![]() |
Germans request tax hike
I know this is a little dated, but I also feel like it has a direct bearing on our own situation today.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Rich Germans demand higher taxes Check it out, and ruminate on the subject- is it fair to tax the rich at higher rates because they can pay them? |
I think it is fair to tax the rich at higher rates not because they can pay them, but because they benefit from the government much more than the poor.
|
This is the basis of progressive taxation. Tax the rich more because higher taxes are less of a burden to them. Taxing 30% of $20 000 is a huge blow, but 30% or even 50% of $200 000 leaves plenty of cash for a comfortable living.
I'm no economist, but I also understand that taxation also serves as a social control to keep the wealth gap from growing too much, since an excessive wealth gap is generally considered bad for society as a whole. The idea that the rich deserve to be taxed less is a bizarre quirk that seems unique to America. |
I wouldn't do it. The big issue here is trust. I lack faith in our government's ability to manage my money. It's been pushed on me that government is a corrupt and inefficient machine that eats money.
That thought bubble is starting to pop. I've lived in 3rd world country and saw what a corrupt government really looks like. I've read studies such one showing that public education beast privatized schools by a mile. I've realized that keeping money in the hands of the rich in hope of benefiting the poor is like believing in Santa - the economic trickle down effect does nothing for society. But it all goes back to trust. Look at what happened in Iceland and Ireland. Government corruption destroys countries. It's been shown that democracy is far from immune to it. |
It might help to understand the political environment of post-war Germany. The two major parties are the CDU, which is a Christian democratic party, and the SDP, which is a social democratic party.
So you have a centre-right party and a leftist party. This is the inverse of American politics. The CDU, being a Christian democratic party, though fiscally and socially conservative, are responsible for first supporting a social market economy after the war. This established Germany as a hybrid of free-market and socialist economics, or a mixed-economy, but one more entrenched than what we tend to see in the West. And it was only recently that their party leaned more towards a liberalized economy. That said, most modern Germans are accustomed to an economic system with strong socialist policies. Progressive taxation used for a welfare system and other social programs isn't new to them. So I suppose when they see the system struggling to maintain itself, rather than find ways to shut it down, they'd rather find ways to better fund it to keep it going and help it get back on track. As a Canadian, this doesn't seem very shocking to me. Many of us would rather find more funding for our healthcare system and other social programs rather than let them crumble. It is about balance, of course. Canadians and Germans alike have track records of generating a lot of wealth. This is where progressive taxation comes in. At times of economic downturns or even crises, while it might make sense to cut expenses, it also makes sense to keep much of the foundational policies intact to ensure a return to stabilization towards recovery. Germany has been impressing me lately. Their innovation in green energy on top of their willingness to implement it and move away from other energy types is commendable. And rich Germans asked to be taxed more to keep their social system intact and help the recovery? Commendable. |
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. It's positively socialist!
|
the irrational spaces occupied by taxation in conservative american politics is a curious thing. sometimes i think it's little more than a useful displacement that allows a cuture of privatized debt peonage to not be a problem. the anxiety has to go somewhere. in simple terms, the corporate interests that benefit from debt feudalism aren't that different from the interests that own the ideological apparatus. but i digress.
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) They can pay more taxes. 2) They have more money than they need. 3) They want to pay more taxes. Why don't they simply write a check to the government? They could give the government everything they have beyond their basic needs, but the don't! Think about it, and ask why? Why did they even accumulate a surplus of wealth? If in business, they could have easily lowered prices or paid their employees more. They could have given the "extra" money to charity, but they did not. Think about it, and ask why? From my point of view, when "rich" people want to do something, they do it, otherwise I don't trust them. There is an obvious hidden agenda, unless posters here can see that you are being manipulated. |
What are these rich people hiding, Ace? Or are you just blowing smoke?
|
You've brought this up before in other threads, ace.
The group of rich Germans pushing for this wealth tax numbers about 44. According to the man behind the petition, there are "2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros." Even after a little quick math, this suggests that there are more than 2 million wealthy Germans who may or may not agree (or even know about) this wealth tax proposal. A group of 44 wealthy Germans writing cheques to the government may not have the same impact as 2.2 million wealthy Germans being taxed 5% over two years to raise £91 billion. Dividing £91 billion between 2.2 million people vs. 44 is more manageable, no? That's why they simply don't write a cheque to the government. I'm not sure how keen (or capable) these people are about writing individual cheques for over £2 billion each. That'd be like writing a cheque for about $3 billion U.S. The wealthiest of the wealthy Germans could probably do this, but it's not like that's the goal of the petition. I'm not sure what Dieter Lehmkuhl is worth, but he can't write a cheque for £91 billion. Not even Warren Buffett can do that. I'm not sure Lehmkuhl can even write one for £2 billion. Regardless, this isn't about charity. Try to keep everything under consideration. ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 PM ---------- Quote:
Maybe it would let them save more overall in taxes, where they end up with even more money! Never trust the rich, right? |
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
In a selfish way, I can support you being taxed more. If I had the opportunity to influence tax policy, I can support a system that benefits me at your expense. If I felt the whole of what I have is at risk, I can support giving a little piece of the whole as a temporary diversion, with the intent of getting that piece back plus a nice return on investment. "Rich" people got "rich" for a reason, trust them at your own peril. I suggest one always keep their eyes open and their hands on their wallets when "rich" people start talking about giving away more of their money. |
here we are, back to more absurd limbaugh-level bromides that inform the ways in which the serfs that produced by populist conservatism grovel at the feet of their feudal betters.
our Betters Know. the state is full of peasants like us. we should rely on our Betters. it's the Natural Order of Things. so if Our Betters feel that the only important consideration in thinking about a socio-economic order is the ways in which they will materially benefit---even at the expense of the conservative peasants who grovel at their feet---so be it. it's the Natural Order of Things. i mean who in their right mind would consider something like full employment desirable as a political goal or as an orientation for addressing the economic catastrophe that neo-liberaism has engineered? certainly not peasants like ace. |
Quote:
If you want to continue talking about this, try to keep on topic. So, no. The answer's no. |
All I'm saying is that if I were a m/billionaire, I'd happily pay more taxes.
|
Quote:
Are you a past Ms. America contestant? ---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ---------- Quote:
How would you become a billionaire with that attitude? Are you suggesting if you were a millionaire you would not be willing to pay more taxes? Does this imply that others may have a threshold as well? Perhaps, for me when I hit a trillion I would be happy to pay more taxes? Perhaps, the issue is not paying taxes but in giving money to those who waste it or spending unwisely. Why would anyone want to do that? Would you? If you had no faith in political leaders, would you give them more of what you worked and sacrificed for? I wouldn't. It is rare to find government bureaucrats who actually understand how to improve the standard of living in a community. |
Quote:
If it's that difficult to keep on topic, there isn't anything I can do to help except point it out to you. You're more than welcome to try again. In fact, I encourage it. |
Quote:
|
ace, it's a figure of speech. There isn't an actual script. It's a metaphor. The script is what we're talking about right here in the thread. And you tried to flip it to your advantage. It's something you do quite often.
I was pointing out the bias in your question: "O-ho! So your position is that this guy doesn't want to give up any of his money; he'd rather steal it from others instead?" I don't have a narrow views. It only seems that way when I have to remind you how presumptuous you are. I used to go along with your questions, but then all that ever did was create a new conversation, generally about you. I got tired of that. So now it seems I have narrow views. So be it. You're entitled to your opinions, even if they're off base. Ask me a fair question, and I'll answer it. You'll find I tend to do that around here. Actually, you'll find that I even answered your biased question. Answer's no. |
Quote:
Would anyone here agree, looking at history, that personal investment from well-to-do people has been essential in the development of Democratic society? I say this is because in my experience business owner are much more involved and plugged into their communities. They are more likely to known what the real issues are and have the resources to address them. As an example: most NGO groups and community boards where I live are populated by individuals from the local chamber of commerce. The backbone of these organizations consist of self-less individuals who sacrifice everything for their cause. And these organizations are always supported by philanthropists. The rich are obvious candidates to help society prosper. |
this is, in the end, one of the basic questions of governance within the capitalist mode of production, to wax marxist for a minute---what are the factors that best guarantee social and political solidarity? what are the relations between social and political solidarity/consent and capitalist activities proper? what does capital owe to the social system that it relies on in order to extract profit?
