People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You seem, as a lot of right-wing Americans do, to confuse people whose opinions are vaguely left-wing with socialists and communists. It is tiresomely simplistic.

---

Great argument. :rolleyes:

Arrows was clearly refering to the closer to free-market solutions that the US employed 10-30 years ago. The logical juxtiposition is socialism/communism. Soft socialism, or "European style" socialism, is still socialism.

You have a sterotype that has slowly played out over this and other converstions of all conservative Americans having exaclty the same viewpoints, and that there is apparently no possible way for those viewpoints to have any merit. From what I have seen the "right-wing Americans" mostly try to debate the points. Whereas the "left-wing Europeans" resort to ad-homonym personal attacks. It is tiresomely simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Great argument. :rolleyes:

Arrows was clearly refering to the closer to free-market solutions that the US employed 10-30 years ago. The logical juxtiposition is socialism/communism. Soft socialism, or "European style" socialism, is still socialism.

---

I do not think of myself as a socialist. I presume you beg to differ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I do not think of myself as a socialist. I presume you beg to differ?

---

Nope. Not at all. However you do advocate for some socialistic programs.

Here's a secret for you, so do I. ;) That's where you are failing to see the nuance in my arguments. I have clearly stated that there is an argument to be made for some government programs. I would just like to see a reasoned well thought out discussion of said programs before we just accept them as "good for society". Yet you just like to lump me into some sort of ignorant, red-neck, right-winger American group and dismiss my arguments out of hand. Presumably because it is easier to do than research, and think about the basis of your philosophy. I notice that I have put up evidence to support my arguments, and I have not heard one peep out of you about said evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit...EconGrowth.pdf

Page 11 of 26, figure 3A Capital Income Tax Rate vs Per Capital Real GDP Growth (Percent). The slope of the line is negative.

Page 18 of 26, figure 5 Capital Income Tax Rate vs Private Investment/GDP (Percent). The slip of the line is negative.

---

That you can plot two aspects in one scatter plot doesn't mean they are causically related. According to my information the dot on the top left that dramatically skews your graph is Korea. The United States should be one of the dots in the lower left. In the upper right are countries like Finland, Norway and Luxembourg. Even though the US has one of the lowest tax-burdens of the OECD, it still has a below average growth rate. I don't think you can conclude from this that tax rates and economic growth are obviously related.

The quotes you provided are predictions and not actual facts. The facts show that the average GDP growth in 00-05 (that means after Bush tax-cuts) was 1.5%. While the average GDP growth in 90-99 (that means during the Clinton tax-increases) was 2.0%. Again, there does not appear to be a clear causal relationship between economic growth and tax rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So socialism/communisim/collectivism have been tried in the past as well, and for the most part failed. Why go back to them. History is a great teacher. Ignore history at your own peril.

---

Indeed, which points to the need for something new. What that is... :confused:

Coincidentally I just came across the following:

Quote:

---

What has happened over the past 30 years is the capture of the world's common treasury by a handful of people, assisted by neoliberal policies which were first imposed on rich nations by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I am now going to bombard you with figures. I'm sorry about that, but these numbers need to be tattooed on our minds. Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.

In the UK, the money earned by the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1999 and 2009, while the money made by the richest 10th rose by 37%. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, climbed in this country from 26 in 1979 to 40 in 2009.

---

The 1% are the very best destroyers of*wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Could you please point to a source where it shows the historic relation between tax-burden and economic growth in the US??

---

No-one can do that because there is no direct correlation either way.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOV.../marginal1.bmp

Higher taxation rates don't hinder growth; lower taxation rates don't encourage it. Likewise Higher taxation rates don't encourage growth; lower taxation rates don't hinder it.

Capital is incredibly efficient at moving itself around an economy according to whatever taxation rules are in place. As a result the bottom line is that high or low taxation rates do nothing either way to affect growth all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Indeed, which points to the need for something new. What that is... :confused:

---

I wouldn't necessarily suggest something completely new. I would say let's go with what worked reasonable well, like the US system between 1947 and 1979. As you just pointed out in your article, the productivity in the US rose by 119%. Do you think the tax burden during that time was more or less than it is now? Do you think there were more or less regulations during that time? Sure there were issues in that time, but perhaps the "solutions" didn't really fix anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Coincidentally I just came across the following:

The 1% are the very best destroyers of*wealth the world has ever seen | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Something to think about.

---

Ohhhh, those rich guys are so damn evil. Let's get them. I fail to see any analysis as to how someone being rich is stealing from me, or even preventing me from gaining wealth on my own.

Mr. Monbiot convieniently leaves out the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 (right in the middle of his "good era"), which dramatically cut taxes on "the rich", and boosted revenues to the government (not necessarily something I would advocate for).

So yeah tax cuts alone may not be the cure all, but I don't really see how they hurt, especially if your stated goal is to boost revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ohhhh, those rich guys are so damn evil. Let's get them. I fail to see any analysis as to how someone being rich is stealing from me, or even preventing me from gaining wealth on my own.

---

So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?

---

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?

If I gain wealth, I haven't stolen anything, and there is nothing stopping someone else from doing a similar thing, what is wrong with that?

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So the ever increasing rate of inequality is of no concern to you as long as you can gain wealth yourself?

---

It has nothing to do with inequality, or at least that word that the liberals are trying to float to divide and separage the the country into class warfare.

The concern would be the same as existed when monopolies were broken up, sadly Washington does not seem to give a damn about monopolies. That would probalby becausse the Obama administration owes its existence to Wall Street which fundded its existance.

So all the sky-is-falling rhetoric one hears has noting to do with breaking up concerns of too weathy owners as was done early last century but to make the minorities, especially those who floated or waded over in the last ten years loyal Democrats.