There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.
There is no such thing as a "free market". It is a fiction. No market can be "free", because the market itself is an "intervention" (and invention) by man. The rules for a market are established by the stake-holders. It is entirely reasonable for "the people" (via the government) to establish market rules that produce a desired outcome. Some people, such as yourself, want rules that allow the richest, most greedy people to accumlate vast sums of money, unfettered by petty concerns of environmental protection, decent treatment of employees, and so on. Others (the majority of the population, I believe) want market rules that allow trade to occur while ensuring our environment is not destroyed, workers are not exploited in ways perceived to be immoral or undesirable, etc. There is no convincing argument that the type of market you want is any more "free" than any other type of market, nor is there a convincing argument that your desired set of market rules are somehow more virtuous or moral than say a set of market rules that take into consideration environmental protection, worker protection, taxation of income for the betterment of the community, etc.
Gee Whiz! Does this mean that there's no trickle down in trickledown economic theory? That 25 years of it have only made the rich richer, while the rest of us get the crumbs? That "growth" in such a scenario only benefits those at the top?
That's heresy, obviously, and the perpetrators need to be flogged, racked, and then burned at the stake....
It's sedition, I tell ya! Paris Hilton worked hard for her millions, unlike the slackers who change the sheets and clean the floors in her chain of hotels... and the Walton heirs busted their b@lls to get where they are- they deserve every penny, and more!
That's heresy, obviously, and the perpetrators need to be flogged, racked, and then burned at the stake....
It's sedition, I tell ya! Paris Hilton worked hard for her millions, unlike the slackers who change the sheets and clean the floors in her chain of hotels... and the Walton heirs busted their b@lls to get where they are- they deserve every penny, and more!
The "Orwellian wealth distribution schemes administered by an all powerful government state" are already here but they are set up to transfer wealth TO the rich, not the poor.
And I'd like to point out, for those who place all blame for poverty on the poor, that you may be ingoring one minor fact. When you're struggling just to feed, house, and clothe yourself, or in many cases your family too, it's rather difficult to save any significant amount.
When you earn $5.15 per hour as CEOs get away with millions the wage disparity and resultant polarization of wealth aren't conducive to your accumulating personal wealth. And before you blame the poor for their plight realize that the system is set up to benefit a very few people who have solidified their positions with the full backing of the U.S. government.
Read some of the links CaptnKirk posted HERE.
We have a predatory capatilist elite sucking billions off taxpayers through government and their only goal is to maintain the status quo. Unless they can increase it. For example, the farm subsidies that Bush claimed he would cut. Congress is fighting the cuts although the vast majority of those TAX DOLLARS go directly to huge agri-business. Instead, Congress is proposing cutting food stamps to another estimated 300,000 people.
How are all those little kids whose parents had depended on those food stamps to supplement their diet going to pull themselves out of poverty on empty stomachs?
It's OK though. The CEO of U.S. taxpayer subsidized ConAgra has plenty on his plate.
This nation is reminding me more and more of Les Miserables.
And I'd like to point out, for those who place all blame for poverty on the poor, that you may be ingoring one minor fact. When you're struggling just to feed, house, and clothe yourself, or in many cases your family too, it's rather difficult to save any significant amount.
When you earn $5.15 per hour as CEOs get away with millions the wage disparity and resultant polarization of wealth aren't conducive to your accumulating personal wealth. And before you blame the poor for their plight realize that the system is set up to benefit a very few people who have solidified their positions with the full backing of the U.S. government.
Read some of the links CaptnKirk posted HERE.
We have a predatory capatilist elite sucking billions off taxpayers through government and their only goal is to maintain the status quo. Unless they can increase it. For example, the farm subsidies that Bush claimed he would cut. Congress is fighting the cuts although the vast majority of those TAX DOLLARS go directly to huge agri-business. Instead, Congress is proposing cutting food stamps to another estimated 300,000 people.
How are all those little kids whose parents had depended on those food stamps to supplement their diet going to pull themselves out of poverty on empty stomachs?
It's OK though. The CEO of U.S. taxpayer subsidized ConAgra has plenty on his plate.
This nation is reminding me more and more of Les Miserables.
The article doesn't actually say that the poor are getting poorer. it says the wealthy are earning more money then they did in '79. You are making the incorrect assumption that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. There isn't a fixed total dollar amount.
lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)
1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9
Now lets say today the total is $300
2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121
Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.
Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.
too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer
lets play with numbers. Lets say in 1979 the total amount of money was $100 (just an easy number to work with)
1979 total $100
lowest 20% $1
top 1% $33.1
middle 79% $65.9
Now lets say today the total is $300
2005 Total $300
lowest 20% $2
top 1% $177
middle 79% $121
Obviously the numbers are made up, however this does demonstrate that it is entirely possible for everyone's income levels to increase at the same time with the richest 1% just earning much more then everyone else.
Also, there is nothing in the article that establishes that the richest in '79 are the richest in '2005 and the poorest in '79 are the poorest in '2005. In fact, we know that this isn't the case. The richest American today (Bill Gates) wasn't the richest in '79. His family was wealthy but not at the top 1% if I remember correctly.
too sum up. That the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer
There is something you can do about it.
Go out there and create wealth for yourself and your family.
Welcome to the United States, a capitalistic system in which you get back as much as you put into it.
