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.

I need help understanding something, given your statement and the statement below from the article.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Rich Germans demand higher taxes

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 ----------

Maybe they're hiding the fact that they can just loophole their way out of the 5% wealth tax and make it seem like they're helping when they aren't paying an extra cent.

Maybe it would let them save more overall in taxes, where they end up with even more money!


Never trust the rich, right?

Why don't you give answering the question a shot.

Right, all I did was ask a few simple questions. Immediately you think I am up to something, yet when "rich" people, people who know how to exploit the system to get and stay "rich", come out in unison with well publicized plan to help the little people, do what they do, you buy into it with out any question! I find that amazing.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

And I will in the future, every-time this comes up until people start to acknowledge that generally "rich" people don't do anything randomly, without a plan or agenda.

Is your point that this person and this group is more interested in raising the taxes of others, and less interested in individually wanting to do more?

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.

Put the smoke-blowing red herring away, ace. This is rich people talking about taxing rich people.

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.

And world peace.

Are you a past Ms. America contestant?

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

And the topic is, rich people want to pay more taxes. Got it. No questions. Well not from my point of view. What is the point of this thread? You are being manipulated, and don't know or don't care - either way it is not good.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

Why?

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.

No, ace, you can ask questions all you want. I simply don't appreciate questions made with the intention of flipping the script.

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.

"Flipping the script"??? That suggests that you know what the script is, I don't think you do. So, again it is from your narrow point of view that you think that the "script is being flipped", but in reality I just ask people to actually think about what the script is and understand it. Your views are consistently too narrow. You folks have fun with this - rich people wanting to pay more taxes thing - anything I add is going to be outside of your script. I won't try again.

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.

It is commendable. I'm thoroughly impressed that Germans trust their Government to that level and I'll agree with you about Canada - despite all the mud throwing between parties Canadians still believe in their social programs.

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.

It's a far-'rich' conspiracy. Give 'the government' more money today, so they can help people get healthy, get educated, reduce fossil fuel use, and possibly lower the tax rate other places... And they get a country where people have good jobs, are happy, cleaner air, reduce desire to secure oil in the ME, ensures a strong Euro, and the average German is able to spend money in the local economy to help the rich make more profits...

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.

What are you talking about? Why would being willing to pay more taxes make me unable to become a billionaire. I don't think you know how people become billionaires.

Maybe my use of the backslash was unclear. m/billionaire = millionaire and/or billionaire. Shit, I'd be happy to pay more taxes as a hundred-thousandaire. All other things remaining constant, I'm looking to move up a tax bracket or two in the next year and I am perfectly fine paying more taxes when that happens.

Nope, I'm pretty sure the issue is paying taxes.

First, it is a stretch to say that the wealthiest have "worked" or "sacrificed" for most of their money. Perhaps they sweated to come into their first bit of money. Maybe they lost it all and had to bust their ass to get it again. However, I would bet that the top marginal ratio of cash earned to sweat is pretty large.

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."


http://www.patrioticmillionaires.org/

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.

Some here won't understand what I write below, perhaps think I am going off on a tangent, etc - to you, in advance, stop reading. I know what your responses would be.

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.

I don't speak bullsh*t.

There are reasons why some start a PR campaign to increase their taxation. Your refusal to explore those reasons is typical from you. I have no understanding why you read what I wrote. I hope you at least get some entertainment value from reading what I write.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

Have you ever tested or researched the historical validity of the above theory? I have and it is wrong. Wealth creation is at the root or starting point of every robust economy I have ever looked at. I challenge you to name a historical situation, and let's see if I am right or if the theory above is.

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!

I see, ace, and do you view this mythical wealth creator as a godlike figure or a hero figure?

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.

Ever been to Las Vegas?

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?

You and your trust fund babies, so what! I talk about people who actually take risks and create real wealth. Professors, lawyers, stock brokers, day traders, government employees, etc (normal people can see the pattern) don't create wealth. People who earn passive income or earn their income off of the labor of others may feel guilt and join your PR campaign to raise taxes but real wealth creators don't feel this guilt. You clearly don't understand the difference, and hence you don't understand Freidman.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

He had a proclivity for a dry climate with oxygen. But, I would bet if had not lost his mind he would have been heavily involved in the space race.

Well, I think he cheated. I think he had help.

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.

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.

I have a couple of responses.

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.

You are not even close to being on point.

But just for entertainment purposes:

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Nevada

Scores Leave California for Nevada and Arizona

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 ----------

We have been here before and you still seem to be unwilling to explore the real differences between wealth creators and those who get wealthy from others. Once you accept that there is a difference you will understand.

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 ----------

Some people understand efficiency intuitively. Some can easily make the correct decisions without being a Edwards Demming guru. to me it is by definition that a good businessperson has a efficiency focus, even if it is intuitive.

The point is not $10,000 in cash. Whatever the amount there is a trade-off. Money can be invested in real business growth or it can be turned over to government.

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.

This isn't true. You're simply missing my point. I understand the difference you're making, but I don't agree with it.

This isn't true. Any one of these people can get rich without a good or thriving economy.

You're applying a metaphysical/mythical status to people who are doing little more than making a plan, using capital, and taking a risk. They don't pull wealth out of their asses, nor do they pull it out of the ether. Wealth isn't created in a vacuum. Entrepreneurs don't create wealth on their own. They may be enablers of the apparatuses that create wealth, but they aren't money trees; they aren't the apparatuses themselves.

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.

this was in your post#23:

I assumed you agreed with it, am I wrong?


Simply look at the most major standard of living gains in history and you will find your position is incorrect. Certainly there is not a vacuum, certainly there was what came before, and what is, but real wealth creation involves steps of living standard improvement for a community, not gradual change. Oh, here is that digital v. analog thing again, no wonder we don't understand each other. An example, when Edison harnessed electricity for commercial use of light, it was not in a vacuum (no pun intended with the electric light bulb), but boom! It changed the world. It created real wealth. It created real living standard improvements.

Your assumption is that throwing more and more money at a broken system will make it strong. In my view throwing more money at a broken system is a waste of money. I would rather people keep the money and allocate it based on their needs and choices. For example if a public school system spends $15,000 per student per year, and a private school can do it for $4,000 and get better results - why would you want more tax dollars being spent in the public school?

You don't ask those kinds of questions, I do.

No.

After that "boom!" where did all that wealth land? Was Edison unhurt?

Your assumption is false.

It depends on how the money is used, clearly.

It depends. How are the results gauged? There are inherent flaws across the board and worldwide with regard to how "performance" is gauged in school systems. It also depends on accessibility. It doesn't matter how much better and cost-efficient the private system is if few can afford it.

Forgive me, but your questions are too generic and therefore not very thought-provoking. Also, did you use a real example, or was that made up?

Hey Ace, good post.

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.

Ok, so you invest this money and make 10% annual profit. In a year you now have $1000 and $10,000 is infused into the economy.

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.

This is the only issue that I accept as relevant in your post. I agree with it - but it's not that simple or absolute.

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.

You have to admit, though, that this imaginary world is pretty cool. At the Milton Friedman School for Conjurers of Wealth, wizards of the monetary stripes will act for the benevolence of the universe, magically creating wealth so that one day—one day—none of us will have to work another day, because we'll all be independently wealthy.

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!"

Let me put it this way, you understanding Friedman economics from me is like you being a John Phillip Sousa man and me explaining Charlie Parker to you. In the context of the language that we share, you will never see nor accept the reason and structure in the genius of Friedman. You always get lost in what is trivial.

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

I still don't understand why you fail to acknowledge some of the most basic concepts in economics. Is it really a fantasy to accept that real economic growth comes from real wealth creation? Is it really a fantasy to want capital allocated in a manner that derives the best returns for a society? Perhaps the fantasy is yours as you seem to always put your faith and trust in a few selected political leaders.

