Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Uncensored2008]

Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?

If the house is burning down, using the hose to fill the bucket so that you can throw the bucket on the fire, rather than letting the hose run the fire sprinklers is rather stupid.

The economic engine of industry is the ultimate answer to the debacle we are in, raising taxes crushes what little growth we have, turns the hose feeding the fire sprinklers off if you will. It's ill advised and will do far more harm than good.

 

[Texanmike]

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I disagree. I revere the document but there are some significant shortcomings in it. They could be Amended out I suppose but I don't know that it would happen.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I disagree. I revere the document but there are some significant shortcomings in it. They could be Amended out I suppose but I don't know that it would happen.

Mike

I have my assumptions about what you call shortcomings, but I have to ask you yourself: what are those shortcomings?

 

[Vanquish]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a net loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will ever cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits. Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

How will a rise in taxes save the economy? By lowering the debt. If you have a bucket with two hoses - one spending cuts and the other tax revenue - that's going to fill the bucket twice as fast as just one (we can argue about the proportions, I just said twice for brevity's sake).

It's mind-numbing to me that this extreme meme of "the government should NEVER take our money" has gone out of control. I'm not advocating wasteful or unconstitutional spending, but if the American people voice their will by voting for people who vote for programs...the only recourse is to vote the bums out and vote in different people!

Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane. Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.

 

[Immanuel]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a net loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will ever cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.


The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.


Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

How will a rise in taxes save the economy? By lowering the debt. If you have a bucket with two hoses - one spending cuts and the other tax revenue - that's going to fill the bucket twice as fast as just one (we can argue about the proportions, I just said twice for brevity's sake).

It's mind-numbing to me that this extreme meme of "the government should NEVER take our money" has gone out of control. I'm not advocating wasteful or unconstitutional spending, but if the American people voice their will by voting for people who vote for programs...the only recourse is to vote the bums out and vote in different people!

Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane. Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.

I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but the reason corporations are not investing in this country is because of a political attitude hell bent on driving them away or under.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I disagree. I revere the document but there are some significant shortcomings in it. They could be Amended out I suppose but I don't know that it would happen.

Mike

I have my assumptions about what you call shortcomings, but I have to ask you yourself: what are those shortcomings?

Hmm. Where to start?

The Supreme court having life time appointments is probabaly the most glaring. The supreme court SHOULD answer to the states, (not in congress).

The 17th Amendment is another example.

Much of the language. The "commerce" clause, for example. At the time it was clear what it meant (see the Potomac Company debates) but the language is problematic because most people (either intentionally or unintentionally) are ignorant as to the original purpose of the clause.

It should probably include a glossery of terms for clarification. That would have been extremely useful.

It is a wonderful document but it is flawed. I'm fine with amendments if you can close all of the loopholes because we don't follow the original intent. I know, I'm crazy for thinking we should consider the original intent of the clauses.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a net loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will ever cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.


The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.


Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan. Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote. I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.

How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.

How will a rise in taxes save the economy? By lowering the debt. If you have a bucket with two hoses - one spending cuts and the other tax revenue - that's going to fill the bucket twice as fast as just one (we can argue about the proportions, I just said twice for brevity's sake).

So lowering the debt will save the economy. I agree. Your hose metaphor does not work because there are different side effects to taxation and spending cuts. They both have the potential effect of reducing the deficit, but the spending hose is filled with water and the tax raising hose is mixed with petroleum.

It's mind-numbing to me that this extreme meme of "the government should NEVER take our money" has gone out of control. I'm not advocating wasteful or unconstitutional spending, but if the American people voice their will by voting for people who vote for programs...the only recourse is to vote the bums out and vote in different people!

I don't recall anyone saying government should never tax. I think you fabricated that on your own.

Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane.

This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for everyone. You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.

Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.

Corporations are doing better than ever? Is that why government had to bail them out so they wouldn't fail? Complete bullshit. Nobody is counting on corporations to be magnanimous--they don't have to be. But many mistakenly count on government to be magnanimous, which is the irony of your statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers. They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody. We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.

 

[Texanmike]

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody. We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.

Why not pay congress more, give them better retirements and increase the number of congressmen?

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody. We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.

Why not pay congress more, give them better retirements and increase the number of congressmen?

Mike

How would that help anything? I have been advocating taking away all benefits for Congressional representativs. Make them fund their own 401K plans, healthcare, etc. or let the states do that for them if they want. But nobody should be able to use their public service to acquire multi-million dollar lifetime retirement plans or retire in grand style on the public dime. Take away that AND ability of Congress to use the people's money to buy influence and favors and you have people running for office who wish to serve their country again instead of wanting in for their own self-serving purposes.

And you have voters who want competent public servants in office again instead of the person they think will funnel the most goodies in their direction.

 

[Texanmike]

I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody. We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.

Why not pay congress more, give them better retirements and increase the number of congressmen?

Mike

How would that help anything? I have been advocating taking away all benefits for Congressional representativs. Make them fund their own 401K plans, healthcare, etc. or let the states do that for them if they want. But nobody should be able to use their public service to acquire multi-million dollar lifetime retirement plans or retire in grand style on the public dime. Take away that AND ability of Congress to use the people's money to buy influence and favors and you have people running for office who wish to serve their country again instead of wanting in for their own self-serving purposes.

And you have voters who want competent public servants in office again instead of the person they think will funnel the most goodies in their direction.

I would advocate a 1.5 million dollar salary and a 500k/yr pension. I would say that in exchange for those terms you agree to never receive compensation for anything you do after you retire. You can work at a charity but you can't hold a job, ever. If you receive a dime after that you immediately lose all retirement benefits.

The reson I say this is I don't think you will ever attract even a simple majority of congressmen who's primary concern is not their own pocket book. By paying them 1.5 million a year and guaranteeing a 500k/yr pension without the posibility of working you make it virtually impossible to "buy" their votes with promises of high paying jobs/book deals after their term. At the same time, it makes them more concerned about their constituants because the drop from 1.5 mil to .5 million is a pretty significant drop in pay. Increase the number of congressmen to one for every 200,000 residents.

I know that your overall payroll increases but I think you will make up for that 1000 fold by eliminating the corruption and purchasing of votes by special interest groups. At the same time, you increase accountability. Right now the general population feels hopeless about changing the political landscape. Why? Senators represent as many as 17 MILLION voters and Representatives represent on average 827,000 people. How can they effectively represent a block of people that large?

While you're at it, undo the 17th amendment and give the states (who founded the union to begin with) representation in the federal government.

Look, I know its radical. It sounds crazy if you look at the numbers but it is slightly less crazy than expecting to get 535 decent men to represent us in the current system. We've been doing that for the better part of 250 years and look where its gotten us.

Mike

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not pay congress more, give them better retirements and increase the number of congressmen?

Mike

How would that help anything? I have been advocating taking away all benefits for Congressional representativs. Make them fund their own 401K plans, healthcare, etc. or let the states do that for them if they want. But nobody should be able to use their public service to acquire multi-million dollar lifetime retirement plans or retire in grand style on the public dime. Take away that AND ability of Congress to use the people's money to buy influence and favors and you have people running for office who wish to serve their country again instead of wanting in for their own self-serving purposes.

And you have voters who want competent public servants in office again instead of the person they think will funnel the most goodies in their direction.

I would advocate a 1.5 million dollar salary and a 500k/yr pension. I would say that in exchange for those terms you agree to never receive compensation for anything you do after you retire. You can work at a charity but you can't hold a job, ever. If you receive a dime after that you immediately lose all retirement benefits.

The reson I say this is I don't think you will ever attract even a simple majority of congressmen who's primary concern is not their own pocket book. By paying them 1.5 million a year and guaranteeing a 500k/yr pension without the posibility of working you make it virtually impossible to "buy" their votes with promises of high paying jobs/book deals after their term. At the same time, it makes them more concerned about their constituants because the drop from 1.5 mil to .5 million is a pretty significant drop in pay. Increase the number of congressmen to one for every 200,000 residents.

I know that your overall payroll increases but I think you will make up for that 1000 fold by eliminating the corruption and purchasing of votes by special interest groups. At the same time, you increase accountability. Right now the general population feels hopeless about changing the political landscape. Why? Senators represent as many as 17 MILLION voters and Representatives represent on average 827,000 people. How can they effectively represent a block of people that large?

While you're at it, undo the 17th amendment and give the states (who founded the union to begin with) representation in the federal government.

