Yes, and, for the third time today alone, there has to be a way to address that without sweeping up everyone else in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Printable View
Yes, and, for the third time today alone, there has to be a way to address that without sweeping up everyone else in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I still don't understand why you think investments represent harder work or are somehow more important than income and should be given the benefit of a lower tax rate. You haven't done a good job explaining that except for spouting off half true or completely false information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Alan Greenspan, Newt Gingrich, etc. have also recommended this 0% capital gains rate. Yoshi is in great company.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
It has nothing to do with harder work. For someone who bought stock, let's say, with money that they earned while working a "normal" job, which was already taxed, why exactly is the government entitled to the benefits of that already taxed money being used intelligently?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
The federal government adds so little value to anything that we should easily be able to keep the small handful of critical programs afloat and pay off the debt with the current tax rates if not lower. Or, even more ideally, switch to a use tax where there are no loopholes or under the table payments. You want fair? There's nothing more fair than a use tax.
This is completely nonsensical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'll give you an example of why: Let's say I take money from my job, and buy a computer with it. I then use that computer to start flipping Beanie Babies on eBay. I am taxed on the income earned. It's the exact same thing.
It's taxed because it is income - you have more money than you started with. The difference is taxed. Just like when I have a job, I am taxed on the income earned.
I love the little man argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
This isn't how the long term capital gains rate is used. Very few working class and middle class people own stock.
There's a lawful definition of investment. If you want it expanded to Beanie Babies, write your Congressman. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but by law they are not the same thing today.
I'm still waiting for evidence of this. All you've shown is that the top 20% own more than the bottom 80%. Shocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Hell, what are your definitions of "very few," "working class," and "middle class," because that top 20% you posted earlier overlaps greatly with what I consider middle class and, at the low end, working class.
Yes because the rich people wrote the laws. WHICH IS THE POINT! That's why dave brought it up in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I don't have time to find the most recent figures:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica...nvestments.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica...type_other.gif
Jesus Christ. Anyone who flips Beanie Babies could buy stock instead. Anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
403 errors?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Well, why is trading stock emphasized over other forms of earning income? Income is income. What if flipping Beanie Babies is more beneficial to society? We are discouraging it by having people throw their money at the stock market. And no, "write your Congressman" is not a good answer. My Congressman sucks all the dicks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
We're running in circles now. You still haven't explained exactly why it's a good idea. Your argument about double-taxation is complete bollocks.
When you say middle class doesn't own stock, do you simply mean they don't engage in trading on their own?
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The page is a dick and won't let me link the relevant graphs. It should be pretty obvious that the large majority of financial holdings are held by the very well-off.
That's a fair question. Going back to your example, an individual who flips stuff on ebay should ideally pay the same rate as someone who flips stocks, bonds, futures, etc. It is indeed all the same but is different from earning money from work, since that is newly earned money, as opposed to the proceeds of money already earned and taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I'm not reading all that. Which graphs were you trying to post? The majority of them appear to be more relative % ones instead of how many people own stock in each income bracket. I want to see some information on what % of working and middle class people own at least one investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I'm not finding that number for you. I'm sure it's a decent number, but when you ignore their home and 401(k) I'm sure that number drops to almost nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The relevant information from the charts I tried to post is just this. The bottom 90% of incomes own 19% of all stocks and mutual funds, 23% of all non-home real estate, and 2% of all financial securities as of 2007.
Except that's not really true, and even if it were, it's impossible to separate it. In the example I cited, I am earning income from my computer, but I am also also earning it through labor as well. Likewise, when I go to a job, I am earning money for my employer, and charging a rate for that (my salary). But I also invested in my education, the car I use to get to work, my suit, etc. My company invested in the facility, my computer, my Windows license, the IT staff that helps me when I lose my password, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You can see how this can get very complicated. That's why income is taxed. But the problem is that a very narrow range of the income-generating activities in this country is overwhelemingly favored by the tax code. It just so happens to be the one income-generating activity that is massively over-represented by the very rich.
The middle class owns a lot of stock, but most of it is in vehicles that don't earn capital gains, like 401(k)'s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
In terms of owning actual stock that can earn capital gains, yea, the middle class has very little. The vast majority of middle class wealth is tied up in their homes, which is why the past several years has been so bad for middle class wealth.
