Bar Stool Economics

[Cuchulain]

I'm constantly amazed by the REICHwing sobbing over Obama's desire to repeal Shrubya's tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. The upward redistribution of wealth over the last eight years doesn't bother them, but God forbid a few pennies might be redistributed downwards. "It's not fair" they whine, or 'the rich will leave". Fuck 'em, I say. Good riddance.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves the much higher compensation."
-- Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union message, 1861

What if we all just went on strike? Stopped building, manufacturing, providing services, teaching, policing, fighting fires, etc.? Where would the richest 1% be then? On their knees, begging us to go back to work, so they could maintain their obscene lifestyles.

It's worth repeating: Fuck 'em!

[hippifried]

Well, you can disregard and pooh pooh the first couple of posts, but the guy on wall street can easily go to a lower income tax country.

Yeah! Go screw somebody else for a while.

[NYBURBS]

I'm constantly amazed by the REICHwing sobbing over Obama's desire to repeal Shrubya's tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. The upward redistribution of wealth over the last eight years doesn't bother them, but God forbid a few pennies might be redistributed downwards. "It's not fair" they whine, or 'the rich will leave". Fuck 'em, I say. Good riddance.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves the much higher compensation."
-- Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union message, 1861

What if we all just went on strike? Stopped building, manufacturing, providing services, teaching, policing, fighting fires, etc.? Where would the richest 1% be then? On their knees, begging us to go back to work, so they could maintain their obscene lifestyles.

It's worth repeating: Fuck 'em!

Ya well a couple of problems with your statement. First, they are co-dependent, but labor nevertheless needs a value and that eventually turns into capital. Unless you are going to work for yourself in a vaccum, there has to be some means of measurement. People that accumulate that capital, and invest it to begin a business, then create additional opportunity for you to ply your labor skills.

One does not have to be anti-labor to be pro-capitalist. I think too often people confuse this pro-corporate semi-fascist shit that we have in the United States for capitalism. You have never seen actual capitalism in this nation. The closet we have come in our life time is internet based commerce, and it is a flourishing opportunity for people of all means and classes. I'd also note that the internet is probably the least regulated business structure in the world.

[Cuchulain]

One does not have to be anti-labor to be pro-capitalist. I think too often people confuse this pro-corporate semi-fascist shit that we have in the United States for capitalism. You have never seen actual capitalism in this nation. The closet we have come in our life time is internet based commerce, and it is a flourishing opportunity for people of all means and classes. I'd also note that the internet is probably the least regulated business structure in the world.

The Republican Party, big corporations and most of the wealthy few trumpet the superiority of 'free market capitalism' from the rooftops. Since Reagan, they've pretty much had their way and bought the system of regulation they wanted. This isn't free market capitalism? Could these pillars of the nation be lying?

You have never seen actual capitalism in this nation

And we never will. Why? Because economic systems don't exist in a vacuum. They are created by government. The battle between Labor and Capital decides what regulations apply and therefore who gains the most benefit from the system. Capital (the wealthy few) want more. Labor (most of us) want more. It's a battle as old as society itself. Capital has always had the advantage. Since Reagan and his 'trickle-down' horseshit, that advantage has increased. It's increased staggeringly with Bush/Cheney and Repub control of Congress, despite the fact that everybody owns the 'Commons' - air, water, natural resources and govt services.

We hope that the pendulum will now swing back in our direction.

Comrade BURBS, let me ask you this: if you can't have the pure unregulated capitalism that you champion, which side would you like the pendulum to be on, Workers or Capital? You've posted that you see problems with too much wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. Let me put it another way. Do you prefer socialism for the People or socialism for the Rich? Do you really think there will ever be another choice?

I think the best we can hope for is some kind of balance, but the heavy thumb of money will always be on the scales in favor of Capital.

[NYBURBS]

COMRADE Que pasa? To answer your question, I'm not willing to compromise or settle on either. I know it's not quite pragmatic, but then again I'm sure people said the same thing the first time someone proposed doing away with the Monarchy. I gravitate toward free market capitalism not because I think it is free of all evil, nothing is. I just believe that it offers the greatest amount of freedom while also providing prosperity.

You are right that there has always been a mix in this nation, we also have never witnessed full scale socialism. I know that most who champion that system do it because they believe it will bring the greatest good; however, I must disagree. On the other hand the wealth has not been concentrated in a few because of free markets, it has become so because the government has intervened at times on behalf of the wealthy and aided them by enacting laws which specifically favor them.

All things come down to patience and perseverance; there have been pivotal times in history when we make great strides toward freedom. I have to hope that I or my children will see another one of those great thrusts. Obama might bring change, perhaps even benevolent change, but it will not be that thrust toward freedom that I talk about.

PS- Yea the Republicans have been lying lol. The Soviets claimed they were a People's government moving toward the communist ideal. Yet the leaders lived in relative luxury while all the schmucks waited on bread lines. It's why giving government so much power is a problem, regardless of which direction they claim to be moving in.

[yodajazz]

Well, you can disregard and pooh pooh the first couple of posts, but the guy on wall street can easily go to a lower income tax country. Then some of the voters who voted for higher taxes "on someone else " is then subject to higher taxes himself to make up the difference. That is in fact justice! and remember if you voted for higher taxes on someone else YOU can always pay in more if you want. But you never do, do you?

disclaimer I voted Bob Barr

I question as to what countries, have these lower taxes. It is in the US, where there is a high precentage of the world's total wealth that enable many people rich to prosper. It is my understanding that many countries that I consider progressive, like the European nations, have higher tax rates than the US. But if Haiti or China is your cup of tea, then go for it. How about Afgahanistan? Lower taxes, but higher tributes to war lords.
Maybe the Congo, as a non-member of a warring ethnic group, maybe you can avoid the conflict? But maybe not? I predict that Iraq's economy will rebound, but which ethnic group would you like to live with?

[yodajazz]

... I gravitate toward free market capitalism not because I think it is free of all evil, nothing is. I just believe that it offers the greatest amount of freedom while also providing prosperity...

A major issue with free markets is that with profit as the bottom line there comes a tipping point where profit for one company or industry can hurt the overall good. The situation in the US now is that people are being fee'd to death. The ideal account is one that is late and generating a lot of fees. Therefore the payee's money is not going towards any tangible goods or property but straight into the companies coffers. That has something to do with why people with marginal finances were granted large loans. Freedom for excutives; economic serfdom for the masses.

The free market concept does not take into account that a few can benefit from unethical practices. An example that I recenty read where three excectutives split a 20 million dollar bonus, 4 days before their company declared banckruptcy. That meant they were not able to pay their creditors, but received bonuses. That's an example of a 'free market' system.

[NYBURBS]

A major issue with free markets is that with profit as the bottom line there comes a tipping point where profit for one company or industry can hurt the overall good. The situation in the US now is that people are being fee'd to death. The ideal account is one that is late and generating a lot of fees. Therefore the payee's money is not going towards any tangible goods or property but straight into the companies coffers. That has something to do with why people with marginal finances were granted large loans. Freedom for excutives; economic serfdom for the masses.

The free market concept does not take into account that a few can benefit from unethical practices. An example that I recenty read where three excectutives split a 20 million dollar bonus, 4 days before their company declared banckruptcy. That meant they were not able to pay their creditors, but received bonuses. That's an example of a 'free market' system.

First of all there will always be greed. It is a defining and driving force in human nature. Ideally in a free market risk is suppose to act as a check on that greed. However, taxpayer funded bailouts kind of kill that check and balance.

Company executives certainly are overpaid in many instances, but again corporatism does not go hand in hand with free markets. The monopolies that everyone screams about are created because the government interferes in the economy on behalf of certain companies or interests. They provide help to start an industry and then regulate it or place so much red tape as to make it impossible for others to break in. They also aim certain tax breaks or other spending at particular companies. The government also helps to insulate executives through the way LLCs and incorporation work. Private parties should have greater freedom to pursue executives and their wealth in civil torts when there is fraud or other breaches.

Btw there is always going to be unethical conduct. There is just as much or more unethical conduct in government, yet so many advocate giving over more of our money to the government and allowing them to decide which companies to give it to. At least in free markets there is the ethic of risk that checks the actions of companies and you would also be free to choose where to spend your money. Just to reinforce my point, what we have right now is many things, a real free market is not what it is though.

[yodajazz]

I think you are overlooking the fact that once a business gets money, they can rarely get competition from a business with less money, unless an outside force like government regulation or labor can intercede. And labor has been weakened by government rulings favoring business owners. Think about Walmart. Who could compete with their volume buying? It’s not government regulation that keeps out competitors.

I would say the unethical conduct in government is mostly because, those same businesses and industries with money to hire lobbyists, have undue influence. And also government people whose job it is to put the public good over industries go to work for the same industries they have been regulating. Or businesses hire someone directly from an government agency that gives them business contracts.

[NYBURBS]

I think you are overlooking the fact that once a business gets money, they can rarely get competition from a business with less money, unless an outside force like government regulation or labor can intercede. And labor has been weakened by government rulings favoring business owners. Think about Walmart. Who could compete with their volume buying? It’s not government regulation that keeps out competitors.

You would never see start up companies if that were true. People come up with better ideas to do something, or they join with others to pool their resources and compete. There are always new innovations and ideas to break any strangle hold a company might seem to have. It's when government comes in and says "oh it must be this certain way and we will pass legislation to help this or that company" that you begin to get the problems we have today.

I would say the unethical conduct in government is mostly because, those same businesses and industries with money to hire lobbyists, have undue influence. And also government people whose job it is to put the public good over industries go to work for the same industries they have been regulating. Or businesses hire someone directly from an government agency that gives them business contracts.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Unethical conduct in government is as old as the institution itself. When you have the power to tell people "do A or we will do B to you" you end up with a corrupting force. There is currently this vast amount of corruption because the government has so much power over day to day life. So the easiest path for these business owners now is to simply pay to get the influence they want. Reduce the reach of government and you remove that incentive.