Look, I know its radical. It sounds crazy if you look at the numbers but it is slightly less crazy than expecting to get 535 decent men to represent us in the current system. We've been doing that for the better part of 250 years and look where its gotten us.

Mike

Maybe I'm too idealist, but I still see your plan as attracting only people who are in it for their personal gain instead of any kind of commitment to doing what is best for the country.

Until about 70 years ago, we had no trouble attracting citizen legislators who served their country for a time in Congress and then went home to live under the laws they passed. I do not doubt for a minute that there are men and women of similar character now who would serve to make a difference if we make that the norm.

Campaigns would no longer be multi-million or billion dollar enterprises which would allow many people to participate who are currently shut out of the system. Lobbyists would lobby for better laws for everybody instead of benefits for their clients. And there would be no incentive to pull dirty tricks or do anything however immoral to stay in office as it would not increase one's benefits or fortune to do so.

And there would be no incentive to sign up ignorant and incompetent voters just to get somebody into office on the strength of that person rewarding them in some way. There would be little reason to cheat. And almost all of the corruption now apparent in Congress would be eliminated as well as the corrupting effect on the beneficiaries of Congressional benevolence.

 

[oreo]

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. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

Under this admininstration's policies--"We're supposed to punish success while rewarding failure."

So much for the "LAND OF OPPORTUNITY"--

 

[Vanquish]

I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a net loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will ever cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.


The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.


Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.


How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.

Not in the context of the post I to which I was responding. There's still a "problem" when corporations or small businesses foster petty politics and favoritism/nepotism. Good people are treated badly every day because daddy's son is treated differently than JoeWorker #234. (I know, I used to be daddy's son.) To be fair, individuals can do what they want with their own companies...but that doesn't mean that what they will do will be moral or just. And that's what I was responding to...the idea that only government jobs have immoral business practices.


So lowering the debt will save the economy. I agree. Your hose metaphor does not work because there are different side effects to taxation and spending cuts. They both have the potential effect of reducing the deficit, but the spending hose is filled with water and the tax raising hose is mixed with petroleum.


I don't recall anyone saying government should never tax. I think you fabricated that on your own.

You and i don't share the same memory base, so perhaps I've experienced something you havent. The

The hose metaphor is simplistic, but it does work. While there are definitely different effects to the two methods, somehow lots of conservatives want to perpetuate the myth that tax money couldn't possibly lower the debt of our nation. Their argument, in part, is based on comparing the size of the debt to the size of existing wealth. If you perpetuate that assertion, you're misguided. Tax money spends just as good as budget cuts. In fact, budget cuts mean less taxes. If we reduce the debt from the bottom up and the top down, both together will speed the recovery.

Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane.

This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for everyone. You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.

Take your words out of my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. I was speaking specifically of trickle-down, which doesn't work. Your comment presupposes only ONE option for capital, which is investment. There are other options, including doing nothing and cashing out their return. This idea that if we keep giving the job-builders money that they necessarily are going to reinvest is flawed. Flawed BIG TIME.

Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.

Corporations are doing better than ever? Is that why government had to bail them out so they wouldn't fail? Complete bullshit. Nobody is counting on corporations to be magnanimous--they don't have to be. But many mistakenly count on government to be magnanimous, which is the irony of your statement.

Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

Why Recession Fears Are Overblown - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
(big us companies are in great shape)

Corporate Profits Are Up. And The Average American Worker? Let Them Eat An iPad! » Principled Progressive

A boom in corporate profits, a bust in jobs, wages - Yahoo! Finance
(boom in corporate profits)

Yeah, the market correction has helped business...and it's been helping business for awhile now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.

Not in the context of the post I to which I was responding. There's still a "problem" when corporations or small businesses foster petty politics and favoritism/nepotism. Good people are treated badly every day because daddy's son is treated differently than JoeWorker #234. (I know, I used to be daddy's son.) To be fair, individuals can do what they want with their own companies...but that doesn't mean that what they will do will be moral or just. And that's what I was responding to...the idea that only government jobs have immoral business practices.


So lowering the debt will save the economy. I agree. Your hose metaphor does not work because there are different side effects to taxation and spending cuts. They both have the potential effect of reducing the deficit, but the spending hose is filled with water and the tax raising hose is mixed with petroleum.


