Redistribution of American Wealth

What do you suspect their true motives are?

 

I'm not sure whose motives you're referring to. The companies are competing for market share; they're capitalist enterprises operating in a (subject to agreement) free marketplace. Environmentalists whom I assume are concerned with the environment, global warming, wild places, and such. And human rights activists - and I'm only guessing here - who work to raise money and help people in developing countries who are subject to human rights abuses, usually by government, sometimes by industrialists, but mostly by both.

What do you think their motives are?

 

I dunno. Sometimes I think that their motives are to destroy the USA. Sometimes I think they are simply misguided.

If they are concerned with the environment, or workers, respectvely, why wouldn't they be demanding that the products we buy be made in developed countries; where such protections exist?

 

They probably do.

The only person who wants to destroy the USA is Putin.

 

You made a false assertion, and offered no supporting evidence, because there isn't any, my response is both appropriate and sufficient.

You claimed that a lack of taxation is "artificial stimulus". But, since you brought it up, confirm that you are against Pelosi's demand that the SALT cap be lifted because you are dreadfully sure that it will "artificially stimulate the Rich!"

That's like saying that if you first load 100 pounds on a camel, that you have "stimulated" the camel if you take 20 lbs back off.

If you confiscate their money, they won't have it for investment, because you took it. Now you're are trying to claim that "not taking it = stimulus" which is meaningless word salad and presumes that the government OWNS everything, and what they don't take is "stimulus" which might be some weird Marxists view, but that is not the system here in the United States.

We grant taxing authority to government so they can fulfill the tasks we assign them by constitution or charter. Not so they can play games "stimulating this and deterring that."

Who is "giving" investors money?

Who died and named you the "Czar of proper investment levels?"

Do you have their board minutes? If they are publicly traded companies they explain this in releases. You haven't even stated what Corporation you are talking about, how would I know, and unless I'm invested in them, why would I care? If I'm invested in a company, and when I listen to a conference call, and what they are spending profits on does not make sense to me, I'll sell my stocks and invest elsewhere where their financial decisions make more sense to me. But, I've been wrong at times, and say they decided to invest somewhere, when I thought they should retire debt, it turns out they were right and I was wrong. You are coming off with an attitude of your view is "right" and everyone who doesn't agree is "wrong" and it doesn't even appear that you are an investor. So why is your view an important consideration for the board of whatever corporation you are discussing?

Who?

Who "gave trillions" and to what "companies"? Are you repeating phrases you heard somewhere but don't really understand or are you talking about something specific?

Yes, and his record speaks for itself.

Gee, that's strange.


Obama projected a rising unemployment rate for 2017 on, not for unemployment to fall to the lowest levels ever recorded.

I beg to differ.

 

Agreed. It’s fascinating to me that the flat tax is considered unfair even when it taxes everyone at the same rate.
The truth is that people want the wealthy to pay more than their fair share more out of envy and a desire for punishment than out of any sense of fairness.

 

LOL

 

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. By definition, natural resources are never a product.

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. In Singapore, for example, government has used its ownership of 90% of the land to provide good quality, affordable housing. In Hong Kong, 100% of the land has been publicly owned for over 160 years, and government has supplied housing, transit, parks, and many other services and amenities that have made land there among the most valuable in the world.

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. The publicly created value of the resource has to exist BEFORE any private user will be willing to commit capital and effort to productive use: the publicly created economic advantage obtainable by using the resource is what makes them willing invest that capital and effort. Only the improvement value comes from the user, not the unimproved value of the natural resource that justifies the private investment in improvements.

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. Without government to secure exclusive tenure, private use of natural resources is limited to non-exclusive uses like hunting-gathering and nomadic herding. Forcible exclusive private tenure in the absence of government is feudalism: i.e., poverty, oppression, and economic stagnation.

 

It's fascinating to me that you consider it "fair" to force the productive pay for government that benefits the privileged at the unwilling expense of the productive.

No, the truth is that apologists for greed, privilege and injustice want rich, greedy, privileged parasites to pay less than their fair share -- which they most certainly do -- more out of greed and a desire to be legally entitled to steal from disarmed victims than out of any sense of fairness.

 

The loop holes can be plugged up. If Democrat politicians concentrated on soaking the rich, rather than mourning criminals like George Floyd, they would have a winning issue.

 

Because it affects the poor more.

 

No they are factually correct, corn is a product, trees are a product, coal is a product all used as is or to create other products, all a product of the land. And it takes capital and private investment including labor if the land just sits there nothing happens and that comes from the private citizens not the government. That value didn't exist until that happened and the land is developed and put to use.

 

Jealousy and envy make for bad government policy. A temporary reprieve maybe but long term everyone suffers.

 

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect, as I already proved to you and will now prove again:

Corn is not a natural resource. Your claims are just factually incorrect.

Not natural trees, only cultivated ones. Your claims are just factually incorrect.

Only after it has been dug out of the ground, and is therefore no longer a natural resource. Your claims are just factually incorrect.

None are used as is. Your claims are just factually incorrect.

That is factually correct. I knew you couldn't keep it up indefinitely.

Natural resources are part of the land that labor extracts and makes into products.

To make products out of natural resources.

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. Government provides the services and infrastructure, and the community provides the opportunities and amenities, that make private use of land economically advantageous, which is the only thing that justifies the investment of private effort and capital, and which is also why a vacant lot in a city is often astronomically valuable. Absent that publicly created value, private users would be limited to less productive non-exclusive uses like hunting-gathering and nomadic herding.

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect, as proved by however much the user was willing to pay for the vacant lot. Why would he pay that much if the lot was not ALREADY that valuable, hmmmmmm?

No. Your claims are just factually incorrect. YOU KNOW that the land was ALREADY valuable BEFORE it was put to any use, and it is only that publicly created value -- i.e., the economic advantage obtainable by using it -- that ever justifies putting it to use.

 

Dismissing objections to institutionalized injustice as "jealousy and envy" makes for not only bad government policy, but rule by the worst elements in society.

History proves that rich, greedy, privileged parasites prefer to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.

 

Actually the point you are responding to is spot on. China treats the world like it's their own personal toilet.

• Anyone who truly supports environmental responsibility will not be eager to purchase goods from China.
• Anyone who truly supports rising working class wages will not be for Chinese Slaves undercutting American Workers.
• Anyone who truly supports human rights will not be eager to purchase goods produced by slaves in China.

Similarly, on the false claim that elected Democrats Wanted to Tax the Rich. It's actually JUST THE WRONG RICH PEOPLE, NOT THEIR RICH PEOPLE:

One of the little covered aspects of the debate over the current stimulus bill is Democrats acting as proponents of repealing the $10,000 limit on State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions. For politicians whose left flank is screaming to tax the rich, this is a truly odd, but utterly explainable, phenomenon.​

Pelosi and the Democrats are actually holding up a bill to extend unemployment benefits and other pandemic assistance on order to give a taxcut to the most wealthy taxpayers.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed this out on Twitter:

Leader McConnell
@senatemajldr
Aug 4
We need to urgently help working families and those who’ve lost their jobs. But the Speaker and the Democratic Leader are blocking the entire rescue package over a special, unrelated tax cut for rich people.

So, no, we don't take their moralizing hectoring stances and more seriously than they themselves do,