|
Well technically the best part of capitalism is the way that a free market can self-determine priorities or be pushed naturally towards more efficient paths without any micromanagement needed from the top. But the problem with that is the way that the accumulation of wealth always pushes free markets towards being less free; companies buy eachother to become oligopolies and monopolies, wealthy individuals become powerful enough on their own to cut deals or sabotage the competition, companies get patents or whatever so they can keep a monopoly on innovative techniques/products. Also there's some basic human instinct towards cooperation, which can push industries into becoming cartels. It always feels weird to think of capitalism as a coherent system, because nobody really planned it, it was just a weird sort of equilibrium that was developed as wealth started to accumulate in the hands of people who were outside the more traditional governmental power structures.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
IRQ posted:How about not allow a tiny minority of people have all the wealth? And who determines what the cutoff is, how much to take, and how much to distribute to whoever is determined to be poor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:And who determines what the cutoff is, how much to take, and how much to distribute to whoever is determined to be poor? Pretty sure that if we took every over 40 white business owner and everyone with a net worth over 1b into an industrial furnace, you could watch the whole world get better overnight. And that's before distributing their assets and shuttering tax shelters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Pretty sure that if we took every over 40 white business owner and everyone with a net worth over 1b into an industrial furnace, you could watch the whole world get better overnight. And that's before distributing their assets and shuttering tax shelters. B.....b......b.......but what about when I'M a billionaire?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Pretty sure that if we took every over 40 white business owner and everyone with a net worth over 1b into an industrial furnace, you could watch the whole world get better overnight. And that's before distributing their assets and shuttering tax shelters. This is something stupid people say. It's not difficult to imagine business owners who are actually good. They exist. Your type of rhetoric leads to secret police and people in jail because they read a book or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:This is something stupid people say. There are good apples in a vat of bad apples you say?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:There are good apples in a vat of bad apples you say? I think that was supposed to be an unironic version of this? https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:And who determines what the cutoff is, how much to take, and how much to distribute to whoever is determined to be poor? Anybody that makes more than $1,000 an hour gets cut the gently caress off, how about that? That's being pretty loving generous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well technically the best part of capitalism is the way that a free market can self-determine priorities or be pushed naturally towards more efficient paths without any micromanagement needed from the top. This is why I find it so weird that people have become convinced that government should be "pro-business". The whole point of democratic government is to allow the masses to act as a moderating influence over powerful individuals. A government that serves the interests of the rich is fundamentally the same as a monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Well, capitalism and feudalism aren't mutually exclusive, although corporate masters skimp too much on the feudal obligations to serfs/vassals for the comparison to be truely apt. Give it five years. http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-building-employee-housing-silicon-valley-headquarters-2017-7
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:Give it five years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
IRQ posted:B.....b......b.......but what about when I'M a billionaire?!?!?!  CelestialScribe posted:This is something stupid people say. Actually, that would be fascism. Miles away from what we’re talking about! This is simply about the laborer seizing what has always been rightfully theirs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
pwn posted:Company Scrip for the 21st century. Amazing This new age will be so gilded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Being a human that lives a luxurious life simply isn't that expensive, truth be told. There is no reason to have more then, say, $250,000. That's being quite generous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure forced wealth distribution will work out fine, and people won't equate it with Marxism at all...
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 02:40
|
|
wins.
