|
On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously...
So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion.
Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production.
We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
|
On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water?
Sadly that's not an illusion, but was the reality before unions began to fight for the right of the workers and government began to regulate business. Take for example a look at the average hours of work at the beginning of the industrialisation:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/c/ca/Workweek_development_de.svg/800px-Workweek_development_de.svg.png)
82 hours and a seven day week. Sounds awesome. The working hours weren't the only things that were horrible back than (healthcare, social security, enviromental pollution ...) but were the easiest one to find a good illustration on.
Unregulated business shits on peoples life as long as it is able to increase it's margins of profit (and as long as their is enough human material to plow through). It's not an illusion but rather a sad historical thruth.
And has nothing to do with people being evil (or showing "their absolute worst"), but simply with a free capitalistic system - if you don't shit on your working force but your competition does they will be able to produce much cheaper and thereby produce more products and/or sell them cheaper, expand faster, etc. and will kick you out of business at some point in time.
It's just a side-effect that's part of the system if completly unregulated.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 21 2011 04:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Buffett specifically said an additional tax on $1 million earners and possibly $10 million earners, and that none of the high wage earners he talks with has ever not made capital investments because of taxes. I thought what the "Buffett rule" actually referred to was the minimum effective tax rate on 1 million dollar earners that you were talking about.
Hey, skepticism is fine. I'm quite a bit skeptical myself. But that really doesn't have to do with Warren Buffett himself.
Why not be skeptical of Warren Buffett? He's allowed his name to be attached to a rule that rhetorically applies to himself without substance. If Obama proposal is smokes and mirrors he's allowing his name to be dragged through the mud.
And if we're talking about his behavior in the marketplace has been anything but benign. Bequeathing his wealth to the Gates foundation aside, (where he incidentally circumvents the estates tax), he is a vulture investor preying on the distressed or buying up businesses forced to sell because of policies like the estates tax. He is a DC insider with enough political access to guarantee his investment by influencing policy.
He's been a huge beneficiary of the bailouts that's saddle the federal government with a lot of debt and a huge beneficiary of Federal Reserve generosity to GE and GS. One of his lieutenants is being investigate for insider trading and Buffett both reserved plausible denial-ability while telegraphing that he would not be providing culpable evidence to the SEC.
What Buffett does reeks of crony-ism and his advocacy of policy has resulted in either personal benefit or heaped the majority of liability on the shoulders of others.
|
On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
|
On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on.
Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
|
On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit.
You'd be surprised how easily people shrug off someone in dire straits if it is merely 'corporate policy' not to hand over something for free to someone who needs it. Even though they are directly declining the giving of aid, they won't feel any guilt because the blame rests on the shoulders of some faceless, nameless corporate policy that others higher in the chain of command have decided upon. So, I can completely imagine unregulated business running amok for the sake of their bottom line. If it wasn't for EPA regulation for the safe usage and disposal of radioactive material, we could be very easily drinking from radioactive water sources, because dumping all that crap in a big hole in your back yard is a hell of a lot cheaper than safely storing it in a giant block of concrete in a zone certified as very unlikely (never say never) to cause any harm to public living.
|
On September 21 2011 05:27 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Sadly that's not an illusion, but was the reality before unions began to fight for the right of the workers and government began to regulate business. Take for example a look at the average hours of work at the beginning of the industrialisation: 82 hours and a seven day week. Sounds awesome. The working hours weren't the only things that were horrible back than (healthcare, social security, enviromental pollution ...) but were the easiest one to find a good illustration on. Unregulated business shits on peoples life as long as it is able to increase it's margins of profit (and as long as their is enough human material to plow through). It's not an illusion but rather a sad historical thruth. And has nothing to do with people being evil, but simply with a free capitalistic system - if you don't shit on your working force but your competition does they will be able to produce much cheaper and thereby produce more products and/or sell them cheaper, kicking you out of business at some point in time. It's simply a side-effect of pure capitalism that's only logical.
In the US people literally died to get those rights, which is why around the 1920 you have that dip then rise as people forget about what they fought for. And with those right to work laws which were passed essentially on a small rich group's audacity unions are dieing out in the US
My thoughts on the matter of the super rich is that capital gains tax should be progressive like income tax but should be higher then income tax, although it has already been taxed once is the argument to why it's lower, capital gains is money from money they aren't going out buying like shoes in order to sell them to people they are purely speculating, which doesn't really stimulate an economy like consumption.
