This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Who's Afraid Of Income Inequality?
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
Through decades of research, American neurobiologist James McGaugh discovered that as humans learn information and encounter new experiences, the part of the brain known a the amygdala plays a key role in retention. The amygadala is activated primarily by stress hormones and other emotionally arousing stimuli. Memory consolidation, or the forming of long term memories, is typically modulated very strongly by the amygdala. Put simply, events that invoke significant amounts of emotion make a bigger imprint on one’s brain.
Emotion, while an important element in man’s array of mental tools, can unfortunately triumph over reason in crucial matters. Excessive anger can lead to violent confrontations. Heartbreak can lead a person to do drastic things in order to woo back a lost lover. In the context of simple economic reasoning, today’s intellectual establishment often disregards common sense in favor of emotional-tinged policy proposals that rely on feelings of jealously, envy, and blind patriotism for validation rather than logical deduction. “Eat the rich” schemes such as progressive taxation and income redistribution are used by leftists who style themselves as champions of the poor. Plucking on the emotional strings of envy makes it easier to arouse widespread support for economic intervention via the state.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, economic growth predictably slowed down in most industrialized countries. Many commentators on the political left have grasped onto this opportunity to point to the vast amount of income inequality which exists in the United States and reason that it played a part in causing the crash. This argument is typically paired with a proposal to raise taxes on the rich to balance out societal incomes. It is alleged that having government brutes step in order to play the role of Robin Hood is the best and most justified way to alleviate income inequality.
Presently, income inequality in America is at its highest peak in decades. In 2011, a study by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that after tax income grew by 275% for the top 1% of income earners between the years of 1979 and 2007. The top-fifth of the U.S. population saw a 10 percentage point increase in their share of total income in the same period while all other groups saw their share decrease by 2 to 3 percentage points. The data undoubtedly shows that income inequality has been increasing over the past few decades. New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman has latched onto the evidence and is suggesting that rising income inequality plays a part in causing recessions. Economist Joseph Stiglitz, who recently wrote the book “The Price of Inequality,” has argued that without a fair share of the national income, the middle class is unable to spend enough to keep aggregate demand elevated. Both economists see income inequality as a danger to the prosperity of a nation. Such a message is appealing to the greater public because it plays on their perceptions that the world is unfair. It almost seems intuitive to think that the rich posses too much wealth or that a prosperous society is one in which income is more equalized. Comfortableness in these beliefs paves the way for income redistribution efforts by the ever-scheming political class.
With income inequality a hot topic of debate going into the fifth year of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the question remains: does income inequality have a negative impact on society as Stiglitz and Krugman suggest? And is growing income inequality an inherit part of capitalism?
First and foremost, the idea of equality for man in physical attributes, mental fitness, and material security is essentially anti-human. The most appealing aspect of mankind is that every person varies from one another in a myriad of different ways. Some are better athletes, some are quicker studies, some have outer features that make them generally more attractive. It follows that some men and women will be more apt at producing or better attuned to the demands of the marketplace. They will have higher incomes by virtue of their own entrepreneurship or capacity to produce. So, in a sense, income inequality is a fact of the free market. But it is the possibility of inequality and the ability to achieve a higher income that makes capitalism work. Punishing those who excel at making consumers better off punishes the very market mechanism that leads to better living standards overall. In a free society, income inequality is not good or bad; it is part of the functioning order. Any attempt to make incomes more equal through state measures is unjustified plunder of the rightful earners of wealth.
But what of the inequality in income that exists in today’s state-corporatist economy? Did the 1% acquire its wealth solely through hard work? The answer is hardly in many cases. Though there are some innovative businessmen who became rich by providing new and better products, the sharp increase in income inequality over the past two decades is due to an economic phenomenon outside of normal market operations. Krugman and Stiglitz rightfully point out that the greatest periods of income inequality in the United States were the late 1920s and the period since the mid-1990s. What they fail to mention is that both these periods were not defined by capitalism run amok but by massive credit expansion. This expansion in credit, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose money policy, is the real culprit behind vast income inequality. Economist George Reisman explains:
the new and additional funds created in credit expansion show up very soon in the financial markets, where they drive up the prices of securities, above all, common stocks. The owners of common stock are preponderantly wealthy individuals, who now find themselves the beneficiaries of substantial capital gains. These gains are the greater the larger and more prolonged the credit expansion is and the higher it drives the prices of shares. In the process of new and additional money pouring into the financial markets, investment bankers and stock speculators are in a position to reap especially great gains.
Since it’s so important, the main point just made needs to be repeated: credit expansion creates an artificial economic inequality by showing up in the stock market and driving up stock prices.
Money acts as a medium of exchange but is not neutral in its effects on receivership. Those first receivers are able to bid up the price of goods before any other market participants. As the newly created money flows into the economy, the general price level rises to reflect the new volume of currency. In practice, credit expansion which brings about a reduction in interest rates also increases the amount of time businesses can go without making deductions for depreciation on their balance sheets as they purchase capital goods. Because investment tends to go toward durable goods during periods of credit expansion, there is less funds left over to devote to labor. Profits end up being recorded while wages sag behind. Since credit expansion and inflationary policy go hand in hand in distorting relative prices and must eventually come to an end, the bust that occurs reveals wasteful investment. Recession sets in shortly thereafter.
Printed money is not the same as accumulated savings which would otherwise fund sustainable lines of investment. And it is only through adding to the economy’s pool of real savings that productive capacity is able to increase in the long term. The wealthy have a higher propensity to save precisely because they have a higher income. It is through their savings that new business ventures are funded and the economy is able to grow without the faux profits from government-enabled credit expansion. This is why raising taxes on the rich is a backwards solution to income inequality. Taxation only funnels money out of the productive, private sector and into the public sector which focuses on spending to meet political ends rather than consumer satisfaction. All government spending boils down to wasted capital. The truth is that capital is always scarce; there is never enough of it.
Pointing out this fact is by no means corporate shilling. Many corporations and well connected businesses lobby for tax increases in order to burden their competitors. Currently in California, Governor Jerry Brown is campaigning for a ballot measure which would raise taxes on the state’s richest residents. According to the Wall Street Journal, companies such as Disney, NBC, Warner Bros., Viacom, CBS, and Sony have each already pitched in $100,000 for the initiative. Various energy companies are financially supporting the ballot measure to make sure that a 25% tax on natural gas and oil extraction isn’t next. As the scope of government becomes all the more encompassing, big business starts seeing profit opportunity in using its forceful authority to better its own competitive position. In their unceasing tirades over income inequality, Stiglitz and Krugman recognize the trouble rent-seeking poses to competitive markets yet both reason that the problem doesn’t lie with the state but with those politicians and bureaucrats who occupy its enforcement offices. To put it bluntly, this notion isn’t just juvenile; it rests on the fallacious assumption that government is staffed by only the most well-meaning of individuals in society. As history and reason dictate however, good souls are not attracted to positions of absolute power. The state, by Max Weber’s definition, holds the monopoly over force in a given area. Practically every action taken by state officials introduces violence or the spoils from violence into an otherwise free society. It follows that only those seeking to use state authority for their own benefit naturally gravitate toward politics.
Krugman and Stiglitz believe, as most do, that Americans should be born with the opportunity to succeed. To create an environment of fairness, they propose a variety of government policies so that even the most impoverished individuals will have a shot at the American Dream. Their arguments rest largely on emotion instead of reason and are aimed at inspiring reactionary protest. What they fail to see (or refuse to acknowledge) is that the free market provides the best opportunities for someone to make a decent living by providing goods and services. In a totally uninhibited market, profits come only to those who satisfy consumers more than their competition. Contrary to Stiglitz’s suggestion, Henry Ford wasn’t a great businessman because he paid his workers a high wage. He made his fortune by streamlining the process from which cars were built in order to sell them at a lower price. The employees at Ford were able to increase their productivity, and thus wages, through the previous accumulation of capital and investment in machinery. Ford’s massive profits didn’t last long however as domestic and foreign competition copied the mass production model and were able to attract market share of their own. The greater the amount of cars on the market meant lower prices for all consumers in the end.
Again, in a truly free market the only way to maintain a rising income is to continually produce at a more efficient and more innovative rate. In an economy plagued by the heavy hand of government, the market becomes rigged in favor of those connected to the ruling establishment. Competition is decreased by the rising cost of adhering to regulations, innovation stagnates, and more income flows to the top. Through central banking and credit expansion, profits are able to be recorded by the financial industry and first receivers of money before the rest of the population; which in turn leads to further evidence of income inequality.
No matter how you slice it, taxation is theft. It is indiscernible from highway robbery and devoid of any moral justification. Income inequality is a problem not because the government isn’t doing enough to combat it but because politicians and bureaucrats never tire of intervening into the private affairs of society. With government intervention present in practically all market transactions, the solution to income inequality is to remove the intervention; not empower the state further by increasing the amount of funds at its disposal.
»
- 15901 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
People who know history have stripes. Very bad stripes.
Individuals own their own bodies. If individuals own their own bodies and they use their bodies to create material goods then those goods belong to the individual,
_______________________________________
Ah, the self ownership scam. It was introduced to fill in a gap: the fact that capital is unevenly distributed at birth of an individual, giving the situation that some individuals are born with no capital.
SO by claiming that a body is property, that it is capital, it helps claiming that everyone is born with capital. Which is moot.
Nodoby owns onelself. You are yourself.
The best is that with the unmitigated love for freedom as US citizens have displayed from inception, it also legalizes slavery as one can dispose of property and such one can sell onself in slavery, a bit libertarians are vocal about.
Aint life good in US citizen world?
Plop!
Without ownership of things no one gives a shit-sometimes called the tragedy of the commons. We capitalists call it having "skin in the game" and without it its always "other people's money" which means massive waste and malinvestment since the "income" of government always consists "other people's money". And taxaction is indeed a form of robbery.
I'm guessing even Marxists take better care of their own car than one they rent. Ditto for a rental house.
When you're dealing with other people's money you get "investments" like Solindra and high speed rail since profit isn't a consideration. You get airports built in the middle of nowhere in Spain. Housing projects for people with no jobs or income etc. Fortunately, systems involving OPM eventurally run out of OPM since they are just ponzis.
The tragedy of the commons is just one face of the coin. The other face is the tragedy of the private things.
US citizen economy is all about consumption.
Common or private property does not change the consequences of it.
"There is no such thing as "ownership of things""
Wow!! In one sentence you've dismissed one of the cornerstones of freedom; that being individual property rights. Do you really not believe in those? If so, I can't imagine what random article brought you to ZH.
ok newbie, try to define ownership without describing how people behave.
Retards like you and your friends on this thread is probably why real people don't comment much anymore.
You are either paid smog or useful idiots.
your collective comments remind me of the pod people screaming when you see a real idea instead of a simplified simulacrum
Of course human behavior is instrumental to the concept of property. That's why Mises titled his book Human Action. The problem is that you say that there is no ownership of goods. That view is not supported by human behavior. Who would work or even bother to swipe an EBT if such action did not lead to the ownership of required goods and services?
Um, why would anyone try to prove ownership to this guy? We need more of him. They are easier to enslave. Just kick his ass and tell him its not his ass anyway.
This is why marxist and liberals are the first to be eliminated when its all said and done. They are just to ideological and dumb to realize it.
Having said that - those on the right aren't much better. Neither represent real individual freedom.
Wow!! In one sentence you've dismissed one of the cornerstones of freedom; that being individual property rights.
_____________________________________
One cornerstone of freedom? Even the Founding Fathers dissociate freedom, life and other natural rights from property rights.
But hey, this is a US world order.
"One cornerstone of freedom? Even the Founding Fathers dissociate freedom, life and other natural rights from property rights."
"Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty." John Adams 1787
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
@SME MOFO
It's "ok" to play language games here if you are deliberately trying to ignore or minimize certain facts of human interaction in order to justify your own desire to practice theft, fraud, or initiation of force.
I am hoping you can see that there is such a thing as "cooperation", as directly opposed to non-cooperation: something that people have come to label: "theft", "fraud", and initiation of force ("murder", "extortion", etc.) through the bitter experience of many years. Anyone with common sense can see that if people can cooperate, rather than practice theft, fraud, or initiation of force there will, in general, be a higher state of well being for a larger number of people in that system.
If you want to cooperate with those people who wish to live by cooperation in a particular place then you will choose to live by the rules that define that cooperation. Otherwise you will enjoy the consequences of your choices that may put you in conflict with what is understood to be "civilized" human behavior. There is no need for a "government" in order for such rules to exit and be enforced. All that is needed is for people to mutually understand and respect the appropriate use of force against those sub-humans who choose to practice "theft", "fraud", or "criminal force" rather than living their lives according to voluntary exchange (cooperation).
To state that there is
is about equivalent to stating that there is no such thing as a group of people attempting to live by cooperation rather than continual conflict. So what do you want: the life of a predatory beast in a land where anyone can and will use a shotgun on you? The life of a predatory beast where predatory beasts "outlaw" their victim's use of shotguns through governmental "law", or the life of a human being where you refrain from predatory behavior and support and affirm the "right" of others to live as human beings - (justly use the "shotgun")?
I have no idea why I even wasted my time, lord stay my hand next time it itches
Fear and greed get a lot of press but the fact is envy and relative status anxiety are a much bigger driver of human behavior.
This has been proven empirically in tests where subjects will choose a smaller over a greater sum of money to prevent the other subject(s) from receiving a greater sum.
It seems like a rather preposterous default setting for human nature to me but I suppose complacency isn't the best strategy for propagating one's genes...
I wish Fed credit card had expiry date and credit limit.
http://www.freefdawatchlist.com/2012/08/ecb-fine-tuning-operation-causing-one.html
vinu02: +100
slewienomics indicates that:
krugs + joeStig = apples + oranges
fuktard strikes again!
While I do agree that income inequality does exist and has existed since the invention of money (and even before then with the barter system), it only seems in the last 15 years or so the dynamics have changed.
Credit expansion has enabled this - I will give you that point. But there is a deeper trend that is going on that few talk about. Companies make higher and higher profits without sharing any of that with the workers. Management has learned that hitting artificial growth targets = big bonuses. So no matter what happens, that is the carrot on the stick. Managers sole goal is to hit thier designated sales target or whatever so that they can receive a huge bonus. Skirting of the rules is the norm, not the exception. Pay a small fine and keep most of the benefits.
Workers are expendible - mere cogs in the wheel on the way to a bonus or more stock options. At the first sign of any downturn they immediately start firing people. They cut salaries and hours without abandon. They mitigate the circumstances of an economic pullback through their workforce. Some of that is to be expected - less sales = less workers. However, even in good times we now see companies regularly laying off 1000s of workers to improve profits. They get other workers to do the work of 2 or 3 others. Because jobs are hard to come by (and are regularly ousourced), the employers rule the roost an people put up with it. Instead of raises (with the exception of govt workers), most receive pay cuts or hour cuts but are expected to do 1.5 to 2x more work for the same pay.
I have no problem with companies making a profit - that is capitalism. I also have no problem with layoffs - that is part of the economic cycle. Not all companies are like this - it just seems that as time goes on more and more are.
The sad fact is eventually all this will backfire on the very companies who are thinking they are smart. Short term - yes, long term no.
If enough companies adopt the same mantra, eventually there is no one who can afford to consume the very products the companies provide. It just happens this is a longer timeline than most care to think about. But once in place it will take just as long to undo it. We are close to that point now. Most of the jobs created are min wage retail jobs hocking the crap that the companies are making in China and then selling here. The cost savings to consumers from such products can only carry them so far - eventually inflation of all items each year negates the savings and then accelerates the decline in standard of living. We are witnessing that now.
You don't get it. These companies would be put out of business. Read the article again.
READ FOR COMPREHENSION, people!
Buckaroo, I normally agree with your comments and posts, and while I share your growing frustration (it's palpable these days, much more so than in the past) with the situation and the reaction of our ZH and other friends, I think you are off the mark in your criticism of WTF_247.
Although his final two paragraphs are off the mark, those conclusions are not directly related to the original post. While he fails to recognize the reality that the increase in productivity was always going to invariably lead to fewer people being needed to produce the same total of goods and service and the reality that eventually China and all other low cost producers will raise prices relative to other prices as a result of the new activity. Nature and economics will always find its way to level. Only innovation and artificial rules can delay it. Innovation, if continuous, can hold it at bay indefinitely while the rules of kings and governments can't.
The productivity issue is something we have yet to get a handle upon. Our current system seems ill equipped to adapt to a reality where few are able to produce/provide for the needs of many. EBTs for those not producing is the temporary answer, but this leads to more problems as we go on. I don't think I need to recount them. But what are we going to do about this? Today we can provide most of our needs running on about 2/3rd workforce participation, what happens when technology and other productivity gains allow us the same output with only 1/3rd participation? New iThings can only go so far. Sharing the production responsibility won't work in most cases because the complexity requirements mean that the divide between the skilled / working and unskilled / not-working will grow and be impossible to bridge in most cases.
I don't have an answer, I put it out there as clearly as I can because I don't think we've even begun to recognize or understand the problem, let alone address it.
If enough companies adopt the same mantra, eventually there is no one who can afford to consume the very products the companies provide. It just happens this is a longer timeline than most care to think about.
_____________________
'American' arrogance is such they often consider that others are dumb.
Production is consumption. With an environment at large, the world, being finite, on the path of depletion of resources, consumption, all forms of consumption are going to go down. Including production.
Corporations are going to produce less and less due to that fact. Less consumption pressure on their products is unavoidable. Due to 'American' world order, it is now unbypassable.
There is no issue here: you do not have to favour consumption where there is less and less to consume.
Favouring consumption is the best when you want to consume resources (race for depletion of resources) before some others can.
Infinite growth is US citizen fantasy, all the zero sum games that 'Americans' have concealed by robbing so much from non and sub humans are going to kick in.
This Article is by far one of the best if not the best I have ever read on ZH...
btw
Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html
I second that.
Tell me what you think of this.
http://vaevictis.me/2012/07/26/on-food-production/
I havent written for a while, but will go back soon.
I third it. It is a magnificent defense of free market principles, and a positively bone-crushing attack on statism and Marxism.
Furthermore, the case is laid out clearly and concisely, using words any 8th grader could understand.
Regrettably, it seems a number of 7th graders have inflicted us with their presence in the comments.
Do go back to writing that was very good though I suspect it will be lost to many misunderstanding.
Equality of income can only result in less production of wealth because no one will produce more than the minumum required and government will have to decide what the minumums are yet will be prevented from reducing income if some choose tp produce nothing. You will wind up with the USSR model where the joke was" they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."
i don't believe it's a desire to destroy the wealth of producers, actually to work for a great product, idea, company, boss fulfils an employee. it affords the worker a high degree of satisfaction. it is human in some true sense to feel part of a team, or to want the group one identifies with to succeed. the heart of the separation, and the dissent between crown/ ceo/producer begins when recognition succumbs to disdain. failure by an owner/producer/crown to fail to respect their employees or subjects signals the beginning of their own company's or rule's demise. this is not about equality of income, but rather equity; respect and recognition for a job well done. the disdain banks show their clients reflects perfectly the disdain some employers show their workers.
Government regulation and taxation limit opportunities for workers. Less regulation would mean a lower bar to entering the marketplace as either an employee or self employed entrepreneur and lead to a much happier workforce. As usual, the problem is government.
