Bar Stool Economics

[tubgirl]

probably a repost, but:

I thought all you Obama lovers should read this.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such
good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by
$20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first
four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the
other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so
that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six
is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man
and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the
tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got
only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at
all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and
had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even
half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a < BR>tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just
may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

[tubgirl]

and:

Another one I read.

To All My Valued Employees:


There have been some rumblings around the office about the
future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As
you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents
many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy
doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten
your job however, is the changing political landscape in
this country.


Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you
whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate
based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc.
Please vote who you think will serve your interests the
best.


However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which
might help you decide what is in your best interests.


First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts
employers against employees, you have to understand that for
every business owner there is a back story. This back story
is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and
hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've
seen my big home at last year¢s Christmas party. I'm
sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some
idealized thoughts about my life.


However, what you don't see is the back story.


I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived
in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire
living apartment was converted into an office so I could put
forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way,
would eventually employ you.


My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every
dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty
Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't
have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends,
while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I
was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and
sacrifice.


Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week
and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they
earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes
and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the
Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was
trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing
item that didn't look like it was birthed in the
70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a
life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my
money, and my life into a business with a vision that
eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these
luxuries my friends supposedly had.


So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am,
mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I
don't. There is no "off" button for me. When
you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend
all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I
eat, ####, and breathe this company every minute of the day.
There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy
hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1
year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the
fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the
vacations... you never realize the back story and the
sacrifices I've made.


Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made
all the right decisions and saved his money, have to
bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that
overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same
luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life
for.


Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price
I've paid is steep and without wounds.


Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and
employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of
marginal benefit and let me tell you why:


I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I
don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes.
Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers
compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I
have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then
guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him.
Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting
that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th,
I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for
quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check
was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.


The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the
economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying
jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a
flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home
pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare
check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the
economic stimulus of this country.


The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your
paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I
mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get
rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is
why your job is in jeopardy.


Here is what many of you don't understand ... to
stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the
economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I
didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of
depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I
would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated
substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed
the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and
better salaries. But you can forget it now.


When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you
don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that
will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate
his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always
has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it.
Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of
America are the essential drivers of the American economic
engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is
the type of change you can keep.


So where am I going with all this?


It's quite simple.


If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my
reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your
co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay
for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future.
Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore.


Then, I will close this company down, move to another
country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done
with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to
the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs
will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.


While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper,
don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there
is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero


So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, who
understands the economics of business ownership and who
doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job?


Answer those questions and you should know who might be the
one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to
tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm
telling you it isn't.


If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the
economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane
that swept through this country, steamrolled the
constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever.
If that happens, you can find me in the South Caribbean
sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry
about.


Signed,
Your Boss

[tsntx]

wow now thats perspective

[Cuchulain]

Another sad attack against the Progressive Income Tax system, a resurrection of Ronnie RAYGUN's fictitious 'welfare queen' and more bullshit 'trickle-down' economics.

[tubgirl]

Another sad attack against the Progressive Income Tax system, a resurrection of Ronnie RAYGUN's fictitious 'welfare queen' and more bullshit 'trickle-down' economics.

why is it a "sad attack"? everything that was written is very logical and easy to follow....

[slinky]

Except it's not plausible in real life. Are Wall Street attorneys going to pull up stakes and leave the US if their taxes get raised because they make more than $500,000? Really? Where the fuck are they gonna go and what the fuck are they going to do somewhere else where they will do better?

The concept is moronically over simplistic. And the central concept that on the price cut everyone gets together and beats up the wealthy is setting up a straw man to knock down. The rich, in general, aren't going anywhere because they can't get what they get here anywhere else. The idea that if they get hit any harder than they currently are that they are all going to flee the country is just outright ridiculous.

[Oli]

Perhaps you should check your sources first-

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/ -Read the first line.


From 'Viral GrapeVine.com'-
There is a bogus viral email that you may notice floating through your email from time to time called “How Tax Cuts Work” by David R. Kamerschen, Professor. First, no one knows who really wrote this article or joke. Professor Kamerschen refutes the fact that he is the author. It was in fact originally circulated in 2001 or 2002 under the name of T. Davies.

