Economics and free market

[Buffy]

Buffy, I assume your solution to the dollar swoon is to raise taxes. This approach should help businesses of all sizes and put more money in the consumers pocket. Just what we need to grow our economy.

Actually its to cut the biggest waste of money in the budget: the black hole in Iraq...but yes, right now, tax the rich at least moderately more would help: statistically, the rich folk have not been investing in the US, they've been moving it offshore because their consumption has increased in non-US-produced goods and services and investments have similarly been non-US, so it hasn't been doing the "expected" trickle-down that might actually aid the US, so there's no point in "freeing up" their capital which they move off-shore faster than a 20 million illegal aliens!

 

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed, :)

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

What I really LOVE about economic and monetary discussions is that no matter how hard you try to describe a centrist, balanced, dynamic-equilibrium point of view, you are accused by the hard right as being tax-the-rich, bleeding-heart liberals, and accused by the hard left as return-to-the-gold-standard, scorched-earth-policy robber barons.

 

Ain't it wonderful.

 

What about us bleeding-heart robber barons? :)

 

I just don't see a reasonable tax as "punishing the rich". Rather, it is a privilege to pay a reasonable tax in a free, democratic society. If you don't want to pay taxes, move to Afghanistan.

[Buffy]

What I really LOVE about economic and monetary discussions is that no matter how hard you try to describe a centrist, balanced, dynamic-equilibrium point of view, you are accused by the hard right as being tax-the-rich, bleeding-heart liberals, and accused by the hard left as return-to-the-gold-standard, scorched-earth-policy robber barons.

Yep: the hardest thing about being in the middle is that everyone is shooting at you...of course in the the old, less politically correct days, this was called a Polish Firing Squad (nowadays of course we call it a "Neo-con Firing Squad" since Neo-cons aren't an oppressed minority)...

 

Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity. Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand, :)

Buffy

[charles brough]

Portex:

 

You made an interesting comment: ""Communism is a form of dictatorial government. Marxism is an economic philosophy. From what I can see, what you are espousing sounds much like Marxism.""

 

Please, no offense, but this is a beautiful example of how social science academics have mess up things! They have played around with terms until they twist thinking in chaotic directions.

 

World history and pre-history is filled with information about communes in which people came together to deal with issues and reach a concensus decision. Everything but personal property items were held in common. Naturally, the economic system itself, being communal, has been historically called "communism."

 

Later, the practice started of calling the Marxist derived Bolshivic system "Communism" because that was their goal. . . a big academic mistake!

Now, we are in the position of calling East Asian Marxism "communism" even though they have developed a capitalist system!

 

In my research work, the meaning of words is crucial, so I sometimes avoid the academic usages and work around them. I use "Marxism" for the "secular religion that was BASED on "Marxist philosophy" (and Lenin's practical application) in Russia and then China.

 

So, this is the way I would say what you did:

 

""East Asian Marxism is a one-party state secular religion. What you seem to be espousing is the communal communist economic-social system.""

[questor]

Buffy....

'' Actually its to cut the biggest waste of money in the budget: the black hole in Iraq...but yes, right now, tax the rich at least moderately more would help: statistically, the rich folk have not been investing in the US, they've been moving it offshore because their consumption has increased in non-US-produced goods and services and investments have similarly been non-US, so it hasn't been doing the "expected" trickle-down that might actually aid the US, so there's no point in "freeing up" their capital which they move off-shore faster than a 20 million illegal aliens!

 

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed,''

 

I agree the war is a great drain on the economy, but you should check your statistics on the tax burden percentages. Money goes where it is treated best and the US should pay more attention to providing a climate where businesses of all sizes can prosper. Do you want to drive all buinesses away from the US with high taxes? And you do understand that business tax increases are always passed on to the consumer, causing less buying power and reduced selling of goods?

 

I consider the second paragraph the main reason we have a permanent underclass. The poor have no reason to improve their lot as long as bleeding hearts keep the welfare checks coming. Haven't we done this hand out long enough to learn this lesson? Do we continue this insult to the dignity of man and the detriment of society, or do we wise up and improve education and opportunities so the ''poor'' become productive citizens. Poverty is in the mind, not neccessarily in the pocket.

[Buffy]

I agree the war is a great drain on the economy, but you should check your statistics on the tax burden percentages.

Uh, it looks like you didn't bother to check the link I provided above (and the link on that page goes to the NYTimes article):

On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.

I'm at least in the top 10% so I'm not doing too badly, but when even Warren Buffett is asking to have his taxes raised, you know that things are getting out of whack!

Do you want to drive all buinesses away from the US with high taxes?

Did you note that I did not advocate increasing business taxes? Is there a reason you're claiming that I did?

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed,''

I consider [this] the main reason we have a permanent underclass. The poor have no reason to improve their lot as long as bleeding hearts keep the welfare checks coming.

I'll refer you to an explanation of "Buffy's Asterisk" elsewhere, but you should take note that this line is from Herman Melville, who had an uncanny sense for drawing out the grays for those who can only see black and white.

 

I think it is odd that you would associate any assistance to the poor--and in a similar fashion to the objection in the first paragraph in this post, to say that I am advocating a welfare state is, uh, "inaccurate"--to coddling them.

 

Can you see no possible policy middle ground? Is the only solution in your mind to go back to the days before any sort of social security or welfare programs? Just have every man for himself and just see people dying in the streets as a good motivator to everyone else?

 

For the poor always ye have with you, :phones:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...For the poor always ye have with you, :)

Buffy

My father was a dear man, a great dad, and I loved him. But he did have an ever-so-slight conservative tendency. He quoted that verse a number of times as justification for why we did not and never would lift a finger to aid the poor. If by some quirk of luck, we managed to reduce the number of poor too much, why... we would be violating a prophecy of the Bible!

 

Of course, that didn't stop him from aiding the poor in our church and in our neighborhood and among his customers. They weren't "The Poor"; they were friends and neighbors. ;)

 

oh, the tangled web we weave :shrug:

[questor]

I would not mind having the ultra-rich kick in a larger percent of taxes, and I agree that executive separation packages have exceeded belief, but adjustment on these items will still not address the problem. Business taxes

and incentives should be constructed to help our businesses prosper. The real problem is and has been the lack of consensus about the ''poor''. giving the poor a handout will help them for a day, but does nothing to improve their future or help them become functioning, productive citizenes. Maybe you have never been around poor people. Maybe you don't realize the depth of their self destruction. I'M not painting all with the same brush, and I'm not talking about the handicapped or ill.What I'm talking about are those who WILL not seek an education,and ridicule those who do, WILL NOT show up for work, take drugs, rob, steal, and have no redeeming traits. Perhaps you do not know these people, but I do. They are the people who are now poised to push the failing Wash. D.C. educational system into permanent failure. They are the ones who smoke crack and shot up neighborhoods. They are the ones who leave their trash in their front yards and destroy the housing units they live in. Instead of welfare, these people need the whole country to stand up and tell them their behavior and lifestyle is wrong, instead of tacitly approving such self destructive behavior. Money is not and never was the cure for this poverty, it is a poverty of the mind. Mediocrity should not be the goal of our country, MERIT SHOULD BE WHAT WE STRIVE FOR.

The poor stay poor because they have no extra money for outside investments. taxing the rich will not change this. Let the poor aim for the top, let's get politics out of schools and run them like a business, let's fire the huge number of redundant government workers and streamline the beaurocracy. I have more to say, but dinner is waiting.

[Pyrotex]

...Please, no offense, but this is a beautiful example of how social science academics have mess up things! They have played around with terms until they twist thinking in chaotic directions....So, this is the way I would say what you did:

 

"East Asian Marxism is a one-party state secular religion. What you seem to be espousing is the communal communist economic-social system."

 

No offense taken. You obviously know more about this than I do, so I will graciously doff my feathered cap and bow to your suggestion. Then I will kick you in the shins soooooooo hard...

 

NO! Just kidding! :) :)

 

Your version of my statement is obviously more technically focused on current real-world definitions than on the 1970's theoretical, abstractism that I picked up in grad school. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Buffy]

I'm talking about are those who WILL not seek an education,and ridicule those who do, WILL NOT show up for work, take drugs, rob, steal, and have no redeeming traits. Perhaps you do not know these people, but I do. They are the people who are now poised to push the failing Wash. D.C. educational system into permanent failure. They are the ones who smoke crack and shot up neighborhoods. They are the ones who leave their trash in their front yards and destroy the housing units they live in. Instead of welfare, these people need the whole country to stand up and tell them their behavior and lifestyle is wrong, instead of tacitly approving such self destructive behavior.

