roachboy

the piece about nozik points out several underlying problems with this whole neo-liberal jive--the absurd narrowness of the notion of liberty; the collapse of the political into the economic; the evacuation of the whole of democratic process in anything like a modern capitalist context; the erasure of any notion of the public or the social; the impossibility from a right libertarian viewpoint of thinking about anything to do with social democracy and the ways in which it has **expanded** the space of freedom by expanding the spaces in which pressure can be brought to bear on private interests that bend them into more socially beneficial outcomes; the erasure of any coherent sense of the history of either contemporary capitalism or the contemporary state and the ways in which they are intertwined; the elimination of the idea that actually existing history is important in political deliberation and the substitution for those histories with a one-dimensional metaphysics. because within this kind of frame you can't think about the social you can't think about class and with that you entirely dispense with one of the most self-evident facts about conservative libertarian "thinking"--which is that it is a justification of class warfare that displaces the notion of class warfare onto some entirely reactionary notion of individual virtue. its all the worst aspects of aristotle turned to the service of a a brutal form of non-responsive capitalism. it's a rationale for a new form of feudalism that runs through some idiotic notion of natural hierarchy. it's indefensible politically. it's indefensible ethically. it's blind to its own history. it is a foul and dangerous ideology that's been a disaster once implemented that has the added problem of preventing people from even thinking about these simple facts of the matter. there is, in fact, no reason to take this horseshit seriously and it's a problem of very considerable proportions that it has become the dominant ideology in mainstream american politics. sooner or later this right-wing libertarian nonsense has to be dismantled publicly and marginalized at the level of detail. without that, there is nothing but delusion masking disaster that awaits the u.s. of a. as it sides into a reprehensible form of fascism while continuing to blab to itself about how very very free the place is. that this kind of incoherent horseshit is the lingua franca of institutions like the imf makes it entirely incapable of addressing the problems that contemporary capitalism faces.

initially it was possible to see in this neo-liberal delusion an aspect of a dynamic for dealing with capitalist crisis that argued for a retreat of the state and in so doing reduced the political risks for the existing political order of crises that it can not even address much less control. but after 40 years of the "washington consensus" it's spilled over into nothing more or less than an ideology that conceals the collapse of empire--a problem that it addresses by pretending it's not happening.

it's not obvious that there are alternative discourses available to a lot of people to help with the coherent consideration of alternatives. and that is a tragedy that, sadly, we are all living through.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I don't consider free market capitalism to be laissez-faire. Perhaps the difference is very subtle, but in a capitalist system I do see a role for government. Other than than what you state is pretty close to what I believe.

Yes, assuming equal leadership under both systems.

No. I think the robber baron system grew from a "mixed" economy.

I think Canada's destiny is on track with a nation like Greece. The one think that Canada has, and we discussed this in another thread, is the vast untapped wealth in natural resources. If these resources are monetized Canada can prolong social spending. What I consider "nanny states" are destine to fail in time.

Canada has enough wealth per capita that they can afford much higher levels of inefficiency as compared to many other nations. But, even with that wealth i ask why be wasteful with it? Canada could focus on leveraging that wealth and make the world a better place buy, dare I say, creating real wealth on a global scale. The US did it, perhaps it is Canada's turn to lead a global increase in living standards.

I don't correlate the creation of real wealth with profits. As you pointed out the person who created the printing press did not profit from it, another way to say it I guess is that the world profited from it, but that is a different definition of the term, "profit". There can be different motivators of the creation of real wealth outside of profit, previously I gave the example of Peter Carver and his work with the peanut, his motivation was not personal profit. Personally I do think the profit motive is the most common motivation and perhaps the most efficient motivation for wealth creation.

Interesting statement. At the risk of being told....whatever...I give an example. I benefit from looking at a beautiful woman walking along the beach as the sun sets, I don't consume her, the beach, or the sun set. You are in the publishing business, I can benefit from reading written words on paper, and not consume the words or the paper, I don't even need to purchase the book. Is this too "metaphysical" or however you would put it?

---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

That is why true wealth has to be measured in living standards. I know living standards are open to broad and inconsistent definitions, however, look at something like available leisure time we can begin to see patterns in terms of real wealth that has nothing to do with exchanging assets using money or other means. Just taking some numbers without research if in 1900 the average US adult citizen had an average of 8 hours of leisure time per week and in 2000 the average is 40, you can argue that living standards increased. Then ask the question, what was at the root of that increase? what you will consistently find is innovation, innovation from people who created what I call real wealth.

