Capitalism

[killersheep]

Questions:

1) I haven't seen a correlation between unemployement and higher taxes, perhaps you can send me a link that shows that to be a fact.

2) I still don't see how "the free market riding it out" is fixing the problem.
As a liberal nothing is in stone for me, I must be convinced however to believe, and as of now I don't see how the free market "waiting it out" is helping to fix the problem.

Ok, killasheep, this is for you.

Answers:

1) Taxation is one of the tools govt. use to cool down overheating economy (aside from collecting money, of course). As such, it does tend to negatively affect employment though that's not it's primary intention. So the answer is yes and no at the same time.

2) Yes, the free market does usually tend to clear itself up over the long run but if let alone, it does so in a very messy way. It's just like flooding out a mound of garbage down into a city - the garbage will scatter all over but eventually with much rain flushing it, it'll all flow down into the sea.

1) I would like to see statistics that show higher taxes negatively impact employment.

2) Can you clarify that a bit for me? I'm a simpleton and didn't really understand. I still don't see how the "free market riding it out" fixes the problems created by "republicans, democrats, borrowers and lenders"

[pacfan]

Questions:

1) I haven't seen a correlation between unemployement and higher taxes, perhaps you can send me a link that shows that to be a fact.

2) I still don't see how "the free market riding it out" is fixing the problem.
As a liberal nothing is in stone for me, I must be convinced however to believe, and as of now I don't see how the free market "waiting it out" is helping to fix the problem.

Ok, killasheep, this is for you.

Answers:

1) Taxation is one of the tools govt. use to cool down overheating economy (aside from collecting money, of course). As such, it does tend to negatively affect employment though that's not it's primary intention. So the answer is yes and no at the same time.

2) Yes, the free market does usually tend to clear itself up over the long run but if let alone, it does so in a very messy way. It's just like flooding out a mound of garbage down into a city - the garbage will scatter all over but eventually with much rain flushing it, it'll all flow down into the sea.

1) I would like to see statistics that show higher taxes negatively impact employment.

2) Can you clarify that a bit for me? I'm a simpleton and didn't really understand. I still don't see how the "free market riding it out" fixes the problems created by "republicans, democrats, borrowers and lenders"

1) I don't do much research on the net so I can't give you the statistics (maybe kirkland will help you out there), but I can explain to you why it is so - actually it's a known economic fact - it goes like this:

When government increases taxes, there would be lesser money to spend in the hands of the consumers (ie; disposable income), and consequently they spend less. As overall consumption is reduced, the sales of companies catering to them also suffers correspondingly, thereby leading to cut in production. When production is cut, generally there will be more layoffs then if would have been otherwise, and consequently, unemployment increases correspondingly, though not necessarily in a straightforward manner.

But keep in mind that this is just a simple economic model (that is, every other things being equal) and there are many other factors that affect employment. But in most case, increased taxation is usually inversely proportional to employment.


2) This is much more complicated issue that takes volumes to explain to ordinary folks. All I can say for now is that economic system is inherently made that everything ultimately leads to the most efficient, in a sort of survival of the fittest type of way, where the least efficient ones naturally die out in favor of the more or most efficient ones. This is the process that Lyle meant when he said that economy will clear itself up. Obvious example is any business activity: if you can't give your customer a cheaper and better quality goods than your competitors, you will simply lose out, right? This process goes on and on at every corner of the economy that businesses operating at any given moment are the winners or suvivors in this economic dog-eat-dog jungle. But that doesn't assure them that they will be the winners tomorrow because competition is an on-going, never ending economic process mercilessly cutting out the less efficient from the system. This ugly and merciless process is what we're seeing now. It has turned ugly because of the regulators' oversight, and this is what tend to happen when the economy is left alone by itself. This is the reason for the heated debates going on now as to whether more regulation is needed (which contradicts the free economy principle) or not. Obviously, because of what happened, the inclination of the authorities is for more regulation - fortunately - because as I've said before, economic cleansing process tends to be long and messy if left alone...

[killersheep]

Ok, killasheep, this is for you.

Answers:

1) Taxation is one of the tools govt. use to cool down overheating economy (aside from collecting money, of course). As such, it does tend to negatively affect employment though that's not it's primary intention. So the answer is yes and no at the same time.

2) Yes, the free market does usually tend to clear itself up over the long run but if let alone, it does so in a very messy way. It's just like flooding out a mound of garbage down into a city - the garbage will scatter all over but eventually with much rain flushing it, it'll all flow down into the sea.

1) I would like to see statistics that show higher taxes negatively impact employment.

2) Can you clarify that a bit for me? I'm a simpleton and didn't really understand. I still don't see how the "free market riding it out" fixes the problems created by "republicans, democrats, borrowers and lenders"

1) I don't do much research on the net so I can't give you the statistics (maybe kirkland will help you out there), but I can explain to you why it is so - actually it's a known economic fact - it goes like this:

When government increases taxes, there would be lesser money to spend in the hands of the consumers (ie; disposable income), and consequently they spend less. As overall consumption is reduced, the sales of companies catering to them also suffers correspondingly, thereby leading to cut in production. When production is cut, generally there will be more layoffs then if would have been otherwise, and consequently, unemployment increases correspondingly, though not necessarily in a straightforward manner.

But keep in mind that this is just a simple economic model (that is, every other things being equal) and there are many other factors that affect employment. But in most case, increased taxation is usually inversely proportional to employment.


2) This is much more complicated issue that takes volumes to explain to ordinary folks. All I can say for now is that economic system is inherently made that everything ultimately leads to the most efficient, in a sort of survival of the fittest type of way, where the least efficient ones naturally die out in favor of the more or most efficient ones. This is the process that Lyle meant when he said that economy will clear itself up. Obvious example is any business activity: if you can't give your customer a cheaper and better quality goods than your competitors, you will simply lose out, right? This process goes on and on at every corner of the economy that businesses operating at any given moment are the winners or suvivors in this economic dog-eat-dog jungle. But that doesn't assure them that they will be the winners tomorrow because competition is an on-going, never ending economic process mercilessly cutting out the less efficient from the system. This ugly and merciless process is what we're seeing now. It has turned ugly because of the regulators' oversight, and this is what tend to happen when the economy is left alone by itself. This is the reason for the heated debates going on now as to whether more regulation is needed (which contradicts the free economy principle) or not. Obviously, because of what happened, the inclination of the authorities is for more regulation - fortunately - because as I've said before, economic cleansing process tends to be long and messy if left alone...

1) I understand this perfect world argument, however I can't seem to find a simply chart that tracks tax levels vs. unemployment.

2) Survival of the fittest implies a monopoly QED Rockafeller, this is not a solution either, and at this point would you agree free markets by themselves cannot solve the problems created by republicans, democrats, borrowers and lenders?

[Kirkland Laing]

1. Higher taxes don't neccessarily mean higher unemployment. Clinton raised taxes and created 22 million jobs in eight years. Bush cut them and created five, although that will probably be closer to four by the time he leaves office.

You'll find right wing nutjob organisations like the Heritage Foundation or AEI (funded by billionaires to argue for tax cuts for billionaires) which will publish studies showing that tax increases will kill jobs, but in reality that would only be the case if you raised the rate from 36% to 86%. The rate was actually 90% during the 1950s and 60s and US GDP was growing about 10% a year then, now it's 3 ish (when the economy isn't melting down anyway.)

So inreality tax increases aren't going to stop job creation or cause a drop in economic growth. In fact the actual evidence over the last two decades shows clearly that the tax rate is too low and that moderate tax increases are actually greatly beneficial to the economy.

2. The free market was left to sort out the last big market crash in 1929 and there was no intervention for a year, which caused the whole thing to snowball into a Depression. There is not one reputable economist who would claim that if governments hadn't intervened in the last couple of months that we'd have avoided another Depression. The Reagan-era free market philosphy is now over, governments are going to insist on much more effective regulation of financial markets otherwise another meltdown will just happen again in a decade or so.

[CFH]

Come now gentlemen, let us cease arguing about capitalism, the elites of the world want to see you distracted by such meaningless debates.

Join me in helping to create a worldwide socialist workers utopia.

[pacfan]

1) I understand this perfect world argument, however I can't seem to find a simply chart that tracks tax levels vs. unemployment.

2) Survival of the fittest implies a monopoly QED Rockafeller, this is not a solution either, and at this point would you agree free markets by themselves cannot solve the problems created by republicans, democrats, borrowers and lenders?

1) You're right about the perfect world assumption - things don't always operate as perfectly as the laboratory based theory might suggest. Generally speaking, the taxation-umemployment correlation holds. This is especially true during times of recession where any reduction in consumption will adversely affect the already battered businesses - and employment with it. But conversely, during good times, as my infallible economic adviser Kirkland's statistics has shown, consumers and businesses can usually absorb additional tax without adversely affecting employment. Actually during prosperous times, the government usually impose additional tax just to slow down things a bit, but they are aimed at trimming the excesses in the system - nipping them will make the economy more efficient which in turn stimulates employment. (Killership, if you need any charts, try asking Kirkland; if he can't find one, you can be sure they're not there.)

2) Free market can solve anything but - take note - in a very bloody manner. So in a practical sense, the answer is no. Because nobody would want to go thru an unnecessarily bloody purge in the system when it can be done in a more humane mannner. You can't just let all those big banks to fall one by one and let the whole world go thru an excruciating depression just to let the economy start on a clean slate, particularly when there are other much less bloody ways to do it. That defeats the very purpose of the economy - to enhance mankind's standard of living, and with it, his well-being...

[Bomp]

1. Higher taxes don't neccessarily mean higher unemployment. Clinton raised taxes and created 22 million jobs in eight years. Bush cut them and created five, although that will probably be closer to four by the time he leaves office.

You'll find right wing nutjob organisations like the Heritage Foundation or AEI (funded by billionaires to argue for tax cuts for billionaires) which will publish studies showing that tax increases will kill jobs, but in reality that would only be the case if you raised the rate from 36% to 86%. The rate was actually 90% during the 1950s and 60s and US GDP was growing about 10% a year then, now it's 3 ish (when the economy isn't melting down anyway.)

So inreality tax increases aren't going to stop job creation or cause a drop in economic growth. In fact the actual evidence over the last two decades shows clearly that the tax rate is too low and that moderate tax increases are actually greatly beneficial to the economy.

2. The free market was left to sort out the last big market crash in 1929 and there was no intervention for a year, which caused the whole thing to snowball into a Depression. There is not one reputable economist who would claim that if governments hadn't intervened in the last couple of months that we'd have avoided another Depression. The Reagan-era free market philosphy is now over, governments are going to insist on much more effective regulation of financial markets otherwise another meltdown will just happen again in a decade or so.

This is the argument which seems to be overlooked by the media. It isn't a linear relationship between taxation and employment (or other economic stuff), THAT would suggest that 0% tax is best for the economy, and not even the GOP believes that. Obama wants to raise the taxes of the richest 5% to what they were in the 90s, when the US goverment weren't running a deficit every year and goverment spending was lower, somehow the GOP gets Marxism out of this and the idiot media are running with it.

[Kirkland Laing]

[quote=pacfan;625080]

infallible

It's Infallible.

[Kirkland Laing]

1. Higher taxes don't neccessarily mean higher unemployment. Clinton raised taxes and created 22 million jobs in eight years. Bush cut them and created five, although that will probably be closer to four by the time he leaves office.

You'll find right wing nutjob organisations like the Heritage Foundation or AEI (funded by billionaires to argue for tax cuts for billionaires) which will publish studies showing that tax increases will kill jobs, but in reality that would only be the case if you raised the rate from 36% to 86%. The rate was actually 90% during the 1950s and 60s and US GDP was growing about 10% a year then, now it's 3 ish (when the economy isn't melting down anyway.)

So inreality tax increases aren't going to stop job creation or cause a drop in economic growth. In fact the actual evidence over the last two decades shows clearly that the tax rate is too low and that moderate tax increases are actually greatly beneficial to the economy.

2. The free market was left to sort out the last big market crash in 1929 and there was no intervention for a year, which caused the whole thing to snowball into a Depression. There is not one reputable economist who would claim that if governments hadn't intervened in the last couple of months that we'd have avoided another Depression. The Reagan-era free market philosphy is now over, governments are going to insist on much more effective regulation of financial markets otherwise another meltdown will just happen again in a decade or so.

This is the argument which seems to be overlooked by the media. It isn't a linear relationship between taxation and employment (or other economic stuff), THAT would suggest that 0% tax is best for the economy, and not even the GOP believes that. Obama wants to raise the taxes of the richest 5% to what they were in the 90s, when the US goverment weren't running a deficit every year and goverment spending was lower, somehow the GOP gets Marxism out of this and the idiot media are running with it.

If McCain claimed tomorrow that the earth was flat the headlines would be :

Shape of earth : candidates' opinons differ.

I have yet to see anybody in the media point out how completely and utterly full of shit the McCain campaign is, yet conservatives are complaining that the media is biased against them. It's unreal.

[El Kabong]

If McCain claimed tomorrow that the earth was flat the headlines would be :

Shape of earth : candidates' opinons differ.

I have yet to see anybody in the media point out how completely and utterly full of shit the McCain campaign is, yet conservatives are complaining that the media is biased against them. It's unreal.

....so the media is not biased against Conservatives?

[killersheep]

If McCain claimed tomorrow that the earth was flat the headlines would be :

Shape of earth : candidates' opinons differ.

I have yet to see anybody in the media point out how completely and utterly full of shit the McCain campaign is, yet conservatives are complaining that the media is biased against them. It's unreal.

....so the media is not biased against Conservatives?

Definately not between 535 - 1605 KHz

The media covers fluff, simple as.

[Kirkland Laing]

If McCain claimed tomorrow that the earth was flat the headlines would be :

Shape of earth : candidates' opinons differ.

I have yet to see anybody in the media point out how completely and utterly full of shit the McCain campaign is, yet conservatives are complaining that the media is biased against them. It's unreal.

....so the media is not biased against Conservatives?

No, quite the opposite in fact.

Unfortunately what we're having in this thread qualifies as an elite political/economic conversation. We're debating this at a much higher level than the media does, but that isn't the real problem, this is :

The average American voter doesn't spend a lot of time taking in news reporting or reading about economic/fiscal/tax/etc. policy. They get small snippets of information from the TV, newspapers etc. over a number of years. But all of these small pieces of information from media sources is part of a general media narrative that takes exclusively the conservative position on important issues like economics and foreign policy. Almost all Americans will tell you that tax cuts boost revenues and help grow the economy when in the current context the opposite is true. With foreign policy, Americans are scared shitless by nonexistent foreign "threats" like Iran currently and Iraq previously. So American conventional wisdom is generally diametrically opposed to reality in important areas.

The media is run by a small handful of corporations. Five corporations control every bit of news you see on the TV and for all five their news/media divisions are tiny parts of the overall company. NBC, much derided by conservatives, is owned by GEC who make 4% of their profits from NBC and over 40% from government contracting. So the news arm is heavily slanted, it maintains a narrative of low taxation = good/we need to spend more than the rest of the world put together on the war industry to remain safe even while we're propping up dictators all over the world/invading oil-rich countries etc.

So the general narrative that almost all Americans have is because effectively the same message is projected at them every single day of their lives, so whenever they do consume a small piece of the overall picture it's almost always at odds with reality and heavily slanted to push the buttons that make people more conservative in their opinions.

The current election is an extreme though excellent example of this. Obama is the only one who wants to discuss actual policies, the other side only want to talk about how he's a Marxist/socialist etc., which of course is arrant nonesense, but the way politics is covered the Marxist crap dominates the agenda and Obama has to spend his time talking about why he isn't a socialist rather than actual policies. In his half hour advert last night he talked about what he wants to do, he didn't mention McCain once. John McCain can't go one minute without mentioning Obama in relation to some bs claim that the media then endlessly repeats.

[El Kabong]

So whenever some talking head on the national news fawns over Obama they are really hoping the Republican wins?

Ever hear of MSNBC buddy? Watch it and tell me they aren't pro-Democrat and therefore anti-Republican. When Chris Matthews gets "tingling sensations" running up his leg when Obama talks....then I start to wonder that perhaps the journalist stopped doing his job and started being a vocal supporter of a candidate.

The writers, editors, and the "talent" on NBC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and especially PBS are ALL liberal and therefore either knowingly or unknowingly slant their coverage.....it doesn't matter who owns them. GE doesn't say SHIT about what NBC puts on the news, all they care about are ratings and so what used to be NEWS became news and has now become E! Entertainment Obama: behind the scenes.

[Kirkland Laing]

So whenever some talking head on the national news fawns over Obama they are really hoping the Republican wins?

Ever hear of MSNBC buddy? Watch it and tell me they aren't pro-Democrat and therefore anti-Republican. When Chris Matthews gets "tingling sensations" running up his leg when Obama talks....then I start to wonder that perhaps the journalist stopped doing his job and started being a vocal supporter of a candidate.

The writers, editors, and the "talent" on NBC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and especially PBS are ALL liberal and therefore either knowingly or unknowingly slant their coverage.....it doesn't matter who owns them. GE doesn't say SHIT about what NBC puts on the news, all they care about are ratings and so what used to be NEWS became news and has now become E! Entertainment Obama: behind the scenes.

MSNBC has tiny viewing figures. They're irrelevant to the overall production of news and general narratives in the US. Anytime some media figure gets out of hand and goes against the conventional narrative they get sacked eg. Donohue who called bs on the Iraq invasion and got booted of MSNBC despite being the highest-rated programme. This keeps everybody else in line. Journalists decide what's in their papers or on their programmes in much the same way that the person who seves me my Burger King decides what's on the menu.

[Kirkland Laing]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UoPJmj...ointsmemo.com/

Today's US media coverage of the election in 100 seconds. Depressing.