It is you and others that confuses the issue. You bring morality into the question, I don't. When I use the term "wrong", to me it is like an answer to a math question, not a morality question. You Roach and others have some weird way of suggesting that if a person does not support tax payments or increases that person does not care about other people. That premise is wrong. In fact, based on my arguments, I could argue that the morality of using government to help others is wrong. I don't do that nor have I done that. Again, we fail to communicate put in simple terms because of my digital outlook and your analog outlook.

Go back to the original posts. There are wealthy Germans who want government to do what they could be doing. I asked the question, why. My conclusion on that question is clear to me - I have yet to understand your thoughts on that question. That is the connection with everything I have posted in this thread, perhaps re-reading the thread may help you.

That's not what I'm saying. Go back to my last post. I suggested that the market is amoral and that voters are moral. I didn't say anything about the tax-adverse being people-adverse. You yet again confuse the issue, and I find your pinning it on me and others in this thread to be both insulting and ridiculous.

I think you mean your binary outlook and my comprehensive outlook.

You're a quasi-libertarian monetarist who distrusts government beyond roads, cops, and soldiers. I get it. I just wish you'd not imply what's not there and weasel your way around arguments counter to yours. It's bad enough that you won't even agree with fundamental economic knowledge.

Maybe you should practice what you preach, ace.

Let me help you:
Now here's another chance for you to ask any questions or for clarifications of my position if you don't understand something.

I won't hold my breath. You're a quasi-libertarian monetarist. You disagree with me. Fine. Disagree with me. Please...just don't make me walk the labyrinth again.

Not at all. Tons of people outside of the government have done tons of good. People in government have also done tons of good.
She's a rather poor example, I'm afraid. You should check out Christopher Hitchens' writings and videos on Teresa. It turns out she was a bit of a charlatan. That said, there are plenty of people who can do good without government, but the fortunate or unfortunate truth is that private charity and good works haven't been enough in the past to keep civilization stable. Government is needed to deal with things like common defense, vast wealth inequality, and human rights. To deny that is to deny history. In addition, there's no historical evidence to suggest that anarchocapitalism can be successful, in fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It is clear that government is more efficient in some respects and less efficient in others. My position is clear - increasing taxes for government to do things the private sector can do more efficiently is the incorrect decision. Those who knowingly advocate for that have an agenda, one that is contrary to what is in the best interest of society. You have been arguing against that, based on my interpretation of our exchanges. I don't know what to make of this most recent post.

Right. Forgive me and my stupidity. I know that my point of views are imperfect. Given that I should never have assumed that another shares the same limitation.

Like, people can't time the market???

How do you determine if government or the private sector is best suited to handle a social issue?

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

I don't support anarchy. I believe there is a role for government in free market capitalism. I have written that many times here, even in this thread.

So, you think Mother Teresa was a fraud - on a relative basis what do you think of Obama?

My own position is that whether something should be done publicly or privately depends on the circumstances. It's difficult to universally accept that the private sector will always be the better option. I think that's a haphazard position to take. There are some things that I think should never be fully privatized. Some examples include water services, education, health care, military, and police. I admit there are political reasons for this. It's not a question of mere efficiency. If it were all about efficiency, perhaps there would be no such thing as government at all. Perhaps we'd all be living under dictatorships. Perhaps we'd all be a part of libertarian socialist societies. I think the latter would be the most apt.

That said, the proportion of Germany's problems handled by government initiatives vs. market capitalism should be based on what they know works and that is, overall, of the best benefit for the most number of Germans. Privatizing the shit out of the nation would be disruptive and would likely lead to widespread protest.

The solution, as is the case in most nations, is a balanced approach between what the government does and what is left for the market to serve.

Listen, you are the one who suggested that we can neatly call what you think digital and what I think analog. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? I think my suggestion of binary vs. comprehensive is more apt because you have yet to demonstrate that you can take a position beyond an either/or logic. You know, beyond the theoretical and into the real world.

This is a reference to a comment in an other thread. To be fair, people can time the market, and if you return to the thread in question, you will see that I clarified my position on the issue. People partake in market timing, but are taking huge risks when they do so, and it is often a losing game because it is based on predicting behavioural patterns of large groups of people.

