My apologies ... I will try to minimize the politik in this subforum then. May I just take a moment to address the points raised in the previous post.

1. Yes, I am aware that the Soviets during his administration thought him a maniac, and almost pre-emptively striked us over it

2. His popularity probably comes from bringing down the Berlin Wall

3. third best in last 50 years was just the aggregate of the (Wikipedia based) data I collected

To put the data in context ... (if you will please allow me to do so, that my words in the previous post may become more clear and therefore less potentially inflammatory)

1. In the aggregate I collected, JFK was 11th, LBJ 14th, and Reagan 16th overall.

2. In my personal list (a modification on the aggregate), JFK was 11th, LBJ was 17th, and Reagan was 30th overall.

-----> this was out of a list of 42 presidents, ie the very short term ones (that died/got killed within a year) were still included, Grover Cleveland was counted once and not twice, and President Obama was not counted due to him still being in office. For comparison, there have been 43 presidents yet 44 presidencies due to Grover Cleveland serving two non-consecutive terms.

-----> It should be noted that the validity of 'presidential rankings' is certainly a debatable one, and the validity of this particular set of data is certainly not set in stone.

To 'end' this political side-slip ....when the World's most powerful [read - dangerous] person makes jokes such as that one.... perhaps one can excuse the UTTER STUPIDITY being due to his altzheimer's.....but that in itself is a damn good reason why he should be at the bottom of any list.

Now, back to "BUSINESS" ....

back to business indeed

Investment capital is certainly a good thing. Investment capital is one part of the complex system that results in economic growth.

Two problems with this theory though (of profits = investment capital = prosperity/growth)

1. Let us assume that infinite investment capital is infinitely good, especially if it is in the hands of those who do not need to ‘consume’ it on silly needs like food or healthcare, but instead are able to AFFORD to reinvest it.

Can you tell me that Profits will always be re-invested? What if a majority of the profits end up as executive bonuses? Will we then assume that such executives will freely angel invest back into a company of some sort?

This model of profits = reinvestment has worked in the past for a number of reasons. We weren’t getting ready to hit a wall in the ‘limits of growth’ http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-The-30-Year-Update/dp/193149858X ,* and there were social and religious incentives to not accumulate wealth. In today’s culture, there is nothing taboo about amassing wealth without reinvesting it or providing jobs … it is simply “your” money to do with as you please, even if it depletes the rest of the economy. (If I hear correctly, Frogboy is an exception to this rule, perfectly willing to invest extra capital of his own into his company.)

2. Now, however, not only is accumulation of wealth no longer taboo, but our current economy is in a state of OVER INVESTMENT and TOO LITTLE DEMAND. Why is there no demand? Part of it may be due to uncertainty, but a large part of it is because of the working class wage freezes in effect since the 80s. 30 years of a shrinking middle class will see a steady decline of consumers. Or, well, it would, but thanks to our policies in the 90s, this was largely hidden thanks to the real estate bubble. We finally see the results of our actions in 2007/2008 when economic productivity we thought was there due to lies we told ourselves simply ceased to exist. But it never really existed to begin with, so it just ceased pretending to exist. Instead of seeing a steady decline in consumer power we see a sharp drop in both purchasing power and jobs, after the temporary fixes finally wore off.

Reaganomics only even theoretically works during periods of low investment and high demand. Today not only do we have the opposite, but we keep throwing money at executives, and the super-rich, thinking that they will continue to reinvest EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO MARKET FOR IT.

There is a name for the people that provide money and jobs when the economy is doing poorly in order to increase growth and prosperity for the private sector, by allowing consumers to have more purchasing power. They are called the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Ever heard of public works projects? The Hoover Dam perhaps? FDR’s the NEW DEAL? Today in Germany, if a company can’t afford to pay say more than 30 hours a week for all of its employees, guess what happens? Do they lay off a few people? No. Do they shorten the hours? No, the workers still work 40+ hour weeks. Here is what happens … the workers come in and do their 40 hours, the company pays them 30 hours’ worth and the government pays them 10 hours worth. During times of prosperity the company sees higher taxes on net profits to account for the bad times when the government will need to bail out the WORKERS. Executives have trust funds and large bank accounts. They do not need to be bailed out. They do not increase the productivity of a nation. They do not ‘consume’ the products and services of companies … at least not to a significant enough degree to matter in most cases. Instead, during hard times the government pays what the companies cannot, so that the working class can STAY SKILLED at their jobs, STAY EMPLOYED, and KEEP PURCHASING power.

I bet their workers get national pay raises at or just above inflation too, to keep that economic prosperity going.

