And some people forget that the wealth of that 10% is actually generated by the bottom 90%. The top 10% just take a larger slice of the margin. Also, anyone who takes the risk does so for their own personal wealth, not to employ others. These usually aren't philanthropists.
Who's taking all of the wealth of the top 10% and just giving it away? Much of the bailout money was spent to protect the banks and investments of that 10% and much of the rest is being used to purchase public goods which the wealthy should also enjoy.
Amazingly enough, even when the top marginal income tax bracket in the US was north of 90%, new businesses and jobs were created. I'm tired of this perception that the wealthy are persecuted in this country. It seems to me they do just fine and that many people strive to be wealthy, despite of the government theft of their riches.
Many people, including myself, have no issue with people being wealthier than their peers. We just have an issue with those individuals that are excessively wealthier than their peers. This wealth buys power and influence, at the detriment of the rest of us (the middle-class was just robbed so the hard working wealthy could receive their year end bonuses). Also, despite what seems to be thrown around a lot in this forum, wealth at death is more correlated with wealth at birth than any measure of hard work through one's lifetime. The US might not be as stratified as Europe, but class is more static here than many like to think.
Of course, in the above scenario we create aristocracy. You want to see the destruction of American Democracy? Let's see how fast aristocracy leads to Monarchy (if the elite consolidate power) or Fascism (when the people recapture it). We walk a fine line to maintain status quo, but the current paradigm of progressive taxation is hardly punishing the wealthy, nor is it wrong (even Adam Smith recognized the importance of progressive taxation).
So the argument goes? The real goal of social programs isn't really to equalize income, it is to ensure that a barrier is in place in terms of standard of living. This nation, or any Democracy, simply does not survive with a large underclass of the impoverished. What we are currently seeing is an even larger stratification. Much of the middle and working-class has been surviving on easy access to credit. This has hidden the real decrease in standard of living that we should have been experiencing due to global wage arbitrage. Now that credit is gone and we are reaching equilibrium much faster than what would be considered comfortable. If you look at both public and private debt loads, you see that this process really started in the early 80s, when it was believed that drastically cutting taxes was going to raise all boats. Turns out that rise was a tidal wave, and now we are crashing back to earth. If you examine the H-O model of trade with low trade barriers, you'll see that labor in the US will suffer in a free trade environment while capital will flourish. This is one of the reasons that capital in the US has had a much larger rate of return than labor through recent history. And because most people who are healthy were born wealthy.... well, you get the picture.
You through the term "pure Socialism" in a couple of paragraphs down, and I wonder how you would define the above mentioned Communist system. There are many different schools of thought. Usually "pure Communism" refers to a system without a nation where decisions are made democratically.
Who has control of our money now? My retirement account was just reduced by 50% due to decisions made by some bankers. My job is dependent upon my superiors responsibly spending money and making the right decisions. I really don't understand this thinking from free marketers. If not the government, some corporation or cartel will ultimately control your wealth. Most people are always beholden to someone as most people are employed and interdependent.
And if you understand that money buys rights and liberties, then you surely understand that the wealthy can buy more of these intangible assets. Money does, in fact, buy freedom. It allows you leisure and flexibility. It also earns a higher return than labor.
I challenge you to
1) Describe "pure Socialism"
2) Explain how we are half way there
Good luck.
Pretty bold predictions. If any of us even care enough to remember this thread, we might pull a PJ. Reality would say that the majority have been able to do this for a very long time yet taxes paid by the highest earners now is nothing compared to just 50 years ago. Remember, money buys rights and liberties. It's why lobbyists and elites buy more than just my one vote.
Since when has America ever been "free market" capitalism? Never.
Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. As close to free market as you can get, and very prosperous.
You realize that Singapore is a neo-Corporatist state, correct? The government, working with unions and private owners, coordinates the operation of the state by helping to determine wages and growth. Of course, this might be because government-owned Temasek Holdings has a large stake in many of the corporations operating in Singapore.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!