Don't take my word for it, talk to any successful business person and ask - do you wait for demand and then respond? Or, do you create demand, do you anticipate demand.

In business you have to make the case for your product, you have to sell. It is government style thinking that assumes the opposite.



You either misinterpret what I write, or I am not any good at communicating my thoughts - I am not sure which is true at this point. But, I agree at some point there has to be demand and there has to be consumption. The real question, is what comes first. Solving the economic puzzle requires knowing the answer to this question.

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

By definition the idea is not brilliant base on what you guys present.

Either that or by your definition of "brilliant" you simply mean it is new and unique, not suggesting it meets a broader need or solves a broader problem. Perhaps every personal thought I have is "brilliant", since my personal thoughts are unique to me - thanks for the compliment!

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------

I am curious, do you think a poster like DC knows that you think he is a neo-liberal?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Okay, so does this mean that you do support at least a modicum of regulation, taxation, tariffs, etc.? If you do, then you don't support true free-market capitalism, which more or less relies on laissez-faire. For the record, there is no practical application of free-market capitalism on a large scale, though people have tried it in studies, labs, and computer simulations.

So what would you rather, the lack of problems under communism and socialism or the problems of managing a mixed economy?

How so? Are you referring to the nanny-state protectionism they benefited from? Because other than that, there wasn't much else going on that would be considered significant mixed-economy contributors to the robber barons. Is there something I'm missing?

I've corrected you on this before. You call our wealth in natural resources "the one thing we have" when our economy is far more dependent on services and manufacturing. You know, the U.S. has a shitload of natural resources as well. How's that working out for you?

So to do so, we should become some form of laissez-faire economy? I don't see how this is relevant.

Then don't call it the creation of real wealth. You can't create wealth without some kind of profit. The difference between the time, work, and/or money spend to get something versus the amount that you got is considered either profit or a loss. There are various ways to measure this, but there you have it.

It's not necessarily the most common motivator overall, but if you want to create wealth, you necessarily must earn profits. That's how you get more than what you already have. If you don't get more than you already have, you don't earn a profit. If you end up with less than what you have, it's called a loss. Are we talking about wealth or something else?

Experiences are considered consumption. While there are many that are basically free (though probably not really), many are sold in the form of vacations, concerts, tours, fireworks displays, art galleries, etc. To benefit from something, you must consume it: this includes taking the time and energy to go to something, see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, taste it, etc.

The access to and the time spent on the beach (Do you own it? Does the city? Is it maintained?) is considered a kind of consumption. Also aesthetic "benefits" are a different matter, but many of them are monetized and so you have consumption there as well. We don't need to go to extremes. When I refer to "benefits," I refer to benefits obtained from products and services.

You are still consuming the product. You can borrow a book from the library, read it, and then return it. This makes you a consumer of the library. The library itself is a consumer of the publisher. This makes you an indirect consumer of the publisher. Even if you pick up a magazine at a bookstore and read it, you've consumed it even if you don't pay for it. That is often the problem with intellectual property.

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

My point is that it doesn't matter how awesome an idea is, if no one wants it or needs it, then it's a failure. It's only when an idea is "consumed" that is succeeds.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

Ace, it really seems like you agree with the necessity of demand in the wealth creation process. You're just too stubborn or too mixed up by your own personal definitions of 'wealth' and 'value' to realize it.

aceventura3

I don't agree with the notion that demand drives real wealth creation. I am a "supply-sider". The entirety of supply side economics involves more than simply lowering tax rates for "rich" people. Given that and my belief that economic growth comes from real wealth creation my view on the solution to our economic malaise is obvious. Tax increases in the US, Germany or any where else is not going to stimulate economic growth.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Essentially, ace has tried to distinguish between increases in living standards to, say, making money and putting it in your pocket or the bank.

However, what he has failed to acknowledge is that increased living standards are only realized via consumption of products and services.

To use an example that isn't trivial, let's say a poor village in Africa gets a system of running water that allows for them to begin installing indoor plumbing. This will increase their living standards. However, it will only increase their living standards if they actually consume it. They must install the plumbing and they must use the water, or there is no increase in living standards.

To use an example more in line to what ace refers to, let's say someone comes up with a jet engine and jetliner design that safely has twice the top speed while consuming only half the fuel as the average jetliner currently in service. The design is licensed to every every aviation manufacturer in the world. Everyone is set to benefit.

Fast-forward: the average jetliner is travelling at twice the speed and consuming half the fuel. "Real" wealth is created, right? Well, yes, but that's only because people are consuming stuff. Manufacturers are consuming licensing agreements. Airline companies are consuming jets. Travellers are consuming air travel. If none of these things happen, there is no wealth creation.

Even going back to the printing press: although Gutenberg went bankrupt, wealth was created because companies invested in the technology and people consumed printed materials. Without this, there would have been no wealth creation.

Sheesh. Can we get back to Germany soon?

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

You don't know what demand is, do you? In your theory of "real wealth creation," what drives it?

I'm not sure who's arguing this.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Yes. Tax policy should be directly related to real costs to society. Government has a role in measuring those costs and collecting payment through tax policy, including tariffs. When government goes beyond that and goes beyond doing what they do best (i.e. - national defense), there is a net harm or cost to society in my view.

Capitalism is not laissez-faire. Laissez-faire in my view is anarchy. Captialism is a system with a structure.

Communism and socialism has had problems with the people in charge of those systems as opposed to the systems themselves. Using nature as an example, where we can take the leadership problem out of the equation, we can clearly see where communal based systems thrive. Mixed economies will favor the few at the expense of the many. Free market capitalism favors efficiency at the expense of the inefficient. With that said, I do support social programs for children, the elderly and the disabled. From a morality point of view, I guess I am not a true purist, however, the mixed systems as you discuss them go far beyond that.

Yes. Government was used to allow favoritism and protection. Using railroads as an example, what was the true value of the land used by the railroad barrons compared to the price they actually paid? Why were they allowed to exploit land usage? Government policy is the answer, the free market had no voice. At the time government thought they were doing good by granting land rights, they were, however, they did not get the real true value of the land in exchange. That is just one example.

Yes. The military. When the US used its military to protect corporate interests, as it had done in the past on occasion, those costs where incurred by everyone, but benefited a few. For example the US Civil war was fought for a few reasons, one being the institution of slavery and its relationship with the cotton industry in the South. If not for the cotton industry the war would not have been fought and slavery would have ended sooner as it had in many European nations and Canada - no wars on the issue - no single big industry to protect.

I know, the Canadian economy is diverse. However, the economy without the oil/mineral resources is not sustainable - hence the "one thing they have". That is what will save Canada's ability to continue their social spending. Perhaps my point is too subtle, I can't say it any clearer.

If it takes me 100 hours to do X, but I can reduce that time to 50 hours. I now have 50 hours to either do nothing leisure (no profit involved) or use that time to do more work (profit involved). Either way, the quality of life improved, standard of living improved.

I don't have the words to make my points clearer. I really don't know what more to say. From my point of view, you are taking very simple statements and concepts and distorting them, even if it is by a small amount, to be argumentative.

For example I thought I made clear that creating wealth and generating profits are different - or that it is not clear what is meant by "profit" when you use the term. There are financial profits as measured by fiat currency and there are general profits as measured by personal well being. I don't know which you refer to, but I tried to explain that in my view there is a difference.

At this point in the discussion two things are clear. One of us is correct and one either wrong or not understanding the other, or two, neither of us will be moved by any point made by the other. Stalemate. All I am doing is re-stating my views in different ways.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

However, laissez-faire is a form of capitalism. What you seem to support is a form of mixed-market economy, albeit one rather close to libertarianism or laissez-faire.

This is a biased statement. It really depends on what you mean by "favour." There are very few people (if any) who don't benefit from the elements of mixed economies. I can't think of anyone.

Efficiency isn't inherent in a free market. As an example, the market is dictated by holders of capital, who are often emotional rather than purely rational. The other side of that is the challenge of information flows with regard to speculation. From a business perspective (which is what I think you are referring to), I suppose a free market means that businesses either succeed or fail, without any government intervention. However, I would argue that efficiency in this respect isn't an ideal as far as organizing societies is concerned. Take labour laws, for example.

In the end, you are referring to a turbulent market that was shifting into the modern mixed economic system we're now familiar with. It's hardly a good example of mixed economy.

The same goes for the U.S. and a number of other nations. If the U.S. didn't have it's natural resources, it would hardly be sustainable. What's your point? The overall issue is a balance between taxation and spending for the purposes of stabilizing an economy from the ground up. What are you getting at?

But how did you manage to reduce that time? You're leaving out a lot of essential information. Did you buy more equipment? Did you outsource office administration duties to India? Did you take a course to update your skills? Did you bring in a consultant? Cutting your time in half is an astounding achievement. How did you do it?

I'm not distorting them. I'm applying them to basic economic principles. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand how your position fits in the real world.

To me, you are trying to separate something away from its essential source. How do you reasonably increase well being outside of the "supply/demand v. profit" model? If you aren't referring to "life's simple pleasures" or Buddhist asceticism, I don't know what you're referring to. I've asked this more than once: how does one increase one's standard of living without consuming something? Give me an example.

And all I'm doing is trying to find out where your views fit into the real world. Most of what I've written about in the last several posts isn't based on my views.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

If capitalism is simply defined has people having the right to own and control property and laissez-faire capitalism is allowing people to have that right without any involvement from government, that is not what I support. I support a free market based economy with the rights of property ownership. Government has a role, there is a need for structure, law, law enforcement, regulation, taxation, dispute resolution, protecting the market (police, fire) etc. If this is what you call "mixed", I support "mixed". However, it has been my assumption that your view of "mixed" goes far beyond what I describe here. In fact my interpretation of "mixed" is a hybrid system designed to be both communal and private concurrently. It will do neither well.

I think in terms of net benefits. If everyone equally benefited you have "nothingness" in the context of what you call "mixed". In your "mixed" economy, someone has to have a net cost for others to have a net benefit - or some form of wealth re-distribution based on social engineering rather that real social costs. For example I have no problem with a government selling the "peoples" drilling rights, and the proceeds being distributed to the "people". I do have a problem with government giving away the "peoples" property for political reasons, social engineering reasons, etc, to benefit a selected few.

Efficiency is rewarded, inefficiency is punished in a free market.

Again, in the US it was "Jim Crow" labor laws that perpetuated segregation in the South - labor law has not always been in the best interests of society or the common good. In a true free market efficient labor will be rewarded. those who employ efficient labor will be rewarded. And again the legalized institution of segregation in the South prevented generations of Americans
from an education that would have allowed them to develop "efficient" employable skills. The real problem was government, not the market. A free market would have solved these problems much sooner if it had the opportunity. I believe this is applicable to many of our current problems as well, that it is government that slows progress and innovation.

I fully agree that the US has had a plentiful amount of resources that has supported excessive social spending. That time is coming to an end. We have to start to make some hard choices. Canada sits in a more fortunate situation than the US. In the next 100 years, I expect Canada in terms of economic growth to do better than the US, assuming Canada manages its resources properly.

Labor can be equal, capital can be equal....

Sure you can increase labor and capital, etc. However, with a brilliant idea, like crop rotation you can....

How many examples do you need to understand the point? Do you really not see it?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, I think I know your point; it's that I don't think it applies very much to what we're talking about. You know, economics where Germany is concerned.

Enjoy your next walk on the beach.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

if by some accident reality were to creep in here, there are basic differences in political priorities that separate the united states from other places.

the right, despite all it's blah blah blah markety market nonsense, really really loves spending and spending and spending on shiny weapon systems that kill people in great number. on enabling people who are alive to live better lives? not so much.



Are We Giant Suckers? While the US Blows Money on the Military, Europe Spends Dough on Social Programs | World | AlterNet

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Tully Mars

Yeah, I think the last time I looked it was during the Ike admin. (maybe it was Nixon, google it) that the debt didn't increase with a GOP POTUS. For all their blah, blah, blah about cutting spending the right LOVES to spend. When they've got the check book they drain it, over draw it and make statements like "deficits don't matter." Then the minute the Dems get voted in they start screaming about spending, the debt and deficits.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

aceventura3

Baraka, perhaps you get my point but Roach certainly does not. What is the role of government? Over and over conservatives who share my point of view state our answer to the question. It is not the role of government to spend money taken from one group of people to make the lives of another group of people better. It is the role of government to provide among other things a common or national defense. I understand people disagreeing on the answer to the core question presented, but the injection of the implied morality is a problem and the root of uncivil exchanges. Government is not the best or most efficient means to help improve the lives of others. Raising taxes to accomplish that goal in Germany or any where else is the wrong approach.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

Sometimes the screaming is coming from different factions within the ranks of conservatives. Also at different moments in history the nation had different needs. After WWII, it was reasonable to expect defense spending as a percent of GDP to decline. After a decade of neglect in the 70's, it was reasonable to expect defense spending to increase. I supported the first Iraq war and supported actually invading the country to remove Saddam at that time - many conservatives did not. I supported the second Iraq war, but had mixed feelings about nation building - some conservatives namely the Powell wing, you break it you fix it, supported nation building. In Afghanistan, i want the troops home, now - some conservatives do not. Your assumption that all conservatives share the same views on every issue is mistaken. In addition, reasonable and thoughtful people, can change their views based on new and current information.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

This is why I'm not a conservative. The role of governments is to serve their constituents. You might think it's wrong to use tax dollars for social spending (and will even go as far as to simply call it coercion and/or theft on one hand and charity on the other), but I don't. I think it's up to the people to decide what the role of government is. At least, that's the way it should be in free and liberal nations.

That taken under consideration, what Germany is doing can only be deemed wrong if the voters deem it so. If that is the case, then the next election will make things right again.

That's how democracies work.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

ace, dear, i entirely understand your point.
it's idiotic.
i understand the claims of people who think like you.
they're idiotic.

you occupy an ideological position that doesn't require you to take account of the empirical world.

and you operate with a politically motivated amnesia.


engaging your metaphysics is a waste of time.

so there's nothing to talk about.


"We are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary..."

Terence McKenna

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

The problem with the idea that "the government shouldn't take from one group to help another" is that everyone thinks they are the ones being robbed and are never the ones being helped

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

Derwood hit the nail on the head. It's an imbalance of perception, an incarnation of selection bias. Ignore the incredible value of social programs and concentrate, almost exclusively, on the distribution of wealth away from yourself to people you have to assume are lazy con artists.

roachboy

that chain of connections is the central feeder for any contemporary neo-fascism. the american variant is no exception.

shave off context, focus on a sense of paranoid grievance.
live in an imaginary world where the persecuting State cannot keep taking your shit.
because it's all about you.

you, petit bourgeois victim, are the most important human being in the world.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I know how democracies work. And now it is clear that you don't get the point either. It is not a morality question. It is not a "right" or "wrong" decision - it is what is the best decision. And in the context of social well being I have been arguing that government spending is in most cases not as efficient as private spending.

I offer you this challenge, I doubt we will come together to discuss, it but if you are open minded for consideration:

10 years from know measure which entity has bee most effective addressing the global problem of AIDS, the US Federal Government or the Gates Foundation. My bet is on the Gates Foundation.

If the Gates Foundation in fact can do more or a better job of addressing a global problem like AIDS, why would you want money to go from a private entity to the government?

In my lifetime and inmost every situation I have studied (there are roles for government), the private sector does a better job than government for the general well being of people.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

Is that idiotic the way that some of Galileo's thoughts and ideas were considered "idiotic" during his lifetime?

Or, is it something different?

I have no issue with being right and considered "idiotic" than being wrong and calling what is right "idiotic". What about you...never mind...I already know the answer to that.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

People have always been willing to help other people. It happens all the time. Add in the government, you add in waste and inefficiency. It is because of government the less good can be done, not the opposite. What you really argue for is that group A be forced to help group B, ultimately with the threat of violence or imprisonment.

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

It appears you ignore all the good that has been done by people directly without the threat of government force. After all Mother Teresa was not a government employee, was she? If she had been i bet she would have had to take a 15 minute coffee break every 4 hours, take four weeks vacation and major holidays off, and let's not forget the daily reports to management in triplicate....

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Maybe I don't get the point. It's because, as usual, you are all over the place and confusing. You stated that what Germany is doing is wrong. I responded by suggesting that it's up to German voters to determine if it's wrong. You then suggest that it's not a morality question, which smells a bit like red herring, so I'll leave that aside. However, you then say it's not a right-or-wrong decision, which is a retraction. But you don't stop there. Finally, you go on to mention the difference between public funding and private funding, making a direct correlation between efficiency and social well-being.

You're right, ace. I don't get your point. It's because it's labyrinthine.

What does the AIDS problem have to do with governing Germany? Private entities aren't in the business of governance. Are you suggesting that Germany should form a corporatocracy?

The problem with this statement is that you are talking about two distinct entities. I could go on to list why the public sector is a better entity for managing certain things, while creating another list explaining why the private sector is better for other things. Just because the private sector is good at efficiency (not universally true) and making a profit (again, not universally true) it doesn't make it the best candidate for everything within a society.

The problem is that the market is amoral. Voters are moral. The market's votes are made of money. The government's votes are made of liberty.

These are two separate entities. They're separate for a reason and should continue to be so.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

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.

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

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? 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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

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."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

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!

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

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

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

aceventura3

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$$.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

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

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel