Thread: The imitaors!

I'd like to see his sources. None of his economic babbling can be trusted unless we know where he gets his numbers and how he uses them. For one thing, he's absolutely wrong about economic class mobility. Since these things have been measured, and accounting for inflation, only between 1% and 0.1% of individuals in a particular quintile of income will ever find themselves in the next highest quintile, while roughly 10% of them will eventually find themselves in the next lowest quintile or lower. And while the richest 1% of households routinely fall out of that category, once they find themselves in that category, they rarely fall below the richest 5%.

And he can stick to technical definitions of a recession if he likes, all the underlying warning signs exist and have gotten worse. Poverty is at a 15 year high. Median incomes have fallen for the past 7 years. We carry a combined debt burden of 1.5 times our GDP. The dollar is weakening. The savings rate is negative. And inflation threatens as the institutional players are reduced to speculating on oil, raising the prices of everything that requires transportation, and since the US has sold off their most of their manufacturing base to the Chinese and other developing nations, that's nearly everything. He sounds to me like a guy down in steerage on the Titanic telling his mates, "Don't worry, it's just water, it's not like a little water ever hurt anybody. After all, this ship is unsinkable."

Wealth disparity is the killer of capitalist economies. These sorts of economies succeed the best when everybody has enough resources of sufficient value that they get a benefit from trading. When the vast majority of an economy's resources are held by a vanishingly small portion of that economy's participants, the incentive to trade is greatly diminished. When this happens, the economy crashes, despite the fact that there are more than sufficient resources available to meet everyone's needs and keep things going. But, like democracy, capitalism is the worst economic system possible, except for all the others.

There are a lot of things to criticize Europe about how they deal with these problems, but one thing does make them better than the US in these regards, at least they're trying. It's true that that programs they've lighted on are a sloppy patchwork, where one program creates a problem that's attempted to be solved by another. High minimum wage laws do lead to higher rates of unemployment. So they have generous (and far more sensible than ours) welfare programs. Welfare programs are expensive, so they have to have higher taxes, which would depress business except for one thing: their customers still have money to take (thanks to those welfare programs, in part). In short, Europe's economic system is a big sloppy mess, but it's a big sloppy mess that works for most of their citizens better than ours. Their economies grow at the same or better rates than ours. They have far lower rates of child poverty, similar healthcare outcomes at a fraction of what it costs us, more free time, higher savings rates, and a better education system.

Personally, I'd rather do the same things without the big sloppy mess. I have an idea, but it likely won't be very popular. Ask nicely, and I might tell you what it is.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

The dollar is weakening.

I think the word you are looking for is 'Plummeting'

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

In short, Europe's economic system is a big sloppy mess, but it's a big sloppy mess that works for most of their citizens better than ours. Their economies grow at the same or better rates than ours. They have far lower rates of child poverty, similar healthcare outcomes at a fraction of what it costs us, more free time, higher savings rates, and a better education system.

That's actually a rather good way of describing the whole thing.
It might be messy, and idelogically unsound in US eyes (what with the socialist underpinnings) but at least it works most of the time.
Just my opinion of course.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Personally, I'd rather do the same things without the big sloppy mess. I have an idea, but it likely won't be very popular. Ask nicely, and I might tell you what it is.

Could this be the system you are thinking of?
I ask it solely because you mention it will be unpopular?



Theoretically it sounds nice, but it doesn't allow anyone to build a better life for himself, and all countries that tried, failed.

@X

Along the same lines is doing something "because Europe does it". One of the loudest banging drums here is national healthcare, and it's all to the beat of "Canada does it and it works". There is often no critical discussion about it, only words like free, Canada, and Europeans. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, and healthcare is no different. I'm open to damn near anything, but as you say, a critical look is needed before considering implementation.

Its all about globalization and putting all of humanity's neck into one noose/leash. Nafta, GATT, the EU etc etc. If I had time to post any further I would try to explain, but then the post would be as long as Kantians, and whose got time for that?

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'm not a communist. I do think there is a role in some markets for a public player, for example, I think everyone who pays payroll taxes should automatically be qualified to receive Medicare coverage, but I don't think we should make private insurers illegal or prevent them from competing with the public service for marketshare.

