The Fiscal Cliff

Originally posted by no1marauder
I admitted no such thing. The vast bulk of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich. Like all such schemes over the last 30 years, some cuts were made for the working and middle class to make them politically palatable. They, coupled with the vast increase in military spending, busted the budget. Of course, the Great Recession caused by the fin ...[text shortened]... d to atrophy due to the myopia of Washington politicians would be both necessary and helpful.

Ok, so you are holding your breath till you turn blue. Again faced with a total repeal of the Bush tax cuts (Obama tax rates) Democrats choose only to symbolically punish the rich for success, instead of real tax increases across the board, and spending cuts.

Of course, under a progressive tax scam, scheme, the high earner pays the most, so benefits the most from any tax cut at any marginal rate. The high earner benefits at each marginal rate up to the highest. Others benefit only on the rates up to what they earn. Since they earn less, the reduced rate saves them less.

In a totally flat tax rate plan, every person would pay the same tax rate, but the high earner would pay significantly more money based on the high income, not on class envy.

I note you ignored probably the most important thing I said, so I'll repeat it. Get rid of ten year baseline budgeting. This allows too much demagoguery, as well as mischief as to what the deficit really is.

I agree that military spending is over the top. However totally eliminating the military altogether, would not balance the budget, and obviously a right sized military is a Constitutional mandate.

Interfering with the market and dictating that banks ignore mortgage underwriting is not. It doesn't even make sense. Neither do private corporations operating with a government imprimatur, and heavy influence in both houses of Congress.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your BS is tiresome.

You live in a Bizarro World. For thirty years, the US has consistently cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations while adopting trade and investment policies favorable to them and disadvantageous to American workers. This was supposed to lead to economic utopia. Of course, it has not; the unbalance of the economy has l ...[text shortened]... gers, you offer nothing that could possibly correct the situation and much that would worsen it.

Gosh, everything you say about right wingers, I see as true of left wingers, not that the right wing doesn't have its faults. Economics doesn't tend to be one of them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An economy is a man made contrivance. If the one we have made poorly serves the interests of the average American, then we should design a better one. We do not have to accept terms of trade which have led to a constant, large unfavorable trade balance.

.50 cent cheaper shirts weren't and aren't worth the destruction of the American textile industry for example.

You have no suggestions for a better economic system that the market.

Originally posted by normbenign
You have no suggestions for a better economic system that the market.

"You have no suggestions for a better economic system that the market."

Please define "market". The so called "market" is not some magical system that is governed by invisible pre-ordained rules on high. The "market" you refer to is defined and goverened by human beings who make and break the so called rules. Socialism is part of the market as is communism and capitalism. If you believe we have or there ever was a "free-market" you are sadly mistaken.
BTW - Adam Smith believed that the government should provide for the poor - he didn't believe that the "market" should manage those on the fringes of society.

Originally posted by kbear1k
"You have no suggestions for a better economic system that the market."

Please define "market". The so called "market" is not some magical system that is governed by invisible pre-ordained rules on high. The "market" you refer to is defined and goverened by human beings who make and break the so called rules. Socialism is part of the market as is communis ...[text shortened]... he didn't believe that the "market" should manage those on the fringes of society.

Anywhere two parties trade value for value free from coercion, that is the market at work. The black market which exists in every country in the world, anywhere both parties recognise each others right to call their property their's and the only means of exchange is voluntary, ironically capitalism exists in it's most pure form in the most humble village markets and not on Wall St which is forced to operate under numerous bureaucracies and thousands of pages of regulation.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, so you are holding your breath till you turn blue. Again faced with a total repeal of the Bush tax cuts (Obama tax rates) Democrats choose only to symbolically punish the rich for success, instead of real tax increases across the board, and spending cuts.

Of course, under a progressive tax scam, scheme, the high earner pays the most, so benefits t ...[text shortened]... ations operating with a government imprimatur, and heavy influence in both houses of Congress.

More tiresome fairy tales all of which has been exposed as nonsense many times on this forum.

Originally posted by kbear1k
"You have no suggestions for a better economic system that the market."

Please define "market". The so called "market" is not some magical system that is governed by invisible pre-ordained rules on high. The "market" you refer to is defined and goverened by human beings who make and break the so called rules. Socialism is part of the market as is communis ...[text shortened]... he didn't believe that the "market" should manage those on the fringes of society.

