity between the rich and poor is one of the major reasons that the Roman Republic became an Empire, and our gap is widening as well. I don't have a problem with people making money, but once you reach a certain point, the harm to overall society is too great to outweigh the incentives.

I know this is off topic, and I don't mean to hijack the thread.

I watched the Q & A, and thought it was a step in the right direction for both parties.

2/1/2010 9:31:39 PM

But Enron and Worldcom were doing fine. Capitalism is a profit and loss system. If no company ever went bankrupt and caused someone to lose their shirt, then no one would do their due diligence. It is a design feature based on the fact that human beings lie, cheat, and steal. As such, in a system populated by flawed human beings, it is best to have them in an unregulated environment, where those that are corrupt cause their corporation to blow up and go away, leaving behind only a strong lesson in how to trust but verify. In a regulated environment, the corrupt will gravitate to where they cannot be touched by the loss system, which would be the regulators. Wielding the power and deference of a government official, the corrupt can rig the economic system to the benefit of themselves and their cronies with no check on their corruption but fellow government bureaucrats which may not be paying attention, because it is the voters/consumers money at stake, not theirs.

You cannot rely solely upon whistle-blowers, as with regulation. Sometimes the only check on bad behavior is bankruptcy. And government regulation curtails bankruptcy. To put it another way, if Hank Paulson was the CEO of Bank of America he could not have bailed out his cronies at Goldman Sachs. But because he was the regulator in charge of the Treasury, bailing them out of their bad behavior was simply a matter of doing so at tax-payer expense.

And as a study of history demonstrates, no industry has ever been regulated in the United States that did not also lobby in favor of the same. As always, it is through regulation that corporations free themselves from competition, and the losses competition often brings. Given these facts, it seems reasonable to argue that the recent increases in inequality should be partially due to the increased regulatory burden of the modern age (the number of active laws increases something like 15% per year).

2/1/2010 11:00:57 PM

Don't you think you've gotten really really off topic?

Quote :

"Capitalism is a profit and loss system."

Well those booms and busts are waste. In full efficiency, there shouldn't be profit or losses.

Quote :

"As such, in a system populated by flawed human beings, it is best to have them in an unregulated environment"

Since humans are flawed it's best to let them fuck up?

Theres got to be a better way, or maybe to put it better, that's just not good enough.

2/1/2010 11:48:12 PM

Quote :

"In full efficiency, there shouldn't be profit or losses. "

This would require a static state of human advancement . . . either through natural stagnation or oppressive restraint.

Quote :

"Since humans are flawed it's best to let them fuck up? "

Aren't you're assuming one group of inherently flawed humans will make better decisions than another group of equally flawed humans?

2/1/2010 11:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Don't you think you've gotten really really off topic?"

He started it. And I figure this thread is done, it was on page 2 when I brought it back up. Might as well rehash old debates. Long time no see, Kris.

Quote :

"Well those booms and busts are waste. In full efficiency, there shouldn't be profit or losses. "

Quite true. But as you may know, "full efficiency" means the same as "in an ideal world". We don't live in an ideal world. Most of the information about the World we live in is dispersed into six billion brains with no mechanism to aggregate it perfectly, especially given the fact that these six billion brains have a tendency to lie. As such, we aggregate it imperfectly using markets, which uses waste as an incentive for people to do what is efficient.

Quote :

"Since humans are flawed it's best to let them fuck up?"

That is not what I said. Since humans are flawed, it's best to have a system that derives some benefits when they fuck up. Benefits such as knowledge of who is flawed and how, bringing an end to the fucking up thanks to bankruptcy, and financial pain to teach others to be more attentive in the future.

Quote :

"Theres got to be a better way, or maybe to put it better, that's just not good enough."

Interesting point. Well, there is lots of waste too in the human body. Particularly all these pain sensing nerves which cause us agony, sometimes on a daily basis. But, like you should know, pain is necessary for our flawed brains to learn how not to live, because it is only with that knowledge that we can hope to figure out how we should live. It is the same with capitalism. We need some way to figure out whether what we spend our time doing everyday is good or bad for society. Capitalism provides this through mathematical calculations of profit and loss (reward/pain). No other system has such a mechanism for solving the information problem in terms anyone can understand among people that may dislike each other and might not even speak the same language.

2/2/2010 12:17:18 AM

Quote :

"But Enron and Worldcom were doing fine. "

enron fucked over a lot of people on their way down. they weren't "fine"

2/2/2010 12:25:06 AM

Quote :

"This would require a static state of human advancement . . . either through natural stagnation or oppressive restraint."

No it doesn't. I production can grow without creating excess. A market equilibrium is no profit.

Quote :

"Aren't you're assuming one group of inherently flawed humans will make better decisions than another group of equally flawed humans?"

I've assumed that everyone will make a decision that best suits everyone, while a few will make a decision that best suits the few.

Quote :

"He started it. And I figure this thread is done, it was on page 2 when I brought it back up."

Well it just happened this weekend, additionally it's possibly one of the best advancements in american politics in our lifetime.

Quote :

"But as you may know, "full efficiency" means the same as "in an ideal world". We don't live in an ideal world."

But that's the direction we want to go.

Quote :

"Most of the information about the World we live in is dispersed into six billion brains with no mechanism to aggregate it perfectly, especially given the fact that these six billion brains have a tendency to lie."

This doesn't mean that there aren't other solutions for this. For example we have created things that cannot lie.

Quote :

"Since humans are flawed, it's best to have a system that derives some benefits when they fuck up."

Why not stop them from fucking up in the first place.

Quote :

"But, like you should know, pain is necessary for our flawed brains to learn how not to live, because it is only with that knowledge that we can hope to figure out how we should live."

But we've figured out ways to get rid pain that doesn't serve any purposes.

2/2/2010 12:56:41 AM

last i heard, Kris is a pinko commie

2/2/2010 1:19:29 AM

I am astonished and pleased to see the return of Kris.

Quote :

"I've assumed that everyone will make a decision that best suits everyone, while a few will make a decision that best suits the few."

This statement is a concern on a lot of levels, depending on how you want to look at it.

1) It's baseless. There's nothing substantial to report it.
2) Since we're making baseless statements, I'll throw out my own, which is that most people are out for #1, that is to say, themselves.
3) Along those lines, seems like very few people are out to support the many.
4) Historically, how has assuming the best in people worked out?

2/2/2010 1:30:52 AM

Kris:

How do you know someone is going to fuck up until after they are caught fucking up? We already established that humans lie, so you can't just ask them.

And what magical thing are you thinking of that is incapable of lying? Computers only know what humans have told them. Even if we had AI that could interpret the world itself, now you would need to worry about whether it was basing its knowledge on human lies, or the designer designed it to lie, or worse, it decided to lie all by itself.

And there are more lies than concious. Some information cannot be known, and it is not obvious how to find it out.

And reprogramming humans will not work. The fundamental nature of our neural networks are to be creative, which means we cannot help but exagerate, forget relevant facts, and ultimately lie if it is in our interest to do so.

2/2/2010 1:56:56 AM

Regardless of which side you're on, public debates like this are hard to imagine as being a bad thing. I'd back making them mandatory!

2/2/2010 3:45:31 AM

Quote :

"The answer to a well running market is leave it alone to do its thing, the answer to a market failure can be regulation. We had one heck of a market failure. Maybe there are rules that need to be addressed/removed, but overall a failure on that scale requires more oversight for a time, not less."

The answer to a market failure is to let the malinvestments fail, and let the leftover capital be reallocated. The answer is not to pump created money into those bad investments. When you look at what caused the current crisis, and the preceding housing bubble, you find that it was largely due to polices of the Federal Reserve. Yeah, you could say that banks shouldn't have taken advantage of low interest rates, and that banks need to be more regulated to make sure that they don't do it again, but why not cut right to the root of the problem, which is our central bank? Why is the Fed untouchable?

