Then you are in a fortunate place because that is becoming more rare in an employer. Walmart, for example, places absolutely no value on skill. A person who has a skill (electronics knowledge) that is valuable will still find himself doing grunt work (Pushing buggies) because Walmart looks at its employees as interchangeable parts irrespective of skill level.

Sutanek

__________________

When SHTF - A Modern Day Survival Forum
Soon To Be Vital Information: How to Live in Your Car

But replacement for what baseline? And how does one decide whether one is "favoring" one or the other? Merely because one side or the other is dissatisfied? No matter where the government sets immigration policy, the supply and demand equation for labor will be affected, and this will impact wages, which are usually set by supply and demand (except for such low-paying jobs that they are set by law instead).

But they do, because a successful union will mean that employers must pay more than they would if they didn't have to deal with a union. By supporting the right to bargain collectively, the government is enacting an indirect minimum wage, and insisting that the employer does NOT have the right to hire at whatever wage he wishes, except in the very superficial, trivial, and meaningless sense that nobody will throw him in jail for trying to do so.

That depends on the transaction being impacted. For example, there are laws against armed robbery. In the transaction between would-be armed robbers and their victims, these laws favor the victims against the robbers. There isn't anything inherent in the victims as individuals that would favor them over the robbers, rather, the favored quality is defined by the transaction itself. If I were trying to rob you, it would favor you; if you were trying to rob me, it would favor me.

Similar considerations apply in transactions between employers and employees, and it isn't that the individuals involved "deserve government favor" or not, but that the transaction itself defines who needs protection and who needs to be protected against.

That doesn't follow. Demand grows not just with population but also with per capita wealth. In fact, growth in per capital wealth is usually the more important driver.

THAT doesn't follow, either, and in fact it is self-refuting. The reason why there were wage caps is because labor shortages caused by the number of people in uniform were driving wages up. Compared to the wages of the 1930s or even of the 1920s, those of the 1940s were high, and considering that the country had been suffering from double-digit unemployment for years, a lot of people were doing much better indeed.

They had lots of money for both reasons.

But why is that? It's because real wages have been stagnant or dropping for decades, and yet the economy depends on people continuing to consume. Credit was the only answer, and so it was pushed by the banks in a very irresponsible fashion.

You're right that we don't have the same situation now, though. That's exactly the problem. In fact, I want to stress this, because you said something in an earlier post that indicates you disagree: high wages benefit the economy, they do not hurt it. High wages = high demand. High demand = high sales. High sales = a robust, healthy economy.

High wages are good. Low wages are bad. Not just for the individuals receiving them, but for the economy as a whole.

They may be the fastest growing middle-classes, but even so they're still microscopic compared to the ones in the U.S., Canada, the EU, Australia, and Japan. We can maintain free trade with all of the above and mutually profit from it; we can restore free trade with other countries when they adopt civilized labor rights protections. They need us more than we need them, so taking this stance will become an overwhelming incentive to do exactly that.

But it's only declining because wages are dropping. If that is reversed, the domestic market WON'T be declining any more, it will be growing. Besides, you're mistaken; there are countries that we can profitably trade freely with, as I pointed out above.

No, we didn't, because the rest of the world was unable to buy our products, for the same reason it was unable to produce products to compete with us. You have to have wealth in order to buy, and you have to produce in order to have wealth. By the time the rest of the world became a market for our goods, they also became our competitors. In fact, they became a market for our goods because they became our competitors. If they had not done the latter, they could not have done the former.

In nonzero quantities, sure. In quantities remotely comparable to what they are selling in the developed world? No way.

The only reason that Canada and Europe are practicing the same self-destructive free-trade deals that we are is because they are following our lead. If we come to our senses, they will very happily do likewise. For one thing, they will want to sell their goods to us.