The main source of regulation is competition. Competition demands a rule so competitiveness can be measured.
Isn't that an interesting thought. And all along, progress has been measured by profit which can be measured and is more inducive to job creation. Sorry you missed that day of class.
And how would you apply that to government departments and entities? Since they are of and by the federal government, they can be as regulated as they want. And by definition, as a government entity, they are regulated to the highest extent. So what would you tell the union postal worker about the government missing their latest $5 billion payment into benefits and that the pension system may go bust? Shouldn't such a highly regulated program with clearly the smartest people in charge have that under control? And why is it that the competitors to USPS aren't having such problems to that extent?
Equality of income can only result in less production of wealth because no one will produce more than the minumum required
________________________
If it is true, then it would mean an environment consumed more slowly, lasting longer. That would suit an environment put on the path to depletion of resources.
But I doubt it is true as US citizen nature is eternal so...
Arrest the author and redistrbute her families wealth.
Hint: don't read articles on psychology from libertarians. Or articles on sex techniques, come to think of it.
Austrians do Human Action best.
Now this is some major league bullshit.
The government.
He missed the most important thing... Income inequality is based on the monetary system vs state currency. If the economy used specie money in a non monopoly fractional reserve system. The individuals with savings get the majority of the return from lending, even including a modest brokerage/ finders fee for banks as an intermediary i.e. the banks dont get rich, the people with savings get a reasonable return.
That's the point he should have made, instead of beating around the bush over several pages.
As far as fixing the system, implement taleb's recommendations:
Institute the code of hamarabi(sp): make the boards and CEO's of these companies personally liable for all of their assets (like the Swiss) if the company becomes insolvent. Give them downside incentives that can't be played!
Any company on the receiving end of bailouts should have all salaries capped at modest civil servant salaries (to incentivize employees to leave and/ or the company to shrink and get straight).
This explains it well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvL_Dm2d99A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Unfortunately, the politics are totally captured and nothing will happen...
I should write these articles. I just covered all the important points in less than a page!!
Income inequality exists because the rich make the rules. BRIBERY. Do you get it? Remember when unemployment was not taxable? Remember when YOUR credit card interest and auto loans were tax deductible? Funny how corporate America gets to move its HQ offshore and get out of taxes. Can I send my paycheck to the Caymans before Uncle Sam takes a cut? Can you help me out with that, Mitt? How about my gambling winnings? Oh, excuse me.....when Wall Street does it it's called "capital gains". Talking about true capitalism and honestly regulated free markets is like musing about Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. You've never seen either. And since it looks like Obama will win again.....you never will.
It still kills me every time I see that Obama commercial where he says "we tried that, and it got us into this mess". He's trying to refer to capitalism, but we all know that capitalism hasn't been tried in a long freakin time.
It's really debt inequality at this point. The 1% are getting "richer" faster at an ever increasing rate. But it is not money that exists. There is a dividing line at some point high up the food chain where this debt is treated as current wealth. Traded for real things as if it was money now. But most of it is still debt. Future money. Goods and labor that is yet to exist. Yet to be paid back. The 1% are cutting their own throats. Creating so much debt and imagining it is currently real money. To keep on doing it is quickly eating away the ultimate ability to keep paying. We are reaching terminal debt. The debtors cannot take on more and still survive to labor. Or have the will to labor.
When the 99% are fully tapped out and just living hand to mouth, then the 1% will see their "wealth" become stagnant and then begin to be eaten away as well. Then the real fun starts. They begin feeding on one another in earnest. Think it's a dirty game picking the pockets of the proles? When the sharks start in on each other it will be a very satisfying show for the 99%.
The wealthy know better than the plebs: it's not really wealth while it's still in (fiat) currency form; they hold real assets, such as (faraway) land. They live quite well, don't fret.
And there you have it...this is the principle most people never realize. Money is not wealth. Buy assets instead of liabilities and life won't be so tough.
With full knowledge I will be junked to hell and back...
Everyone does not deserve a McMansion, or two cars in the garage or a HDTV in every room. Everyone will not have every new electronic gadget or nice vacations or designer clothes.
However, EVERYONE deserves access to affordable health care and education. When a college degree takes 20 years to pay off so you can get a "good job" (to pay off the degree) you're just a rat on giant debt wheel. Apparently it's impossible to know anything unless you pay for a degree from an "accredited" institution. No conflict of interest there.
Those who believe poor people wander into the ER and receive free world class health care are delusional. ERs do as little for the uninsured as possible to control costs. If the patient is stable they are given a pat on the head, a prescription for prilosec or prozac (with no refills) and told to see their (non-existent) primary care physician.
Instead of pricing health care on a sliding scale based on income (like taxes) we just wait for people to show up in the ER repeatedly (given a quick pat on the head) and off again until they return half dead requiring tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in uncompensated care.
I pay more than my fair share of taxes - most of which are simply wasted or stolen. I much rather know my money is going to educate and heal people than to bail out bankers, subsidize oil companies or start yet another false flag war in some third world hellhole.
Junk away.
Go back and read the article, and think about. Then read it again. And again.
Right. Exactly how propaganda brainwashes susceptible sheeple.
Um. News flash, shit-for-brains: propaganda is the stuff that appeals to emotion, not reason. Goebbels never asked anyone to "think it through."
What the fuck happened around here? Did HuffPuff and DailyKos get out early tonight? Did the Olympics pre-empt MSNBC?
Hey douchebag, repetition is a form of propaganda. As in...
"taxation is theft"
Say it enough times and thats all the sheeple know. They no longer have the ability to look at the issue critically.
The elites used political pressure to keep taxes low for decades, and took their trillions and parked it offshore, where they can use it to plunder the next economy.
And you don't want the little guy to catch on and get to keep some of his money too.
I'd like to see a wealth tax, big exempt amount, and increase in estate tax to get it back from the elites. Also, a progressive tax that hits those CEOs making 380 times the average workers pay hardest, a transaction tax aimed at HFT, and increased capital gains tax, again with an exempt amount. The little guys would be in that exempt catagory.
Obvious troll or hard core left wing fascist....either way a waste of time...
I think of myself as a libertarian socialist. If you think calling me a commie or a fascist or a libtard or a shit for brains helps with your argument, realize you are engaging in a form of propaganda
I don't care what you think of yourself. You don't think for yourself.
My goodness, you are breathtakingly stupid.
Of course taxation is theft. Taxation is taking wealth by force. That's the definition of theft.
Just because the state sanctions the taking by force doesn't make it right, it just makes it legal.
I suppose from your perspective my not having received the required indoctrination marks me as less intelligent. Some have learned to think outside the box, however. You've repeated your mantra "taxation is theft" so many times there is no way to break through the confirmation bias and have an informed discussion.
Death and taxes.
Regardless to whether taxation if theft or not is moot - we will all be taxed.
My point is where that money ends up - do we build up society by keeping the populace healthy and promote useful, productive skills or should we continue to throw our collective tax dollars at the top 400 families...
"Our collective tax dollars?" Too funny. If government can tax you then the money wasn't yours when you earned it so what makes you think that it's yours even in a collective sense once it's been taken form you?
You are suggesting that the ability to collect taxes is the same as unconstrained, unchecked power to do whatever "they" want to with the funds.
As rigged as the system is - voters still show their muscle now and again. There is some level accountability - razor thin as it may be.
I wish that were true. But government officials and their associates are now committing crimes in broad daylight.
I can't believe this got junked twice already.
So you condone sending a swat team to go stick a gun in someone's face to steal their money to give to someone else??? May I recommend bastiat's "the Law".
"However, EVERYONE deserves access to affordable health care and education"
And YOU can pay for it. Until it's as free as air, socialists, get it through your productivist heads, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY.
"I pay more than my fair share of taxes - most of which are simply wasted or stolen. I much rather know my money is going to educate and heal people than to bail out bankers, subsidize oil companies or start yet another false flag war in some third world hellhole."
Then get it through your head: that will never happen. How about, since you're so generous - honest to goodness - we end the waste and stealing by ending all taxes, then you and I and everyone else is FREE to donate whatever we want to whomever we want, or not. Or is your generosity and goodwill contingent upon "fairness"? ...
Fuck off socialist. Why should I have to pay for other people's education and healthcare??
Maybe so we dont end up with a planet full of people as selfish, shallow and stupid as you?
Oh wait, thats already happened.....
A typical left wing fascist comment. Of course the most selfish is your actual type.
What are you doing on ZH...being a crybaby or trolling to try and get at other people's money?
Be gone Satan !
You actually said "left wing fascist"!
WTF? try saying that to mussolini or hitlers boys and see how quickly they shoot you.
Try looking up the definition of left wing then look up fascist, now you understand the difference.................You're welcome.
I love it when you people display your lack of knowledge in history, gives me a warm feeling...down there, now get back to serving at the drive thru, breaks over wage slave boy.
Please explain why "everyone deserves" the health care, education and other things you believe they deserve. While you're at it, please explain what level of health care, etc you're talking about and who is paying for it. Otherwise, you're talking unthinking utopian drivel.
Don't care what you think. Your argument is all about "feeling"...you have not a feckin idea of how to mainatain a "free market / free people" society.
It has been educated out of you by those3 very prople that you yearn to make health care and education "affordable".
DumKoff - listen up - the "price level" of any good or service in an economy is not "high" or "low" if it is determined by the Fed (or State) Gov't. It is simply determined.
Both Health Care and education are prime examples of this. So shove you whole "taxes" and "pricing"arguments up your nose and start reading things that they didn't teach you at some left wing fascist institution.
Wow...ZH is really getting some real crybabies onto the site. Feckin weepers.
It' the algorithms that the rich own and use that bring their wealth and move money, the have teeth. Sometimes it is so gradual you don't see it happening until the breaker goes off one day. The link below has a great video from physicist Sean Gourley and it's worth watching by all means.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2012/08/high-frequency-trading-algorithm....
The health insurance algorithms have decreased MD pay and it has been a gradual process as well. Insurers all live off their algorithms and the parameters created for us to qualify to maybe get them to pay for some items we need or as consumers we have to go open a program anymore like Quicken health to figure out if we can afford to go to the hospital, yeah work those numbers first all the time. United Healthcare with their low ball algorithms ripped patients and doctors for 15 years with mathematics that nobody understood or had time to contest. Then they licensed the formulas to all the other major insurers and had money coming both ways until Andrew Cuomo stopped the show.
That's how inequality grows today with algorithms that move the money in more ways than one and not just in markets.
Algorithms? Seriously?
Read the article. The answers are there.
I'll give you a hint. If you want to STEAL WEALTH and CREATE NOTHING OF VALUE, you either:
1) Join the government, or better yet,
2) Buy off the people in government.
Now, forget about "algorithms", and apply the above two principles to healthcare. Or education. Or anything else that has become completely fucked up in the last 99 years.
There is a reason the federal government has grown exponentially since 1913!!! It's to separate you from your wealth, your freedom, and eventually, your life.
Think it through, people.
Gee, there is major income inequality in North Korea too. Looks like communism isn't the answer either.
Taxes are bad, free markets are good. These kind of liberterian articles are utter garbage. Doesn't discuss any specifics or what his definition of a 'free market' is or how we get there. You could get a more sophisicated, insight essay from a 10th or 11th grader.
I agree, the article doesn't communicate the points effectively. Read my post I made several posts up. You need to understand how the systems interact.
I may tend to disagree with most liberterian economic principles (socially I tend strongly be liberterian though) but at least describe to me on what you consider a free market should be, what role a central gov't should fufill, and what types of taxes should be in place to fund the limited roles for central gov't.
You're a fucking dimwit socialist. Get the fuck off this website.
sez the 'freedom loving' libertarian in an obviously emotional outburst. You just disproved all your previous posts on rationality with that reaction and once again showed how libertarianism is swiss cheese logic, based on no reality whatsoever.
Well,that's what I get for trying to teach pigs to sing. To paraphrase the old saying, it gets me nothing but frustration, and a bunch of annoyed pigs.
Take that Koch.
LOL! Ban the infidels! What a country...at least we get some entertainment out of these knuckledraggers... Please, continue!
Normally I would have a civil discourse with someone on here but your a d!ck normally you just engages in personal attacks and throws out garbage statements.
This should keep you busy.
https://mises.org/
Start with reading some Bastiat. Start with "the law". It's short. Really short. That's probably the best starting point, then read Hayek's Nobel speech: "the pretense of knowledge". Then read Hayek's "A free market monetary system". That should get you what you're after.
Do you always tend to disagree with things you clearly know nothing about? Hint: "free market" cannot be such in the presence of "(central) gov't" ... it is not possible for an extralegal entity, particularly one with control of currency, to not manipulate the market with its very presence. If you have government, you no longer have a free market. Any further discussion is ABSURD because the premise is false.
Buzzwords and randomly-thrown together facts don't begin to form a coherent essay/article with a central theme supported by a series of coherent thoughts from the author with support material.
If you point is that any form of central gov't prevents 'free markets', then yeah having a conversation with you is pretty pointless. You will have some form of centralized authority even at a local level that regulates trades/commerce in some form or fashion.
BA from Shippensburg for the author? That explains a lot. Majored in public administration with a minor in alcoholism.
Ah, the ad Hominem attack. The true mark of the intellectually deficient and the Marxist.
Not just an ad hominem, but that peculiarly bourgeois-academic species known as "insufficiently or inappropriately credentialed" - not having enough capital letters before and after your name - what a truly terrible affliction. Make everyone who lacks a minimum of 5 years of postsecondary indoctrination automatically an ignoramus with zero credibility, hmm cui bono ... hmmmm
On a bunch of subjects, yeah it does. It is how a specialized society works espeically in roles that require heavy analtyic bent.
As for Shippensburg, it is one of the worst state schools in PA. Right up there with Bloomsburg or IUP. It may hurt your feelings but the only reason someone goes to Shippensburg is because they had mediocre/crappy grades in high school and scored below average/poorly on their SATs. Scoring low on SATS is one thing. Having mediocre/poor grades especially in a US high school where the curriculum is not challenging at the non-AP level means someone doesn't have the disclipine or work ethic to do well. No reason that kids should get a B- or less in most average level high school classes today especially with your inflated grades are.
Whether you think that is 'bourgeois-academic' crap or not that is the way the world works, has for quite some time now, and will continue to do so in the future.
In other news, shit just got real.
http://www.breakingnews.com/
Report: Free Syrian Army claims it has killed Russian general in Syria who had been aiding Assad regime - @AlArabiya_EngRebel forces don't claim to have killed a family in Damascus? Shot nearly all family members but a young boy who whas hung outside? http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/iranian-news-reports-child-hanged-by.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Heck - I don't know if its true or not. You can't trust any news regarding Syria actually, neither AlJazeera, the MSM and so on.
But, there must be a reason that jewish papers warn for extremists groups in Syria - which as we know are in the opposition forces.
Thanks for posting this. Entirely depressing, and entirely not surprising.
Thank you Hillary Clinton and the rest of the feckin completely clueless d_bags in the Obama Admin.
Earth to Sparky -- it's not "envy"... people want equal access to opportunity. It's the big shots that demand the bailouts -- the great majority of people would rather have jobs and earn their money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAhnhJgPPo
yes... the You Didn't Build that Creature episode...
enjoy...
el dukerino
you have no idea how often I have written krugman and explained how excessive credit expansion in fact creates the income inequality. but banks don't exist in is mind, and crredit flows into the real economy are perfect, and the banks don't have the abilty to put it into the financial economy.
I think they all know this, but to maintain the illusion benefits the elites. so krugman pretends he's a man of the people, but he is really a tool fo the elites
I understand the arguments, but as long as the corporations run rough-shod over the responsible worker, and the government colludes, and people like Jon Corzine roam free; the arguments are academic hyperbole.
Why mix a crook / theif Jon Corzine, with "corporations" running rough shod over "responsible" workers?
Jon Corzine was a left wing facsist, who stole other people's money as a Senator and Governor to redistribute to others.
Jon Corzine was a left wing fascist that stole $1B of clients money as CEO of MF Global, in a vain attempt to make 100 of millions for himself.
Jon Corzine has been protected by the left wing fascist Obama Gov't, and Lame Stream Media, and never brought to trial.
Jon Corzine remains a top $$ bundler for Obama.
Now what were you sayin' about corporatuions and workers you stupid feckin' idjit ?
I dont comment on here an awful lot, but I always find the comments more interesting than the articles. I just wanted to bring up something I have thought about, but no one seems to talk about... corporate income taxes, and really income taxes in general. My thought is that raising income taxes on corporations only hurts the little guys even more. Since most corporations are the same legal constructs. Corps are rquired to maximize profits. If tax rates are increased, who really pays those taxes? Where do these evil corps get their money? On a basic level, we consumers give them "money" in exchange for goods or services. I will concede that some industries are different, but on a fundamental level most work that way. When "evil" wal-mart's tax rate is increased, it still has to buy inventory, pay employees, and take care of overhead. They receive income from customers buying goods. From this income they invest, and pay bills. Revenue is taxed. The owners make a profit. So, they pay the taxes from the money given by customers. The question is, what happens when tax rates increase? Do they make less profit or raise prices so that profit stays the same while covering the increased taxes? If there's no profit or not enough profit to be worthwhile to the owners, do they continue in business just to pay taxes? What happens to the employees if they decide it just isn't worth it anymore? What happens to asset values if they liquidate? Stock values? Same questions if they continue... does share price drop if profits are lowered? Will employees be paid the same, or will salaries drop? Will they lay off workers? Think about what may happen if all corporations have to make these decisions. How would you proceed if you were promoted at work, but you new salary places you in a higher tax bracket. Due to the higher tax rate, your take home pay is less than what you took home at a lower salary/tax rate? What if this put a strain on your own finances? It's all very complicated and hard to work out. I once had to quit a job due to gas price once, due to a long commute. I was basically paying to go to work. That situation really sucked. Got to pay bills, and I had less than nothing left over. It wasn't worth it. What happens when the coprs decide its not worth it en masse? Same with the so called rich. They have tons of money saved up, and continue to earn more. They can't spend it all. So they invest. What happens when they stop earning incomes because they don't want to pay higher tax rates? They will live off of what they already have easily. Plus they have their investments. So with a lot of the corps gone because they couldnt make a profit, and the rich stop earning incomes, what's a government to do? They can't have the poor paying taxes, because they would get angry and not vote how they are supposed to. Raise capital gains taxes on the investments the rich hold? Congress is slow... the rich see it coming, and cash out while they lower rate is still in effect. They have enough already to live on and still not have any worries. So agin government has even less revenue. the rich remain rich, but stop getting richer. The middle class can't take their place, because they cant bear the tax burden, or have lost their jobs because the coprs can't make a profit. The poor also lose jobs. They didn't pay taxes anyway, but got refunds anyway. More govt debt, less revenue. The music stops. Those still earning incomes scramble for chairs. There are none. You look around the room to see politicians, corps, and the poor comfortably seated. All demanding "their" money from you, and the others who have found a way to still earn a living. They take it all, even the bag that held it, and demand more. You are forced to liquidate to pay, or they seize, taking away your ability to earn. No one left paying except govt. employees. Those who can retire. Reducing revenue further for govt. no one to borrow from left to pay entitlements, no one earning to pay interest. Then it's over. It will likely collapse well before that point. I doubt they could keep all of it juggling that long. From there, chaos. Politicians retire, so they don't have to be the ones burdened by the national debt seeing they are the only ones getting paid anymore. No one replaces them for the same reason. Now the laws in place become permanent. No one left to vote to change the law. The rich, including politicians, now own evrything. The rest die or do whatever they can to survive. The result is worse than "income inequality", and more unfair. The end.
The only solution I see, like some others, is to simply stop playing. Do everything you can to become as self reliant as possible. Strive to be debt as well as income free. Physical anything is better than fiat. Food, ammo, land, seeds. fuel and other energy souces. books, music, tools including weapons for hunting and protection, drugs, chemicals, fishing tacke, metals, electrical generating equipment of any kind (generators, car alternators, solar panels, rechargeable auto, marine, lawn equimpment and ATV batteries to store electricity generated, anything you may find useful, because fiat paper won't be anything but tinder or toilet paper.
Socialist war nostalgia ! Many Russians miss Stalin, too !
Uh, no they don't...
You need to study your history a little more closely.
Tax rates may have been high, but anybody with any kind of income never paid anything close to those rates. There were a wealth of deductions, shelters, and loopholes that anybody with a good accountant could take advantage of. Reagan's tax reforms in the eighties did away with those shelters and loopholes, allowing nominal rates to be dropped substantially
As far as American prosperity after WW2, that wasnt due to unions or taxes. It was entirely because the USA was the only part of the globe that wasn't completely devastated by WW2. The postwar prosperity began to end in the US in the early 60s when Japan and Europe rebuilt themselves and started catching up.
"It was entirely because the USA was the only part of the globe that wasn't completely devastated by WW2."
Oh, God, yes, I remember all those horribly bombed-out areas in Brazil, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Mexico and Spain after World War II...
"The question is, what happens when tax rates increase? Do they make less profit or raise prices so that profit stays the same while covering the increased taxes?"
They can do whatever they want--why should I or anyone else care? They can learn to live on less profits, or they can raise prices and lose customers. I don't give a shit. They don't care about the financial choices that their customers have to make, so why should I care what financial choices they have to make? If they go out of business, I'll just shop somewhere else. Or I won't shop at all. And the employees they lay off can just fend for themselves, which is how those corporations feel about their employees anyway. Law of the jungle, baby--just like the Randians like it....
Exactly... The last paragraph I wrote comes in here. I don't care what happens to them either. I don't need a paycheck to live. I don't need fiat. I'm out of the game. No banks, No debt. No Income. No taxes. The "economy" no longer has an affect. I'll do what I can to take care of myself and those I care about. If I can't do it myself, I can barter. F---k this government and their so called "economy" and their so called "elections" It's all illigitimate, so it doesn't exist.
Freedom bitches.
Disgusting.
If "common sense" was either common or made sense, things would look very different, common sense makes no sense, and is what has brought us hither. Regarding government, I am remined of St Augustine's "In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?"
This has got to be the most retarded piece of work of this year.
Yes, the 99% are afraid of income-inequality. Has nothing to do with non-existing entities like corporations who skip tax altogether, and all forms of taxations are meant to steal your money (in a Robin Hood fashion??) and give it to the "poor".
The "poor" like JP Morgan and Barcleys.
This kind of drivel does not belong on any site where people use common sense to evaluate what they read. It's a friggin' insult to our intelligence to have to read this lame kind of anti-communist propaganda. Grow up, the Russian are not going to invade, socialism isn't communism, and taxes are used for more things than simply handouts.
Fuck you. Eat your peas bitch.
He rests his case....
It's NOT a 'free market' when you use your wealth to rig the markets, fix the rules and buy off government. What we now have is crony capitalism at best, bordering on that fusion of corporate and government interests - fascism.
Having done well in life - admittedly as much through pure luck (right place, rioght time) as having done the 'right things (hard work, good education) I can, without a doubt say that simply doing the right things does NOT guarantee success. You have a far better chance if starting out life among the wealthy and priviledged. The innate advantages - the family connections and all else that comes from being born with a figuratgive silver spoon in ones mouth - more than offset any hard work' exerted by the average person starting out. Those that have it make damn sure they do all they can to keep it - claiming all the while that their inherent skill and hard work got them where they are (not the fact that they were born with 99% of what they have). I've seen too many people working their tails off and getting nowhere - through no fault of their own, people who've been screwed by employers who used them up and discarded them - while seeing people who've done NOTHING of value with their lives live without a care - never working - EVER - baceuse some grandparent was a success and left them a fortune. I have also seen people who have done the right thing - who've worked hard, acted ethically - lose everything while those who cheat and scheme make fortunes. Steal a little and you go to prison. Steal a LOT and you're set for life.
TAX INHERITED WEALTH at an ever increasing rate. We have created a new class of rentiers - aristocrats born to wealth who only concentrate more and more wealth among fewer and fewer hands. The 6 Walmart heirs are worth more than 30% of the remaining US - 100 million people. THey sure as hell didn't EARN what they have. Let them keep 5 million or so each - tax the rest - or have them share it with their employees - the ones working to make all they have possible. Most of those employees are in that 30% - most working less than 30 hours a week so Walmart doesn't have to pay them benefits - many of them collecting foodstamps as well because the are paid so little.
When the inherent value of labor is devalued by TRILLIONS of dollars of 'free money' created out of thin air and lent at 0% interest to large corporations (corporations thta have FAILED and should have gone bankrupt because of the losses they suffered through their own mismanagement) - who are charging obscene interst rates on credit cards - while paying NOTHING on deposits - it is clear that crony capitalism rules.
Tyler, do you post these articles just to create a shitstorm between the Ayn Rand free market nutjobs and the Marxists who browse this site?
There is this whole "No Government" is a magic bullet that will solve everything meme going on in this article and many of the posts which is treated as an "obvious truth" without any supporting evidence.
Here's a little something for you: Zero Government = Anarchy. That's Somalia in the 90s. Under that situation, you need not worry that big money buys the laws and takes some of your money away through taxation, you'll just have to worry that big money buys lots of men with guns and they'll come to your home, shoot your kids in the head and all you'll see for the last 20 minutes of your life will be them raping your wife, before shooting both of you and leaving with all your valuables.
So some government is needed. The problem is that the one we have is a corrupt cesspool. Clearly what needs fixing are the conditions that allow that corruption to take hold.
So, the federal government has grown literally a thousandfold in size since 1913. And yet yet you think that that fact has nothing to do with the galaxy of problems that have arisen since then?
Anarchy isn't chaos, it's simply the lack of a state. The two aren't the same thing.
That said I'll let you keep your precious government. How about we just reduce the size of FedGov by 99%? Back to where it was before it took everything over, and fucked everything up?
As long as you also reduce the U.S. military by 99%, I'm with you...
We're on the Road to Serfdom.
If you accept limitless wealth accumulation, here is your result. Period.
Historically, economic crisis tend to follow periods of increase in wealth inequality. Very high wealth inequality seems to make a society less productive (I'me not saying the total equality is best, I'm saying that too much inequality is worse than just a bit of inequality).
If you think about it, in economic terms it makes sense - not all of one's income is spent in the same way, roughly:
The money spent in the first and second slices is that which goes around the economy the most (i.e. highest velocity of money) and thus keeps the most companies alive and creates the most jobs - consumption is what keeps an economy ticking. Money spent on the third slice provides capital to grow production to match an increase in consumption, but if there's too much money going here, it pumps up bubbles (i.e. asset price bubbles or overproduction).
The income of poor people is enough for 1st slice spending and little more.
The income of the middle class is enough for 1st and 2nd slice spending and maybe a little of 3rd slice.
The income of rich people is enough to cover all their needs in 1st and 2nd slice spending and quite a lot goes into the 3rd slice. A higher income for rich people just ends up as more 3rd slice spending (investment).
When income inequality grows too much what happens is that beyond a certain point, the majority of people become unable to spend as much on the 2nd slice (non-essential consumption) because their income is lower (i.e. the middle class consumes less), meanwhile, the income lost by the majority has gone into the hands of a few where it does not go into further consumption, but instead it just increases 3rd slice spending (investment).
In other words, when income inequality grows beyond a certain point it starts eating into the ability of the middle class to consume non-essential goods and services, while boosting the amount that the rich invest in companies and assets. The result is increased production and asset prices at the same time as consumption decreases: i.e. asset bubbles, oversupply and a collapse in demand.
Lo-and-behold, that's exactly what we have.
So at this point of the economic cycle, anything that further boosts the wealth of the rich is exactly the opposite of what needs doing.
Sacntimonious folks such as the OP are always quick to point out the mathematical failure of too much gov't debt, but they somehow cannot add 2 and 2 when analyzing what happens when all of the income/assets are concentrated at the top.
The result is just as obvious and just as pernicious and just as predictable.
I think the article did address that clearly. The answer lies in lower Gov't intervention and an "honest" Fed to stop runaway credit expansion. This is how "all the income/assets are cfoncentrated at the top".
Not sanctimonious at all.
I agree. This article threads the divided quilt of the American Red and Blue state mentality. In reading it I'm about to get mad one minute (do to my beliefs) and then agree the next. It starts to make sense that this is what we all need. The ability to see both sides and what the sides are up to for their own agenda. Then, take the good from it all.
The OP does a great job on threading the needle and showing that loose credit policies award the top tier and taxation policies hinder competition.
More "free market" traffic circles .... self regulating and no production bottlenecks, farting anonymity .... keep it moving !
Socialist intersection : Cops, cameras, stop lights, lanes, EVERYONE has to stop, wasted time, infractions, wasted resources and more pollution, helicopters overhead, pan handlers, public nose picking .... a socialist mini-state paradise !
Encore! Encore!
My daughter is half Yankee and half Yaqui (Sonora, Mexico) .... she's not an alcoholic, yet !
Don't worry--with a father like you, it won't be long...
-- Free market provides the best opportunities for someone to make a decent living Low interest rates -->
First-time home-buyer or greater fool incentives, high-ratio mortgages, mortgage insurance, capital gains exemptions, interest deductibility,investment banking,subsidies ... We are living in a kick-the-can economy, so far from the free market ...
So many shoulds, such little time.
FYP
Income inequality is fine, until the riots start.
Income inequality: Government workers getting paid way more than private workers ! The meat inspector lives high on the hog .... while butchers bleed out ! Turn those sharp knives onto government throats !
But wait a second--as I mentioned in a response to one of your other posts, capitalism is all about making as much money as you can for your labor. So if government workers are getting paid way more than private workers, then those government workers are MORE SUCCESSFUL members of our capitalistic society than those private workers! Unless, of course, someone published a capitalism rulebook while I wasn't looking...
"No matter how you slice it, taxation is theft."
So move to Magic No-Taxation Land...
Hang the thieves and keep the family farm !
"So move to Magic No-Taxation land."
Actually, that used to be the USA, before 1913.
All we want is our country back.
IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?
Just keep repeating your mantras and all will be well. The corruption will magically disappear and a true meritocracy will recognize your great gifts.
Well, since zero taxation is, in your mind, such an obviously good thing, I can only imagine that most countries around the world are already smart enough not to levy taxes on their citizens. So why don't you move to one of those countries? I mean, I know you'd prefer to stay in the United States (where the government--despite all those other no-taxation success stories that we see being written in nation after nation after nation around the world--hasn't yet learned that it shouldn't tax its citizens), but again, your free-market, no-tax nirvana must surely be out there SOMEWHERE, right? Perhaps you'd like to provide a list of no-taxation countries that the U.S. can emulate?
Worthless female government clerks making more than private industry craftsmen .... there's your fucking wage gap !
Isn't the whole point of capitalism to make as much money as you can for your labor? If your answer is yes, then you'd have to agree that those "worthless" female government clerks are BETTER CAPITALISTS than those private industry craftsmen. Same with union workers--they often make more money for their labor than non-union workers doing the same job, which clearly makes them better capitalists. And since you all have made it perfectly clear how much you LOVE capitalism, you should be applauding them! But instead, you're bitter. Interesting...
Just watch the first hour of Zeitgeist Moving Forward on YouTube or Netflix if the stuff in this article is of any interest to you...
The “Mises” scheme to stop abuses by the privileged few is
for the many to condone the few keeping all their present ill-gotten gains and economic power,
and
for the many to forsake forming and/or empowering any democratic government to prevent further abuses,
while allowing the wealthy few to employ "privatized" armies of 'Pinkertons' and agents to protect and expand property and privilege.
Exactly. Their "plan" is for those who are unable, for whatever reason, to accumulate wealth to simply KNOW THEIR PLACE and SHUT UP. It's not that complicated....
What I would ask of free marketeers and libertarians is: how do we get there from here? In framing your answer keep in mind that at the start of the "game" a very small number of players control an enormous amount of capital, savoir faire and influence.
And then once we get there, how do we keep the free market from devolving once "winners" begin to emerge?
what inane drivel