I wouldn't count the home, as that just cooks the books, but it would be interesting to see with and without 401(k).
Ok that's what I thought.Quote:
The middle class owns a lot of stock, but most of it is in vehicles that don't earn capital gains, like 401(k)'s.
In terms of owning actual stock that can earn capital gains, yea, the middle class has very little.
Don't a lot of people invest into their home? I always thought property was a big deal, why disregard that? Maybe because I know home owners in Denver, but investing into your home in Denver is a very strong move as renting is pretty much capped out here, and certain areas are growing a huge amount.
A friend who bought his house for about $170k, has dropped a couple hundred thousand into it, and the house is now worth about $500-$600k as similar houses on the block are selling for around that much instantly.
That's an interesting chicken and egg discussion. Did the rich go to capital gains because of the tax advantage, or was the capital gains tax advantage created because the rich were already there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Again, you can't hide from a usage tax, where it seems to me those that are truly trying to avoid paying much or anything will always find a way it's not as simple as a usage tax. Because even if you had no exemptions in income tax, people could still find ways to hide money or be paid off the books.
I'm only saying disregard it because it muddies the water of the discussion we're having. I suspect a lot of people buy a house because they think they should and have no damn idea why. It's like getting married, except that I know why I bought my house...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
There's no chicken and egg argument at all. The capital gains tax advantage was created because the rich were already thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Real estate also has a VERY VERY VERY favorable tax treatment. $250,000 exemption in capital gains (yes you pay tax on gains in real estate - because it's income) and huge deductions for mortgage interest and property tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
I personally don't like these for the same reasons why I don't like the capital gains tax, but I am more in favor of them because these are tax treatments that lots of middle class people use and it tangibly improves their lives. The rich still get more of it, because they own nicer houses, but it's not as slanted as the capital gains tax.
That's great for people who bought homes after 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
I suspect he was able to buy it for $170k because it was after 2009 as well. I'm leery as hell of actively investing in real estate beyond my primary residence unless I picked up a foreclosure for pennies on the dollar like that may have been.
Yeah but the same was true for stocks... though I guess you can't really short sell homes.
There's always a winning side in stocks...
He's had the home since 2007. The Neighborhood just started growing around him after 2009 though.
There's always a winning side in homes too. The guy who sold it to you before it dropped in value won. The difference is that you can win in stocks while losing, which is nonsensical. Buying on the margin is probably an aspect that should be shut down, though there may be benefits to it I am not aware of.
Of course most of the middle class doesn't own stocks that they can actually pull from without penalty. Most of them have to make a choice, feed their families or buy some pieces of paper that don't mean anything. The more money you have the more you can play that game.
My mother and her siblings had to deal with the inheritance tax a few years ago. I gave no fucks. It's old money that's been purposefully hidden from taxation and real use for 80 years.
It's funny how people who'll never even come near it are defending a lifestyle they don't understand.
The kind of money that ends up being taxed in that situation is ludicrous - and it's highly likely no one who has it has ever worked much outside of managing it.
In other words: Rich people sure are different.
No icarus, we can all be rich if we just do some more bootstrap pullin'. That's why I am gonna vote for Republicans every time - I don't want to pay high taxes when I'm rich!
Alright Walter...
Fuck all of the taxes.
Republicans championing tax cuts for the rich aren't appealing to my sensibilities because they're targeting literally 1% of the population and playing favorites. I'm not going to demand higher taxes for the rich, I think most taxes are disgusting and shaping behavior with tax policy is offensive, but way too much effort and attention goes to cutting taxes for a very small percentage of the population. I don't care if the debate is on lowering my personal taxes or not, but talk about tax policy in a way that is not transparently favoring only your wealthy supporters.
Why do you think that shaping behavior with tax policy is offensive?
The idea of a central planner knowing better than the infinite self-interested cogs in the universe is not only comical, but onerous. Individuals are a lot smarter than government gives them credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
It also has a habit of backfiring or resulting in unintended consequences.
