Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
5,127
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
And lastly, yeah, your pre-tax money, is in fact rightfully yours, and mine is mine. You are just wrong, to suggest otherwise. By your dumb logic, we should be able to confiscate your house, because "You didn't build that". Required roads to get the trucks to build your house, and so we'll just take it from you, because you don't have a rights to what you earned.
You don't deserve your pre-tax income since it is the money an amoral market has gifted you. Conservatives regularly conflate the myth of ownership with real life. Taxation does not take from people what they already own; property rights are the product of a set of laws and conventions, so the fairness of taxes can't be evaluated by their impact of preexisting conditions.
If the market gives you money, through voluntary exchange, it is by definition moral. If I agree to give you money, and you agree to give me a product, or a service, or your labor, that in and of itself, is a morally just voluntary exchange.

Taxation does not take from people what they already own

You just spent 10 pages here, complaining about Jeff Bezos.

Jeff Bezos rightfully owns stock in the company that he himself created. If you have no intention of taking from people the things they already own...... then what in heck have you been blithering on about?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Profits have existed since human beings walked the Earth. When the first farmer, plowed the first field, and planted more food than he and his family could consume.... and traded the surplus food, for gold, or whatever.... that was profit.
What about the tens of thousands of years of human history that happened BEFORE the first farmer? It's likely the foundation of human economic relations was founded on cooperation and not on competition. The last five hundred years of capitalism has completely reversed that natural condition. There is an alternative.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
There is no "zero-sum economics". Wealth is never static. It is growing, or shrinking.
What effect does "zero-sum economics" have on wealth creation?

Zero-sum game - Wikipedia

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.

"If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

"Thus, cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others as much as it increases the amount available for that taker, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally."
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Ridiculous to even say that. How could America possibly start from scratch, and end up in 200 years, more wealthy than 99% of the planet, which includes dozens on dozens of civilizations that existed thousands of years before us?
Chattel slavery and genocide explain a great deal about how America became rich, or do you find it difficult to understand how free land and free labor make free markets highly profitable?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Ridiculous. I didn't have a cell phone until I was in my late 20s. I didn't have Air Conditioning until I was in my 20s. There were some years, I didn't have a car, because it broke down, and I didn't have the money to fix it. I didn't have internet until I was in my late 20s.

Those are luxury goods.
Where did you get the idea you are free to supply your own definition of "luxury goods"?

Luxury goods - Wikipedia

"In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, so that expenditures on the good become a greater proportion of overall spending.

"Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods, where demand increases proportionally less than income."
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,432
Reaction score
10,656
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
What about the tens of thousands of years of human history that happened BEFORE the first farmer? It's likely the foundation of human economic relations was founded on cooperation and not on competition.
Yes, we should definitely aspire to return to the days before farming.
Because that's when communism will finally succeed, eh comrade?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,432
Reaction score
10,656
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
There is no "zero-sum economics". Wealth is never static. It is growing, or shrinking.
What effect does "zero-sum economics" have on wealth creation?

Zero-sum game - Wikipedia

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.

"If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

"Thus, cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others as much as it increases the amount available for that taker, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally."
"If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

Sounds awful!!!

How much did Jeff Bezos take from you? Link?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
5,127
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Profits have existed since human beings walked the Earth. When the first farmer, plowed the first field, and planted more food than he and his family could consume.... and traded the surplus food, for gold, or whatever.... that was profit.
What about the tens of thousands of years of human history that happened BEFORE the first farmer? It's likely the foundation of human economic relations was founded on cooperation and not on competition. The last five hundred years of capitalism has completely reversed that natural condition. There is an alternative.
"It's likely..." is opinion and assumption, not a fact.

You are talking to a Born Again, Christian believer in the G-d of the Bible. There was no thousand years before the first farmer. There was Adam, and there was Eve. They had sons and daughters, one of which was Cain, who was a 'tiller of the ground'.

Before then.... there was nothing.

However, let us pretend for the moment that the mythology of 'explosion-in-space', to civilization on Earth, is true.

I can right now, guarantee you without any question in my mind, that there was never a time where the foundations of human economic relations was built on cooperation and not competition.

How do I know this? Because there was never a time, where cooperation ever worked.

You do know that this nation itself, was built on the tried and failed economic model of cooperation?

Did you know that? History lesson.

When they first founded the colonies here in America, several of them were built on a cooperative model.


One specifically, the plymouth colony, was built on a communal concept. All land was owned by the colony. All food was put into common store, and freely given to everyone.

You can actually find the letters written by the administrators of the colony, as they slowly fell into near mass starvation.

Shockingly, people didn't want to work, when they had all their needs met by the colony. Why work hard, for no benefit? Whatever food I grow, will be taken by the colony, and given to Bob, who hasn't woken up before noon since we landed here.

Why would anyone work hard in a communal system? If all your needs are met, and there is no specific benefit to yourself to work long hours, why do it?

BTW.... if you go and talk to nearly all of the 1960s hippies that went and actually lived in communes, all of them will tell you it sucked. I have yet to meet any hippy anywhere, who lived in those hippie communes, and didn't leave those communes a full fledged capitalist. In fact, I know people who lived in communes in the 1990s, and had the same experience. It was horrific.

So the colony was on the verge of starvation, and the administrators had no choice but to consider a radical alternative. Capitalism. They didn't call it that, but that's pretty much what it was.

They divided up the land, and gave private ownership rights. They dismantled the communal food system, and each person got to keep whatever food they grew on their own plot.

Everyone started working. Everyone was out in the fields, plowing, and planting food. Soon they had so much food, they were selling it.

From starvation to net exporter, in under a year.

The exact opposite policy... and opposite result... of Hugo Chavez socialism in Venezuela.

So.... no, I don't believe even for a moment that early human civilization was built on cooperation. No evidence of that. Just wishful thinking, that is ideologically driven.
 
Last edited:

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
5,127
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
There is no "zero-sum economics". Wealth is never static. It is growing, or shrinking.
What effect does "zero-sum economics" have on wealth creation?

Zero-sum game - Wikipedia

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.

"If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

"Thus, cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others as much as it increases the amount available for that taker, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally."
What effect does "zero-sum economics" have on wealth creation?

First, that statement itself is contradictory. Zero-sum economics, means that value is static. If wealth is static, then it can't be created.

If wealth can be created, then by definition, it isn't a zero-sum game.

So one of the two statements, must by definition, be false. And if either one is false, then the entire statement is invalid.

The only question is, which one "Zero-sum economic" and "Wealth creation" is the false statement?

Well.... every time anyone anywhere on the planet, makes something that has value.... that value did not exist, before the product that created the value was made.

So wealth creation is true. Zero-sum economics is false.
Which thus destroys your entire post.

So let's illustrate the failure of the Zero-sum economic fallacy, by taking apart that pict you posted.

"You're playing monopoly. One player is given all the property except for Whitechapel Road. They are also given 95% of the bank."

So let's stop there a minute. First, no one is just "given" everything in life. Buffet didn't wake up one morning with $9 Billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock just laying at the foot of his bed.

The reason he has what he has today, is because back when he was 10-years-old, he was taking money from a paper route, and buying stock with it.

The people who own stuff today, have what they owned, because them or their family created it.

They were not just "given" everything. They made it. Before Bezo built Amazon, there was no Amazon.

So in real life, the reason one player has Boardwalk and Park Place, is because that player built Boardwalk and Park Place, and if that player didn't exist, the only property on the whole board would be Whitechapel.

"You are expected to succeed with what is left. Of course you lose immediately. Why? It must be because you are lazy".

Well yes, if you lose immediately, then yeah, you are lazy. Because again, all of those other properties were built by someone.

Go build something. My house, the house I live in right now, 20 years before I bought it, it didn't exist.

A small company, built these homes. Now the people who started that small construction company, could have sat around saying "All the big wealthy people own everything. We are doomed and can't succeed!".

Instead they built properties, and sold them.

All people can do that. Because it isn't a zero-sum game. Phil Robertson, was a drunk working at a bar. He started whittling duck callers. He could have sat with his beer, and complained the little man can't get ahead, and the super wealthy elite own everything, and "Of course you lose immediately".

He could have said that. Instead, he got his butt to work, made something of value, and started selling it.

The lady that lived across the street, decided to babysit kids. $50,000 a year, to have kids watch netflix.

1800-GOT-JUNK... Scudemore $900 pickup, started hauling trash. Milti-millionaire today.

How did that happen?

They created value. There was no daycare service. Then she created a daycare service, and that created value to society, thus she makes good money.

There was no duck callers. Then he created duck callers, and created a product that created value to society, thus he's a multi-millionaire.

There was no junk removal service. Then he created a junk removal service, that created value in society, and thus he's a multi-millionaire.

Do you see the problem with your meme? There is no zero-sum game in life. Monopoly is a zero-sum game, yes, but that's monopoly not real life.


In real life, my Condo did not exist, until someone built it. The reason they are wealthy, is because they built the Condo. They were not 'given' the condo. They built it. The reason they have hundreds of millions in the bank, is not because they were 'given' the money in the bank. It's because I wanted the condo, and thus we engaged in voluntary exchange, where I gave them money and they gave me the condo.

If Monopoly was to conform to real life, I wouldn't be paying someone money based on a roll of the dice. If the price for renting their property was too high, I wouldn't pay the rent. I'd move on.

Thus the person wouldn't get 95% of the money in the bank, unless they engaged in a voluntary exchange.

Further, the other player wouldn't have all the properties on the board, unless he built or bought all those properties, and even if he did... you as the player could build your own property.

That's how life works. Wealth is not static. There is no zero-sum game. Wealth is created, and wealth is destroyed. It is dynamic.

In the real world, there is no one pie that is divided up. In real life, there is multiple pies. You bake a pie. I bake a pie.

If you make a tiny pie, and I make a huge pie, I'm going to have more pie than you. Because you didn't make very much pie. That's how the production of wealth works.

Further, you have the consumption of wealth. If you eat all your pie every single day, and I save my pie, and keep it for the future, I'm going to have more pie than you. That's how the consumption of wealth works.

I'm always shocked when I meet people who earn literally double my yearly income, and they are all poor and in debt. Because even though I earn less, I don't borrow money, and I invest in stocks monthly.

The people with more pie, have more pie because they produce more pie, and save more pie.

The people with less pie, have less because they produce less and/or consume all the pie they make.

That's why rich are rich, and poor are poor.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
5,127
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Ridiculous to even say that. How could America possibly start from scratch, and end up in 200 years, more wealthy than 99% of the planet, which includes dozens on dozens of civilizations that existed thousands of years before us?
Chattel slavery and genocide explain a great deal about how America became rich, or do you find it difficult to understand how free land and free labor make free markets highly profitable?
Actually the opposite is true.

Slavery doesn't generally result in riches, but rather poverty. There are dozens of examples of this throughout history.

In short short short term, obviously if you have people working for you, that you don't have to pay, then it would seem like you would get wealthy.

But that wealth would only apply to owner of the plantation.

It does not apply to anyone else, nor the society at large.

Further, having slaves prevents development. How? Because they can't engage in the capitalist system.

If you have 50 free people in a capitalist system, all 50 are going to find something productive and profitable to do. All 50 are going to become blacksmiths, and farmers, and miners, and ranchers, and on and on and on. All of them are going to invest in building houses, building water wells, or windmills, or making wagons. All are going to be producing, and finding ways of making more production, to make more money, and improve their lives.

Alternatively, what if you have 1 free person, who owns 49 slaves, working a plantation. Only 1 person is now engaged in the system, and even that one person, isn't going to contribute much, because he has slaves working for him.

He doesn't need to find more productive and profitable things to do, because he has free labor. And of course the other 49, are not building homes, or making wagons, because they don't own anything. There is no benefit to them, to find ways to improve wealth creation.

So the growth of wealth is actually destroyed by slavery.

If you doubt that, all you have to do is look at where the wealth was, during the free and slave states. Where was all the wealth? In free states. Even to this day, compare the states with the highest percentage of slaves to free, verse which are the poorest states.

What state had the highest percentage of slave owning households? Do you know? Mississippi.

Most of the most well known of the slave owning states, did the worst economically. Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana.

Even during the time of slavery... they were far behind the northern free states.

And by the way, this is true all over the world. Spain is a perfect example. Spain had millions of tons of gold flowing into it from all over the world, at the height of the Spanish Empire.

At the time, that may seemed like a good thing, but what was the result? The result was the Spanish never had to learn how to engage in capitalism. They never had to find ways of increasing productivity, and producing value, and creating wealthy.

The result was, that after free-lunch... (the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money)..... after the free lunch ended, the Spanish were poor... because they had not built industry and production and wealth creation.

So no, slavery didn't result in the wealth of the country. In fact, it was a hindrance to it.

If 50% of Ohio had slaves, and Mississippi was a free state, then Ohio would be the poorest state today, and Mississippi would be wealthy.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,551
Reaction score
5,127
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Ridiculous. I didn't have a cell phone until I was in my late 20s. I didn't have Air Conditioning until I was in my 20s. There were some years, I didn't have a car, because it broke down, and I didn't have the money to fix it. I didn't have internet until I was in my late 20s.

Those are luxury goods.
Where did you get the idea you are free to supply your own definition of "luxury goods"?

Luxury goods - Wikipedia

"In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, so that expenditures on the good become a greater proportion of overall spending.

"Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods, where demand increases proportionally less than income."

Luxury goods are products that are not essential but are highly desired and associated with wealthy or affluent people.

Necessity Goods


the quality or state of being necessary
something that is necessary : requirement

I did not supply my own definition, I just rejected your false definition. The dictionary had a perfectly good definition, and that is what I use.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If Jeff didn't exist, there would be 800,000 fewer employees. How much better off will people be, if their income drops from "$13 to $30 /hour" to say.... zero?
Without greedy capitalists there would be no jobs, really?
How did humanity survive for thousands of years before Adam Smith?
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
It's ironic that you mention Haiti, when the biggest problem in Haiti, is a lack of capitalism.
Haiti's biggest problem stems from inflicting the only successful slave rebellion in world history on greedy white capitalists:

The Ironic, Tragic History of the Louisiana Purchase That Your Teacher Never Told You

"The 1791 Haitian Revolution secured black independence in the former French colony and sounded the death knell for the European slave trade. It also ensured the expansion of U.S. slavery."

How did US capitalists respond the the Haitian liberation?
Did they free their own slaves or increase slave patrols?
Your freedom comes from chattel slavery and genocide.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Yes, I am just another Capitalist, and we provide all the jobs, we provide all the wealth... and socialists destroy every country they have ever gained control of.
Jobs are a consequence of a loop between consumers and businesses. Obviously, middle class consumers and their demand are true job creators and not parasitic, rich capitalists.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
That's not relevant to the question. How much someone else has, doesn't make any difference to whether or not the employees would be better off, if they earned zero.

If Bezos had been an abortion statistic, the 800,000 workers who currently toil for Amazon would have found productive jobs elsewhere unless you believe Jeff is the greatest monopolist of all times.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
All those people you mentioned, could pack their wealth, and leave the country. They could close down their companies, move out of US, and disappear, living a life of luxury until they die.

Meanwhile, the loss of millions on millions on millions of jobs, would leave a massive part of the population without income.
When capitalists can't find sufficient profit to supply an adequate number of living wage jobs, what is the alternative?

Green Jobs in a Global Green New Deal | Labor Network for Sustainability

"In the depths of the Great Depression, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated launched the New Deal(;) a set of government programs to provide employment and social security, reform tax policies and business practices, and stimulate the economy.

"It included the building of homes, hospitals, school, roads, dams, and electrical grids. The New Deal put millions of people to work and created a new policy framework for America democracy."
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,080
Reaction score
2,690
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Further, what is a living wages is entirely subjective.

What is a living wage in New York City, is different than what is a living wage in Dayton Ohio.

In fact, what is considered a living wage is entirely different than even within New York.
Cost of living varies widely across the US.
So what?


Living wage - Wikipedia

"Living wage campaigns came about partially as a response to Reaganomics and Thatcherism in the US and UK, respectively, which shifted macroeconomic policy towards neoliberalism.[10]

"A living wage, by increasing the purchasing power of low income workers, is supported by Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics which focuses on stimulating demand in order to improve the state of the economy."
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top