Consumption and production should be encouraged over just speculation, although investments are good, they are also bad so called investors with alot of money get a lot of money in return. These people can profit when the markets are doing good and when they are doing bad, so you have to keep their ability to obtain wealth from essentially just having more then most else they are just running a redistribution program where they lend money to those who need it in turn making more money if it all goes right, ie the rich get richer and all they need to do is call their broker every once and awhile i mean this is like gambling money and yet for the most part it's taxed less then that.
Want to lower taxes? Well didn't we try that in 2001 and had great growth during the period but how did it end? It ended with the worst recession we had in a very very very long time, these people burned the world down because we let them so why let them do it again? 30 years of giving tax breaks and deregulation for the the so called job creators have done worse for the American middle class not improved it.
|
On September 21 2011 05:44 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:27 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Sadly that's not an illusion, but was the reality before unions began to fight for the right of the workers and government began to regulate business. Take for example a look at the average hours of work at the beginning of the industrialisation: 82 hours and a seven day week. Sounds awesome. The working hours weren't the only things that were horrible back than (healthcare, social security, enviromental pollution ...) but were the easiest one to find a good illustration on. Unregulated business shits on peoples life as long as it is able to increase it's margins of profit (and as long as their is enough human material to plow through). It's not an illusion but rather a sad historical thruth. And has nothing to do with people being evil, but simply with a free capitalistic system - if you don't shit on your working force but your competition does they will be able to produce much cheaper and thereby produce more products and/or sell them cheaper, kicking you out of business at some point in time. It's simply a side-effect of pure capitalism that's only logical. In the US people literally died to get those rights, which is why around the 1920 you have that dip then rise as people forget about what they fought for. And with those right to work laws which were passed essentially on a small rich group's audacity unions are dieing out in the US
My thoughts on the matter of the super rich is that capital gains tax should be progressive like income tax but should be higher then income tax, although it has already been taxed once is the argument to why it's lower capital gains is money from money they aren't going out buying like shoes in order to sell them to people they are speculating, which doesn't really stimulate an economy like consumption. Consumption and production should be encouraged over just speculation, although investments are good they are also bad so called investors with alot of money get a lot of money in return and these people profit when the markets are doing good and when they are doing bad, so you have to keep their ability to obtain wealth from essentially just having more then most else they are just running a redistribution program where they lend money to those who need it in turn making more money if it all goes right, ie the rich get richer and all they need to do is call their broker every once and awhile i mean this is like gambling money and yet for the most part it's taxed less then that. Want to lower taxes? Well didn't we try that in 2001 and had great growth during the period but how did it end? It ended with the worst recession we had in a very very very long time, these people burned the world down because we let them so why let them do it again? 30 years of giving tax breaks so the so called job creators have done worse for the American middle class.
It wasn't low taxes that did it, it was unregulated free market banking practices. After a colossal blunder like that its amazing how much denial some people are under in continuing to believe that a free market is infallible.
|
What has happened to this thread?
First, the Declaration of Independence is completely irrelevant. No country, not even the United States, uses it in any capacity to enforce their laws. The US government is not obligated to follow the Declaration of Independence because it is not a set of laws for our country it was a statement of rebellion from England. Stop quoting it to back up your arguments when it has no baring at all. Besides, most of you were talking about rights. We have a Bill of Rights for that reason. And fun fact, although it's been totally warped today, originally the Bill of Rights was meant to let us know what all we and government can do not what it cannot. Now people act like if it isn't allowed in the constitution government has no place doing it but these people are absolutely missing the point of the US constitution in the first place.
As for public education...I'm a bit amazed that anyone could propose that. Do you live in America? If yes, are you a Conservative Christian? If yes, then it suddenly would make sense why you'd be opposed to public education. If you aren't one of those things though you do realize that without public education in America the vast majority of people in this country would still believe in Creationism. Hell, half of Americans already do. Just imagine if we didn't have public education, it'd easily be like 70-80% of the US population. I also have to look at my particular situation, I was better at a lot of subjects than my mom at a very young age. If I was home-schooled I really wouldn't have learned anything outside of like 2nd grade knowledge. My parents would not have been able to afford private schooling. I would simply be without as good of an education as my rich peers or my peers who happened to have smarter parents than I.
Removal of public education is a great idea if you're a fan of the feudal ages. Or if you're a religious fanatic. Or if you simply idolize a world where only people who are born into good conditions can make something of themselves. I mean, it's already hard enough for people who are born into poverty to get out of poverty. Removal of public education only makes that harder.
|
On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation?
One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
|
On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no.
So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right? It is terribly unfair that some should have more than another, right?
|
On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result?
Wtf? The state of things that you are talking about has direct roots in a crisis that was caused by lack of regulation (or in germanys case: active deregulation by the government) in the first place.
I completly agree, your country can't continue to make the same mistakes over and over again if you don't want to become the new china (regarding economic condition of the average citizen, not the cultural one) - but those mistakes you made were deregulations and catering to the rich and companies.
|
On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth?
The rich only increased their own wealth over the last thirty years, and not that of your average citizen or your country. (yeah I'm painting black and white since the rich thirty years ago aren't exactly the same individuals as now, but the generally it's right)
This is a pretty good article on why the assumption of a causal relation between "more wealth for the rich => creates more jobs => more wealth for everyone" is flat out wrong: http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
|
On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth?
How about fix a bunch of tax loopholes and ensure that everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, rather than getting lower tax rates than those making far, far less income than them?
Stop pretending like ALL rich people are being demonized. The reality is there's a certain number of individuals and corporations getting away with fucking murder, with regards to their taxes, right before your very eyes. It may not be a significant number, but they wield enough money that it is just plain wrong for them to be paying little to nothing in taxes. Enough that can save us a ton of money in the near future if we put a stop to it soon. These are the individuals being targeted by the 'Buffet Rule' and unless you're one of them, I can't understand why you would actually be complaining about it.
|
On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth?
Those that create wealth, already see nothing from it and are barely scraping by.
|
On September 21 2011 06:06 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Tons of statistical data in all threads on TL that proof that the rich only increased their own wealth over the last 30 thirty years, and not that of your average citizen or your country. This is a pretty good article on why the assumption of a causal relation between "more wealth for the rich => creates more jobs => more wealth for everyone" is flat out wrong: http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
what is it reganomics ie trickle down leads to our great recession now, but i'm pretty sure this is just horse and sparrow economics that lead to the deep recession in the late 19th century, history shows it's a proven failure.
Still don't get how joedaddy can say regulation is hurting the econ, when it's been 30 nearly 40 odd years + now of vapid deregulation and steep decline of unions in capacity of legal power and members in the united states.
|
On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right?
When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend and stimulating the economy.
Edit: posts above have also good responses.
|
On September 21 2011 06:12 kemoryan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right? When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy.
At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
|
On September 21 2011 06:16 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 06:12 kemoryan wrote:On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right? When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy. At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end?
Until doing so stops benefiting those who have less.
|
On September 21 2011 06:18 kemoryan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 06:16 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 06:12 kemoryan wrote:On September 21 2011 06:01 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:57 Sweepstakes wrote:On September 21 2011 05:43 Joedaddy wrote:On September 21 2011 05:33 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2011 05:07 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote:On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper.
With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote:
As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore.
22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... So what you are saying is that without regulation by a higher power business will go unchecked? That business would charge people dying of thirst their first born for a glass of water? Everything you have said assumes the absolute worst in every american man and woman in business, and it is fear mongering. People have a choice on where they do business and where they work. It is this freedom of choice that insures the people against this sad illusion you have created. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.16 is 3.2 trillion. Less than 9% of the workforce is in technology and manufacturing/production. We're both right. Just imagine if 82% of our workforce was industrial production instead of services. Why shouldn't we be looking for ways to make it more profitable for business to do business in America? Business will go where they can make the most money. And wherever business goes, there are employees and local suppliers/distributors that profit. His post is not fear mongering. If you look at what happened historically, he is spot-on. Are we really better off today because of the regulation? Unemployment is high and the average american earns less money today than they did 30 years ago (when adjusted for inflation). Our credit rating has been downgraded and we are hurling towards national bankruptcy. The same americans who unionized and demanded higher wages, better benefits, and fewer hours have children who are now unemployed. Can we really afford to keep doing the same things over and over hoping for a different result? I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we really better off today because of de-regulation? One financial crisis and rampant unemployment later, I'd have to believe the answer is no. So how do we fix unemployment and the deficit? Raise taxes and take more from those that create wealth? Maybe every dollar earned should just be direct deposited into the Government's private bank account and issue our citizens vouchers for necessities. We should encourage people to excel by rewarding them with mediocrity, right? When wages have been stagnating for many years and people have become more and more indebted, it is logical that the economy will enter in a slump partly due to reduced consumption. Rich won't invest in a slumping economy precisely because people can't consume any more goods, even if they have all the money in the world. Raising taxes on the rich is a way to redistribute that money in benefit of a vast majority of people thus increasing their ability to spend hence stimulating the economy. At what point do you stop taking from those that have to give to those who have not? Where does it end? Until doing so stops benefiting those who have less.
When is someone giving you money not beneficial to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