Funny how you can preach fairness when you are the have and someone else is the have-not.
However when it comes to "unfair" taxation. You cry the exact same tune.
The problem is theres 95 of us and 5 of you.
If the 95 of you are due your share, why did the goverment just approve a massive spending spree that left the few deciding where the money was to be spent rather than allow the 95 of you to make the decision on your own? Why does the goverment take money from the wealthy and redistribute it in the form of programs and services, instead of just handing the money out? Why does government take 20% to 25% of every dollar they collect, to redistribute it?
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Go ask any actual socialist. To say that I sound like Marx is laughable. People cry OMGSOCIALISM! any time that somebody advocates something other than laissez-faire capitalism without having actually read Marx. Marx addresses legitimate isssues that are still relevant today. I address some of those issues, but that doesn't mean that our conclusions/remedies are the same.
What I advocate is a mixed economy with a progressive enough taxation system so as to prevent the excessive and/or long term concentration of wealth while preserving the incentive of private enterprise. Too much concentration of wealth over time and we develop an oligarchy or defacto nobility, which is anathema to our way of life. Taking it too far in the other direction and you have what existed in the former 2nd world nations. We are a balanced economy, as it should be. The pendulum has over the past few decades swung too far towards monied interests. Correcting that via progressive taxation is not marxism, and neither is treating labor with the same respect as investment.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
No nation can be pure free market capitalism. We had a similar business environment over here before laissez-faire economic theory bit the dust, and we all know how that ended up. Unregulated capitalism in the US leads to frequent cycles of boom/bust/panic, the rise of political machines and robber barons, and near control of the government by corporations. Sure, it may work for smaller city-states, but that kind of pro-corporatism would be a disaster here.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
You confuse reaching views and their happening to coincide far more with democrats, and simply saying I agree with whatever the democrats say. I'm not 'partisan', the latter.
I'm surprised you, whoI won't call partisan here, understand what you said and don't strongly oppose the Republicans who are the party of the ultra rich who did this.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
One of your most prominent fatal flaws is the unfounded belief that only the Republicans are "the party of the ultra rich."
If you knew anything, at all, then you'd know that the "ultra rich" divide their money equally amongst both parties -- to hedge their bets -- and that most consider themselves to be apolitical.
Second, when you drop it down a notch and look at everyone who is simply wealthy, there are just as many wealthy people on the right as there are on the left.
You are a partisan hack, Craig. In fact, you're one of the worst here...
The "L Curve" is simply another manifestation of the Lotka curve, which has been observed in virtually every system which looks at such distributions. For example, the Lotka curve applies to the number of journal articles written by a given author, relative space allotted to authors/artists/scientists in encyclopediae, and anything else where we might try to measure a distribution of "excellence." In fact, if you look at the top 1% and perform a similar distribution, I would be willing to bet that you would find another "L curve" that looks very similar to the one presented in the OP.
Good point. I never considered the possibility that the military itself could be involved in the revolution. I just assumed they would always be loyal to the president and the interests of the US government.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Understand fine Craig and have not voted since the first time I voted way back before internet because I believe what I type about there not being a difference.
Both have their benefactor class they 'hook up' with no strings attached to determent of majority. Both take our individual rights away in certain ways. And both on are the take from the capital class guiding every choice they make to detriment of 99% of us. Why should I participate or advocate in that? No thanks.
A bad day fishing is better than voting for one of two evils.
No, criticize that Democrat who compromised progressive policies with the corporatists to give them what they wanted on NAFTA and normalizinng trade with China.
It's not that some free trade isn't fine - but that there's a case to be made, however much economists' ideology demands that free trade is always good, for some other policies, but in particular that NAFTA has sections that are little-known that are highly anti-democratic, paving the way for elected governments to be powerless against the corporations.
I've criticized those policies and Clinton for not opposing the worst parts of NAFTA many times. On the other hand, Republicans embrace the bad policies far more. Your point?