The market as defined by Mises is thinking and acting humans doing what is economically in their best interests without interference or coercion. He called the science of studying human action praxology.

Quite right humans mess up the market primarily by trying to govern it by favoring special interest groups. Protectionism, unionism, etc. Mostly stuff that originated with the Mercantilism of the British Empire.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More tiresome fairy tales all of which has been exposed as nonsense many times on this forum.

Your declarations do not constitute expositions.

Originally posted by normbenign
The market as defined by Mises is thinking and acting humans doing what is economically in their best interests without interference or coercion. He called the science of studying human action praxology.

Quite right humans mess up the market primarily by trying to govern it by favoring special interest groups. Protectionism, unionism, etc. Mostly stuff that originated with the Mercantilism of the British Empire.

What about monopolies - existing in many forms under our current system -which are used to keep startups and new ideas/products out of the market? What about CEOs that stack companies' boards and compensation committeess? Are those part of the free market? Certainly such CEOs are acting in their own self-interests. Organized crime bosses are acting in their own self-interests - where do they fit in a free-marrket?

Originally posted by kbear1k
What about monopolies - existing in many forms under our current system -which are used to keep startups and new ideas/products out of the market? What about CEOs that stack companies' boards and compensation committeess? Are those part of the free market? Certainly such CEOs are acting in their own self-interests. Organized crime bosses are acting in their own self-interests - where do they fit in a free-marrket?

Monopolies, as long as they earn their dominant position aren't a problem. If they are perpetuated by government favor, they aren't part of a free market.

Suppose I had a monopoly on the oatmeal market. I would still have to compete with those selling eggs, bacon and other breakfast foods.

Anywhere coercion is applied a free market is violated.

"Monopolies, as long as they earn their dominant position aren't a problem."
Define "earn" - in what sense? Suppose companies agree to price fix? Let's say some company controls the supply of the raw materials for high-end electronic chips and jacks the price way up...or refuses to sell the materials to some customers - how does the so called market deal with that scenario?

Originally posted by kbear1k
"Monopolies, as long as they earn their dominant position aren't a problem."
Define "earn" - in what sense? Suppose companies agree to price fix? Let's say some company controls the supply of the raw materials for high-end electronic chips and jacks the price way up...or refuses to sell the materials to some customers - how does the so called market deal with that scenario?

If a monopoly position is earned by satisfying consumers better than everyone else in your sector, it is hardly a bad thing. A price fix? Do consumers have to buy that stuff? When has that happened?

If someone in a market chooses to self destruct, by refusing to sell, other producers will soon pop up.

Originally posted by normbenign
If a monopoly position is earned by satisfying consumers better than everyone else in your sector, it is hardly a bad thing. A price fix? Do consumers have to buy that stuff? When has that happened?

If someone in a market chooses to self destruct, by refusing to sell, other producers will soon pop up.

It's clear that you have not read anything (maybe yu have read but clearly show no understanding) about the history on monopolies in the USA.
Also, if some entity controls a market how are new producers supposed to break into the market? "Price fix? Do consumers have to buy that stuff?" It depends what the product is. Have you tried living without buy any oil based products - I doubt it. Your understanding of capitalism is at the fairy tale level - and has no place in the real world.

Originally posted by kbear1k
It's clear that you have not read anything (maybe yu have read but clearly show no understanding) about the history on monopolies in the USA.
Also, if some entity controls a market how are new producers supposed to break into the market? "Price fix? Do consumers have to buy that stuff?" It depends what the product is. Have you tried living without buy any o ...[text shortened]... understanding of capitalism is at the fairy tale level - and has no place in the real world.

It's hardly the company's fault that you've become dependent on their product. There was a time when there were no oil based products, if you wanted to go the way of the quakers it's easier now than back in those days.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It's hardly the company's fault that you've become dependent on their product. There was a time when there were no oil based products, if you wanted to go the way of the quakers it's easier now than back in those days.

No but there are supposed to be laws against monopolies where competition is unlawfuly suppressed. Unfortunately, the courts today are not likely to enforce those laws because they are bought and paid for by large corporations.