No, actually decades of tax history demonstrate nothing of the kind. Superficially, they demonstrate just the opposite, but that's post hoc ergo propter hoc so I'm not suggesting that's the case. But in terms of economic performance, there's no evidence at all that high taxes hurt the economy, provided the taxes are progressive. (The introduction of the Social Security tax in 1937 did hurt the economy, but that was a regressive tax.) And considering that income tax rates are marginal, i.e. moving into a higher tax bracket doesn't raise your taxes on income up to that bracket but only on income at or above, at what rate would you reach a point where you would refuse to make more money? No matter how high the tax is set (unless it's 100%), you're going to keep some of it.

Where's the need to refute it? You're saying the income tax was introduced to embarrass Republicans, but the quote you present says that it was championed BY Republicans. What exactly should I be refuting?

Anyway, I don't see the relevance one way or the other. This isn't a partisan issue, or shouldn't be. Which party championed the tax -- why should anyone care?

But actually you presented the important part in doing so, because the top marginal rates are what has undergone the most change. In 1960 it was 91% on income over $400,000; in 2003 it was 35% on income over $311,950. Tax rates on the middle class have not undergone any change comparable to that since World War II.

The precedent in U.S. law was set in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, I believe. However, the idea of judicial review has roots that are much older than that, going back at least to 17th century England.

I cannot imagine the Court upholding anything so obviously against the Fifth Amendment as that. (I can, however, imagine the Bush administration trying to pull it off, but that's a separate issue.) The cases where the Court has reinterpreted the document to allow broader powers of government have all been ones where the Constitution left things pretty vague. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle-room. A Court that allowed such a procedure would be highly irresponsible.

However, if it did, then for all practical purposes the new law would be constitutional, yes. At least until a later court overturned the precedent.

Disagree. Completely. Here's why:

Schools: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." [Article I, Section 8] Spending money for schools is spending it to promote the general welfare.

Federal Reserve: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin" [Ibid.] Exactly how it is to do this is not specified; the Federal Reserve is the current method and meets the description as well as striking coins in gold or silver.

Gun control: I believe this is referring not to a lack of authorization but to the affirmative restriction of the Second Amendment -- which however does not forbid gun control, at least up to a point.

The UN, foreign aid, NAFTA, GATT, "fast-track": "[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" [Article II, Section 2] As all of the above with the exception of "fast-track" are the result of treaties entered into according to the above procedure, and "fast-track" a self-limiting procedure adopted by the Senate to speed free-trade agreements which, however unwise IMO, is not unconstitutional, there is no conflict at law.

U.S. troops in foreign countries: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" [Article I, Section 8], together with: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" [Article II, Section 2]. There is no restriction on the maintaining of troops in foreign countries in peacetime with the consent of the governments of those countries provided these conditions are met.

Welfare, both corporate and humane: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." [Article I, Section 8] Whether all instances of this are well-advised is a separate question, it is not however unconstitutional.

"Arrogant federal judges usurping states' rights" -- oh, come on. I'm not even sure what he's talking about here. "Attacks on private property," same.

Income tax: indeed this was against the original Constitution but was authorized by the 16th amendment, and no longer is.

We could get rid of a lot of functions of government, true -- whether we should or not is another question -- but that has nothing to do with constitutionality.

The point is to make it a possible for the person born to the poorest family to be able to become educated and save capital without any great streak of luck of brilliance, merely based on merit and merit alone. That way there is more competition driving ther need for efficiency if a person is to become wealthy.

That is exactly what I believe should be maintained - reward for the hardest and smartest working people, not just a reward for those who already have money.

The current system is not promoting that but is promoting an established elite on some guise that they deserve it - and they do, they're entitled to their money but to that end there is no reason why a government should not be allowed to make it possible for a person to work hard and achieve the same resolve.

When you're struggling to pay bills, to make ends meet while working a full week it becomes harder to become educated or to save for a business than someone with a better start who can focus on those goals with a higher return from the start. And that is not freedom or equality that is a type of bondeage from birth of the lower classes to the upper classes.

That is why you need to give everyone as level a go on the playing field as possible and allow for correction of past mistakes, a true metirocracy as opposed to a type of entrenchment and market inefficiency being called a free market.

You and I will never agree on much. I take Jefferson and Madison's view on the "General Welfare" clause, you obviously take the modern day view, where almost anything can be for the general welfare, which takes almost all the limits off of what was once a "limited" federal government.

I specifically posted information which shows that the income tax was FIRST PROPOSED by a Democrat, yet you refuse to admit it. Why?

You seem rather honest, I do not understand this reluctance to admit such a simple point.

A 91% tax rate is immoral, unethical, unconstitutional, counter productive, unjust, unfair and just plain sickening.

It should have never been accepted by the people.

The fact that the rate was lowered is the same kind of game the oil companies play with gas prices. Raise the prices real high, let the people bitch, then lower the prices a little and they will stop.

You are correct about Marbury vs. Madison.

Ever read Jefferson's reaction?

Thomas Jefferson's Reaction, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Ever read Hugo Black's Griswold dissent?

The Supreme Court was not to have such power. But even if you accept it, can't the Supreme Court ever be wrong?

Do you agree with the ruling on eminent domain? Is it constitutional to force people to sell their land to the government so that it can used for commercial development? Doesn't this go against one of the most important principles this country was founded upon?

Often times there is a split vote on constitutional issues among the Supreme Court Justices. Are the majority ALWAYS RIGHT?

Is there a single federal law that is, in your opinion, unconstitutional?

I agree with your assessment: the are two different kinds of people. If, in fact, most people are lazy and unproductive, then they, alone, should bear the responsibility for that. They are the primary cause behind the "wealth gap"...

Your assertion is that government should choose to favor labor. This is not an argument for incidental benefit to labor. This is an argument for policy set to favor one class of citizens. Taking your argument to the extreme, government should set immigration quotas at zero. Government might set policy that incidentally favors labor, or capital. That is both unavoidable and variable; the policy might favor labor this year, but favor capital next year. But that is not your argument.
Simply having a union doesn't mean they'll be successful. Are you arguing that government should not only guarantee the right to unionize, but that that union's demands should also be guaranteed?
Not a good analogy. In this case, everyone is being protected equally. Remember your argument is for government to be firmly on the side of labor. If you're going to argue that government, in your analogy, is firmly on the side of those who do not commit crimes then my question is, "What quality of those who do not commit crimes makes them worthy of deserving government protection?" Your answer should be, "Because government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens, and all citizens have the right to keep their property."

When you argue that government should be firmly on the side of labor, the question I continue to ask is, "What quality of the people who make up 'labor' entitles them to government favoritism?" To which you haven't given an answer. Is it because everyone has the right to a job and government must protect that right?
Then government won't be "firmly on the side of labor."
No, it's not a more important driver. Per capita wealth will mostly change what the existing population will choose. They will buy more expensive things rather than less expensive alternatives. They will eat steak instead of hamburger. You might have an argument if we weren't already living in a wealthy society. If we had a huge lower-class that suddenly became middle-class, then we would see an increase in demand. But we don't have that.
It does follow, because it's true. We did have wage caps, we did have low wages - low compared to what the market would've borne had wage caps not been in place. In effect, what we had in the 50s and 60s was huge lower class that suddenly became middle-class. We don't have that today.
Because people, by and large, don't know how to save their money. Regardless, holding up the 50s and 60s as what can be expected from cutting off trade with the majority of the planet's population isn't valid.
If this simplistic view were true, then all we need to do to grow the economy is to enforce a minimum wage of infinity. If you're not willing to accept that impossibility, then let's just raise the minimum wage to $100/hr.

Higher wages are good to a point - the point at which the market bears. Of more importance are growing markets.

However, since you agree the 50s and 60s are not comparable to now, what evidence do you have that rising wages will outpace the increase in prices?
The markets in the US, Canada, EU, Australia, and Japan are shrinking and will continue to shrink. Furthermore, maintaining free trade with these countries merely means we'd be shifting production to them. What's to stop them from producing in low-wage countries and selling to us? Low-wage countries need us less and less every year. Moreover, your proposal doesn't even take us out of the picture since other countries can simply pass goods from them to us. They don't lose our market, we lose theirs.
No, it's declining because we have a low birth rate. We have a low birth rate because we're rich. And we won't be trading freely with these other countries because they're not going to want to buy our more expensive products due to our artificially high wage rates. They can just buy from China and India.
Yes, we did. And we sold it all to them on credit. The Marshall Plan.
Because their markets are growing. What will be sold this year is greater than last year. You want to take that away.
Oh, please. The time has long past when the US led the world. Canada and Europe are both far more "firmly on the side of labor" than we are - for which we are harangued ad nauseum. Neither have yet to suggest the type of suicide you're proposing.