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

Thank you.
I think you missed the important connection with leveraged wealth creation. This simplest way for me to see it is to think of a farmer. If a farmer normally produces X, but with $10,000 additional dollars, he produces X+Y we have to look at Y in the context of the $10,000. Y did not exist until the $10,000 was invested. What does Y do? Let's first assume the Farmer earns a good profit on the $10,000 from the sale of Y, just to pick a number if that profit is $5,000 (I know there are implied assumptions, i.e. a demand or need for Y, etc.). That profit might be used for further profitable re-investment meeting market demands. The $5,000 is recirculated in society, assuming re-investment, consumption or even savings in a bank that loans money to others. Society may benefit from more food resources, possibly lowering prices or lessening the need for more costly alternatives. New uses may arise out of more availability of the crop, i.e. think about the history peanut. Etc. Etc. Again, real wealth creation is a real benefit to society. And the question is, what is the best use of the initial $10,000 and who determines that?

I agree, but that is not my argument. My argument is in the context of efficiently allocating capital. I agree that in some regards public spending is going to be more efficient or productive than private spending. However in our current circumstance I think we are well beyond government spending the capital they get more efficiently than the private sector would. I do not support any additional taxation of the private sector by government.

The irony here is painful. My comments are in response to your myopic view of economics.

No.

No.

False.

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.

You confuse me? Are you saying that Edison in general and specifically the commercialization of electric light was not a major change in living standards in the world? Was this not a major and measurable incremental step in the creation of wealth in the world?

There is real data regarding the costs and results of various education systems both public, private in the US and in other nations. some systems are clearly more efficient than others. If a system is inefficient, that condition may be true and have absolutely nothing to do with needing more money. My point is that simple. In my view, it seems so obviously true, I don't understand why there is a need to state it. Yet, here and in this country just asking the question regarding a school system improving through being more efficient without additional money comes across as if one is asking for the impossible. Or, it you ask the question, you are a mean person who doesn't like the "children!"

Do some of your own homework and find-out.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

Can you be specific. I agree that I have some "myopic" views, including some on economics, but they all are not - and when I have a "myopic" view I will admit it. anyone who reads what I write can clearly see that I fully believe that there is a role for government and that government can do some things more efficiently than the private sector.



I have never stated that, nor implied it.

Again, I specifically say something like - there is a difference between wealth creators and those who get wealthy... - I emphasize that there are those who create real wealth...Etc, and in return you state "Wealth cannot create more wealth on its own" - well I don't even know what you wrote means! so perhaps your statement is correct, but it is not responsive to anything I have written here.

I am being "myopic" when I say to me entrepreneurs are the patron saints of wealth creation. The truth is, people other than entrepreneurs can and do create wealth and history has many examples of that. for example in another post I mentioned the peanut. George Washington Carver, was an educator who developed scores of new uses for the peanut, as a result of his work wealth was created.

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.


You don't need to take me seriously. If you don't like my style, examples, questions or whatever, who cares? It is the economic theory behind my posts that matters. If I distract you from that, it seems to me, as they say, its a you problem, not a me problem.

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.

I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out to you, again, that the wealth has to come from somewhere. Did you know that Johannes Gutenberg went bankrupt despite inventing the printing press? However, over 500 years later, I sit here five days a week working in the book publishing industry. I help create "real wealth" by offering my editorial and marketing expertise. And the Ontario government understands this, as with every $1 they invest in the Ontario industry, over $10 in local economic activity is generated. I'm proud to be a part of that wealth creation.

I don't understand the issues of education in the U.S., but I'm inclined to believe it's a far-reaching issue that involves both problems of efficiency and lack of funding. It's probably also based on a wider problem of poverty.

Or you could just tell me. I'm not doing any work without earning credits.

You removed one side of the equation with regard to wealth creation. You need more than just capital and a good idea to create wealth. Will you discuss the other side of the equation sometime?

You have implied it by omission, and more than once in more than one thread.

The confusion I think lies in what you state as the factors that create wealth.

How was the wealth created?

This is beside the point.

I'll admit to a problem. I admit that I have a problem understanding your economic theory. You have yet to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of how wealth is created.

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 ----------

Canada is a good stepping stone to Europe. Try us; you'll love it. :thumbsup:

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

When I talk about "real wealth creation", I am specifically referring to a process that results in a bigger "pie" as opposed to those who create personal wealth by taking a bigger slice of the "pie" at the expense of others.

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.

Interesting.

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 ----------

I am pretty sure I was not comparing myself to Charlie Parker. Re-read what was written and you will find I was making the point of trying to explain Charlie Parker.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

I am entrench in my point of view, are you entrenched in yours? I am willing to let my point of views be challenged, are you? I try to explain what I am entrenched in and why, do you? Is being entrenched an inherent bad thing in your mind?

More broadly, wealth creation is based on the consumption of goods and services, which are created by a combination of capital and labour.

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 ----------

Are these rhetorical questions? If not, you might want to be more directed with them. My points of view are subject to change.

Whether entrenchment is a bad thing depends on what is entrenched and the factors associated with it.

This is incorrect. In short order i can think of so many examples, but I assume none will change your view on this. Perhaps, the key point is that "financial wealth" is a concept with no real meaning - what is real is the measurement of true living standards.

Look at this:

U.S. Companies Sitting On $2 Trillion In Liquid Assets : NPR

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.

Now you have me curious. What methods of wealth creation do you know that don't require consumption?

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

This will likely include stabilizing the lower and middle classes. I think this is the point established in the OP.

There are circumstances where capital stays the same, labor stays the same, but wealth gets created. A person can come up with a better, more efficient way to do something, creating real wealth, making the "pie" bigger. The result is capital can be redirected or employed more efficiently. The result is labor can be redirected or employed more efficiently.

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.

What you are talking about here is the reallocation of capital or capital expenditures. It also includes adjustments made to labour practices (training, etc.). Anything that increases efficiency or productivity does indeed lead to greater wealth creation, but the fact remains: wealth is created via capital and labour.

I don't know what you're getting at here. I'm not sure this is necessarily true.

I don't know. I'm simply arguing for the fact of what factors are required to create wealth.

It can. There is a wealth of information that suggests this. Though, I think I'm still getting hung up on your use of the word real. Are you talking about economic expansion or increased efficiency or increased production capacity? It's a bit confusing. You should consider using other terminology. Normally, in economic parlance, real has a different meaning from what you're using it for. (I'm referring to the term differentials real vs nominal as an example.)

It isn't my view; it's a fact.

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.

I assume what is meant by consumption is consumer driven demand creating wealth. On an individual level, planting a garden and canning the surplus can create wealth. And again, it can allow for resources to be allocated in other ways improving an individual's standard of living. Multiply that by the people in a community and you can get larger macro-economic results. The yield from a garden can be a function of rain and not a function of labor or capital.

My point is and has been to free those who have the ability to create real wealth and let them do it. Government rarely has the ability to create real wealth directly, governments tend to re-distribute wealth once beyond government doing what it is most efficient at doing..

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

When do you tell us what you believe? Or, as Nietzsche might say, your religion is one that says that the strong are strong only at the expense of the weak.

Note: I am not saying I am Nietzsche.:rolleyes:

The garden isn't going to plant itself, nor will it irrigate itself if there isn't enough rain, nor will it take care of its own pests beyond its existing evolutionary mechanisms, nor will it harvest itself, nor will it store the harvest adequately to prolong its shelf life. This requires labour. Though, as far as those tomato plants are concerned, it's not like they require some guy to sit beside them and turn a crank to get them to grow. So it's a bit from column A and a bit from column B: the creation of this wealth is dependent on land and labour.

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:

And this is where you lose me. You want to free whom from what, exactly? What the fuck does real mean anyway? Are you talking about the kind of thing that went down during the time of the robber barons?

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I just wish he'd be more upfront about things. It would be much easier if he'd just come out and say, "Since I'm a libertarian, I think taxing beyond military and infrastructure is a waste of taxpayers' money. These Germans are making a mistake. They should eliminate all these social programs, drop the tax rate to the minimum required to fund the aforementioned items, and then stand back and let the country prosper. Only then will they see real wealth creation."

That's what I took him as posting, or at least suggesting.

Don't get all metaphysical on me here. Financial wealth has meaning. Though when I said it, I mean something other than its common meaning. I mean it as wealth that can be monetized. My family is an example of wealth that can't be monetized. "Financial wealth" actually means something else, but my point is valid for either meaning.

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.


Why aren't they investing, Ace? I'll tell you: they aren't investing because there isn't demand. There isn't demand because the middle class can't afford or isn't willing to buy things as much as they used to. Because people aren't sure they're going to have a job in a year. So unless you would like the government to reduce uncertainty in the job market, you're wrong about what the government should be doing.

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.

Do you do this on purpose? Wasn't I clear enough when I said that in some circumstances the labor input can be constant, the capital input constant, but that real wealth can be created. Never did I say it could happen without labor or capital. And, note the example was in direct response to a point you made, to take my point out of context seems a bit wrong to me for anyone wanting a serious discussion. But, I guess you have already made it clear that these things are so simple that they are not worthy of serious discussion - and some wonder why severe unemployment persists in the US.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Monetized wealth or however you state it, is meaningless. The financial crisis is a perfect example illustrating how wealth measured in fiat currency can change in an instant. One day a guy has millions of dollars of wealth in real estate and the next day it is zero or negative.

I think that view is too narrow.

They are not investing because of excessive and unknown risks due to political uncertainty. For people who invest capital it mostly boils down to math. Eliminate uncertainty, reduce risk and the results from the equations change, making it attractive to invest.

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 ----------

Raising taxes won't solve Greece's problems.

No.

No. My response was to your suggestion that wealth creation can occur without consumption being a part of the equation. You statement on constants occurred otherwise in another context. For the record, I agree that if capital input and labour input are constant that real revenue increases can be made with efficiency or production improvements. But that wasn't the point here. Or was it? I'm not sure what your point is.

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?

Don't make insinuations about me based on my confusion that arises out of your own lack of cogency. It makes you look bad.

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 ----------

1. I wasn't referring to Greece. (Where did that come from? Did you mean Germany?)
2. Lowering taxes won't solve Greece's problems either.
3. Greece's problems aren't a tax problem.
4. No single factor is fully attributable to Greece's problems.
5. I would appreciate it if you would stay focused.

You consistently describe what you see as the problem, but never offer a specific thought on any solutions. What are you saying, end neo-liberal policy and replace it with what? And if you ever take the time to understand what I write you would know my view is the murky middle or hybrid systems and solutions are generally the most problematic, but that no one system or ideology is perfect.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

A single person stranded on an island can have what I consider "wealth". This person's wealth can be increased without consumption. I measure wealth by living standards, not by a measurement of fiat money. With that as a basis, extending the concepts to communities, nations and the world the same principles apply.

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.

I know this was addressed to roachboy, but this is something that we can discuss because it's clear what your position is and there is no factual problems with your statement.

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 ----------

Partaking in increased living standards is considered consumption, ace. Otherwise, it's merely kept "in inventory" and no one's living standards increase.

If "real wealth creation" = "increased profits via increased efficiency or productivity vis-à-vis the application of new technologies whether product-, service-, or idea-based," then yes.

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.

The interesting thing is that when you think of all the factors of liberty and freedom, the U.S. isn't necessarily the freest nation in the world.

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.

Ah, you saw that, too? I almost started a thread on John Rawls after reading it, about the veil of ignorance and whether or not our talents are morally intrinsic to us.

It was a great article.

It isn't just a problem with fiat currency. Tying currency to a finite resource effectively places a cap on the amount of wealth a currency can represent. Shit, even if we're talking a barter-based economy - having something of value to trade with no demand is functionally equivalent to having nothing at all. Illiquid assets are pretty much worthless for anything but prettying up a balance sheet.

That's economics for you.

You're right that capital investors are driven by math. One reason these folks haven't invested in more jobs is because they've done the math and demand isn't there to justify hiring more people to produce more produce. All this nonsense about political uncertainty is bullshit. Political uncertainty always exists.

Right, and if after the printing press was created there continued to be no demand for books, then we wouldn't be talking about printing presses. If after the record player was invented there continued to be no demand for record players, then we wouldn't be talking about record players. If after PCs were invented there continued to be no demand for PCs, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. You get the point. In each instance, it wasn't the creation of a new product that instantiated wealth, it was the demand for that product, along with an adequate market to allow for the exchange of that product for money.

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.

This is along the lines of the thought that popped up in my head this afternoon.

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.

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!:thumbsup:

---------- 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.



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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:shakehead:

---------- 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....:eek:

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.