In your view does this characterize the majority of the poor?

 

What do you think they will do when you "stand up and tell them their behavior and lifestyle is wrong?" Do you think that will solve the problem?

 

On business taxes you're continuing to argue with yourself, but I'll give you something else to chew on: do you agree with farm subsidies being paid to giant conglomerates? I don't have any problem with helping "family farmers" but why is there such resistance to "means testing" to end this "corporate welfare" that disgustingly perturbs the markets and makes them inefficient?

 

Darned welfare queens,

Buffy

[Mike C]

To All

 

What is the difference between communism and capitalism?

Communism is agribusiness like we have here in the US.

 

The free market economy is a capitalist plot to make sure they do not have to share the shortage of goods with the public.

 

With critical shortages, their share is guaranteed a supply because they have the money.

The poor are left out in the cold.

 

The law of supply and demand only inflates the values of the people at the top, while at the same time, deflates the values of the people at the bottom that 'create' the wealth because with the 'new world order' now, there is an excess of these workers.

 

Therefore, capitalism is NOT representing the people like our Constitution mandates.

Instead, it has created a corporate form of welfare for themselves that they have created with their corrupt dollars.

 

As a conservation of energy now in our country, Bush demanded concessions before signing this 'Bill' into law by demanding 'tax cuts' for the oil industry.

With 'record profits' now, they get tax cuts yet! Like I said, this is runaway greed.

 

Mike C

[questor]

This is how I would characterize the majority of the poor:

1. undereducated

2. lack ambition

3. lazy, poor work ethic

4. poor self image

5. never learned a sellable skill set

6. makes poor choices, including having children they can't care for

7. blames others for their problems

8. does not understand cause and effect

9. looks to society to support them...this concept is promoted by liberal politicians

10. habitual or frequent drug users

All these traits are not exhibited by all poor. Most are exhibited by MOST poor. Is this not obvious to you? If not, why do you consider we have so many able bodied poor? Do you not agree that people exhibiting these traits

would be poor risks for hires?

Agricultural subsidies, I would tie these to seasonal crop yields and individual

exigencies. This is an excellent example of big governments' failure to help only when help is needed.

Corporate welfare? Do you consider tax breaks under certain conditions to be welfare? I do not. If the break is fairly given for a purpose to help the economy, I say yes. Here again is a lobby driven, big government failing to act in a fair and judicious way

I believe a man/corporation wage to belong to the wage earner, not to the gov. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism, because this has frequently led to monopolistic behavior. Do not chain the capitalist too tightly or you will drive him to take his business/ideas/money to a more receptive place.

 

We will always have the poor unless we stop acting as enablers for those who will not work. Why would anyone work if the government will force producers to pay for them to sit on their butts and offer nothing to society?

Getting something for nothing does not build good character.

[Buffy]

Sounds like a great stump speech! :shrug:

 

But do you have any actual policy recommendations?

 

We think in generalities, but we live in detail, :)

Buffy

[questor]

In order to solve any problem, the extent and reasons for the problem must be fully understood. One must understand cause and effect, and be totally truthful in the diagnosis. Idealism cannot not have a role in this initial solution. Once the root cause of the problem is understood, a solution should be crafted and presented to those involved in the particular problem. A consensus ,or at least a healthy majority of those involved must occur. There will always be dissenters because brains do not process information in lock step. If a solution is found to fail, it must be examined as to the reason and rethought. These are common sense generalities, but they apply to all endeavors. You can see upon observing the antics of our elected leaders, that these simple steps are not followed. You have asked if I would have any policy changes...of course! I'll pick one for openers. Bush just signed a bill with over 10,000 earmarks in it. the bill is costly, undebated for merit and no one knows what is in it or the possible repercussions of implementation. Totally for political expediency and against the interests of the country. I would have the line item veto available and have each proposal presented and defended by its proposer. Costs and need would be evaluated. I would have all bureau heads justify the existence of their fiefdom and present ways of cutting their costs by at least 10%. I would have federal hiring and firing on a merit basis. No more tenured workers. This merely scratches the surface of a serious and growing problem... government waste. I have many other thoughts about policy changes in many areas. They are all commons sense proposals based upon the need for schools, governments or anything funded by the public being run by the rules of business. Ignoring these rules nearly always leads to falure.