No, my idea is to eliminate all taxes, except for a few narrow classes of sales taxes, until you die. No property tax, no sales tax, no income tax and no corporate tax. But when you kick the bucket, you can't give away any more than what is currently worth $2 million, with an exemption for family farms and businesses which might have assets worth more than $2 million, but who's average net revenue per year for the family over the prior 5 years was less than $150,000. Everything else is taxed at 100%. Individual states get 5% of that to fund their governments, since they wouldn't have their historical funding streams either. And since the government will need something to do with all the money they'll be getting from such a tax, I would suggest that they be forbidden from using more than 10% of it on federal expenditures including military, and that the remaining 85% of all that revenue must be dispersed absolutely equally to each citizen over the age of 18 every year.

You can kill at least three birds with one stone doing this. You give American citizens a revenue stream that permits them to continue consuming at historical rates and gives them the possibility of saving, spurring the economy. The federal government would no longer have any need or justification for running a budget deficit, freeing the funds they would have borrowed to be offered to private enterprises. And you wipe out the most pernicious threat to democracy in existence, dynastic oligarchies.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'm not a communist. I do think there is a role in some markets for a public player, for example, I think everyone who pays payroll taxes should automatically be qualified to receive Medicare coverage, but I don't think we should make private insurers illegal or prevent them from competing with the public service for marketshare.

No, my idea is to eliminate all taxes, except for a few narrow classes of sales taxes, until you die. No property tax, no sales tax, no income tax and no corporate tax. But when you kick the bucket, you can't give away any more than what is currently worth $2 million, with an exemption for family farms and businesses which might have assets worth more than $2 million, but who's average net revenue per year for the family over the prior 5 years was less than $150,000. Everything else is taxed at 100%. Individual states get 5% of that to fund their governments, since they wouldn't have their historical funding streams either. And since the government will need something to do with all the money they'll be getting from such a tax, I would suggest that they be forbidden from using more than 10% of it on federal expenditures including military, and that the remaining 85% of all that revenue must be dispersed absolutely equally to each citizen over the age of 18 every year.

You can kill at least three birds with one stone doing this. You give American citizens a revenue stream that permits them to continue consuming at historical rates and gives them the possibility of saving, spurring the economy. The federal government would no longer have any need or justification for running a budget deficit, freeing the funds they would have borrowed to be offered to private enterprises. And you wipe out the most pernicious threat to democracy in existence, dynastic oligarchies.

You're right! you're not a communist, You are Robin hood! Steal from the eeviiil rich and give to the innocent poor!
What a load of...

How exactly is wealth re-distribution not communist? That's essentially what you're saying, re-distribute the wealth. That's wholly unfair!

The essence of communism is Marx's dictum "To each according to their need, from each according to their capabilities." An inheritance tax like the one I propose is not communist because it is not progressive. It is absolutely flat. Furthermore, it doesn't even tax people, just the estates left behind when people die. The payout to each citizen, which you might call the "Citizen's Inheritance" is not indexed to need or to any other quality. Everybody gets exactly the same thing. From that point, merit takes over. Those who make more will be those who worked for it, and thus deserve it. That's the point of capitalism and democracy, together they're supposed to form a meritocracy. But as long as you allow people to transfer the vast bulk of their wealth and power upon their deaths to those who did not earn it, you put a serious obstacle in the way of merit being the determining factor. You'll notice that I said nothing about common property, or the common Marxist position that, after the Revolution, all property will be common property. I find that notion to be nonsense at best. Confiscating the vast bulk of someone's estate after they die and then dividing it absolutely evenly amongst all citizens does not make private property common property. The wealth that is divided is still in private hands, and can be used for private ends.

And Orange, this proposal doesn't, strictly speaking, redistribute wealth, it distributes it. Redistribution involves taking wealth from someone who has wealth and giving to to someone who doesn't. When you die, you don't own your stuff anymore. So, strictly speaking, nobody has that wealth. Furthermore, since it's divided absolutely evenly amongst all citizens, it's not given to just those that don't have wealth, but to those that do as well.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

How exactly is wealth re-distribution not communist? That's essentially what you're saying, re-distribute the wealth. That's wholly unfair!

It's exactly what the Republicans have been doing for the past 30 years.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

It's exactly what the Republicans have been doing for the past 30 years.

j

You really do work as a government employee, don't you?