Finding Consensus On Economic Policy (Participation Encouraged)

[rexanglorum]

With all of the heated debate and discussion about politics in general and about Economic policies in particular, I thought it might be nice for those of us who regularly post about politics and the economy to find area where we actually broadly agree. I am going to put out a few simple propositions and we can discuss and amend them and see which ideas get over 90% support and agreement.



1. Reductions in people's rate of taxation do not involve "giving" anything to anyone. While some want to raise taxaes because they believe it will be better spend by government, th notion that reducing tax rates for anyone, even the very rich, is the same as giving them money from the government's coffers. Tax Rate reduction are not the same as subsidies or other giveaways of wealth.

2. Changes in tax rates do change people's behavior. If you tax something you get more of it and if you tax it less you get less of it.

3. A high income does not mean someone is millionaire or billionaire and many millionaires and billionaires do not have very high wage income and they shield much of their investment income from taxes. Taxing income is not the same as taxing "the rich" because someone making 250,000 in a high cost of living area, with a lot of student loans (for medical school or law school or loans involved in starting small business a business cost a lot in monthly payments), lots of local taxes and making the mortgage leaves the person with much less money every month then someone whose family has a billion dollars in assets and whose trust is mostly made up of tax free US bonds and State and Local Bonds, Municipal or "Munis." Taking the super rich would involve a tax on wealth and not necessarily on income.

4. When taxes have to be raised, the system of taxation should usually be progressive, those with more pay a larger percentage in taxes.

5. Having a very small tax base and majority of people making no income taxes is a bad thing because it means that voters are more likely to over spend. People with very little income and very little wealth should pay lower rates but they should have to at least pay a little and thus feel, even in a very small way, the fact that government provided benefits cost money and they have to come from taxation.

6. Regressive taxes are unfair for poor people, states should not tax cigarettes, should not rely heavily on high sales taxes or any other tax that has poorer people making a bigger chunk of their income then do richer people.

6. Tax rates close to 100% will means that people will move, move their money or find legal loop holes in order to avoid having all but a few cents of every additional dollar income taken in taxes.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

8. Trade between countries is not very different then trade between other cities or States within the US and international trade should be treated as we treat the former.

9. A strong dollar is a good thing, the gains to exporters, bankers and the minority of the population that own a majority of the equities benefits from the Federal Reserve printing a lot of money but poor people living paycheck to paycheck and middle class people who dutifully save and put their money in low risk and low yield investment vehicles like money market accounts and CD's are harmed by high inflation and low interest rates.

10. This country has too much housing stock and Government should not pursue a policy of propping up home prices because it benefits home owners at he expense of none homeowners. More broadly, our economy and the middle class should not be structured to have to depend on home prices rapidly appreciating in value. This country need to produce more, have more real income, more productivity and let it be the case that homes, at least low end "starter homes" be affordable while those who own homes treat it as a long term and passive investment and not a commodity to be bought and sold every few months nor as an asset that provides purchasing power.

11. Subsidies for anyone who is not well off should be categorically stopped, all corporate welfare and farming subsidies and indirect subsidies like barriers to entry for cab drivers, hairdressers, interior decorators, movers, clothing makers and even practitioners of basic medicine should have either no barriers to entry or they should be cheap and made to ensure public safety and not to serve as impediments to for people, with very little initial capital, to compete with established businesses, who want monopoly privileges.

12. Capitalism does not entail government's intervention for its benefits. When government ***** to inspect the food they produce or impose any regulation that costs them money they are quick to quote Adam Smith but when regulations can be used to crush their competition they become communists. They also want no competition from foreign goods either and they want government to have five year plans to benefits them. Corporations are more socialist then all but the most left wing Americans. Big business hates free enterprise and capitalism.


Everyone feel free to add more ideas upon which you believe people can widely agree.

 

[Betonblck]

this will be good. I live for these types of discussions

 

[pololax]

8. Trade between countries is not very different then trade between other cities or States within the US and international trade should be treated as we treat the former.
Cool thread idea. I don't know much about economic policies but I want to learn more as I would like seek out a career in public policy/politics.

