09 Mar 15
Originally posted by QuarlVery droll but wrong.
1- Finnegan: “Despite your use of quotation marks, that is not what I wrote and you can verify this quite easily by looking back one page to what I did write. Note that quotation marks can only be used when accurately quoting your source and the use of quotation marks around invented wording that is radically different is dishonest and destroys your credibi ...[text shortened]...
5- [i]Finnegan: ”You are a victim of ideology…”
Rest assured mate: I am no ones “victim”
I wrote specifically this:
“You are falling victim to a simple scam in the way you describe the taxation of wealthy people and corporations.”and I was referring to "the way you described the taxation of the wealthy", which was of course this in our very words:
Who is paying for this “social world?” Certainly not the “poor.” And not the “rich,” as there is simply not enough of the “rich,” even if taxed at 100%. Of course, if the rich were taxed at 100% there would no longer be a “rich” class.I was telling you that the way you describe taxation of the wealthy is a simple scam, because fair taxation is not "largesse" but is indeed the action by a government to correct an injustice and, more importantly, to correct a distortion of the economy which harms everyone.
It is obvious who provides the largesse to fund, as Finnegan puts it, “unsustainable social world created by the neo-liberals.” Obviously it is the middle class as they are the only group large enough and as Finnegan so rightly points out, the effort is definitely unsustainable as the middle class is crumbling under the weight.
When you say there are not enough of the rich to pay the taxation required for a more fair society, you are wrong, you are displaying ignorance of the actual distribution of wealth, by which the top 10% quite simply own a vast proportion of the world's wealth. And you are showing ignorance of the unjust manner in which their wealth reproduces itself and grows through idle investment in a way that could never be matched by the rewards of work.
Wealth inequality in the US is at near record levels according to a new study by academics. Over the past three decades, the share of household wealth owned by the top 0.1% has increased from 7% to 22%. For the bottom 90% of families, a combination of rising debt, the collapse of the value of their assets during the financial crisis, and stagnant real wages have led to the erosion of wealth.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90
The share of wealth owned by the top 0.1% is almost the same as the bottom 90%
Notice this refers not to the top 10% but the top 0.1% , a tiny proportion at the very top of the wealth scale. In addition, you were ignoring the role of corporations in withholding tax revenues - income tax is not the only tax that matters as you fail to notice. I drew this to your attention. It helps further diminish the impact of your mistaken line of argument.
But what is more important is to understand the trend over time, which is that World War 1 destroyed the plutocracy for a while but it is roaring back into place in our own times. Unless the wealthy are severely taxed and their wealth redistributed, they will squeeze the economy dry for the remaining 90% of the population. When you say this cannot be done, you need reminding that it has been done and in the Fifties and Sixties, when the rich in the USA and the UK (for example) had tax rates as high as 98% the economy prospered and the rich prospered too. But in the past, the C18th and C19th Centuries, when Europe had a plutocracy, the wider economy offered dismal conditions for most people and there was virtually no middle class. (The USA were still enjoying almost free land and natural resources so had a strange economy which will never return). It happened before and it is happening again and your inability to grasp this is the evidence of you being a victim of ideology.
You think you are making sensible points but you are just repeating propaganda that you do not understand. You are believing what people want you to believe without checking the facts.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganMy view is not repeated propaganda at all. Your spouting hordes of minutia in the form of percentages demonstrates you have a brilliant view of the trees but cannot see the forest standing before you.
You think you are making sensible points but you are just repeating propaganda that you do not understand. You are believing what people want you to believe without checking the facts.
What I see is tired, already tried for a century, regurgitated Marxist drivel. Marx and Engels saw society as two classes, as you do. Proletariats (workers) and Capitalists who employ the Proletariat class. They felt since the Capitalists owned the means of production, if a struggle were manufactured between the two, this would transform society and gain government (collective) ownership of all production, central economic planning and rule by a central political party.
Sounds great! How has it been in practise?
Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania have tried the collectivist dream and failed. Collectivist government has failed in every nation it was introduced.
Have you researched the economic percentages of those economies? No..I think not. Have you researched the tens of millions of deaths Communist/Collective governments visited upon their own citizenry? No..I think not. Deaths by Politicide and Classicide in these collective regimes are an estimated 80 to 100 millions.
Marx wrote Capitalism was a necessary step in order to progress to Communism. I fear there are many who are willing, and urging others, to take that final step. What is being seen today and from some on these threads, is those with no understanding of REAL history blindly rushing towards the scorched earth of previous "collective" failure, falling victim to the same utopian promises that destroy the people they promise to rescue.
Historically, the only provable thing Communism has done efficiently is kill tens of millions of its own citizenry while re-distributing poverty and governmental induced slavery.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by sh76"though of course some reigning in of excesses is an important government function and a desirable part of the market."
Go start your own company and run it how you like. If you want to work for PPG, then abide by their rules.
A corporation is a tool. It can be used however the people running it choose to use it. Capitalism creates wealth, not poverty, though of course some reigning in of excesses is an important government function and a desirable part of the market.
I was enjoying your reply up to this point. When the State starts "reigning in" the market ceases to function, or ceases functioning well. Buyers and sellers properly "reign in" markets. People failing to buy GM cars brought the largest US corporation to its knees. Instead of "reigning in" GM or AIG and others, government took taxpayer money and bailed them out of their stupidity. The market had spoken, and the government overruled it.
Apple's rollout of new product, can make them tons of money, or it can fall flat depending on consumer response. The market works well, when government gets out and stays out.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by QuarlHurrah!
My view is not repeated propaganda at all. Your spouting hordes of minutia in the form of percentages demonstrates you have a brilliant view of the trees but cannot see the forest standing before you.
What I see is tired, already tried for a century, regurgitated Marxist drivel. Marx and Engels saw society as two classes, as you do. Proletariats (workers) ...[text shortened]... of millions of its own citizenry while re-distributing poverty and governmental induced slavery.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by jimmacI don't believe that corporations have any ethos, common good or otherwise. They are formed to create growing business and growing profits. Presenting a pleasing public image may assist sales or recruiting, but this isn't an ethos.
My point is the enterprises need to have a common good ethos which, as it happens, many do, though many dont.
Paying higher wages may also serve various purposes, but it is never strictly to be a dogooder, and for social benefits. Worker satisfaction, competition for the better worker are more typical motives for increased wages.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganI watch and enjoy the Discovery channel show, Alaska, The Last Frontier. There several generations of the Kilcher family live and homestead land in Alaska with very much a subsistence lifestyle, including hunting, fishing, cultivating, all without limitations or subsidies from government. They at least seem to love and accept the tradeoffs, the things they don't have, and those they have compared to people living in civilization.
What is deemed ‘necessary’ is a matter of social convention and the classical economists had the same opinion.
Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations: “By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of th ...[text shortened]... e essential Difference between Right and Wrong" (O.E.D.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry
Lots of people think they can't get along without their Obama phone, but for others the notion of any cell phone would be that it is useless, excess weight to carry.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganAmericas prosperity in those decades was also helped by a lack of competition from nations either defeated, or destroyed by the war.
America's economy prospered in the Forties, Fifties and Sixties for a reason - which is that economic benefits were widely distributed and excessive wealth was heavily taxed. America's economy has entered into several decades of dangerous volatility and wasteful crashes in various sectors of its economy, at a time of historically low taxes on the wealthy, e ...[text shortened]... ng inequality, the replacement of merit with inherited wealth and all the bling of a plutocracy.
The volatility is largely due to government economic intervention, and the inflation of the money supply with fiat money and fractional reserve banking, along with government favoritism and support of certain business entities.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganIt was the advent of capitalism and specialization of labor which created different levels of wages, market driven.
The overwhelming reason people live in poverty is because of unacceptably low wages.
Government control of production nearly always leads to lower wages yet, and poorer products at higher prices.
To most people, it is abundantly clear that working at Walmart retrieving shopping carts isn't a road to wealth. Why do people continue to work at low wage jobs instead of finding something better?
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou don't have to cease dealing with all corporations, only those with whom you disagree. I would never buy a GM car or truck, as they are tax sucking failures. You have the choice of many corporations, or unincorporated businesses with which to deal.
Sure you do, just go live as a hermit on Antarctica (the Wajoman utopia) and you'll never have to deal with corporations.
Originally posted by QuarlYour view is regurgitated propaganda and you continue to see only what you want to see.
My view is not repeated propaganda at all. Your spouting hordes of minutia in the form of percentages demonstrates you have a brilliant view of the trees but cannot see the forest standing before you.
What I see is tired, already tried for a century, regurgitated Marxist drivel. Marx and Engels saw society as two classes, as you do. Proletariats (workers) ...[text shortened]... of millions of its own citizenry while re-distributing poverty and governmental induced slavery.
Your account of Marx's economics is mistaken. That is a story line I will set aside for now because your education is too defective for me to remedy. It is a distraction and does not matter. It does not matter if Marx is Satan personified. Your arguments remain ideological claptrap.
Your Manichean world view sees only good (Capitalism) and evil (the communist regimes you correctly listed). That is not realistic. It is ideological. It is blinkered and ignorant.
Kindly explain to me the way Scandinavian countries killed tens of millions of people with their socialist policies in the second half of the C20th. Explain to me how Germany's postwar industrial model of collaboration between unions and employers resulted in tyranny. Explain why Britain's National Health Service costs far less and delivers better health outcomes than the mad systems of the USA so that even the current neoliberal fanatics in government here are afraid to kill it off (so they are instead siphoning off wealth to their friends). Tell me about how Denmark's tradition of tolerance, fairness and relative equality was not a product of a long term, democratic socialist framework or why the Danes might yearn to emulate the good old USA instead (and die younger, enjoy more poverty, suffer more violence and crime...).
For that matter, tell me about how the USA prospered with several decades of sharply progressive taxation and has subsequently sunk into an economic abyss as a direct consequence of its poorly regulated financial sector. (Yes I did read normbenign's drivel on this page and it is drivel - too tiresome to keep going over this stuff.)
Then consider, for example, the way French and other European governments successfully operate major industries and even, since privatisation, have come to successfully operate quite a few UK utilities as well. Or consider the disaster when the British rail network infrastructure was privatised, so that it had to be placed back into public ownership to protect the public against terrifying safety failings.
Your statements appear to you to be common sense yet they are not based on economic evidence, but on ideological mantras. The evidence proving you wrong is not something you want to be unformed about.
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA Don't listen.
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by normbenignIt is with high levels of anxiety that I have finally ( after 30yrs of being dedicated to the company) come to understand what was actually obvious in the 1st place and I have no idea what to do about it. I now know that corporations use workers as weapons just as soldiers in a war. Both cause death just one at a far more subtle level, as in causing poverty that causes crime etc,etc. What is the difference is that one is a silent war.
The question is what to do about it. Beg politicians who are worse than the offending corporations or use the market to your advantage?
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by normbenignFor a lot of people there is nowhere else to work,or am I missing something here.
It was the advent of capitalism and specialization of labor which created different levels of wages, market driven.
Government control of production nearly always leads to lower wages yet, and poorer products at higher prices.
To most people, it is abundantly clear that working at Walmart retrieving shopping carts isn't a road to wealth. Why do people continue to work at low wage jobs instead of finding something better?
