patrick.net

indigenous says

the poor prison guards except they make 6 figures and only exist because of government meddling in the first place.

More and more prisons are private, for-profit enterprises. Between 1990 and 2009, the inmate population of private prisons grew by 1,664%.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24142/the-number-of-people-in-private-prisons-has-grown-by-1-664-in-the-last-19-years

Vicente says

But you have to add back, the fact that you'd put out of work a lot of otherwise-unemployable prison guards.

Also true. However, prison guard work is non-wealth-producing work. At best it's overhead, at worst it's parasitic. As such it does not contribute to the GDP, or per capital GDP, and thus is functionally equivalent or worse than unemployment.

Whether jobs are created by the "government" or the "private sector" is not important. Both government and corporations are fictional entities and the distinction today is not even clear. Our governments are corporations and corporations write legislation. They are hardly separate entities.

What is important is whether jobs are productive, non-productive, or destructive. The creation of the highway transportation system was productive work done by the government. The mortgage back security derivatives created by Goldman Sachs was non-productive work. The various wars waged by government were destructive (negative production) work.

In the end, only two things matter: how much wealth per capital is produced and how that wealth is distributed. Everything else is a distraction.

Dan8267 says

The creation of the highway transportation system was productive work done by the government. T

I like your views here Dan. I think you mean that $ is going to tangible products and services that directly benefit the standard of living, and not just for a few thousand Goldman Sach employees.

Dan8267 says

Whether jobs are created by the "government" or the "private sector" is not important.

That is not true, what distinguishes the two is whether they do this by coercion or voluntary exchange.

Dan8267 says

In the end, only two things matter: how much wealth per capital is produced and how that wealth is distributed.

That is not true. It is that real wealth is created (this is not just money) at all. How it is distributed does not matter, as long as government does not get involved in specious redistribution.

finehoe says

More and more prisons are private, for-profit enterprises. Between 1990 and 2009, the inmate population of private prisons grew by 1,664%.

That article is a canard. The numbers are ambiguous. They are trying to state that private prisons are more likely to have a higher recidivism rate than the the public ones. In Calif the prisons got rid of inmate training in order to fund public employee pensions at the Susanville prison it went from one of the lowest recidivism rates to one of the highest in the nation.

Although one of the legitimate functions of government is the rule of the law the more they privatize this the better imo.

indigenous says

That is not true. It is that real wealth is created (this is not just money)
at all. How it is distributed does not matter, as long as government does not
get involved in specious redistribution.

You must think Brunei is a fantastic place then.

david1 says

You must think Brunei is a fantastic place then.

Don't know anything about it. But since you are bringing it up no doubt it is a symbol of evil capitalism with inequality

indigenous says

How it is distributed does not matter

You must be kidding. An ecomony will high wealth disparity simply doesn't function as well as one with more equal distribution.

It has nothing to do with fair/unfair, evil/holy, good/bad, or any moral or ethic basis. It's simply an economic fact that when disparity gets too large, an economy stops working.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

How it is distributed does not matter

You must be kidding. An ecomony will high wealth disparity simply doesn't function as well as one with more equal distribution.

It has nothing to do with fair/unfair, evil/holy, good/bad, or any moral or ethic basis. It's simply an economic fact that when disparity gets too large, an economy stops working.

No joke. The free market creates equality. The ONLY way there is inequality is through government. Government says we are going to force taxpayers to bail out TBTFs otherwise the TBTFs would fail and be disposed of right quick. In the free market if the supposed monopoly charges too much competition lowers the price. If the supposed monopoly buys the market through predatory pricing the competitors have to wait it out until the predatory pricing stops in the mean time the customer benefits as when Rockefeller lowered the price of heating oil, and btw saved the whales.

indigenous says

Don't know anything about it. But since you are bringing it up no doubt it is
a symbol of evil capitalism with inequality

IT is one of the wealthiest nations in the world on a GDP per Capita basis. It is an illustration of the problems with using GDP per capita as a measure of wealth. It is essentially mean GDP. Median GDP would paint a much different picture, however.

The Sultan of Brunei is one of the richest men in the world. The vast majority of his 400k subjects live in ridiculous poverty. Estimates of the difference between wealth for the top 10% to the bottom 10% range from 200-300 times. It is so bad Brunei, a member of the United Nations, does not supply sufficient statistics to allow its Gini ratio to be calculated.