Quote :

"Saying the market wasn't a failure when there was less oversight is like saying that Enron and WorldCom were doing fine. Yeah, they were not KNOWN to be hollow and empty and headed for a huge crash, because the lack of oversight meant no one was paying attenton. It's like a train where the conductor is dead. For a while everything seems fine, but when it's time to stop and there's nothing you can do, the shit hits the fan."

The current policy makers didn't know the crash was coming, but a lot of people did. People saw the housing bubble and said it was going to burst, and they got laughed at. Conventional wisdom said that housing prices were going to go up every year forever, and that you could get rich quick by buying a house and selling it few years later. In a normal economy, this wouldn't have happened. But, increased demand caused by cheap loans (a result of cheap money from the Fed) was driving up the price of houses, when there was no actual increase of value in those homes.

Quote :

"The disparity between the rich and poor is one of the major reasons that the Roman Republic became an Empire, and our gap is widening as well."

Oh, I don't know about that. Rome went from being a Republic to being an Empire because of military domination. They controlled a lot of Europe and areas around the Mediterranean. For our purposes, we need to look at the decline of the Roman empire. It wasn't military defeat that ended it. It was economic failure. The empire had a massive budget, much of it devoted towards maintaining the empire, and they couldn't keep up with it. They ended up having terrible inflation, until eventually the empire was so weakened that it couldn't be maintained. Unfortunately, we seem to be on the same path to destruction.

Quote :

"I've assumed that everyone will make a decision that best suits everyone, while a few will make a decision that best suits the few."

That's a pretty big assumption. People will ultimately act in ways that increase their personal satisfaction. Those actions may appear to be selfless or motivated by something other than self-interest, but they never are. We should model our system of government to reflect human nature. Instead, we hand unchecked power to the regulators, and expect them to behave nobly.

Quote :

"No it doesn't. I production can grow without creating excess. A market equilibrium is no profit."

Without profit and the potential to get rich and live comfortably, no one sacrifices their time and money to pursue a business idea. The profit motive is the backbone of any prospering economy.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ]

2/2/2010 9:14:12 AM

Quote :

"A market equilibrium is no profit."

Quick correction: a market equilibrium is a fair return on invested capital and effort. A capitalist does do work himself and should morally be compensated for that work just like any other worker. Similarly, the capital invested was not free and also morally deserves compensation. There is also the issue of compensation for risk, given the possibility the capitalist will actually lose money for all his effort and capital investment. But, in hypothetical perfect compensation where that risk is zero, it can be ignored.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/2/2010 11:47:28 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/02/obama-to-address-take-questions-from-senate-dems/?fbid=_uZnLbrB2TV[

Quote :

"Obama to address, take questions from Senate Dems Posted: February 2nd, 2010 03:46 PM ET (CNN) - President Obama will address Senate Democrats and take questions Wednesday morning at their Issues Conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office announced. The event will be open to television cameras and follows a similar appearance the president made before House Republicans last week. "

Looks like he's doing this Q&A things with the dems too, tomorrow.

2/2/2010 10:14:01 PM

Quote :

"1) It's baseless. There's nothing substantial to report it. 2) Since we're making baseless statements, I'll throw out my own, which is that most people are out for #1, that is to say, themselves. 3) Along those lines, seems like very few people are out to support the many. 4) Historically, how has assuming the best in people worked out?"

Well we're going pretty broad, if you'd like yo go specific then you can bring up an example. Secondly, all we have is through cooperation, this entire world exists because people worked together.

Quote :

"How do you know someone is going to fuck up until after they are caught fucking up?"

You've already answered that yourself.
"a system populated by flawed human beings"

We make the wrong decisions sometimes, intentional or not. We need oversight. This is a basic project management concept, adding more people reduces the risk of failure.

Quote :

"And what magical thing are you thinking of that is incapable of lying?"

Well recording devices for an easy one.

Quote :

"The answer to a market failure is to let the malinvestments fail, and let the leftover capital be reallocated."

