What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,886
Reaction score
3,630
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
In the US, rich people have more power than the state. T
Why do you believe power should be controlled by rich people?
Diezf3xWkAAXvYA.jpg
It is an effect of Capitalism where those with the most Gold can afford to make the most rules.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
We need a Zuckerberg Tax! 100% of everything over $1 Billion.
How many billionaires were in the US before the Reagan tax cuts? In case you've forgotten, money, markets, corporations and billionaires are created by the politically constructed laws and institution that structure economic activity in a given society.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
why aren't you demanding the demofks stop spending? I am saying stop the spending to them all, even trump.
What about...
what-is-the-paradox-of-thrift-is-saving-good-or_1.png

What is the paradox of thrift Is Saving Good or BadIs it actual 2 Give an instance - India Dictionary

"Everyone suddenly needed to pay down all that debt they had taken on so exuberantly during the bubble.

"In other words, everyone wanted to save, and no one wanted to borrow or spend.

"This is a recipe for deep and long-lasting disaster, famously described by John Maynard Keynes as the paradox of thrift: Although it’s normally a virtue for individuals to save money, it brings the economy to a grinding halt when everyone stops spending at once.

"Factories are shuttered, workers are laid off, and unemployment skyrockets.

"The only way to avoid the worst is if someone steps in with massive amounts of spending to keep the economy afloat until everyone’s bills are paid down and normal life resumes."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/austerity-reinhart-rogoff-stimulus-debt-ceiling/
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
There isn't any person in society that isn't a slave. no matter what you may think. they owe something to someone always.
"...it has been taken for granted that ownership of capital leads to power over production.. but capital’s power over production cannot be based on ownership.. because we have prohibited slavery.. you’re not allowed to sell yourself as a slave.."

economic democracy
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,179
Reaction score
13,972
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
why aren't you demanding the demofks stop spending? I am saying stop the spending to them all, even trump.
What about...
what-is-the-paradox-of-thrift-is-saving-good-or_1.png

What is the paradox of thrift Is Saving Good or BadIs it actual 2 Give an instance - India Dictionary

"Everyone suddenly needed to pay down all that debt they had taken on so exuberantly during the bubble.

"In other words, everyone wanted to save, and no one wanted to borrow or spend.

"This is a recipe for deep and long-lasting disaster, famously described by John Maynard Keynes as the paradox of thrift: Although it’s normally a virtue for individuals to save money, it brings the economy to a grinding halt when everyone stops spending at once.

"Factories are shuttered, workers are laid off, and unemployment skyrockets.

"The only way to avoid the worst is if someone steps in with massive amounts of spending to keep the economy afloat until everyone’s bills are paid down and normal life resumes."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/austerity-reinhart-rogoff-stimulus-debt-ceiling/

Yeah, that's our problem, too much savings........DURR!
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,375
Reaction score
11,491
Points
2,030
why aren't you demanding the demofks stop spending? I am saying stop the spending to them all, even trump.
What about...
what-is-the-paradox-of-thrift-is-saving-good-or_1.png

What is the paradox of thrift Is Saving Good or BadIs it actual 2 Give an instance - India Dictionary

"Everyone suddenly needed to pay down all that debt they had taken on so exuberantly during the bubble.

"In other words, everyone wanted to save, and no one wanted to borrow or spend.

"This is a recipe for deep and long-lasting disaster, famously described by John Maynard Keynes as the paradox of thrift: Although it’s normally a virtue for individuals to save money, it brings the economy to a grinding halt when everyone stops spending at once.

"Factories are shuttered, workers are laid off, and unemployment skyrockets.

"The only way to avoid the worst is if someone steps in with massive amounts of spending to keep the economy afloat until everyone’s bills are paid down and normal life resumes."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/austerity-reinhart-rogoff-stimulus-debt-ceiling/
I was referring to government spending? Odd you went there!
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,968
Reaction score
5,949
Points
1,130
Capitalism is a game in which both sides (motivated by self interest) benefit from a/the transaction.

You have a choice of when and where to participate.
Under capitalism the vast majority of participants have a choice between selling their labor or starving.
General rule of politics: whenever someone is trying to tell you your choice is limited to two options, they're lying. The options are endless. Under capitalism you get to make the choice. Under socialism, er - "economic democracy", the government chooses for you.


It means the government decides.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Majority rule is good for some things. It's idiotic for an economy because everyone has different needs and desires, which don't always conform to the needs and desires of the majority.
It's idiotic to construct an economy where a small minority of participants decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how to distribute any surplus.

Capitalism follows the idiocy to its ultimate conclusion as seen on financial statements:

Capital Income + retained earnings= Revenue-(Employee Income + Cost of Materials)

Economic democracy would rewrite the formula as follows:

Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue-(Capital income + Cost of Materials)

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift.

"Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'"
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,179
Reaction score
13,972
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Majority rule is good for some things. It's idiotic for an economy because everyone has different needs and desires, which don't always conform to the needs and desires of the majority.
It's idiotic to construct an economy where a small minority of participants decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how to distribute any surplus.

Capitalism follows the idiocy to its ultimate conclusion as seen on financial statements:

Capital Income + retained earnings= Revenue-(Employee Income + Cost of Materials)

Economic democracy would rewrite the formula as follows:

Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue-(Capital income + Cost of Materials)

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift.

"Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'"

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

You should definitely start a company and do that.
Post your results here.

"Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

Where should they show up on the balance sheet?

1618849924401.png


Any of the above fit?
Maybe one not listed here?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,968
Reaction score
5,949
Points
1,130
Majority rule is good for some things. It's idiotic for an economy because everyone has different needs and desires, which don't always conform to the needs and desires of the majority.
It's idiotic to construct an economy where a small minority of participants decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how to distribute any surplus.

It's no more or less idiotic than the people making that call - ie the participants in the market. They're the ones who give their money to "a small minority".

What we're really contrasting here is the value of majority rule vs the market. Under majority rule every person gets one vote, and everyone is compelled to honor the preferences of the majority. In a free market every dollar gets one vote, and people are free to go their own way. ie spend their money how they wish regardless of the majority preference. To me, the latter is a much better way to allocate power in society because it acknowledges and accommodates the fact that people have different values.

Obviously, you prefer the former, and, in a market system, you seem to think it's unfair that people with more dollars have more votes. From my perspective, that's a feature, not a bug. It's what makes the market better than majority rule for making economic decisions.

The thing is, in a free market, how many votes (dollars) someone has isn't static. It changes depending on how well they serve the interests of the market. People who squander their votes (dollars) on goods and services that no one values, will lose them. People who efficiently provide people with the things they want and need will get more dollars - more economic power. Putting money into the hands of people who use it wisely is a good thing, even if those people are a "small minority".
 
Last edited:

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If either side feels the result of a negotiation is a loss, they should decline. And that's what people do, despite your delusions.
My delusions don't extend to the inherent imbalance between employers and employees in capitalism; employers decide on how much to pay and any employee who disagrees is free to find another capitalist to work for
thatcherTINA1.jpg
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,968
Reaction score
5,949
Points
1,130
If either side feels the result of a negotiation is a loss, they should decline. And that's what people do, despite your delusions.
My delusions don't extend to the inherent imbalance between employers and employees in capitalism; employers decide on how much to pay and any employee who disagrees is free to find another capitalist to work for

They're free to do whatever they want. They can find another capitalist to work for, or become their own "capitalist".
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
39,056
Reaction score
3,334
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
You are not "governed" by Wall Street. That's what you don't get. If a business pisses you off, or you just don't want what they're selling, you can refuse to do business with them. There's nothing they can do about it.
Apparently you're incapable of distinguishing between a plutocracy and a democracy:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/liberateamericadownload.pdf

"In 2008, Wall Street plunged the U.S. economy into the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

"Wall Street received a generous public bailout and quickly recovered.

"Main Street continues to languish.

"Politicians and pundits rarely inquire into the reasons for the disparity.

"Doing so would expose the reality that the United States is ruled as a plutocracy, not a democracy, and would focus citizen anger on the structure of the institutional system that gives Wall Street bankers their power."
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top