Obviously there is a large debate on whether or not we should "tax" the "rich" more. I believe in everyone needs to pay their fair share and if you look at the current state of wealth in this country, it is currently at the largest disparity between rich and poor than ever before. There is no question that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and by poor I mean, middle and working class families are slowly but surely dipping into poverty.

The statement you made on trade is interesting. I think internation trade is great too, when the United States is exporting more. As everyone knows we used to manufacture just about everything in this country, and that's when our economy was booming the most. Today, all of our manufacturing and industrial jobs are gone. When we are importing a large portion of our goods and exporting less and less, how is that "good" for the United States?

I believe the United States should start giving incentives to companies that RETURN business to this country. For instance we all know corporations need a presence around the world because let's face it this is a global economy, but is there anyway we can perform more of this tasks here at home? I know hearing the term "incentive" may not be what people want to hear but while in the short term we would be giving breaks, in the long term it may turn out to be beneficial.

Just some thoughts, hopefully I can learn alot in this thread.

 

[icyyyesr two3]

I will read that in a bit...but I propose that Ninjahood be banned from this thread...or at least if he posts, to completely disregard anything he says.  Please.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum


With all of the heated debate and discussion about politics in general and about Economic policies in particular, I thought it might be nice for those of us who regularly post about politics and the economy to find area where we actually broadly agree. I am going to put out a few simple propositions and we can discuss and amend them and see which ideas get over 90% support and agreement.



1. Reductions in people's rate of taxation do not involve "giving" anything to anyone. While some want to raise taxaes because they believe it will be better spend by government, th notion that reducing tax rates for anyone, even the very rich, is the same as giving them money from the government's coffers. Tax Rate reduction are not the same as subsidies or other giveaways of wealth.

2. Changes in tax rates do change people's behavior. If you tax something you get more of it and if you tax it less you get less of it.

3. A high income does not mean someone is millionaire or billionaire and many millionaires and billionaires do not have very high wage income and they shield much of their investment income from taxes. Taxing income is not the same as taxing "the rich" because someone making 250,000 in a high cost of living area, with a lot of student loans (for medical school or law school or loans involved in starting small business a business cost a lot in monthly payments), lots of local taxes and making the mortgage leaves the person with much less money every month then someone whose family has a billion dollars in assets and whose trust is mostly made up of tax free US bonds and State and Local Bonds, Municipal or "Munis." Taking the super rich would involve a tax on wealth and not necessarily on income.

4. When taxes have to be raised, the system of taxation should usually be progressive, those with more pay a larger percentage in taxes.

5. Having a very small tax base and majority of people making no income taxes is a bad thing because it means that voters are more likely to over spend. People with very little income and very little wealth should pay lower rates but they should have to at least pay a little and thus feel, even in a very small way, the fact that government provided benefits cost money and they have to come from taxation.

6. Regressive taxes are unfair for poor people, states should not tax cigarettes, should not rely heavily on high sales taxes or any other tax that has poorer people making a bigger chunk of their income then do richer people.

6. Tax rates close to 100% will means that people will move, move their money or find legal loop holes in order to avoid having all but a few cents of every additional dollar income taken in taxes.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

8. Trade between countries is not very different then trade between other cities or States within the US and international trade should be treated as we treat the former.

9. A strong dollar is a good thing, the gains to exporters, bankers and the minority of the population that own a majority of the equities benefits from the Federal Reserve printing a lot of money but poor people living paycheck to paycheck and middle class people who dutifully save and put their money in low risk and low yield investment vehicles like money market accounts and CD's are harmed by high inflation and low interest rates.

10. This country has too much housing stock and Government should not pursue a policy of propping up home prices because it benefits home owners at he expense of none homeowners. More broadly, our economy and the middle class should not be structured to have to depend on home prices rapidly appreciating in value. This country need to produce more, have more real income, more productivity and let it be the case that homes, at least low end "starter homes" be affordable while those who own homes treat it as a long term and passive investment and not a commodity to be bought and sold every few months nor as an asset that provides purchasing power.