Originally posted by: Zebo
Understand fine Craig and have not voted since the first time I voted way back before internet because I believe what I type about there not being a difference.
Both have their benefactor class they 'hook up' with no strings attached to determent of majority. Both take our individual rights away in certain ways. And both on are the take from the capital class guiding every choice they make to detriment of 99% of us. Why should I participate or advocate in that? No thanks.
A bad day fishing is better than voting for one of two evils.
You have thrown away the one chance you have to improve things and surrendered.
I disagree. And while there's some truth to your point, you are largely wrong as well.
In fact, it's citizens like you who are pretty clearly not at all a strength for our country, insofar as our country stands for democracy.
Why wouldn't you sell our right to vote for a few coins, when you value it so little you don't even exercise it? And that way lies tyranny, much worse than you complain of currently.
That's how the powers that be would likely undermine democracy in its inevitable conflict with their interests (if they can dominate the elections, they can mollify the people with a pretend democracy while keeping their interests protected) - it's how China's communist party has kept political power, by making a deal with the people not to interfer with their politial power in exchange for the policies that let them prosper; it's how the wealthy elite tried to pressure the public into abandoning Chavez, by shutting down the economy.
It tested the people's strength to endure suffering to value democracy (it's worked in China, did not work in Venezuela). You would not stand strong for democracy, it seems.
I could point you to writings specifically why Obama was better than McCain, but would you read? The same misguided issue has arisen before; Arthur Schlesinger wrote a small book specifically on why JFK and Nixon were not the same in 1960, JFK's father wrote a similar book for why he supported FDR over the Republicans. James Carville wrote a small book with the same basic arguments but about the parties, called "Had Enough?"
It's not a good point, it's a naive and unfounded assumption.
I've taken the position that the idea of 'revolution' in terms of US civilians overthrowing the government by force is a thing of the past (not that it ever happened). On the military:
The military is plenty able to get the soldiers to fire on Americans if it needs to, by isolating the information they receive and demonizing the people they're shooting as a threat.
Even for a far lesser situation, I can show you clearly innocent civilians with grotesque wounds from police at protests, I can show you countless cases of police beating American protestors clearly not a threat but exercising their duty as citizens, I can show you the people who commit the violence at times not having any regret but rather enjoying the violence, I can show you bodies at Kent State from their national guard - the stories will involve police and national guard domestically because the Posse Comitatus Act has largely prevented the US military from having that role domestically, but when you can get the local police harming their local citizens, it's a lot easier to get soldiers, who are more disciplined, more trained not to be resistant to violence, to shoot 'enemies' in another part of the country - but however much resistance, consider the US recruiting *foreign troops* - whether from, say, Iraq, or using a mercenary outfit like Blackwater recruiting cheap, foreign soldiers to be placed in the US - you think those soldiers would think twice about US democratic values, if not enjoy the chance to have power over Americans they're jealous of, atl least 'following orders'?
Why would Iraqis in a Blackwater unit contracted to be in the US be any less willing to use violence against Americans than Blackwater American units are to use violence in Iraq?
Seeing liberals argue that conservatives are illogical will never cease to amuse me. I may show lapses of interest, but I will always come back to see that train wreck.
How does one argue that heavily taxing the rich does not decrease the incentive? In the beginning, before everything falls to shit (like it always will), people will see they can do less and less and get more and more. Of course then it falls to shit and everyone is in poverty. But at least its everyone (except our government/parents/caretakers), and thus fair.
How does one argue that heavily taxing the rich does not decrease the incentive? In the beginning, before everything falls to shit (like it always will), people will see they can do less and less and get more and more. Of course then it falls to shit and everyone is in poverty. But at least its everyone (except our government/parents/caretakers), and thus fair.
The fool is often amused when alarm is called for.
Perhaps your inability to actually win the points using logic yourself should be a hint.
Tell you what, you pick the example or two you think best illustrates a liberal wrongly accusing a righty of illogic, and we'll discuss it. It can be one of mine, or if someone else's I'll either defend the liberal, or say that I think you found an example where the liberal was incorrect. I won't hold my breath for you to put the effort in.
