+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 9 of 37 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 362

Thread: Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    You can't and aren't capable. Proven by the economic calculation debate. You lack the information, the means to acquire said information and the knowledge to know what information is and isn't valuable to make those types of decisions.

    Which is precisely why an emergent system such as the market does best and has proven itself to be so time and time again. It's so efficient that even socialists abandoned they notions on central planning to embrace market allocation.

    More importantly, the "market" isn't a system, as I mentioned, it emergent and organic. The market doesn't do anything, but the agents within it react to one another in ways that cannot be replicated by planning.
    The market doesn't exist. The presumption that it does proves in and of itself that you live in a fantasy land. We live in a country where there major corporations run the government. They don't pay taxes, they do as they please, they break laws and abuse workers. As small business is bound by the radical idea of "law" it will never truly be able to compete with big business.

    In fact the United States today operates under a system very similar to central planning. A plutocracy of the 400 or so richest men and women work in, with, and around the government and throughout the economy in order to dominate it and bend it to whatever they see as best. You have no say in the economy just as you have no say in the elections. You are irrelevant.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs


  2. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    The market doesn't exist. The presumption that it does proves in and of itself that you live in a fantasy land. We live in a country where there major corporations run the government.
    The "free market" doesn't exist. Indeed, it cannot exist in capitalism. However, its nonsensical to say "the market doesn't exist'. Even though the visible hand (via the management class) is an integral aspect of economic relations, the market remains key.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    The "free market" doesn't exist. Indeed, it cannot exist in capitalism. However, its nonsensical to say "the market doesn't exist'. Even though the visible hand (via the management class) is an integral aspect of economic relations, the market remains key.
    The market does not remain key as demonstrated by governmental policy, specifically in regards to banking, finance, automotive manufacturing, and agriculture. In the case of each, when the market decided to work the destructive half of it's influence upon them the government came to the rescue. Banks and manufacturers were bailed out, for generation we've been buying up agricultural surplus. This is all not to mention the advantage explicitly given to corporations like GE and Walmart by the government when they decided the aforementioned were untaxable. This is not a market economy, it is a plutocracy.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

  4. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    The market does not remain key as demonstrated by governmental policy...
    This is just reference to how capitalism naturally provides for a 'mixed economy'. You've confused yourself by essentially thinking "the market means laissez faire'. It doesn't.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    You can't and aren't capable. Proven by the economic calculation debate. You lack the information, the means to acquire said information and the knowledge to know what information is and isn't valuable to make those types of decisions.

    Which is precisely why an emergent system such as the market does best and has proven itself to be so time and time again. It's so efficient that even socialists abandoned they notions on central planning to embrace market allocation.

    More importantly, the "market" isn't a system, as I mentioned, it emergent and organic. The market doesn't do anything, but the agents within it react to one another in ways that cannot be replicated by planning.
    Economic calculation debate? I think someone like a President or Congress member has the information and the means to acquire information to make those types of decisions.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    This is just reference to how capitalism naturally provides for a 'mixed economy'. You've confused yourself by essentially thinking "the market means laissez faire'. It doesn't.
    You're mistaken, we do not live in a mixed economy, we live in a fixed economy. Government spending, benefits, and laws are not targeted at improving equality and competition, which is the main theory of the mixed economy, but rather ensuring the continued growth and benefit of the elite corporate owners on top.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

  7. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    You're mistaken, we do not live in a mixed economy, we live in a fixed economy.
    This is just drivel. We know that the economic spectrum goes from laissez faire to command economy. We know that the US is a mixed economy. Now you might not like the nature of US capitalism, but that doesn't give an excuse for the erroneous comment.

    Government spending, benefits, and laws are not targeted at improving equality and competition, which is the main theory of the mixed economy, but rather ensuring the continued growth and benefit of the elite corporate owners on top.
    You're confusing yourself here with the different types of mixed economies. A social democracy, for example, will clearly stand out from the Anglo-Saxon capitalism employed by the US. However, the ultimate aim is essentially the same: use of government to stabilise a capitalist regime (They just differ in how to achieve that)

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    This is just drivel. We know that the economic spectrum goes from laissez faire to command economy. We know that the US is a mixed economy. Now you might not like the nature of US capitalism, but that doesn't give an excuse for the erroneous comment.


    You're confusing yourself here with the different types of mixed economies. A social democracy, for example, will clearly stand out from the Anglo-Saxon capitalism employed by the US. However, the ultimate aim is essentially the same: use of government to stabilise a capitalist regime (They just differ in how to achieve that)
    Stabilization is different from fixation. The US economy has fixed winners and losers. Therefore my comment is not erroneous at all but rather quite accurate.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    Stabilization is different from fixation. The US economy has fixed winners and losers. Therefore my comment is not erroneous at all but rather quite accurate.
    I haven't found one spark of validity in your posts so far! Even if you want to whinge about the US class system (and her relative lack of social mobility), you're still referring to a mixed economy. Given market concentration, its just reliant on other mechanisms to stabilise the economy and protect economic rents: such as the traditional use of Military Keynesianism.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reiver View Post
    I haven't found one spark of validity in your posts so far! Even if you want to whinge about the US class system (and her relative lack of social mobility), you're still referring to a mixed economy. Given market concentration, its just reliant on other mechanisms to stabilise the economy and protect economic rents: such as the traditional use of Military Keynesianism.
    Do you think GM could fail? The answer is no. Thus they can only succeed. Thus the result is fixed.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 9 of 37 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can a good person be poor, and a bad person be rich?
    By Daybreaker in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Dec 03 2011, 10:37 AM
  2. Rich Nancy Pelosi says rich don’t want higher taxes because they hate kids
    By GiveUsLibertyin2012 in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep 02 2011, 11:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks