Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree32Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 8th, 2017, 10:25 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The tax rate thing isn't a theory, it's a mathematical identity
What does it identify?
caconservative is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 10:33 AM   #42
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_(currency)


If you understand how money is created then how can you claim that tax rates and not money creation is a larger contributing factor in the concentration of wealth that we are currently experiencing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The tax rate thing isn't a theory, it's a mathematical identity
Dodge

A nonsensical one at that.
Thanks from caconservative
Sabcat is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 10:42 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,330
Maybe skews should change his name to irrational-dodge.
Thanks from Sabcat
caconservative is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 10:48 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
Maybe skews should change his name to irrational-dodge.
As if he is the only one on here who does that?
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 11:56 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
What does it identify?
A mathematical identity is something considered True.
Like if A=B+C
Then
C=A-B
it's true no matter what numbers are used.

If the after tax rate of return is 10%
and the growth rate of the GDP is 5%, then Investors will increase their share of the wealth.
That's not a theory it's equations that hold for whatever numbers you use.
Thanks from RNG
goober is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 12:00 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Dodge

A nonsensical one at that.
Yes, your reference to a wikipedia article on currency circulation was most certainly a nonsensical dodge.
If you understood the mathematics of wealth concentration.
goober is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 01:50 AM   #47
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
When unfettered free market laissez faire capitalism runs it's course, it ends up with the Capitalists against the wall.

It collapses and it sets up the political situation that brings on a socialist revolution. That's what happened in Russia, in China, and it's what happened in Venezuela.
This bullshit about "workers are owed nothing" has the necessary corollary that owners are owed nothing.
Either a system works for everybody, at least the vast majority, or it doesn't work for very long.

Look at Venezuela, that wasn't a violent revolution, but wealth was so concentrated that the people could elect Chavez, and Chavez had the political support to amend the constitution at will, every thing that happened there was constitutional, there was no overthrow, that was a political overreaction.


Ever since Reagan rejiggered the tax rates, wealth has become more and more concentrated.
That's going to destroy the system, and what it lands on then probably will be less to your liking that what we have now.
Maybe it's because Marx was writing from the same Euro-enlightenment thinking of future unending progress that the capitalists were working from that gave Marx the unfounded idea that capitalism would inevitably come to an end and be replaced by socialism. And, I'm not seeing this at all! The socialist revolutions failed in Russia and China when enough top communist party managers determined that they could have much greater wealth for themselves if they switched to the western capitalist model....working class be damned!

And Venezuela was little more than a reformed petrostate, not a true socialist society. Hugo Chavez was the rare US-trained career military officer who was bold enough to step out and upend the system because all of the oil wealth was ending up in few hands...just like most petrostates. BUT, he didn't change the capitalist framework, just increased taxes on the rich and delivered a much greater share to the large indigenous populations who were never included in Venezuela's formal economy. Chavez was more the FDR of Venezuela than the Vladimir Lenin! And without any changes to the capitalist structure and dependence on oil production and exports, all it's taken is a collapse in oil prices and a little CIA mischief to threaten collapse.

My thinking is that capitalist systems just become more ruthless and desperate as economic growth stagnates and as in most past examples, fascism is a much more likely end point than socialism.

We started out as a species and spent most of our development as extremely socialistic, egalitarian creatures. But the "primitive communism" that Marx's collaborator-Frederich Engels was fascinated and enthused about as he learned of the new science of anthropology, was highly dependent on the living arrangements of immediate return-hunter/gatherer societies: they lived in small, mostly extended family groups(though community members often moved in and out from other bands...the groups were small enough(always less than 200 members) so that everyone knew each other and cooperation was crucial for survival...so important that anthropologists describe a phenomena they call "status-leveling" usually applied among males when one of the members seemed to be stronger, faster or a more talented hunter than the rest. Instead of praise for his achievements, success is mocked and scorned in case the alpha male stars thinking he can have authority over others. And, they had no opportunities for materialism, greed and accumulation of wealth to be issues, if they were living in most areas of the world where small groups would have to break camp and move to a new location every few days or weeks. If you have to travel frequently, you're not going to want to take a lot of stuff with you!

