Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").
With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences. I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.
But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue. The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980. So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.
You seem to be arguing expediency over morality. But I think wealth redistribution fails to achieve either of those goals.
What I find most interesting is the willingness of so many of the left to simply assume that wealthy people didn't earn their money and use that as an excuse to go after it. It raises a couple of important questions: first, what does it mean to 'earn' money? and second, doesn't it seem wrong to simply assume that everyone who accumulates a lot of wealth hasn't earned it?
Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.
Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?
BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL
How about the subprime auto Biz and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol
FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.
I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of low interest, low or no down payments continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation.
New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com
In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.
Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom. Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise.
Rahan said, "
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."
Id reverse the order of emphasis credit expansion first, housing policy second but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.
In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.
Rape and murder are also part of the "real world." The question is, how is it justified. You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income. Utter horseshit. Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.
It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.
You move out of the country, asshole.
Reality check!
Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.
Reality check part two: A twofer: (1) "You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income." (2) "Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."
two dishonest and disingenuous statements?
1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.
2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.
Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?
It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal. I don't see the morality either. But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter. And elections have consequences.
And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack. If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.
True, Walmaret and McD's is sucking a lot off of US
Nope. They provide jobs and inexpensive consumer goods. Walmart enables millions of people to live better than they could otherwise. On the other hand, our socialist education system makes our population stupid, and does it at great cost.
And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive, that's Walmart entire Biz model
Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.
Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?
BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL
How about the subprime auto Biz and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol
FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.
I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of low interest, low or no down payments continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation.
New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com
In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.
Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom. Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise.
Rahan said, "
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."
Id reverse the order of emphasis credit expansion first, housing policy second but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.
In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.
Reality check!
Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.
Reality check part two: A twofer: (1) "You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income." (2) "Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."
two dishonest and disingenuous statements?
1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.
2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.
Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?
It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal. I don't see the morality either. But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter. And elections have consequences.
And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack. If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.
What do you mean by corporatism here? (everyone seems to define it differently).
He has been informed and shown by links, that the only reason the US economy boomed during the 90% top marginal tax rate was a combination of things:Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?
HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?
Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.
War time mobility
Rapid improvement of Industrialization
Massive investment in infrastructure instead of just giving the poor more money.
Now lets look at Obama's solution here to fore: Give the same amount, $500 billion, to the same people who already receive $500 billion annually in safety net programs. Had he spent that same amount of money on infrastructure he would have put more people to work and ended the great recession much faster, just like Eisenhower did during his administration. Maybe now he will do what he should have done 6 years ago.
He is not smart enough to understand and continues to parrot left wing extremist propaganda (because that is what his puppeteers tell him to do)
What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
How do you separate those who cannot earn their own money from those who choose not to?
Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal. I don't see the morality either. But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter. And elections have consequences.
And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack. If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.
What do you mean by corporatism here? (everyone seems to define it differently).
For the sake of our discussion, I've tried to use a notion that corporatism occurs when a govt tries to benefit one group more/or less than another, or confers a benefit to only one group while using resources of others.
Nope. They provide jobs and inexpensive consumer goods. Walmart enables millions of people to live better than they could otherwise. On the other hand, our socialist education system makes our population stupid, and does it at great cost.
And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive, that's Walmart entire Biz model
right!! we could end all poverty on earth by just requiring corporations to hire enough and pay enough. When a Walmart opens 1000's line up for the jobs because they offer 1000's something better than what they have. Walmart is a savior.
Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal. I don't see the morality either. But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter. And elections have consequences.
And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack. If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.
What do you mean by corporatism here? (everyone seems to define it differently).
For the sake of our discussion, I've tried to use a notion that corporatism occurs when a govt tries to benefit one group more/or less than another, or confers a benefit to only one group while using resources of others.
Amazing! Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble. We all need to recognize that federal housing policy caused the 2006 housing crash. Even with a slight increase in interest between 1997 and 2002 the government pushed housing onto people who could not afford them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=1
Almost everyone understands that the 2007-8 financial crisis was precipitated by the collapse of a huge housing bubble.
Housing bubbles are measured by comparing current prices to a reliable index of housing prices.
Today, after the financial crisis, the recession and the slow recovery, the bubble is beginning to grow again. Between 2011 and the third quarter of 2013, housing prices grew by 5.83 percent, again exceeding the increase in rental costs, which was 2 percent.
Both this bubble and the last one were caused by the governments housing policies, which made it possible for many people to purchase homes with very little or no money down. In 1992, Congress adopted what were called affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are huge government-backed firms that buy mortgages from banks and other lenders. Then, as now, they were the dominant players in the residential mortgage markets. The goals required Fannie and Freddie to buy an increasing quota of mortgages made to borrowers who were at or below the median income where they lived.
Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised the quotas seven times, so that in the 2000s more than 50 percent of all the mortgages Fannie and Freddie acquired had to be made to home buyers who were at or below the median income.
And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive, that's Walmart entire Biz model
right!! we could end all poverty on earth by just requiring corporations to hire enough and pay enough. When a Walmart opens 1000's line up for the jobs because they offer 1000's something better than what they have. Walmart is a savior.
Wow, first the title of "Creator" and now "Savior." That is some f~cking strong Kool-Aid!
Amazing! Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble. We all need to recognize that federal housing policy caused the 2006 housing crash. Even with a slight increase in interest between 1997 and 2002 the government pushed housing onto people who could not afford them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=1
Almost everyone understands that the 2007-8 financial crisis was precipitated by the collapse of a huge housing bubble.
Housing bubbles are measured by comparing current prices to a reliable index of housing prices.
Today, after the financial crisis, the recession and the slow recovery, the bubble is beginning to grow again. Between 2011 and the third quarter of 2013, housing prices grew by 5.83 percent, again exceeding the increase in rental costs, which was 2 percent.
Both this bubble and the last one were caused by the governments housing policies, which made it possible for many people to purchase homes with very little or no money down. In 1992, Congress adopted what were called affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are huge government-backed firms that buy mortgages from banks and other lenders. Then, as now, they were the dominant players in the residential mortgage markets. The goals required Fannie and Freddie to buy an increasing quota of mortgages made to borrowers who were at or below the median income where they lived.
Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised the quotas seven times, so that in the 2000s more than 50 percent of all the mortgages Fannie and Freddie acquired had to be made to home buyers who were at or below the median income.
If you believe that, you have not been paying attention to the left wing extremists on this thread who parrot that kind of propaganda on a regular basis. if you don't want these things, (Leftwing extremists want:Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.
Liberals want:
Good public education
Assistance for those of us who CAN'T earn their own livelihood
Universal health care
Equality of race, creed, sex, and the means for everyone to pursue happiness.
Leftwing extremists want:
Welfare state
Socialist control of the economy
Pay people more wage regardless of their productivity relative to the whole economy
Just a few tidbits to help people understand the difference between liberals and left wingers.
No one wants that. It's retarded to even suggest it.
Welfare state, Socialist control of the economy, Pay people more wage regardless of their productivity relative to the whole economy) then you fall more into the liberal category rather than the left wing extremist category.
So answer a few questions and we will make a reasonable determination. Do you believe that union workers should be paid typical union wages even if not productive by even union standards? Do you want to assist the less wealthy who can earn enough to have a standard of living higher than 90% of the worlds population? Do you want the government to control production and investment wage/income such that the top rung of the wealthy are cut down to size and spread their wealth? Do you believe that the wealth of our country is finite such that the top rung's "share" detracts from the welfare of the less wealthy? Answer these questions honestly and maybe we can arrive at some kind of mutual agreement.
Similarly there is a huge difference between a RW extremist and the typical conservative. When LW extremists talk about those to the right they lump all of into the same bucket of worms, which is, of course, ridiculous.
right!! we could end all poverty on earth by just requiring corporations to hire enough and pay enough. When a Walmart opens 1000's line up for the jobs because they offer 1000's something better than what they have. Walmart is a savior.
Wow, first the title of "Creator" and now "Savior." That is some f~cking strong Kool-Aid!
you means 1000's line up for blocks because Walmart offers them something worse than what they had? Are you, as a liberal, against people progressing?
Nobody wants YOUR money, they want the share they contributed to it
Who argues the US does away with capitalism,
The Communists at KOS and CommonDreams who train you to spew idiocy here.
Are you really so dull that you don't grasp what it is you advocate?
we just want o go back to the way it was BEFORE conservatives manipulated for the benefits of the few
2006.
Fiscal 2006 marks the high point for purchasing power among Americans across the board. You Communists squawk about income gap; and you lie that the "rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer."
Up until 2006, the rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting richer. The amount of material goods that could be purchased for an hour of work peaked at all levels. You of the left howled that the rich were getting richer at a faster rate than the poor - but everyone was gaining. Now, Obamunism has gutted the middle class, which of course is the goal of the left - to destroy the bourgeoisie - the middle class. The shift of a major portion of the workforce from full time to part time status - the gift Obama his given America, is steadily pushing the middle class into poverty.
under Obama's horrible policies, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010
Here's the thing. I don't care what you believe. It's no skin off my nose. I know the difference between income and wealth. You don't. You think that the varying, naturally occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil? That's nuts. You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity. That's nuts. Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.
Carry on. . . .
Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol
There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that.
Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game
The Zero-sum Nature of economics
Yes, of course, zero-sum game. Brain fart. I am aware the phrase's origin. That's what happens sometimes when you get past 50.
Moving on. . . .
Now for the sake of some, like Dante, who fancies himself to be a master logician and gave your post, that rash of argumentum ad nauseam, a thumbs up.
Of course the total income of any given year is finite, which is all you're really saying. Do tell. Who said it wasn't?
Answer: no one, Mr. Straw Man. Stay away from open flames.
The sum of any given fixed term is finite, for crying out loud!
I'm talking about the growth of wealth, especially, the increase in wealth and economic mobility of those emerging from the lower rungs of the economic ladder, which you keep implying to be the finite commodity of annual income. Apples and Oranges. For example, you're using the terms annual income and wealth interchangeably, jumping from one to the other. Your link has nothing to do with the creation and accumulation of new wealth. Pay attention. Wealth is not a finite commodity; hence, the market is not a zero-sum-game proposition.
Rates of taxation above a certain threshold, along with increased regulation and wealth-redistribution schemes like ObamaCare, stunt economic growth due to their negative impact on the factors of production. They impede the investment and productivity of wealth creation from the bottom up.
You're going on about some generic model of marginal rates of taxation relative to historical growth in GDP. I'm well-aware of the recent rash of duplicity proffered by the shills of crony capitalism that would keep the working poor and the middleclass dependent on a corporatist economic structure sponsored by Big Daddy government. And a good many of the nominally conservative politicians in Washington are feeding the same animal.
Hello! Yours is not the whole story. Got the informal logical fallacy of incomplete comparison, anyone?
Your propaganda, all your blather and that at the end of your Internet link, is nothing more than the rank stupidity of surplus value defined as the unpaid surplus labor of the working class: classic Marxist doggerel which confounds the finite sum of material resources/the finite sum of any given period of income with wealth. The latter is not a finite commodity, but the limitless accumulation of production capital ultimately bottomed on the emergence of new enterprises.
For instance, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth by looking at the U.S. experience since World War II and the dramatic variation in the statutory top marginal rate on individual income.[1] They find the fastest economic growth occurred in the 1950s when the top rate was more than ninety percent.[2] However, their study ignores the most basic problems with this sort of statistical analysis, including: the variation in the tax base to which the individual income tax applies; the variation in other taxes, particularly the corporate tax; the short-term versus long-term effects of tax policy; and reverse causality, whereby economic growth affects tax rates. These problems are all well known in the academic literature and have been dealt with in various ways, making the CRS study unpublishable in any peer-reviewed academic journal.[3]
So what does the academic literature say about the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth? While there are a variety of methods and data sources, the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy. In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. Of those studies that distinguish between types of taxes, corporate income taxes are found to be most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes.
What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? | Tax Foundation
And once again:
In Theories of Surplus Value Marx conceded that the middleclass was actually growing under capitalism, not disappearing as he had previously held in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and more honest Marxist theorists have since conceded that the working class is not a culturally homogeneous, but a culturally heterogeneous component of production comprised of competing interests, and one that has become increasingly economically mobile under capitalism from generation to generation. Strike (1) those fallacious critiques of capitalism, the guts of dialectic materialism, insofar as they pertain to the allegedly historical antagonism between the oppressed proletariat and the exploitative bourgeoisie, (2) the abject stupidity of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" and (3) the conceptualization of surplus value as an injustice or a problem to be solved, if not by bargaining than by compulsory wealth redistribution: what more must the world endure at the hands of this debacle before we toss it into the ash heap of history and move on?
Marxists disregard the rise in wages over time under capitalism as industries reinvest surplus value and grow. They gloss over the destructive results of over-bargaining industries into stagnation and bankruptcy.
Take a close look at Detroit.
Marx moralistically imagined surplus value to be the unpaid surplus labor of the working class. But surplus value is in fact the stuff of reinvestment and growth, the startup costs of producing new products and services, future wage increases, more jobs of varying expertise and levels of compensation despite increased automation, improved living standards, strategic surpluses, which are essentially production costs, as they must be maintained and replaced. The latter are not distributable profit. And don't forget about the public infrastructure and the all those public services, for good or bad. Don't forget about all that governmentally funded research, the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. Don't forget about the exploration of space and the oceans, and the scientific, medical and technological advances thereof. All these things in addition to the strictly business concerns of the private sector were paid for by capitalist systems . . . way beyond what any communist system could ever dream of. . . .
That's the complex reality and the magic of capitalism, but in the stagnant, make believe world of Marxism, that zero-sum-game fantasy, surplus value is merely the accumulation and centralization of transferable capital and power. Hence, the supposed fatal flaw or irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, namely, the falling profits-unemployment crisis of over-accumulation.
. . . In recent history, this supposed Achilles' heel of capitalism is in fact the wrecking ball of economic collectivism: the punitive taxation, regulation or nationalization of the means of production. Businesses that don't continuously innovate and grow, stagnant, shrink and die. Businesses besieged by overbearing governments go elsewhere and take their jobs with them . . . or die.
Privately owned surplus value is the economic lifeblood of the developed world. It's not a horded and withheld commodity. It's not a limited commodity either. . . .
"Wait a minute! Stop right there, Mister! Material resources are finite," the unimaginative rube of the zero-sum-game mentality hysterically exclaims.
. . . Human ingenuitythe essence of technological innovation, ever-increasing efficiencyis not finite! Privately owned surplus value is readily attainable for all the world, but for the meddling of corrupt and oppressive regimes. It is this factor that alludes the Marxist . . . or does he simply turn a blind eye on the obvious resolution of the supposed contradiction of capitalism? Pretend not to see it?
I'm not kidding. In every rendition of the supposed problem of over-accumulated capital I've ever read, the Marxist author invariably claims that this critique has never been satisfactorily answered by free-market theorists. The factor of human ingenuity and its effects on production capital have been understood for at least two centuries. Marxism is sheer political ideology posing as an economic science propagated by rank sociopaths. If this supposed flaw of capitalism were real, capitalism would have universally collapsed long before now. In the meantime, the only economic paradigm that has collapsed every time it's been tried is communism precisely because it stifles the very factor its theorists obtusely disregard: human incentive and ingenuity. --M.D. Rawlilngs