That's inefficiency.

Quote :

"When you look at what caused the current crisis, and the preceding housing bubble, you find that it was largely due to polices of the Federal Reserve."

That's a huge oversimplification. Not even worth dignifying with a real response.

Quote :

"The current policy makers didn't know the crash was coming, but a lot of people did. People saw the housing bubble and said it was going to burst, and they got laughed at."

If only Nostradamus were president!

Quote :

"People will ultimately act in ways that increase their personal satisfaction."

Yes, but they tend to look longer term in groups. The good of everyone and the good of one are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Quote :

"We should model our system of government to reflect human nature."

No one knows what that is, or if it even exists. Perhaps you meant, "we should model government after what I want".

Quote :

"Without profit and the potential to get rich and live comfortably, no one sacrifices their time and money to pursue a business idea. The profit motive is the backbone of any prospering economy."

Yet countless innovations come from the public sector.

Quote :

"A capitalist does do work himself and should morally be compensated for that work just like any other worker."

Morally? Morals are an entirely different argument, let's leave them out of an economic debate.

Quote :

"Similarly, the capital invested was not free and also morally deserves compensation."

He deserves a return on investment? Why should he be paid for luck? Quite an investing strategy you have. Invest money and get paid, because you deserve to get morally compensated!

Quote :

"There is also the issue of compensation for risk, given the possibility the capitalist will actually lose money for all his effort and capital investment."

That's factored in, profit is still zero.

2/2/2010 11:34:16 PM

Fuck yes Kris is back. Too bad idiots will run him out in under a week.

2/3/2010 12:28:17 AM

Quote :

"We make the wrong decisions sometimes, intentional or not. We need oversight. This is a basic project management concept, adding more people reduces the risk of failure."

Does not. Once you haveenough people in the room the kind of failures are not obvious and so adding more people to the project actually increases the odds of failure by increasing the negotiation costs (if we debate the issue straight through lunch without going anywhere, I would call that a failure worse than just letting one guy decide). This is very similar to dis-economies of scale. Having one person deciding where everyone should eat for lunch is prone to failure, adding five or ten more people will produce better results; adding 300 million will not. This is one efficiency maximizing aspect of capitalism, as firms seek a natural size. Some businesses work best when large (finance), some businesses quickly become unmanageable (restaurant). And it is these instances where there is actually no real loss to capitalism, as we could not possibly design one auto plant to supply the entire planet, facing dis-economies of scale for purely technical reasons such as transport, so given that we are going to have lots of distinct factories making cars anyway, we solve the management problem by making them different companies, too!

And recording devices lie all the time. Again, humans interacting with other humans through a medium, it is still flawed friggin' humans on both ends. You are not even trying to address the informational deficiencies of a non-capitalist society. Ten (or even a hundred) men in a room cannot plan the world's economy with any semblance of rationality, even if they had nothing but the best of intentions, which itself is highly unlikely given the type of people that would seek such office.

Quote :

"He deserves a return on investment? Why should he be paid for luck? Quite an investing strategy you have. Invest money and get paid, because you deserve to get morally compensated!"

I'm confused, are we not trying to design a system that is just and moral? How is your words any different from mocking a worker demanding his wages? Why should he be paid for luck? Did he not realize that sometimes bosses and public officials sometimes steal worker salaries and run?

Just like workers, investors are not slaves, not even in the perfect competition models. If I am not being compensated for my time/capital with sufficient wages/returns, then I will take from the table what is mine and go home. The worker can go home and raise chickens. The investor can give up on investing and go buy something nice, which would mean your company had no workers/capital investors and thus shutdown, reducing competition and allowing prices and profits to rise. As such, in a perfectly competitive model with non-zero capital inputs, profits are only at equillibrium after the investors have been paid their interest, and the workers/managers/owners have been paid their wages. What those are depends on the people. At what wage do my workers leave? At what rate of return do my investors leave? At what level of profit do I the owner leave?

2/3/2010 3:27:42 AM