But what I like about your question, rhetorical or no, is that it is another example proving that irony is not quite dead.

On a case-by-case basis, not an issue-by-issue basis. That, for starters.

there's 150 years or so of the history of actually existing capitalism that demonstrates pretty clearly, if you actually bother to look into it, that the private sector is rarely any good at either determining socially beneficial outcomes or at fashioning approaches that advance toward them.

but even milty friedmany metaphysics would lead you to this conclusion in the same data-free world you live in, ace---businesses are machines that generate returns for shareholders. anything outside that is practically---and ethically for uncle milty---a problem because they're outside the competences of businesses. it's not what they're for. that's not what they do.

so on those axiomatic grounds, you have no logical basis to oppose either state policy initiatives or variations in tax rates---except insofar as they impinge on the (pathologically) narrow interests of shareholders---which is, according to the gospel of neo-liberalism--to make money.

the arguments that there are any social benefits to this kind of activity are unnecessary in neo-liberal land. this is in itself a social benefit, neo-liberals would hold.

except for the social benefit part, of course.

so the solution is to oppose the actions of the state. because the what you want is to eliminate people and/or feedback loops that inform you of the socially dysfunctional outcomes of an exclusive focus on shareholder returns.

This is where it is frustrating. Who takes the position of "always", no one! I have never had a serious discussion with anyone who has ever argued that, ever. I don't do it, I make it clear. So what is the point?

I agree and stated the same several times.

On these points my position is clear also. I advocate for a true free market approach or a singular centralized approach - to me the problem is with the murkiness created by hybrid systems. The most nuance from me would be a government system of something like education or health-care that provides for a minimum guaranteed amount or service for all, with individuals given the option to enhance the services in a free market private "supplemental" market.

I clearly don't agree. Government can be more efficient than the private sector in some regards.

Again, I don't agree. I see no evidence to support the premise.

In history different groups of people/societies have chosen various forms of government for various reasons - and the type of governance is often entrenched in the evolution of the cultures - often not being clear which came first or which was the predominate driver.

Not the issue in question. The issue in the OP was related to wealthy people wanting to increase tax rates, not "privatizing the shit out of the nation". I simple questioned their motives - my belief is that their agenda is not in the best interest of the German people. Is that what you disagree with? When billionaires and millionaires start talking about voluntarily paying more taxes, my BS detector goes off.

I am going to assume that you just took a cliche to heart. The risk is not in "market timing", the risk is in the work behind decisions. If a baseball player timed his swings blind folded, where there may have been a 1 in 3 chance of success may go down to close to zero. I assume that is your point regarding "taking huge risks". True investors, do not swing blindfolded.

Second point on this and I will stop, even-though I could continue.

Market timing is a function of the holding period:

If my time frame is 10 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.

If my time frame is 5 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.

If my time frame is 1 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.

If my time frame is 6 months, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.

If my time frame is 1 day, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.

If my time frame is 1 second, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling. In this case I may have a computer based trading system, which is becoming pretty common:

Algorithmic trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

What government has been responsible for the manner in which we are communicating right now? Please don't say Al Gore or pretend that it was because of a government grant given to a couple of guys in silicon valley!

What about the benefits to customers?
Benefits to employees?
Benefits to vendors/suppliers?
Benefits to government through taxation?
Benefits to other business, ie the local bar/restaurant/bowling alley?
Benefits to the local charities?
Benefits to the local universities when they have a need for highly educated workers?

why ignore all of that?:rolleyes: I know, it doesn't fit your ideological narrative. Here is the thing, I know you know better. You are making choices, in my view to deceive with misinformation or incomplete information. Or, am I giving you too much credit?

ace, you obviously don't know about the history of silicon valley or of the internet. or the histories of the electrical system. or the telecommunications system.
read a book.
jesus.

your other point is an ace non-seuqitor.


discussing things with you is like playing chess with a six year old.
it isn't interesting and you don't know when the game is over.

We already covered this. You'd rather a pure socialist or libertarian approach. I'd rather a more balanced approach. As an example, Canada's is working rather famously. And as far as Germany is concerned, if you've taken a look lately, they aren't doing so bad either.

We don't know the effects of a true free-market approach because it is merely theoretical. Any attempts at finding out would be highly experimental.

People should be focused on solving problems instead.

I will reiterate that it isn't merely about efficiency.

I was speaking mainly to your implications that the private sector is the better way and that government tends to be a poor choice for getting things done. Without actually addressing specific issues, it's difficult to argue either way.

But shifting back to the OP: These wealthy Germans want to boost tax revenues via wealthy Germans to help pay for shortfalls in government spending to help bring the country out of a recession. The reason for doing so is for the benefit of the nation as a whole.

Okay, your BS detector is going off because they suggest that wealthy people (themselves included) should be paying more taxes. Why? Can you at least speculate on some other motive?

it's self-evident in the empirical world that not everyone who holds capital sees short-term gain as the ultimate horizon for thinking about their activities. it's self-evident in the empirical world that it is reasonable to see acting to preserve the system that enables them to extract profit is in their interest. among the many ludicrous aspects of neo-liberal thinking is the presumption that neo-liberalism and it alone controls the frame within which utilitarian thinking can operate. that presumption is based on nothing more than simple assertion. this because the frame operates at the level of axiom within the deductive chain that constitute neo-liberal metaphysics. and anyone who knows about logic at all knows that you cannot demonstrate axioms from within the proofs that presuppose them. but if you think about it at all--which is yet another optional move for neo-liberals---capitalism is not a bunch of atomized individuals doing heroic individual Work against a background comprise of other atomized individuals---rather it is a social system. a mode of production in marxist-speak. a form of life in wittgenstein-speak. it is incoherent---fundamentally so---to bracket the social-historical context in which capitalism---or any other economic order---operates. that move disables your ability to explain any of the ground rules that shape how the realities operate that are shaped by that economic order, most of which are political in nature---you know, the results of social conflict and/or negociation. what neo-liberalism relies on is the magic of number--because the relationships that it is able to describe are amenable to being reduced to equations, believes imagine them to have some extra-social validity. but that's ridiculous. stalinist central planning relied on the magic of number to generate the illusion that it was coherent---neo-liberalism in that regard is no different. the magic of number conceals problems at the level of axiom if you don't think about it. and if you live entirely within the realm defined by the magic of number neo-liberal style, you can't think about axioms because they aren't axioms. they're facts of nature. the reality is that they aren't facts of nature: the axioms that enable neo-liberalism to get off the ground as a system of statements about the world. and they are arbitrary. in this regard, they're no different from any other set of axiomatic statements. and this is a problem that no abject believe in the mysticism of number gets you around. the problem, then, that separates neo-liberalism from other ways of thinking about the social-historical world is fundamental. and for believers there's no way to get to that problem because to get to it requires a suspension of belief---just as an relativising move does. that the current american conservative version of the same old shit has the faithful reduced to clinging entirely to metaphysics is a symptomatic matter, an aspect of the problems that conservatism in the states faces in reality as a result of policies driven by its logic having been implemented and having failed. it's pretty straight forward. the sad thing is that neo-liberal horseshit has become the lingua franca of american politics---the single party state with two right wings problem--and that means there's no easy way to deal with the implosion of that language for a lot of folk. so they bug out. witness ace, for example.

Let's clarify one thing. We have not and do not "discuss" anything. I post my views and you respond by telling me things like I don't know anything or that my views are stupid. Yet, you suggest I am like a 6 year-old?

Here is what adult chess players do - they don't play chess with 6 year-old children or people who play chess like 6 year-old children - unless that 6 year old is some kind of one in the history of the human race child genius at the game.

The next time you want to make some kind of personal attack, pause, re-read the above, think about it - I have lost count the number of times I have taken one of your attacks, turned it, and made you look foolish. Yes, you are like the playground bully. And just like a bully you don't know what to do when someone gives it back to you - grow up!

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

Implicit in this and what I have read from you is that you think that "you" (generic) can solve "my" problems. "You" can not. Generally, the solutions to big and broad problems comes from individuals acting individually in their best interests. Real solutions will always rise to the top under these circumstances. Given, your position what rises to the top is what is in "your" best interest.