What I've realized: The most complicated and manipulative economic policies presuppose the simplest, controllable reality. While the simplest economic policy--laissez faire--presupposes the most complicated and unpredictable reality.
I don't understand how anyone with a brain that regularly interacts with humans could ever say this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
This is the second year in a row that left-wing extremists have attempted to disrupt a candidate while he was speaking at the RNC (Code Pink did so to McCain in '08). Has the same thing happened at the DNC? And if not, why is it only happening to Republicans? I'm all for open dialogue and debate, but to show up somewhere uninvited and create such a ruckus is rather inconsiderate.
Because crazies feel strongly about things? Who cares.
Right wingers heckle sometimes, too. Their brand of heckling is a little bluer than Code Pink's, though.
Attachment 66771
Come on, you're better than that. There's a difference between crashing a convention and making some noise, and actual bloodshed. I'm talking about rude behavior, not capital crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I think Herman Cain answered a similar question best. Jon Stewart asked him why polling showed 0% of black people would vote for Romney. Cain said that it was because some black people have jobs and weren't there to answer the phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
How does this system handle market failures, unfettered corporate power, monopolies, negative externalities, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
I mean, we had a very 'laissez-faire' system in place from maybe... 1870 through 1890 or so. Truth is those weren't great times for your average American. It was great for corporations and the corrupt politicians who enabled them, though. I don't see why it would be any different now - in fact I can think of lots of reasons why it would be much much worse.
After that, owing to the pushback from the excesses of the Gilded Age, we had the Lochner era... which culminated in the 1920's... we all know what happened at the end of that decade.
Libertarians are probably right to talk about the dangers of excess government power. They have a massive, massive, massive blind spot, though, when it comes to the dangers of excess corporate power. And no, not buying a company's product is not an adequate check. That's why it is called a market failure.
Ron Paul supporters = left wing extremists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Did you really pay enough cap gains tax to matter if they raised the rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The problem with strict laissez faire is that the individual does even remotely fairly take into account the effect of his actions on others. That is the point of the government is to represent the vested view of people as a while, which is unrepresented in laissez faire economics unless you make an extremely complicated law system to govern the action of powerful individuals/companies , which ends up having the same effect of the tax control.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Women dressed as vaginas = Ron Paul supporters?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Last I checked
Huh. I've never even heard of this Stein lady. I guess I should read some. Anyway, yeah. Stein/Johnson/obama for my results. Romney didn't hit the radar at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Click for full size
If I paid $1 it matters, since there is no good reason to raise the rates before we cut the living shit out of the spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1346368336
Some of the answers once you expanded the choices were less than ideal, which I think skewed this somewhat in certain areas, but overall it's probably pretty close.
edit: I may take this again and not pick the simple yes/no for anything just to see what effect that has.
We should go back in time and figure out how to avoid that big money sink in Iraq. While we're there, we can prevent the banks from exploding themselves by imposing "Don't Be a Dumbass" Regulations.
Al Gore 2000
Yeah, when I expanded all the choices, the results are more in line with what I'd expect:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1346369707
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1346369955
i side with AMERICA.
Why cut spending? How does that make things better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Because the government doesn't do anything right, so if private citizens or business did 1% right with the money, it would be better spent.
The government doesn't work and the Republican party wants to prove it.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1346371132
I was secretly hoping Romney sided with me on more things.
What would it take you Yoshi to vote for Gary Johnson?
Maybe we should all vote for Jill Stein...
Honestly? The Democrats to not have a candidate. I'll take a 50% chance at 81% over a 0% chance at 85%.
That sort of thinking is exactly the problem. I don't entirely blame you for the 4% though, but I would offer you a deal in exchange.
I would cast a vote for Gary Johnson instead of Barack Obama if you did instead of Romney. I guess we'd have to be in the same state for that to work.
Heh I wonder if someone could make something like that work. If you want a 3rd party candidate, find someone across the aisle who also wants one and have both vote for them, in the same state or district really. God damn our system sucks. I just realized it probably has to be the same district.
The two party system blows goat for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
If I didn't think that idea for a website would be shut down by the govt. It'd be worth pursuing.
NO, THIS IS PART OF MARKRYAN'S PLAN TO REIGN IN HIS DARK LORD RON PAUL.
I don't think you'd have to worry about the government as much as you'd have to worry about everyone else voting for the major party candidate because they don't believe there's any other way.
No I mean vote trading is probably illegal or would be illegal at some point.
Also no one would trust each other unfortunately. If Yoshi told me right now he'd vote for Gary Johnson if I did, I would do it immediately without question. Because trusting someone else is better than living in this two party system :(
If you lived in Chicago you could just vote twice.
I could just have Princess Nudelman vote for me.
Find a few illegals whose IDs we can't check and give them $5 to vote Libertarian.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
PR has 6 parties, and it's the same shit. Well, it's a shit buffet instead of a shit combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/74465697.jpg
Not really surprising, I side with Obama on most issues except for immigration, which I generally side with Republicans on. I actually agree with Obama and Democrats in general on many issues, it's the fact that they are unorganized pussies and can't get anything done that is my major problem with him/them.
That's an interesting spread you've got there.
He's not on our 3rd party side...
For the record, I'm independent. I agree with no party completely.
I sorta had the same thing Gohan did. I don't really like the other answers much (never do) and I didn't bother selecting the importance after the first batch of questions. And it's weird to have GJ as the #1 guy but the party be #3.
http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/74622361.jpg
But economists don't vote and neither do I.
This is actively depressing me that Gary Johnson is up there for everyone, and there is no chance of this guy winning.
What's weird is Yoshi has nothing in common with Obama and I have nothing in common with Romney and we both have Johnson up there. I mean, what the fuck?
My understanding is that there's never been a true laissez faire market. Even in times of few regulations, governments have always meddled, played favorites, given special liberties to influential corporations. Perhaps the best example of a free market is the Internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't pretend that free markets solve everything, but definitely a lot of free market types get caught up in explaining how a free market fixes all problems. I'm not interested in arguing that because 1) it's mostly conjecture, 2) I don't believe it, and 3) that's not my point anyway. Yes, I believe a free market solves a lot of problems we have right now. Get out of the way of people and competition happens, it breeds better products and services, and it makes it hard for shitty companies to last. Most of the shittiest areas of consumer goods/services are in highly regulated markets. Cable utilities. Wireless providers. Healthcare. Banking.
And I don't want to draw a simple correlation and insist that regulation caused the shittiness. The key point for me is a lack of consumer options, which allows companies to provide shitty service. Everyone hates AT&T and Verizon but we can't do anything about it because they have exclusive rights to wireless spectrum. It's for some reason illegal for healthcare providers to compete across state lines. Banks can be shitty to the point of failing and that still doesn't stop them.
A free market doesn't prevent shitty businesses from happening, but it allows for alternatives. (That government typically does not allow for alternatives is one of my biggest reasons for hating it.) It doesn't mean no one gets ripped of, no one buys a dangerous product, no one suffers environmental decay. But the same is true with all the regulations and obstructions. The difference today is that we have fewer alternatives. There is less we can do about it.
I'm not advocating anarchy. Laws that punish fraud, enforce liability, and bar anyone from harming or taking from others, and courts are probably always necessary. I do believe that modern technology makes a libertarian society a lot more plausible than any other time. It's so easy for anyone to communicate, expose corporate abuse, and organize to combat it. It's easier for competiton to spring up and take down old industries (I love watching Google take on Comcast, Square take on point-of-sale credit card purchases). I believe wrongs get righted at an accelerated rate on the Internet, giants get overthrown. I believe the more we can make markets mimic the Internet, the better for us all. Unless you happen to be a powerful asshole.
I wish some of you could side with simg tags for a change.
Click for full size
lol
Sorry but this is the "it cannot fail, it can only be failed" argument and it doesn't wash. The period of time we came the closest led to gross corporate abuse and the rise of a progressive movement designed to blunt those abuses. You seriously think it wouldn't happen again? Human nature doesn't change.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
That's not true. Have you never heard of monopolies, price-fixing, cartels, and so forth? All these are ways that corporations use their power to limit options, and it can and does happen completely free of government intervention. The reason why it may not seem like this is so is because we have a government with the power to try to stop these things from happening. But you take away that power and let "the free market" do what it does and these things will all come back with a vengeance - in fact I'd say that it would be worse than it was even in the late 1800's.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
The root causesof the banking failure of 2008 were in the unregulated sectors of the business.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
You're aware of the telco industry's history right? There used to be a lot of companies. Then they merged and became one giant company. Then the government broke them up. Then they reformed and are now 2 giant companies. That's what companies do. It's not because of regulations - it's their natural state.
