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.

[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]

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?

[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...

[Kirkland Laing]

[quote=pacfan;625080]

infallible

It's Infallible.

[pacfan]

[quote=Kirkland Laing;625372]

infallible

It's Infallible.

I stand corrected, sir. Infallible with a big, capital I.

[Kirkland Laing]

[quote=pacfan;626123]

It's Infallible.

I stand corrected, sir. Infallible with a big, capital I.

God bless you.

To follow on from what I Wrote yesterday about the media being biased, during the runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion the opinion polls showed 40something % at best supported invading Iraq. I think they cracked 50% a couple of times only, after Americans had been told "we know where the WMDs are" and "we know he's going to use them against us." But basically the majority right up to the start of the war were against the invasion and very sceptical. Phil Donohue had the top-rated MSNBC programme at the time, which meant he had an audience of less than half of 1% of the US population. And for expressing an opinion shared by the majority of the population he got taken off the air and has never worked since.

Good news from the credit markets during the week. The KLGFSRP looks like it's finally taking effect. Still a long way to go though and it'll get worse before it gets better. And we've still got a serious recession to deal with. Still, happy days.

[CFH]

I'm telling you fuckers, democratic Socialism. Get on board or get sent to one of our "re-education" camps.

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm telling you fuckers, democratic Socialism. Get on board or get sent to one of our "re-education" camps.

[CFH]

I'm telling you fuckers, democratic Socialism. Get on board or get sent to one of our "re-education" camps.

I find that horribly offensive . I can only truly express my feelings in the form of emoticons.



I'm not a Marxist/Leninist socialist though, just for the record, I'm not really a socialist at all. I'm more of a social Democrat with ideas based loosely on the European welfare state model.