Comments for The Socialist in the White House: Richard Nixon at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 25 May 2013 10:33:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-socialist-in-the-white-house-richard-nixon#comment-18634 At least lawyers pay is falling but in all the discussion of rising healthcare spending few people point out what you do, the wages are high. The system is mercantilist and corrupt. As for CEOs the problem is that executive compensation is still a small part of corporate profits. Still we can invest with Carl Icahn through IEP to help combat these rediculous pay ackages of CEOs. - Floccina Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:06:04 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-socialist-in-the-white-house-richard-nixon#comment-18627 While I don't have numbers in front of me--I know I could just make them up but I don't work for the Post--there is a lot out there how lawyers are suffering. Many firms are downsizing and outsourcing as computers are able to do what teams of lawyers used to do and the lack of employment has led to some sueing of law schools regarding supposed employment. While there is no question who has got the worst of trade agreements to suggest the upper class professional are immune is not completely true. - Jennifer Wed, 05 Sep 2012 04:03:27 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-socialist-in-the-white-house-richard-nixon#comment-18624 [i] Social scientists have some alternative hypotheses of our great conservative shift. The big government strategy from the 1940s through the 1970s produced a spectacular improvement in living standards. But many economists now say they believe the focus on full employment and income redistribution at the expense of everything else also contributed to the strategy’s demise, removing the fear of joblessness and encouraging excessive wage increases.[/i] That's the part that pissed me off. A policy of full employment meant that wages were too high, and workers, apparently, got too large a share of productivity gains. That's obviously "excessive" and public policy must be put in place to make sure that labor doesn't get too big a slice of societal technological progress--even if it does mean a lower long term growth path and, um, needless misery for some. - jayackroyd Wed, 05 Sep 2012 02:51:30 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-socialist-in-the-white-house-richard-nixon#comment-18622 Just wait till Adam Smith hears about this. Wealth of Nations indeed. It was supposed to be about the self interest and comparative advantage of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker that results in postive sum wealth outcomes for all. In America, comparative advantage by the upper class has morphed into monopoly rent advantage that takes a larger slice of the economic pie from others in zero sum fashion rather growing it larger with postive sum outcomes. Whenever somone complains about this and recommends a solution, either regulation that results in competition or the equivalent of competitive outcomes, or more direct competition itself - as already faced by the middle and lower class on a regular basis - the standard refrain from behind the wall of monopoly power that is suffocating America is always the same: Anything that dares threaten the monopoly structure of the upper class will result in less output. Services will be withdrawn. Quality will be reduced. It's socialist rationing. There will be death panels. Providers will not take risks. Providers will not provide at lower prices for failure to cover cost. History proves regulation never works and always results in less growth. Lies. Damn lies. Let them eat the cake of competition like those classes below them on whose backs they exist. - Last Mover Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:48:31 +0100