As a point of reference, this ratio is about 10 times in the US. The US has a Gini ratio of .4.

The Lorenz curve for Brunei would give new meaning to the term "hockey stick" graph.

david1 says

IT is one of the wealthiest nations in the world on a GDP per Capita basis. It is an illustration of the problems with using GDP per capita as a measure of wealth. It is essentially mean GDP. Median GDP would paint a much different picture, however.

The Sultan of Brunei is one of the richest men in the world. The vast majority of his 400k subjects live in ridiculous poverty. Estimates of the difference between wealth for the top 10% to the bottom 10% range from 200-300 times. It is so bad Brunei, a member of the United Nations, does not supply sufficient statistics to allow its Gini ratio to be calculated.

As a point of reference, this ratio is about 10 times in the US. The US has a Gini ratio of .4.

The Lorenz curve for Brunei would give new meaning to the term "hockey stick" graph.

That is interesting. I thought that was in the middle east. It sounds like a true monopoly where the government controls the market place.

Recovery is what happens when everybody moves on.

In every singe economic crash that I have lived through to date, there has never ever once been a recovery. The economy just reinvents its self and moves along a new path, but you don't really notice. Until you reflect one day, that I used to do this for a living, but now I do this. Times were hard back then, though the economy sure doesn't seem better, I am managing to get along just fine now.

It's kind of like hair growth, by the time you start enjoying your new long coif, somebody comes along and gives you a buzz cut.

indigenous says

The free market creates equality.

Completely backwards. The free market creates inequality.

indigenous says

Government says we are going to force taxpayers to bail out TBTFs otherwise the
TBTFs would fail and be disposed of right quick.

Not relevant to the discussion about inequality.

indigenous says

In the free market if the supposed monopoly charges too much competition lowers
the price.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of monopoly.

indigenous says

If the supposed monopoly buys the market through predatory pricing the
competitors have to wait it out until the predatory pricing stops in the mean
time the customer benefits as when Rockefeller lowered the price of heating oil,
and btw saved the whales.

lol--again, I'm not sure you understand what you are talking about here. The customer enjoys the predatory pricing until all competitors are gone, then they are forced to pay whatever price the monopoly supplier chooses to charge forever. There is no waiting it out.

CaptainShuddup says

The economy just reinvents its self and moves along a new path

Accept when the government meddles and artificially props up what should have come to an end, this takes resources that should have been invested towards the new path and forces the old TBTFs to not fail. And you have what we have now. Which creates unemployment because the new employment was stopped by the we "know besters", which indicates the world record magnitude of their ignorance.

indigenous says

Accept when the government meddles and artificially props up what should have come to an end, this takes resources that should have been invested towards the new path and forces the old TBTFs to not fail.

That goes with out saying.

If the forest service were to go out into the forest and build elaborate scaffolding around all of the sick and dying trees. Then eventually the only thing left in the Forrest will be Dead trees propped up by sticks. As nothing else will ever grow.

I was not championing a Recovery. I was just stating that since 2007, the best thing the FED could have done, was shut their fucking mouth, and got to know their NEW customers. The old one's should have been tossed out of the club.

tatupu70 says

The free market creates equality.

Completely backwards. The free market creates inequality.

Yes that is the meme that most have swallered.

Have you heard the one about the football scout who asks the farm worker who is pushing a plow without a horse, do you play football? can you pass a football? The farm worker replies no I have never played football but if I can swallow it I can pass it.

Unfortunately yous who have swallowed it can't pass it.

tatupu70 says

I'm not sure you understand the definition of monopoly.

There is no real monopoly other than when government interferes in the market place as would a King give a certain market to a crony.tatupu70 says

lol--again, I'm not sure you understand what you are talking about here. The customer enjoys the predatory pricing until all competitors are gone, then they are forced to pay whatever price the monopoly supplier chooses to charge forever. There is no waiting it out.

It is NOT forever. Sears was not forever nor Walmart nor Amazon or Standard Oil or AT&T or General Motors or Ford or Microsoft.

See Shudup's post above there is some profound wisdom in those words are you wise enough to listen?

CaptainShuddup says

I was not championing a Recovery. I was just stating that since 2007, the best thing the FED could have done, was shut their fucking mouth, and got to know their NEW customers. The old one's should have been tossed out of the club.

Amen to that

indigenous says

Yes that is the meme that most have swallered.

