Bryan, I haven't seen your posts in a long time.
Class warfare has been going on for some time. The victims of the war, mostly are just not aware of it. The uber-rich are kicking the ass of the under-classes. There is no "trickle down", only "suck it up".
Yes it's class warfare but they started it?
Did they start it by being in a different class or what? ;-)
Is it a good idea to reform the safety net system by defunding Obamacare, while offering nothing in its place? Sure. If you're filthy rich and have the means to pay unlimited amounts of money on your personal healthcare, on the off chance you should need to.
Or if you're young and healthy and object to having the health care of old and sick people added to your tab in addition to the retirement safety net. You might have the justifiable idea that this new reform is making things worse, despite the budget-lowering smoke & mirrors of added taxes. The Republicans have always had alternative ideas--pretty good ones. Remove restrictions that prevent purchase of insurance policies across state lines, and use tort reform to help decrease defensive medicine.
The concept here, though, is that a bad bill is worse than no bill, and the ACA is a bad bill.
As far as governmental financial insolvency, how about a progressive tax that actually collects a high percentage of income from all who make more than a quarter of a million a year.
That won't do it. Run the numbers. There aren't enough rich people to pay the bills even if you took everything year after year. Very quickly you end up with a bunch of low-to-middle class people trying to pay the same stiff tax bill. So the result is higher taxes on the remaining classes.
Or how about a flat tax, with no income tax? Let's say a 5% annual flat tax of everyone's Net Worth that exceeds a quarter of a million.
That won't work, either. The thing that works dramatically to increase government revenue is increased economic growth (got some charts to show you if you like). And one of the effects of the ACA is assuredly slower economic growth.
And regarding factions advocating civil unrest, I would not be surprised if there are right wing factions advocating violent civil actions. They tend to be the ones with the guns.
I'm sure there are some conservatives concerned about creeping federal government power to the point they believe they should have guns to protect their freedoms. But they're only about as radical as the founders of the nation that way. The American Revolution occurred because people objected to having their property taken without adequate representation in the government. So they made a new government with many safeguards intended to limit its power and reach. Since then many of those safeguards have been removed.
But I apologize for addressing your statement, because really in the end it was just a tu quoque from you, wasn't it? You're admitting you're advocating class warfare, right?
Communism does not scare me. But it seems to not be economically viable over the long haul. However, I believe it would be preferable to unrestrained Capitalism.
There are millions of dead people who might like to argue the point with you, but let's just stick with communism lite, which we see in the European Union here and there. The socialist countries there have economies even worse than ours and are swimming in red ink as a result of generous safety nets. We've been eagerly copying a model that leads to fiscal ruin. Is that smart?
Seriously, where has communism worked? You want to replace our mixed economy with one more rigidly controlled by a central authority even though the latter has such an outstanding record of failure?
It's great on paper, because in theory if the government makes all the right moves then a perfect economy results. The problem is that complex top-down systems like a big government tend to get things wrong. Lots of things.
Was China better off before it started granting some property rights and instituted market-based reforms in its economy?
Oh yes, and the Tea Partiers delusion lies not so much in likening liberalism/progressivism to Socialism.
Well, my point there was not so much that it was their biggest delusion so much as the fact that they're basically right (yet you're still calling it a delusion). Real-life liberals and progressives tend to kind of like communism. Given a choice between capitalism and communism, many would willingly choose the latter.
Their delusion lies in their unfounded and unassailable belief that anything approaching Socialism is evil and will most definitely lead us to ruin.
I hope you'll note that I've explained its foundation. Socialism erodes freedom, challenges a deeply-held cultural conviction about personal and community responsibility, and the social programs emblematic of socialist policy lead to unsustainable deficits.
The socialist, of course, has faith that there will always be enough rich people around to pay the bills. ;-)
Oh yes, and the Tea Partiers delusion lies not so much in likening liberalism/progressivism to Socialism.
Well, my point there was not so much that it was their biggest delusion so much as the fact that they're basically right (yet you're still calling it a delusion). Real-life liberals and progressives tend to kind of like communism. Given a choice between capitalism and communism, many would willingly choose the latter.
Their delusion lies in their unfounded and unassailable belief that anything approaching Socialism is evil and will most definitely lead us to ruin.
I hope you'll note that I've explained its foundation. Socialism erodes freedom, challenges a deeply-held cultural conviction about personal and community responsibility, and the social programs emblematic of socialist policy lead to unsustainable deficits.
The socialist, of course, has faith that there will always be enough rich people around to pay the bills. ;-)
And those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be.
And those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be.
Will faith in capitalism produce wealth in a communist society where capitalism is squelched?
I think perhaps I'm not getting your point. I could use a bit of explanation.
In another thread, I noted that TimB had expressed sympathy for communism while also admitting the central role of the U.S. in the world economy.
VYAZMA suggested I had claimed a contradiction.
Who said it was contradictory?
You did.
But I said no such thing.
Is there a potential inconsistency in recognizing America as the economic engine of progress while also advocating its replacement with communism? Of course there is. And it's something that TimB should think about and explain (if only to himself). Likewise for VYAZMA.
It's clearly not claiming a contradiction. One who says otherwise is playing with words.
You’re the one trolling around.
Finally we reach the core of your argument, VYAZMA. ;-)
Socialism erodes freedom, challenges a deeply-held cultural conviction about personal and community responsibility, and the social programs emblematic of socialist policy lead to unsustainable deficits.
The socialist, of course, has faith that there will always be enough rich people around to pay the bills.
Back to the old propaganda tricks are we. Socialism is not the same as Communism. Communism is the belief that the government should own all means of production, you are correct in saying this doesn't work. Socialism, on the other hand does not necessitate the ownership of the means of production by the government: what it does promote is the well-being of all members of society through the use of the government to ensure that all members of the society have adequate social protections such as good health care; adequate food and housing; decent educational opportunity, no matter how much money the parents have; even Xtians believe you are not responsible for your father's sins (with the exception of Adam's of course :) ) etc.
Yes financing these programs costs money, but so does financing the military to protect and fight for the large corporations interests abroad, not to mention the military industrial complex's interests here in the U.S. Where do you think the money being put benefits the future generations the most? As far as taxes, I strongly believe that wage earners should not be taxed at a higher rate than those whose incomes are based on capital gains. If you go back to the original post in this thread you can see the result of the policies you are promoting.
But I said no such thing.
Is there a potential inconsistency in recognizing America as the economic engine of progress while also advocating its replacement with communism? Of course there is. And it's something that TimB should think about and explain (if only to himself). Likewise for VYAZMA.
Inconsistency..Contradiction....what's the difference?
Thanks for clarifying that.
Why did you take the time to pick this goofy fight?
Splitting hairs over near synonyms?
Economic Engine of Progress? Tentacles of capitalism...
Shouldn't you wait for Tim to be present before you keep changing his words around and misrepresenting his statements?
And in answer to your question here. No I still don't see any inconsistency!
Are you referring to the Economic Engine of Progress of the 40s 50s and 60s? Are you still stuck in the golden years Bryan?
Wow, Brian, same old cherry picking and mis-stating details in your perseverant tactics of debate. And same old, tired, erroneous trickle down economics philosophy.
You make it sound like I want Stalin come back to life and turn America into the early version of Soviet Communism. What I said was that I would prefer Communism to unrestrained Capitalism.
The fact is that my most preferred form of government would be a Capitalistic Democratic Republic that has just and rational restraints on capitalism, such that injustice and inequalities and mass suffering (that occurs from unrestrained Capitalism) can be minimized.
And those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be.
Will faith in capitalism produce wealth in a communist society where capitalism is squelched?
I think perhaps I'm not getting your point. I could use a bit of explanation.
Those who "have faith" in untrammelled capitalism and are able exploit it in a capitalistic economy will always be able to garner riches. So they will have enough riches to spread the wealth to the less fortunate or talented as long as laws are in place to require it. If laws are not in place forcing sharing of the wealth a very unbalanced society results because the wealthy are less likely to share their riches with the exploited and downtrodden on their own. They will share only enough to keep the lower classes from rising up against them. In a communist society, or even a socialist one, it is much more difficult (though, as we've seen not impossible) for some people, though many fewer than under capitalism, to garner great wealth, usually through corruption of the system. But in a communist or socialist system most of the people will receive a portion of the wealth the system creates because it is in the hands of the government. This is the way a comministic or socialist system is supposed to work, though the corruption under communist dictatorships was so great that the system failed. It works much better in countries with enough capitalism to drive the economy and enough socialism to prevent the masses from falling into poverty. The Scandinavian countries are good examples of this. The United States is a good example of too much capitalism and too little socialism, which creates an unbalanced system with a lot of wealth at the top and much poverty and poor infrastructure for the poor and middle classes. It also tends to shrink the middle class so that most of the population struggles to gain a toehold while the wealth stays at the top--and the wealthy work mightily to keep it that way. Of course this is a bare outline of how capitalism and socialism works and there is more to it than this but I hope this gives an idea of what I was talking about when I said that those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be enough rich people around who have enough money pay the bills, though unless forced through socialistic laws, they will never pay enough of them or even their fair share.
Lois
Back to the old propaganda tricks are we. Socialism is not the same as Communism.
Economically there's little difference (both are systems of ownership of the means of production featuring central control), and if you visit the context in which I was replying the subject was specifically socialism.
Communism is the belief that the government should own all means of production, you are correct in saying this doesn't work. Socialism, on the other hand does not necessitate the ownership of the means of production by the government: what it does promote is the well-being of all members of society through the use of the government to ensure that all members of the society have adequate social protections such as good health care; adequate food and housing; decent educational opportunity, no matter how much money the parents have; even Xtians believe you are not responsible for your father's sins (with the exception of Adam's of course :) ) etc.
Yes financing these programs costs money, but so does financing the military to protect and fight for the large corporations interests abroad, not to mention the military industrial complex's interests here in the U.S. Where do you think the money being put benefits the future generations the most?
It varies, but in particular the U.S. use of its military benefits those who do not pay U.S. taxes, such Muslims in Kosovo. It also benefits those in other countries through mutual defense pacts. Those other nations have long used their alliance with the U.S. to justify directing more money into social programs.
As far as taxes, I strongly believe that wage earners should not be taxed at a higher rate than those whose incomes are based on capital gains. If you go back to the original post in this thread you can see the result of the policies you are promoting.
The results of policies I advocate? You're pointing at 2009-2012, which features a big COLA for government benefits, a gargantuan Keynesian stimulus program (albeit not as big as P. Krugman wanted!), and a paralyzing transformation of the health care system toward making it yet another instrument for federally-directed wealth redistribution. We can throw in the Fed's quantitative easing program, which devalues the currency in its effort to loosen bankers' fearful grip on capital. I'd sincerely like to know what economic policies the Obama administration has instituted that I favor.
But I said no such thing.
Is there a potential inconsistency in recognizing America as the economic engine of progress while also advocating its replacement with communism? Of course there is. And it's something that TimB should think about and explain (if only to himself). Likewise for VYAZMA.
Inconsistency..Contradiction....what's the difference?
One is paired with the word "potential."
Wow, Brian, same old cherry picking and mis-stating details in your perseverant tactics of debate. And same old, tired, erroneous trickle down economics philosophy.
What details have I misstated? And do you intend to address the fiscal difficulty of the pay-as-you-go social safety nets favored by the European socialist nations?
You make it sound like I want Stalin come back to life and turn America into the early version of Soviet Communism.
Did I? Would you mind quoting the line or paragraph I wrote that made it sound that way?
What I said was that I would prefer Communism to unrestrained Capitalism.
Right. So how did I misrepresent your statement?
The fact is that my most preferred form of government would be a Capitalistic Democratic Republic that has just and rational restraints on capitalism, such that injustice and inequalities and mass suffering (that occurs from unrestrained Capitalism) can be minimized.
Is there any nation on the planet that has "unrestrained Capitalism"?
(Thank you, Lois, for taking the time to explain your remark. I sincerely appreciate it)
Those who "have faith" in untrammelled capitalism and are able exploit it in a capitalistic economy will always be able to garner riches. So they will have enough riches to spread the wealth to the less fortunate or talented as long as laws are in place to require it. If laws are not in place forcing sharing of the wealth a very unbalanced society results because the wealthy are less likely to share their riches with the exploited and downtrodden on their own.
That's a common view, but I'd say it overlooks the fact that the riches of the wealthy cannot fail to find their way back to the economy unless the rich person does something akin to burying money in the ground. Suppose the filthy rich person builds a house. He's providing jobs for construction workers and the makers of the raw materials. He's purchasing furniture and other items, supporting other jobs. But maybe he doesn't spend it all. Maybe he puts it in savings or invests it. In either case, the money goes right back into the economy. Financial institutions loan out the money to business owners and people looking to buy things such as houses. Again, the money supports the economy and jobs. If the investments are profitable then the filthy rich can expect a return. But sometimes investments don't pan out. So all the money did was support temporary jobs.
They will share only enough to keep the lower classes from rising up against them. In a communist society, or even a socialist one, it is much more difficult (though, as we've seen not impossible) for some people, though many fewer than under capitalism, to garner great wealth, usually through corruption of the system.
Right, because the economy often produces relatively little wealth to begin with. But party leaders tend to get special privileges.
But in a communist or socialist system most of the people will receive a portion of the wealth the system creates because it is in the hands of the government. This is the way a comministic or socialist system is supposed to work, though the corruption under communist dictatorships was so great that the system failed. It works much better in countries with enough capitalism to drive the economy and enough socialism to prevent the masses from falling into poverty. The Scandinavian countries are good examples of this. The United States is a good example of too much capitalism and too little socialism, which creates an unbalanced system with a lot of wealth at the top and much poverty and poor infrastructure for the poor and middle classes. It also tends to shrink the middle class so that most of the population struggles to gain a toehold while the wealth stays at the top--and the wealthy work mightily to keep it that way. Of course this is a bare outline of how capitalism and socialism works and there is more to it than this but I hope this gives an idea of what I was talking about when I said that those with faith in untrammelled capitalism guarantee that there always will be enough rich people around who have enough money pay the bills, though unless forced through socialistic laws, they will never pay enough of them or even their fair share.
Thanks again for clarifying. I think you make some good points, though you should also be aware that the Scandinavian countries are tending toward market-based economic reform. They're doing it because they were experiencing the economic weakness that central government control so often produces.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/booming-sweden-s-free-market-solution.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I see this character Bryan is still hanging around after quite a few years, promoting his right wing alternate view of reality. Don’t worry how much wealth a few people accumulate. It all goes back into the economy regardless, and everything is peachy.
You can’t argue with somebody who just rationalizes everything. I put him on ignore years ago, opened this topic before realizing who the author was, and saw that he hasn’t changed a bit. On ignore he shall remain.
Is there any nation on the planet that has "unrestrained Capitalism"?
The US has, at times, lacked the rational restraints on our capitalistic system to prevent economic crises such as the Great Depression and the very recent Great Recession. We are in "recovery" from the Great Recession, but haven't put in place the rational restraints that will prevent such a disaster from occurring again.
That is not such a bad thing for those who are too rich to fail, but is devastating for the poor and middle classes, especially when social safety nets are taken away. The wealthiest will do well regardless. A bust economy sets the conditions for exploitation of the rest of the population by those who have the will and the facility for making money simply for it's own sake.
The economy is in "recovery", now, but it consists of the wealthiest, at the top of the economic food chain doing exceptionally well, while 50% of Americans are near or below the poverty line.
This poverty rate has been growing consistently and will likely continue to do so. Unions have been neutered. So there is no help for workers there. Right wing ideologues who want to do away with governmental regulations on corporations have gained political power to the point that the Congress is effectively paralyzed. And wealthy interests use lobbyists to direct what little Congress does do in favor of their own interests. So no help for common workers there. Many of the common workers, themselves, i.e., Tea Partiers, have bought in to the trickle down tripe. So no help there.
We are on track to have the continuing growth of economic disparity between the few wealthiest and the many poorest citizens. The American Dream is dying a slow death for most Americans.
I see this character Bryan is still hanging around after quite a few years, promoting his right wing alternate view of reality. Don't worry how much wealth a few people accumulate. It all goes back into the economy regardless, and everything is peachy.
You can't argue with somebody who just rationalizes everything. I put him on ignore years ago, opened this topic before realizing who the author was, and saw that he hasn't changed a bit. On ignore he shall remain.
Note that there's really no content to Paul LaClair's post, unless we count it as either a personal attack or an appeal to ridicule.
Somebody should have a real reason why wealth inequality is harmful aside from mocking the idea that it isn't harmful. I'd surely pay attention to some good reasoning.
While I grit my teeth at some of Bryan’s posts, I haven’t put him in ignore because he makes strong, well-reasoned arguments (even if there are usually hidden, erroneous premises on which they are based). :lol:
Members of a society work to produce value and use it to live. We use money as a means of value exchange. Anything that takes value out of circulation reduces the living conditions of some of the members. As one collects value, one can improve one’s living conditions, but to a decreasing degree. Does having two billion dollars improve one’s living conditions beyond having one billion? Yes, one can have another few homes built, but wouldn’t improving the homes of the destitute give more to the society? If that extra billion were taxed and used to upgrade schools, and allow many more to get higher education without going into crushing debt, wouldn’t that help society more than an extra three yachts?
I realize that the machinist may not contribute as much value as the CEO of the company, however, I find it hard to justify a few hundred to one ratio of payment to them.
This could go on for pages, but I’m trying to be succinct.
Occam to correct a typo
An ongoing study of income distribution found that the richest 1% in America took 19% of national income last year, their biggest share since 1928. The top 10% of earners held a record 48.2%. During the recovery between 2009 and 2012 real family incomes rose by an average of 4.6%, though this was skewed by a 31.4% increase for the top 1%. For the other 99% incomes rose by just 0.4%
.
And this is good for the US; please explain how?
Is there any nation on the planet that has "unrestrained Capitalism"?
The US has, at times, lacked the rational restraints on our capitalistic system to prevent economic crises such as the Great Depression and the very recent Great Recession. We are in "recovery" from the Great Recession, but haven't put in place the rational restraints that will prevent such a disaster from occurring again.
Well, what are they? What are these rational restraints? Greece has all manner of government controls, doesn't it? China's got communism, people say, and it's facing fiscal crisis.
Do you have a clear idea what's needed, or is this one of those "We've got to do something" deals?
That is not such a bad thing for those who are too rich to fail, but is devastating for the poor and middle classes, especially when social safety nets are taken away. The wealthiest will do well regardless. A bust economy sets the conditions for exploitation of the rest of the population by those who have the will and the facility for making money simply for it's own sake.
"The wealthiest do well regardless." That's a little like noting that the organisms that survive to pass on their genes are evolutionarily successful. It doesn't mean much. Yesterday's successful organism is today's extinction. There's actually a pretty high turnover among the rich. Fortunes are made and lost. The poor become rich and the rich become poor and pass through the stages in between.
http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2013conference/program/retrieve.php?pdfid=462
The economy is in "recovery", now, but it consists of the wealthiest, at the top of the economic food chain doing exceptionally well, while 50% of Americans are near or below the poverty line.
That's so weird, since we're spending so much right now on higher Social Security payments and on food stamps, and didn't the Democrats tell us that few things return more dollars to the economy than food stamp spending? If we could cut defense spending and plow it all into food stamps then maybe we'd see an economic boom. What do you think? Bush must have really screwed things up (yeah, he boosted spending, but not enough on food stamps) or else Obama's policies would have this economy humming.
This poverty rate has been growing consistently and will likely continue to do so.
Unions have been neutered. So there is no help for workers there. Right wing ideologues who want to do away with governmental regulations on corporations have gained political power to the point that the Congress is effectively paralyzed.
And with Congress effectively paralyzed, what chance do they have of doing away with governmental regulations on corporations? Zip?
The problem is not a lack of power to regulate the economy. The problem is that the people making the decisions about how to regulate the economy don't know what they're doing (Hayek).
And wealthy interests use lobbyists to direct what little Congress does do in favor of their own interests. So no help for common workers there. Many of the common workers, themselves, i.e., Tea Partiers, have bought in to the trickle down tripe. So no help there.
Which brings us back again to ... what do you think would help?
We are on track to have the continuing growth of economic disparity between the few wealthiest and the many poorest citizens. The American Dream is dying a slow death for most Americans.
Well, then we could just fix the growth of inequality by capping income and wealth. Where do you want the caps? With wealth and income capped, that money will surely find its way to those in poverty(?).
Yes, one can have another few homes built, but wouldn't improving the homes of the destitute give more to the society? If that extra billion were taxed and used to upgrade schools, and allow many more to get higher education without going into crushing debt, wouldn't that help society more than an extra three yachts?
Is this clear cut? I don't see it. We tried public housing, and it's been a failed program. If people don't earn and own they tend to damage the properties in which they dwell. Some see more work for construction workers in that scenario, but it seems like a case of the broken window fallacy. Spending on education is good, but conditioned on two premisses. First that the education results in skills that increase the odds of useful employment (we've got some sensationally useless higher degrees floating around). Second, that the person receiving education assistance is prepared to take advantage of the opportunity.
I realize that the machinist may not contribute as much value as the CEO of the company, however, I find it hard to justify a few hundred to one ratio of payment to them.
Where's the need for justification? The free market takes care of the ratio. If anything needs justification, it's overruling the trend in the market.
This could go on for pages, but I'm trying to be succinct. :)
