1%er$ Are Strangling Our Economy

[Hum Dinger]

Your view is wrong. Same challenge as for Chris: Try starting a business and hiring people with no money.

Show me how you can run a business without land and labor.

Then explain why a factor of production that doesn't even exist without the other two is entitled to the share of profits that capitalism extracts.

If I own my own business, and I have no employees, and I rent space for my business...that's how.

You really are a dumb little man.

In that case, you would be the labor and the space that you rent would be the land.

And Daveman seriously, I think that just about everyone conservative, liberal or whatever would universally agree that a fella who thinks that bringing DDT back on the market really should not be making comments about other people's intelligence.

I guess that's kind of expected though.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Ever hear the saying that it takes money to make money? Well, it's true, before a business can be started there has to be capital investments made, loans guaranteed, financial instruments signed. All of this is done before the land and labor come into play. THEN you buy or rent the land or space, build the factory or store, hire the people, get to work building a business.

This is why conservatives believe you don't raise taxes on the rich in a recession or a slow economy like this one. You want them putting up as much capital as possible, generating new businesses which are responsible for almost 75% of the new jobs created.

I grant you that in the early 90s Clinton raised taxes on the rich a little but the economy expanded anyway. Which was great, but this ain't the early 90s and we don't have the lower debt and "irrational exuberance" we had then. It seems to me this is not a time to be raising or lowering the tax rates, although I would support streamlining the tax code by taking out most if not all of the tax breaks, loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the rates so that the overall revenues do not decline.

What we really need is more "irrational exuberance", which I think could come from the general optimism from a new president with new policies that are more business friendly. People have gotta feel that the corner has been turned and things are going to get better, but right now they're not seeing that. Maybe a GOP president won't be the answer either, but what we're doing now ain't working.

One more time, you have to have capital. You have to have a business environment that is favorable to starting new businesses AND increases consumer confidence. Obama's track record has not helped and I think even hurts in this regard.

The flaw in the conservative argument is that they propose that if you give a larger amount of money to the wealthy they WILL invest in and spur economic growth.

This is a fundamentally flawed theory. First of all when you create a tax code that allows the concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few, it makes it possible for them to invest it to create growth, but that does not mean that they WILL invest it.

A tax code that favors the wealthy makes it easier for the wealthy to reach their profit goals with much less risk - they do NOT invest it in job creating high risk ventures - they invest in highly secure NON-business expanding investments.

It much better for the over all economy to have a higher tax on the wealtiest which forces them into the higher risk business expanding investments in order to reach their profit goals.

It's also much better for the overall economy to have a much more evenly distributed wealth so that there are MANY more smaller investors investing in many more ventures and letting the market potential profitability attract people to the higher risk business expanding investments.

 

[Chris]

Ever hear the saying that it takes money to make money? Well, it's true, before a business can be started there has to be capital investments made, loans guaranteed, financial instruments signed. All of this is done before the land and labor come into play. THEN you buy or rent the land or space, build the factory or store, hire the people, get to work building a business.

This is why conservatives believe you don't raise taxes on the rich in a recession or a slow economy like this one. You want them putting up as much capital as possible, generating new businesses which are responsible for almost 75% of the new jobs created.

I grant you that in the early 90s Clinton raised taxes on the rich a little but the economy expanded anyway. Which was great, but this ain't the early 90s and we don't have the lower debt and "irrational exuberance" we had then. It seems to me this is not a time to be raising or lowering the tax rates, although I would support streamlining the tax code by taking out most if not all of the tax breaks, loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the rates so that the overall revenues do not decline.

What we really need is more "irrational exuberance", which I think could come from the general optimism from a new president with new policies that are more business friendly. People have gotta feel that the corner has been turned and things are going to get better, but right now they're not seeing that. Maybe a GOP president won't be the answer either, but what we're doing now ain't working.

One more time, you have to have capital. You have to have a business environment that is favorable to starting new businesses AND increases consumer confidence. Obama's track record has not helped and I think even hurts in this regard.

Obama and Congress saved the economy from another Great Depression. Unfortunately they couldn't put the genie back in the bottle.

American businesses are doing well. They have plenty of money and cheap labor overseas. Capital is mobile, people are not. So American businesses shipped the jobs overseas. Americans are not going to China to work in Apple's factories for $2 a day. So we have high unemployment.

We have a deficit problem because our taxes are the lowest they have been since the 1950's. 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax. If no one has the balls to raise taxes, at some point we will end up like Greece.

400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined. Concentrating huge amounts of wealth in a few hands is very bad for any society. Because of the corporate lobbyists, we now live in a plutocracy. And it could get worse.

Now the good news...

There are inventions coming out of our universities which will democratize energy production and consumption in the same way that the internet democratized the flow of information. In the long run this will completely transform our society for the better. It is only a matter of time.

 

[editec]

There is no wealth without labor, folks.

Even a gold nugget laying openly on the ground is woth northing until a human hand picks it up.

But right, now there's no shortage on idle hands, but there's also little incentive for Capital to invest in new hires since the worker class is pretty much busted.

Increasingly income and wealth inequity, which has been growing for the last 40 years, has once again, come home to roost and caused economic woes throughout most of the economy.

Once again we've seen that all our ill advised and overdone trickle down economic policies did was defraud the nations labor classes of their wealth.

Those of you who aren't millionaires or at least VERY well paid house slaves bought (and I can read here that many of you are still buying into) an economic FAIRY TALE.

This does not really suprise me, though.

When the people were toppling monarchs in the 18th through 20th centuries, those monarchs often found that their most loyal supporters were the clueless rural peasants.

So too do we find the same schizm in the zeitgeist of Americas, today.

 

[georgephillip]

Your view is wrong. Same challenge as for Chris: Try starting a business and hiring people with no money.

Show me how you can run a business without land and labor.

Then explain why a factor of production that doesn't even exist without the other two is entitled to the share of profits that capitalism extracts.

If I own my own business, and I have no employees, and I rent space for my business...that's how.

You really are a dumb little man.

Gee, Dave that plan would work really swell if you weren't a stupid, ignorant, lazy punk who needed the government to wipe his ass and brush his teeth for the last twenty years.

You really are a slave, Dave.

 

[Wiseacre]

Ever hear the saying that it takes money to make money? Well, it's true, before a business can be started there has to be capital investments made, loans guaranteed, financial instruments signed. All of this is done before the land and labor come into play. THEN you buy or rent the land or space, build the factory or store, hire the people, get to work building a business.

This is why conservatives believe you don't raise taxes on the rich in a recession or a slow economy like this one. You want them putting up as much capital as possible, generating new businesses which are responsible for almost 75% of the new jobs created.

I grant you that in the early 90s Clinton raised taxes on the rich a little but the economy expanded anyway. Which was great, but this ain't the early 90s and we don't have the lower debt and "irrational exuberance" we had then. It seems to me this is not a time to be raising or lowering the tax rates, although I would support streamlining the tax code by taking out most if not all of the tax breaks, loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the rates so that the overall revenues do not decline.

What we really need is more "irrational exuberance", which I think could come from the general optimism from a new president with new policies that are more business friendly. People have gotta feel that the corner has been turned and things are going to get better, but right now they're not seeing that. Maybe a GOP president won't be the answer either, but what we're doing now ain't working.

One more time, you have to have capital. You have to have a business environment that is favorable to starting new businesses AND increases consumer confidence. Obama's track record has not helped and I think even hurts in this regard.

The flaw in the conservative argument is that they propose that if you give a larger amount of money to the wealthy they WILL invest in and spur economic growth.

This is a fundamentally flawed theory. First of all when you create a tax code that allows the concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few, it makes it possible for them to invest it to create growth, but that does not mean that they WILL invest it.

A tax code that favors the wealthy makes it easier for the wealthy to reach their profit goals with much less risk - they do NOT invest it in job creating high risk ventures - they invest in highly secure NON-business expanding investments.

It much better for the over all economy to have a higher tax on the wealtiest which forces them into the higher risk business expanding investments in order to reach their profit goals.

It's also much better for the overall economy to have a much more evenly distributed wealth so that there are MANY more smaller investors investing in many more ventures and letting the market potential profitability attract people to the higher risk business expanding investments.

Arguing against the profit motive and greed is somewhat specious IMO. The notion that they (wealthy people) are any the less likely to invest has no logic, if analysis reveals that the chances for making more money are favorable. And to suggest the rich will be forced into higher risk investments is crazy, they're not doing it now so why would you think they'll do it later? More likey they'll invest overseas in less risky ventures than here.

Having a bunch of small investors is great, but it doesn't happen without some big fish as anchors. I can see the argument for raising taxes on the rich at some point after the economy has picked up and a lot more jobs are being created, but I wouldn't redistribute it to the lower incomes. I'd balance the budget and then I'd pay down the debt, which is going to grow a lot bigger than it is now.

Had to rep you for your response though. I think I understand where you guys are coming from.

 

[expat_panama]

...The flaw in the conservative argument is that they propose that if you give a larger amount of money to the wealthy they WILL invest in and spur economic growth. This is a fundamentally flawed theory. First of all when you create a tax code that allows the concentration of wealth...

Clarity is needed here because muddle words reflect muddled thought. Taxes take money from people and give the money to the government. Taxes cannot "give a larger amount of money to the wealthy", they can only confiscate less of the wealthy that those people created.

...Arguing against the profit motive and greed is somewhat specious IMO....

Too many people confuse greed and profit, either because they lack personal success with making a profit and calling it greed is a 'sour-grapes' defense mechanism, or they make up their own fantasy definition of the word 'greed'. In order to comunicate we need to agree on common definitions (from here):

greed

(grd)n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett).​

​

People who regularly succeed at making a profit are those that have overcome both greed and fear and provide benefits for which others are gratefully willing to exchange their money.

 

[Wiseacre]

...The flaw in the conservative argument is that they propose that if you give a larger amount of money to the wealthy they WILL invest in and spur economic growth. This is a fundamentally flawed theory. First of all when you create a tax code that allows the concentration of wealth...

Clarity is needed here because muddle words reflect muddled thought. Taxes take money from people and give the money to the government. Taxes cannot "give a larger amount of money to the wealthy", they can only confiscate less of the wealthy that those people created.

...Arguing against the profit motive and greed is somewhat specious IMO....

Too many people confuse greed and profit, either because they lack personal success with making a profit and calling it greed is a 'sour-grapes' defense mechanism, or they make up their own fantasy definition of the word 'greed'. In order to comunicate we need to agree on common definitions (from here):

greed

(grd)n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett).​

​

People who regularly succeed at making a profit are those that have overcome both greed and fear and provide benefits for which others are gratefully willing to exchange their money.

Re the definition of greed, if you have a person who has already made millions and wants more, then he/she already has what they need. "Deserves" is another question, IMHO you desrve whatever you can honestly earn. And many might say that such a person does have an excessive desire to acquire or possess wealth if they already have millions in wealth. My point in rebuttal to RichardH is that such people are more likely to reinvest than not.

 

[expat_panama]

...a person who has already made millions and wants more, then he/she already has what they need...

We can't tell a guy that built a factory with his bare hands creating high paying jobs for thousands of workers, that he doesn't need any more profits and ought to shut down the factory. Neither can we tell a doctor that saves 10 lives per day @ $100 each, that he needs to quit after six years and let everyone else die. I say that setting limits on what others need is a high risk activity.

 

[Wiseacre]

...a person who has already made millions and wants more, then he/she already has what they need...

We can't tell a guy that built a factory with his bare hands creating high paying jobs for thousands of workers, that he doesn't need any more profits and ought to shut down the factory. Neither can we tell a doctor that saves 10 lives per day @ $100 each, that he needs to quit after six years and let everyone else die. I say that setting limits on what others need is a high risk activity.

I'd agree with that, never said nothin' about setting any limits. Such people as you describe may have other motivations besides money, but in any case it doesn't make any difference. The bottom line is, capital is necessary to start new businesses and the people with the most capital should be incentivized to invest here in the US. One of the ways you do that is to lower the tax rate or keep it as low as it is now.

 

[daveman]

Show me how you can run a business without land and labor.

Then explain why a factor of production that doesn't even exist without the other two is entitled to the share of profits that capitalism extracts.

If I own my own business, and I have no employees, and I rent space for my business...that's how.

You really are a dumb little man.

Gee, Dave that plan would work really swell if you weren't a stupid, ignorant, lazy punk who needed the government to wipe his ass and brush his teeth for the last twenty years.

You really are a slave, Dave.

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

 

[georgephillip]

There is no wealth without labor, folks.

Even a gold nugget laying openly on the ground is woth northing until a human hand picks it up.

But right, now there's no shortage on idle hands, but there's also little incentive for Capital to invest in new hires since the worker class is pretty much busted.

Increasingly income and wealth inequity, which has been growing for the last 40 years, has once again, come home to roost and caused economic woes throughout most of the economy.

Once again we've seen that all our ill advised and overdone trickle down economic policies did was defraud the nations labor classes of their wealth.

Those of you who aren't millionaires or at least VERY well paid house slaves bought (and I can read here that many of you are still buying into) an economic FAIRY TALE.

This does not really suprise me, though.

When the people were toppling monarchs in the 18th through 20th centuries, those monarchs often found that their most loyal supporters were the clueless rural peasants.

So too do we find the same schizm in the zeitgeist of Americas, today.

18th century conservatives were among the most fearful of Democracy.
They much preferred their Monarchs and their slave religion.
Funny how slowly some fears die.

 

[georgephillip]

If I own my own business, and I have no employees, and I rent space for my business...that's how.

You really are a dumb little man.

Gee, Dave that plan would work really swell if you weren't a stupid, ignorant, lazy punk who needed the government to wipe his ass and brush his teeth for the last twenty years.

You really are a slave, Dave.

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

 

[daveman]

Gee, Dave that plan would work really swell if you weren't a stupid, ignorant, lazy punk who needed the government to wipe his ass and brush his teeth for the last twenty years.

You really are a slave, Dave.

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

Not until you acknowledge that a single person with no employees and no physical plant can earn profits.

You want an example? Sit on a park bench and write a screenplay on a legal pad and sell it to a studio.

Acknowledge that, and then we can talk.

But you won't.

You know what you're doing? You're looking for some way to justify your own greed. You want what you haven't earned.

Acknowledge that, and you can start on your way towards becoming a useful member of society instead of leeching resources.

 

[Chris]

There is no wealth without labor, folks.

Even a gold nugget laying openly on the ground is woth northing until a human hand picks it up.

But right, now there's no shortage on idle hands, but there's also little incentive for Capital to invest in new hires since the worker class is pretty much busted.

Increasingly income and wealth inequity, which has been growing for the last 40 years, has once again, come home to roost and caused economic woes throughout most of the economy.

Once again we've seen that all our ill advised and overdone trickle down economic policies did was defraud the nations labor classes of their wealth.

Those of you who aren't millionaires or at least VERY well paid house slaves bought (and I can read here that many of you are still buying into) an economic FAIRY TALE.

This does not really suprise me, though.

When the people were toppling monarchs in the 18th through 20th centuries, those monarchs often found that their most loyal supporters were the clueless rural peasants.

So too do we find the same schizm in the zeitgeist of Americas, today.

True enough.

But the real downfall of America will be the mythology that lowering taxes for the rich will help the economy. The only thing that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did was creat a huge National Debt and transfer trillions of dollars from the middle class taxpayer to the super wealthy.

 

[georgephillip]

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

Not until you acknowledge that a single person with no employees and no physical plant can earn profits.

You want an example? Sit on a park bench and write a screenplay on a legal pad and sell it to a studio.

Acknowledge that, and then we can talk.

But you won't.

You know what you're doing? You're looking for some way to justify your own greed. You want what you haven't earned.

Acknowledge that, and you can start on your way towards becoming a useful member of society instead of leeching resources.

Your park bench and legal pad make a good metaphor for the American Dream.
It's a Fable.
It doesn't exist.

First of all, screenwriters don't sell their product to a studio.
And Shakespeare couldn't sell one today without a lawyer and an agent, at least.

What is it exactly you think I'm after that I haven't earned?
Labor is at least equal in importance to land and capital, imo.
I, along with millions of others, have not received fair compensation for our labor.

If Americans were compensated fairly for their labor, they would enjoy the same health care benefits that Cubans do. They would also enjoy free education. And both health care and education would be entitlement that were earned by their labor.

Would there be any billionaires?
No.
Possibly a few millionaires.

Seems like a small price to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gee, Dave that plan would work really swell if you weren't a stupid, ignorant, lazy punk who needed the government to wipe his ass and brush his teeth for the last twenty years.

You really are a slave, Dave.

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

Owners earn profits, or not.

Employees earn a salary.
Or in your case, unemployment.

 

[georgephillip]

In other words, you have no rational rebuttal, and have instead chosen to shit your diaper and throw a tantrum.

You lose, George. Always.

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

Owners earn profits, or not.

Employees earn a salary.
Or in your case, unemployment.

Actually SSA and SSI which makes me less dependent of crony capitalism and control accounting fraud than some "successful" capitalists.

 

[editec]

Dear IDIOTIC LEFTIES,

I love you guys and I totally get that you love this nation and its people but

I do so hate this 1% meme.

It truly does a tremendous disservice to millions of hard working people who are in no way shape or form REPSPONSIBLE for the mess the SUPER RICH are making of our society.

There are NOT 3 MILLION villians screwing our society. That 1% includes your dentists, your doctors, the guy who owns the pizza shop you love, and many of the most productive people in our society. And those folks are getting screwed right along with the rest of us!

AT BEST there are 6,000 people with that kind of power and influence that you are assigning to the top 1%

Some math might help

6000/300,000,000 = 0.000002%​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only in the mind of lazy, ignorant punks, Dave.

Now see if you can explain rationally why a factor of production which depends on two others for its existence is entitled to control all profits?

Owners earn profits, or not.

Employees earn a salary.
Or in your case, unemployment.

Actually SSA and SSI which makes me less dependent of crony capitalism and control accounting fraud than some "successful" capitalists.

Now you're simply dependent on politicians keeping their promises.
Yeah, that's much safer. LOL!