And here is the humorous response, taking into account the real events of the past 8 years:
In the US and throughout most of the rest of the world, the tenth man would have paid off a politician for $10 to get a beer subsidy of $30 per night(to create jobs for the bartender). Of this $30, $10 of course would have covered the lobbying expense, $10 would go in his own pocket, $1 would go to the bartender to keep his mouth shut, and $9 would go to the bar.

The Bar would give him a kickback of $10 each night for bringing in his 9 buddies to make them into alcoholics, repeat customers for life.

The Bar would then raise their prices to $130 citing inflation and higher taxes.

The tenth richest man would then secure his finances in a Dutch Holding Company managed by a trust in Ireland which invests in Chase and Bank of America. He would then explain to his buddies that he is as poor as the rest of them and can’t afford to pay himself as he cries into his beer that night citing his latest financial report which shows him to be broke on paper so that he doesn’t have to pay taxes in the United States ever again.

Citing his former generosity, the other nine men would agree that the tenth man can now pay nothing like the 4 poorest.

The others would then be faced with an adjusted amount of

* The fifth would pay $3.
* The sixth would pay $10.
* The seventh would pay $22.
* The eighth would pay $38.
* The ninth would pay $57.

Now the group would recognize that this is not fair and so would lobby the Government for an Earned Drinking Credit for the Poorest men. The government would oblige and give the four poorest men $2 each, but they would tax the 5th - 9th men $2 each as well.

* 4 men receive a total of $8 and 5 men pay $10.

The adjusted amounts would then look like this for all 10

* First Receives $2 pays $2 | Net 0
* Second Receives $2 pays $2 | Net 0
* Third Receives $2 pays $2 | Net 0
* Fourth Receives $2 pays $2 | Net 0
* Fifth Pay $1 to bar pays $2 to tax | net paid $3
* Sixth Pay $8 to bar; pays $2 to tax | net paid $10
* Seventh Pay $20 to bar; pays $2 to tax | net paid $22
* Eighth Pay $36 to bar pays $2 to tax | net paid $38
* Ninth Pay $55 to bar; pays $2 to tax | net paid $57
* Tenth Man: Tax Credit Received: $30 ;
Pays $10 to politician;
$1 to bartender;
Receives $10 from Bar
Net RECEIVED $29 per night and free beer

Of course this can not go on forever as the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth men can’t afford to pay those rates forever. So they start paying with their credit cards held by Bank of America and Chase.

The tenth man would start demanding a higher Return on Investment from his investment managers, who would be hearing similar requests from all of their other investors. They would then expand their holdings into mortgaged back securities where a good deal more profit could be made.

Meanwhile the Fifth through ninth men are racking up debt on their credit cards from drinking every night, their health care costs are increasing as their liver fails, and they are also spending more on gasoline as they drink and drive as they can no longer afford to cab it.

Ultimately, they end up refinancing their credit cards into their house where they have equity. The mortgage broker promises them a 4.9% interest rate on the refinance which sounds good as their credit card interest rate is up to 21%. The broker promises them that they will not have to verify their income, provide W2’s nor copies of their tax paper work.

Their mortgage broker doesn’t tell them, but lies about the value of their house in order to refinance their credit and help them avoid paying private mortgage insurance. At their current income levels, and without verifying their income, their mortgage would be classified as Sub Prime and the interest rate would be 10.9%

The mortgage officer lies about their income levels as well to boost the internal credit scoring mechanism and get them financed, not at 4.9% but 5.9%, which is better than 10.9% and happens to pay the mortgage broker a higher commission than a loan at 4.9% that is not sub prime.

The mortgage broker also promises them a payment of $900 per month, but fails to mention the balloon payment of $50,000 in the 5th year and doesn’t mention the adjustable rates in year 3.

The men separately show up with a hangover and sun glasses on the date of their close for their new mortgages. They trust their broker and do not read the paperwork in detail flipping and signing almost as fast as they could raise a beer bottle to their lips.

The loan closes, the mortgage broker gets a fat commission, the bank securitizes the mortgages by selling them to an Irish Hedge Fund and pockets collectively a billion dollars in profits that year.

The hedge fund holds the investment for a year, shows a 35% gain on paper and starts selling shares to retirement funds and 401ks in the US that the Sixth through 9th men just happen to have the rest of their life savings sitting in.

The tenth man sees the writing on the wall, literally magic marker on a stall in the restroom of the bar.

“The end is Nigh”

He pulls his money out of the Irish Hedge fund invested in real estate and invests in Gold at $600 a troy ounce.

Meanwhile, he lobbies congress to tighten bankruptcy laws for credit cards which he still has a sizable investment in. Congress tightens bankruptcy laws and makes it impossible to absolve credit card debt, forcing people into chapter 13 where they must pay off the debt within 3 years or go to debtors prison where they can work it off in 7 years.

Gas prices are still going up so the President ignores a minor terrorist threat, allows the terrorists to blow up a major building and then goes to war with the terrorists home country where there is no oil, and simultaneously with a country that sits on 10% of the worlds oil reserves that has a decimated military infrastructure.

Oil prices shoot through the roof with Gold following close behind. The President whose family comes from oil barons make a fortune and become famous at their skull and bones country club outside of Yale.

Meanwhile our famous 10 guys, start paying even more money at the pump. The first 4 guys end up taking second jobs working at Wal-Mart and have to give up drinking at the bar so that they can try and beat their teenage kids out of a promotion.

The fifth and sixth guys get foreclosed upon. They were forced to stop paying their mortgage payments so that they could pay their mandatory credit card payments as required by the new bankruptcy law.

The seventh, eighth and ninth men all previously traded up their homes for McMansions that they can not afford with interest only payments of $2300 a month. When foreclosures start happening their plans on flipping their McMansions and cashing in on the equity slips through their fingers.

To make matters worse seven and eight get laid off from the companies they work for when their jobs get outsourced to China. The ninth man keeps his job at a law firm, but fails to notice that his 401k fund is slipping and has lost 10% in the last year. Things are looking up as his law firm seems on the edge of landing a big contract with Merrill Lynch.

Then the real estate crash and sub prime mortgage scandal erupt. Banks start dropping like flies to be saved not by the cash strapped government that can barely afford the war for oil any longer, but by China. Oil and Gold soar, Gold hits $900 a troy ounce and Oil hits $130 a barrel (about the same amount for 10 rounds of beer prior to the crash). Beer prices hold steady for the first few months, but then start to edge up as gas prices for delivery creep into the bar owners expenses.

Then the first four men one night remember their favorite bar. They sneak around back around 4:30 am and steal 50 empty kegs that just happen to be made of pure aluminum. Those kegs are now worth about half the value of a keg that is full in scrap metal prices or about $80.

They are not stupid and don’t want to get caught turning the kegs in at the dump where the police are already looking for keg thieves. So they head out to the closed down manufacturing plant where they used to work. They start a big fire, and melt down the aluminum into big messy aluminum splashes on the cement.

They turn in the aluminum for cash and get caught up on their back alimony and child support before heading back to work at Wal-mart where they now work for their teen age kids that beat them out for that promotion earlier in the month because their job skills weren’t as good as recent high school graduates. They then begin dreaming of new ways to find aluminum alimony allowances.

Meanwhile, the banks and mortgage companies lobby congress spending about $10,000 a head in an election year to bail out the economy. Congress provides the major banks with government backed loans to refinance the bad sub prime loans so that the government can personally guarantee those bad loans. They also put $100 billion of actual cash into the hands of Americans hoping to stimulate the economy.

Americans however, are all in debt up to their eye balls and use the extra $1200 they receive to make 2-3 credit card payments. They take the $300 for each kid and buy groceries for the month and then they start worrying about next month.

The banks get away free as they have Chinese financing now and no bad loans as they have refinanced them over to the US Government. The US government had to print more money to pay for all of these actions and so Gold goes up to $1500 a troy ounce.

The tenth man is now worth Billions and moves to Costa Rica to retire taking the new trophy wife that used to be the bartenders girl friend with him.

The first four men end up going to county prison for 3 months for stealing aluminum dog crap receptacles after running out of kegs to steal.

The fifth and sixth men end up living in an apartment and then homeless after they lose their jobs at Wal-Mart.

The seventh and eighth men whom we previously left hanging in our story after they lost their jobs and ability to pay for their homes, end up losing their homes, and their kids. They and their spouses are each convicted of mortgage fraud by the FBI in a major sting operation after it is revealed that they lied on their mortgage applications. Their mortgage brokers who actually did the paper work cop a plea agreement in exchange for immunity with the Feds and rat out each of their unsuspecting customers.

The ninth man ends up losing his entire retirement fund which took a big hit as the dollar rapidly plummeted into free fall. He ends up refinancing his own house under a government backed loan for $650,000. Unfortunately, a tornado comes through that winter in a freak coincidence and levels the home. FEMA promises to provide assistance but never shows up and the ninth man freezes to death attempting to salvage the shreds of his belongings. His home insurance policy refuses to pay as they claim that his house was over valued and then they prove it with comparables studies from his own mortgage brokers database.

The tenth man ends up dumping his new bride a year later, moving back to the states a year after that when the US appears to have hit rock bottom and he leads up a Chinese real estate investment initiative in the states. He makes another $10 billion in ten years, but is then executed in Beijing for espionage.

Meanwhile, the bar tender goes on to win American Idol and sleep with Paula Abdul. They are now blissfully happy, doped up on anti-psychotics, and the biggest two idiots the world has ever seen.

[Jonny29]

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

[chefmike]

disclaimer I voted Bob Barr

LMAO...and you admit to it?

[fitz207]

Another sad attack against the Progressive Income Tax system, a resurrection of Ronnie RAYGUN's fictitious 'welfare queen' and more bullshit 'trickle-down' economics.
Thank You!!

[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.

[Cuchulain]

Wow, just fucking wow.


Unethical conduct in government is as old as the institution itself.

The same is true of unethical conduct in business.


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.

Talk about wildly convoluted logic. Yes, lobbyists exist because in a system where govt regulates business, bribing the officials who create and administer those regulations provides a means to slither out from under them. But suggesting that the answer is to remove govt power to regulate is simply...amazing...or maybe horrifying would be a better word. So if the police were taking bribes from criminals, you say that removing legislation against criminal activity is the answer? If it's not illegal, the police can't arrest them, so there would be no reason for crooks to bribe the cops? Sweet Jesus....

Heres a thought: How about if we throw the corrupt cops in jail along with the other criminals?

Business is not going to regulate itself

[NYBURBS]

Wow, just fucking wow.


Unethical conduct in government is as old as the institution itself.

The same is true of unethical conduct in business.


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.

Talk about wildly convoluted logic. Yes, lobbyists exist because in a system where govt regulates business, bribing the officials who create and administer those regulations provides a means to slither out from under them. But suggesting that the answer is to remove govt power to regulate is simply...amazing...or maybe horrifying would be a better word. So if the police were taking bribes from criminals, you say that removing legislation against criminal activity is the answer? If it's not illegal, the police can't arrest them, so there would be no reason for crooks to bribe the cops? Sweet Jesus....

Heres a thought: How about if we throw the corrupt cops in jail along with the other criminals?

Business is not going to regulate itself

Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves.

Also as I have repeatedly said, laws that forbid trespassing upon the rights of another such as murder, assault, robbery, etc are completely different then coming in and telling someone how they must now use their property. There are of course instances where property rights clash and you need laws and courts to mediate those disputes in a civil manner. That is completely different from what we have today though.

[trish]

Competition is not a regulator of business; it is that which drives businesses to outdo each other. In some instances competition will do the opposite of a regulator. Businesses which, for example, compete for natural resources (like lumber, furs, fish and oil) can and have driven each other to deplete those resources.

The property of corporation is not generally the property of one single individual but of the shareholders. Sometimes a corporation will “harvest” a resource that in fact belongs to all of us and call it their own. I see no problem with laws that tell corporations what to do with their property. Even in the case of individual persons we have laws that restrict the use of property. You can’t shoot people with your guns, you can’t spy on your neighbors with your binoculars and you can’t direct your stereo speakers at full volume into your neighbor’s bedroom. These are laws of trespass, yes and like tax laws they don’t mention guns, binoculars or stereos; but they are also laws that restrict the use of personal property.

Property is not a metaphysical connection between you and your belongings, nor is it a physical connection. There is no physical or chemical test that one can perform on a person and lawn chair that will decide whether that person owns that lawn chair. That’s because the cosmos does not recognize ownership. Ownership is a human invention, a social construction and exists only in a social context. Society will always adjust that construction as it sees fit.

[yodajazz]

....
Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves...



http://featured-stories.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-cox-and-bernanke-call-for.html
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-cox-bernanke-call-for-regulation.html
This just in: George Bush,Christopher Cox, SEC chairman, and Bernanke are calling for greater regulation of Credit Default Swaps. Plus the article says the more regulations of them will be addressed at the G-20 Summit.
NYBURBS let go! Let go and feel the warmth around your body knowing that business regulations are protecting you. Yes, there is even freedom here on our side. All you need to do is surrender to the force.

[NYBURBS]

....
Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves...



http://featured-stories.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-cox-and-bernanke-call-for.html
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-cox-bernanke-call-for-regulation.html
This just in: George Bush,Christopher Cox, SEC chairman, and Bernanke are calling for greater regulation of Credit Default Swaps. Plus the article says the more regulations of them will be addressed at the G-20 Summit.
NYBURBS let go! Let go and feel the warmth around your body knowing that business regulations are protecting you. Yes, there is even freedom here on our side. All you need to do is surrender to the force.

Dude because George Bush endorses something I should want it? LOLOLOLOLOL. That guy's administration has been poison to everything it touches, hence another reason why I don't want the government touching much of anything. Regulation helped get us into this mess, with forced lending for instance.

As for Christopher Cox, he was a partner in one of the biggest law firms in the world. The guy and his friends make their living off of regulation. If you don't have the government making bad rules, then you don't have a bogeyman with deep pockets to sue or challenge.

Oh and Ben Bernanke wants more control of the economy huh. The man sits as the Chairmen of the board that rules the economy with an iron fist. The first thing people like me want to see done is to have the Federal Reserve abolished, never mind listen to what its chairman wants.

[yodajazz]

The point I was trying to make assumed that many people, you might consider as left wing or liberal are calling for more regulation of certain business practices. But now we have people like George Bush, and Alan Greenspan saying that changes are needed. Greenspan in particular had been a champion of deregulation. A Sixty Minutes piece, called “credit default swaps” legalized gambling. If people were doing that with their own money is one thing, but to do that with people’s pension money saved over years of work is another thing altogether. Even the G-20 Summit will be looking at the practice, according to the article. It looks like your position that ‘all government financial regulation.’ is bad, has less and less support these days.

On the other it’s not true that all regulation is good either. I think a majority might say that moderation between over regulation and under-regulation is the answer.

[NYBURBS]

The point I was trying to make assumed that many people, you might consider as left wing or liberal are calling for more regulation of certain business practices. But now we have people like George Bush, and Alan Greenspan saying that changes are needed. Greenspan in particular had been a champion of deregulation. A Sixty Minutes piece, called “credit default swaps” legalized gambling. If people were doing that with their own money is one thing, but to do that with people’s pension money saved over years of work is another thing altogether. Even the G-20 Summit will be looking at the practice, according to the article. It looks like your position that ‘all government financial regulation.’ is bad, has less and less support these days.

On the other it’s not true that all regulation is good either. I think a majority might say that moderation between over regulation and under-regulation is the answer.

Yea because we find those balances oh so often in government right? If they engage in questionable practices with other people's money then leave people the right to sue them, or see if the conduct falls into some type of criminal behavior. You know there are plenty of actual criminal laws dealing with fraud, filing false instruments, etc., that have not been pursued much in the vast majority of these cases.

Further look where government intervention into the economy has gotten us. The most recent examples being the Treasury Department's decision to completely change direction and invest directly in banks rather than buy assets in that reverse auction they first championed. Funny how they miraculously develop this new idea after the check is cut.

Now there's also the push to bail out the auto companies with our money, even though everyone knows they make a shit product and have an even shittier business model. Of course there are the promises that the auto-makers will be even more "strictly" regulated if they get this money.

As for my position having broad support, that has zero to do with my belief in the basic truth of my argument. Also I posted in another thread here an argument as to why many of these liberals are not much different than the neo-cons and religion nuts. All of those groups favor strong government control, just in different forms or for varying purposes. Alan Greenspan is a whole separate story, but basically if he really believed in less regulation then he would not have taken a leadership position with the Federal Reserve.

[hippifried]

Alan Greenspan is a whole separate story, but basically if he really believed in less regulation then he would not have taken a leadership position with the Federal Reserve.
Yeah he would. You get to control how much regulation there is if you're the regulator. Then again, the Fed's just a consortium of banks under a government contract. Everybody loves to milk a government contract.