David Simon, Co-creator of "The Wire," on America and capitalism

[PappyTron]

So, you believe that David Simon, who makes millions and is responsible for the jobs of a handful of people takes less, as a percentage than the Waltons do, who employs millions? Hmm.

You say that you have friends who are taking jobs below their pay expectations; is it the fault of the system that they can't get the job that they think that should get? Just having a degree doesn't give them a divine right to get the job that they want and I'd suggest that they either lower their expectations, get a different degree, get a degree from a better university or present potential employers with a better understanding of why they are the best candidate for the job. As for the production line comment, the statement is prima facie - the majority of universities and schools are not anything special and do not provide an education that makes an employer go "wow, I must get that guy because he is so special" and the proof of that is in your own statement - that your friends with their degrees cannot get the jobs that they think that they deserve or that their education should provide them. You seem to be under the impression that the job market, and life in general, should owe people the equal ability to succeed - well, life doesn't work that way and never has. We are all individual and different, and not everyone is going to get what they want or what they "deserve" and your friends and family having to take jobs "just to survive" despite being oh so qualified for something else, is no different that anyone else - the market has dictated what skills it wants and your friends and family aren't it.

Why should McDonalds pay an uneducated, unskilled worker $15.00 an hour to flip burgers? It is a job that literally anybody can do with five minutes training and there is a never ending queue of people who are quite willing and able to take the job if the first person doesn't want it. That isn't about McDonalds so much as the job required, as a whole; it is the most basic job that a human could be asked to do.

As for the moving of the market industry from manufacturing to technology and the inability of people to find local work? Guess what - they can move. Would it be easy to move? No, it would not, but thousands of migrant workers move every day from south of the border in order to improve their lives, so why shouldn't a born American? If a small town relies on its coal mine to provide everyone with work and service then they are in for a rude awakening when the mine runs dry, aren't they? They should have a back up plan.

Innovation through capitalism is the basis for most of what we have today, initial government involvement or not. As said though, the government's role is to get out of the way of private enterprise, not subsidise and dictate.

I never said that Capitalism will be the saving grace of Africa; I said that Capitalism will be the driving force behind increased food production which will be the saving grace of the starving masses in Africa. Moreover, when you say things like "do you know anything of..." I feel as though you are simply being facetious in nature. Of course I am aware of capital extraction. I'm also aware that despite decades of massive aid that vast swathes of Africa still rely on hand outs from the west. Where does that aid come from? Excess production from a capitalistic society. Heck, even the minister from Ethiopia recently said that they must get away from being the recipients of aid and get towards being a country with trade, finance, investment and manufacturing - are you saying that a man who lives in one of the poorest countries in the world is a fool for embracing Capitalism when he looks around? Where do you think all of Africa's chocolate, bananas and other fruit, coffee, diamonds, oil, steel, coal, gas and other resources go? Do you think that they are plucked from thin air, or do you think that they provide employment for millions?

You talk about wanting to sell me a bridge, but you are simply trying to sell me a pup.

[downzy]

Pappy, you're quite a good representation of why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Your continual focus on the individual, as they they are the only variable in their equation of success, is myopic to situation on the ground. I would highly recommend you read the book The Unwinding: An Inner History of New America by George Packer.

McDonalds should be paying more because they can afford to pay more. It's really that simple. They won't until they're told to by government through a rise in the minimum wage. By your prognosis, why even have a minimum wage at all if market dictates that individuals should subside on pittance? If flipping burgers is so simple, why not pay workers to sign up a $1 an hour? Basic services should not pay substandard wages. People living on minimum wage jobs should not be forced into poverty. You seem to think that there are other avenues and opportunities for the individuals to follow. That somehow, if they just applied themselves a little harder they're just a stone throw away from a living wage job. But you don't seem to have any understanding where the economy and job market has been heading. In many places that use to have industrial and manufacturer bases the only thing that remains is low paying service jobs. Thanks to cost cutting done by legislators who share your ideological perspective, job training programs have been slashed, making it near impossible to retrain while still supporting a family. This right-wing fairy tale that you continually tell yourself that it's not the system's fault but the individual is short sighted at its best and cold hearted at its worst.

So in your opinion, the way in which migrant workers uproot their lives is fine and should be the pattern of behavior for Americans. That instead of finding solutions so people can make a decent living where they live, your answer is to chase the bottom and emulate the far from ideal conditions of migrant workers. Let's not try to make conditions for migrant workers better but let's degrade everyone else's to their level. Seriously man, wtf?