|
Doctor Reynolds posted:Being a human that lives a luxurious life simply isn't that expensive, truth be told. There is no reason to have more then, say, $250,000. That's being quite generous. I had that idea a while ago - raise income tax up to literally 99% after you hit, say, 500k per year. You'd still have a reason to work hard because 500k+ is a really nice life, but you'd have a lot more money for social service programs. I don't know how you'd begin to implement that sort of thing outside armed revolution, though, and since I'm not an economist I'm sure there are a ton of reasons it wouldn't work regardless. Not the least of which is how you'd handle large businesses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:I had that idea a while ago - raise income tax up to literally 99% after you hit, say, 500k per year. You'd still have a reason to work hard because 500k+ is a really nice life, but you'd have a lot more money for social service programs. I don't know how you'd begin to implement that sort of thing outside armed revolution, though, and since I'm not an economist I'm sure there are a ton of reasons it wouldn't work regardless. Not the least of which is how you'd handle large businesses. No, it’s great, but addressing corporate welfare and their taxation plan as well is absolutely crucial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Yes, I'm sure forced wealth distribution will work out fine, and people won't equate it with Marxism at all... Communism will win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:I had that idea a while ago - raise income tax up to literally 99% after you hit, say, 500k per year. You'd still have a reason to work hard because 500k+ is a really nice life, but you'd have a lot more money for social service programs. I don't know how you'd begin to implement that sort of thing outside armed revolution, though, and since I'm not an economist I'm sure there are a ton of reasons it wouldn't work regardless. Not the least of which is how you'd handle large businesses. It's been done, Eisenhower, a Republican, set the highest tax bracket at 91%. Rich people were really unpopular after WW2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Yes, I'm sure forced wealth distribution will work out fine, and people won't equate it with Marxism at all... Yeah, a lot of famous people have their names attached to very good ideas. What's your point
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:It's been done, Eisenhower, a Republican, set the highest tax bracket at 91%. Rich people were really unpopular after WW2. The counter argument I hear when I've brought this up was that were massive loopholes back then and almost no one actually paid at that rate, but I haven't seen any evidence backing that up, does anyone know of any?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The counter argument I hear when I've brought this up was that were massive loopholes back then and almost no one actually paid at that rate Even if they weren't paying that specific rate you can clear as a day see that they were having an effect by looking at wealth and income distributions from the times. If the progressive taxes were in-effective then we would be seeing results closer to those of today were taxation is mostly flat or even regressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Also the US government wasn't having so many revenue issues when it could just straight-up take more money from the people with more money, who woulda thunk it? We've never seen the second half of the laffer curve. And really, among the luxuries of wealth is the better ability to exploit any sort of loophole or tactic to keep your money. You can really shoot for a high rate to try to compensate for all the holes like capital gains and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
No new episode tonight?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Nope. He mentioned it last time, one week break. They'll be back next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Remember Eminem's court case against the NZ National Party? Eminem won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Good. gently caress those lying sacks of poo poo. The fuckers brought in American political hitmen to run their campaign going full negative instead of offering anything. Their voters are not much better arguing in bad faith, racist and revel in ignorance, so American Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I hope John brings it up just so I can hear him say “Eminem” in his Kiwi accent. I’m sorry. “Kiwi Esque” accent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Imminim!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:It's been done, Eisenhower, a Republican, set the highest tax bracket at 91%. Rich people were really unpopular after WW2. It's not really about loving rich people. The point of an extreme tax bracket for very high incomes, as a policy, isn't so much fiscal as economic, i.e. about shaping where money goes, and it gets results that are desirable from a Keynesian point of view. Nobody wants to pay that kind of tax, so people will generally work to avoid hitting that bracket and the government revenue from it is nothing to write home about. The idea is that it discourages rich people from hoarding money rather than investing it, encourages them to seek out exemptions (which the government picks out and thus can influence investment) and discourages companies from overpaying managers or paying out too much in dividends. Plus it makes the wealthy favor stable long-term investment strategies over risky short-term ones, because getting a quick windfall of huge sums to live off for years isn't viable and instead you'll want to keep your very-high-but-not-ludicrous income for as long as possible. One practical upshot of this is that you can't do the investment banker CEO thing of picking up absurd multi-million-dollar bonuses for a few years, loving up horribly and still staying immensely rich forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Back when Reagan got shot it actually made him pro-gun control, but I guess these days death is favorable to having to face down the gun lobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
There was a movie with Wesley Snipes and Oliver Platt called "Liberty Stands Still" where the son of a senator who supports the NRA is killed to try and change his stance, and it's commented on that "all they're going to say is that everyone needs to be armed to stop people like you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I've always said the gun lobby will have too much power until an NRA assembly gets shot up or the exec chairman's kid gets shot. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Okay, let's test that out with a conference hall full of "good guys with guns." Didn't they try that shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shooting? At some conference a bunch of concealed carry advocates organised several runs of simulated attacks (with paintballs or airsoft or something like that) in the same vein against a partially armed group of attendees. And despite knowing it was coming (the attackers were even instructed to "make a loud noise" at the moment they entered the building), they still got murdered every single time. The best they managed was killing one of the two attackers one time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
There have been multiple shootings in which the crowd of people being shot at had guns and it didn't make much of a difference, it hasn't made a difference in the conversation around guns so far. Of course I think the image of "a good guy with a gun" is probably the lynchpin of a lot of firearm marketing. half of gun owners now cite "protection" as their reason for owning a gun, and it's under the guise of "protection" that a lot of the worst laws about guns are lobbied for, like open carry and stand your ground. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people arguing against background checks and waiting periods and required licenses because of "protection" as well. That percentage is also twice as much as it was in 1999, which is really insane to me. It's one thing if you're trying to responsibly use a dangerous item for entertainment purposes for some kind of hobby, or hunting, but straight-up planning to kill people "just in case" because you think you're a cowboy is too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
The weirdest thing about the right is the fact that they worship the police yet don't seem to trust them to actually protect the people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Everyone thinking they're going to suddenly turn into John McClane is a huge part of the problem, and leads to "good guys with guns" shooting up parking lots over shoplifters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-face-charges/
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Everyone thinking they're going to suddenly turn into John McClane is a huge part of the problem, and leads to "good guys with guns" shooting up parking lots over shoplifters. Has there been any follow up to that? Did she ever get charged?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Didn't they try that shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shooting? At some conference a bunch of concealed carry advocates organised several runs of simulated attacks (with paintballs or airsoft or something like that) in the same vein against a partially armed group of attendees. And despite knowing it was coming (the attackers were even instructed to "make a loud noise" at the moment they entered the building), they still got murdered every single time. The best they managed was killing one of the two attackers one time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
And now the National Party's former leader's son has threatened to record a diss track.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:It's not really about loving rich people. The point of an extreme tax bracket for very high incomes, as a policy, isn't so much fiscal as economic, i.e. about shaping where money goes, and it gets results that are desirable from a Keynesian point of view. Nobody wants to pay that kind of tax, so people will generally work to avoid hitting that bracket and the government revenue from it is nothing to write home about. The idea is that it discourages rich people from hoarding money rather than investing it, encourages them to seek out exemptions (which the government picks out and thus can influence investment) and discourages companies from overpaying managers or paying out too much in dividends. Plus it makes the wealthy favor stable long-term investment strategies over risky short-term ones, because getting a quick windfall of huge sums to live off for years isn't viable and instead you'll want to keep your very-high-but-not-ludicrous income for as long as possible. This is really smart and should be a policy dems run under, almost word for word. "Either the rich lose all their income or they invest it in worker wages" Josh Lyman posted:I've always said the gun lobby will have too much power until an NRA assembly gets shot up or the exec chairman's kid gets shot. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Okay, let's test that out with a conference hall full of "good guys with guns." Luckily the NRA has such a hero complex that the moment they face a real threat they tuck and run. They're also racist as gently caress. If one of them gets taken out by a .308 from a mile away they'll freak out. I push for national concealed carry licences with strong background checks and training requirements. While at the same time acknowledging that forcing training and licencing unfairly effects poor and minority Americans the very same ability to legally buy weapons. Maybe we should just offer free training to every non-white to fix that and offer them cheep shotguns to scare the NRA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 03:12
|
|