11. Subsidies for anyone who is not well off should be categorically stopped, all corporate welfare and farming subsidies and indirect subsidies like barriers to entry for cab drivers, hairdressers, interior decorators, movers, clothing makers and even practitioners of basic medicine should have either no barriers to entry or they should be cheap and made to ensure public safety and not to serve as impediments to for people, with very little initial capital, to compete with established businesses, who want monopoly privileges.

12. Capitalism does not entail government's intervention for its benefits. When government ***** to inspect the food they produce or impose any regulation that costs them money they are quick to quote Adam Smith but when regulations can be used to crush their competition they become communists. They also want no competition from foreign goods either and they want government to have five year plans to benefits them. Corporations are more socialist then all but the most left wing Americans. Big business hates free enterprise and capitalism.


Everyone feel free to add more ideas upon which you believe people can widely agree.

1.  Depends on how you look at it. When hedge fund managers are paying 15% tax on their income, they are essentially getting something without paying in their fair share.

2. Taxes are not that simple because of the various taxes(marginal income taxes, flat payroll and SSI taxes) and the way they are applied.  It may or may not change their behavior.  If an activity is very, very profitable, higher income tax rates will not change a thing unless we are talking excessively high like 80-90%.

3.  We are talking marginal tax changes, which means that every dollar earned OVER 250K will be taxed at a higher marginal tax rate.  250K and under have no change.  I do think there needs to be a way to adjust the income tax for the differences in cost of living.

4.  Agreed

5. and 6.  These are contradictions.  The poor pay their share in flat taxes like payroll and SSI taxes even though they don't pay federal income taxes. 

7.  Agreed

8.  I disagree, by the nature of the transactions it has to be different. 

9.  I agree.

10.  I disagree. I think subsidies are fine because I think government needs to support certain behaviors that are in the long term interest of the country such as subsidies for clean energy that promote energy independence. 

11.  Agreed.  Big business wants the best of both worlds.  Socialism without paying any taxes.

 

[rexanglorum]

While I agree in progressive taxation, I am often times left wondering what is a "fair share." can someone give me something specific?

Also, Cguy, do you think that lower income people should pay at least something in Federal income taxes so that when politicians and pollsters ask if you favor higher income taxes, they would know they they would pay more in taxes and have less to spend. Right now the tax situation is the inverse of the Vietnam war where rich Americans supported it because they knew they their kin would not have to fight it. It is almost tautological that a majority of American support higher income taxes, it is human nature to want something that someone else with bankroll.

If you ant to do something and you are able to contribute to it, you really should have to play a part in doing. Talk is cheap, being taxes, even a hundred dollars or so per year is not. Every time, the public supports higher income taxes, the entire wage earning public should have to chip in so that taxation in income is not some distant ad abstract concept, a burden to be shouldered by someone else entirely.







.

 

[rashi]

Figures, the same Statist ideas.


Everything mentioned already has already been done the past century and only grew the government, devalued the dollar, ect. If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

 

[kdawg]

1. Reductions in people's rate of taxation do not involve "giving" anything to anyone. While some want to raise taxaes because they believe it will be better spend by government, th notion that reducing tax rates for anyone, even the very rich, is the same as giving them money from the government's coffers. Tax Rate reduction are not the same as subsidies or other giveaways of wealth.


Surely that's just semantics. Sure you're not actually giving them something - you're just allowing them to keep it.

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

Figures, the same Statist ideas.


Everything mentioned already has already been done the past century and only grew the government, devalued the dollar, ect. If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Figures, the same Statist ideas.


Everything mentioned already has already been done the past century and only grew the government, devalued the dollar, ect. If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

Government intervention in anything diverts incomes, resources, and assets from the market. Personally, I feel that every government service that is provided, can be provided by private individuals. Governments roles in infrastructure for example is pointless and inefficient. Private construction companies would build roads for private transportation companies based on the demand and would charge a toll. Tolls would be low because other companies would build alternate routes, provide better night lighting, better quality of roads, and most of all ensure safety of the customer. There would be accreditation agencies that would validate the safety and quality of the roads. If there was an accident on a private road because neglect e.g. pot hole, the company's insurance would provide compensation to the customer. Can you do that on a government road? Hell no.

Governments role (if any) should be minimal. Government is a monopolized force exercising it's violence in order to serve the "public good". There is a staunch hypocrisy with this, though. Governments are not profitable institutions, they do not create any wealth. The individual does not choose to be taxed, other people make a decision on their behalf (without explicit consent).


Governments shouldn't have any role on the market, the market polices themselves. On the contrary on what people in this thread may say. Because they have been misled, they think that the people who created malinvestments (housing derivatives, ect.) were created by the government via legislation should be the same people who clean up the mess. These people have no concept on the business cycle and how the manipulation of money credit affect the markets, they have been misled to believe that Ivy league stooges can manage an economy of 300+ million, trying to bypass basic economic law of Supply/Demand.

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Figures, the same Statist ideas.


Everything mentioned already has already been done the past century and only grew the government, devalued the dollar, ect. If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

Government intervention in anything diverts incomes, resources, and assets from the market. Personally, I feel that every government service that is provided, can be provided by private individuals. Governments roles in infrastructure for example is pointless and inefficient. Private construction companies would build roads for private transportation companies based on the demand and would charge a toll. Tolls would be low because other companies would build alternate routes, provide better night lighting, better quality of roads, and most of all ensure safety of the customer. There would be accreditation agencies that would validate the safety and quality of the roads. If there was an accident on a private road because neglect e.g. pot hole, the company's insurance would provide compensation to the customer. Can you do that on a government road? Hell no.

Governments role (if any) should be minimal. Government is a monopolized force exercising it's violence in order to serve the "public good". There is a staunch hypocrisy with this, though. Governments are not profitable institutions, they do not create any wealth. The individual does not choose to be taxed, other people make a decision on their behalf (without explicit consent).


Governments shouldn't have any role on the market, the market polices themselves. On the contrary on what people in this thread may say. Because they have been misled, they think that the people who created malinvestments (housing derivatives, ect.) were created by the government via legislation should be the same people who clean up the mess. These people have no concept on the business cycle and how the manipulation of money credit affect the markets, they have been misled to believe that Ivy league stooges can manage an economy of 300+ million, trying to bypass basic economic law of Supply/Demand.

I agree with you to a certain exstint about ivy league shills.

 I think your notion about government intervention is flawed. In a perfect world (all things constant) your theory is right.

However, markets dont run smoothe like that because sometimes a  few people with  one shared  interest can benefit 10 fold by sticking togeather instead of being independent. . For example, I rather make a 100 million with ten guys than to make 1 million by myself. 

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

What do yo do when the rich guys pay off or own the acredidation agencies

I think your ideology doesnt take into consideration that there a lot of smart,practical people in the world/country. 10 smart, practical people could corner a section of the market and monopolize it. Imagine if steve jobs, bill gates, and waren buffet thought it was practical and a smart idea if they joined forces. With out government intervention and laws we would be in trouble

. 

    

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Figures, the same Statist ideas.


Everything mentioned already has already been done the past century and only grew the government, devalued the dollar, ect. If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

Government intervention in anything diverts incomes, resources, and assets from the market. Personally, I feel that every government service that is provided, can be provided by private individuals. Governments roles in infrastructure for example is pointless and inefficient. Private construction companies would build roads for private transportation companies based on the demand and would charge a toll. Tolls would be low because other companies would build alternate routes, provide better night lighting, better quality of roads, and most of all ensure safety of the customer. There would be accreditation agencies that would validate the safety and quality of the roads. If there was an accident on a private road because neglect e.g. pot hole, the company's insurance would provide compensation to the customer. Can you do that on a government road? Hell no.

Governments role (if any) should be minimal. Government is a monopolized force exercising it's violence in order to serve the "public good". There is a staunch hypocrisy with this, though. Governments are not profitable institutions, they do not create any wealth. The individual does not choose to be taxed, other people make a decision on their behalf (without explicit consent).


Governments shouldn't have any role on the market, the market polices themselves. On the contrary on what people in this thread may say. Because they have been misled, they think that the people who created malinvestments (housing derivatives, ect.) were created by the government via legislation should be the same people who clean up the mess. These people have no concept on the business cycle and how the manipulation of money credit affect the markets, they have been misled to believe that Ivy league stooges can manage an economy of 300+ million, trying to bypass basic economic law of Supply/Demand.

Before I provide a rebuttal I would love to hear what that minimal role of the gov't should be?  From there I will address why I believe there needs to be a safety net and why our society will slowly revert to one resembling feudalism without that

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq



   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

Government intervention in anything diverts incomes, resources, and assets from the market. Personally, I feel that every government service that is provided, can be provided by private individuals. Governments roles in infrastructure for example is pointless and inefficient. Private construction companies would build roads for private transportation companies based on the demand and would charge a toll. Tolls would be low because other companies would build alternate routes, provide better night lighting, better quality of roads, and most of all ensure safety of the customer. There would be accreditation agencies that would validate the safety and quality of the roads. If there was an accident on a private road because neglect e.g. pot hole, the company's insurance would provide compensation to the customer. Can you do that on a government road? Hell no.

Governments role (if any) should be minimal. Government is a monopolized force exercising it's violence in order to serve the "public good". There is a staunch hypocrisy with this, though. Governments are not profitable institutions, they do not create any wealth. The individual does not choose to be taxed, other people make a decision on their behalf (without explicit consent).


Governments shouldn't have any role on the market, the market polices themselves. On the contrary on what people in this thread may say. Because they have been misled, they think that the people who created malinvestments (housing derivatives, ect.) were created by the government via legislation should be the same people who clean up the mess. These people have no concept on the business cycle and how the manipulation of money credit affect the markets, they have been misled to believe that Ivy league stooges can manage an economy of 300+ million, trying to bypass basic economic law of Supply/Demand.

I agree with you to a certain exstint about ivy league shills.

 I think your notion about government intervention is flawed. In a perfect world (all things constant) your theory is right.

However, markets dont run smoothe like that because sometimes a  few people with  one shared  interest can benefit 10 fold by sticking togeather instead of being independent. . For example, I rather make a 100 million with ten guys than to make 1 million by myself. 

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

What do yo do when the rich guys pay off or own the acredidation agencies

I think your ideology doesnt take into consideration that there a lot of smart,practical people in the world/country. 10 smart, practical people could corner a section of the market and monopolize it. Imagine if steve jobs, bill gates, and waren buffet thought it was practical and a smart idea if they joined forces. With out government intervention and laws we would be in trouble

. 

    

who says they already haven't??? or if they are the ones with the power and aren't being propped up by others??

not that i believe that..lol

 

[donny walker blaq]

Fox dont let the crazies get you lol.

Pribes are real but thats all so far.....

 

[rashi]

However, markets dont run smoothe like that because sometimes a  few people with  one shared  interest can benefit 10 fold by sticking togeather instead of being independent. . For example, I rather make a 100 million with ten guys than to make 1 million by myself. 

I'm not understanding how this would have an effect on the market.

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

This wouldn't happened, the 10 of you would be sued by other companies and would be found guilty by private courts. The Free Market prevents monopolies, the only way monopolies exists is by having help by the government. So if there was an eradication of the State, your situation would never happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't last very long at at all.

I think your ideology doesnt take into consideration that there a lot of smart,practical people in the world/country. 10 smart, practical people could corner a section of the market and monopolize it. Imagine if steve jobs, bill gates, and waren buffet thought it was practical and a smart idea if they joined forces. With out government intervention and laws we would be in trouble


Erroneous. With government we have Boom and Bust cycles every 10-15 years, we have wars that kill millions of people globally. So tell me what would be so different? Without governments, we don't have wars. And war is the biggest disruption of the market.

 

[villansfinest]

Originally Posted by rashi

If you aren't talking about eliminating the government's monopoly over the issuance of currency, then this isn't a conversation worth having and there really isn't a debate.

7. Government is necessary and it enjoys economies of scale in providing at least some public goods.

   From my father's 1988 Masters thesis...

"Restoration of sound money may be  a long and arudous task, as it was lost in a gradual erosion of monetary freedom. One of the most difficult obstacles before us is trying to envision how to get from where we are today, a system entangled with governmental laws and regulations, to where we want to be, freely competing money in an environment of free banking. How do we make the quantum leap from today's monopolistic system to a system allowing people to freely choose their payment medium? What kind of political climate would be necessary to implement this change? Are there some steps which would ease this transitional period?
Certainly government may never voluntarily surrender its monopolistic money powers. Politicians and bureaucrats can be expected to defend them with all the instruments of coercion at their disposal, from fines and imprisonment to capital punishment. Thus, the political climate necessary to foster this proposed change will probably be either one of crisis (economic and/or political) or one of continuing ideological change. A crisis such as another depression, a war, a collapse of the banking industry, or hyperinflation could set the stage for true monetary reform, but usually doesn't. During a national crisis, if it involves the monetary system, one set of pernicious laws is usually replaced by another set. For example, the only time monopolistic money powers may be violated with some degree of immunity is in times of hyperinflation, when the detrimental impact is clearly visible to everyone, even to a federal judge or legislator.When the last measure of conceivable coercion has failed, and the last penny of money income and wealth has been taken from lenders and given to debtors, the political monopoly game may be suspended for the moment. But then politicians and reformers only press for a new currency, a new monopoly issue, so that the process may be played all over again. "


he lays out some interesting scenarios regarding the adoption of a private currency system. if anybody is interested, i could type more up?


Rex, not sure why, but i was thinking $100.00/person too as a bare minimum... nice round number, eh? although, from my experience working within a government taxing agency, the logistics of getting every single able bodied individual (or even household) to participate in that scheme... is hard for me to envision. i would wager that upwards of 35% of the individuals/households today have not participated in a formal income tax report/filing a return in the past 10 years. that figure would likely have to be well over... $300 dollars due to the expense of administering and proceeding with collections of nonpayers. (not too mention, some people seriously, flat out, will NOT have $300 or even $100 of identifiable assets)

will be checking in later...

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq



   Rashi are you against government intervention?Whats your general view on government and mkt? I'm really curious.


On another note, Our country has been hi-jacked by the wealthy organizations that provide hard money and soft money to the legislators. Nothing will change until our campagne finance laws change. why is that federal congress candidates and presdents spend 100's of million dollars to obtain a job that pay $250,000's at most.?
 

We should all pay the same tax rate, Corporate tax rate should be lowered, and all corporate tax loopholes and subsides should be deaded

   

Government intervention in anything diverts incomes, resources, and assets from the market. Personally, I feel that every government service that is provided, can be provided by private individuals. Governments roles in infrastructure for example is pointless and inefficient. Private construction companies would build roads for private transportation companies based on the demand and would charge a toll. Tolls would be low because other companies would build alternate routes, provide better night lighting, better quality of roads, and most of all ensure safety of the customer. There would be accreditation agencies that would validate the safety and quality of the roads. If there was an accident on a private road because neglect e.g. pot hole, the company's insurance would provide compensation to the customer. Can you do that on a government road? Hell no.

Governments role (if any) should be minimal. Government is a monopolized force exercising it's violence in order to serve the "public good". There is a staunch hypocrisy with this, though. Governments are not profitable institutions, they do not create any wealth. The individual does not choose to be taxed, other people make a decision on their behalf (without explicit consent).


Governments shouldn't have any role on the market, the market polices themselves. On the contrary on what people in this thread may say. Because they have been misled, they think that the people who created malinvestments (housing derivatives, ect.) were created by the government via legislation should be the same people who clean up the mess. These people have no concept on the business cycle and how the manipulation of money credit affect the markets, they have been misled to believe that Ivy league stooges can manage an economy of 300+ million, trying to bypass basic economic law of Supply/Demand.

Before I provide a rebuttal I would love to hear what that minimal role of the gov't should be?  From there I will address why I believe there needs to be a safety net and why our society will slowly revert to one resembling feudalism without that

Provide a defense from foreign invasion. But hey, I believe in the full eradication of the State, so any type of Feudalism wouldn't happen because there would be a revolt in toppling the so called elites trying to use violence on other private individuals.

villansfinest


Tell your father to stop using so much Common Sense, it only confuses people.

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

However, markets dont run smoothe like that because sometimes a  few people with  one shared  interest can benefit 10 fold by sticking togeather instead of being independent. . For example, I rather make a 100 million with ten guys than to make 1 million by myself. 

I'm not understanding how this would have an effect on the market.

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

This wouldn't happened, the 10 of you would be sued by other companies and would be found guilty by private courts. The Free Market prevents monopolies, the only way monopolies exists is by having help by the government. So if there was an eradication of the State, your situation would never happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't last very long at at all.

I think your ideology doesnt take into consideration that there a lot of smart,practical people in the world/country. 10 smart, practical people could corner a section of the market and monopolize it. Imagine if steve jobs, bill gates, and waren buffet thought it was practical and a smart idea if they joined forces. With out government intervention and laws we would be in trouble


Erroneous. With government we have Boom and Bust cycles every 10-15 years, we have wars that kill millions of people globally. So tell me what would be so different? Without governments, we don't have wars. And war is the biggest disruption of the market.





Before I go further, I want to say that im just debating. Dont go typical young NTer on me....

It's not as erroneous as you think. For example, look at OPEC or the Drug Cartels.

OPEC hasn't been sued and dismantled because they are the authority. The onliy thing people can do is get mad but they're too powerful

If you need me to explain myself further I will. 

  

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by villansfinest

Post more when you get a chance. So far I see his reasoning and i agree with legislation being in the way but this is his thesis.

Therefore, Im interested in learning  what solutions he has proposed

I dont want to challange or cratique his work, im genuinely interested

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

However, markets dont run smoothe like that because sometimes a  few people with  one shared  interest can benefit 10 fold by sticking togeather instead of being independent. . For example, I rather make a 100 million with ten guys than to make 1 million by myself. 

I'm not understanding how this would have an effect on the market.

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

This wouldn't happened, the 10 of you would be sued by other companies and would be found guilty by private courts. The Free Market prevents monopolies, the only way monopolies exists is by having help by the government. So if there was an eradication of the State, your situation would never happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't last very long at at all.

I think your ideology doesnt take into consideration that there a lot of smart,practical people in the world/country. 10 smart, practical people could corner a section of the market and monopolize it. Imagine if steve jobs, bill gates, and waren buffet thought it was practical and a smart idea if they joined forces. With out government intervention and laws we would be in trouble


Erroneous. With government we have Boom and Bust cycles every 10-15 years, we have wars that kill millions of people globally. So tell me what would be so different? Without governments, we don't have wars. And war is the biggest disruption of the market.





Before I go further, I want to say that im just debating. Dont go typical young NTer on me....

It's not as erroneous as you think. For example, look at OPEC or the Drug Cartels.

OPEC hasn't been sued and dismantled because they are the authority. The onliy thing people can do is get mad but they're too powerful

If you need me to explain myself further I will. 

  

OPEC and Drug Cartels are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Look at OPEC for a second, look at the countries involved. What do they all have in common? You guessed it, the oil in these countries are nationalized. They don't have to make a profit off of oil, therefore they can manipulate prices without harm. They have other government in the palm of their hand.

You think is private companies did something like this they would survive? Innovation would lead to alternative energies.

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi


I'm not understanding how this would have an effect on the market.


This wouldn't happened, the 10 of you would be sued by other companies and would be found guilty by private courts. The Free Market prevents monopolies, the only way monopolies exists is by having help by the government. So if there was an eradication of the State, your situation would never happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't last very long at at all.





Erroneous. With government we have Boom and Bust cycles every 10-15 years, we have wars that kill millions of people globally. So tell me what would be so different? Without governments, we don't have wars. And war is the biggest disruption of the market.

Before I go further, I want to say that im just debating. Dont go typical young NTer on me....

It's not as erroneous as you think. For example, look at OPEC or the Drug Cartels.

OPEC hasn't been sued and dismantled because they are the authority. The onliy thing people can do is get mad but they're too powerful

If you need me to explain myself further I will. 

  

OPEC and Drug Cartels are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Look at OPEC for a second, look at the countries involved. What do they all have in common? You guessed it, the oil in these countries are nationalized. They don't have to make a profit off of oil, therefore they can manipulate prices without harm. They have other government in the palm of their hand.

You think is private companies did something like this they would survive? Innovation would lead to alternative energies.

It goes back to my few people cornering the market thing i mentioned earlier.

In a free market with little intervention the wealthiest organizaions will unite. So an OPEC-like situation will arise 

alternative energy firms will be aquired in a hostile manner or alternative energy innovators will sell/license their ideas to the big conglomerate like OPEC


Furthermore, If there is little government intervention. In your case only defense of our counry. Who will prevent a scenerio like that from arising.

You told fox that you want only defense from the government but then you told me that Manopolies would be sued.

Who is gonna sue the mono and olligopolies to prevent the from being to powerful if government is only there for the purpose of defense?

  

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Before I go further, I want to say that im just debating. Dont go typical young NTer on me....

It's not as erroneous as you think. For example, look at OPEC or the Drug Cartels.

OPEC hasn't been sued and dismantled because they are the authority. The onliy thing people can do is get mad but they're too powerful

If you need me to explain myself further I will. 

  

OPEC and Drug Cartels are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Look at OPEC for a second, look at the countries involved. What do they all have in common? You guessed it, the oil in these countries are nationalized. They don't have to make a profit off of oil, therefore they can manipulate prices without harm. They have other government in the palm of their hand.

You think is private companies did something like this they would survive? Innovation would lead to alternative energies.

It goes back to my few people cornering the market thing i mentioned earlier.

In a free market with little intervention the wealthiest organizaions will unite. So an OPEC-like situation will arise 

alternative energy firms will be aquired in a hostile manner or alternative energy innovators will sell/license their ideas to the big conglomerate like OPEC


Furthermore, If there is little government intervention. In your case only defense of our counry. Who will prevent a scenerio like that from arising.

You told fox that you want only defense from the government but then you told me that Manopolies would be sued.

Who is gonna sue the mono and olligopolies to prevent the from being to powerful if government is only there for the purpose of defense?

  

Before I answer, what is your definition of a Monopoly?

 

[nestasprotege]

If I were POTUS for a day I could end most of our troubles.

1) Institute a flat tax at 18-22% as quickly as possible.

2) Bring all of our troops home immediately.

3) Spend as much money as possible on solar energy innovation.

4) Ban professional lobbyists.

edit...

I love articles like this one. Especially when they play with hypotheticals at the end and reach common sense benefit to the American people.

http://reason.com/archive...myth-of-the-middle-class

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi


OPEC and Drug Cartels are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Look at OPEC for a second, look at the countries involved. What do they all have in common? You guessed it, the oil in these countries are nationalized. They don't have to make a profit off of oil, therefore they can manipulate prices without harm. They have other government in the palm of their hand.

You think is private companies did something like this they would survive? Innovation would lead to alternative energies.

It goes back to my few people cornering the market thing i mentioned earlier.

In a free market with little intervention the wealthiest organizaions will unite. So an OPEC-like situation will arise 

alternative energy firms will be aquired in a hostile manner or alternative energy innovators will sell/license their ideas to the big conglomerate like OPEC


Furthermore, If there is little government intervention. In your case only defense of our counry. Who will prevent a scenerio like that from arising.

You told fox that you want only defense from the government but then you told me that Manopolies would be sued.

Who is gonna sue the mono and olligopolies to prevent the from being to powerful if government is only there for the purpose of defense?

  

Before I answer, what is your definition of a Monopoly?

My bad, I mean having enough resources to control a markets regulation and supply. I was kinda citing you tho.

I just want to know who is gonna prevent some powerful dudes with shared interest from cornering a large part of any product market(it doesnt have to be oil)if there isnt any government intervention.

Although our gov has caused some mkt failures i believe their intervention has prevent far more mkt failures 

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by nestasprotege

If I were POTUS for a day I could end most of our troubles.

1) Institute a flat tax at 18-22% as quickly as possible.

2) Bring all of our troops home immediately.

3) Spend as much money as possible on solar energy innovation.

4) Ban professional lobbyists.

edit...

I love articles like this one. Especially when they play with hypotheticals at the end and reach common sense benefit to the American people.

http://reason.com/archive...myth-of-the-middle-class

the problem isn't the lobbyist. We need campagne finance reform. We need to dead hard and softmoney contributions.