Could someone please explain the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the late Andrew Breitbart?

“GM isn’t the perfect company: it reduced costs mostly on the backs of workers, and they continue to try to squeeze worker pensions (they just converted all pensions to a 401(K) program for white-collar employees).” -DDay

How else is GM supposed to lower costs and increase profit per car sold? All else constant it’s axiomatic that if wages and other worker compensation falls, profits rise. One other way to raise profits is by raising productivity, which means making assembly line and other workers work faster in the same time period or firing workers and replacing them with machines.

Point of information. A capital gain is the increase in the price of any asset between its purchase and its sale. Thus, it doesn’t just apply to stocks.

The steady rightward shift could be due to the fact that capitalists control the state apparatus. That is, there’s been a nearly complete capture of the state by capital. That’s not state capitalism, but a capitalist state where, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

Thanks for your two cents. No, I’m right without qualification. All that matters in capitalism is expanding an amount of money (M) into a larger amount of money (M’) so that M’ > M. There’s no morality, Marquis of Queensbury rules or qualifications to this movement that transforms money (M) into a larger amount of money (M’) or capital.

If you want to offer your definition of capitalism we can continue, otherwise capitalism is “vulture” capitalism.

It’s interesting that the accepted name for Bain Capital’s actions is “vulture capitalism.” “Vulture” is completely unnecessary. What Bain and Romney did is capitalism pure and simple. If you don’t like the idea of firing workers, selling assets and moving jobs overseas in the pursuit of profit, then you don’t like capitalism.

“Here’s one: It is obvious that a class system has arrived in America…” -S. Marche

This is ignorant propaganda. Capitalism is the economic system in the US and almost all of the rest of the world. There are two great classes in capitalist society defined along the lines of private ownership or non-ownership of the means of production.

The capitalist class is the one small segment of capitalist society that privately owns and controls the means of production. This private ownership by one small class in society immediately implies another large working class in society that only owns a single commodity known as labor power. Labor power is defined as the capacity to work. Working class member’s must sell their labor power for wages in order to live.

Therefore, when capitalism (or any other previous economic system) exists classes exist. It’s only those who superficially focus on income distribution and define class according to it, e.g., “middle class” for whom a class society is a revelation. They are ignorant of capitalism’s essential features and are thus blinded to the class reality (or choose not to see it) right before their eyes. Suddenly they notice something that existed as long as the US.

So how can Germany build twice as many cars as the US while paying workers twice as much? -D. Dayen

The first part of the question is the answer to the second part. If German auto workers are twice as productive as the US’s, then German automaker capitalists can afford to pay their workers more.

The link:

Economist and FDL bloggeer, Dean Baker has an alternative view of the desirability of a payroll tax cut here:

For those unable or unwilling to use the link. The especially relevant portion is here:

This is the context in which we are arguing over extending the reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for another two years. As stimulus, this is not an especially good measure. On a per-dollar basis, tax cuts will be much less effective, especially with people carrying so much debt, than direct spending. Furthermore, many of these tax dollars will go to better off taxpayers who are less willing to spend than moderate-income families. The Making Work Pay tax credit was much better targeted.

Finally, there is zero reason that this tax cut should be tied to Social Security in any way. As it stands, the trust fund is held harmless because the lost tax revenue is reimbursed from general revenue. But why even raise this as a potential issue for Social Security, why not just give everyone a tax cut equal to 2 percent of their wages up to $110,000? The only reason to tie the tax cut to Social Security is if the intention is to raise issues about the Social Security tax at some future point.

The response of the Obama people to this complaint is that this is the only tax cut that the Republican Congress will approve and that we badly need the stimulus. The second claim is definitely true and the first one may well be also. But if that is the case, it only speaks to the incredible failure of this administration to define the agenda and speak honestly about the economy. It’s not surprising that they don’t have the political support for more effective stimulus when they abandoned the effort to make the case almost two years ago.

Mr. Dayden does yeoman’s work at FDL. It’s worth providing another economist’s perspective.

The data you cite on median income for home ownership supports my point that in fact working class people buy homes, not just the rich. Home buyer median income above the overall median income does nothing to invalidate that. Median home buyer income doesn’t capture the fact that those with below median home buyer income buy homes too, which is my point. Most likely they’ll be paying the tax, not just millionaires.

The tax/fee incidence depends on housing price elasticity. A price elasticity of demand of less than one means housing demand is price inelastic and the incidence of the fee/tax will fall mainly on home buyers whatever their income.

Could you please explain why mortgage companies and banks wouldn’t pass along this fee to home buyers?

Well the fact that the cost of purchasing a home is “the lowest in decades” has nothing to do with who pays the tax. Do you want to try and find data supporting your assertion that only the rich buy homes? Clearly working class people buy homes. To the extent they do, they’re going to pay it. This is as opposed to a sure millionaires surtax on which the Dems caved. Therefore, with additional, deeper analysis, people could have problems with the pay for.

Who ultimately pays for this “pay for?”

“That would be the increase in payments by mortgage lenders to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee mortgages.” -D Dayden

What’s to prevent mortgage lenders to add the cost of these payments to the cost of a mortgage? That is, it’s a tax on home buyers.

So the Dems and the President capitulate again and [hidden] taxes for the working class rise while millionaires get off scot-free…again.

After a while, it isn’t weakness; it’s what the Dems and President Obama want to do in the first place. It’s who they are.

“If marijuana is legalized there will be more fender benders at traffic lights and fewer head on collisions on two lane highways.” -J. Kramer

Even with all his wealth, power and hubris that third wife is too good for MegaHead.

I meant masaccio should be aware, not capitalists. Capitalists don’t give a hang about anything except transforming M into M’!

I don’t know if it’s a contradiction. Unemployment is the other side of competition that lowers prices. It’s important to show both sides of capitalism. Lower prices for commodities usually mean intensification of labor and/or unemployment for workers.

If you’re implying capitalism has inherent contradictions, then I agree. If one is going to tout positive aspects of lower prices, one should be aware of the means by which they are achieved.

Where?

masaccio,

Could you please clarify what economic theory underlies your conclusion that “competition beats the price of goods down to the lowest possible level”?

Do you mean capitalism by “real free market system?”

There’s a darker side to the competition you describe. I assume you’re discussing capitalism. The primary way of lowering the cost of producing commodities is reducing the amount of living labor used in their production. This involves making workers work faster and harder during a given amount of time. Once physical and moral limits of speeding up the labor process are reached, the usual way of lowering costs is to fire workers and replace them with machines. This lowers the unit cost of producing commodities and forces competitors to do the same or be driven to the wall. Alternatively, workers may be fired, factories closed and production may be moved to low wage countries in order to “lower the price of goods to the lowest possible level.” Thus, lowering costs in one way or another involves creating unemployment either through mechanization of production or relocating to low wage countries. Thus, unemployment is a result of the normal, profitable operation of capitalist competition and it’s the darker underside of lowering costs in a “free market.”

It’s best to clearly understand both sides of capitalist competition and its implications.

Gingrich has enough skeletons in his closet that he’ll be back to nowheresville in a few weeks. Really, this BS doesn’t matter at all. Unless Democrats start acting like the party of FDR and LBJ we’re sunk no matter who’s elected.