Google is also a bigger company than Comcast and, oh, by the way, collecting all your data. You think they would play all nice-nice if, say, privacy regulations were taken down?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
I think I might be further left than most. I have actually voted green many times in local elections when I loved in central Wisconsin, where the party regularly holds a number of local positions.
Click for full size
Stopped reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Too bad one of the questions isn't "Do you believe in censorship, especially on TNL?"
Since everyone is posting them. Note that this test didn't have liberal enough answers to some of the questions, e.g. the question about providing a path for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. And by liberal I mean anarchic.
No real surprise here
Click for full size
Finch 2012Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
Government is the only monopoly I'm worried about. Pac Bell gets a monopoly and phone calls cost a lot. Government gets its nose into business and it can take your property to lay a road, legally limit you to their services, and give private companies unfair advantages / exclusive right to do business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't believe corporations are inherently more pious than government, but they have no legal authority. They can fail, they can be out-competed. I have more faith in free market checks and balances than I do in government checks.
I am not worried about Google until the government starts asserting too much control of their data.
Why, do you think banks and the business of money isn't a wildly regulated industry? Banks are not at all blameless for 2008 but they didn't operate in a free market vacuum. Government banks own like half of American mortgages. Interest rates are controlled by a central bank, which might as well be our fourth branch of federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I'm not even trying to argue that in a free market, mega financial crashes don't happen because they are always the cause of government. I do believe that a free market will deal with them better, recover faster, better "punish" the causes of failure and result in a wiser economy. I don't think we've learned a damn thing from 2008.
To be clear, I do not have unshakable faith in private corps, and I do not think government is inherently bad at everything. My core world views: 1) When government does something, it generally rules out competition; 2) the likelihood that government is the best at doing that something is as low as the likelihood of any one group being the best at something; 3) a free market, by virtue of free competition, produces the best from disparate parties; 4) a free market allows shittiness to fail.
And we're spending a lot of time talking about a handful of very large corporations but forgetting that government obstruction affects way more, it affects every small business, every average joe. To paint fingernails in California you need a license. To hire help you need to pay a minimum wage, pay payroll taxes, and now pay for your employee's health care. You need permits to open a lemonade stand. The red tape is a pain for big business, but it's downright crippling for regular guys. I want people to make a living wage, to have health coverage if they need it, and serve sanitary lemonade. But I also want people to pay what a job is worth rather than not open the job, invest income in something other than expensive health care when they're young and don't need it, and learn valuable lessons as ambitious children without worrying about permits.
Does a free market mean some people get underpaid? Yeah, it'll happen. (It does now.) Does it mean some people won't get the health care they need? Likely. (I does now.) Does it mean someone will get ill from poorly cleaned food? Yes. (It does now.)
You dummy, big business can fuck you to get what it wants as easily as the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Business will only fuck you until it is no longer profitable to do so. Government will fuck you without end, because it can.
Because every government was built specifically for fucking over its citizens and businesses have never been built specifically for the purpose of fucking everyone else over (for profit).
It looks like most of you answered yes to the "do you have a vagina" question. At least you're being honest.
edit: And most of your other answers had to basically be rephrasing of "I want to do whatever I want whenever I want and have someone else clean up my mess, because I have the responsibility of a toddler."
No, banks are not blameless - they caused it. And they are also less regulated than they used to be by a large margin. They caused the crash through an unregulated sector of their business.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
It happens with more frequency, and both the peaks and valleys are worse. The problem is that the regular folks don't really benefit from the peaks but are hit hard by the valleys. The crashes of the late 1800's and, of course, 1929 unleashed a lot of misery on regular people who had nothing to do with it. People got sick of their lives being beholden to a bunch of rich corporations with no accountability and used the institution which was accountable to them to reform the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Obviously rent-seeking is a problem, and so is regulatory capture. No solution is ever perfect. But the whole point here is that there is a system in place for holding the people who make and implement these policies accountable that, in theory at least, allows every American access.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Like a lot of libertarians I've talked to, you have the naivete and faith in the private sector that comes from growing up in a system in which the government attempts to regulate the worst excesses of private industry and tries to keep those excesses from affecting the average American. You should study history more.
