Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    17 Aug '16 10:31 / 1 edit
    At last a single decent article sets out the important things we need to remember in order to understand the label "neoliberalism," and captures very well why it fails. It also sadly reflects on the failure to develop - as yet - an adequate economics for the future. This latter theme could have been explored further and I have referred to it many times but there is a limit to what one article can say .

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on,
  2. 17 Aug '16 12:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    At last a single decent article sets out the important things we need to remember in order to understand the label "neoliberalism," and captures very well why it fails. It also sadly reflects on the failure to develop - as yet - an adequate economics for the future. This latter theme could have been explored further and I have referred to it many times but ...[text shortened]... e communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, [/quote]
    The private sector is undoubtedly the largest recipient of public funds. It was an interesting article although it did not proffer any solutions.
  3. 17 Aug '16 18:08
    Originally posted by finnegan
    At last a single decent article sets out the important things we need to remember in order to understand the label "neoliberalism," and captures very well why it fails. It also sadly reflects on the failure to develop - as yet - an adequate economics for the future. This latter theme could have been explored further and I have referred to it many times but ...[text shortened]... e communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, [/quote]
    How "rich" should someone be able to become?
  4. 17 Aug '16 18:19
    Originally posted by whodey
    How "rich" should someone be able to become?
    I think you are missing the point, its not how rich someone should be able to become but the way that riches are gleaned to the detriment of others.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    17 Aug '16 22:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    How "rich" should someone be able to become?
    Well it is a standard ploy to divert an economics debate into an abstract piece of moral philosophy.

    But since you want to go there, tell me why it is okay for the Duke of Westminster at the age of 25 to inherit £9.2 billion while paying limited tax on this entirely unearned transfer of wealth into his possession.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

    Notice that this £9.2 billion fortune represents a massive increase in wealth compared to what his father inherited at a similar age, not because his father was some kind of tycoon entrepreneur, but because he sits on land in central London whose value has soared with absolutely no effort whatsoever. With this land, and a tax efficient collection of professionally managed trusts, he has gone on to own valuable land in other places of comparable potential for unearned growth in America, Japan and other places, greatly reducing the minimal risk of any one government having the balls to tax it properly. Money makes money makes money makes money like a fkg fungus.

    Notice too that this wealth he has inherited, because it is beyond his power to piss it away at the rate it continues to grow, and it is organised anyway into professionally managed trusts that will ensure it remains intact and grows, will have multiplied many times again when this fresh faced lad (probably a very nice boy) finally passes it on to the next generation.

    Now tell us more about the morality of property and wealth.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/14/david-mitchell-who-duke-westminster-cares-about-9bn-estate

    "Inheritance tax doesn’t discourage earning, it discourages dying, which I think we can all get behind."
  6. 18 Aug '16 03:02
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well it is a standard ploy to divert an economics debate into an abstract piece of moral philosophy.

    But since you want to go there, tell me why it is okay for the Duke of Westminster at the age of 25 to inherit £9.2 billion while paying limited tax on this entirely unearned transfer of wealth into his possession.

    https://www.theguardian.com/mone ...[text shortened]... ance tax doesn’t discourage earning, it discourages dying, which I think we can all get behind."
    Tsk, tsk. I don't think asking how rich is too rich is a diversion on economics. After all, the article you provided only talked about wealth inequality and how much wealth people are able to accumulate is directly related to economics.

    So I will ask again, how rich is too rich? Obviously you have concluded that the boy in question is too rich.
  7. 18 Aug '16 04:07
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I think you are missing the point, its not how rich someone should be able to become but the way that riches are gleaned to the detriment of others.
    Most people part with their money grudgingly. As long as a free market exchange is the subject, how is that to the detriment of anyone? Billions of interchanges go on around me every day, which don't have any effect on me. Why should I care? Why should you care if I spend my money in ways that you consider foolish? How are you to judge what is detrimental to others?
  8. 18 Aug '16 04:11
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I think you are missing the point, its not how rich someone should be able to become but the way that riches are gleaned to the detriment of others.
    Generally, other than charity, we purchase things that seem advantageous to us. Most people get rich by providing goods and services which others willingly buy. Fraud is the exception,along with poor quality.

    That you don't like the method or end doesn't mean others agree with you.
  9. 18 Aug '16 06:28
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Most people part with their money grudgingly. As long as a free market exchange is the subject, how is that to the detriment of anyone? Billions of interchanges go on around me every day, which don't have any effect on me. Why should I care? Why should you care if I spend my money in ways that you consider foolish? How are you to judge what is detrimental to others?
    The " free " market economy is exactly what multi-nationals use to steal the wealth that the working class generate and that hurts 95% + of everyone. This is one of those subjects that if you don't see it, you are not wanting to look or you don't care to look. The pain that it is causing is so blatantly obvious that it beggars belief that people still deny it. A bit like being a " flat earth believer ". Though I think that is someone just messing with peoples heads for a bit of fun. This is real.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    18 Aug '16 14:35
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well it is a standard ploy to divert an economics debate into an abstract piece of moral philosophy.

    But since you want to go there, tell me why it is okay for the Duke of Westminster at the age of 25 to inherit £9.2 billion while paying limited tax on this entirely unearned transfer of wealth into his possession.

    https://www.theguardian.com/mone ...[text shortened]... ance tax doesn’t discourage earning, it discourages dying, which I think we can all get behind."
    Treating inheritance (and gifts over a set amount per recipient per year - $20,000 seems about right) as ordinary income (as No1 has proposed on this board) seems like the most logical way to tax inheritances. After all, they are income. The distinction between earned and unearned income seems kind of arbitrary. In any case, some unearned income is taxed as regular income (e.g., lotto winnings). I see no reason not to treat inheritances the same way,
  11. 18 Aug '16 18:07
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Most people part with their money grudgingly. As long as a free market exchange is the subject, how is that to the detriment of anyone? Billions of interchanges go on around me every day, which don't have any effect on me. Why should I care? Why should you care if I spend my money in ways that you consider foolish? How are you to judge what is detrimental to others?
    please read the article prior to commenting it doesn't seem you have understood anything.
  12. 18 Aug '16 22:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    please read the article prior to commenting it doesn't seem you have understood anything.
    I think I understand it.

    The article questions the morality of decision making of people who are deemed "rich". Therefore, the state must step in and see to it that they are forced to redistribute their money in a moral fashion.

    So again, what is considered "rich"?

    The Progressive way of thinking is, freedom brings suffering whether it be economic freedom or destroying the environment. Therefore, the state must take away the said freedoms in order to make everything "fair" and "safe". Of course, nothing is ever "fair" or "safe", so it becomes a never ending assault of our freedoms.

    Does anyone here think that statists like Hillary will ever redistribute her fortune?

    LOL.
  13. 18 Aug '16 23:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think I understand it.

    The article questions the morality of decision making of people who are deemed "rich". Therefore, the state must step in and see to it that they are forced to redistribute their money in a moral fashion.

    So again, what is considered "rich"?

    The Progressive way of thinking is, freedom brings suffering whether it be economic f ...[text shortened]...
    Does anyone here think that statists like Hillary will ever redistribute her fortune?

    LOL.
    To me, it is not so much of a problem "being" rich as it is "getting" rich.I believe that we need to encourage entrepreneurs, risk takers and the like, we also need productivity etc.The problem with the way things work is that most of the gains are stolen by those at the top. I actually have no issue with mega rich, but I do have issues with what some do to get there. I think that the generation of wealth can create poverty, and it often does.If wealthy people use the power of their wealth to cause pain, then that needs moderation. And whereas regulations are tools that they use for their growth so regulations should be used to control them. They cannot have it both ways. i.e protection while they grow and then no protection for us when they abuse the power that we gave them. I think this is most relevant with multinationals , specifically there directors, but it applies to all.
  14. 19 Aug '16 02:17
    Originally posted by jimmac
    To me, it is not so much of a problem "being" rich as it is "getting" rich.I believe that we need to encourage entrepreneurs, risk takers and the like, we also need productivity etc.The problem with the way things work is that most of the gains are stolen by those at the top. I actually have no issue with mega rich, but I do have issues with what some do to g ...[text shortened]... this is most relevant with multinationals , specifically there directors, but it applies to all.
    It is a problem of morality. Does one horde their wealth or choose to share it with those in need?

    The left simply believes in forcing their morality upon others. In fact, I think you will find that those who give the majority of their time and money to helping the poor are those who practice their faith as where left wingers tend to be atheist and merely sit around voting for those who would force them to give more to those in need via the government.
  15. 19 Aug '16 04:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is a problem of morality. Does one horde their wealth or choose to share it with those in need?

    The left simply believes in forcing their morality upon others. In fact, I think you will find that those who give the majority of their time and money to helping the poor are those who practice their faith as where left wingers tend to be atheist and merel ...[text shortened]... t around voting for those who would force them to give more to those in need via the government.
    I am not so sure that it matters if one hoards or shares as much as it matters how they get it." forcing" morality is sometimes necessary, as I have stated before. If a company thrives in a given environment ( whatever that may be ) then it " owes " back. It is just basic to me. I define profit as " The unearned, though not necessarily undeserved, portion of a transaction."
    I believe that creating wealth is good. I believe that corporations ( mainly Multi Nationals ) spend a lot of energy destroying wealth. And the execs reward themselves handsomely for it. And then of course the shareholders. This creates the siphoning up from the bottom to the top. This is evil, " if " evil exists of course. If one has to ask how they destroy wealth then one is blind.