And again, you clearly have no education on how pivotal the U.S. government was during the 1940s through the 1990s in supporting research and education that has gone on to produce a ton of industries. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and actually take some time to learn the history of the essential role the U.S. government has played in fostering economic growth through public investment. I can recommend a few books, but for an abreviated take, read this: Nine Government Investments That Made Us an Industrial Economic Leader.

Edited December 10, 2013 by downzy

[PappyTron]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

[wasted]

Generally CEOs the politicians of business come from money and power. They are connected. Now and then a hustler will rise but they generally get caught up in corruption. Like Trump got rich by constructing buildings and then not payingvthe workers and using mafia connections to enforce it. Thats the real world. Thats why hell never be the prez. His whole corruptness would be uncovered.

[downzy]

I am not saying that the migrant worker's situation should be the template, just that it is entirely possible to follow it if that is what it takes. If a small town has one main employer which later goes out of business it is the responsibility of the former workers to invest in shoe leather and go and find another job, be it in the next town over, the next county or the next state. When Detroit was awash with money the workers were happy and that sat contented, believeing that the boom would contine and they could ride the wave into retirement - now many are out of a job and not qualified to do anything else. For those individuals it is their responsibility to go and find another job, no matter where or what it may be.

When all is said and done, the only person in this world who you can ultimately rely on is yourself and that is why, ultimately, the focus is on the individual, not the wider group.

No, McDonalds should not be paying more simply because they can afford to pay more - that is a nonsense, and no, it really isn't "that simple" in the slightest. Basic services should pay basic wages, which is what McDonalds does - they pay the standard wage for the type of work that they are requesting their employees to do. It isn't a fairy tale so much as fact - not everybody in the world gets to live to the standard of living that they desire to live at. What is acceptable is different to everybody, but it is nothing short of a monkeyshine to trot out that a company should pay more and more money simply because they have the turnover to support doing so.

You keep on bringing up the US government and its role in innovation without seeming to be able to understand what has already been said - the government should have no role in private enterprise and should leave that to businesses. What the government decides to do within its own programs is another matter, but it should not be dictating policy to existing businesses and it most certainly should not be involving itself in the business of bail-outs. Highways and energy technology? Great. Handing out billions to clean up the banks' mess? Not so great.

And shouldn't basic wages pay for basic needs? If a large percentage of McDonalds workers require governmental assistance, then it's not meeting that standard now are they?

Do you think this family is reaching their expected standard of living:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/minimumwage_11-04.html

And what do you mean exactly that government should play no role in private businesses? Does that mean they have no say in regulating their products, that their workers are treated safely, that they are meeting consumer guidelines? I guess you're in favor of Congress not passing a farm bill, which would prevent milk from rising to $7 a gallon. As for the bailouts, I guess the million or so jobs the car bailouts saved doesn't mean much to you. That the auto sector, and all those who depend on it, should have just died. Never mind that would have set the country back ever further into recession. Principle is principle, right?

Edited December 11, 2013 by downzy

[Roush]

A bit off topic, but is anyone else tired of people saying: if it worked for Country 'A' , why can't it work for the States?

Like yeah dude, let's compare Luxembourg to the US with a population over 300+ million.

[Ace Nova]

"I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I don't think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn't attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that."

Amazing - I must have reiterated that same exact sentiment in the Communism thread a dozen times (Obviously in different wording) and you went on to disagree with me over it for a dozen pages. But some writer of a show you're fond of states it and all of a sudden...."...He does a pretty Bang job" of explaining your feelings.

Like I said, sometimes, Downzy, you just argue for the sake of arguing.....

[downzy]

"I'm not a Marxist in the sense that I don't think Marxism has a very specific clinical answer to what ails us economically. I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician. He was good at figuring out what was wrong or what could be wrong with capitalism if it wasn't attended to and much less credible when it comes to how you might solve that."

Amazing - I must have reiterated that same exact sentiment in the Communism thread a dozen times (Obviously in different wording) and you went on to disagree with me over it for a dozen pages. But some writer of a show you're fond of states it and all of a sudden...."...He does a pretty Bang job" of explaining your feelings.

Like I said, sometimes, Downzy, you just argue for the sake of arguing.....

Lol, I think you missed my point in our previous conversations KK. I never defended communism as a viable means of governance. But I always stipulated that Marx's critiques of capitalism (as it was practiced in the 19th century and as it's returning to presently) were pretty sound. See the difference?

A bit off topic, but is anyone else tired of people saying: if it worked for Country 'A' , why can't it work for the States?

