Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert J. Samuelson: The ultra-cautious capitalists’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Nonconlib
Happy Valley, UT

"In the struggle between capital and labor, capital is winning — and that's hurting the feeble economic recovery."

Need he say anything more?

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

It is with Obama as it was with Roosevelt: capital has seen his hostility and has determined that it's in their best interest to sit tight and ride out his tenure.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

According to the article, labor's share of GDP in the U.S. fell from 65% to 57%. In other developed coutries it fell from 73% to 65%. So labor's share in other developed countries is as good as ours was at its peak. In simple English, American workers are getting shafted.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Nate,

The investors have not sat on their money because of Obama. They have not invested because there has been no significant uptick in demand. The whole supply-side charade of the past 30+ years is finally being revealed for the sham it is. When more wealth ends up in the hands of those who actually produce it, there will be greater demand for products, which will convince investors to invest in production and jobs rather than in speculative financial instruments or, well, nothing.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

So --
The blame again lies with the uber-Wealthy.
and their custodians and idol worshippers mostly in the Republican Party.

The rich get richer,
The poor are getting poorer.

The 1% used to own a disproportional 66% of everything,
now horde and own an even MORE disproportional 80% of everything.

I think the French, American and Russian revolutions [including the final Nephite/Lamanite battles] were all started over far lesser disparity.

“This is an impressive crowd: The ‘haves’ and ‘have mores’. Some people call you ‘the elite’. I call you ‘my base’”. ~ GW Bush

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Kent C. DeTerry "The investors have not sat on their money because of Obama."

They most certainly have. Go out and talk to some of them. They cite a range of Obama policies to explain why they're sitting on their money: regulatory obstacles -- particularly in areas like energy production; uncertainty regarding future taxation; perverse incentives in the employer mandate of Obamacare; and unwritten regulations built into legislation such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

In ways large and small, Obama's policies have made it impossible for businesses to anticipate what's coming for them around the corner. This is no climate for growth. The best they can do is hang onto what they have, and wait him out.

It is a poor economist who won't listen to what the business community is trying to tell him.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

This just in the Deseret News:

"Top 1 percent in US took biggest share since 1928"
By Paul Wiseman
Associated Press

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 10 2013 2:28 p.m. MDT

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Open Minded Mormon" I guess the wealthy have to work harder. Currently the top 1% only own 39% of the wealth, according to CNBC.

The average salary for the large companies where the CEO is making $60,000/hr is actually much higher than minimum wage. For example, the oil companies in North Dakota are paying their workers $90,000/yr to drill for oil. GE averages $55,000/yr for young professionals. The McDonalds CEO doesn't make 1/10 the amount you think he does. What company has a CEO making $60,000/hr while the majority of its workers make minimum wage?

The American revolution had little to nothing to do with wealth, but was a rejection of the oppressive King of England. The Lamanite-Nephite battles had to do with rejection of oppressive government. Just look at the Russian revolution. They displaced the Tsars with Communist leaders that killed more and were even more oppressive. The French Revolution was not a revolution against the businessmen that were wealthy. It was a revolution against the Government and the waste that was so blatant in their nation.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Open Minded Mormon" so are you appologizing for being wrong about the rich? They stated that the top 10% own 48.2% of the wealth, not the 66% that you claim. Did you also note that during the recession they saw their incomes drop by 36%.

You do realize that the wealthy get most of their money from stocks, so if their incomes rose by 20%, that means that the stock market is doing good, or at least there is something inflating another bubble.

What point are you trying to make? So far, it only shows that you didn't read the article.

A Chem Engineer
Pocatello, ID

I own a very small company, where hiring one additional full-time person is a major change in the company.

I had been thinking of adding a full-time position this year - but then I started hearing about what Obamacare was going to do, and how much it was going to potentially cost my company - I changed my mind. What is the point of bringing on one more person when, under the new unknown-but-ominous Obamacare taxes, that extra employee's "extra benefits", on top of everyone elses new "extra benefits", might just put the company under? Then we ALL would be out of a job, not just the one guy I didn't hire.

So, I didn't hire the additional person this year. We'll have to see about next year, and how much Obamacare hurts my company financially with those folks already in place.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments