Re: King Donald
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:16:05 -0400
- From: "Wolf K." <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: King Donald
On 2017-03-15 14:59, Disaster Master wrote:
On Wed Mar 15 2017 12:21:44 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), Wolf K.
On 2017-03-15 10:19, Disaster Master wrote:
On Tue Feb 21 2017 09:06:52 GMT-0500 (Eastern Daylight Time), Wolf K.
Even those who pay no income tax (the bottom 20% or so) pay taxes.
There are a lot of 'poor' people who not only pay no taxes, they receive
welfare in many forms - ever heard of the 'Earned Income Tax Credit'?
Yes, they may pay some 'sales taxes', but they receive far more than
Well, maybe so. Why shouldn't they?
Because they didn't earn it? Because it was taken at gunpoint from others?
"Treat everyone after his deserts, and who would 'scape whipping?"
(Hamlet to Polonius, when he says he'll treat the actors as they deserve).
Gunpoint? I infer you are a "Libertarian".
Anyhow, I'm not referring only about the direct sales tax, I'm talking
about the taxes passed on in the pre-tax price. Since the Government
accounts for about 1/3rd of the GDP,
Sorry, the government doesn't produce anything - except for red tape.
So when the government run a transit system (for example), it's not
producing services, but when a corp[oration runs it, it's is producing
that very same service. (FTR, I did a study of railway bundling during
the 1800s, for as history course. Some governments built railways, but
by your reckoning, those railways couldn't possibly exist.)
But actually, I agree with you, and I go step further: no organisation
of any kind produces anything. it's the people who make up that
organisation that produce goods and services. As for red tape: all large
organisation are bureaucracies, for a very good reason.
The government is 100% a leech/consumer.
about 1/3rd of every dollar you spend goes to government
Not sure where you got that figure from...
Search on "government spending as percent of GDP". I did.
Taking an even larger view, our economy depends on consumption, not
production. No consumption, no production.
That is a pretty silly comment.
I infer you are willing to produce whatever it is you produce whether
you have customers or not? That's a pretty sully business model.
It actually depends on BOTH, but of course that is obvious.
Think about the difference between a subsistence economy and an
abundance economy. Think about what happens during a recession. Study
the Great Depression, when there was an oversupply of producers and an
undersupply of consumers. Millions of men an women who wanted to work,
but there were no jobs. Why?
You should be happy that the
government subsidises consumption.
Well, I'm not, I'd prefer they get the hell out of my life and my way.
"Hell is other people." (Sartre).
Unlike trickle-down, trickle-up
works: it keep you in business. There's only one wallet: the consumer's.
False dichotomy. A good 'consumer' is also a PRODUCER.
What does a baby produce? A baby is 100% consumer.
"Good" is a value judgment, not an economic one. Without consumers, a
producer has no economic function or purpose whatsoever. (We're are
talking a monetised/trade-based economy here. Trade came rather late in
human history. Money came even later).
The reason our economy is a mess is that too much money is redistributed
upward and extracted from the economy,
Yeah, let's just forget about the money that is redistributed downward
to leeches and parasites.
Ah, yes, that awful poorest 10% who get and spend about 1.6% of
aggregate household income, unlike the top 8%, who get and spend about
28% of aggregate household income. IOW, for every dollar received by one
of those leeches at the bottom, those leeches at the top get about $17.
If you're in the middle, they get it from you, of course.
and used as play-money in the silly game called the stock-market.
No clue what you mean here. The stock market is a voluntary game, and
while I agree it is mostly rigged, there is no law that makes you
Te money spend on stocks produces no wealth. It's just markers in a game
of one-upmanship. It's like monopoly money. As to choosing not to play
it: if you invest any of your income in a mutla fund or similar, you're
part of the game, but your also one of the poieces in the game, or
hadn't you notuiced?
And the reason for that is that too many people believe that the purpose of the economy is to make money.
I've never heard of anyone who thinks that.
You don't get around much, and/or you don't notice how people make their
economic choices. News about "the economy" is almost always about money.
On the business pages you read about the "real economy" from time to
time. "The real economy", interesting phrase. What's is the unreal economy?
The purpose of the economy
is to facilitate trade.
Well, yes, but that formulation mistakes the function of a mechanism for
the function of the system. The purpose of any economic system is to
organise the production and distribution of wealth (goods and services).
Trade is one of the mechanisms used to facilitate that. Customs such as
mutual gift-giving, familial obligations, status display, etc are
others. Money facilitates trade. IMO, money is one of the great
inventions of humankind. It makes trade with strangers possible. I put
it up there with the wheel.
However, ask the average person what is the purpose of business, and
they will answer "To make money". What's more, some idiot judge ruled
that a company's primary responsibility was to generate money for its
shareholders. Making money is the law! How stupid can you get? And now
that we are rep[acing producers with machines at a rate never seen
before, we still insist that people have to "earn" a living, IOW, be
That's like believing that the purpose of eating is to produce shit.
Ok, that's why you posited the prior false claim about the economy,
My claim wasn't/isn't about the economy, it's about what people believe
about the economy. (Logic 101: "I think Joe believes X" doesn't mean "I
you could make this silly/false analogy.
Profit: sign that your business is working properly. Shit: sign that
your gut is working properly. I think the analogy is accurate.
There is only one law of a monetised economy: My spending is your
income, and your spending is my income. Everything else is psychology.
Understand why people make the economic choices they make, and you will
understand which way the economy will go. Libertarian fantasies about
the awfulness of government won't help you do that.
If you are serious about libertarianism (I am), (re-)read Thoreau's
Civil Disobedience. Note the irony of his introductory paragraph.
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.
general mailing list