Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

I'm not talking about the united states of america. I'm talking about the many independent states of the world. Unless they are eliminated and one single world-wide state is instituted there is anarchy.

 

Re unemployment, the Australian PM has an interesting trick: He merely states over and over to any question about the state of the economy:

"Our entire attention is directed towards creating jobs. The best form of welfare is a job. All our reform efforts are directed to creating jobs".

But never does he say he WILL create jobs......

 

Haha. Again with the feudalism? Is the guy who lives next door to me an earl or a marquis?

 

Maybe he's hoping you'll hire more people?

 

Still, the USA IS an example of a federation governed by rule of law. And last time I looked, the states still exist and still have their own legislatures.

 

No doubt. Nothing like passing the buck....especially when the consumer is disinclined to "go forth and spend"....

 

1) There is work for everyone now. There are entire industries crying out for personnel. Aged care, childcare, nursing, teaching, medicine, dentistry, agriculture, engineering, etc etc. That's without even factoring in the DESPERATELY needed trades like plumbing, carpentry, electrical, fitting & turning, boiler-making, welding, roof plumbing, etc. Then there's self-employment - small business, online trade, home based work, specialist services, or even providing full support to other family members who are out working. Grow the food, cook the meals, do the laundry etc. Make yourself a valuable contributor and earn your keep, so that others can earn theirs via money.

2) So don't be unemployed. Do whatever you need to do to secure something from the above smorgasbord.

3) Personal responsibility is what prevents unemployment. Personal responsibility is what makes people put aside an emergency fund so that they can ride out things like pandemics. Personal responsibility is what keeps people from relying on tax payer funded assistance. IOW, it's the whole story.

4) Please explain why I could ride my horse to work in 1840, but not today. Times change. Adapt to an industry which will keep you employed TODAY AND TOMORROW, or perish.

5) The youth unemployment seen today is a result of the pandemic and personal choice. And most of the work lost was part-time, not essential to survival (what with youth being youth, and therefore should still be living in the family home). If your 20 year old is out there paying rent and doing nothing but 25 hrs a week at St@rbucks, you've failed them spectacularly as a parent. That's a choice you made. Don't put your sh!tty parenting on the tax payer .. fix it yourself. Take them home and get them sorted out while you still have time. Get them signed up for one of the future friendly trades or jobs listed above, and keep them fed and housed free of charge for the duration of their training.

 

Some thoughts on personal responsibility, individuals behaving badly.....and anarchy:

The black man in Minneapolis refused an order to get out of his car. Is that acceptable?

"Officers responding to an alleged forgery in progress Monday evening were initially told that a person later described as the suspect was sitting on a car and appeared to be under the influence, police said.
A pair of officers located the man, who was at that point inside the car and who police said "physically resisted" the officers when ordered to get out".

It's difficult to determine exactly what happened from the description above, but obeying a police officer seems reasonable even when the order is irksome.

But what of the behaviour of the officer who felt he had to kneel on the man's neck? Has policing become so frustrating or dangerous that that sort of action is deemed necessary? (I might answer "probably", to that question).

No doubt blacks are committing more crimes, but guess what, they also suffer higher rates of poverty....a macroeconomic problem related to race. Hence we have the race-related anarchy on the streets of Minneapolis, which Trump said requires the national guard to restore order. (No doubt it does).

Meanwhile Trump is condemning China for legislating to outlaw anarchy on the streets of Hong Kong, of the type we saw last year in Hong Kong. Nothing to do with peaceful demonstrations at all. Fact is China will not become a democracy in the foreseeable future. It's plainly idiotic to be calling for democracy in Hong Kong. And last year the authorities tolerated an amazing degree of violence against person and property in Hong Kong. Those warriors for "democracy" were not peaceful demonstrators at all.

It's not often I agree with billionaires, but:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...-tire-of-protests-as-they-lose-money/11426568

"Hong Kong's richest person, 91-year-old business magnate Li Ka-shing, has become the latest billionaire to join the chorus speaking out (against violent protests).

Mr Li, nicknamed 'Superman' in Hong Kong, took out full-page ads in most local newspapers, urging a halt to the unrest "in the name of love".....

Most of the protesters taking to the streets are university students and young professionals.
They hold little hope of ever being able to afford their own home, so hitting the rich and powerful has become an aim of the movement. In Hong Kong, the property tycoons control the land supply," Shanghai-based analyst Andy Xie said.

Sun Hung Kai Properties, which is controlled by Asia's third-richest family, the Kwoks, has also called for the violence to stop and for social order to be restored.....

So the main concern of the rich in Hong Kong is to keep making mega bucks; they're not interested in democracy, why would they be, they already have all the freedoms they want. OTOH, the students who mostly "hold little hope of ever being able to afford their own home" have apparently decided democracy will change that situation (which it won't of course).

Meanwhile the Chinese people on the mainland have experienced unprecedented increases in living standards: so the choice between democracy, or a one-party meritocracy is not of particular significance to the majority of Chinese citizens, judging by the level of patriotism and nationalism they are willing to express, under their current government.

 

So...you're not going to decrease unemployment by hiring more people. Got it. Nothing like passing the buck.

 

The "states" in the the USA are no longer sovereign.

I am talking about actual sovereign states such as germany and france. Anarchy exists between them and every other sovereign state in the world.

So unless you are in favor of the dissolution of all the worlds states in favor of a single sovereign world government you are in favor of anarchy.

 

Yep. And I will continue to identify the facts and their inescapable logical implications.

No, because we have a democratically accountable government administering possession and use of land, not the sovereign feudal landowners you advocate.