Even if they did, all it takes is for one country to deny your morality. That country would then become the mecca for every manufacturer on the planet. All they would need to to is guarantee property rights and companies would flock to their shores - producing in low-wage countries and selling to everyone else.
We're not looking for evidence of hurting the economy. We're looking for evidence that increasing taxes leads to a change in behaviour. Every instance of tax increases have resulted in lower revenue. Why? Because behaviour changes. Either taxpayers seek to lower their revenue, or they seek ways to hide revenue. Either one would satisfy your requirement that punishment necessitates some form of behavioural change.

And that's not the point. How much do you think we should punish achievement?

I don't refuse to admit it, I just, one, argue that if the Republicans supported the amendment its whole purpose could hardly have been to embarrass Republicans, and two, remain perplexed what difference that makes to begin with.

I certainly disagree that a 91% top marginal tax rate is immoral, unethical, unconstitutional, or unjust, and I don't find it the least bit sickening. It may, however, be counterproductive, which would be argument enough against it. One of the better phrases along those lines that I've read years ago was "a fifty percent tax on millions is better than a 90% tax on nothing." A top marginal rate that high won't hurt the economy, but it may result in a failure to gain revenue, and since the purpose of a tax is to levy revenue, well . . .

There is no objective right or wrong in this matter, so I can't answer the question as you ask it. Can I disagree with the Court? Certainly. Does it matter if I do? Not much, unless I can either persuade the Court (or a later Court) to overturn the ruling, or else spark a movement to amend the Constitution to nullify it.

As for the Court not having that authority in the first place, this is what I was saying in terms of unintended consequences and the law meaning what its words say, not what its authors intended. What the Constitution says about the Court is this:

Article III, Section 1. Pretty vague, isn't it? But the key phrase is the first three words: "The judicial power." What exactly IS this power? The Constitution does not say, and so we fall back on the traditions of English common law that underwrite it, which holds the judicial power to be the power to try cases at law and make rulings. In all such rulings, the Court must interpret and apply the law. And the ability to strike down legislation as in conflict with the Constitution is implied in this, plus the following:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And so in striking down unconstitutional laws when cases are brought before them, the Justices are simply applying "the supreme Law of the Land" as is their duty. In any case, I shudder to think what abuses might be committed by the legislative and/or executive branches of government if we did not have an independent judiciary capable of checking them.

No, I do not agree with that ruling, but think a minute about what you are saying. You were calling into question the Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional. But the problem in this case was the Court's failure to do exactly that when (I believe and you agree) that it should have done so. If it did not have that authority at all, how could it have ruled in any way but the way it did?

At present? I believe provisions of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional. I hope, when push comes to shove, the Court will agree with me. I think it could also be argued that denying the right to marry to gay people violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that is ambiguous enough that I recognize legitimate opinion might be on the other side, as it was in the matter of female suffrage once.

It is certainly possible for laws to be unconstitutional, which is the main intent of your question. The empowering clauses of Article I, Section 8 include language sufficiently vague that one is on shaky ground arguing anything is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, but there is plenty of language in the document that isn't vague at all, and that spells out in detail what the government specifically can't do.

That is your interpretation of it, but since the words were mine, I do believe my own interpretation to be more relevant than yours. I gave it in my previous post. If you wish to take issue with the idea, do so in the context of the interpretation I presented, and not in the context of a different meaning to the words which you supply yourself. I will not respond to the arguments you have presented in this post which depend upon doing the latter, and which are therefore specious and may be dismissed out of hand.

Not so. The robber is being restrained, and the victim is being protected. Clearly, the law favors the victim and goes against the robber. The only reason we can say that the law protects everyone equally, is because it would protect the robber if he were the victim, if their situations were reversed.

Well, similarly, laws and policies protecting the rights of labor would also protect a capitalist if the situation were reversed, and if he were working for one of his employees instead of vice-versa. The analogy is quite exact.

No, it also changes how much they choose, or rather, how much they are able to choose. How many movies can they see a year? How many cars can they have in their driveway? Can they purchase the more expensive cell-phone option or must they content themselves with the cheap one? How often can they go out to eat in restaurants? When they take a vacation, can they travel, and under what conditions? How big and nice a wardrobe can they buy? Can they buy a home, or must they rent an apartment? Not only are questions like these a bigger determiner of consumer demand than sheer population, changes in disposable wealth affect consumer demand much faster than demographic changes, since the latter require time for a new generation to grow up.

Cato, please. My point was that wages were higher than they had been, not that they were higher than they could have been under different circumstances such an absence of the wage cap. Obviously without the wage cap they would have risen higher; nonetheless, they were higher than before, and this, together with the dearth of consumer goods, contributed to the brief pent-up demand which occurred at the end of the war. Desire to buy plus ability to buy: that is what makes up demand.

But the main point here is that the frustrated desires which existed by the end of World War II because so much of the nation's productivity had been invested in killing machines instead of stuff for people to enjoy did not last very long. Those frustrated desires were satisfied within a year at most after the war ended. Yet the economy continued humming along wonderfully, because wealth continued to be widely dispersed and consumer demand remained high -- not because anything changed about desire, but because something had changed about ability to buy.

Population also grew, of course -- but by the time the baby boomers reached young adulthood in their massive numbers, the great economic boom was almost over. So that was NOT the factor that caused it. (If anything, it was the other way around.)

But "the market" is not some mysterious force that comes out of nowhere and is not amenable to influence. Wages are set by the balance of bargaining power between employers and employees. The demand for labor, the supply of labor, and labor's ability to bargain collectively are the three factors which determine it (in almost all cases). All of these are, in turn, influenced by government policies. If those policies are set so as to favor low wages, the economy will suffer. If they are set so as to favor high wages, the economy will benefit. And that is what I am arguing the government ought to do, as it once did. There is, at all times, a ceiling on wages and salaries that will result from the market forces as so influenced. But that ceiling itself is not fixed.

But, as I said before, the only reason they are shrinking is because real wages are dropping. Reverse the policies that led to that result, and real wages will rise and the markets will increase.

Which means we were buying it ourselves.

The Marshall Plan was both a sound Cold War move and a foresighted investment in the future, because eventually Europe did indeed become good customers for U.S. merchandise. However, at the same time, they became producers of merchandise to compete with us (or, looked at another way, they became producers of goods that we could enjoy). Trade is always a two-way street. Being the only producer in the world is NOT an economically desirable goal, because one's trading partners have to have something to offer in order to be worth trading with in the first place.

In a way, the existence of a money economy is a distorting factor. Money is only a token, a medium of exchange. What is being traded are goods and services, with money serving only as a medium. If another country produces no goods or services that we want, why trade with them? And if they do, then we don't have a monopoly on productivity.

But that's exactly my point. The only reason they tolerate what's happening is because they must, because the U.S. does and our economic muscle is still paramount. If we reverse course, it will give them permission to do what they already would very much like to do.

Not true, it would take a general consensus against it. We are after all talking about the strongest economies in the world, all banded together to preserve a civilized living standard against the encroaching forces of barbarism. (Considering the way China, for example, treats workers in its factories, "barbarism" is definitely not too harsh a word.) And, like most supply-side advocates (I realize you probably hate the thought of calling yourself that, but it's what you're doing at the moment), you seriously underestimate the power of demand in motivating business. It doesn't matter how cheaply a manufacturer can produce his goods if, as a result, he can't sell them. As the market for the world, the advanced economies have clout that, because they are too much in service to capital, they are not using appropriately for the well-being of their people.

Untrue.

TSGracchus,

Did you read the link on Jefferson's reaction to Marbury vs. Madison?

What do you think about Jefferson's quotes?

I thank you for the very civil discussion, but you and I just have differnet views on what should be considered "general welfare."

We also seem to have different views on taxes.

The eminent domain ruling proves that our supreme court is a joke. All the justices who supported this ruling either do not understand the constitution, or belive their views are superior to the constitution. Justice Black warned us about this in his Griswold dissent.........

If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the "[collective] conscience of our people" is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court. This fact is perhaps responsible for the peculiar phenomenon that, for a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court's members a day-to-day constitutional convention.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have

AGAIN, I thank you for the discussion, but we are very differnt on our views. The FEDGOV has taken way too many liberties with their power. The Patriot Act is a fine example. The use of federal tax monies as blackmail to get states to pass drinking age laws, seat belt laws, speed limit laws, BAC laws, is another example.

You said you didn't understand what was meant by Ron Paul when he said a Supreme Court usurping states rights. One example is their ruling on medical marijuana. 12 states have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana, yet the Suprmee Court ruled that the FEDGOV may forbid states to legalize medical marijuana, then in the same ruling stated that doctors can recommend to their patients that they break the law and purchase marijuana illegally to self medicate.

This is one of the most MORONIC RULINGS OF ALL TIME AND MORE PROOF OUR SUPREME COURT IS COURT OF FOOLS.

How can the Supreme Court of the USA rule that doctors can recommend that their patients break the law?

MORONS.

As to constitutional questions regarding interpretation, I agree with Jefferson on this issue.........

Thomas Jefferson best sums up this concept in a letter he wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in June of 1823.

" On every question of construction, carry [y]ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Do you agree, or disagree?

LOL! What?! Okay, TSGracchus, what do you mean by, "Put the government firmly on the side of labor in the capital/labor conflict."? I would love to know how this doesn't mean you wish government to actively favor one class of citizens over another.
No, the analogy still fails. In order to protect my right to keep my property, the would be robber need do nothing. Government merely takes my side retributively after the crime has occurred. Robbers are not restrained, they are punished post facto. They are not robbers until they rob.

You're proposing that government protect labor before a crime is committed. You're proposing that government take a proactive side at the expense of the other side. This is not the case with a robber/victim relationship. Government is not firmly on the side of would be victims any more than it is against would be robbers. Government is on the side of everyone gets to keep their property.

You're proposing that a conflict exists between labor and capital, which I would agree with. But no crime has been committed any more than a crime has been committed when I go to the grocery store and want to pay $1/lb of beef, but my grocer wants to charge me $4/lb. You further propose that government should choose sides in this conflict, that government should favor one side over the other. It would be similar to arguing that government should choose my side in determining how much the grocer sells beef to me for. That government should support me by forcing the grocer to sell me beef for $1/lb. This is a benefit to me at the grocer's expense. I want to know why I deserve preferrential treatment at the grocer's expense. Why do the people of labor deserve preferrential treatment at the expense of the people of capital?
But they can, or will, only choose a limited amount. There is a limit to what one practically, and logically, can consume. Furthermore, most of your examples are simply different choices between alternatives. Purchasing the expensive cell-phone also means the cheap one want be purchased; eating in a restaurant also means food won't be purchased from a grocer; taking a vacation also means wherever they would have vacationed before (even if they stayed home) won't get the revenue this time; choosing nicer clothes also means the clothes they used to buy won't be purchased; buying a home means apartment owners won't receive the income they would've. The revenue gained from choosing more expensive options is mitigated by the lost revenue in choices denied. Meaning, GDP growth is mitigated by loss of GDP from choices not made.

Changes in disposable wealth may affect consumer demand faster (as I agreed before), but thinking short-term results in short-term results. Most fiscally responsible people think long-term.
Regardless, we don't have that now. There is no dearth of consumer goods, there is no pent-up demand on the order of a post-war economy. The 50s and 60s are not even remotely comparable to now. So, where is your evidence that increases in wages will outpace the resultant increase in prices?
What's your evidence for this? I find it hard to believe that everyone who wanted a TV, refrigerator, new house, new car, etc. ad infinitum had one within a year.
Unless you have growing markets to sell to, demand, supply, and collective bargaining for labor aren't going to mean anything. If you cut off the growing markets for the US, and demand that government favor labor, then you'll start with a bunch of highly-paid people making fewer goods, then fewer goods, then fewer goods, and eventually no goods. You'll end with a bunch of unemployed people producing, and earning, nothing.
The evidence doesn't support this. The wealthier a society gets the fewer children it has. And since you've lowered immigration quotas, there are fewer people coming into the country. Fewer children and fewer immigrants means fewer consumers, which means lower demand. And your increase in the prices of things merely shifts income, it doesn't close any gaps. Everyone stays in their same relative position.
Don't disagree with any of this, but it doesn't do anything to support your assertion that the 50s and 60s are comparable to now. We were the only manufacturing game and the only manufacturing market in town then, we are not now.
Hardly. They would love for us to put the bullet you're suggesting into our collective brain. Finally, they could raise their prices a little, and still reap huge profits while the US gets demoted from an $13T economy to a $13B economy.
No, it wouldn't. People buy things, not morals or economies. People buy things that are less expensive than comparable alternatives. The strongest economies in the world will no longer be the strongest economies in the world if they can't convince other people to buy their products. And no economy is going to convince other people to pay more for their products just because it comes with a stamp of "Morally Correct".
Not.

Regardless, and however you want to make it more palatable to yourself, how harshly should we punish achievement?

Again, Cato, summarize your argument in terms of the original question asked.

I have already explained what I meant by it.

No, that's not the case, because the existence of laws against armed robbery and the threat of punishment is meant, not merely to whack robbers after the fact, but also (and mainly) to deter them before the fact. There are doubtless plenty of people out there whose ethics would permit them to rob people but whose common sense and self-interest prevent them from risking jail to do it. That is the main intent behind criminal law; punishing criminals is only a means to that end.

Just as it protects you against would-be robbers before a crime is committed, yes.

Well, the government does in fact influence what the grocer sells beef for, through trade policy, contract law, and health regulations, as well as by building the infrastructure through which the beef is transported to market.

First of all, I'm not proposing anything that ham-handed or draconian. Minimum wage laws (which would equate to that) are last-resort solutions IMO, and if we were setting policies which influence labor market decisions properly they might not be needed at all. But more to the point:

Because, one, power is naturally on the side of capital and this requires balancing out, and two, it benefits the economy if it does.

Of course, but most people subsist at nowhere near that limit. One finds this limit in action only among the very rich, who, the further up the ladder one progresses, divert more and more of their income to investment rather than consumption. For most people, an increase in wealth results in an increase in consumption; even when they reach the point where they begin to save and invest, they will still in most cases consume more than when they were poorer, just not 100% of the increase.

You surely don't mean to say that the "loss" is equal to the gain in that case?

There wasn't throughout the overwhelming majority of the postwar boom, either, only in the first year or thereabouts.

Let's say that everyone who had wanted these things through the war years and couldn't buy one because they weren't being produced in sufficient quantity had one within a year after the economy retooled for consumer goods instead of war material. There ceased to be a waiting list for these things very quickly, because the economy was able to satisfy the demand very quickly. After that, it was a matter of replacements, upgrades, and so on.

What I'm questioning here is your equation of "growing markets" with "growing population." And also, your statement is inaccurate. Say rather, that if the market doesn't exist to justify the demand for labor (that market need not actually be "growing," but it certainly must be there), then the demand will shrink. Demand for labor is a function (somewhat time-skewed) of demand for the goods produced by labor. But actually, high demand for labor also produces a market for the goods, if along with the supply and the collective bargaining strength it results in high wages that allow the workers themselves to represent that demand.

Actually, population growth contributes more to the growth of a labor supply, and hence to a shrinking market, than it does to growth of a market. And in any case, the human population needs to stop growing in short order. So unless there's something wrong with your economic model, which I believe there is, we're all doomed one way or the other.