These are some of the aspects of primitive socialism, which Marx and Engels had just started to think out how to apply to modern industrial societies in the 1880's. But the settings are completely different! Putting people who are sometimes total strangers together in farming communes for example, were mostly failed experiments. Not that modern socialism is impossible, but it may take a lot of different approaches before successful models are found, and materialism should not be the goal as it was in the Soviet Union, which spent the post-war decades trying to create a communist version of American consumer culture.
right to left is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 01:57 AM   #48
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
Is that your interpretation of Life, Liberty, and Property? Is there suppose to equality between the fat-cat and the guy who owns a modest house? Or, are you enjoying your socialist-dream. The dream that says, if you can't do it, take it from someone else. The word "equality" does not give you license to steal from others.
I'm happy with my modest house, but I'm more concerned about what the future will bring for my children and all of the others coming along in an increasingly degraded world biologists are already telling us has started into the Sixth Mas Extinction! My question to capitalists who love this system is: do you think your kids will be able to live as well as you have?
right to left is offline  
Old October 9th, 2017, 07:03 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Maybe it's because Marx was writing from the same Euro-enlightenment thinking of future unending progress that the capitalists were working from that gave Marx the unfounded idea that capitalism would inevitably come to an end and be replaced by socialism. And, I'm not seeing this at all! The socialist revolutions failed in Russia and China when enough top communist party managers determined that they could have much greater wealth for themselves if they switched to the western capitalist model....working class be damned!

And Venezuela was little more than a reformed petrostate, not a true socialist society. Hugo Chavez was the rare US-trained career military officer who was bold enough to step out and upend the system because all of the oil wealth was ending up in few hands...just like most petrostates. BUT, he didn't change the capitalist framework, just increased taxes on the rich and delivered a much greater share to the large indigenous populations who were never included in Venezuela's formal economy. Chavez was more the FDR of Venezuela than the Vladimir Lenin! And without any changes to the capitalist structure and dependence on oil production and exports, all it's taken is a collapse in oil prices and a little CIA mischief to threaten collapse.

My thinking is that capitalist systems just become more ruthless and desperate as economic growth stagnates and as in most past examples, fascism is a much more likely end point than socialism.

We started out as a species and spent most of our development as extremely socialistic, egalitarian creatures. But the "primitive communism" that Marx's collaborator-Frederich Engels was fascinated and enthused about as he learned of the new science of anthropology, was highly dependent on the living arrangements of immediate return-hunter/gatherer societies: they lived in small, mostly extended family groups(though community members often moved in and out from other bands...the groups were small enough(always less than 200 members) so that everyone knew each other and cooperation was crucial for survival...so important that anthropologists describe a phenomena they call "status-leveling" usually applied among males when one of the members seemed to be stronger, faster or a more talented hunter than the rest. Instead of praise for his achievements, success is mocked and scorned in case the alpha male stars thinking he can have authority over others. And, they had no opportunities for materialism, greed and accumulation of wealth to be issues, if they were living in most areas of the world where small groups would have to break camp and move to a new location every few days or weeks. If you have to travel frequently, you're not going to want to take a lot of stuff with you!

These are some of the aspects of primitive socialism, which Marx and Engels had just started to think out how to apply to modern industrial societies in the 1880's. But the settings are completely different! Putting people who are sometimes total strangers together in farming communes for example, were mostly failed experiments. Not that modern socialism is impossible, but it may take a lot of different approaches before successful models are found, and materialism should not be the goal as it was in the Soviet Union, which spent the post-war decades trying to create a communist version of American consumer culture.
When capitalism collapses it doesn't lead to anything in particular, just something else.
It provides an opening, for fascism, communism, not anarchy that just doesn't work, even monarchy is possible.

What seemed to work the best was a situation where wealth became more broadly distributed, it's that time that the middle class saw it's greatest gains, since the 80's it's been pretty pathetic.
It's almost 4 decades, and not much improvement for the middle class, they own a smaller percent of the pie than they did in 1980.

What worked the best was regulated capitalism, pulling back the regulations didn't work, it's just caused pain, and no gain.
Thanks from right to left
goober is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
error, libertarian, locke, natural, property



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Happy birthday, Locke imaginethat Philosophy 2 August 30th, 2012 12:42 PM
Joe Wilson: The End Of An Error alias Political Talk 0 September 7th, 2006 10:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.