We hear a lot of this sort of thing from people who are not rich who project their own views onto those who are.
I hesitate to waste the time to say much to you on these things, but I'll err on the side of giving you the benefit of the doubt to say a few.
Things are very different on these matters between say, the bottom half of Americans and the top tier of Americans. The less well off are a lot more caught up in the need for some security to meet either basic needs, or lower level economic needs (a decent car, cable, the desire to own instead of rent, etc.) These people are pretty aware of their economic wants, and while some might waste money (for example, numbing the strsss with booze), they're frequently pretty much caring about each dollar.
But when people's needs are met, they frequently let other drivers than acquiring, than the material desires, have more of a role in their decisions. For some that might mean family time, for others ethical issues, and for others they'll 'work hard' for the ego gratification in the competition, more than the money (with money being mainly a 'scorecard'). And some do remain more materialistic.
I asked earlier - and you did not answer nor did anyone - for someone who is on your side of the issue to explain to me how Bill Gates, who made tens of billions and then gave away 95% to charity - would have been less productive if he'd been paid half of what he was paid.
We could pick other examples from the list someone posted; Warren Buffet lives modestly, in his Omaha house, not using his wealth for personal consumption; he enjoys his work and continues at his age, but how would he be not behave the same if he had half the wealth and income he has? How would the Wal-Mart children, who let the company be run for profit generated to them, do different if it were half the size and half the income?
You clearly have no real sense of the varying ways in which 'more money' affects whose who have more, the additional factors that gain more weight, in many cases.
The simplistic 'more $ = more productivity' formula you offer badly breaks down. People are doing what they can to make money at a pretty low income level - above that, things like 'corruption of the system' come into play far more. A CEO of a company might get more than double the compensation he otherwise would by the system letting him put CEO buddies on his board and hiring a 'compensation consulting firm' who knows where their bread is buttered, but he'd likely do the same work at the lower or higher salary.
I understand that ideology loves explanations that are simple, but wrong, and that fits your wanting the correlation between income and productivity to be accurate, but it's largely not.
I will tell you, the people worked a hell of a lot harder when they were working 16 hour days six days a week over a century ago, than the workers in factories here today. The correlation between working hard and income breaks down over such issues. It obviously does have a strong place in the equation - those people who take a second job are typically doing so for the extra income, for wants and needs.
But when you get to the higher income people, you will often find a looser and looser connection between what they do and their income. Many would do the same work for much less money, if the alternative were to, say, become a factory worker, even for a smaller reduction. If you offered a CEO making $2 million a choice between remaining CEO for $1 million, or becoming just a sales rep for $1.1 million, I'll tell you plenty of them would choose to remain CEO.
If the economic system changed so that the all similarly situated CEO's simply started to make $1 million instead of $2 million, you would find they'd be pretty much equally productive either way. There are studies looking into just this issue, comparing the performance of CEO's in Europe, where their compensation levels relative to workers have remained close to decades-long levels, with those in the US, where the CEO pay ratios with workers have skyrocketed to far higher levels, and I probably don't need to say the result.
I'll await your answer to my question about how and why Bill Gates would have been less productive for half the income, and the logic topics you are invited to select.
You guys can sit here and argue back and forth all day about it, but you are wasting your time. The government is never going to put an artificial cap on private wages. They are never going to erase the "lower class" by redistributing wealth.
There will be caps on executive wages on the bailed out banks, as there should be. But any talk of having that transferred to the private or publically traded sectors is hilarious.
This country will never be a socialistic eutopia. Risk and innovation will be rewarded with currency, just the way that it should be.
There will be caps on executive wages on the bailed out banks, as there should be. But any talk of having that transferred to the private or publically traded sectors is hilarious.
This country will never be a socialistic eutopia. Risk and innovation will be rewarded with currency, just the way that it should be.
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