1 edit
Originally posted by FMFEntertaining fantasies.
Assertions, assertions, assertions. Free-floating and ahistorical, one and all.
Capitalism is happiest in a non-democratic society. Two types of non-democratic system are not conducive however: firstly the bureaucratic sort, when the nation is dominated by a state religion or ideology, as in the the former U.S.S.R.; secondly the personalized dictatorships whe itler; happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco; and delirious under General Pinochet.
Sure in a "democratic society" you can vote to take what I've earned. Stealing with a vote is less risky than with a gun.
Originally posted by FMFThere are none. Capitalism and free markets have made collectivism possible. To the extent that the collectivists retain some capitalism, they can exist. They are essentially parasites, who if they kill the host die themselves.
So where is the Test Case of not-even-a-"bit"-of-collectivism that proves your test tube theory? Give me one.
That was the mistake of Lenin and Stalin, and where Hitler, Musolini, and the European socialist democracies modified the plan. They permit capitalists to make the money so they can steal and spend it.
The common factor is that greed exists in all those systems. In the collectivist models it is the greed and envy of those who don't wish to compete freely that dominates.
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by normbenign
So where is the Test Case of not-even-a-"bit"-of-collectivism that proves your test tube theory? Give me one.
There are none.
So why should people vote for what you are proposing? Oh ya, that's right, you don't want to subject your political creed to a vote, I remember. You want to impose it on all those around you on 'moral' grounds. You sound like a crank. An Obama-is-a-Nazi, Ollie North-is-a-hero, Anne Coulter-has-integrity crank.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrThere are certain kinds of regulations with which I have no intrinsic objection (although, often their
Precisely why libertarianism will not work: too little recognition of the need to regulate the greed of the haves.
application is problematic). For example, I have no problem with government regulations on the
mandatory structural strength of materials used in buildings or elevators, or regulations which insist
that people who perform surgery have a license. I don't think these things impinge upon the
Natural Right for those to pursue happiness.
However, the notion of regulating greed is a very problematic one, because it is the legislation of
morality. The insistence that buildings have structural integrity is a mathematical one, the requirement
that a doctor be able to tell your ass from your elbow is also measurable. But how do we define
'greed?' Having more than whom? Having how much more than whom? As it is, people
who live at the poverty line in America live better than a fairly significant portion of the world.
Are they greedy? I have cable, internet, two computers, a Wii, and a several-bedroom house,
all of which I have earned through the sweat of my own labor. Am I greedy?
The problem with the regulation of 'greed' is that there is no real standard. Once upon a time,
the owning of a single television was considered to be the height of luxury. Now, even the very
poor have not only multiple televisions, but cable.
Now, I'm not a full-blown Objectivist to say the least -- I don't object to progressive taxation,
for example, and I don't believe in the highly stripped-down government that Rand embraces...
hell, I don't even object to certain kinds of welfare programs -- but one cannot simply dismiss
Rand's arguments with a wave of their hand. We can't talk about regulating the 'haves' until
we define who the 'haves' are, or the criteria that makes an individual a 'have.'
I believe that it is fair to expect the government to offer opportunity (say, through education) to
all, but has no obligation to offer the rewards that come from successfully seizing opportunity.
People ought to be judged on their aptitude and achievement; if someone, either through choice
or bad luck, drops out of high school, I really don't think that those of us who graduated from
high school should be penalized for the opportunities he won't get.
I'm more intelligent than most, but less intelligent than some. I'm less athletic than most, but
more athletic than some. I'm a better musician than most, but worse than some. I'm a fair
carpenter, electrician, and plumber, but hardly a professional. &c, &c. I don't deserve any better
treatment for these skills and traits (or the absence of the same) than those skills and traits afford.
When better organists get better church jobs than I, I have no right to gripe. All I have the right
to do is practice in an effort to be better. If I can't get better, all it means is I have to settle with
the sort of church job I'm capable of getting, and I have to accept that.
And I think that that's the root of the problem: people are unwilling to accept the fact that they
are just not worth as much as they think they are. They look at the successful with resentment
because they themselves are unable or unwilling to do the sorts of things to make themselves
just as successful. They misconstrue 'all men are created equal' with 'all men are equal.' The
fact of the matter is, they are not. I am not equal to Virgil Fox (not even close) and the presumption
that I should command that kind of respect is just absurd.
You are not equal to Bill Gates -- you didn't do what he did either because you weren't as lucky,
or as clever, or as intuitive or something. To demand that he be penalized because he was lucky,
clever, intuitive or whatever so that you can be more like him is extortion.
Again: I'm not an Objectivist, but Objectivism has something very legitimate to contribute to
the discussion. In the absence of asking questions fromt he point of view of Objectivism, we
really just end up having government-sponsored bailouts of companies who were unsuccessful
on an unprecedented economic scale.
Nemesio
The prevailing sentiment seems to be that people who advocate taxing the rich more heavily are jealous. It has nothing to do with jealousy; my education pretty much guarantees a well-paying job later on. The argument is simple economics. If someone who is rich gets less pleasure from a dollar than someone who is poor, there is a net gain in wealth from redistributing that dollar. It's that simple. Americans are watching as trillions of dollars worth of wealth are being destroyed due to too low taxes, and still they demand lower taxes! Human nature is a peculiar thing.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility, something that right wingers here seem to never have heard of, is the primary economic rationale for a progressive tax system.
The prevailing sentiment seems to be that people who advocate taxing the rich more heavily are jealous. It has nothing to do with jealousy; my education pretty much guarantees a well-paying job later on. The argument is simple economics. If someone who is rich gets less pleasure from a dollar than someone who is poor, there is a net gain in wealth from ...[text shortened]... oyed due to too low taxes, and still they demand lower taxes! Human nature is a peculiar thing.
One might add that the inequality in income in the US last year was the highest since 1928. No surprise that economic conditions would deteriorate under those circumstances; the primary component of GNP is consumer spending and when the average consumer have shown little or no increase in real earnings for decades then something has to give. Increased debt load became the primary fuel for consumer spending, but that couldn't last indefinitely. And the financial moguls managed to wreck the banking system by creating $64 trillion worth of assets backed by essentially nothing.
Despite the propaganda being doled out by some here, free market policies which lead to ever greater concentrations of wealth lead to inherently unstable economies.
Originally posted by FMF"What you advocate - unrestrained predatory capitalism - leads to Corporatism."
No. History. It's called history. What you advocate - unrestrained predatory capitalism - leads to Corporatism. And Corporatism leads to Fascism. You are an ideological manchild. Yours is the "entertaining" fantasy.
First, I don't advocate unrestricted anything. That would be anarchy, and while theoretically pleasing, it would never last, and presents other problems.
I believe that a Constitutionally limited Republic is the best form of government (More details in the what kind of government do you want thread).
Man's predatory instincts must be restrained by a system of somewhat static and very difficult to change laws, a Constitution, defining rights, and empowering and limiting government power.
About "predatory" capitalism, well the human species is a predator, and to maximize human abilities we must recognize and channel man's traits, rather than attempt to pretend they are other than what they are.
Capitalism need not lead to Corporatism, as the corporation is a creation of the law, and could easily be dismantled or banned. Corporations have been and are useful:
1. achieving greater productivity via the accumulation of capital through stock offerings. The only other method is via borrowing, bonds instead of equity.
2. The limitations on liability to the assets of the corporation. How many people would be in business serving the public if their homes and personal finances could be taken as a result of a single lawsuit?
The corporatism you describe, as I understand what you say, is created by Mutual agreement of government and large corporate entities who are either lazy, corrupt, or just tired of competing honestly. Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, created a steel corporation CEO who fit that mold, seeking government protection against the manufacturer of a new metal better than steel. When government protects corporations or any other business entity which can't compete or is harmful to the public in its practices, I agree with you.
That has nothing to do with predatory capitalism, but is in fact its antithesis. Predatory capitalism brings better products and services to market seeking to win the markets of inferior competitors, with superior products and services. The corporatist fascists complain to government for protection, and warn how destructive it would be if they were forced to close plants and layoff workers.
Of course, US history is littered with large corporations which got their starts with government subsidies and even continue getting them to this day. The railroads are a shining example, as well as most of the utility companies. It is little wonder that these quasi public corporations provide arguably the worst services, and tend to always run deficits.
The completely public, governmental business sector is even worse, with public schools leading the way. Yes, here is a monopoly sanctioned by government, and paid for entirely by taxpayers, many of whom are childless, is arbitrarily funded to the tune of billions of dollars, while being protected from consumer scrutiny or refusal to pay for the service.
The US public education system is producing generations of illiterate knuckleheads. Our medical, engineering and science departments at the University level, especially graduate schools are almost devoid of American students.
So Corporatism is evil, but it is evil not because of too little government regulation, but because of too much government collusion, subsidies, bribery, and lobbying, and little to no real predatory competition at the highest levels.
Think about the corporate failing in recent US history. Nothing done by either party has really stopped the dishonesty. Enron did most of its dirt during the Clinton administration, and collapsed on Bush's watch. Clinton took sides with Sun Microsystems in a dispute with Microsoft, leading directly to the dotcom meltdown. We have just watched Bush give away almost a trillion $ in TARP money to corporate banks and brokers, and lesser money to auto manufacturers, and Obama is likely to do more of the same.
I'll just mention two corporations each of which have in the last 50 years done more to improve human life in the US and the rest of the world than the US government. They are Microsoft, and Walmart. Think of tens of thousands of people employed by each, the fortunes created tangentially, and the millions of people who benefit by purchasing and using their products.
This isn't fantacy, it's life in the real world.
Originally posted by FMFNo sir. I would like to see the ideals of my country's constitution followed and if additional libertarianism is to be added, that it be by the process established in that Constitution, not by a simple majority vote.
Originally posted by normbenign
[b]There are none.
So why should people vote for what you are proposing? Oh ya, that's right, you don't want to subject your political creed to a vote, I remember. You want to impose it on all those around you on 'moral' grounds. You sound like a crank. An Obama-is-a-Nazi, Ollie North-is-a-hero, Anne Coulter-has-integrity crank.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioThank you for an intelligently articulated and reasoned argument, a rare thing here.
There are certain kinds of regulations with which I have no intrinsic objection (although, often their
application is problematic). For example, I have no problem with government regulations on the
mandatory structural strength of materials used in buildings or elevators, or regulations which insist
that people who perform surgery have a license. I don' ...[text shortened]... unsuccessful
on an unprecedented economic scale.
Nemesio
Libertarians will typically disagree on the minimum amount of government, but will also typically agree we have too much.
I've often found Objectivists who denied being libertarian. I can accept either designation with pride.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"The prevailing sentiment seems to be that people who advocate taxing the rich more heavily are jealous. It has nothing to do with jealousy"
The prevailing sentiment seems to be that people who advocate taxing the rich more heavily are jealous. It has nothing to do with jealousy; my education pretty much guarantees a well-paying job later on. The argument is simple economics. If someone who is rich gets less pleasure from a dollar than someone who is poor, there is a net gain in wealth from ...[text shortened]... oyed due to too low taxes, and still they demand lower taxes! Human nature is a peculiar thing.
Sorry this is a strawman argument. I am comfortable, but hardly rich, and I am not jealous of the rich. I don't know too many people that are. Almost everyone wants more, and if someone promises they can have more free or at someone else's expense most will take it.
Taxation is power, too much power. The power to tax is the power to enslave. Taxation isn't so much about funding government as it is modifying and controlling behaviors. If it were just about raising revenue the code would be simple, but the code is something over 25,00 pages long, and most deductions and liabilities involve doing or not doing something.
The IRS has been utilized as club by several recent Presidents at political or legal enemies.
"The argument is simple economics."
That would seem to mean that the US Congress is a better money manager than is Bill Gates, Sam Walton, or me. By its very nature as a committee hundreds of members, with disparate interests and capabilities, it is unlikely to be good at fiscal management, and every new Congress proves the point.
Why does it make economic sense to take money from people who know how to use it and give it to a bunch of idiots, who demonstrably can't balance their own checkbook.
That's the pragmatic argument against over taxation of the rich.
The moral argument is even stronger. A rich man and a poor man are both individuals, and get one vote in our elections. There is no moral reason to charge one more for government than the other. It may be argued that the wealthier use more government resources, though I seriously believe it to be the opposite. Even then equal tax rates would mean higher earners would pay substantially more total dollars, or a tax on consumption would mean they would pay more based on products and services used. So a flat tax, or consumption tax would not empower the government as much and would equalize the stake people have in it.
The problem with high taxation in general, and higher taxes on the wealthy is that government becomes the solution of choice to every perceivable problem, and since people want solutions they can be conned into begging for solutions that they personally view as "free" because they presently don't associate the benefit with a cost. How much is enough?
Back to basics. The problems to be solved in human existence are probably infinite, certainly beyond definition.
The resources to solve those human problems are limited.
Given limited resources, doesn't it make sense that people able to make effective and efficient use of resources have them, rather than transferring them to people who are demonstrably inept financially? Especially since the capitalist makes money by serving people and solving problems.
You say there is too much greed in business, and too many crooks. Have you looked at government recently? Greed and crooks, is synonymous with government.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Despite the propaganda being doled out by some here, free market policies which lead to ever greater concentrations of wealth lead to inherently unstable economies."
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility, something that right wingers here seem to never have heard of, is the primary economic rationale for a progressive tax system.
One might add that the inequality in income in the US last year was the highest since 1928. No surprise that economic conditions would deteriorate under those circumstan ...[text shortened]... cies which lead to ever greater concentrations of wealth lead to inherently unstable economies.
Free markets are taking the blame for what manipulated and regulated markets are doing.
First big problem is the existence of the Federal Reserve system, private bankers, with the backing of government, which crank out fiat (counterfeit) money at the government's demand. It is difficult if not impossible to calculate real wealth, because our money isn't really worth S**t.
How much of the growing disparity between rich and poor is inflation?
It might be a good thing for you to expand on "The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility", since the right wingers here might be enlightened. Isn't that just a fancy way of saying they don't need that much money? In most consumer goods there is a point of diminishing returns, where the extra money you spend for the latest whiz bang model with all the extras really isn't a good value. For instance that Wall Street guys gold plated stool isn't functionally going to do any more than my porcelain one.
The problem is that judgment of value is a personal matter, and there is not any valid way of measuring utility. It is also inaccurate and unfair to look at only the excesses of the rich, or the crooks, and to ignore the philanthropists, the investors, and the service and practical benefits those people provided to society while becoming wealthy.
Most of us are logged on here with MS products, which began with Bill Gate taking a product CPM which IBM had previously rejected, slightly modifying it, and the rest is history. In the process of making his billions Gates improved the lives of millions of people globally. I wonder if the millions he has paid in taxes were as effectively used? If he wants to sit on a gold plated commode I'm not going to worry about it.
It might also be noted that during the period cited, 1928 to the present, government and taxation has grown exponentially, along with regulation, protections and subsidies for favored businesses. None of that is free market, so look a bit closer before blaming free markets.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioSpot on with 'greed'.
There are certain kinds of regulations with which I have no intrinsic objection (although, often their
application is problematic). For example, I have no problem with government regulations on the
mandatory structural strength of materials used in buildings or elevators, or regulations which insist
that people who perform surgery have a license. I don' unsuccessful
on an unprecedented economic scale.
Nemesio
How many times have we seen 'greed is the problem', when there are greedy people that are quite unsuccessful at amassing wealth. Greed need not mean an excessive desire for money, cars or houses. There are people that have an excessive desire to run the fastest, we put them on a pedestal and hang a medal on them when they are successful.
Originally posted by normbenignHere knock yerself out: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-371303.html
"Despite the propaganda being doled out by some here, free market policies which lead to ever greater concentrations of wealth lead to inherently unstable economies."
Free markets are taking the blame for what manipulated and regulated markets are doing.
First big problem is the existence of the Federal Reserve system, private bankers, with the back ...[text shortened]... sses. None of that is free market, so look a bit closer before blaming free markets.
Bitching about the Fed is so 1870's. Of course, money has no intrinsic value; what does? Your ideas about economics seem remarkably primitive.
The measurement was of how much the top 10% have of the nation's income. So, the answer of how much of that disparity is due to inflation is "none".
A progressive income tax system doesn't prevent philanthropy or investment or anything for that matter. All it is does is more fairly spread the burden of society on those who are deriving the most benefit from that society. The movement over the last 30 years which has led to overall taxation becoming more and more regressive as led to fiscal disaster. "Unearned" income such as dividends and capital gains, the vast bulk of which goes to a small percentage of taxpayers, is now taxed at lower rates than income from work. Estate taxes have been virtually eliminated providing a windfall to those who have done absolutely nothing but be related to or know a rich guy.
I've never heard Bill Gates bitch about paying personal income taxes. I'm sure he can afford an increase.
The result once you determine to conduct your economy in a way that most favors the wealthiest is predictable. Working and middle class income gets squeezed down thus dampening consumer spending. Debt gets pedalled to these classes at higher and higher levels of borrowing. Eventually the debt burden rises to unsustainable levels.
That has been the economic history of the US over the last thirty years. Pretending that this has not happened under the mantra of "free markets" is disingenous.
I'd like to hear an exponent of smaller government make specific proposals on what parts of government spending he'd slash and/or eliminate. I'd save about $500 billion a year or more by ending involvement in forgein military adventures and cutting the US military to a reasonable level to provide defense for this country and not the interests of the elite overseas. Are you on board with that?