How do you justify inefficiencies? Inefficiencies under any political system?

And we go full circle, again. Creating real wealth benefits the nation as a whole- and does it more efficiently than government can - assuming government can, which I doubt.

I have speculated. Until proven otherwise my conclusion is as I stated. I believe those wealthy people in Germany stating that they want to increase their taxes are doing so because they believe it is in their long-term best interest - primary, and the nation/society - secondary (if that). More specifically, I think it is a PR move, perhaps with the intent of getting a new plan in place based on what they can best exploit.

ace, dear, you and the fantasy land you live in are exasperating.

but it doesn't matter---the stupid dynamic that obtains between ace and roachboy isn't fun and it isn't interesting and it does nothing to help the community.

i don't want any more part of it.

change has to start somewhere.

I second this, as it's a broader issue here and in other threads.

For example, there is no such thing as "real wealth." It's a metaphysical construct that ace constantly refers to in defense of experimental economics.

ace's views on economics are theoretical and are often in conflict with provable and commonly accepted knowledge.

It would explain why he rejects mixed economies in favour of communism and borderline anarchy, or a plutarchy.

I take his ideas as seriously as I take others of such extremity. You know, ideas such as "property is theft" and "taxes are theft."

I don't know how we get from "a small group of rich Germans want a temporary wealth tax to help weather the recession" to "Germany should radicalize their economy and subsequently their society."

i find that i am driven by despair to some extent. i see the options that are availabe politically in the carefully manicured lawn of versions of the same shit that got us into this wreckage in the first place and i see nothing but disaster following from the visions of what to do they enable.

there is nothing even coherent about supply-side/neo-liberal ideology---nothing. o i see why it's appealing to a kind of sensibility that's also inclined to confuse any rand with a thinker, all of which rests on an adolescent assumption that the ubermenschen that she rattled on about includes them. and this aesthetic identification enables a denial of reality that's tedious to confront when it's written by someone every bit as powerless as the rest of us and genuinely dangerous when it emerges as the frame that enables a gliding over reality in people who hold power. but it's simple and it plays reasonably well on teevee. and questioning it takes time and requires reflexive thinking. and that doesn't sell vital advertising.

insofar as these discussions that go on as if they were of some consequence beyond the therapeutic in spaces like this....it's difficult to manage the consequences of despair. they come across as anger. and maybe those are in fact the consequences.

what's clear to me anyway is that the debates themselves have no value apart from the therapeutic in the sense that they are a way to churn ideas, to work them over and run out the consequences. a way to think them out. but when that value gets broken down, then what's left?

fact is that i live here too. and people around me are affected directly by the actions of the confederacy of dunces that run the show for the one plutocracy which is indivisible and provides justice only for some. i'd rather know of a way to erase them. and this in a fairly direct and uncompromising way. but there isn't one.

i've mentioned the cliche before...may you not live in interesting times. when i was younger i didn't understand it. now i kind of do understand it. interesting times are those of fundamental change. one of the characteristics of times of fundamental change are that people in the main are not able to process that change. and these are the people who get written out of history by those people who make the narratives from a time-space in which the way the story that's underway now is already known, so the narrative has an end point that will eventually emerge and that endpoint will provide a logic for the kind of basically false narratives that history is full of, the type that writes everything around the present of the writer as if all of history leads to that point.

none of what's been happening in terms of the poisoned micro-dynamic that's taken shape between ace and myself in particular is particularly ace's fault--not as a person anyway. he's just an easy target in a situation full of conceptually easy targets who are different from him only because they aren't accessible. the communication channels don't exist. that's all. it's a matter of displacement. and i don't know what, if anything, indulging that displacement advances.

How about enough of the sanctimonious b.s. I have repeatedly asked you to ignore my posts given that your only response is to lob personal attacks. If what you write about me and my posts are what you believe, what you do is more of a commentary on you.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

In economics the concept of "real" has a very clear meaning. Depending on the context it often refers to what the net result is. This is often very different from generic statistical measures of something.

As with the above and in other things, you have demonstrated that your views are formed on a superficial basis. We are clearly on different plains. Sorry, for interrupting your cliche driven point of view.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

Then the answers to an economic issue should be clear for you. Why not solve every economic problem by raising taxes, placing more and more burdens on those who create real wealth.

I am not going to connect the dots for you or anyone else but the comparison below is very relevant to this thread - A pride of lions only survives or thrives because the structure of the prides hierarchy allows the strong to create benefits for the weak. If the natural hierarchy is disrupted or if the strong is unduly taxed, the pride will die - all of them!

In economics, the use of the word real usually relates to whether something is inflation-adjusted or not, such as the difference between real and nominal GDP or interest rates.

The context in which you have consistently used the word real has invariably been metaphysical. I should know; I spent a great proportion of the time earning my liberal arts degree studying postmodernism.

However, before that, I studied business administration and marketing. I hadn't come across the term real wealth until I read it in your posts. (Well, unless you include the bombastic headlines on the cover of consumer investing magazines.)

We can talk about real wealth if you want—and we have to a degree. However, bear in mind that you haven't adequately defined it in practical terms, and so it remains largely an abstract and conceptual idea—much like prosperity, peace, and love, and I would really enjoy real prosperity, real peace, and real love as much as the next guy. Trust me.

This is laughable. I really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm now beginning to think that you're trolling. I don't want to think that. I really don't. So I suppose I will just go along with thinking that you're confused. I will accept some of the blame for that, but most of the onus is on you. If you still don't understand something I've posted, please feel free to ask for clarifications.

I see that you've cleverly left out all references to my comments derived from textbook knowledge of economics, which have made up a majority of what I've posted here, and have decided to passive-aggressively attack its integrity by suggesting that it's somehow derived from my own bias. Should I apologize for inconveniencing you with knowledge?

We're not on the same plain because I prefer to discuss this topic in practical terms based on real-life information, while you like to work things out in your rigid and extreme ideological worldview.

I suppose we could have gone your way and contemplated what-ifs and otherwise speculated on matters in a concptual way, but you have been consistent in your refusal (or failure) to define in practical and understandable terms what your concept real wealth actually means.

Until then, I guess this means that your position can't be wrong; it's merely incoherent.

Regardless, it may help others understand why you take such a erroneous/off-the-mark view of what I've posted thus far.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Woah! It's a good thing we're not lions! :oogle:

so these "real wealth creators".....the ones who are sitting on over a trillion dollars in cash, have created how many jobs this year?

Other than the fact that the way I described the concept was in a broader perspective what is the difference between what you present here and what I presented? Either way it illustrates that your post about non-existent "real" wealth is wrong.

I defined how I use the term. In the context of wealth creation there is a clear difference between those who create "real" wealth and those involved in wealth transfer or those who create personal wealth by diminishing the wealth of others.

I am not going any further with your post. Because you made a charge on this point that indicates you have not read what I have written or that you don't take it seriously. I remember specifically trying to get an understanding of the concept before we even went down this road - I don't recall your actual response but I do recall it was some what flip. However, the importance of this question in the context of tax policy and doing what is best for society is paramount. You don't seem to understand that. and i don't know what to say to you.

---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

Here is the problem with your point of view. A company like GE is mature and in a very different stage than true growth companies that create "real" wealth. So, GE sitting on money overseas can certainly help our economic growth, but I don't expect "real" wealth creation from a company like GE. New companies, start-ups, etc. is were we will see the next round of "real" wealth creation (perspective: a company like GE can still be entrepreneurial and innovative, etc. just less likely).

To give an example: Today if a start-up wants to raise funds through an IPO thanks to relative new law, the cost will be in the neighborhood of at least $2 million to cover the regulatory costs. If the compay had that $2 million to invest compared to meeting duplication regulatory issues wouldn't we all benefit? Perhaps more jobs. Perhaps more innovation. Perhaps higher wages? Perhaps lower costs to the consumer?

Another example: look at the costs for a pharmaceutical company to get FDA approval? I am not suggesting getting rid of the FDA, but would we all be better off if the system for drug approvals was made more efficient? Yes, I used the word "efficient"! It has meaning! There is value and benefits for always seeking efficiency improvements! Metaphysical my a$$.

Well either your term doesn't work (i.e. it doesn't make sense) or you're using it wrong.

If I had to define real wealth, it would be essentially a definition of economic growth. You know, the collective impact of a bunch of guys with ideas getting some capital and spending it on labour and other things necessary to make a profitable business out of it.

You seem to want to attribute all the credit to the guys with the ideas. I think instead you mean to address the barriers to entry for these guys. Because it's rather clear that real wealth (if I may borrow the term) is created by the application of all these things and nothing less. However, if the guys with the idea can't figure out how to get all the other stuff necessary to create the wealth (or if these things aren't available in the right amount at the right price), then there are problems.

They call that barriers to entry. It's true that rigid regulatory environments can cause such barriers, as can an extreme competitive environment. However, I don't think that is the issue here.

This is a proposed temporary tax on the wealthiest of Germans to help keep the economy out of the lowest of ruts until the recession switches over to a recovery. And then the tax disappears.

That's not a barrier to entry of any significant concern. The actual tax amount would be nominal person to person and would unlikely impede these wealthy folks from wanting to make more money.

I'm assuming you don't mean to suggest that a bit of tax will discourage wealthy people from wanting to become wealthier.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

I'm not saying the wealth doesn't exist. I'm saying your term is incoherent. I'm sure you're talking about actual wealth. I"m just not sure what wealth you're talking about specifically. You make is sound like it comes from the ether, springing out of some guy's head.

ace, the only reason to ever create new jobs is if there is demand. right now, there is no demand, because the economy is in the shitter. no amount of tax cuts for the rich or corporate deregulation will create more demand. thus, they won't create more jobs

Not bloody likely in the USA. The squeeze the rich crowd would scream bloody murder because the rich would be getting a tax cut.

When demand is low, it is hard to find good investments. I have a fair amount of cash on hand that I would love to invest but haven't been able to find anything that offers enough upside to offset the risk. So I've been keeping the cash on hand and paying down debt, but don't have much more to pay down.

Lindy

I'm pretty sure the rich have been winning this battle for at least the last decade. The "squeeze the rich" crowd certainly didn't have a lot of pull when it came to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The rich don't need you to fight for them. They already own the media and the politicians.

So then the natural solution would be for someone, say an organization who isn't beholden to the short-term interests of shareholders, to step in and prop up demand enough for investment opportunities to materialize. Unfortunately, whenever someone proposes this type of solution we hear ill-informed cries about socialism and claims about rich folks being the only ones with the wisdom to turn money into prosperity and all sufficient efforts to bolster demand are watered down to the point of impotence. Then the "rich people are better than you, you rotten fucking leaches" crowd points to the sabotaged results as proof that helping the middle class is a waste of time.

i think this outlines the situation in conservativeland pretty well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/op...WT.mc_ev=click

the conservative flight from reality continues.

Doesn't make sense? When I talk about real wealth creation, how can that possibly not make sense?

You appear to be confusing different terms and concepts.

Real wealth creation is one thing. Economic growth is another. Profitable business is a third...

Wrong. What I attribute to the idea guys is real wealth creation. There is much activity required for sustenance/replacement type economic activity. Or even economic activity required for inherent population growth. Again, we are simply on two different plains. You read into what I write things that are not there and you appear to miss things that are obvious to me. I don't know how to better communicate with you. When I try various approaches, realizing the problem I am having, I am met with flipness or ridicule. This amazes me because at least I understand that there is a problem and that I am partially to blame.

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

Wrong. In some circumstances you have to anticipate demand. In some circumstances you create demand and not simply respond to it.

If people are free to innovate they will, it is the nature of man. The process requires a level of freedom for contemplation. If a system is over taxing or if people do not have this freedom because of more basic demands, like food/shelter/defense of self or property, innovation will not occur. If person A works and all they can do is pay taxes, and buy food and shelter - that person will never be able to innovate or make a better life. Taxation has consequences.

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

One of the reasons you can not find good investments is because they are not accessible to you. simply because some unsophisticated (this is a technical term in investing) investors have lost money, governments response has been to over-regulate limiting the options of sophisticated investors. It literally takes millions for an "idea" guy to pitch an idea to the public in order to raise capital.