Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[Hurlshort]

Probably good to note that the health care problems in the US are a relatively new problem, and have been driven by numerous factors. It was a lot easier to say no one is entitled to health care in the US when it was relatively affordable. But it isn't anymore, which means we either need to find a way to drag those prices back down to a reasonable level, or figure out a better alternative. If we can do the former, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. We do have a number of successful models to look at in other countries though.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I agree that we're going about the problem all wrong. I think establishing a commission to look at other countries' healthcare systems and their trade offs would be a good first step. Of course I still remember what happened to the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

mmm I 'm curious as to why you think colonies were established in the first place. Give me an example of colonization where the object was not to enrich the home culture or deny resources to competitors.

 

Capitalism isn't really an ideology despite efforts to the contrary. It is simply how the world works. Usually Capitalism is associated with mass production, the market economy, but these are just gradual, in the case of the industrial revolution monumental, changes to something that has always existed.

 

Getting Capitalism mixed up with values, because of the relative success and affluence of western Capitalist societies, is a mistake. At its core it is Gordon Gekko, the law of the jungle pure and simple. Those factors that reign in Capitalism and make societies stable aren't Capitalist. Taxation, redistribution, those are ingredients that go together with Capitalism to create modern societies.

Are you asking me? If so go back and read my last 5 or so posts. I'm not here defending capitalism as the end all be all way of doing business. At best it's just better than the alternatives.

is it really efficient enough to justify the suffering it causes? We're speaking globally, anything else wouldn't make sense...

When you have a better idea I'm willing to listen. But if that idea concentrates absolute political power in the hands of the few then it's a non-starter with me.

note: I ordered them cause they became too much

Economics: for the start, a few reforms... making employees the necessarily primary shareholders of their respective companies (which means for example entrepreneurs can still profit of their ideas, vastly), the abolition of today's hierarchical company governance in favour of non-hierarchical structures, of course such basics as free good healthcare and free quality education for everyone. Free water, electricity and internet, including public wifi. A highly progressive tax system going up to somewhere around the 70% for income and the 5% on wealth (which is laughable in comparison to the 91% income taxes the US used to have, and it didn't hurt your economy either). Progressive taxes for companies, of course. The development of a fair tax system for inheritance. Mid term, a 35 hour week with two free days. More long term: Focus on eco-friendly technology, especially in the energy sector. A great focus on automation, so that more and more "dislikable" jobs will be done by machines. An universal basic income for everyone.

 

Socially: radical social egalitarianism. I'd like to see Unis opening up more, with public lectures every weekend; somewhat similar to what churches do. I'm impressed by religions ability to gather people and talk about how we should live, we should be able to copy that. Furthermore, especially school education needs to be focused more on the usage and application of knowledge; right now, our testing systems propagate sheer learning and then forgetting. Furthermore, more cross-subject classes. Students also need vastly more knowledge in the IT sector. Talking about it, much less government involvement in online posts would be nice. Also, much less focus on religion, for example through a ban of all religious symbols including wearable items and clothes from public institutions including parliament, courts, schools and hospitals.

 

Politics: much more transparency at every level. Much more political empowerment for the single communes (kinda how we're empowering employees), while also striving for more economic equality between said communes, so that their political empowerment benefits all of them. For every state and federal level politician, a duty to lay open their entire financials for the time in office.

 

I think there's more, just what came to mind right now.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

@Ben

• Economics: Make employees the majority share holders of their respective companies? So the government (I assume) just comes in and says to the owner/investors/board of directors "this company isn't yours anymore. Oh, and all than money you've sunk into it? Sucks to be you huh?" What about employees who change jobs? Do they retain their shares and then get shares of their new company? It does not matter. I won't suffer a government that can just come in and take what belongs to one person/people and just keep it or give it to other person/people. How would I ever feel secure in my home and property after that? I do business from my home sometimes. 70% income Tax? Why would I go out and bust my a$$ working hard when I'm just going to lose it all in taxes? I sure as hell won't be starting any more businesses.
• Social: OK, more universities. And free too. sounds great. I can't wait to hear the faculty react when they hear they won't be getting paid because even with our tax burden today the primary costs of universities are paid by students and donators. Well the students won't be paying and the doners can't. The other downside to your 70% tax is no one will be able to afford to support things like charity and university donations because you're beggaring them with taxes. Ah yes, banning all religious symbols. Remember how I said every evil act begins with the twisted notion that one group of people should control how another lives? It's not enough you take their property, money, and freedom you have to crawl into their heads and that their very beliefs from them?

What you are hoping for sounds great. An egalitarian society of true equality and all you have to do is grab a gun (the government) and FORCE people to comply with it. Take their property. Take their money. Take their very sous. And of course the next step is kill the ones that refuse. And just like that no matter how good or enlightened your intentions were you just became Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

 

To quote the great Milton Friedman "A society that places equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will have a high degree of both"

[Ben No.3]

@Ben[

Economics: Make employees the majority share holders of their respective companies? So the government (I assume) just comes in and says to the owner/investors/board of directors "this company isn't yours anymore. Oh, and all than money you've sunk into it? Sucks to be you huh?" What about employees who change jobs? Do they retain their shares and then get shares of their new company? It does not matter. I won't suffer a government that can just come in and take what belongs to one person/people and just keep it or give it to other person/people. How would I ever feel secure in my home and property after that? I do business from my home sometimes.

The share thing is to ensure that the new business order remains established. If you have a better idea on how to do that, tell me.

70% income Tax? Why would I go out and bust my a$$ working hard when I'm just going to lose it all in taxes? I sure as hell won't be starting any more businesses.

Nobel Prize winner Krugman advocates for a max. 91% income tax, modelled after the US in the 50s, where this was the case. And even with that, there were still millionaires, billionaires, and the economy was flourishing. Your doomsday predictions don't seem to hold up to actual fact.

Furthermore, a 70-75% max. Income tax isn't socialist expropriation, but rather a truly progressive tax system. Take Germany. We have a top income tax bracket if 42% percent and nothing on wealth. However, if we take into account all of the taxes that exist, so total tax burden on income, rich folks pay 43% and poor 48%. Progressive, yes, but in the wrong way.

Social: OK, more universities. And free too. sounds great. I can't wait to hear the faculty react when they hear they won't be getting paid because even with our tax burden today the primary costs of universities are paid by students and donators. Well the students won't be paying and the doners can't. The other downside to your 70% tax is no one will be able to afford to support things like charity and university donations because you're beggaring them with taxes.

Again, even with 91%, there were still extremely rich people. "Our tax burden today" is that of the US? If even third world countries like Cuba can pull of free education, it is borderline embarrassing that you claim not to be able to.

Ah yes, banning all religious symbols. Remember how I said every evil act begins with the twisted notion that one group of people should control how another lives? It's not enough you take their property, money, and freedom you have to crawl into their heads and that their very beliefs from them?

 

Banning religious symbols FROM PUBLIC SPACES. The state should not have anything to do with religion, at all. Religious dictatorships are arguably (amongst) the worst that exist(ed), under no circumstances can and should religion be allowed to influence government.

Furthermore, with all your talk about freedom, would you consider a child going to a religious school to be genuinely free in its choice of belief?

What you are hoping for sounds great. An egalitarian society of true equality and all you have to do is grab a gun (the government) and FORCE people to comply with it. Take their property. Take their money. Take their very sous.

A third time: even with a 91% income tax, there were still millionaires. And yes of course; tax evasion is the criminal offence and will be persecuted. But was this ever any different?

And of course the next step is kill the ones that refuse. And just like that no matter how good or enlightened your intentions were you just became Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

This is merely pure straw man-attacking. These were dictatorships that lacked any form of democracy and checks and balances, and you know that just as well as I do.

 

 

To quote the great Milton Friedman "A society that places equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will have a high degree of both"

To quote Bakunin:

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

Edited July 11, 2017 by Ben No.3

[HoonDing]

"I am on same page as Trump here, EU NATO members needs to raise military spending"

 

its not Cuckrope starting wars all over the globe

[Gfted1]

Hey, lets be fair here. We only start wars if we want your resources or if we dont like you.

[Volourn]

"its not Cuckrope starting wars all over the globe"

 

They sure arte trying to star waRs with Russia and the US.

 

I mean the German leader basically stated clearly that the US is Europe's enemy. LMAO

Edited July 11, 2017 by Volourn

[Guard Dog]

LOL Yeah, That was a straw man, I didn't just knock him over... I shot him!

 

Anyway, on to your points.

