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

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    16 Oct '10 12:17
    The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.

    I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:

    - competition is necessary to force efficient use of resources under a free market -- best quality goods/services at lowest cost
    - established companies HATE competition with a passion and will do anything legal to get rid of it
    - government regulations often play into the hands of companies who are trying to restrict competition by creating a barrier to entry
    - government anti-trust legislation is poor at ensuring competition because it is slow and cumbersome

    So what is the most efficient way of ensuring that monopolies don't occur? Simple -- make sure there are rich people. Rich people are constantly looking for investment opportunities -- sniffing out uncompetitive, lazy firms that are charging high prices for bad service and starting competing firms is like a game for them. They love it -- and they do it for free, unlike the government which one has to pay (and who would do the job badly anyway due to lack of incentive).

    On the other hand, taxing the rich very heavily (like no1marauder and others want to do) means that the rich won't perform their "natural" function anymore. That results in companies facing less competition -- which means that they can charge higher prices and pay worse wages. What could be worse for "the workers" than that?

    So taxing the rich is far from the freebie socialists want to make out. The inevitable result will be less competition -- which will come around and bite the working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.
  2. 16 Oct '10 12:23
    Most investment does not come from rich individuals who are wage earners.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    16 Oct '10 12:31
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.

    I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:

    - competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
    Apart from the thread title thats all tosh.

    You want to know what real competition is?
    10 poor people fighting over a bag of grain.

    You think making one of them richer than the others will increase competition?
  4. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    16 Oct '10 12:33
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Most investment does not come from rich individuals who are wage earners.
    Doesn't really matter how they got the money. The important thing is they have enough to start a business and keep it going until it is profitable -- and stealing market share from competitors.
  5. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    16 Oct '10 12:35
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.

    I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:

    - competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
    You claim competition is the agent which drives society. I say cooperation would drive it further, and with less strife. Cooperative strategies will ultimately yield better results than competitive ones.

    Make no mistake, we do not need the rich.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    16 Oct '10 12:40
    Originally posted by rwingett
    You claim competition is the agent which drives society. I say cooperation would drive it further, and with less strife. Cooperative strategies will ultimately yield better results than competitive ones.

    Make no mistake, we do not need the rich.
    Go easy on the 'we', you've been told before you don't speak for everyone.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    16 Oct '10 12:43
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Go easy on the 'we', you've been told before you don't speak for everyone.
    Even you, Wajoma, do not need the rich. it is merely your personal preference to keep them around.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Oct '10 12:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.

    I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:

    - competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
    Your religion is impervious to historical facts. But when there was little government regulation and taxation in the late 1800's, the growth of monopoly was enormous.

    In contrast, when the government taxed the rich at far higher rates than it does now in the period roughly from WWII to before Reagan, the country was relatively prosperous. In fact, median income more than doubled even after inflation.

    This will not change your "holding your breath until you turn blue" strategy as regards laissez faire, but the actual facts should be presented besides your religious vision.

    Also in case you haven't noticed, there are many ways for the rich to make money now chasing paper which avoids all the bother of creating companies which compete with already established ones. So it is hardly surprising that the massive increase in wealth that has been tossed the rich's way in the last 25 years has failed to increase overall prosperity.
  9. 16 Oct '10 12:50
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Doesn't really matter how they got the money. The important thing is they have enough to start a business and keep it going until it is profitable -- and stealing market share from competitors.
    But you have not made the case that inverse redistrubution will allow more efficient investment.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Oct '10 12:51
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Even you, Wajoma, do not need the rich. it is merely your personal preference to keep them around.
    He and spruce have to worship someone/something.
  11. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    16 Oct '10 12:55
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Even you, Wajoma, do not need the rich. it is merely your personal preference to keep them around.
    Like I said you don't speak for me, it's not a question on what I prefer anyway, if a person becomes wealthy and they do so without initiating force, threats of force and fraud then that is entirely their business, as it is your business that you feel some security in belonging to a group. Personally I would say your 'collectives' are doomed by their own hand, but if that's what blows your hair back, go for it.
  12. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    16 Oct '10 12:57
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    .............So what is the most efficient way of ensuring that monopolies don't occur? Simple -- make sure there are rich people. Rich people are constantly looking for investment opportunities -- sniffing out uncompetitive, lazy firms that are charging high prices for bad service and starting competing firms is like a game for them. They love it -- and they do it for free,....
    .........too right....they also never build exclusive clubs, where the topic of their own long term preservation ever crops up, or they never manage to work out that sometimes working in concert is better than beating each other to a pulp, but I forgot the rich are pure in their existential zeal, and will act out their fitness to survive above all other herding or oligarchal instinct.......
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    16 Oct '10 13:00
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Like I said you don't speak for me, it's not a question on what I prefer anyway, if a person becomes wealthy and they do so without initiating force, threats of force and fraud then that is entirely their business, as it is your business that you feel some security in belonging to a group. Personally I would say your 'collectives' are doomed by their own hand, but if that's what blows your hair back, go for it.
    There is a difference between what you need and what you want. And you do not need the rich, regardless of your ideological predisposition.
  14. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    16 Oct '10 13:01
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He and spruce have to worship someone/something.
    If there is something that I worship it would be freedom, freedom for humans to live as humans. Not to look at my fellow man as someone I can throw a saddle on, nor to ask him to live for my sake and that he should grant me the same consideration.

    And if you worship freedom then you worship what man is capable of when he lives free.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Oct '10 13:03
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    If there is something that I worship it would be freedom, freedom for humans to live as humans. Not to look at my fellow man as someone I can throw a saddle on, nor to ask him to live for my sake and that he should grant me the same consideration.

    And if you worship freedom then you worship what man is capable of when he lives free.
    Living as humans means living in societies for the mutual benefit of all those in society. This is hardly compatible with your hermit philosophy.