Like yeah dude, let's compare Luxembourg to the US with a population over 300+ million.

Not really. I think it's fair to suggest that a nation with a far lower GDP per capita shouldn't be compared to a nation with a much higher GDP per capita. Much like the way I didn't want to criticize how poorly Indians treat their environment while traveling through India. The amount of garbage that exists everywhere is disgusting. But at the same time, if I was living on only a dollar a day I don't think i'd give a fuck whether there was a garbage can I could throw my garbage into.

The United States is still one of the richest countries in the world by any measure (GDP, GDP parity, GNP, etc). If nations that have far less resources can afford to take better care of their poorest citizens, than so too should the United States.

[shades]

ah, such fun spending other peoples money.

exactly,

but you can't reach them kid.

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal, they are in it to take care of their brothers and sisters, with "other peoples money"

the government should step in and tell companies how and when to spend their money, capitalism = greed to them

and hows that multi billion dollar auto bailout thing working out ?

been to Detroit lately?

[Roush]

Shades, then should we have let the banks fail in 2008?

[shades]

Shades, then should we have let the banks fail in 2008?

Different story

We could very well, and should let banks fail, their own lending practices got them to that point.

but we could not let them all fail at once.

Payroll is really all you need to consider, never mind the complete chaos on many other fronts.

What we need in place, imo was making sure no bank is too big to fail.

Bush set us on the right path, and if Obama didn't insist on spending us into the abyss we would be further along the path to recovery.

I'm afraid, economy wise this "Affordable" Care Act will in short order cripple any hope of private sector expansion, which is the bottom line in any economy.

Obama with all of his "wisdom" does not seem to understand the simple concept that more people working means more revenue through taxes generated, and more money in peoples pockets means they spend more, thereby businesses expand, thereby they hire. The greedy business the left demonizes is a necessary evil. Who the fuck cares if a few priviledged entrepreneurs have houses in every state if the country is prospering. If we put every one of them on fixed salaries you really think they would bother?

Think of it this way

Our economy is like a merry-go-round, you reach your right hand out to grab wages as you go by, switch it over to the left and hand it off to the middle (business end of the merry-go -round) so they can grease the gears to keep it running smoothly, they then pass some underneath back to the outside so when you come back around they can hand it back to you.

it's not rocket science

[downzy]

and hows that multi billion dollar auto bailout thing working out ?

been to Detroit lately?

Actually, pretty fucking good if you know what you're talking about. Detroit isn't the auto industry and the auto industry isn't Detroit. GM and Chrysler employs hundreds of thousands of people (directly and indirectly) across North America.

The U.S. federal government bailed out the auto industry to the tune of almost $50 billion. A lot of money, right? It ended up recouping about $40 billion from selling its equity stake (which was finalized yesterday).

But considering the fact that it saved 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and 674,000 jobs in 2010, don't you think the cost of $10 billion was kind of worth it.

Also consider that if nearly two million jobs had been eliminated as a result of the auto industry from going under, it would have resulted in a loss of $79.5 billion from personal income in 2009 and another $49.7 billion in 2010. It is estimated this would have resulted in a net loss for federal budgets of $39.4. I think even you Shades can figure out what's the biggest number: $10.5 billion or $39.4 billion.

Shades, can you possibly talk about something relating to the U.S. without bringing up Obamacare? It's really starting to get a little pathetic.

Edited December 11, 2013 by downzy

[Roush]

Shades, I asked you that question, as there exists a certain double standard within folks who are gung ho for Capitalism -- subscribing to the notion that you can either lose, or win. And it's entirely up to the individual (in theory.) TBTF Banks lost big due to insane, investment methods. We handed them a blank check for their woes.

That isn't Capitalism.

[shades]

Shades, I asked you that question, as there exists a certain double standard within folks who are gung ho for Capitalism -- subscribing to the notion that you can either lose, or win. And it's entirely up to the individual (in theory.) TBTF Banks lost big due to insane, investment methods. We handed them a blank check for their woes.

That isn't Capitalism.

I hope we all are "for capitalism", maybe the definition is blurred among some of us.

I fully agree with you, we treat banks differently and we need to fix that.

But they handle the money, so we tread carefully.

The lending practices I speak of are a product of liberal do gooders.

Lending money to people who can not pay it back was bad idea.

And almost cost us our economy.

Obama now wants to start a new welfare program disguised as healthcare

Edited December 11, 2013 by shades

[Ace Nova]

Shades, I asked you that question, as there exists a certain double standard within folks who are gung ho for Capitalism -- subscribing to the notion that you can either lose, or win. And it's entirely up to the individual (in theory.) TBTF Banks lost big due to insane, investment methods. We handed them a blank check for their woes.

That isn't Capitalism.

more than that, we handed them the pen to write their own laws with

??

How so? Care to explain?

[Roush]

@Shades:

Presumably, your dirty hush word is Socialism. The U.S. system is not puerile Capitalism, any more than it is virgin Socialism. To my knowledge, every country in the world has some degree of Socialistic practice. In the U.S., there is a postal service, the police department, roads, public schools, fire departments, environmental protection agencies, and a slew of other services. Should they, too, be privatised? It is in my experience that the best economy (in terms of stability) is an economy mixing the two contrarian elements.

I maintain the opinion that the United States is currently involved in a manufactured class war. The Koch Brothers have done a number promoting their ideals. What we witness in the States is the consequence of free-market Capitalism with minimal regulation: systemic corruption unlike anything we have ever seen before in the United States. The union of money, and politics is nothing knew. But the extent to which individuals can control, and write laws to self-benefit is astronomically contrary to textbook Capitalism.

@Kasanova King:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Patent is the latest. Follow anything the Koch Brothers do. I mean anything. The Tea Party was directly financed by the Koch Brothers. It was in their attempt (as well as to handpick Romney/Ryan) to win the 2012 Presidential Election.

[Ace Nova]

@Shades:

Presumably, your dirty hush word is Socialism. The U.S. system is not puerile Capitalism, any more than it is virgin Socialism. To my knowledge, every country in the world has some degree of Socialistic practice. In the U.S., there is a postal service, the police department, roads, public schools, fire departments, environmental protection agencies, and a slew of other services. Should they, too, be privatised? It is in my experience that the best economy (in terms of stability) is an economy mixing the two contrarian elements.

I maintain the opinion that the United States is currently involved in a manufactured class war. The Koch Brothers have done a number promoting their ideals. What we witness in the States is the consequence of free-market Capitalism with minimal regulation: systemic corruption unlike anything we have ever seen before in the United States. The union of money, and politics is nothing knew. But the extent to which individuals can control, and write laws to self-benefit is astronomically contrary to textbook Capitalism.

@Kasanova King:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Patent is the latest. Follow anything the Koch Brothers do. I mean anything. The Tea Party was directly financed by the Koch Brothers. It was in their attempt (as well as to handpick Romney/Ryan) to win the 2012 Presidential Election.

That has to do with politics/special interests/lobbyists, etc....a far cry from, 'Giving them a pen to write their own laws'....fanatical statements like that are as dangerous as what they are trying to portray.

[Roush]

@Shades:

Presumably, your dirty hush word is Socialism. The U.S. system is not puerile Capitalism, any more than it is virgin Socialism. To my knowledge, every country in the world has some degree of Socialistic practice. In the U.S., there is a postal service, the police department, roads, public schools, fire departments, environmental protection agencies, and a slew of other services. Should they, too, be privatised? It is in my experience that the best economy (in terms of stability) is an economy mixing the two contrarian elements.

I maintain the opinion that the United States is currently involved in a manufactured class war. The Koch Brothers have done a number promoting their ideals. What we witness in the States is the consequence of free-market Capitalism with minimal regulation: systemic corruption unlike anything we have ever seen before in the United States. The union of money, and politics is nothing knew. But the extent to which individuals can control, and write laws to self-benefit is astronomically contrary to textbook Capitalism.

@Kasanova King:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Patent is the latest. Follow anything the Koch Brothers do. I mean anything. The Tea Party was directly financed by the Koch Brothers. It was in their attempt (as well as to handpick Romney/Ryan) to win the 2012 Presidential Election.

That has to do with politics/special interests/lobbyists, etc....a far cry from, 'Giving them a pen to write their own laws'....fanatical statements like that are as dangerous as what they are trying to portray.

No. Look further beyond the headlines. Carried interest, tax reform, loopholes, it's all there. I just haven't the energy, nor the recollection to specifically write out the laws. I'm also grading papers.

[Ace Nova]

No. Look further beyond the headlines. Carried interest, tax reform, loopholes, it's all there. I just haven't the energy, nor the recollection to specifically write out the laws. I'm also grading papers.

I'd like to know more about it...haven't read up much about it. One red flag is that the nation that would be the biggest offender of patent rights isn't even included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Patent....China.

That would be the first question I'd ask.

[Roush]

Honestly, I haven't the foggiest. So many laws get anonymously inked in, in Congress, that I forget. One month, it's 'X' scandal, the next month it's 'Y'. Anyone feel up to taking a crack -- go for it. Off the top of my head, TPP is a public-relations nightmare for the U.S. It's controversial, and superficially, it seems like a harmless, enhancement to corporate rights (or so says the spin.)

It basically makes patents globally ironclad. So as I touched on a page prior -- it will make generic cancer medications much more difficult to procure. But it goes even beyond that. I haven't been following China. Latest I heard was about some potentially stupid war with Japan this coming January.

Here's an article that relays some implications. Equip your bullshit meter, though. This site is notoriously left-leaning.

[downzy]

No. Look further beyond the headlines. Carried interest, tax reform, loopholes, it's all there. I just haven't the energy, nor the recollection to specifically write out the laws. I'm also grading papers.

I'd like to know more about it...haven't read up much about it. One red flag is that the nation that would be the biggest offender of patent rights isn't even included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Patent....China.

That would be the first question I'd ask.

There's a reason for that. And much of it has to do with competing within the the Asian/Oceanic region. This is something I actually spent a fair amount of time studying and writing about. The TPP is meant as a counterweight against the rise of China and a possible China-led trading block via ASEAN+. Many Asian nations are concerned that the rise of China might make them vulnerable, hence creating a trading block that they can play off of if China gets too aggressive can help reduce China's influence.

[Ace Nova]

There's a reason for that. And much of it has to do with competing within the the Asian/Oceanic region. This is something I actually spent a fair amount of time studying and writing about. The TPP is meant as a counterweight against the rise of China and a possible China-led trading block via ASEAN+. Many Asian nations are concerned that the rise of China might make them vulnerable, hence creating a trading block that they can play off of if China gets too aggressive can help reduce China's influence.

See...that would actually make sense if China played by the rules.....but they don't. They will continue to copy, fabricate, and counterfeit anything they can get their hands on. So basically, a good portion of the industrialized nations of the world will need to follow patent law but China gets free reign and a pass.....again.

This is eeringly similar to when Clinton opened up the flood gates with free trade with China. At first, they were disguising it as a way for U.S. companies, corps, etc to increase exports, etc.....then what does China do to counterbalance it?.....they manipulate the currency....

So how hard will it be for China to quickly counteract any type of initial impediment this so called "treaty" will have on their trading power?

Like I said, I haven't researched it in detail......but from first glance, this stinks from hell to high water.

[downzy]

There's a reason for that. And much of it has to do with competing within the the Asian/Oceanic region. This is something I actually spent a fair amount of time studying and writing about. The TPP is meant as a counterweight against the rise of China and a possible China-led trading block via ASEAN+. Many Asian nations are concerned that the rise of China might make them vulnerable, hence creating a trading block that they can play off of if China gets too aggressive can help reduce China's influence.

See...that would actually make sense if China played by the rules.....but they don't. They will continue to copy, fabricate, and counterfeit anything they can get their hands on. So basically, a good portion of the industrialized nations of the world will need to follow patent law but China gets free reign and a pass.....again.

This is eeringly similar to when Clinton opened up the flood gates with free trade with China. At first, they were disguising it as a way for U.S. companies, corps, etc to increase exports, etc.....then what does China do to counterbalance it?.....they manipulate the currency....

So how hard will it be for China to quickly counteract any type of initial impediment this so called "treaty" will have on their trading power?

Like I said, I haven't researched it in detail......but from first glance, this stinks from hell to high water.

Actually, the idea is that if China wants to reap the benefits of this new regional trading group they'll have to play by the rules. Who knows if it will actually work, but the TPP is partly a play at getting China to play fairly.

Edited December 12, 2013 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

Actually, the idea is that if China wants to reap the benefits of this new regional trading group they'll have to play by the rules. Who knows if it will actually work, but the TPP is partly a play at getting China to heal.

I just don't see how anyone can expect a nation like China to start playing by the rules all of a sudden....especially when 12 of their biggest competitors must abide by patent law but they don't. Doesn't make any sense.

[downzy]

Actually, the idea is that if China wants to reap the benefits of this new regional trading group they'll have to play by the rules. Who knows if it will actually work, but the TPP is partly a play at getting China to heal.

I just don't see how anyone can expect a nation like China to start playing by the rules all of a sudden....especially when 12 of their biggest competitors must abide by patent law but they don't. Doesn't make any sense.

Eventually the tables will turn. When it becomes in China's interests to start patent enforcement you'll see a change.