 

Trotting out Paul Krugman carries no weight with me. His utter devotion to Keyensian economic theory is famous. And yes he even does have nobel prize (for what that's worth). And he's never done a thing outside of academia. No one has ever put him in charge of anything, he's never held an office. He's an academic. And yes he does advocate for taxes that i would describe as confiscatory. Although yes there were wealthy people in the US back then our top tax rate was in the 70-90% range. But there is a hell of a lot MORE wealthy Americans not that it isn't. But here is the funny thing. Once the government started cutting the income tax rate in the 1920's, revenue collected began to GROW:

 

 

Not only did revenue collected from taxes grow, the amount of taxes paid by the people whose taxes were cut increased:

 

 

And again in the 1960 the top rates reduced and again in the 1980's in both cases revenue collected by the government increased even though the tax rates when down. See for yourself: http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates-0

 

Why is this you ask? We have a consumer driven economy. Our economy grows when we invest and consume. If you take away our ability to do that by taking too much from us in taxes we buy less and we invest less. When we buy less business sells less. They buy less raw materials. Prices drop. It feeds on itself. If we have more of our money then we buy more and invest more and business expands and makes money. That means more money to buy and invest which makes even more. So even though the government is taxing at a lower rate it's making more in revenue because there is more income to tax. Unlike liberty, and contrary to what the disciples of John Maynard Keyens would have us believe money in a consumer economy is no zero sum. Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

In the 1980s an economist named Arthur Laffer developed a model we call the Laffer Curve today. His theory became the conerstone of President Reagan's economic policy which cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1981 and again to 38% in 1986. In the time revenue collected by the government went from  $517B to $909B in seven years. Taxes go down revenue goes up: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

 

I'll get to you other points in a few

[Guard Dog]

 

It's been that kind of day! Actually my thanks to Ben and the rest of you. So far it has been very entertaining!

[injurai]

Probably good to note that the health care problems in the US are a relatively new problem, and have been driven by numerous factors. It was a lot easier to say no one is entitled to health care in the US when it was relatively affordable. But it isn't anymore, which means we either need to find a way to drag those prices back down to a reasonable level, or figure out a better alternative. If we can do the former, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. We do have a number of successful models to look at in other countries though.

 

I'd rather decades old medicine be affordable so people can stop being hit by surprise, instead of used as a way to earn passive income on IPs. It's the same issue with ticket quotas that our police departments have. Stop trying to sell x-amount of medicine to make y-amount of budgetary spending.

 

What I'd really like to see a nationalized research budget to fund the sciences. Keep the manufacturing end a competitive at will market. Thing is these corporations want to achieve unilateral control over the whole industry and bring R&D into themselves. I'd rather two markets. A competitive R&D market competing for national funding, and an applied industry that seeks to bring down prices.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

[Ben No.3]

 

It's been that kind of day! Actually my thanks to Ben and the rest of you. So far it has been very entertaining!

I agree

[Gorgon]

@Guard Dog. So what happens to your debt if you try that and the effect doesn't show ?

 

Besides, how does Reaganomics handle globalization. You are assuming that American companies will generate tax revenues and jobs in the US but you have little in the way of production base anymore. One cant really assume that consumers will chose domestic products, I mean you cant make a car that anyone wants. Jobs are wherever, for the most part anyway. Do you plan to artificially boost the defense sector to the same levels as during Reagan as well.

[Ben No.3]

@Guard Dog

 

Exactly, the US is a consumer driven economy, which is why it is so central that there is a good amount of wealth redistribution. You are not stupid. You know that capital, wealth, has a tendency to centralise in very few hands if the returns on capital are larger than the economic growth (r>g), because in this case, simply being rich will get you more money than actually working. If this happens, the common man will slowly but surely become too poor to buy the products. But it is necessary that the products are bought to keep the economy running, so vast amounts of loans are handed out. Now, we saw where that brought the American economy.

 

On the contrary, you can stop the r>g trend through taxation. This is what happened in the 50s, when income taxes where, as mentioned, up to 91% high. If my thesis is correct, this large wealth redistribution should enrich the common man and thereby ensure larger consumption and eventually result in larger economic growth.

Take a look at the following chart

http://www.pdwb.de/nd23.htm

Granted, it's German but I think you'll understand. It's the US' gross domestic product. The important number here is the annual growth, all the way to the right. As you can clearly see, the 40s and 50s, are amongst the best decades, give or take one or two years. Now, you might explain the rapid growth and falls in the 40s with the war efforts, which is fair, but can't explain the 50s. And after the 50s, taxes fell, and economic stagnation began. You never again reached the growth levels of the 50s, and I believe "I" explained why.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gorgon]

 

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

 

As long as they can keep borrowing there is. 

[injurai]

Is there any long term investigations or studies into what the United States debt owned by China will eventually lead to? It's not like China will start exporting their industry back to us. They are looking to Africa to pass the manufacturing buck to.

 

If automation hits wide scale and rolls out first in the US we could presumably start raising taxes on US corporations and start paying down the deficit without increasing taxes on the people. But I very much doubt that will be the case.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Krugman would have us believe there is a finite number of US dollars in existence and one person having more consequently means another has less. That is simply not true.

 

So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?

 

As long as they can keep borrowing there is. 

 

 

I'm reasonably sure that's not how infinity or borrowing works.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sure it does. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing. We then use that money to buy crap from China. We then borrow that money back from China to buy more of their crap, ad infinitum.

[HoonDing]

"So... there is an infinite number of US dollars in existence?"

 

the secret is Charles Montgomery Burns' magical 1 billion dollar bills

[Ben No.3]

That is true. And it works as long as the economy grows and can sustain the new money. So there's theoretically an infinite amount of it but if it becomes too much we have the problem of a super inflation

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

In theory there is infinite money, seeing as money is a construct rather than a universial value. The result of printing a lot would be devaluation, which sucks for those who saved but could be done to make labor cheaper assuming minimum wage didn't increase.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Colonialism and Capitalism go hand in hand. There are too many examples to list. just to chose one ; the East India company ?

 

Yep, tens of millions of Indians starved growing opium to sell to the Chinese literally so that Britain could get cheap tea. That's pretty human though, Kongo Free State was probably worse in terms of being inhuman and calculatedly brutal. I bet a billion dollars against 2c there will be a No True Scotsman defence incoming.

 

There's also plenty of example of ideologically driven mass killings in the name of capitalism, Latin America is riven with examples (eg Mayan Genocide in Guatemala, pretty much anything involving UFC/ Chiquita).

 

 

I highly doubt that killing Indians improves growing opium. If I recall correctly there was a famine, so what?

 

 

Yeah, but I guess we won't be saying 'so what' to all the communist famines, will we? They'll be Different, Somehow. Raj/ eic prioritised opium over food production and kept exporting food while other Indians starved. That continued right up until Churchill. And it didn't really matter if millions died since they "breed like rabbits". Ah, Winston S, you pithy little racist you.

 

What examples of Latin America killings of it's own citizens in the name of capitalism are you talking about? I'm not to familiar with Latin America that much.

UFC/ Chiquita (where the term 'banana republic' originated), Mayan Genocide, Pinochet etc. I'd provide more examples, but I know I'll get 'that does not count, just because' answers.

 

 

Queen Vic was Empress of India- they were her subjects every bit as much as the Ockers, Canadians or Brits. At the time most Brits had the exact same voting rights as an Indian, too, ie none. The modern concept of 'citizen' is, well, modern. If we go by citizens then capitalism in the southern US had no victims because the slave owners were citizens while the slaves weren't.

Let's not change the meaning of words because they hurt our argument. That's ridiculous. In that case communistic regimes didn't "kill" anyone as the "killing" only apply to communistic regime loyal citizens and not "traitors". Who are the "traitors"? Anyone the communistic regime "diversifies".

 

 

I'm not changing words' meaning, time has. 'Citizen' in the modern sense didn't exist until well into the 20th century, many if not most of the Brits who died in WW1 could not vote in the country they were dying for. Specifying own citizens is specious and circular, precisely because it excludes anyone living in the country who isn't a citizen, and they're always the ones that are most disadvantaged because they lack the rights that make a citizen. You end up with the southern USA being great because slaves weren't citizens and thus don't count against citizens being disadvantaged by capitalism- but the advantages to the slave owning citizens from the slavery still counts as an advantage.

 

I bet a billion dollars against 2c there will be a No True Scotsman defence incoming.

 

now you mixing feudal system versus democracy into mix...

 

Awesome, 4c. I'll try not to spend it all at once.

 

(Reaaly though? Britain hadn't been feudal for literally centuries when Vic was ruling)

[majestic]

If automation hits wide scale and rolls out first in the US we could presumably start raising taxes on US corporations and start paying down the deficit without increasing taxes on the people. But I very much doubt that will be the case.

 

Oi, that's an idea socialists came up with in the late 70ies and eartly 80ies when this whole labour outsorcing and automation process started to take off, essentially taxing the increased profit generated by outsourcing or automation in order to make up for the loss of the workforce's (income) tax revenue.

 

Although before resurrecting the commie ghosts of the 70ies it might just do to stop silly offshore tax dodging in a coordinated effort.

[SonicMage117]

I feel like a civil war is about to break out in my country.

 

People are always so damn touchy, can't say anything that differs from what someone else likes or you're indtantly a liberal/condervative/sjw. People always have to put titles on each other. It's pretty sickening but oh well.

 

The country I live in just isn't great anymore unfortunately and I'm the most patriotic person you will ever meet but when the country has driven itself down to the ground and tripped over it's own pride, I can't feel so patriotic atm.

 

And it has nothing to do with who's in office but my statement stems purely from the peoples of the country who are harming the country more than the government and those in high office.