But since you're completely wrong in equating a growing population with a growing market, that's irrelevant.

My assertion isn't that the 50s and 60s are comparable to now but rather of a reason why they weren't, and that, this DOES support.

I'm referring to actions by the governments of those countries, not by their individual consumers.

Prove it.

I deny the validity of the question.

Why should he?

I did just what you asked and you ignored my post.

Why?

People do not have a right to free food, or free housing, or free healthcare.

It is up to each individual to support him, or herself.

What if, yo lived in a small town and worked your butt off all spring and summer, planting crops, taking care of your animals, while the other people in the town partied all spring and summer, not preparing for the winter. Now, winter comes and the people of the town have no food to eat, while you have enough for you and your family because you worked hard, while others were playing.

Do the other town people have a right to your food?

I think that Jefferson was mistaken, and that an independent judiciary is crucial to the functioning of a democratic society with guarantees of civil liberties. Those guarantees would be meaningless without an independent court to enforce them, capable of restraining the excesses of the legislature and the executive.

Yes, I think we do, but it's sometimes useful to examine one's views from the perspective of someone who strongly disagrees.

I wouldn't go that far, although I agree the ruling itself was a travesty. The Court has made some dubious decisions before: Dred Scott, Plesy v. Ferguson. But we would still not be better off without it.

I might agree with this, but nevertheless such action is not unconstitutional. (Well, parts of the Patriot Act may be.) A part of the problem in discussions of this nature, I find, is that some Americans treat the Constitution as if it were some kind of holy writ, and fail to recognize that it is a human-generated and flawed document. Thus, they view an outcome of law that they do not like, and regard it as against the Constitution because they start with the premise that the Constitution is somehow perfect.

The fact is, the document places no limits on Congress' ability to tax and spend, except for these: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. . . . all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . . no Appropriation of Money to that Use [raising of armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years . . . No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. . . . No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

There was also originally a prohibition on a capitation or income tax, but this was repealed by the 16th amendment.

So the ability of Congress to levy taxes and defray those moneys for highway construction, etc. is certainly there, and at present there is no prohibition on Congress putting conditions on a state receiving such money from the federal government. Perhaps there should be one -- I am assuming that in your opinion there should -- but that doesn't mean there IS one currently. There is not.

LOL well, perhaps. However, considering that the Congress is given the right to regulate interstate commerce, and the banning of certain drugs has been determined to be a legitimate function of that authority, I can see why the court ruled the way it did; also, I can see that merely suggesting someone perform an illegal act cannot be made illegal itself. So, although I don't like this situation, consider the marijuana laws a repulsive abuse of government power (more on the state than federal level, though), and would very much like the government at all levels to come to its damned senses on the matter, purely in terms of Constitutionality I have to agree with the ruling. It's really the legislative branch which enacted the war on drugs to begin with that's moronic, IMO.

I have to disagree, at this point in time. Whether I would have agreed at that time -- I don't know. The framers were still alive then, and the material conditions were little changed from when the Constitution was adopted. But it seems to me that if the framers really had intended to create a federal government as limited as what Jefferson desired (he himself was not one of the framers, as you know), then they might have used more restrictive language. Why was it necessary to empower Congress to tax and spend "for the common defense and general welfare?" Why not simply empower Congress to levy taxes "to pay the debts of the United States and to provide for the expenses incurred in carrying out the powers and duties detailed elsewhere in this Constitution"?

The inclusion of language like that, and of something as vague as "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several States," which is open to the interpretation that Congress can pass any laws regulating the economy virtually any way it desires except where expressly forbidden, says to me that the framers wanted something that would allow the federal government to be as powerful as changing conditions required. Remember that the Constitution was enacted expressly for the purpose of strengthening the federal government, on the perception that the Articles of Confederation resulted in too weak a government that was incapable of doing its job.

We see James Madison as the architect of the Constitution, but I wonder how much influence Alexander Hamilton had on it. This sort of sneaky language was definitely his forte, and most of the Federalist Papers were written by him.