Are you going with the Palin style folksy? Because regardless if you pronounce the "g" on the end of words, the truth is the same. Capitalism leads to inequality. History proves this.

indigenous says

There is no real monopoly other than when government interferes in the market
place as would a King give a certain market to a crony

I don't agree, but it's not the point. You don't need monopolies to have wealth disparity.

indigenous says

It is NOT forever. Sears was not forever nor Walmart nor Amazon or Standard
Oil or AT&T or General Motors or Ford or Microsoft.

Neither Sears, nor Walmart, nor Amazon, nor GM, nor Ford were monopolies.

Microsoft is debatable.

And AT&T and Standard Oil were forever until the government broke them up. I'm not sure those are your best examples...

CaptainShuddup says

If the forest service were to go out into the forest and build elaborate
scaffolding around all of the sick and dying trees. Then eventually the only
thing left in the Forrest will be Dead trees propped up by sticks. As nothing
else will ever grow.

indigenous says

See Shudup's post above there is some profound wisdom in those words are you
wise enough to listen?

I'm assuming you are referring to the portion I copied above. I'm not sure what the fascination is with the bailouts and why they are used as an example to argue every point. They are completely irrelevent to the topic at hand. I'm 100% FOR breaking up the TBTF banks. I would be happy if 90% Of Wall St. were eliminated--they add no value.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with fixing the tax code to reduce wealth inequality in the US.

tatupu70 says

And AT&T and Stadard Oil were forever until the government broke them up. I'm not sure those are your best examples...

and to my question are you wise enough to listen?

I will take that as your answer...

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

And AT&T and Stadard Oil were forever until the government broke them up. I'm not sure those are your best examples...

and to my question are you wise enough to listen?

I will take that as your answer...

Are you patient enough to wait for an answer? I'll take that last post as my answer.

robertoaribas says

I really love reading opinions about the Fed, and economics from people who don't have the first damn clue or education about:

1. central banking.

2. economics in general

3. the great depression.

4. other financial panics, such as argentina, russia, greece, etc.

5. finance.

6. world trade

Or really, anything at all.

By all means, write 10 times as much as you read!

I'm no expert but I have read quite a few books on the subject roughly equivalent to what I write.

What is it you think I don't know?

Or is the best you can do ad hominem or name calling?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Whether jobs are created by the "government" or the "private sector" is not important.

That is not true, what distinguishes the two is whether they do this by coercion or voluntary exchange.

When the government hires men to build a highway, it is no more coercive than if a private corporation hired those men.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

In the end, only two things matter: how much wealth per capital is produced and how that wealth is distributed.

That is not true. It is that real wealth is created (this is not just money) at all.

Real wealth, not money, is exactly what I was talking about.

indigenous says

How it is distributed does not matter, as long as government does not get involved in specious redistribution.

Corporations do not distribute wealth any more justly than governments do.

And governments are involved in economics every time they enforce a copyright, a trademark, an intellectual property right, grant mineral rights, auction off EMS spectrum, zone commercial or industrial areas, allow the Fed to set interest rates or print money, or pass laws given to them by lobbyists.

The difference between government and corporations is the same as the difference between an invisible pink elephant and an invisible blue elephant.

Dan8267 says

When the government hires men to build a highway, it is no more coercive than if a private corporation hired those men.

What happens if the taxpayer say I don't want to pay for those Caltrans worker being paid prevailing wage and milking it to boot? Force comes into play right quick.

Dan8267 says

Corporations do not distribute wealth any more justly than governments do.

Corporations do distribute wealth much better. In order to get workers they have to enter in to cooperative exchange, the same with the customers. Government does not do this they say you ARE doing this or else we will put you in jail.Dan8267 says

And governments are involved in economics every time they enforce a copyright, a trademark, an intellectual property right, grant mineral rights, auction off EMS spectrum, zone commercial or industrial areas, allow the Fed to set interest rates or print money, or pass laws given to them by lobbyists.

Short of patents, copyrights, and similar the rest is not their purvey.

Dan8267 says

The difference between government and corporations is the same as the difference between an invisible pink elephant and an invisible blue elephant.

The difference is that corporation could not use coercion without government. Government does not practice voluntary exchange it only uses force.

robertoaribas says

indigenous, you are an idiot.

Here we see an example of name calling, clearly shown in the above graph. This is indicative of an individual whose ability to communicate is that of an ass hat.

indigenous says

What happens if the taxpayer say I don't want to pay for those Caltrans worker being paid prevailing wage and milking it to boot? Force comes into play right quick.

The case you are making is that any taxation is slavery. However, without any taxation there could be no government, and without government the power vacuum would result in the strongest establishing tyranny over all others. And that would be far worst than paying taxes.

I legitimately did not want any of my taxes to pay for Bush's wars, Gitmo, the TSA, and many other programs based solely on moral and ethical, not financial, reasons.

Exactly what kind of societal system are you proposing where there is no social cost sharing (taxes)? How would such a system even work? You could not fund any military, police, or court system, so crime and invasion would be constant threats. There could be no public roads or infrastructure. No sewers or electric grid, so disease would run rampant.

And in your vision of society, is there private land ownership? How is that justified? With little exception, no one has created the land on which we live. And in the case of the few exceptions, those have taken surface area away from the seas to make surface area for land, which is essentially taking public surface area and converting it to private surface area. In any case, there is no legitimate "first owner" except for the public.

And if you do have private ownership of land, how do you enforce that? Either it's might is right, or it's government, and as soon as you have government, you have taxes.

Not all taxation is bad. Without it, we'd still be in the Stone Age. What matters is how people are taxed and what the taxes are used for.

indigenous says

Corporations do distribute wealth much better. In order to get workers they have to enter in to cooperative exchange, the same with the customers. Government does not do this they say you ARE doing this or else we will put you in jail.

No. The fundamental flaw of capitalism is that it rewards one and only one thing: bargaining power.

Capitalism does not reward wealth production. For example, Tim Berners-Lee created more wealth than Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Roger Smith, Donald Regan, and Lloyd Blankfein put together and multiplied a thousand times.

Capitalism does not reward ingenuity, hard work, or the advancement of technology and the quality of life. Capitalism only rewards bargaining power. The rich are rich because they were in the position to dictate terms, nothing more.

You complain about taxation. If you are like most Americans, your average income tax is 25% or less. My effective tax rate for the past 15 years has fluctuated between 25% and 31%, which is pretty high.

However, what you don't realize is that your employer is easily taxing you at 40% to 90% of your income before the government even starts taxing you. That's right, if you're like me, you pay over 50% (perhaps a lot over) of your daily wealth production to your employer before taxes. The government taxes what little your employer lets "tickle down" to you so you don't quit.

So when the government taxes 25% of your "income", it's really taxing only 10% or your wealth production while your employer taxes 50% or more of that production. Sure, be upset with government, but be far more upset with corporations.

Now, a corporation has to "tax" some of its employee's production in order to pay for expenses (building, electricity, payroll, etc.), provide normal profit for overhead (human resources, management), and provide reasonable (5%-10%) economic profit for shareholders, etc. But in reality, U.S. corporations tax the majority of wealth production, not a reasonable percentage.

So, you see, corporations are like mini-governments.

indigenous says

The difference is that corporation could not use coercion without government. Government does not practice voluntary exchange it only uses force.

American history, sadly, is full of examples in which corporations have used violence and physical coercion without consequences.

http://www.XDd64suDz1A

The choice between corporations and government is a false dichotomy when the two are in bed with each other.

robertoaribas says

calling you an idiot is a simpler way of expressing that sentiment, but no less accurate.

Ah now you are hurting my feelings, oh that's right I don't have any.robertoaribas says

In the free market if the supposed monopoly charges too much competition lowers the price.

the above shows you actually don't even know what a monopoly is...

There IS NO monopoly without government. I explained this before, doing it again would be a waste of time.robertoaribas says

you claim that building roads, bridges everything that has made a modern society is not right, because some tax payers might not have wanted them....

They could easily be done by the private sector and usually are.robertoaribas says

basically, you have zero education in economics, civics, government, or history, but feel free to write nonsensical ideological crap ideas, that if followed would completely destroy society setting it back to feudal times.

Actually I be pretty smart as far as I know. The facts are the exact opposite of what you are saying here.

Dan8267 says

Exactly what kind of societal system are you proposing where there is no social cost sharing (taxes)? How would such a system even work? You could not fund any military, police, or court system, so crime and invasion would be constant threats. There could be no public roads or infrastructure. No sewers or electric grid, so disease would run rampant.

Actually the whole thing could be done by the private sector. I would be happy if we just shrank government at the federal level. Most of what you are saying could be handled at the more knowledgeable (about the local area) state level. The FEDs should be forced to get rid of the alphabet soup of federal agencies that are redundant. And all of the FED subsidies. They are just needed for defense, Congress and Senate, Judicial, Executive. This would require a greatly reduced budget for the FED level. There would still be a rule of law and private property.Dan8267 says

Capitalism does not reward ingenuity, hard work, or the advancement of technology and the quality of life. Capitalism only rewards bargaining power. The rich are rich because they were in the position to dictate terms, nothing more.

This is only true through cronyism

Dan8267 says

You complain about taxation. If you are like most Americans, your average income tax is 25% or less. My effective tax rate for the past 15 years has fluctuated between 25% and 31%, which is pretty high.

Your total taxation is over 50%

Dan8267 says

However, what you don't realize is that your employer is easily taxing you at 40% to 90% of your income before the government even starts taxing you. That's right, if you're like me, you pay over 50% (perhaps a lot over) of your daily wealth production to your employer before taxes. The government taxes what little your employer lets "tickle down" to you so you don't quit.

Clearly you have never had a business as if you had would realize how untrue that statement is. Business is carried on the back of a handful of overworked executives who beg to get good workers. Because business owners have to attract workers they have to compete for the talent.Dan8267 says

Now, a corporation has to "tax" some of its employee's production in order to pay for expenses (building, electricity, payroll, etc.), provide normal profit for overhead (human resources, management), and provide reasonable (5%-10%) economic profit for shareholders, etc. But in reality, U.S. corporations tax the majority of wealth production, not a reasonable percentage.

The ratio for any business of labor to sale price is minimum 4 to 1 and truthfully it needs to be a lot closer to 10 to 1 otherwise it just ain't worth it.Dan8267 says

The choice between corporations and government is a false dichotomy when the two are in bed with each other.

No disrespect to Woody but weren't those soldiers from the government? Another example do you personally have something against Iraqis or Afghanistans ? Or do you agree they are threat because that same government told you they needed to be stopped?

indigenous says

No joke. The free market creates equality. The ONLY way there is inequality is through government.

This simply is not true. A free market cannot exist without regulation and anti-trust laws, which require government. Let's take a step back...

Look at the term "free market". It's composed of two words: free, an adjective, and market, a noun. The word "free" modifies the word "market". That means "free" is describing the "market". Think about that. A "free market" is a market that is free.

A free market is not a market in which players are free to control or manipulate the market, but rather it is the market itself that is free of control or manipulation by any party whether it be government or corporations. And that is the fundamental misconception of so many so-called "free market advocates". Such advocates aren't in favor of a free market, but their misunderstanding of what a free market is.

Corporations do everything in their power to ensure that there is no free market because fixed markets are far more profitable than free markets. Corporations use patent law, lobbying, business deals, trade secrets, insider trading, mergers, buyouts, and many, many other techniques to prevent markets from being free. Corporations don't want to be run out of business by some kid in a garage. Corporations don't want markets to be efficient because all economic profit is, by definition, derived from market efficiencies. The very last thing a corporation would want is a market that is truly free.

In order to have a truly free market, the corporation itself must be removed from the economy all together and replaced by something completely different, something yet unnamed, a distributive network of independent production nodes that ensures that power is so thinly distributed that no one can interfere with the network's throughput.

Put simply, hierarchies must be replaced with distributed peer-to-peer organizations. In IT, hierarchies have been made obsolete by various alternatives. The same needs to happen in economics and government.

Dan8267 says

This simply is not true. A free market cannot exist without regulation and anti-trust laws, which require government. Let's take a step back...

I agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

Dan8267 says

Exactly what kind of societal system are you proposing where there is no social cost sharing (taxes)? How would such a system even work? You could not fund any military, police, or court system, so crime and invasion would be constant threats. There could be no public roads or infrastructure. No sewers or electric grid, so disease would run rampant.

The problem is there isn't enough tax income to pay for all the programs we have running. Taxation isn't a bad thing but the issue is when the government gets so big they impose taxes upon us. Things like Social security which isn't even a fundable program, originally it was but now it has turned a ponzei scheme.

Also before 1913 most of the federal government's income was generated by tariffs and excise taxes and it worked fine really.

Dan8267 says

Capitalism does not reward ingenuity, hard work, or the advancement of technology and the quality of life. Capitalism only rewards bargaining power. The rich are rich because they were in the position to dictate terms, nothing more.

I think the Government doesn't reward this at all, in fact the government is not in the business of efficiency.. Capitalism does reward ingenuity... I mean look at Ford, General Electric, Standard Oil, Steel, etc. All those things were originally funded by the private industry. While I would agree that we should of had more laws regulating monopolies so that a few wealthy men couldn't all set forth agreements and alliances to dominate the markets and filter out any competition, but at that point when you have no competition in the market it's essentially not Capitalism any longer. Which is basically what we have today, crony Capitalism.

Government shouldn't be eliminated it just needs to be smaller. It shouldn't be involved in every profitable industry making promises to people saying we can provide it to you for free or a low cost if everyone pools in their money from a form of taxation. The government should only collect taxes from excise tax or sales tax but not taxes on people's labor or wages. they need to go back to regulating things that need to be regulated such as monopolies, derivatives, fraud, and etc. Oh and work on infrastructure which is something it hasn't done in decades.

The Federal government needs to also let the state handle how they want to conduct businesses and the states need to let the local governments handle how they want to handle their law enforcement, aid, and education, local taxes/fees.

indigenous says

Actually the whole thing could be done by the private sector. I would be happy if we just shrank government at the federal level.

I agree with shrinking the government. I'd shrink it by 90% by money, and that includes shrinking the military and warfare apparatus by 95%. However, I do not see how you could run a non-tyrannical dystopia using only "the private sector". You'll need to explain that in detail.

indigenous says

Capitalism does not reward ingenuity, hard work, or the advancement of technology and the quality of life. Capitalism only rewards bargaining power. The rich are rich because they were in the position to dictate terms, nothing more.

This is only true through cronyism

No, no. Not even close. Cronyism requires more than one person. The biggest examples of capitalism rewarding only bargaining power involves the individual having many others by the balls. Cronyism has nothing to do with this. Of course, an unregulated corporate system will promote cronyism, but that's another story.

Just take a look at a rich person with the mining rights -- how the fuck he can have mining rights is a whole subject in itself -- who hires workers to mine coal. Each ton of coal brings in, say, $1000. When a miner produces a ton of coal, does the minor get $1000? No, some profit has to go to the owner and some to normal business expenses, say $10 per ton. So, does the miner get $900 for his productivity leaving $10 for business expenses and $90 for economic profit?

No. The miner gets whatever is the bare minimum the labor market will bear, which is usually the bare minimum to survive. The miner gets $90. $10 goes to operating expenses. And the remaining $900 goes to the owner, who is at best overhead. How exactly does capitalism reward wealth production in this scenario? It doesn't. It rewards only bargaining power, which is monopolized by the owner in this example. The owner gets very rich, but not from his wealth production, but from other people's. And those people actually producing the wealth stay poor. This is the fundamental flaw of capitalism, and no cronyism is involved in this example or is necessary.

It is this fundamental flaw in capitalism that our society must solve either by modifying capitalism or, more likely, transitioning to a new kind of economic system that does not suffer from this flaw. Capitalism is extremely inefficient when corporations become large and powerful.

indigenous says

Your total taxation is over 50%

My total taxation is about 90% and is composed of the following, using conservative estimations:

75% employee tax (I produce 4 times the wages and benefits I get, and yes, that's damn conservative.)

6.25% Federal income tax (that's a 25% effective FIT rate on the remaining 25% of my wealth production).

3.75% Various other official taxes such as sales, payroll, etc. (that's 15% o fthe remaining 25% of my wealth production after the employee tax).

That's a total of 85% of my wealth production being taken away by taxes, but the lion's share is taken by a corporation, not the government.

Additionally, there is the inflation tax, but that is a tax on savings, not production. Nevertheless, corporations are the biggest taxers of the average American. If you hate taxes, you should direct that hatred towards corporations and their hierarchical structure as it costs you far more than government does.

Furthermore, I would submit that if corporations didn't squeeze their employees so much, all those social programs you want to cut would not be necessary as people would easily be able to support themselves. After all, the productivity of the U.S. worker has risen 23% since 2000 and has risen by a factor of 4 since 1950! Meanwhile, real wages have decreased over that same period. This means the average worker must be producing over four times what he gets paid since workers in the 1950s were paid more than they produce!

