Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
ace, I guess my basic point is that the free-market experiment had been going awry, which is why we are where we are today with more stable mixed-market economies.
|
Recent economic events do not reflect stability.
Quote:
|
If it hopes to be taken seriously, the GOP had better put forth a presidential candidate who understands the need for a balanced economy rather than one that favours the rich via cutting taxes (which are already competitive) and cutting spending (where it will hurt the poor).
|
I repeat what favors the "rich" is our current system. A system of confusion and misdirection. Having a tax code that no single person understands does not benefit those who don't have the ability to employ experts or highly paid and connected lobbyist. Actually, the irony in this is that you support the conservative or status-quo position. My position reflects simplicity, openness, fairness - change.
Also I don't speak for the GOP on this issue, I think both parties are at fault with the difference being Democrats are less honest in their advocating for big moneyed interests.
Quote:
|
A return to the principles of the last era of Republican rule will only serve to continue the damage it wrought. Going even further will make it even worse. It's entirely possible to reduce the deficit and return to a surplus without going all Tea Party–like. Google can show you.
|
They can always deflate the currency, oh, but they are doing that aren't they. Deflating the currency does not help the middle class or the poor - to the contrary people who hold real assets or real wealth do not get harmed by inflation.
Again, in this thread the importance of the last paragraph will mostly go unnoticed. But, to anyone really wanting to understand the nature of economic oppression really needs to take some time and think it through.
Quote:
|
Take a look at the most stable economies in the world. What are their characteristics? How many of them are low-tax free-market utopias?
|
If possible to discount for past wars and colonialism perhaps we could look into your point. If your point is reflected in isolated tribal type situations where culturally the people are predisposed to community, I see your point. But, once those people are exposed to competitive outsiders that spirit does not last and they have to revert to aggressive economic activity or rely on the mercy of others.
When we look at resource rich nations with relatively small populations, if those nations maintain control of those resources it is very easy for those controlling the wealth to give the illusion of wealth redistribution.
---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace's views of economics are reality-optional.
|
I give specific support for my views, you do not.
Quote:
|
the result? long strings of posts in which ace talks about himself and his quaint beliefs.
|
Reading my posts is optional. Responding to my posts is optional. The best way to get me to move on is to ignore me.
Quote:
|
there's no discussion really because ace writes as though he's incapable to stepping outside his hyper-orthodox friedmanite framework.
|
I don't perceive being right a bad thing, even if it is within the confines of a box.
Quote:
|
and if it is the case, then its a pretty sad testimony about the sort of intellectual capabilities conservatives bring to the table. markety-market metaphysics aren't upheld because their coherent and still less because they're correct either descriptively or normatively. they're upheld because these people can't do anything else. they haven't the skills to be flexible, seemingly.
|
And what did you bring to the table? Nothing. We already know your opinion about me.
---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
Yes they do. If people werent paid less than they could be, then there would be no profit to be made selling the goods that were created using their labor.
|
Perhaps that was true 100 years ago, but it wasn't even true then. Henry ford famously made a point of saying he paid more so more people could buy his product. Think about what actually happened and why Ford factories got unionized! Ford played to populist sentiment and played it as long as he could get away with it.
Try to understand my point. Labor is exploited to the degree that choice is restricted, to the degree of ignorance of true market value. Labor has allowed big money interests, with the help of government, to develop and design systems that restricts choice and promotes ignorance.
Do you know the market value of your labor in the market place? Most people don't and would not even know how to begin to figure it out. If I am an employer, that is not my fault. Government should know better or does government have an interest in labor ignorance?
Quote:
|
Furthermore, if your going to claim an economic model works it is perhaps to your benefit to not have gobs of free information just laying about the internet that shows that over a sustained time, or really any amount of time, it in fact does not work.
|
Can you be more specific.
Quote:
|
What I see is this: Your claiming you alone are right, by the worth of your experience, which is unprovable and subjective. So your not really arguing at all.
|
Correct, I am not arguing. I am sharing what I know to be true.
Quote:
|
I have no ill will towards you, i just dont understand how this is supposed to go given that. I've said what i have to say and it stands in this case.
|
First step would be to answer one of my questions. Start with this one:
Is government more or less efficient at creating wealth than individuals acting collectively?
The problem with indulging me in answering my questions, is that other questions will follow that will lead you to the correct conclusion. Why do people here fear that?
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
Yeah I saw that, the problem is he forgot all the laborers that without whom, there would be no golf, certainly not playable, who do not get paid zillions of dollars. I know a guy who at this very moment is cooking hamburgers for wealthy golfers under the table to the tune of $8.00 an hour. I guess they forgot to trickle it down that far.
|
Why does it have to be I "forgot" or I "ignore" - neither of which is true.
I simplified the example as to make it readable. If we extend the analogy to caddies, grounds keepers, bar tenders, guys who hand out towels, etc., everyone in the industry benefited from the Woods phenomenon. Again if your point is that some benefited more than others, I already said I agreed to that. But, do you agree that as a wealth creator there is in fact a real "trickle down" effect in play. Do you agree that there is no possibility in the golf "society" that 'trickle up" is realistic. It is a simple matter of "rich" people consuming more golf as a result of tiger Woods and has nothing to do with poor people.
Also, keep in mind the context. I was asked a question and I gave an answer to the question.
---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
urville, he gave you proof. Just look at the society of golf professionals.
|
Well Mr. Wealth Creator, you have created wealth for others - could you have done more exponentially if you had created more personal wealth?
Feel free to ignore the above poignant point and give more and more of your wealth to government.
It is sad that you abdicate personal responsibility to help others - is leave it up to government really your point of view?