[freeztar]

In order to solve any problem, the extent and reasons for the problem must be fully understood. One must understand cause and effect, and be totally truthful in the diagnosis. Idealism cannot not have a role in this initial solution. Once the root cause of the problem is understood, a solution should be crafted and presented to those involved in the particular problem.

 

Why are you stating all of this? ;)

 

A consensus ,or at least a healthy majority of those involved must occur. There will always be dissenters because brains do not process information in lock step. If a solution is found to fail, it must be examined as to the reason and rethought. These are common sense generalities, but they apply to all endeavors.

 

Huh? Common sense generalities are not valid at all (without qualifying validity), and the application of these generalities "to all endeavors" is vague to the point of massive stumpification on my part.

 

You can see upon observing the antics of our elected leaders, that these simple steps are not followed. You have asked if I would have any policy changes...of course! I'll pick one for openers. Bush just signed a bill with over 10,000 earmarks in it. the bill is costly, undebated for merit and no one knows what is in it or the possible repercussions of implementation.

 

And furthermore, this bill remains a mystery because you have not even told us what it is, let alone provide a link.

 

Costs and need would be evaluated. I would have all bureau heads justify the existence of their fiefdom and present ways of cutting their costs by at least 10%.

 

That's a great idea, but I would need to see your plan to believe in a 10% reduction possibility.

 

I would have federal hiring and firing on a merit basis. No more tenured workers. This merely scratches the surface of a serious and growing problem... government waste.

 

So what are you going to do about all the "government waste"? I guess they'll become unemployed and...

 

I have many other thoughts about policy changes in many areas. They are all commons sense proposals based upon the need for schools, governments or anything funded by the public being run by the rules of business. Ignoring these rules nearly always leads to falure.

 

I suppose that since your proposals "are all common sense" then there's no need to even talk about them.

 

We think in generalities, but we live in detail :hihi:

[Michaelangelica]

This is how I would characterize the majority of the poor:

1. undereducated

2. lack ambition

3. lazy, poor work ethic

4. poor self image

5. never learned a sellable skill set

6. makes poor choices, including having children they can't care for

7. blames others for their problems

8. does not understand cause and effect

9. looks to society to support them...this concept is promoted by liberal politicians

10. habitual or frequent drug users

All these traits are not exhibited by all poor. Most are exhibited by MOST poor. Is this not obvious to you? If not, why do you consider we have so many able bodied poor? Do you not agree that people exhibiting these traits

would be poor risks for hires?

Agricultural subsidies, I would tie these to seasonal crop yields and individual

exigencies. This is an excellent example of big governments' failure to help only when help is needed.

Corporate welfare? Do you consider tax breaks under certain conditions to be welfare? I do not. If the break is fairly given for a purpose to help the economy, I say yes. Here again is a lobby driven, big government failing to act in a fair and judicious way

I believe a man/corporation wage to belong to the wage earner, not to the gov. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism, because this has frequently led to monopolistic behavior. Do not chain the capitalist too tightly or you will drive him to take his business/ideas/money to a more receptive place.

 

We will always have the poor unless we stop acting as enablers for those who will not work. Why would anyone work if the government will force producers to pay for them to sit on their butts and offer nothing to society?

Getting something for nothing does not build good character.

Bloody hell! I have never seen a list of such prejudicial crap.

Sounds like the New Right Christian Movement "God Intended you to be Rich"

And I have to go Christmas shopping in a few minutes.

 

People can be poor because, they are sick, unlucky, disabled, they could not go to school, there was a war on, their parents died,there was a famine, a political upheaval, their parents were crazy/unlucky/vetrans etc,a geographic upheaval/disaster, they were born poor, they were dyslectic and a thousand other reasons.

 

Most Agricultural subsidies in the USA go to Big Agi Business (look it up!) not the family farm.

 

There is six TRILLION DOLLARS parked in offshore private accounts.

How is this helping anyone but those with the OS bank accounts?

[Buffy]

questor,

 

Not a single one of your policy recommendations in your last post had anything to do with eliminating the problem of poverty or even what we should do about them. Do you have any? Should we completely shut down all welfare programs? Which ones would you do away with or modify? Have you considered the side effects of those changes? Do you think they would be effective?

 

DEBT, n. An ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slave-driver, ;)

Buffy