Attachment 66798Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
What was that number on in January, 2009 again?
This is why absolutes in politics don't work. You're only concerned about one extreme, with no regard for the consequences of the other. A big problem we're facing right now is this hard polarization where we end up with two very wrong choices and no chance for compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
What drives economic growth in this country is competition. The problem is that neither an unregulated free market system nor a communist/socialist system of shared ownership foster competition. The only way competition and therefore economic growth is allowed to happen is with a mixture of a well-regulated free market and a balanced system of support that allows for both business competition on a large scale and social mobility on an individual scale. That's how we get the best and the brightest innovators. That's how we get the toughest competition in the private sector.
When people talk about the wealth gap in this country and how it's become the highest in the first world, and how social mobility is the lowest (ironically the latter being the train that defines "the American Dream,") conservatives are quick to write this off as entitlement or jealousy. But, when we look at how these things are trending, it is a real indication of an unhealthy economy that has been sick for the last 30 years, where the wealth of your parents has more of an impact on your own success than your education, IQ, or grades. This has untold costs to productivity and economic growth.
Until the corporations are allowed to write the laws that govern them. Which we are perilously close to at this juncture. We see the government make bad laws and bad decisions that hurt this country based on the influence of big money, and with the birth of Super PACs, this is only getting worse. This is why we deregulated derivatives, this is why we allowed a handful of companies to buy up all the media in the country, this is why banks get bailed out with no strings attached. This is ultimately why a very, very limited number of people (far smaller than 1%) are getting very wealthy while the middle class that actually creates demand and consumes, and allows businesses to grow continues to shrink dramatically.Quote:
I don't believe corporations are inherently more pious than government, but they have no legal authority. They can fail, they can be out-competed. I have more faith in free market checks and balances than I do in government checks.
No one here is a communist. We all agree we want a free market system where people can succeed or fail. What people want to change is whether or not they fail based on merit, or whether or not they fail because they didn't have billions of dollars to make themselves fail proof. If no small business can ever compete with Walmart, then we're fucked as a country. We'll never have entrepreneurs and innovators again.Quote:
Does a free market mean some people get underpaid? Yeah, it'll happen. (It does now.) Does it mean some people won't get the health care they need? Likely. (I does now.) Does it mean someone will get ill from poorly cleaned food? Yes. (It does now.)
The endgame of the unregulated free market is North Korea or Ghadaffi's Lybia. It's one person with all the money and all the power, who owns everything, while the population works for him and owns almost nothing. And while that's good for the guy on top, even he will never be as rich as the wealthy in a country with a thriving middle class. We're essentially fighting for larger pieces of a smaller pie rather than growing the pie. That's the problem.
Well this is another problem now. Businesses no longer act in terms of what is profitable. CEOs, who now get paid mostly in shares to avoid having to pay taxes, and therefore also exert greater control over the board than ever, have now begun acting in ways that blatantly disregard the good of the company in favor of lining their pockets personally. They're making 100 times what they did 20 years ago, and not because they're 100 times better at their jobs or that they're adding that value to the company, but simply because they can. They're taking those profits away from the workers, away from the investors, and putting them directly into their own pockets. They are not creating jobs with them, they are not creating value with them. They are stealing. Not only that, but they seem perfectly content to gamble the livelyhoods of everyone that works for the company for the possibility of short term gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
People talk about taxes on the personal wealth of the upper class as somehow disincentivizing hard work. You know what disincentivizes hard work? Slaving away at a job for 10 years, knowing you'll never really get anywhere. The strangling of social mobility (which is a real, statistical fact), has untold costs to our nation's productivity. People don't work hard because they don't have the opportunities they once did. It costs us money.
I want people to get rich, I want business to do well. But conservative/libertarian economic policy is bad business, and it's failed everywhere it's been tried.
