I have no interest in debating, or discussing anything with you in this thread, because as I have also said before, you are the most unreasonable person I have ever met in my entire life.
That's a very inaccurate assessment. I'm entirely reasonable if you can produce facts. May I suggest that perhaps your problem is a lack of curiousity. I've given you ample opportunity to examine and find out for yourself what the truth is; you haven't done any exploration have you? See, if you don't have an inclination to learn, you aren't going to grow much. You'll be stuck in the same mindset for the next 50 years and that's just a tragedy. Hope you don't take this as an attack; it's not.
That's a very inaccurate assessment. I'm entirely reasonable if you can produce facts.
Ok you keep telling yourself that buddy.
Originally Posted by Tellenbach
May I suggest that perhaps your problem is a lack of curiousity.
You've got to be kidding me. I'm a very curious person. To the point where over the years it's gotten me in trouble. Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know this about me so I can't fault you there.
Originally Posted by Tellenbach
I've given you ample opportunity to examine and find out for yourself what the truth is; you haven't done any exploration have you? See, if you don't have an inclination to learn, you aren't going to grow much. You'll be stuck in the same mindset for the next 50 years and that's just a tragedy. Hope you don't take this as an attack; it's not.
I don't have the inclination to learn? Jesus fuck, my inclination to learn is one of the corner stones of my personality! If I didn't, why the hell would I be in grad school working on a PhD? Again, I can't fault you here. Partially because this isn't as apparent to others, particularly on the forums.
You keep telling that to yourself as well. I've spent quite a lot of time looking into this, I am constantly following politics. The crux of my issue is I am a terrible debater on most topics. I always have been, as it is a skill I do not naturally possess. Further I am not patient with debates either (never have been with this either).
Combined with that, and how completely unreasonable I see you to be (and trust me, A LOT of people on this forum agree with me on this as well), I have absolutely no interest in discussing political issues with you at all. I've actually been annoyed with myself that I bothered to in the past. Honestly, as I see it (and many others) your the one that's stuck.
MBTI: ExxJ tetramer Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so Socionics: β-E dimer | - Big 5: slOaI Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic Alignment: Lawful Neutral External Perception:Nohari and Johari
Look, I'm not sure if you realise how bad these sources you are choosing to make citations from are, you couldnt possibly have examined them that closely and thought they were any good.
I dont have the time and inclination to go through it bit by bit so I'll just choose one here which I think is illustrative of what I'm talking about.
The bit I've high lighted.
Unless the social security tax took money, what is undistributed profits btw? That smacks of doublespeak jargon all by itself, and put it in a savings account and did nothing with it what so ever it was not taken out of the economy. Even in a bank account it is liable to be accruing interest so its not even then taken out of the economy. I presume it wasnt moved off shore as a personal asset or donated to a foreign country.
The money which is taken out of the economy, any time that a decision is taken to consciously pursuit that as an objective, is taken out by deliberately choosing to shrink public spending.
The reason being that reductions in public spending, whether it is in the form of wages to public servants or even in the form of benefits payments of one shape or another, mean people have less disposable income, less money in their pockets to spend and circulate in the economy. Individuals, often the lowest paid or even benefits dependent are the most likely to spend money and circulate it in the economy, whereas companies and legacies are not liable to spend in the same ways, resulting in a parsimonious situation in which hoarding becomes the prevailing norm and money cant circulate, there is no new money, no innovation, no research and development, it all grinds to a halt.
That's all pretty simple and straight forward, not even economic concepts like Says Law or anything like that, I'd invite @Magic Porifean to contribute at this point but I think he's tired of these sorts of discussions.
LOL! In other words, there is such a thing as a free lunch! If we take money away from some people, pocket some as a "finder's fee" to otherwise useless / parasitical bureaucrats, and dribble the rest out to other people, then the magic velocity of money happens, because Keynes, and *everyone* becomes richer.
"Look, you say, the poor people wouldn't be buying anything except for the handouts; that stimulates demand; which in turn creates growth. QED."
The *real* answers behind the fallacy you're relying upon, is that the velocity of money is not itself a guarantee of the *creation* of wealth, though apparently some people think it is;
you are in fact missing out on the useful work which would have been produced by the poor, with actual jobs; and you are doing this by depriving those from whom you took the money, of the freedom to dispose of their own property for their own ends; it bears some analogy to the often-mentioned, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" ...'utility'.
Another issue which you haven't touched upon, is the effect of deficit spending, the effects of inflation upon the poor, and the effects on the economy (and future government spending!) of interest on the borrowed money.
Things that can't go on forever, won't.
"Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan
In general, yes. People in the U.S. are happier than Europeans and Americans were far happier under Coolidge/Reagan than under FDR/Obama.
Evidence says that many eu countries have happier people than in usa, in fact top countries are some of those european socialistic countries. Not to mention that there is a lot of poverty and homelessness in usa, many areas are like in some 3rd world countries.. The fact is that few benefit from this free market capitalism A LOT and from general legal forms of corruption of government and many more doesent get the healthcare they need, they dont have homes etc.
"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
— C.G. Jung
Basically automation and over population sets the scene for a reduced workforce being paid less unless controls are introduced.
If those who are rich and powerful have gotten there through said free market and deserve to stay there because of their efforts then I expect a letter to your congressman beseeching him or her to put forth a bill to return to British control.
Evidence says that many eu countries have happier people than in usa, in fact top countries are some of those european socialistic countries.
The 2002 International Social Survey Programme found that Americans are 46% likelier than the French to be "completely satisfied" with their jobs; 52% more likely than the Germans, 42% more likely than the British, and 190% more likely than the Spanish. Wonder what's going on in Spain these days.
Job satisfaction doesn't necessarily mean happier people but job satisfaction is an important component of one's happiness.
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States by Arthur Laffer (2014)
Great book with lots of fun, interesting statistics.
Let's start with the 11 states that enacted an income tax post 1960. These are Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, Maine, Ohio, Michigan, and Rhode Island. What happened after the income tax was passed?
All 11 states lost tax revenue. But wait, doesn't raising taxes increase revenue? Isn't that what Democrats tell us when they raise taxes to balance budgets? Why would tax revenues decrease?
Because people left those states in droves. All 11 states saw decreases in population growth compared to 5 years before the income tax was passed. When people leave the state, you lose tax revenue because you can't collect taxes on someone who's moved. Simple, huh?
Some fun stats:
From 2002 to 2012, Nevada enjoyed the greatest population growth at 26.92%. By comparison, Rhode Island had a negative 1.47% drop; Michigan saw a negative 1.32% drop; Ohio had a measly 1.20% increase. All 11 states with an income tax post 1960 are ranked in the bottom half of states with population growth and 7 out of the bottom 10. Ouch.
It's a vicious cycle. Politicians raise taxes; people leave in droves and you get less revenue. Because there is less revenue, politicians want to raise taxes even more, so the burden on those who are left behind increases year by year.
Democrats argue that raising taxes improves social services, but let's examine this claim more closely. The 11 states with an income tax (post 1960) 3 of the 10 (data for Illinois is missing) saw increases in Reading scores and 7 of 10 states saw drops in reading; the same was true with math scores.
Another measure of social services is the number of health and hospital employees per 10,000 population. Only 4 of the 11 states had more health workers compared to the national average, meaning that 7 of these 11 states had fewer health workers.
Police protection is yet another measure of social services; 8 of the 11 saw increases in the violent crime rate.
What about welfare and poverty? Only 3 of the 11 states had decreases in the poverty rate, so 8 out of the 11 states saw increased poverty when the income tax was raised.
Sigh another capitalism vs socialism argument, that fundamentally misses the point that free market capitalism does not actually exist anywhere least of all in the US. Wasn't it Gore Vidal, one of the US's own social commentators and card carrying member of the rich, who stated that America practices capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich? Yes it was.
Those in society controlling assets are subsidised in most western capitalist countries through tax breaks, business incentives and often government grants in order to set up businesses or economic activity in targeted locations. Don't even get me started on interest groups, lobbyists and who makes donations to campaign funds. Most companies pay a lot less tax in % terms than individuals owing to the vast number of tax write offs they receive under corporations tax law. We don't have free market capitalism as a working model anywhere in the world. It is capitalism manipulated by governments to enact specific government policies. Whatever they may be.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism, but it does not operate as a free market environment in the way most people assume it does. There are hundreds upon hundreds of documentaries detailing the less visible aspects of how western societies run and the different way individuals are treated for tax purposes based upon the assets they control. Even that stupid book Rich Dad/Poor Dad by R Kiyosaki is testament to how advantageous it is to be an asset owner rather than an employee. The #1 benefit is paying less or almost no tax. A tax subsidy is not the product of a free market economy. The only place you'll witness a free market economy is in something like a farmers market.
What we do have in the affluent capitalist economies is the opportunity for upward social mobility, which is often not present in other types of economies. But there are plenty of ills to the way things are presently run for which we are yet to create effective solutions. The big problem with pure capitalism is that it is very poor at taking into account the social costs of certain activities. Commercial activity does not care about things like the environment for example because the social cost of that does not come into the profit equation and nor can it be easily calculated.
At this point I don't even think talking about socialism/capitalism dichotomies is even useful. We don't have pure versions of either model in the world alive today. What we have is a spectrum of money making activities weighed against social activities. A blend of the two that plays out slightly differently in every country.
You can't hold up something that doesn't exist and say there! See it works.