Image if people kept a mere 80% of their wealth production before government taxes. I.e., their employers skimped only 20% of the wealth. That's more than enough for both normal and economic profit, and the income of the wealth producers would be large enough so that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be completely unnecessary. Removing those and 95% of the military would reduce government as a whole by 95%. You could have your small government if corporations didn't exist.

indigenous says

Clearly you have never had a business

According to the IRS, I have, and they have taxed it. Please feel free to argue with the IRS and get them to return the tax payments I made on behalf of my business. I'd rather you'd be right than them on this one.

indigenous says

Business is carried on the back of a handful of overworked executives who beg to get good workers. Because business owners have to attract workers they have to compete for the talent.

This simply isn't true for most businesses, and it is becoming less that case with every passing year as technology advances and a few workers are able to produce what used to take many.

I've known many executives at many companies from small start-ups to large fortune 500 companies. The executive does not work as hard or as long as his typical employee in the engineering department. Not by a long shot. Executives don't work for three days straight to make sure a product works before it gets shipped to the customer. Executives don't pull 70-hour work weeks for a decade on end. We software developers do. The longest week I've ever worked? 101 hours. When has an executive ever done that?

indigenous says

The ratio for any business of labor to sale price is minimum 4 to 1 and truthfully it needs to be a lot closer to 10 to 1 otherwise it just ain't worth it.

If the only options were to have a 0.8 to 1 ratio of labor cost to sales price or to not have a business, you can bet your ass that every executive would gladly take that deal rather than have to be part of the labor class working for someone else getting a mere 10%-15% take off of other people's labor.

Let's say the average coal minor produces $100,000 of coal a year and gets paid in total compensation $80,000/yr. Business operations are 10% overhead. Let's even say that mitigating risk costs another 8%, leaving a ridiculously low 2% economic profit margin. That leaves $2k/worker/yr in economic profit. Would rather be
a) The mine worker making $100,000
b) The executive making $200,000 managing a mere 100 workers

Most people would choose (b). The rest are insane.

Being an executive isn't harder than being a miner. It only pays more because there are fewer slots and those occupying the slots have more bargaining power. Remember, the executive does not actually produce any wealth. At best he is overhead. More typically in today's economy, he's a parasite that siphons wealth from both employees (the wealth producers) and common stock holders.

indigenous says

No disrespect to Woody but weren't those soldiers from the government?

Yes, the national guard were employed by the Federal government. However, they were sent on the behest of the corporation, in this case, by Rockefeller, Jr. So in effect, it was a corporate CEO that had ordered the national guard to kill civilians after having ordered private police to do the same. I'll post another video that goes into detail of the history of this massacre in another thread.

indigenous says

Another example do you personally have something against Iraqis or Afghanistans ? Or do you agree they are threat because that same government told you they needed to be stopped?

This is a bit off topic, but I'll entertain the questions briefly. I do not have anything personally against Iraqis or Afghans and don't know why you would get that impression. I was against both wars because they were unjust and based on clear lies. I knew Bush was lying about WMDs from the moment he refused to listen to the U.N.'s statement that there were no WMDs. Wars based on lies are always evil and many evil acts occur in such wars.

I am all for benign military intervention to topple dictators, but that's not something the U.S. has any experience in since the Revolution. The U.S. has put many dictators in power, but we have never toppled one except for Saddam, and in that war, bringing peace and democracy to Iraq was not the goal or the result. Furthermore, the costs in human lives has far exceeded the costs of leaving Saddam in power. Both wars were a waste of lives, human rights, and money, and have caused more resentment against the U.S. and more motivation for terrorism than is worth anything we got out of them.

The bottom line is that you cannot serve two masters. You cannot fulfill both the goal of freeing a foreign people and the goal of exploiting their land's natural resources.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

This simply is not true. A free market cannot exist without regulation and anti-trust laws, which require government. Let's take a step back...

I agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

It's not a matter of opinion. At least one of us has to be wrong. Technically, we could both be wrong, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

I still think that the underlying problem in your mental model is that you don't accept what the real meaning of a free market is. It is the market that is free, not the players. That's a very important distinction.

spydah_hh says

The problem is there isn't enough tax income to pay for all the programs we have running. Taxation isn't a bad thing but the issue is when the government gets so big they impose taxes upon us.

I agree that the fundamental fiscal problem is that Americans want social services that they don't want to and cannot pay for. However, if our economy were better managed, these social services would not be necessary.

As for taxation, all government regardless of their size must impose taxes upon either citizens or foreigners. How can government run without taxes?

I agree that, if the economy were managed correctly and the big three social programs eliminated along with a 95% reduction in the military, then all income tax and sales tax could be eliminated. Taxes could come from service fees imposed on users of government services and rent-taxes for things used by all of society like police and the military. An example of a service fee would be a boat tax to pay for lighthouses or an automotive or gas tax to pay for highway usage.

Such a tax system would be much better than a general tax (income, sales, etc.) and a general fund as it would avoid the Tragedy of the Commons situation were every special interest group tries to get "its share" of the trough feed.

However, I have yet to see anyone propose any idea, plausible or not, in which taxes are unnecessary at all. That is why I reject the argument that all taxation is equivalent to slavery, which is were indigenous was headed in one of his posts.

spydah_hh says

I think the Government doesn't reward this at all, in fact the government is not in the business of efficiency..

Our government is not in the business of efficiency. This does not imply that government is inherently inefficient or that government cannot be efficient.

The fact is that there are things that the private sector can and does efficiently and there are things that the private sector cannot or chooses not to do efficiently. Furthermore, there are things that government can and does efficiently and there are things that the government cannot or chooses not to do efficiently. And if you look really closely at these four situations, you'll notice that there are patterns. There are reasons why government or the private sector is inefficient at some task, and most often the reasons are the same for both.

There is a logical criteria for determining whether something should be done by the public collectively (typically through government) or should be done by the commercial sector (private sector is a misnomer). Only a fool would say that everything should only be done by the government or only be done by the commercial sector. The question is what is the criteria that splits the responsibilities of these two forces. The short answer is whether the benefits are accrued by the individual or the public. We can argue about the details, but that's more or less the answer.

And once we agree on that answer, we can go into specifics about how each force should be structured to perform its responsibilities.

The key point is that the subject of government and economics must become a science and an engineering discipline instead of the religion that it currently is. There can be no dogma. Everything must be verifiable and all results reproducible. Our country needs to stop treating politics and economics like a religion.

spydah_hh says

Government shouldn't be eliminated it just needs to be smaller.

I, and most Americans, would agree with that. However, it's not just the case of making government smaller. It's about restructuring government to make it better. In fact, we have to restructure government to be better before we can make it smaller.

robertoaribas says

Dan: 95% military cuts would be suicidal considering China these days.

10 20% would be possible, but your figures bordre on craziensss.

China is more of a threat financially than in terms of military. Who cares if you have the biggest military or advancements when/if you you're unable to have the means to support it.

Besides China's military threat is over played. Sure they have a largest standing army but size isn't what wins wars. Logistics and Military Advancements do. Which is something China doesn't quite have yet or even close compared to the States.

robertoaribas says

spydah_hh says

Besides China's military threat is over played.

tell that to: the vietnamese, japanese, and filipinos.

They are giving us on a silver platter, the chance of a lifetime to set up strategic alliances all over asia, due to their overbearing arrogance.

And you're thinking they're going to side with China because it's a part of Asia and that they're all Asian? Ha! I mean you really think they're going to fall in line under the communist regime?

Hell Taiwan doesn't want anything to do with China but I bet if given the chance China would love to overtake Taiwan. Besides I know Filipinos who have a different opinion about China. If I am not mistaken there's currently a conflict between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea.

robertoaribas says

Dan: 95% military cuts would be suicidal considering China these days.

10 20% would be possible, but your figures bordre on craziensss.

Hardly. China isn't going to invade a nuclear power like the U.S. We don't have to keep spending ridiculous amounts on warfare.

A 95% decrease would take U.S. military spending from $682.5 billion to $34.1 billion putting us in line with most of our allies, and that's not even counting all the military hardware we've already paid for including nukes, ICBMs, and stealth bombers.

And even then, the U.S. and our allies would compose about half of the world's spending on military, dwarfing both China and Russia put together.

And, quite frankly, China could win a war against the U.S. simply by dumping all its U.S. treasuries causing our government to collapse. You see, China, has figured out that the wars of the 21st century are going to be economic wars, not military ones.

Fixing our economic problems are the most important thing we can do to protect our national security.

And quite frankly, without cutting our military by 95%, there is no way we can balance the budget and pay off the national debt.