Regardless of your views on a flat consumption based tax system, I first ask you to simply acknowledge the obvious weakness and unfairness in a progressive income tax system - namely wealth is not taxed and upwardly mobile people occasionally face extremely unfair marginal rates.


How many times do I need to give you the same answer? When I run for political office, my flat consumption based tax proposal will be the basis of my campaign. I see no value in sharing it with you in advance. If there is some value in it, let me know - otherwise I will keep this at a theoretical level.

No. We can move on anytime.

How about additional justification for the Republican strategy to stop Obama-care from being implemented. IBD reported today that in 20 years a 42-year-old at 300% of poverty would have to shell out about 19% of their total income to buy insurance through one of the exchanges created by Obama-care.

Or, how about giving me some advise on how to play the college tuition game. It seems to me that people who plan win, those who don't lose, and that poor people who don't have help (namely first generation students) are at the mercy of chance. Does such a system make you proud to be a liberal? In my view there is a better way than just throwing more and more money into a broken system. But I guess any Republican who wants "change" doesn't really want "change" they just don't want poor people to be able to go to college - well that line is getting old. I am betting more and more people won't buy into it any longer. You will see more Republicans not caring about how liberals use labels!

Why are they having a GOP Presidential debate 18 months before the election?

And why aren't the heavy hitters there?

Dude, they're shifting strategy....

I've been trying to figure this out all night. I thought they might be looking to get momentum going early, but this is more likely to burn people out by the time November of next year rolls around. The only thing I can think of is this is an attempt to make the GOP look weak and fool liberals and Democrats into not caring, so they can pull someone out of their hats later in the game and leave the Democrats to play catchup. Still... I dunno, this move doesn't make a lot of sense.

Oh, could it be ratings?

It's good for wealthy America. It does nothing for the middle or lower classes, to make more people wealthy or improve standards. in fact I believe the very point is to refine and maintain a smaller percentage at the top using funds in the poltical system to ensure more of that same outcome. I agree that those dependent on government for no good reason hurt the system, but a pro wealthy low tax agenda isnt going to solve the problem. It isnt designed to and hasnt made an effect.

That in a totally free system the cream does not rise to the top, the ruthless do. This utopian idea, largely the result of Rand, never materializes. Sure some good people may make it pretty far, but in a fiscal monarchy who makes it is decided by those on top because the control the means to do so. not because they are the best. This is achieved by all the means we are all very well aware of and turn our heads at all the time. That power corrupts in both directions. That when we should have used education we used regulation or deregulation to extremes.

The Koch brothers have created a populist vehicle to fund and drive benefits for corporations and the super wealthy. More of the same. The philosophy they espouse is, in reality, set against the worker not for the worker. It punishes the worker for not being innovative enough to create his own empire of success in a system deadset to make sure he cant and despises him for "stealing" if he tries to change his position through the use of teamwork (unions). The workers biggest enemy isnt the US government but the one taking actual advantage of the workers lack of a useful position with which to fight from, the employer. God forbid he should try to be competitive in such a market, hence the ever coming death of small business in this country.

I think in reality the differences between Obama and whoever ends up running against him look really important from an ideology standpoint but matter very little in relation to the real drivng forces behind all of this. Like the banking industry, the bubble, etc. In reality they are more similar than different, this is by design, and its maybe not accepted but certainly not unknown. Nothing serious has chnaged now nor would it have under McCain, nor will it under the next administration.

I disagree but agree. Government cannot do that, but the idea that the left thinks it should is just misconstruing a lie because it looks true for self gain. Secondly, neither can most people if even those select few anymore and as things progress especially under that "free" system. The middle class exists, quite geniously, as a way to keep most of the poepl happy enough, just believing enough, that they can make it big while simultaneously knowing that they proabaly wont. They believe enough though to not question enough to lose that chance. The lower class is kept still by those big government programs. Like it or not, change and cut all of that, thos programs keeping the morale, and you'll see a turn out in the next cycle to rival anything you could hope to even maybe dream of in 2012 for the right because the numbers are far greater, again by design. Do I think thats right? Yes and no again. There is no addict without a dealer, and just like the war on drugs, now that that war is an industry you cant just stop. Because now the addict and the dealer HAVE to exist to keep all that money going.


Money in life is like money in politics, your one guy before you have it and another once you do. Whats the quote? All power corrupts absolutely and money and power, in this society, are synonymous. It's a numbers game, if the idea was to make everyone more wealthy why they'd have done that by now. Made it very easy so everyone could do it and they would. If this was about making it, we wouldnt be having this conversation. This is about power. Look at what you said, "I have interacted with people in the top 1% who got there based on their work". How many are we talking? Of 1%? 100? 1000? .1% of the 1%? That isnt insipring, and even if it was, its not enough to counter balance.

Thats a generalized statement that is simply not always true.


In this response you basically make the argument against a totally free system that I was making as to corporations etc. I think tea party people THINK they are fighting for the same thing but are not. Your not going to get a "fair" system by less rules and an open system, you'll get more of the same. I think time has spoken on that.

The wealthy should pay more because they consume more, pollute more, use more, and create more mess.

Ditto on that to the right, and you simply wont get fair out of a free open system as its free enough to get away witht thing.

This is a reminder of what ace continues to forget about how "real wealth" is generated. It's not generated in a vacuum. Wealth doesn't come from the ether when some guy gets a great idea and starts a company. This doesn't formulate atoms miraculously into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

The generation of "real wealth" requires labour and spending.

It's as though Fordism never happened. It's as though Post-Fordism isn't happening.

It's not just ace who should realize this; it's the GOP too. This is why "cuttin' spendin' and taxes" isn't a panacea towards economic bliss, and it's why the GOP should consider returning to the centre a bit if they want to get anywhere.

ace is just another tiresome free markety metaphysician. the posts are interesting only to the extent that they perform something of the ideological paralysis that's abroad in the land. folk who's frame is entirely neo-liberal and context-independent find themselves in a something like a spiritual problem that they cannot resolve so they revert to repeating axioms. that it's unhinged from any reality beyond that of a collective cognitive problem is erased by the fact of repeating axioms. other folk are in a position to talk variously about context and in many cases move past the twitching corpse of neo-liberalism, but in an ad-hoc manner, first because there's no agreed-upon alternative framework---or even analytic basis for making such a framework as the transforms that neoliberal regimes pulled off while doping up its population with neo-liberal bromides amount to a basic reorganization of the geography of capitalism itself and so there's an extent to which a project like the marxian one has to start over again except that the dead weight of marxism itself is in the way. and people are taking that on, i think, in their ways---but there's no linkage between that and the ideological production machinery.

so you get results like ace's posts that perform the twitching of the corpse of an outmoded ideology without the slightest idea that is what it is.

the respite from reality comes in trying to shift every debate to the metaphysical register. this is duplicated by appeals to intuition, to the gut.

the moves are obvious and do not change.
the results are predicable and are, to my mind, without interest except in some anthropological way.

one either plays along or one doesn't

1) TV ratings
2) Small states wants to be perceived as having a big impact or think there is value in being first.

Romney won't win SC regardless and there is no upside for him to over expose himself.

Palin is not going to run.

Huckabee is already well known, no upside.

Newt wants to be persuaded to run, but it is not happening.

Pawlenty was there.

Hermon Cain needed to be there, won, and is now going to be a serious contender.

Paul was there, he is going to be considered much more seriously than he was in 2008.

---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Look at it this way. If you have a goose that lays golden eggs (rich people who know how to create wealth), you (the rest of us) would want to treat that goose well. You would not want to force the goose to go to your neighbors farm (business moving overseas). You would want the goose laying golden eggs and not waste time doing other things like cleaning the barn (excessive regulations and taxation).

Make no mistake about "trickle down" economics, it works. We want people who know how to create wealth focused on creating wealth. Poor people can hardly help themselves, we need some wealth creators in our society for the benefit of everyone.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

I have created wealth. I have also lost wealth, but that is another story. I have been as poor as a person in this country can be, and I have been in the top 1%. I not only talk theory, I talk practical application. On my rise, I helped many others rise and I paid a hell of a lot of taxes to the government. When I fell, it impacted more than just me. When I rise again, the same result will occur. I will create wealth, I will create jobs, I will help others create wealth, and I will pay a hell of a lot in taxes.

I would suggest that people who were born in a socioeconomic class and never moved up or down don't understand - or those who have never taken a risk to create wealth don't understand, i.e. - academics who after an extensive education go on to be professors or work in government.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

I know what I believe and it appears that you know what I believe. My question is what do you believe? If the fundamentals of free market concepts are incorrect, what is correct?

It is clear, in my interactions here is that when it comes to economics and government policy discussions, they will all end at some core fundamental point that does not allow for an irrational response. Hence, there are questions that you will forever absolutely refuse to answer directly.

I have had a hand in creating wealth too, ace. Most of us have. It's not a foreign concept. However, what tends to be the case is that the lower and middle classes have little recourse when a large proportion of this wealth flows up the chain into the minority upper class.

Call it trickle-up economics, if you will. It works.

As for whether free-market concepts are incorrect, I suppose we'll never know, but that's probably a good thing.

If you have created wealth then you had to have created wealth for others. Why not say that?

If the issue has more to do with how much the most wealthy has compared to the most poor, to me that is a different issue than wealth creators benefiting others through their efforts of creating wealth.

It does not. Poor people do not form the basis for anyone getting rich. There is no doubt that poor people can be exploited for their labor and they can be cheated or defrauded of wealth they do not know they have - but that as a given the question is how do we address exploration, fraud, unethical business practices not to condemn free market principles. I would argue that many of the problems are systemic as I have pointed out in many examples over the years I have been posting here. Many policies designed to help the poor actually harm them or make it harder for them to improve their lives.

I think I know.

That pretty much is what I'm saying. My part in creating wealth was helping create wealth for others. I myself am not (nor have I ever been) wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not saying that there is something inherently wrong with rich people taking initiatives in businesses that create wealth. What I'm going on about is your oversight regarding how that business is able to generate it in the first place, including but not limited to the environment required as a precondition.

The wealthy could not exist if it weren't for the lower classes. Have you ever seen a society that consisted purely of wealthy citizens that wasn't some oil-rich anomaly?

Again, you are missing the essential reality of economics. Labour, whether it is performed by the poor or the middle class, is one of the foundational elements of wealth creation. Without it, wealth would be very difficult if not impossible to generate in most aspects of an advanced and complex economy. You continue to overlook if not undermine this very basic idea of economics.

Labour is used by holders of capital as leverage to turn a profit. When this system operates in such a way where a majority of the wealth that is generated flows up to the top 1% of citizens, and especially to the detriment of the lower classes, then there is a problem with the system. If some—despite playing an integral role in the generation of wealth—lack any basic and essential needs such as food, shelter, health care, security, etc., based on their inability to afford it, something has gone wrong on a moral level: because way more than enough wealth for these things is there.

This is the danger of a free market. This is why we don't let a free market exist. A free market is amoral and we, as a society, are moral.

I think you don't know. Where does that leave us?

If you controlled more wealth, you would be able to help more people exponentially.

For example one situation I am most proud of involves a young woman we (my wife and I) hired shortly after she got out of HS. She lived in a mobile home with her mother who was receiving disability payments, barely enough for their expenses. The young lady had no business experience, but was willing to work and learn and we were willing to hire her. The young lady had no plans on attending college, but we convinced her to do it. while she worked for us we offered flexibility in her schedule as to not conflict with school. She became very productive for us, she was able to financially help her household and she graduated. While she worked with us she got the entrepreneurial bug and started using her artistic abilities in design of websites, fashion and jewelry. When she left us, she left and started making her living from her own business. My wife and I recently received an invitation to her wedding this summer, she is getting married to her female partner in California. She is in her twenties and the bread-winner and has an excellent future. So, while I was making money, I was helping her and others. As a conservative, I did not care about her sexuality or any other "social" issue, she was willing to work, learn, be productive and we wanted to see her fly. One day she will probably be making more money than I have ever dreamed about, she has that kind of drive. And along the way, she is going to help thousands along the way. But, if I am not making money, if I am not in a position to take a chance on an inexperienced recent HS grad, if I don't have the ability to flex her schedule, if I don't mentor her, perhaps none of this happens. At the risk of sounding arrogant, if the government gets out of my way, I can do more with my money to make the world better than the government can. I bet you could too.

I can give example after example of how government is ineffective or inefficient regarding helping the poor and regulating the "rich", but it just won't matter. But I keep on trying??? No doubt, I am obsessive compulsive.

Yes.

Take the "society" of golf professionals. Along come Tiger Woods and (no disputes) because of his talent, everyone involved in professional golf gets richer. Woods make a ton of money, but the guy ranked at the bottom makes more money than ever before. Woods creates wealth that benefit everyone. Every pro golfer in the "society" does well. However, there is a big gap between Woods and the guy at the bottom, if your argument is the gap is too wide - that is one argument but not the argument against "trickle-down". And to your argument, if I got it right, I say that if you risk forcing Woods out, you risk harming everyone. If Woods is motivated by money and you reduce his prizes to redistribute to others, what if he plays less? What happens? Everyone starts making less.

I don't overlook it. I suggest that we allow people the right to earn their proper free market wage. Under our current system of employment law, and employee can easily be locked into a specific employer for many reasons. this is not good for the employee. Employers or "rich" people know how to play the game and they have experts who navigate the complexities of employment law to control labor - government either knowingly or in ignorance plays into that. What will it take for you to see it, I don't know - but it is obvious to me.

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. 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).

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.

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?

ace's views of economics are reality-optional. and the statements are set up so that there's no possibility of moving outside his frame of reference---you can say things directly about where you're coming from for example and they won't register. the only statements that register are symmetrical with the markety-market metaphysics that is the one trick this pony runs. it doesn't matter the thread, either. this one, for example, started out being about the republican's tactical problems, most of which are generated by people who buy the same markety-market metaphysics that ace goes on about at some length. the result? long strings of posts in which ace talks about himself and his quaint beliefs.

there's no discussion really because ace writes as though he's incapable to stepping outside his hyper-orthodox friedmanite framework.

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.

that's a problem.

fortunately, it's not so big a problem here as it is in the world because ace can be allowed to write endlessly about the religious geography inside his skull and no-one gets hurt because he isn't in a position to fashion policy.

The irony of it all is that communism has a much more successful track record than laissez-faire.


As an aside: The Atlantic recently ranked Toronto the #2 city in the world regarding characteristics of business, life, and innovation—second only to New York City.

This included receiving the #2 spot for "entrepreneurial environment." Not bad for a city that lives—as some would say—"under the yoke of socialist policies." The worst aspect of Toronto? It's ranked third last in the cost of public transportation, which is sad because the system kind of sucks. This is because the federal (and provincial, arguably) government hasn't done enough to step up its funding of the system...you know, socialist style.

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.

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.

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.

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.

urville, he gave you proof. Just look at the society of golf professionals.

Communism and socialism. To me is a great idea in theory and for its time. I think it needs a serious update and I dont mean this social democracy stuff either, though i definitely live in that realm and at this time I am rooted there. I'm actually writing a thing on this right now. I'm no genius, but I have my ideas. A new socialism. Eh, this isnt the place and this isnt my thread, but I am excited inside, hah.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

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.

Well, you're more than welcome to start a new thread to bounce some ideas around if you wish. In fact, I urge you to.

Well, imagine that!

I retract what i was saying here, it was too much in the wrong direction i think. apologies

Recent economic events do not reflect stability.

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.

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.

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 ----------

I give specific support for my views, you do not.

Reading my posts is optional. Responding to my posts is optional. The best way to get me to move on is to ignore me.

I don't perceive being right a bad thing, even if it is within the confines of a box.

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 ----------

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?

Can you be more specific.

Correct, I am not arguing. I am sharing what I know to be true.

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 ----------

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 ----------

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. :sad::sad::sad: It is sad that you abdicate personal responsibility to help others - is leave it up to government really your point of view?

My point of view, ace, is that advanced developed economies are mixed economies and rightly so. They proved the most stable environment than do purely communist or laissez-faire (would in theory*).


*This is mainly because both of these in their pure forms are highly volatile in attempts to implement and/or maintain them, or, perhaps, purely theoretical.

Is your position, ace, that mixed economies are a bad idea and we should rid economics of government intervention of all kinds?

ace, you know my position: I support mixed economies. I'm not abdicating anything.

What's yours? Are you for or against mixed economies?

I solely support and advocate for free market economies. I am not of the view that mix economies or other types can not be successful, I simply believe free market economies are the most efficient and benefit the most people regardless of their starting station in life.

Is there a difference in your mind between wealth creation and getting rich off of others?

We may never see a pure free market economy, so there will always be some kind of mix. I will always support policy movements towards free market economies. The freer the market economy the better, in my view.

Can you name some historical free market economies (free market by your own definition) that were highly successful; that is, more successful than mixed systems with similar circumstances? What were the largest or most significant contributing factors in these systems that you believe lead to the success?

What are you basing this on? It's a theory. You think this would be the case. A purely free market economy is a pipe dream. It would be impossible to implement, even over a long-term strategy, because sooner or later, it's going to lead to social unrest and eventual upheaval. That last part isn't purely theoretical on my part. There is evidence of this.

The words are different. I suppose it depends on how you interpret them. I studied semantics, semiotics, and critical theory in university. I don't think it's the kind of thing I want to get into here though.

The better for all. Yeah, yeah, I know, ace. I know.... I simply disagree.

I cannot see how a society can be governed by capitalism on its own. I don't see how a society would deem this to be the fairest model. I don't see how this could be implemented by anything other than an authoritarian plutocracy.

It would require the rescinding of many laws that are considered fundamental. It would require further exposing the American economy to the likes of China and India, who won't share the same economic policies. I sincerely doubt there will be all that many companies interested in dismantling the aspects of nanny statism that benefit them.

I could go on but I won't.

You will have to wait until ace runs for office. Much like my attempted discussion with him on the flat tax.

We evidently have to accept ideological theoretical models that never worked anywhere at anytime in order to discuss it further.

What ace would prefer to see in the U.S. is nothing short of economic extremism. To even attempt to implement it would shake the very foundations of American society.

This is what makes the Tea Party a fringe party.

They were born too late.

He and they would have fit right in with the robber barons of the 19th century.

Nah, they'd criticize them for their support of the nanny state. The robber barons were close, but they weren't free-market enough.

What the hell everyone in here seems to love bitter sourness.

How does it promote fairness? What I see is certainly openness, with no way to stop more of exactly what your complaining about. This system is pretty open as it is, enough to allow them to nearly destroy us and get away nearly scott free. Yeah, give me more of THAT!

I agree that the current system does the same thing. Thats my point. Dont mistake me for a common liberal, no offesnse to anyone but my admitted choice of Obama was nothing more than the less of two evils. Every time a con calls him a socialist I can only think of how that entire wing of philosophy is ignorant of fact in favor of ideology. This man went to this one area in Iran and couldnt prove facts you and i know because their ideology said otherwise. they believed without question so deeply that they were sure he was using trickery. Thats the right, and it fits perfectly into their whole leaning toward fascism, theocracies, and fundamentalism. It's centered in that exact thinking you espouse. That you believe it so it is true. Which it isnt.

You think I dont understand you because its the only way you can solve for the fact that I'm not buying it. Not that i simply dont agree because we are philosophically and fundamentally apart. but your wrong, and theres just about all of history to prove it.

I apologize, I was assuming you didnt do it on purpose which frankly in my mind was more in your favor. So,You left them out to simplify? Thats convenient because they all make up the "golf" system or society as you put it. It requires all of them to function so leaving them out doesnt simplify, it chnages the argument, no surprise in your favor.You left out the people who made your argument ineffective. It proves what your saying to be not true. They need those people, but pay them the least they can get away with to maximize profit and keep that system that allows them to amass capital at amazing rates intact. Sharing the bare minimum is not trickling down being effective.

Thats MY point. Of course there is a trickle down happening, but its always there, they have to give them something in that system. it isnt a model for an entire economic philosophy because it ignores completely that they arent going to give any more, and citing Ford does nothing for your argument. It simply isnt true. There no basis for it in a free system. If they dont have to, no one is going to.

It's true now. When the American labor force either enchroaches on, or more likely when these executives decide they need to free up money for more profit. The first thing they do is outsource it to a country that doesnt have all those pesky laws for peoples rights. Its not just their wage, its the benefits, aorkmans comp that has to be paid, unemployment, taxes, workplace conditions, all of that adds up.

Yeah, lol, I know labor is exploited. You actually believe by opening up and deregulating, and I guess just trusting in the good nature and progress based instincts of companies and thier owners (their intellignece to know its ion thier best interest?), to actually improve that system. This is Randian heroism at its most ridiculous whether you intended it that way or not. It would never happen. I dont disgaree that govenrment makes it worse right now, and will do so if you get a con in or even a tea candidate. This is where your blind belief will fail you. Mark my words. I have issue witht he entire philosophy.

I dont know the value of labor in my market, only because I have no reason to. Its immaterial to me if most could figure it out, I can and they could learn. I can predict now with absolute confidence what is paid is out of scale with what it should be and certainly out of scale with the cost of products and property. None of this is amazing nor should be, its designed this way on purpose and your proposed system and philosophy will only worsen it not improve it. No its not your fault, but you should be kept from capitalizing on it because its unethical. Oh please, youd just love even less government and yet you make the argument that the gov should know better, thats laughable. listen to yourself.

No offense, but the moment you can convince me I should take this serious I'll certainly cite you tons of material on it. I'm sure you can use the internet quite capably in the meantime.



I know, and hence I dont take you too seriously, because how can I?

Hah...
Government shoudlt create wealth, thats not its job and so it cannot be efficient at it in comparison to individuals acting collectively. Are you excitied? so what?

It's you that doesnt understand.

Without regulation you cannot control wealth creation no matter where it comes from. Wealth is like anything, abusable, and done so without regard the very minute there is no rule or law to keep such from happening. This makes it a failed system as a whole. It cant self regulate, and any attempt to regulate it just degrades into beauacracy so deep and expansive it becomes impossible to operate. Leaving it alone and/or opening it up creates choas and allows only those willing to do anything to succeed and it quickly degrades into that. because it relies on a negative and primal human urge called greed to operate and somehow benefit everyone only it has no way other than "optional" to enforce that. We already had that, its called monarchies. The supposed cream rising to the top. More like the most ruthless, uncouth, and low rising to the top. Thats the genius of the modern society, fiscal monarchies and the middle class. You do understand that the whole philosophy was invented by the European nobility to suppress that middle class, don't you? It allows the ruling class to amass the money they need to have power over our society while doing no actual work.

It doesnt work on any level, because instead of progressing us it keeps us base. We dont progress in any matter socially, or otherwise. It's antiquated system for humans of an atiquated time that like any system must acknowledge and take caution of, but in this case relies on, mans selfishness. They all must at least take it into account, one of socialisms biggest shortcomings is that it didnt do this effectively. Instead of harnessing it for the species moving us up and forward it serves only the individual and thus holds us back.

Here we are at some form of Rand, of the right, and thus We are at a philosophical impasse. Having said that, I am afraid of nothing you have to say. Been there, considered it, been it, not impressed. Its nothing more than an excuse for greed and power, essentially adolescence. Luckily I had the will and conscience to think better. We should be moving beyond this because its usless to us a species as a people and will most obviously and ultimately destroy us. What more proof do you need than the very whole of human history?



just my nickel hah

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I disagree, and I think that assumption is dangerous. I think we're just under halfway there, and if nothing changes especially the education system, it will move that way exponentially. Talk about "Slow change you can believe in"...

The US economy during the 1800's and early 1900's.

The ability to profit from one's labor, initiative, creativity, resourcefulness, planning, sacrifice, courage, etc.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

I disagree. For clarification, a free market is not a market based on chaos, but a market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand. The unrest that you speak of has historically been based on militarism or the human desire to take resources by force.

I try to avoid word games. To give a clear and concrete example of wealth creation is - farming. A farmer with land, seed, tools and labor, can harvest a surplus of food not only for his consumption but for the consumption of others. The farmer benefits and so do others on a net basis without a transfer of wealth. Those that benefit from the farmers surplus are free to do other more productive activities. In turn those activities may allow the farmer to become even more productive - creating greater and greater wealth.

The question then becomes what if you introduce taxation in to the system? It is clear that if the taxation is used as efficiently as those that are taxed, the system is not harmed. I argue that taxation is less efficient, and harms the system and harms the creation of wealth.

On another note - I know a person who has spent years in the Peace Corp., in under-developed nations. His experience is that public farms are always less productive than private farms. Why? to me it is obvious.

Some of these laws actually hurt people.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

I refrain from mocking you, why do you insist on doing it to me? What is your point with this statement?

Read what I have written. I give specific examples that support my point of view.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

I support is what works. I have no tolerance for the misdirection and hiden agendas used in modern politics. We have a system that allows some to preserve wealth at the expense of other - we have a system where those in power pick winners at the expense of others - we have a system loaded with unintended consequences that do more harm than good. I support asking simple and direct questions, like - does policy X actually work? Does policy X work better than doing nothing? Simple things like that

Mounting debt from uncontrolled spending is shaking the very foundations of American society. After more that 40 years in the war against poverty, poverty is as bad as it has ever been.

I suggest that you and others spend some time with people who actually have to live only on aid or support from the government. It is not a good situation. It is not a situation you would wish on anyone. The movement towards more and more of a welfare state is moving towards failure and misery.

Another suggestion is to try to live the life-style of those having to live off of government. You would not do it. Why would you want more of what does not work?

Ace, can you at least acknowledge that free-ish markets tend to produce situations where participants have substantial motivation to work counter to the best interests of society?

I can acknowledge that government intrusion is frequently heavy-handed and counter-productive. This seems to be inherent and why industry should do its best to self-regulate. Many industries do self regulate. Many don't. And when necessary, government intrusion exists to intentionally restrict certain kinds of growth.

For example, government regulation right now is limiting the growth of the market for cigarettes and alcohol among minors. I'm fine with this. The government is also limiting the toy market by placing rules on what sort of chemicals can be used in toy production. I'm fine with this.

I don't buy into the idea that the wisdom of the market is always sound when it comes to the well being of humanity. Regulations frequently arise when industries so egregiously fuck up that even the largely corrupt class of politicians who run the country have to get off their worthless asses and pretend to care about their constituents.

Where there aren't compelling reasons to inhibit market growth, I can't imagine you'd find any large group of people willing to regulate capriciously (though I recognize that the folks who stand to gain from the exploitation of certain markets might differ in opinion on the need for regulation from the people in these markets who stand to be exploited).

I know how I help people and I know what it takes. I have been on the front lines, so to speak. Teach a man or woman to generate wealth and you change their lives - gifts, loans, welfare, etc., do not work. Again, I see an abdication of responsibility in your way of thinking - let government handle it? Do you fear getting your hands dirty? End poverty by directly helping people learn how to create wealth rather than stealing self-respect, dignity and the motivation to do better.

That is the only portion of that statement I agree with.

Its useless to teach wealth creation when only a very small percentage have an actual chance to make it despite that knowledge. Again, if it were true and possible it would have or be happening, and the argument that less rules/regs will somehow make it happen is just denying reality.

"A market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand." Whose mythology is this?


I suppose in your farm example I can agree on at least one thing. I agree that wealth can be generated by land and labour. ace, you're hit and miss at best.

And the solution to America, by default, is the "true force of supply and demand"? That's a fix for uncontrollable spending and debt? I don't get it. Maybe it's because I live in a country with more widespread social policies and more sensible fiscal conservatism than yours.

"Some of these laws actually hurt people."

I'm not concerned about whether those that hurt people are rescinded. I'm concerned about those that prevent people from exploitation and injury. Though your definition of "hurt" I imagine is different from mine. Either way, a truly free market would put society at the mercy of the wealthy, at the mercy of profit. I prefer society to be governed by elected representatives that are accountable to the people.

Our current system has favorites. For example I suggested that people here look into the sugar subsidies and the impact it has on the poor. I don't support such subsidies.

The Great Sugar Shaft

Rich and powerful people have devised a system so complex that average people don't know the many ways they get the shaft. In a simplified system based on market forces we would not have these hidden forms of exploitation.

Then we support the same cause, even if I am more extreme.

Time and time I give specifics in history and in current times, you have not given specifics.

We can focus on the big picture or we can discuss the trivial - I prefer the big picture. It is clear that Woods benefited everyone in the sport, and he did not do it at their expense.

Is it your fundamental belief that people have to be forced to do good?

What you describe is natural and predictable. It it rational and logical behavior even when profit is not the key consideration. A charity would respond the same way under the circumstances you describe. If the labor force encroaches on the good works of the charity, leaders would decide to free up money by reducing labor costs. However, labor does not have to be passive. Labor can respond in ways to minimize its exposure to risks. Do you want a system where some have responsibilities and others don't?

I would suggest you or anyone "trust" anybody or anything. I suggest people be active participants in the market. Individuals force others to treat them fairly by commanding it. If a person enters the market in ignorance or being naive, you will be treated as such. Labor needs to know what its value is.

If you fall into the foolish belief that government will take care of you, you have my sympathy. I think you have every reason to know the value of your labor. Who is looking out for your best interests in the labor market?

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

No.

What I will acknowledge, and it has nothing to do with market type (it is universal) is that there are thieves, criminals and some evil people in the world.

Also, as I tried to explain there is a difference between wealth creators and those who generate personal wealth from more or less taking from others. People who generate wealth, by definition, benefit society.

I am not an advocate of anarchy and I do believe there is a role for government or governance in a free market.

but, where do you draw the line? At what point do you expect the consumer to be active in the decision making process? Why not ban salt, sugar, meat sunshine...exhaling CO2????

A common theme is the difference in what I consider active participation and what I see you as saying is that when others don't protect me that they are at fault. I suggest full disclosure to address politicians who are unduly influenced by special interests. Our current system is one based on misdirection and deception in order to hide the influence of special interests.

There are thousands of capricious regulations and laws. For example it is o.k. to get drunk drinking beer, but illegal to get high smoking marijuana - why? It is legal to spend money to take a person to dinner, get them flowers, etc., in exchange for...oh never mind - I am sure you get the point.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

We can look at black communities in urban centers 50 years ago as compared to today. With the boom in welafare black communities where ruined. When home-ownership, business-ownership and families ties peaked so did the quality of life peaked in these communities.

Not everyone is going to be Bill Gates, but people can own land. People can save money. People can own small businesses. People can own other assets. The mentality of "ownership" compared to "renting" is a small shift in thinking that everyone (don't split hairs with the small percent of exceptions) can make. This shift in thinking forms the basis of wealth creation. it forms the basis of creating generational wealth or having something to pass on to your children as opposed to a legacy of debt and dependence on others.

My grandparents owned land in the south when my father was a child. when my grand-father died my dad worked the land until he went into the army. Based on "rules/regs" the land was in my view stolen from my grandmother. If you think "rules/reg" are to benefit average/poor people, I simply suggest re-thinking this. No doubt, some "rules/regs" are needed and do good, but currently our system of "rules/reg" generally are more harmful than they are good.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

The economist I have studied the most is Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner. I have not written anything here that he would not agree with.

If you don't like my examples that is one thing - and I give examples because I suspect that some will resonate and some won't. Isn't that the point of giving examples?

Again, if you focus on trivial matters involving an example we get no where. In context, wealth can be created or wealth can be gained through the expense of others. There is a difference. I understood your post explaining why you did not want to address the difference and i wanted to clarify the difference by using an example. Perhaps it is not perfect, but the point is there if you want to see it.

As I understand it the Canadian economy moves in sync with the US economy about 75% of the time. The income gap between Canadians and Americans is getting bigger in favor of America. In addition the Canadian birth rate is low putting more and more pressure on the country's ability to maintain social programs. If not for the booming oil and minerals industries Canada would not be in a strong position at all. The boom is very real and very beneficial, and it can easily mask underlying problems.

"...at the mercy of the wealthy..."

That is at the core of our different points of view. If people can exercise free choice they would never be at anyone's "mercy". In the US big banks get billions of tax payer money in bailouts...and it is then the tax payers who are at the "mercy" of big banks...this is your preferred mixed system at work. Believe me, I can present such examples all day long - will you ever see the problems that are systemic in this "mixed" up system?

I could have guessed as much. Friedman's ideas are not without worth. Friedman's ideals, however, are disagreeable by many.

How am I focusing on trivial matters? I'm trying to see if you understand a fundamental fact about economics, which is where wealth comes from. This goes back to proto-capitalist Adam Smith.

If you look at overall figures on poverty, inequality, and the efficiency of Canada's social programs, we rank higher than most countries in the OCED. Although we have problems with growing poverty and inequality, these are recent problems and are likely reversible.

Also, despite a low birth rate, Canada's population growth rate is historically higher than the U.S. rate, possibly having to do with a more flexible immigration policy.

Finally, the oil and mineral boom is confined for the most part to two provinces. Canada is comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories; our economy is more than about us being "hewers of wood and drawers of water," though that is our legacy. We're not all lumberjacks and curlers either. Have a look. The city I live in is considered the "economic engine" of Canada. Ontario is the most populous province. Toronto is over 1,600 miles away from Calgary, Alberta, the epicenter of the oil boom.

Energy exports account for less than 3% of our GDP. Overall, a small minority of Canadians are employed in the primary industries (including oil and minerals), and these industries in total only account for about 6% of GDP. The service sector? It accounts for over two thirds. (And I haven't even touched manufacturing.)

So your argument that if it weren't for oil and minerals that Canada wouldn't be in a good position at all is tenuous at best. You're going to have to explain it much better than that.

People can exercise free choice in anarchy as well.

It's difficult to consider your free choice when you're being exploited by holders of capital when you have little to hold of your own.

But you're right, I suppose this is where our opinions differ. I find it difficult to address your position, since it's so radical. I view free-marketers with a similar difficulty as I view adamant communists. Compared to communists and free-marketers, I view socialists and Third-Way corporatists as moderates. It would be easier to address your point of view if it were less extreme and more in line with, say, the corporatist position. But, alas, that's not the case. You want society to have next to no governance outside of the market, as though the market is the purest and truest means to build a society.

Well, that's not going to work. Without reasonable regulation, the market does some pretty nasty things. Look at the history. It's not like Marx and Engels decided to do their thing because they were bored. If everything were so hunky-dory with capitalism running amok, they would have done something else probably—say, build a sewing thread empire or somesuch.

But no. Marxism was a resistance to a phenomenon, and that phenomenon happened to be capitalism at work with little to get in its way.

Do you truly wish to do away with decades of labour law? Safety regulations? Fair practice legislation? Obliterate it all? In the name of the market?

I find it hard to take. I would find your position more feasible if you were more concerned with making the economic environment more open, perhaps simply moving away from socialism from a business perspective. I would find it easier to address you if you were mostly concerned with bailouts, corporate tax rates, and unfair or heavy-handed regulatory practices. But as far as I can see, you want to get rid of it all.

That, ace, is a radical position, and it's why I find it difficult to address, just why I'd find it as difficult to address an adamant communist arguing that America must have a revolution to make things better for all Americans.

I have little interest in radicalism.

But your response essentially acknowledges my point, which is that there isn't anything inherently noble in the "freeness" of the free market. However, you seem to be under the impression that the bad actors are thieves or criminals. The fact of the matter is that under the free-est of free markets, certain types of thievery are the natural consequence of the market working how it ought to.

I don't know that this matters enough to me to agree or disagree.

Good. But you're coming across as one of those "all regulation is bad"-type folks.

I don't know. Dealing with problems in the real world requires more than just the ability to draw lines on theoretical beaches. I guess bans would likely be subject to the court of public opinion. This is probably why you're the only one who ever brings up the specter of things like sugar bans- because aside from a vocal minority of folks nobody in reality wants to ban sugar. But geez, it is a good question. Democracy is hard.

The market wholly supports the dumping of wastes in our rivers. The market wholly supports the complete elimination of any semblance of worker safety rules. The market wholly supports ... It isn't a matter of being protected from my own ignorance. It's a matter of recognizing that the market is driven by profit and the profit motive often acts in direct opposition to any notions of personal or social responsibility (your personal experiences notwithstanding). Destroying the world is profitable in the short term, and the current market emphasis on short-term gains means that the market can't take into account that destroying the world is in nobody's long term interest.

And? What's your point? Marijuana prohibition is an example of a flawed regulatory system? The criminalization of prostitution is too? These prohibitions, while possibly based on bad ideas, are anything but capricious.

I don't understand your point. I believe wealth comes from the application of labor, intellect and resources. Those are broad categories that can be defined further.

As long as the oil/minerals boom does not go bust.

When it comes to natural resources like oil and minerals, it is easy to and I support government's role in a distribution of a fair share of that wealth to all citizens. A private company should pay "the people" for the right to drill oil or extract minerals from the earth. Those private companies should have to compete for those rights in a free, open and competitive market as to give the biggest benefit to "the people". Is that the way it is done in Canada, consistent with free market principles? In the US I argue that our system is corrupt and is prone to favoritism from powerful politicians or based on political influence.

You might argue for a "mixed" approach in this regard, I don't. The BP oil spill proved that there are weaknesses in a "mixed" approach. BP had to meet all the government "rules and regs" and there was still failure. Using free market principles, I say let those that fail, pay the real price for failure. BP was able to negotiate with the government to limit its liability (and I am betting BP got the best end of the deal), I would suggest we let the free market determine the true liability.

My wife spent time in Toronto and said it was the nicest large city she had ever been to, I have absolutely nothing against Canada. I am sure it is a great place to live.

O.k., but let's not underestimate the importance of that comparing US oil imports are "only" about 2% of GDP. Having what you need, plus a surplus that can be exported. Very few industrialized nations are in the position Canada is in.

Canadian debt is about $500 billion (ed.). GDP about $1.3 Trillion. Canada sits on over 1 trillion barrels in oil sand reserves. If we multiply that by $100 per barrel, using round numbers you have $100 trillion in resources. If the prices stay high, Canada can do all the social activities it wants. If the price drops to the point where it is not economically feasible to exploit the resource. Debt will eventually consume GDP.

I don't support anarchy. I think there is a role for government in free markets.

Labor will always have the value labor. Labor in a free market can be more valuable than natural resources or intellect. It is possible for labor to exploit holders of capital.

It appears that you place little value to labor in the market and you think my view is radical? It appears that you assume labor has no power in the market and you think my view is radical? Rhetorical questions. I understand our differences and nothing I can present will change your point of view as there is nothing that you can present will change mine.

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

I don't look for "nobility" in free markets. I assume market participants will do what they perceive is in their best interest. And there certainly no "nobility" in bureaucracy or powerful politicians wanting to control others. I fear people who want to control and restrict the freedoms of others.

A guy like Maddoff is a theif. A guy like Zuckerberg may have defrauded others, we will never know. A guy like Buffett made billions off of the work of others from buying and selling financial instraments. A guy like Ray Kroc (Mcdonalds) used his drive and initiative and made billions that benefited millions of people and will continue benefiting millions and millions more into the future. There are subtle and not so subtle differences. To understand my point of view, one would need to explore those differences in greater detail.

This argument falls flat on its face. If rules and regulations can't make the world perfect, then there shouldn't be rules and regulations. Let the market fix things instead. Nice.

Oh, I'm sure you have nothing against Canada. I just want to point out to you that you're grossly misreading what's going on here.

Isn't America in the same position in several industries?

[Correction: Canadian debt is $500 billion.]

If the tar sands were to blow up right now and be consumed in flames, Canada would not be consumed by its debt. Look at the numbers. The tar sands produces about 2% of our overall GDP and consist of less than 1% of our jobs. Even if you look at our entire oil industry, of which the oil sands is the lion's share, we have other energy industries, including a powerful hydroelectric industry. Again, ace, you fail to understand the Canadian economy. The high oil price is icing on the cake for us.

I wouldn't suggest you do support anarchy. I merely fail to see how free markets would work in your view that would not include the exploitation of people.

In a free market, it's possible but not likely. In a free market, it's left to chance. In a free market, even if things go wrong in the view of the people, the market will still view it as "right." Oil spills are good in the eyes of the market, because there is an opportunity for cleanup services. Exploding oil platforms are good in the eyes of the market because there is an opportunity for repairs and rebuilding. Nothing is bad in the eyes of the market. The market only sees opportunity.

It's not me who places little value on labour. My view is that a free market would seek to minimize the value of labour and restrict the power of labour. The profit motive requires this.