*The limits of growth is an interesting discussion, and in some ways completely separate/parallel to the discussion of workers vs. Executives (taxes, bailouts, and overall business decisions).

While not particularly important when considering specific economic litigation, the overall limits on growth can be important in seeing the big picture. Essentially, what the findings show is that unless growth becomes more regulated/steady state, and not just regulated but regulated WELL (we all know how bad poor regulation can be), we will see some severe economic crashes starting around 2030. Like over a billion people dying of starvation over the period of a decade bad.

There's too much there to respond to, Tas. At least on Thanksgiving.

Infinite investment capital isn't a good thing just like infinite consumption funding isn't a good thing.

The market creates a balance between the two on its own.  

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether wage growth has a meaningful effect on economic activity.

I think that perhaps each State's economic circumstances are a bit different. I wonder if increased states rights, and the freedom for different states to pursue different economic systems, could be a step in the right direction?

It wouldn't because you'd have a race to the bottom.  We already have some symptoms of that as is.

Illinois is already racing to get there first. Everything here seems to be an offshoot of 1930's Gangland Chicago. They took organized crime out of that city.....and spread it all over the state.

Race to the Bottom ... haven't heard that phrase before, but I am aware of its occurrence at least among the foreign countries that host American production facilities (primarily of Africa and Asia).

It also applies as businesses try to move their stuff from high-wage Northern states to low-wage Southern states if they're big enough.

Yea, it's something that I think will get more common as time goes on. We all compete against a global economy now.

True.  The results of this will be that the rich will benefit from factor pricing, while the other classes effectively lack that option.  

This will have very nasty societal impacts- either the poor will win politically and enact disastrously populist policies, or we'll have a true stifling and violent unrest. 

there is a difference between a company who can only successfully operate if they use foreign labor and a company who is already well off just trying to cut costs. I also believe there is a difference between companies who create jobs that are beneficial to their employees overseas and those who create draconian sweatshops that would never be legal in the home country.

I believe the "pawn all costs on the consumer" has defeated every possible fine, tax increase or regulation. For instance, when minimum wage was 5.75/hr (USD) and became 7.25/hr, what really happened is companies pawned that cost on customers and people who make 10 dollars an hour saw wage devaluing. They went from making about 5 respectable dollars an hour above minimum wage - to making only 2,75 above minimum wage.  This caused those who could have had the opportunity to "move up" to stay glued down. There was a good intention but the result was harmful. The reason of the wage increase was to promote a form of redistribution that demands employees to be fairly compensated however the result was corporations declaring this an "externalized" form of "damage" and refused to "eat a loss". The problem is that the wealth of a company has no responsibility to its community, or the locality. The only interest being growth, it is hard to blame them for going all out. The problem is not growth or profit - the problem is that there is no universal maxim to force corporations by concept to be "resources" to produce wealth for investors, laborers and communities. Instead they are viewed as people who use humans as resources to produce wealth for only a small portion.

The market never has fixed itself and never will - the theory at work is never let the criminal write the law. The solution is less about regulation - we should not "cut down" from the top.  Instead, we need to grow a large number of middle class into the top margin - this would spread the wealth of the top percentage by inclusion, and rather than damage the upper class, it will add to it.  Yes, there would be less money per person in the top bracket but there would be more people in it.  Redistribution is an ugly word and for good reason - Wages are a form of redistribution. A company gains wealth and pays the employees. So are taxes. Spending money by consumers "redistributes" money from one corporation to another, the consumer a traveling vehicle with money as the passenger.

I wish i could propose a solution but i have instead defined the battleground, the way employees are seen in the culture as liabilities and not beneficiaries. If corporations are people, then it would serve that an independent panel should have power of attorney. This would mean that a corporation is "As a person, not allowed to self destruct, or intentionally allow itself to be deceived and use the best of its resources to act in its self interest". This would allow some damaging and destructive behaviors to be regulated.  After all, courts already have laws about mentally sane and rational people, and third party representation for a self destructive individual or one who is destructive to others. That is, an insane and self-damaging person may not just freely use resources toward its endgame.

i don't think those are the only options. It's not income inequality that we should fear, it is having a large number of idle citizenry. Humans want to have meaning to their lives. And if given no alternatives, they will find destructive options.

Idle citizenry would find meaning outside of employment, if they didn't need employment to survive.    You'd see more folks try to start their own business if there's a lack of options for employment.  (this has happened)

Maybe some folks would go destructive- this is an experiment that hasn't happened outside of the Roman Empire.

I think we're both fearing the same thing here, but attributing the cause to different reasons- it's possible we might both be right.  There's evidence to suggest I may be wrong in recent property crime statistics, though I suspect it's for a different reason (our massive incarceration rate)