I don't recall anyone saying government should never tax. I think you fabricated that on your own.

You and i don't share the same memory base, so perhaps I've experienced something you havent. The

The hose metaphor is simplistic, but it does work. While there are definitely different effects to the two methods, somehow lots of conservatives want to perpetuate the myth that tax money couldn't possibly lower the debt of our nation. Their argument, in part, is based on comparing the size of the debt to the size of existing wealth. If you perpetuate that assertion, you're misguided. Tax money spends just as good as budget cuts. In fact, budget cuts mean less taxes. If we reduce the debt from the bottom up and the top down, both together will speed the recovery.



This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for everyone. You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.

Take your words out of my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. I was speaking specifically of trickle-down, which doesn't work. Your comment presupposes only ONE option for capital, which is investment. There are other options, including doing nothing and cashing out their return. This idea that if we keep giving the job-builders money that they necessarily are going to reinvest is flawed. Flawed BIG TIME.

Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.

Corporations are doing better than ever? Is that why government had to bail them out so they wouldn't fail? Complete bullshit. Nobody is counting on corporations to be magnanimous--they don't have to be. But many mistakenly count on government to be magnanimous, which is the irony of your statement.

Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

Why Recession Fears Are Overblown - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
(big us companies are in great shape)

Corporate Profits Are Up. And The Average American Worker? Let Them Eat An iPad! » Principled Progressive

A boom in corporate profits, a bust in jobs, wages - Yahoo! Finance
(boom in corporate profits)

Yeah, the market correction has helped business...and it's been helping business for awhile now.

They're saving their money until they see how bad Obamacare turns out.

Repeal Obamacare and they'll start hiring and growing now.

 

[ShackledNation]

Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.

Not in the context of the post I to which I was responding. There's still a "problem" when corporations or small businesses foster petty politics and favoritism/nepotism. Good people are treated badly every day because daddy's son is treated differently than JoeWorker #234. (I know, I used to be daddy's son.) To be fair, individuals can do what they want with their own companies...but that doesn't mean that what they will do will be moral or just. And that's what I was responding to...the idea that only government jobs have immoral business practices.

What is immoral about giving your son a job? If your son is bad at the job, it is not immoral to give him the job, only stupid. Again, the only one who ever mentioned government being the only institution with immoral business practices is you. I never mentioned anything of the sort.

The hose metaphor is simplistic, but it does work. While there are definitely different effects to the two methods, somehow lots of conservatives want to perpetuate the myth that tax money couldn't possibly lower the debt of our nation.

I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best means to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.

Their argument, in part, is based on comparing the size of the debt to the size of existing wealth. If you perpetuate that assertion, you're misguided. Tax money spends just as good as budget cuts. In fact, budget cuts mean less taxes. If we reduce the debt from the bottom up and the top down, both together will speed the recovery.

If you taxed the top 1% at 100%, you could not pay off the debt. Such arguments are in response to those who demand only tax increases and no spending cuts. Also, how to you figure budget cuts mean tax decreases? Increasing the budget obviously has not led to tax increases. What you are ignoring is that tax hikes also have negative economic effects. If the end goal is a better economy, you have to look at all the affects of a given policy on everyone, not just one affect (reducing the debt) on one group (government). You are correct both will speed the reduction of debt, but it does not follow that reducing the debt by any means will equally speed the recovery.

This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for everyone. You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.

Take your words out of my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. I was speaking specifically of trickle-down, which doesn't work. Your comment presupposes only ONE option for capital, which is investment. There are other options, including doing nothing and cashing out their return. This idea that if we keep giving the job-builders money that they necessarily are going to reinvest is flawed. Flawed BIG TIME.

First of all, nobody is advocating that we give the job builders more money. What is being advocated is that we stop taking money from them. The money is rightfully theirs in the first place, not government's. It is their property. I am not a trickle down economist, so appeals against such a philosophy are meaningless to me. I follow the Austrian school. My comment does not presuppose only one option. There is investment or consumption. Consumption will result in the purchase of more goods and services, thus increasing demand for those goods and services. Investment, another option, is one yo uare probably aware. What you are presupposing is that corporations just sit on their money and hoard it, doing nothing with it. This money is either held in bank accounts, through which it can be loaned to start other projects, or in investments, which also provides funding for production. Money is not hoarded under mattresses. Furthermore, if for some reason money is hoarded under mattresses (which is pretty much never), or if banks refuse to loan (closer to the current situation), it is because certain conditions in the economy are not favorable for investment or business creation. And when you have massive regulations, a Federal Reserve that controls monetary policy and sets interest rates below the market price, and massive new government programs that could change where money must be put, you bet economic growth will be hindered.

Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

Why Recession Fears Are Overblown - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
(big us companies are in great shape)

Corporate Profits Are Up. And The Average American Worker? Let Them Eat An iPad! » Principled Progressive

A boom in corporate profits, a bust in jobs, wages - Yahoo! Finance
(boom in corporate profits)

Yeah, the market correction has helped business...and it's been helping business for awhile now.

There has been little market correction. Government intervention continually tries to prevent it. Corporations are in bed with government, and are given bailouts when they should have failed. Heard of TARP? This is exactly what I was saying earlier. These current profits are examples of profits earned because of government. You seem to forget that key point. Also, the Federal Reserve has been creating massive amounts of money, which end up in the hands of corporations. The increase in supply of money decreases its purchasing power, thus raising prices. Prices are raised depending where the money goes. The reason profits are up is not because of the market, but because of government once again wrongly assuming throwing money at a problem will fix it. The problem is government intervention in the market, trying to sustain a corporate bubble, rather than allowing it to correct. Blaming the profits on the correction process when they are a result of the hindrance of that process is a gross distortion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

So do you think Obama should just confiscate those cash reserves, for the good of the party?

Also, did you happen to notice something?

1. Citigroup $526B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
2. JPMorgan Chase $414B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
3. Wells Fargo $112B
4. General Electric $82B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions - Obama's Job Czar and moving 50,000 jobs to China
5. Microsoft $53B

 

[ShackledNation]

Vanquish, I suggest you read this article.
Adding Up the Government?s Total Bailout Tab - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Government has spent 2.5 trillion on bailouts. And you wonder why these companies have profits? Think about it. People are buying less because people are making less. The costs of production, because of inflation, are rising. Why on earth would company profits be increasing under these conditions? The answer is government intervention.

In fact, the GE bailout, which amount to over 100 billion, is larger than its current holdings.

 

[Immanuel]

It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed. I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike

We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.

I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody. We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.

A balanced budget is not the trick. Hell, I could write a balanced budget for the government with no problem. All I have to do is add up all the planned spending and then throw in the tax revenue followed by boosting the "expected" revenue to meet the planned expenses and voila! we have a balanced budget.

What has to happen is that they have to be held to the budget and held accountable for it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.

Not in the context of the post I to which I was responding. There's still a "problem" when corporations or small businesses foster petty politics and favoritism/nepotism. Good people are treated badly every day because daddy's son is treated differently than JoeWorker #234. (I know, I used to be daddy's son.) To be fair, individuals can do what they want with their own companies...but that doesn't mean that what they will do will be moral or just. And that's what I was responding to...the idea that only government jobs have immoral business practices.

What is immoral about giving your son a job? If your son is bad at the job, it is not immoral to give him the job, only stupid. Again, the only one who ever mentioned government being the only institution with immoral business practices is you. I never mentioned anything of the sort.

What's immoral about it? If it's at the expense of someone who deserved a promotion, but you give it to your son...that's immoral.

Holy **** you are annoying. The whole point of what you wrote at the section you wrote it in was that government was somehow more immoral than private business. I'm going to have to scroll back again...and prove you wrong again. It's almost pointless, because I'll do the work of going back and you'll just deny what's in front of your face.

I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Ok. There you go. YOUR quote. You're saying that private business does not operate subject to politics and favoritism. Quote "the Austrian school" all you want, but if you don't realize that private business can be petty and immoral, then you've got NO grasp on reality.



I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best means to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.


If you taxed the top 1% at 100%, you could not pay off the debt. Such arguments are in response to those who demand only tax increases and no spending cuts. Also, how to you figure budget cuts mean tax decreases? Increasing the budget obviously has not led to tax increases. What you are ignoring is that tax hikes also have negative economic effects. If the end goal is a better economy, you have to look at all the affects of a given policy on everyone, not just one affect (reducing the debt) on one group (government). You are correct both will speed the reduction of debt, but it does not follow that reducing the debt by any means will equally speed the recovery.

This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for everyone. You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.

First of all, nobody is advocating that we give the job builders more money. What is being advocated is that we stop taking money from them. The money is rightfully theirs in the first place, not government's. It is their property. I am not a trickle down economist, so appeals against such a philosophy are meaningless to me. I follow the Austrian school. My comment does not presuppose only one option.


So you say, but yet you attribute only single assumptions to me...but mystically you give yourself the benefit of the doubt on what your assumptions were. Quit being a twerp.

There is investment or consumption. Consumption will result in the purchase of more goods and services, thus increasing demand for those goods and services. Investment, another option, is one yo uare probably aware. What you are presupposing is that corporations just sit on their money and hoard it, doing nothing with it. This money is either held in bank accounts, through which it can be loaned to start other projects, or in investments, which also provides funding for production. Money is not hoarded under mattresses. Furthermore, if for some reason money is hoarded under mattresses (which is pretty much never), or if banks refuse to loan (closer to the current situation), it is because certain conditions in the economy are not favorable for investment or business creation. And when you have massive regulations, a Federal Reserve that controls monetary policy and sets interest rates below the market price, and massive new government programs that could change where money must be put, you bet economic growth will be hindered.

Of course, even when not being spent, money isn't put under mattresses. Thanks for being pedantic. You continue to regurgitate the same stuff that I've posted and others have posted earlier in the thread about risk and market uncertainty.

The typical conservative knee-jerk reactions to regulations. Sure, some regulations are bad, some are good. Some protect. Some hinder business. If you'd like to get specific on which ones have what effect, perhaps we can see where we overlap in our thinking. Otherwise, the hackneyed platitudes about regulations are just clutter.

At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing and not bring up other bullshit, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.

Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

Why Recession Fears Are Overblown - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
(big us companies are in great shape)

Corporate Profits Are Up. And The Average American Worker? Let Them Eat An iPad! » Principled Progressive

A boom in corporate profits, a bust in jobs, wages - Yahoo! Finance
(boom in corporate profits)

Yeah, the market correction has helped business...and it's been helping business for awhile now.

There has been little market correction. Government intervention continually tries to prevent it. Corporations are in bed with government, and are given bailouts when they should have failed. Heard of TARP? This is exactly what I was saying earlier. These current profits are examples of profits earned because of government. You seem to forget that key point. Also, the Federal Reserve has been creating massive amounts of money, which end up in the hands of corporations. The increase in supply of money decreases its purchasing power, thus raising prices. Prices are raised depending where the money goes. The reason profits are up is not because of the market, but because of government once again wrongly assuming throwing money at a problem will fix it. The problem is government intervention in the market, trying to sustain a corporate bubble, rather than allowing it to correct. Blaming the profits on the correction process when they are a result of the hindrance of that process is a gross distortion.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

So do you think Obama should just confiscate those cash reserves, for the good of the party?

Also, did you happen to notice something?

1. Citigroup $526B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
2. JPMorgan Chase $414B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
3. Wells Fargo $112B
4. General Electric $82B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions - Obama's Job Czar and moving 50,000 jobs to China
5. Microsoft $53B

See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the ******* topic at all. Of course I don't advocate that. In fact, if you weren't lazy and would read what I post, I've already discussed the lame meme of "confiscating the wealth of the rich". FFS, think before you post.

Either you get that money from two sources (albeit with their own side effects) is faster than one source or you don't. I can't suddenly wake you up to that fact.

As far as your bailouts...you're cherry picking 5 companies and declaring victory. Hell, I'll even grant you that GE is a behemoth, but compare the total GDP to the contribution from those companies ...then go sit at the kiddie table.

Of course tax cuts are returning money that doesn't belong to the government. I've explained that myself before in this very thread. (It's amazing how when some people want to get their spew out of their mouth, they disregard the person they're talking to so they can hear themselves talk.)

The immutable fact remains that we ALL ran up this bill. Every citizen and illegal in the country. We are ALL responsible for paying it back. The fact that people with money and power can use their advantages to pay less is something that we, as a society, can change.