 

So he's not a feudal lord even though he owns land?

 

No longer sovereign, because they agreed to come together in a Federation, in order to …."promote the common welfare'...WITHIN this new federation. However the states retained their jurisprudence in nominated areas of governance.

Actually that is what the creation of the EU attempted to address, in Europe.

And it's what the UN attempted to address in the community of nations post WW2

Addressed above. I have already asserted absolute national sovereignty - sovereignty which you agree the colonial states gave up when they joined the Federation of the USA - is obsolete, in a global world.

The issue is the nature of sovereignty, specifically, whether it should maintain the right of 'states' to make war.

 

Well, if the customers aren't there, not only will I not be able to pay the wages of my extra employees, it won't be long before I'm on the dole queue as well...

Unlike the PM, I'm not in a position to influence the macro economy.

And neither is the mayor of Minneapolis, who is now saying: "This anarchy is not any longer about the unlawful killing of a black man, it's about unlawful rioting.

Unfortunately, the nation will continue to burn because neither the mayor nor the president are capable of confronting and dealing with the entrenched racial disadvantage in the US (which btw Obama did absolutely nothing about) which is fuelling the rioting.

Because it's all up to 'personal responsibility'....duh...

 

Right, because we don't live in the feudal system you advocate.

 

Yep. That's what I said. No longer sovereign.

Neither of those are sovereign world states.

So you acknowledge that Germany and France exist in a state of anarchy with each other.

 

But you could reduce unemployment by hiring more people.

 

I don't advocate a feudal system. I advocate my neighbor being able to own his own yard and house. I don't advocate that he be an earl or a duke.

 

What disadvantage is that? You know whites are no longer at the top of the tree, right?

 

The problem with statist, whether they are MMT'er (whose system is only backed by the force of the military) or Geoist (whose systems is only backed by a police state) is that they respect property rights just as little as feudal lords that they are so up in arms about.

A society that respects property rights and ihas dispute resolution and adjudication processed by private firms whose does not have a monopoly of power would be much for efficient.

But really? Feudal lords? Someone has been watching way to much post apocolyptic Hollywood movies. They forget hat since feudalism the Age of Enlightenment has occured, which is what in part has spawned their crazy schemes of statism at the point of a gun. No different than Feudalism from that respect, they all share the stance of "might makes right".

 

But the states retain jurisprudence over their own internal affairs; the federation has jurisprudence over affairs involving relations between the states.

Correct. There are no sovereign world states. There are sovereign federations of states.

The next step is a federation of UN states, which will require a modification of the concept of absolute national (including federal) sovereignty.

The UN would then be considered a federation of sovereign states (or federations) in which these states would retain jurisprudence over their own internal affairs.

No. The EU is a political federation......but yet without the necessary monetary union which is why the EU might fall apart soon. eg someone in the Trump administration recently said "let the states go bankrupt" ….but of course Washington will pick up the tab, whereas the ECB is supposedly prevented by the Maastricht treaty from doing this....though the ECB has shown itself ready to break the rules to avoid bankruptcy of member states....

 

You can continue avoiding the supply-side/demand-side debate as long as you like, that tactic won't solve anything.

Eg, if my - and your admirer crank's - frugality were universally practiced, the economy with its hefty proportion of junk consumerism, would collapse through lack of demand and the resulting unemployment.

 

Sure you do. The system of sovereign private landowners not administered by or responsible to the community, which you advocate, is feudalism.

But not have any obligation to the community that issued and enforces the land title. That's feudalism.

Of course not. Such arbitrary titles of nobility are completely irrelevant to the feudal institutions you advocate -- indeed, they indicate that feudalism is in decay, and evolving into a state. You are just trying to find a way of not knowing the fact that the feudalism you advocate is an economic system centered on sovereign private landowning, not a collection of arbitrary titles of nobility. Simple.

 

Only an Anarchist would make the above assertions.

I will let Geoists speak for themselves, but MMT is about ensuring citizens have the right to actually inform democratically elected governments to implement policy that has majority support. Nothing about the military.

eg, do we want a GND including real full employment for all?

Well we can have it, because the issue is not "how much will it cost" but "do we have the resources to make it happen" (and of course we do).

 

What is a "statist"? It seems to be nothing but a term of abuse wielded by feudalists who have no facts or logic to offer, a child's cry of, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!"

That is nonsense with no basis in fact.

More nonsense with no basis in fact.

More nonsense with no basis in fact. Feudal lords were all about property rights, especially their own. They were merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that private property in land has never been based on anything but force and never will be, and a property "right" based on nothing but force, like a slave deed or land deed, is just as validly overturned by force.

Do you respect property rights? What about slave owners' property rights? A royal patent monopoly on the cinnamon trade? A legal entitlement to set up a toll booth on a pre-existing public road and charge tolls of those who use it? What if government issued legal title deeds to the sun, the earth's atmosphere, or the alphabet? Would you respect those property rights?

ROTFL!! Like feudal Somalia, where the main industry is piracy on the high seas....?

No; you made that up. Feudalism does not require lords, just what you advocate: sovereign private landowners not responsible to the community of those whose rights to liberty they purport to own.

No, someone has been reading way too much of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the most dishonest "intellectual" who ever lived.

Ah, no, you do.

:LOL: What nonsense. Totalitarian rule ("statism") at the point of armed force existed for thousands of years before the Enlightenment, and was one of the darknesses the Enlightenment sought to dispell.

That's just objectively false. It is the feudal system you advocate that is based on "might makes right." The Enlightenment stance is "consent of the governed." You just want sovereign private landowners to be legally entitled to govern others without their consent. That's feudalism.