patrick.net

The real cause in the changes in the US current account were due to Nixon taking us off of the gold standard coupled with Friedman's floating exchange rate with a targeted 3% inflation. (the MMTs are no better that Ks) This coupled with the ability to borrow by selling treasuries meant that spending could exceed taxes.

Post number 15 is irrelevant.

cause, effect, or symptom, it is what it is, and we're going to need more government not less to beat these corporatocratic fuckers back.

Central problem being the muddled middle that isn't going to figure things out until it's too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Bellingham Bill says

we're going to need more government not less to beat these corporatocratic fuckers back.

Fuck no, dumb ass.

How much has government grown in the past 40yr? go get a graph for that.

We have the BIGGEST centralized government in the history of the world. And it AIN'T WORKIN.

You are getting further away from the truth not closer...

Germany and Canada's government act more for justice and what is right rather than the tyranny of the democracy.

Speaking of health care, make sure to support prop 45 this year in California http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/focusarea/regulating-health-insurance-rates

Health insurance companies already contributed 45M to a campaign against it (Kaiser, Anthem)

Update: better link: http://justifyrates.consumerwatchdogcampaign.org/

Bellingham Bill says

"Big government" is working well, or better, for Germany and the nordic states. Canada too.

Very difficult comparison, Police state and privacy wise, Germany is much smaller government. Tax wise it's roughly equal once you add up US federal, state and municipal taxes, maybe it's a little bit more. Compared to the services everybody (rich and poor) gets in return the deal is better though, e.g. super low tuition fees for everybody. I do think it's way too complex though, so I don't want to cheerlead it, just clarify some. The problem is that in the US tax money is immediately diverted to the parasitic sectors (defense, health care, RE, banking, insurance) and most net paying people (wage slaves) never see a dime of it.

mell says

diverted to the parasitic sectors (defense, health care, RE, banking, insurance) and most net paying people (wage slaves) never see a dime of it.

. . .

cut DOD ~$500B to Germany's levels -- $238B/yr -- and hundreds of local economies dependent on Uncle Sugar would self-implode, kinda like 1990s LA (after they lost aerospace), but much worse.

So clearly our DOD expense isn't just vanishing into a black hole.

Similarly, health is one of the few dynamic sectors of the economy.

so of course there's lots of redistribution going on there (as gov't pays so much of it). PPACA's 3% tax on investment income, distributed to working class health insurance premium subsidies, is a beautiful thing! Should be 10%, LOL.

Bellingham Bill says

So clearly our DOD expense isn't just vanishing into a black hole.

Similarly, health is one of the few dynamic sectors of the economy.

True, but health care is always in demand and I don't think fixing price-fixing for drugs, health insurances, bringing back price discovery and transparency and such would dampen the need for nurses and other workers much, it would definitely cut down on some of the insane profits though. WRT to defense, they can use the money otherwise spent going to war to take care of those who are depending on the sector for the transitional phase. In effect they are not adding much to the economy, because the perpetual war machine feeds on itself and is paid by the taxpayer. Doesn't mean they should give up research and technology in defense.

mell says

it would definitely cut down on some of the insane profits though

Sure. But the eurosocialist paradises demonstrate that if you can control profits in health care, the additional consumer surplus is soon used in bidding up housing costs instead.

Same dynamic with Japan I guess.

In effect they are not adding much to the economy, because the perpetual war machine feeds on itself and is paid by the taxpayer

defense is great because it doesn't feel like welfare. Look at me, I'm a big bad warrior defending the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

In the scheme of things it'd be much more economical to devote hundreds of billions more to capital improvement projects everywhere they're needed, but that's communism or something.

the important thing is to keep money circulating within what I call the paycheck economy. There's too much parasitical loss out of it, via rents in housing, healthcare, FIRE, and our trade deficit.

indigenous says

This is the tyranny of the democracy at work

This is the tyranny of capitalism at work. Everything's about profiting right now, screw the future. Why do you think we tolerate pollution? Polluting is eating all the food right now.

Dan8267 says

This is the tyranny of capitalism at work. Everything's about profiting right now, screw the future. Why do you think we tolerate pollution? Polluting is eating all the food right now.

As usual you miss the point...

After his blatant disregard of facts, unwillingness to make cogent arguments, and unreasoning stupidity, I'm downgrading indigenous to status of "schill."
My advice would be to pay no attention to this pawn of the bankers and wealthy elite.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

This is the tyranny of the democracy at work

This is the tyranny of capitalism at work. Everything's about profiting right now, screw the future. Why do you think we tolerate pollution? Polluting is eating all the food right now.

What car do you drive Dan? that nice red convertible looks like a high polluting guzzler.

Quigley says

After his blatant disregard of facts, unwillingness to make cogent arguments, and unreasoning stupidity, I'm downgrading indigenous to status of "schill."

My advice would be to pay no attention to this pawn of the bankers and wealthy elite.

Projecting, care to point out where I have done that on this thread?

Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.

The "tyranny of democracy" requires that at least 50% of the electorate goes along with the program.

plutocracy -- one dollar one vote -- doesn't even have that low bar to clear, and we got enough of that both here in the US and in Europe over the centuries.

though of course without democratic processes any system will quickly devolve into one bullet one vote, since violence is a more effective lever of power than mere money, wealth, etc.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Churchill, speaking as leader of the Opposition, 1947.

debyne says

Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.

debyne says

Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.

Taxes are not creating the inequality

indigenous says

Projecting, care to point out where I have done that on this thread?

LOL

Bellingham Bill says

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Churchill, speaking as leader of the Opposition, 1947.

A Republic is better. Churchill was not all he was cracked up to be...

The speaker in the video that not one of you mutts will watch brought up that very point and said that the Chinese Politburo was better.

Bellingham Bill says

LOL

Except it is, in fact it is not even coherent.

indigenous says

reasoning.Bellingham Bill says

The only thing keeping the game going is our immense government redistribution:

Closer, you have an addiction to graphs, at the expense of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is not a requirement to follow or comment on Patnet. rofl

debyne says

Flat consumption tax is the only fair way to tax the people. Income taxes are completely unfair since you're discriminating against those that make more money.

All taxes are unfair. Fairness is completely irrelevant. The tax structure has to be designed to create a healthy economy.

HEY YOU says

Deductive reasoning is not a requirement to follow or comment on Patnet. rofl

It is if you want to separate the wheat from the chaff.

tatupu70 says

All taxes are unfair. Fairness is completely irrelevant. The tax structure has to be designed to create a healthy economy.

Now that's a central planner talking if I ever heard one. Screw individual rights and let's do what "I" think is best for the greater good.

debyne says

Now that's a central planner talking if I ever heard one. Screw individual rights and let's do what "I" think is best for the greater good.

Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?

Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?

^ yeah, that's my take too.

The question is if they can keep some of the people -- enough to stay in power -- fooled all of the time.

Start with the top 5% as inside-party economic elite, add another 20% as the nomenklatura in media, military, police, they're still 25% away from power in our democratic system.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html

says ~27% is the crazification factor here. Shit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_international_investment_position_per_capita

is the scoreboard, and we ain't even on it. $5.5T in the hole the other way, actually.

jazz music says

I grant you your point, it's true but

Gawd what conjecture...

tatupu70 says

Uh, how does setting up a tax structure screw individual rights?

Are you under the impression that rich people have the RIGHT to pay lower taxes than middle class and poor people?

I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a violation of equal property rights. That's like forcing someone who is rich to pay double the price for a movie ticket.

How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate is much higher than someone making half my income.

debyne says

I didn't say that setting up a tax structure screws individual rights. Setting
up a tax structure that makes higher income people pay more than others is a
violation of equal property rights.

What exactly are equal property rights?

debyne says

How are rich people paying less taxes? We have a progressive tax structure
that forces them to pay far more. I know for a fact that my effective tax rate
is much higher than someone making half my income.

That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

tatupu70 says

What exactly are equal property rights?

Property is something you own such as a house or actual money that you earn as income. Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.

tatupu70 says

That's pretty simple. Real rich people don't earn their income as wages, they earn as capital gains. As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays more.

Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.

debyne says

Equal property rights would be treating everyone exactly the same as to what
they're allowed to do with that property and how it's taxed by the gov't.

Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?

A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.

debyne says

But the capital gains rate is the same for everyone, and it's based on a
percentage. Percentages, by nature, are progressive already because the amount
you pay goes up by the amount you earn. Not sure why you still think the rich
are paying less...nothing is stopping others from taking advantage of it. Go see
how much Warren Buffett pays in taxes compared to yourself, and see who pays
more.

Regardless, I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway. We should have consumption taxes only.

Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?

Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.

tatupu70 says

why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks???

more people's money in the market would just push yields lower than they are now, too.

"I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains or
dividends anyway."

while with my Georgist hat on I might think this is great in theory, in the real world, not taxing the rich at all will just result in ever-increasing wealth concentration, since money "makes" money and mere labor has no chance to compete against it any more, if it ever did.

But preferable to the Piketty solution would be just to eliminate the rents in housing, healthcare, FIRE, our trade deficit directly. For the first three, this would require "public options" I guess (changing our economy to look more like what Finland/Sweden/Germany/Denmark/Norway are doing), and the latter requires either import tariffs and/or printing to match what China and our other trade partners are doing.

tatupu70 says

As I'm sure you know, capital gains rate is not progressive and relatively low. The fact that you earn as wages means you aren't among the really rich.

you got a dislike by the resident moron here, but you are correct.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

shows "the 1%" collected between 1/6 and 1/5 the national income and paid a 23.5% tax rate on that take.

1% taking 20%. Business as usual here!

tatupu70 says

Have "equal property rights" as you describe them ever existed?

A tax structure as you desire is a quick way to Mad Max status.

I thought it existed before the federal income tax was instituted back in the early 1900s. Were we mad max back then without taking into consideration technological advancements? I don't think so.

tatupu70 says

Yes, why don't those poor people just start buying more stocks??? What the hell is wrong with them?

Again--your ideas are why the 1% own 30% (and growing) of the wealth right now. If you can't see why that is bad, then you need take a step back and try to understand how the economy works.

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

debyne says

Like I said, make all taxes consumption-based and then the capital gains/income tax issue goes away. Everyone pays for usage of something or sales....the rich will pay more because they spend/use more, but that's their decision.

I think consumption-based taxation will ultimately end up taxing the rich more because you'd eliminate the stupid loopholes. But along with all of this, we need to shrink gov't and leave more money in the private sector to innovate and produce, which will lift the tide for all boats.

Just wanted to read that again