back in the day, this was a more obviously central question in terms of manufacturing as well--so for the reproduction of its labor pool and by extension ability to operate at all. neo-liberalism is responsible, among other things, for radicalizing the impression that the only measure of capitalism's well being is share-holder return. production is entirely occluded. it's of a piece with the race to the bottom in terms of wages, working conditions, benefits and stability for wage earners internationally---and the evacuation of possibilities for the old metropolitan working class. this is an immense change, one that undercut the older forms of social-democracy in their traditional mode. but the questions are still central. so far as i can tell, in principle neo-liberalism has nothing to say about social questions because it functionally denies the existence of the social world. in practice, neo-liberal policies have been a pretty destructive proposition for the eu--they're of a piece with a recapitulation of the radicalized class structure in places where these policies have been implemented at the international level. this is in turn placing very considerable strains on the main political and economic powers within the eu. one thing this call for increased taxes does is undermine one of the more idiotic neo-liberal bromides concerning what taxes are and do. they also are a rejection of neo-liberal hostility toward the state and by extension public (rather than private) power/control. there's actually stuff to talk about with this if you introduce reality into the discussion and stop letting ace derail yet another thread by talking about himself and his metaphysical worldview. |
Quote:
It's just like GM wanting a federal $1/gallon gas tax so customer demand will help them meet their CAFE standards profitably. Or GM is worried that if gas goes down to $2 due to OPEC manipulating the spigot, then the demand for hybrids and fuel efficient cars can still be profitable or subsidized because it is in the best interest of the country. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd say that it's rare to find a public employee who agrees with you about how to improve the standard of living in a community, but that's probably because supply side economics has been a failure to anyone who isn't a religious adherent to supply side economics. You know what improves standard of life in a community? Public and private investment. |
A similar movement in the U.S. regarding the Bush tax cuts:
"Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy." Quote:
|
Ace, if I were wealthy I'd be offended by the implication of your perspective, which apparently is that all wealthy people are greed-driven sociopaths.
|
Quote:
To the rest - There are reasons why some want to pay more taxes and others do not, outside of greed or pure selfishness. Put simply, one reason is that some actually know that they can more efficiently allocate capital for the greater good than government. Some things government is exceptionally good at, and others they are not, people I know have no problem with taxes going to those things government is exceptionally good at. to give an example of what I mean - If I have $10,000, that could either go to the government in the form of taxes or used by me in my business - I believe I can do greater good for society than the federal government under our current circumstances. I would invest the money in business growth. Leveraged through my business, I would create jobs, create taxable income, and increase current consumption through my business. I believe the government would simply waste the money and have absolutely nothing to show for it. Given, that - why on earth would I want to voluntarily pay more in taxes? I would not. However, assuming I have the ability as described above (and I believe most "rich" people really feel the same way), why would I start a PR campaign to increase my taxes? In order to achieve alternative goals! People who can not accept the reality of that, have my sympathy. The dangling question is can I actually do what I say I could do with the $10,000? I have done it in the past and I can do it in the future. Every dollar I save in taxes and invest in business growth will improve my community to a greater degree than if I sent that dollar to Washington. This is not rocket science (complicated), or voodoo economics (without a basis in what is real) - "rich" people in particular know this. People who have created wealth Vs. those who had wealth handed to them know this. those who don't know it now, but one day actually start creating wealth will come to know this. |
ace--->so what i take from that little ode to a particular faction of the wealthy in america and the arguments that they advance as a figleaf in front of the actual agenda of disempowering the state by choking off its resources in order to prevent regulation that forces an "artificial" sense of what makes most sense on the Intuition of the Overlords (the Feudal Masters Know Best. they rely on serfs like you to repeat that)
is that you know nothing about the EU, nothing about germany or german politics or class structure or the conceptions people have within a social-democratic state context of what the state is and what it can and should do. but you talk anyway. |
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ---------- Quote:
A community of people can be impoverished, starving, without access to usable resources - a wealth creator comes in, with some form of innovation and and the community turns the corner and the economy becomes a robust and thriving economy. The innovation, the wealth creator always comes first. Always! |
Quote:
|
of course you speak bullshit, ace. your freidman orthodoxy is the quintessence of it.
and it doesn't matter that you don't like the spin on it that i give---the rationale for it is present in freidman's bullshit gospel of feudal capitalism or why the public should stay in its place and watch as the Captains of Industry tank the entire system. because they know best. so dont be presumptuous and second guess them. just shut up. go watch tv or something. think about shopping. try to be a rational actor. there's a considerable percentage of the wealthy in the united states that don't buy your freidmanny bullshit either. i know some excedingly wealthy people. they are all old-line conservatives; the sort of patrician conservatives you can talk with who think that people like you are not only loons but you're bad for business. and there's the faction of the same economic class that funnels money toward the democrats. and man others to the left of them. at any rate, the german situation is better than the american. they aren't saddled with a grotesque national-security state and a reactionary political class for self-proclaimed Feudal Masters who think that the most effective resource allocation possible is in technological systems that kill people in great number, prisons and cops and surveillance. advancing goals of full employment--not "rational"---interferes with the Calculations of the Masters. but there's a lot of pressure from the debt crisis (made worse by ineffective and socially catastrophic neo-liberal remedies courtesy of the EU and imf) and they've figured out that a way around the neo-liberal calls for "austerity" (except in police surveillance and military spending of course) is to raise taxes. so they're asking for it. if loons reciting chapter and verse of milton freidman et al were not for reasons incomprehensible prominent ideological players in the united-of-states, such actions would not even be surprising. |
Quote:
1940 population less than 10,000. 1960 population about 60,000 with gambling resort building begins, a lot of it "questionable". 1960 Howard Hughes comes to town, invests, legitimizes the casino industry which opens the door to more and more legitimate corporate investment. 1980 population is about 450,000 in Clark county and over 1 million by 1995. The gaming industry generates about $1 billion in revenues per year in Las Vegas today. Yes, Howard Hughes is a hero figure! He built it and they came. |
If he's such a hero, why didn't Howard Hughes go build his wealth in Antarctica? Or on the moon?
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Las Vegas...a free market, low regulation model of success?
A one industry town in which the wages of the vast majority of workers (hotel and casino employees) are among the lowest of any occupation. As a result, the city has the highest foreclosure rate in the country. And a city that had such poorly planned growth management that if it grows much more, the city will need to ration water every day of the year. |
Quote:
Quote:
First, anyone who is focused solely on efficiency is likely a bad businessperson (but maybe a good investor). Second, anyone who'd be affected by a "tax increase on the wealthy" likely has or could easily come up with $10,000 in cash. If I make a million pretax and I'm taxed at the currently unrealistic rate of 40%, that leaves me $600,000, of which $10,000 is 1.6% of my annual take home pay. That's nothing. Anyone with that kind of money probably has people investing it for them and could have $10,000 within two business days with a phone call. Anyone with that kind of money currently has no reason not to invest it where they see fit, which means that if you were currently making that kind of money, the only reason you haven't already invested it in the growth of your own business would be because you chose not to because you saw better prospects elsewhere. So the hypothetical you has all this money and you're not investing it in your business. Why not? Probably because you've determined that you could make more elsewhere. Are all of these alternative investment strategies automatically contributing to the greater good? Probably not. If hiring people were a good investment right now, corporations wouldn't currently be twiddling their thumbs over trillions of dollars of cash while unemployment hovers around twice what it was ten years ago. But these tax increases aren't directed at corporations, they're directed at individuals, so the idea that they will inhibit hiring is bullshit, because businesses hire people, individuals don't (they do, but not really in a way that's germane to this discussion). Besides, your whole canard about what you'd do if you had $10,000 is bullshit anyway, because if it really was a good investment, you could find one of those savvy investors you're always going on about to give you the money. Right? I mean, those people make efficient deployment of capital their living, if you have a viable way to make money, they'd be all up in that. Which is just another way of saying that those gurus of market efficiency looked you over and shook their heads. Which is just another way of saying that your business is not an efficient instrument in which to deploy capital. Which is just another way of saying that by continuing to run your business you are implicitly failing to uphold your self-professed love of efficiency. I think that you're a small fish who thinks he understands big fish solely by virtue of the fact that you're a fish too. |
Quote:
But just for entertainment purposes: Quote:
Quote:
Bet you think I am going off on a tangent or something, but if you are so inclined, why would people leave a high paying paradise like California to go to a place like Nevada and in particular Las Vegas?:rolleyes: ---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ---------- Quote:
To be clear. an attorney can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy. An accountant can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy. A restaurant owner can get "rich", but needs a good or thriving economy. Etc. Etc. True entrepreneurs, people who create real wealth, change the communities around them, they change the world - they improve living standards through what they do. If you penalize these people through excessive taxation you do harm, not good. People who create wealth should be nurtured, encouraged and supported. ---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
The basic question is - where does that money do the most good for the most people? That question should always be at the root of any tax question. If politicians made a numbers case for tax increases (one that made sense) they could easily convince people like me to pay more. It is the emotional, class warfare case that they make that rings empty. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you penalize anyone through excessive taxation, you do harm, not good. You want a thriving economy? Build and maintain strong education systems. Build and maintain strong health care systems. Next, make them accessible to virtually everyone. Cutting taxes as a be-all and end-all is myopic. A healthy economy is based on a number of factors, and the education and health care aspects are just two parts of those. Cutting taxes are a factor, yes, but you seem to place too much value in that. There is a problem with talking about "creators of wealth" in the context you wish to use, because anyone who works is a creator of wealth. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You don't ask those kinds of questions, I do. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
First, and I think this is the most important thing to consider, society needs to work together. Taxes are not just fuel for the government machine; they are allocation of funds by citizens towards a common goals. For example we agree that educating is required for a better and stronger society. We elect officials that recognize this goal and give them our money to make it a reality. Without taxation an education system would not exist. Point two: participating in non-profit programs takes time and money. We'd all like to think that if we had lots of cash we'd throwing it around to help others but it's much easier to simply give it to an elected person you trust. In terms of motivation and asset allocation taxes work much better than depending on people to be generous. Fund raising is the number one expense of all non-profits. Point three: sometimes it's more efficient to have a state/nationwide programs than many privately funded programs. This also ties in with working together as a society. Quote:
On the surface it seems like I just gave $10,000 to my country and made money on top of that. It doesn't work like that. In my case only 12% of that money goes towards employees. The rest goes towards other companies and business owners - some of it overseas. Those companies also have employees but they too are not getting 100% of what I pay for my products. So in the end that $10,000 is not going towards social benefits. Very little of it is reaching lower income families, most of it is being re-invested or going towards the business owners. Ever if 50% of that 10k was wasted by an inefficient government the local school, hospital or library would still be better off. The whole idea that more business = better society is false. Just look at any plutocracy in the Arab World. Are their populations reaping the rewards of their countries oil wealth? Your last comment about employes generating taxable income is socially irresponsible. Quote:
|
Quote:
so in your imaginary world---which is all you ever talk about----i am not Authentic enough, not enough of a Man of the People---to understand the Wisdom of Milton Freidman. i think this is close to degree zero of idiotic. |
Quote:
I should train to become a wizard, not unlike Harry Potter. I bet you I could conjure me some serious wealth. *raises wand to the air* "Riddikulus!" |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem, ace, is that you credit holders and users of capital solely for "real wealth creation" whilst making the astounding and staggering error of assuming that by simply being a holder and user of capital that you can create wealth. Wealth cannot create more wealth on its own. If you shoot a million dollars to the moon, 100 years later it will still be a million dollars. You conveniently leave an integral part out of the equation and seem to assign a kind of mythology to entrepreneurs, as though they are the patron saints of wealth and dole it out by their good graces. It's not difficult. Wealth is created not by capital alone. Capital is applied to things such as labour and land, which, in turn, create the wealth. It's Economics 101. I'd take you more seriously if you'd demonstrate a sounder understanding of basic economics. I assume you do have a grasp on basic economics, so it makes me think that you simply choose to undermine the value of labour. From a business perspective, labour has a price and productivity value, sure, but from a social and political perspective there are other factors to labour. For example, if those who make up the labour pool have instability financially, socially, politically, or biologically, it presents widespread problems. These problems are often downplayed if not overlooked in business. The more forward-thinking companies don't, but most do. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, entrepreneurs, don't do what they do out of "good graces", they do it for a profit. the motive for profit has been a net good for the human race. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on that. Quote:
|
Mein Deutsch ist nicht besonders gut, but I have to say that the idea of owning and operating a business in Munich or Dresden has serious appeal. Germany's stable economy and friendly business environment, along with superior social programs, make me even more frustrated working in the United States. Sure, I pay lower taxes here, but taxes aren't the end-all be-all of life, and it seems like there are massive hidden costs to our lower-tax system, including emerging oligarchy and the slow death of our economy at the hands of investment bubbles.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you know how wealth is created? Let's start with the definition of "real wealth creation" and how it differs from other forms of wealth creation. ---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ---------- Quote:
|
You've done me the kindness of speaking my language. How can I refuse that kind of warm, syrupy hospitality?
|
Why do I get the sense that the economic theory of Milton Friedman is the divine word in ace world and that any other economic theory is unacceptable or even subject to discussion.
Does that devotion to Friedman approach cult status? http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/marketcult.gif |
but despite the lack of grasp of basic critical thinking skills and information, ace nonetheless equates himself with charlie parker.
except without the skill or interest or intelligence or charisma. maybe it's the heroin habit that they have in common. or the same kind of hats. hard to say. all that's sure is that here we are 50 posts into a thread about germany and ace has managed to turn it into yet another non-debate about his cognitive limitations on the one hand and abjection on the other. ace is talking about himself and his loopy interpretations of milton freidman, super genius. it is beyond tiresome. seriously. |
Well, it's a non-starter if ace can't accept or acknowledge a fundamental and rudimentary fact of macroeconomic theory.
He's entitled to his opinions, but when he gets called out on such an error of omission, it's impossible for it to be a case of, "Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree." Facts are tricky that way. |
Just fyi, you don't have to respond to him.
|
Heh, I know. Maybe it's just that I want him to be a part of the conversation. Maybe it's just that I'm a glutton for punishment.
|
well, you know that if time magazine is taking notice of the flight into abstract dissociation on the right
How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality - TIME then it's pretty much obvious to everyone. because that's how they roll there. |
Yeah, I suppose this indicates an unfortunate entrenchment.
At least there are beacons of hope, perhaps not unlike people such as Deirdre McCloskey. |
there's several things that are maybe interesting.
first is that even the lamest instruments of the mainstream corporate press in the united states are coming out against this dissociative version of what once was neo-liberal orthodoxy. second is that the transposition into metaphysics that we see performed at great tiresome length by comrade ace here seems mostly an identity politics move. it's as if in this post united-citizens political climate, the right has opted for straight machine politics. so the metaphysics are about drawing a line around the in-group. the ideology seems to operate as a continuous generator of a sense of crisis (because without total reactionary control, things do not operate along a logic that is comprehensible) and the media-space the right can live in simply reinforces that sense. if that's the case, then it would follow that the idea is simply to be able to mobilize bodies around a largely negative space, politically speaking. you see this reflected in the manner in which the right is conducting itself in congress. and for way way too long this dissociative horseshit that's at the core of what contemporary conservatism is has been treated as if it represented a coherent alternative to something. this sits inside the still-larger problem of 40=odd years of neo-liberal hegemony in a centralized corporate media environment (particularly over the past 15 or so) that has almost uniformly assimilated neo-liberal doctrine into the baseline assumptions that are used to process infotainment. the problem with that is simply that it makes anything beyond tactical quibbles about applications of an economic policy logic (which leans on a broader ideological worldview) almost impossible. and that's what we're seeing in the u.s. of a. today. it's a central feature of the collapse of empire, one of the major space in which you can see what i think is a characteristic inability to confront reality that accompanies the slide away from hegemony of a (once-)hegemonic power. in this, ace is little more than an annoying symptomatic actor, one who is doing what he's told as he's told when he's told but is able to convince himself, using his charlie parker-like skillz in the one area i suspect they exist, that the whole thing is his idea. but whatever. the persistence of neo-liberalism as anything remotely like a viable frame in other contexts that are less corporate-authoritarian in terms of media model is difficult to explain, except to the extent that it's also become an institutional lingua franca. if that's the case, what we're seeing is the inability of those heroic institutional actors in both private and public spheres to deal with crisis, particularly of a type that requires a basic political shift to address. and that's where we collectively are. so there's reasons to be a little maybe optimistic that a socio-economic group representing wealthy interests in germany can at least assess the situation that confronts germany (and the eu) and propose **something** that can be done to ameliorate some aspects of the consequences of neo-liberalism itself that strays outside the tedious, stupid orthodoxy that in the main explains the crisis in the first place. not much like that happening in the united states, where you get the ideological worldview you pay for. and in this post citizens united situation, the people who bankroll contemporary neo-fascism have a LOT of money to spend. aside: if you want to see just how entrenched this neo-liberal lunacy is, take a look at the reports just emerging about the "deal" struck by the european union and imf to "rescue" greece---assuming that exactly the nutty "austerity" measure that have caused the general strike there get passed: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d2702...#axzz1PSk4jDbb this is what ideological paralysis looks like. a little background on the greek situation, fyi: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tions-answered |
Quote:
|
Financial wealth is created via consumption. Current economic problems are rooted in a lack of consumption, not a lack of unallocated capital. The wealthy are having a rough go of it because non-wealthy folks can't afford to consume enough to justify more investment.
|
Quote:
Over the past few days I have been studying some of the works of Fredric Nietzche (he was been interpreted incorrectly in many instances and in one circumstance in particular that is of no relevance here), and in one area I found myself in strong agreement, was when he talked about the two distinct branches of human thought and behavior. He pretty much explained why DC (along with others here) and I will never agree on any broad based political or economic issues. It is clear from my avatar and the quotes in my sig, what my point of view stems from. People of a different ilk ascribe inappropriate meanings to my thoughts, desires and behaviors. For people who can get beyond some of the obvious problems with Nietzche, give him a read. ---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
What ace is referring to, I think, is economic expansion. But economic expansion isn't possible without basic wealth creation through the application of capital and labour. Again, there is a distinction between some guy with an idea and being able to apply it. Applying ideas, inventions, new technologies require capital and labour. This "real wealth creation" isn't created out of nothing. It's created out of resources and labour. This is basic stuff. So if we can move beyond that, ace, what is your position beyond "taxes are bad" and "if rich people want all rich people to pay more, then they should just write cheques to the government instead"? Is there anything beyond that? ---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ---------- Quote:
Whether entrenchment is a bad thing depends on what is entrenched and the factors associated with it. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When business puts this money to work through investing in the future the recession will end. The best thing government can do is to reduce uncertainty in the market. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Certainly as a result of real wealth creation there is increased consumption. Are we disagreeing on what comes first? Do you argue that increased consumption leads to real wealth creation? If it is so basic, clearly state what your view is, rather than telling me I am wrong. |
in what is no doubt a dionysian frenzy of abject subordination of neo-liberal orthodoxy, ace will no doubt argue that wealth is sui generis, a magic outcome of the pure movement of capital like worms spring from cheese.
ace reads nietzsche. this should be funny. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wealth is created by the allocation of resources. In general, it is the use of capital and labour to generate a product or service for consumption. If a profit is made, wealth happens. Any questions? I suppose the risk of trying to be clear and concise means that it's oversimplified, but that's basically how it works. |
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ---------- Quote:
Note: I am not saying I am Nietzsche.:rolleyes: |
Quote:
And.... Unless the garden magically was already there, it likely required capital expenditures to make it happen. And.... Are these tomatoes going to be let to rot, or is someone planning on consuming them? Here's a cheat sheet for you, ace: Code:
The Four Factors of Production: Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ---------- Quote:
|
That's what I took him as posting, or at least suggesting.
|
Quote:
My point being that you can have all the wealth in the world, but unless you have someone who is willing to give you something of value for that wealth, it isn't actually worth anything in the wider economy. You can build neighborhoods' worth of houses, but if no one can afford to buy them, they're worthless. They're less than worthless. Quote:
The fact that these companies have all this fucking money and aren't doing a damn thing with it is pretty solid evidence that supply side theories are bullshit. |
Well, at least we know that taxes aren't really the problem.
|
of course supply side is bullshit. it's been bullshit from the outset.
milty freidman's theories of magickal wealth creation are nonsense. and they aren't relevant to this thread. the problem that's unfolding in the eu across the greek crisis---which is connected to the move in germany that the thread is actually about---is in significant measure a *political* crisis to do with the collapsing status of neo-liberal ideology. functionaries of the new class war cannot expect words like "necessary cuts" in the name of some imaginary "fiscal responsibility" to hold. the imf is the quintessential neo-liberal organization. it's primary function has been to generate socio-economic crisis in the southern hemisphere since the 1970s in the interest of softening up space for the expansion of neo-colonial economic relations---you know, what we in the metropole call "globalization"---the idea that the imf has suddenly reverted to its bretton woods function (and somehow jettisoned an entire staff of expert engineers of crisis) is laughable. at the same time, that there is no overarching governor (in the motor sense) that is able to act meaningfully to address structural problems is worrying. that's what we're watching happen. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Give an example of when demand drives real wealth creation. The printing press was mentioned in this thread. At the time there was no demand for books. when the record player was invented, there was no demand for records. When the PC was invented there was no demand for PC's. When Facebook started there was no demand for Facebook! ---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think your point is that efficiency or productivity improvement can increase revenues and/or reduce expenses, which can lead to increased profits. This is true. But what's the point and what does it have to do with this thread? Quote:
If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to have a serious discussion. I'm trying really hard to know what your arguments are. Will you work with me here? ---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ---------- Quote:
I thought I also made clear that real wealth creation can certainly lead to increased consumption, but that the real wealth creation occurs first. Do you insist on taking the position that consumption or demand drives real wealth creation? If so, give examples in history when this has been true. |
Quote:
However, I think your view is difficult to accept. Are you saying that either communism or laissez-faire is less problematic than established, long-term, stable, mixed economies? Would you suggest it's less problematic to have a command economy vs. a system that incorporates social spending programs amongst market economy elements? You would suggest that the days of the robber barons were less problematic than today? Should Canada, for example, move away from its problematic mixed economic system and move towards the business-oriented nanny-state (albeit otherwise largely unregulated) model adopted by 19th century America? I know you have extreme positions when it comes to economics. However, I fail to see why a place like Canada should adopt an extreme position such as yours. Any problem that arises anyplace, whether it be the U.S., Germany, or Greece, isn't likely a problem with mixed economies themselves. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't laissez-faire. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't command economies. I surely don't want to see any real-life experiments conducted to find out. There are too many real-life failures and indications to look back on to already know. ---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
History is replete with examples. In order to make use of new technologies to increase profits, you must consume them. Otherwise you don't use them. ace, if you don't consume something, you don't benefit from it. You can't get something from nothing. |
first, a little history of the libertarian blight:
Robert Nozick, father of libertarianism: Even he gave up on the movement he inspired. - By Stephen Metcalf - Slate Magazine The Liberty Scam. it's interesting, kind of horrifying read. it is good to know whence comes such incoherence. here's another: The Greek protests are not just about the economic crisis | Aditya Chakrabortty | Comment is free | The Guardian which outlines some of the delightful politics circulating amongst greek fascists in a time of crisis, politics that resemble more than a little mainstream american conservatism. |
Quote:
I remember coming across the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal's Index of Economic Freedom a while back and seeing that the U.S. indeed wasn't the freest. (I assume they stumble a bit on labour freedom, for one.) Though I find the statistical measurement and indexing of freedom to be a bit odd. This does, however, point out what doesn't sit right with me regarding the libertarian philosophy. It assumes that no regulation or lax regulation automatically means more liberty. We know this to be demonstrably false. Unless, of course, you mean more liberty for those who are wealthy. There are other aspects of the philosophy that don't sit right as well, but that's one of the relevant ones here. |
Quote:
It was a great article. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In terms of real value, ie, worth in terms of sandwiches and rent, a brilliant idea is worthless if no one wants it and if you can't convince people to pay for it. Hence, demand. |
Quote:
A brilliant idea that never generates any demand isn't merely worthless; it's considered a failure. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
In business you have to make the case for your product, you have to sell. It is government style thinking that assumes the opposite. Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ---------- Quote:
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!:thumbsup: ---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ---------- Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 ---------- Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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? |
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. |
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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 |
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
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
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 ---------- Quote:
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.:shakehead: ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right, ace. I don't get your point. It's because it's labyrinthine. Quote:
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project