tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post6949341273069203967..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: Canadian Study a Lesson for Teabaggers: "Three in Four Suffer From Cuts to Public Spending"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-89046602492687484872009-05-11T00:54:00.000-07:002009-05-11T00:54:00.000-07:00entacto sez...
...but as a theory it is far less...entacto sez...<br /><br /><EM> ...but as a theory it is far less ideological than capitalism. <br /><br />Any child should realize that a theory that talks about infinite exponential economic growth organized by an "invisible hand"/"the market" as a plausible reality has nothing to do with nature as we know it.</EM>Free market ideology suffers from unquestioned and unexamined assumptions about the efficiency of 'free markets' which are themselves defined upon a bias. <br /><br />Even Adam Smith espoused the 'labor theory of value'. Latter day 'free market' proponents, however, now believe that capital creates wealth and value. That's bullshit, of course! But it results from the right wing's fallacious attempt, indeed, its NEED to justify their utterly unproved and unprovable assumptions. Briefly --the right wing is wrong and full of shit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-37139338522706637212009-05-10T14:17:00.000-07:002009-05-10T14:17:00.000-07:00And as for capitalism being inherently flawed, I r...<I> And as for capitalism being inherently flawed, I rather disagree. It isn't so much an ideology as a lack of one; the natural state which humans form for themselves in the absence of government. </I>The "natural state" - argument is itself ideological as there is no such thing. It´s however quite a marvelous accomplishment that Marxism - an evolving scientific theory with impressive predictive power - is viewed as an ideology while capitalism - an interest driven ideology posing as a scientific theory (while its predictions are about as good as Bill Kristols) - is considered as describing "natural law" of social organization. I don´t mean to say that Socialism is "the truth" - but as a theory it is far less ideological than capitalism. <br /><br />Any child should realize that a theory that talks about infinite exponential economic growth organized by an "invisible hand"/"the market" as a plausible reality has nothing to do with nature as we know it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03187076087472008332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-53012179859969207962009-04-16T07:53:00.000-07:002009-04-16T07:53:00.000-07:00A final point on that topic --it is NO coincidence...A final point on that topic --it is NO coincidence that the US was MOST PRODUCTIVE when it it was MOST EGALITARIAN and it was MOST egalitarian when the PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES were the highest, very nearly 90 percent for the highest income earners. <br /><br />That was during the Presidency of FDR and it is one of the many reasons the right wing HATES FDR --not because he raised their taxes (they could afford it) but because HE SUCCEEDED while EVERY GOP regime since 1900 has been a dismal fuckin failure. <br /><br />Secondly, a flat tax, by ENRICHING the upper one percent even more so, will --in effect --result in a contraction of the total money supply just as GOP tax cuts have always 'contracted' the money supply. It is no accident that EVERY MAJOR recession since WWII has occurred during and as a result of a GOP regime. <br /><br />Check the Bureau of Labor Stats, the Census Bureau and the US Department of Commerce-BEA. That rows of tables, charts, graphs will prove my assertions and confirm my conclusions.<br /><br />Bottom line --'investment' does NOT create wealth. Only labor creates wealth. Unless there is a 'market' for a new service or product, NO AMOUNT of incentives will create new jobs. It is, rather, just another WINDFALL which elites squirrel away offshore. Result: contraction and, thus, recession/depression. <br /><br />I have often cited Keynes, but you might also read Paul Krugman. The 'labor theory of value', by the way, is most often associated with David Ricardo and considerably later, Karl Marx. However, both Adam Smith (free market conservative) and other 'classicists' agreed. <br /><br />It would appear that it was only the idiots enthrall to R. Reagan who thought they might rewrite economic history. They failed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-61989705878933186402009-04-16T07:40:00.000-07:002009-04-16T07:40:00.000-07:00AdamS sez...Tax cuts don't have to trickle anywher...AdamS sez...<BR><BR><EM>Tax cuts don't have to trickle anywhere, just give then same cut to everyone...</EM> <BR><BR>That's simplistic. That will only make the rich even richer. Anyone NOT a member of the tiny elite spends MOST of their money just staying alive. The very rich need spend ONLY tiny percentage of his/her income 'staying alive'. See the "L-Curve". Google it! It may be counter-intuitive, but, in fact, a FLAT tax is an INEQUITABLE tax.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-81192003873757454952009-04-16T07:21:00.000-07:002009-04-16T07:21:00.000-07:00Tax cuts don't have to trickle anywhere, just give...Tax cuts don't have to trickle anywhere, just give then same cut to everyone...<br /><br />And as for capitalism being inherently flawed, I rather disagree. It isn't so much an ideology as a lack of one; the natural state which humans form for themselves in the absence of government. All else is 'ideology'; grand ideas about changing the natural order, whether that be Keynesianism, Monetarism, Socialism, Corporatism, all are attempts to make centralised authority 'work' for the people. They don't even bother to acknowledge the possibility that a powerful centralised authority doesn't have to exist and that freedom works better and is more moral than any of the above concepts.<br /><br />(That's why I am personally in support of gold and silver money as legal tender; it's money that is not controlled by central authority. Dare I say it's real money, since its value comes from the market rather than by fiat.)<br /><br />To restore capitalism, whole departments of government need to go. Education, Health, Homeland Security, Energy, and so on. They are the cause of crony capitalism or economic fascism, and they serve the interests of the corporations rather than the people.<br /><br />Also, I'm not sure what you're saying about tax cuts and recession...are you saying the cuts caused the recession? 'Cause there I am looking at a $1.4 Quadrillion derivatives Ponzi scheme, but hey maybe it was the tax cuts after all.AdamShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217603013523768701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-4841900746783533152009-04-16T02:41:00.000-07:002009-04-16T02:41:00.000-07:00AdamS said...
Bush increased the size of the gove...AdamS said...<br /><br /><EM>Bush increased the size of the government, as Obama is doing. With the bailouts, it has been confirmed to the people that the government is run by the bankers.</EM>Lies and hypocrisy define the right wing. Ronald Reagan blasted the GOP boogie man du jour: BIG GOVERNMENT. What did Reagan do? He made the gubbmint bigger. He doubled the size of the federal bureaucracy and TRIPLED the national deficit. All the while, he cut taxes for his ELITE BASE kicking off a trend in which the rich get much, much richer and everyone else is impoverished. <br /><br />That trend --in fact --reversed briefly under Clinton but resumed apace under Bush Jr. Bush Jr seems to have completed what was begun under Reagan i.e, an increasingly tiny elite of just ONE PERCENT of the population owns more than 90 percent of us combined. <br /><br /><EM>Socialism seems better than corporatism or 'crony capitalism'. But real capitalism is better than both. </EM>Capitalism is inherently flawed, premised upon dubious principles. Karl Marx was, in fact, correct about the source of 'value' and the exploitation of labor by 'capital'. 'Real' capitalism has never worked as it was described by Adam Smith. Even in practice, capitalism seems always to ASSUME that 'investment' creates wealth. The fact that it DOES NOT explains why EVERY GOP tax cut has been followed by declines in both productivity and GDP. The GOP/Right wing thinks 'trickle down'. But 'tax cuts' have resulted in wealth FLOWING UPWARD (not 'trickling down) concurrent with DECLINES in investment. <br /><br />Tax cuts benefiting ONLY the increasingly small base have the effect of contracting the supply of 'money'. Such a contraction is called a 'recession' because 'recession' sounds less alarming than 'depression'. Both are defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-88888457348289006442009-04-15T15:03:00.000-07:002009-04-15T15:03:00.000-07:00Don't forget who started the tea parties, the Ron ...Don't forget who started the tea parties, the Ron Paul supporters (and people of all political persuasions) after the bailout, before 9/12 and the neocons hijacked them.<br /><br />http://kevinsword.com/2009/04/hijack-back-the-tea-parties/<br /><br />If government is corrupt to the core (and I would say it is), it's common sense to recommend cutting the funding with which they can be corrupt. It's the best thing to do; I believe it holds true that "a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."<br /><br />And that's just what's happening now. Bush increased the size of the government, as Obama is doing. With the bailouts, it has been confirmed to the people that the government is run by the bankers. Because what was the $12.8 trn used for other than offshore accounts? (We don't really know of course, because of the lack of transparency.)<br /><br />"When governments contract out to private enterprise to provide necessary services, they almost invariably do so under a system that is more crony capitalism than healthy competitive free enterprise."<br /><br />Socialism seems better than corporatism or 'crony capitalism'. But real capitalism is better than both. To restore this, whole government branches need to be removed, so that there is as little state funding as possible to companies; it invites corruption.<br /><br />I also support 'starving the beast' by cutting taxes; the only way to ensure that tax cuts lead to spending cuts, however, is to fix the monetary system by removing the central bank. Then, Andrew Jackson style, the National Debt can be paid off.AdamShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08217603013523768701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-66255204860342266962009-04-15T10:32:00.000-07:002009-04-15T10:32:00.000-07:00I just noticed another dubious debating technique ...I just noticed another dubious debating technique used by Chris Edwards at <I>The Economist</I> and quite common among the intellectually challenged right.<br /><br />"The Economist has chosen a provocative advocate for tax increases. But Thomas Piketty's policies are far out of the mainstream, and I don't think policymakers will take him seriously."<br /><br />OK, I'll give a pass to 'provocative,' and pretend that Mr. Edwards isn't trying to substitute it as a dog-whistle version of 'leftist radical,' which would be more name calling. But by portraying his opponent as 'far out of the mainstream' Edwards is trying to beg the assumption that he himself is in the mainstream, AND that the mainstream is always right. This reduces the logic of his argument to, "my opponent is wrong because he doesn't agree with me." Take away that arrogant assumption and what remains is - - nil.<br /><br />One would do well to be alert to such 'arguments' being made by the right in support of their cause. Even a superficial analysis exposes them as meaningless.SadButTruehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09977090207448656065noreply@blogger.com