Go out there and create wealth for yourself and your family.
Welcome to the United States, a capitalistic system in which you get back as much as you put into it.
The markets are social institutions. We are free to "rig" them in a way that benefits group survival (as opposed to setting market rules to benefit the wealthy few.) There is no need to stick with the status quo. Those who have most, can reasonably be expected to contribute more to the community through higher levels of taxation. It's not complicated.
Hate to say this because this is exactly what I thought a long time ago but WRONG. I have learned differently and there's truth to it. Here is why.
1. Corporations spend tens of millions, nay... hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees each year to come up with new ways of evading the tax man. There was a great PBS Frontline show on this. It's increadible the massive maze of legal mumble jumble these lawyers come up with to essentially "launder" the money of a business or individual. In some cases wealthy corporations get massive tax credits, not pay, each year because of the massive tax loopholes in the system. The IRS closes maybe one for every 2 or 3 these companies come up with. Slowing or outright blocking the IRS is the political might of these corporations that have a lobbying group in Washington.
Making these pricks pay their taxes would be priority #1. This would do two things; a) Stop giving tax money back to corporations that are profitable. b) Make them pay taxes and hence give a retardedly massive infusion of tax dollars into the system that's right now filtering through the system into the hands of greedy corporations and individuals.
Governments also need to stop giving taxpayer money to corporations for outsourcing jobs. If they want to outsource they can move to India or Bengladesh lock stock and barrel and no longer be a US firm. Governments need to stop these subsidies because that money could be better spent on the Coast Guard or border patrol.... ya know those guys who are actually supposed to be on the front line of fighting terrorism domesticly whom are massively under funded.
Hypocritical pricks every last politican ignoring this, which is virtually all of them.
2. A flat tax does seem to be working in Central and Eastern Europe. Results from the past years of running with a flat tax has been two fold. An increase in tax income (which many said would never happen) and steady growth of these nations. Arguments against this fact is that the rest of the EU is giving massive infusion of funds. In fact this is a drop in a bucket. The rest of the bucket is investment in business because the cost of labour is low. An auto worker in Germany gets paid roughly 5 times more then an auto worker in Eastern Europe.
Personally I see the flat tax as a gimmick personally and alone it does nothing but give a nation more tax money and more break for the rich and punish the very poor. However it does help poorer nations in getting infusions of money for business and thereby creating jobs. The sad part is that the quality of those jobs is poor. Then again the quality of life as well as the cost of living isn't exactly high on the hog either.
If you retired from your job at 60 as a middle class in the US or Canada and moved to Central or Eastern Europe you would be a very very well off rich person with a massive mansion etc. This will change eventually when the newer EU members eventually equalize with the rest of the EU members over the course of decades.
Buy now get rich later. In the past 20 years property vaule alone in Hungary has risen by a factor of up to 45. That may sound like a lot but to let you keep it in perspective a lot may have cost you $2,000 in the late 80s and today it now can cost you $60,000 for the same lot. This sort of growth will tapper off but right now there's no sign of slowing. It will grind to a halt when life becomes more like the rest of Europe. Which makes it a pretty decent economic model.
Anyone ever watched someone with food stamps check out at a grocery store? If you haven't, it's enlightening.
There's your incentive.
There's your incentive.
Do you despise them? Or is it the fear of knowing you're a paycheck or two or maybe a medical crisis away from being them?
Despise? No, I pity "them", kinda like I pity you.
And I'm a good 26-38 paychecks away from being "them", because I've followed my own advice, even on an 1-income family.
Tell me old wise "BBOND", oh honest one, how many sucks on the govt tit are you away from being one of "them"?
I agree.
You're right, it isn't a complicated theory. Thank you for pointing that out as if to imply that I somehow couldn't or didn't understand the principle behind that.
I am grateful for your concern in regards to my taxation theory comprehension. If only everyone was as nice as you BBond.
Originally posted by: MantisFistMonk
I agree.
You're right, it isn't a complicated theory. Thank you for pointing that out as if to imply that I somehow couldn't or didn't understand the principle behind that.
I am grateful for your concern in regards to my taxation theory comprehension. If only everyone was as nice as you BBond.
sarcasm, right?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
For those who care about this issue, it's all about "fixing" the topic title and not the topic summary. They don't give a rats ass about the poor, they just want to stick it to the rich. While the capitalist system's greatest vice (greed) is checked and balanced by the self-interests of the participants and greed of others in the system, the greatest vice of its detractors (envy) is unchecked by anything but the common sense of those who would oppose them, which should be everyone.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So because I am concerned about the poor, I am envious of the rich? Or perhaps you are talking about other posters. In any case outside of this shithole there are people still are concerned but not out of base emotions. They are against suffering, and try to do something about it.
If the ultimate result of capitalism is that poverty proliferates, screw capitalism.
But I've followed the advice you've followed. I worked hard all my life and now I'm enjoying the fruits of my labors.
Where is all the anger coming from? Do you despise me too?
Because you really only have two options.
You either check out early or you become a retiree just like me -- sucking off the government tit in your jargon -- or enjoying those "golden years" we're all promised while being hated by people like yourself for having lived long enough to collect on our investment to society.
I hope you make it. It would be a real shame is fate stepped in and changed all your carefully laid plans.
Do you also carry picture of Chairman Mau and preach that people should have no possessions and no religion too!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter