Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by Doc » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:48 am

Milo wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:03 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:42 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:16 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:02 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:03 pm
Doc wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:20 am

The amount of taxes to be paid have a direct effect on private sector spending.
Yes, us as the amount of public spending has a direct effect on economic growth, especially when private spending slacks off.

(like during an economic recession.)

Not to the degree that private sector spending has in equal amounts. Government spending is choosing winners and losers Private spending is letting the markets decide I would put my money of the markets 9 times out of 10 VS some government bureaucrats choosing where to spend the money.
The private sector doesn't choose winners and losers?
They mostly do it with their own money. Not someone else's money. If it is someone else's money and they choose too many losers they don't get anymore money.
Modern history is replete with CEOs who were richly rewarded for tanking companies. Then there's those who rake in investment and get rich from money losing and even fraudulent ventures. There's lots of companies who do a terrible job for customers but earn lots of money because they are monopolies. And there's the super rich, who often derive enormous income from investments that only they have access to.

I believe in a free market but I find your analysis tainted by naivety.
IT is very rare to see a CEO tank a company and still be CEO IE They don't get a new position after they have left the position they failed. Your other points don't address mine in anyway.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by neverfail » Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:47 pm

Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:42 pm

They mostly do it with their own money. Not someone else's money. If it is someone else's money and they choose too many losers they don't get anymore money.
Not someone else's money? :lol: Doc, are you unaware that joint stock corporations use shareholders' funds; money borrowed from business banks; money raised by bond issuesn including junk bonds to fund their activities? What is this other than using other' people's money?

As for "picking winners" have you not heard about the corporate takeover? Company mergers? When free enterprise corporations fail to pick winners they usually go broke.

As for the state, is that not the biggest "corporation" of them all in which all citizens are stakeholders?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:25 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:47 pm
Not someone else's money? :lol: Doc, are you unaware that joint stock corporations use shareholders' funds; money borrowed from business banks; money raised by bond issuesn including junk bonds to fund their activities? What is this other than using other' people's money?
Yes, it actually is someone else's money. But in a market system, even if it's misused, the difference remains that it's not taken from those people forcibly, and those people can make different decisions in the future based on the results they experienced. It's definitely not perfect, but it's definitely a much more efficient way of getting capital to where it can be usefully deployed than the state is.
As for "picking winners" have you not heard about the corporate takeover? Company mergers? When free enterprise corporations fail to pick winners they usually go broke.
Similar to "market forces" and "free enterprise", that's not what "picking winners" means.
As for the state, is that not the biggest "corporation" of them all in which all citizens are stakeholders?
No, it's not. A company and a state are fundamentally different organisations.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by Milo » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:20 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:03 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:42 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:16 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:02 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:03 pm


Yes, us as the amount of public spending has a direct effect on economic growth, especially when private spending slacks off.

(like during an economic recession.)

Not to the degree that private sector spending has in equal amounts. Government spending is choosing winners and losers Private spending is letting the markets decide I would put my money of the markets 9 times out of 10 VS some government bureaucrats choosing where to spend the money.
The private sector doesn't choose winners and losers?
They mostly do it with their own money. Not someone else's money. If it is someone else's money and they choose too many losers they don't get anymore money.
Modern history is replete with CEOs who were richly rewarded for tanking companies. Then there's those who rake in investment and get rich from money losing and even fraudulent ventures. There's lots of companies who do a terrible job for customers but earn lots of money because they are monopolies. And there's the super rich, who often derive enormous income from investments that only they have access to.

I believe in a free market but I find your analysis tainted by naivety.
Such cases are rare. Most of the time, companies make money by providing good products or service that customers want to buy. CEOs who don't do a good job are usually fired.
But when monopolistic practice wins it's very difficult to get rid of. They have never gotten rid of it in most of the world and it's a big contributor to the world's problems.

And securing a monopoly is the goal of every public corporation and nearly every private one.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by cassowary » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:34 pm

Milo wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:20 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:09 am
Milo wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:03 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:42 pm
Milo wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:16 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:02 am



Not to the degree that private sector spending has in equal amounts. Government spending is choosing winners and losers Private spending is letting the markets decide I would put my money of the markets 9 times out of 10 VS some government bureaucrats choosing where to spend the money.
The private sector doesn't choose winners and losers?
They mostly do it with their own money. Not someone else's money. If it is someone else's money and they choose too many losers they don't get anymore money.
Modern history is replete with CEOs who were richly rewarded for tanking companies. Then there's those who rake in investment and get rich from money losing and even fraudulent ventures. There's lots of companies who do a terrible job for customers but earn lots of money because they are monopolies. And there's the super rich, who often derive enormous income from investments that only they have access to.

I believe in a free market but I find your analysis tainted by naivety.
Such cases are rare. Most of the time, companies make money by providing good products or service that customers want to buy. CEOs who don't do a good job are usually fired.
But when monopolistic practice wins it's very difficult to get rid of. They have never gotten rid of it in most of the world and it's a big contributor to the world's problems.

And securing a monopoly is the goal of every public corporation and nearly every private one.





That's true. And that is why big business, together with big government and big unions are all enemies of the free market.

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by neverfail » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm

You know what milo?

Reading through Steve Foerster's most recent post has served to remind me of just how exasperating it can be having a discussion with bloody block-headed Yanks on the issue of sound, responsible economic management - al least when the matter of the role of government comes into it.

I live in a country where back in 2007-08; I witnessed our elected government of the day in co-ordination with our central bank astutely steer this country through the global GFC storm brought on by their damned subprime mortgage meltdown. Considering that this country is not an economic colossus like the USA, the EU or today's PRC but arguably one of the world's smaller players I consider that to have been quite a remarkable achievement: though who live out here did not all see it as that - just the government discharging a duty we would expect any government to duly carry out. Yet even before that government out here had likewise steered this country through the 200-01 tech wreck recession without missing a beat along with a few years earlier the Asia currency crisis. Yet over there they seem not to have even yet invented sound macro-economic management by the organs of government.

Steve: I can only dimly grasp what you and Doc mean by "government picks winners". That does not even remotely coincide with my own experience of government management of our national economy. It seems to me that you are too accustomed over there to the sceptre of a shambolic, ill structured system of government working to favour privileged vested and sectional interests and cannot imagine government behaving any differently.

I have never suggested a Soviet style command economy or even anything that tilts in that direction. Why must you Americans consider it a matter of going to one extreme or the other?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:11 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
I can only dimly grasp what you and Doc mean by "government picks winners". That does not even remotely coincide with my own experience of government management of our national economy. It seems to me that you are too accustomed over there to the sceptre of a shambolic, ill structured system of government working to favour privileged vested and sectional interests and cannot imagine government behaving any differently.
As I said, a reference to government "picking winners and losers" is not a libertarian argument. It's simply a legitimate observation that the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more companies will prosper or decline based on how well they toe the regulatory line and the less it will be that they do so by actually pleasing their customers. A number of industries in the U.S. show this, including Internet service and healthcare.
I have never suggested a Soviet style command economy or even anything that tilts in that direction.
I know.
Why must you Americans consider it a matter of going to one extreme or the other?
But I don't. For example, I've repeatedly made observations such as that a welfare layer on top of a market economy is not "socialism" and that it's for good reason that counties like those in Scandinavia that have such a system function well in a way that countries like Venezuela that are actually socialist cannot.

That said, if you misuse terms that have actual definitions, yes, I'll call you out on it.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by neverfail » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:28 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:11 pm

As I said, a reference to government "picking winners and losers" is not a libertarian argument. It's simply a legitimate observation that the more heavily regulated an economy is, the more companies will prosper or decline based on how well they toe the regulatory line and the less it will be that they do so by actually pleasing their customers. A number of industries in the U.S. show this, including Internet service and healthcare.
Thanks for response, Steve. Yes, I have always found you easy to deal with

I am still mystified about why the term "picking winners and losers" is applied to placing regulations on the economy. Not your fault as you have described with clarity what you mean by that. The term seems incongruous to me. After all, even in your country you have safety regulations in industry and transport and have always viewed "regulations" in that light. They are there for the benefit and well being of all. Are you trying to say that in the USA regulations have been enacted that are detrimental to particular industries or even individual businesses?



SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:11 pm
But I don't. For example, I've repeatedly made observations such as that a welfare layer on top of a market economy is not "socialism" and that it's for good reason that counties like those in Scandinavia that have such a system function well in a way that countries like Venezuela that are actually socialist cannot.
Agreed! You don't steve but others do.

But then I don't see that the Scandinavian countries and Venezuela ought to even be compared. Since when have Venezuela's neighbors ever been much of an improvement on it? Look at Columbia next door - mired for over 50 years in a multi-factional civil war. It seems to me that in that part of the world you do not need Socialism to do a complete ***k-up.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by Milo » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:03 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You know what milo?

Reading through Steve Foerster's most recent post has served to remind me of just how exasperating it can be having a discussion with bloody block-headed Yanks on the issue of sound, responsible economic management - al least when the matter of the role of government comes into it.

I live in a country where back in 2007-08; I witnessed our elected government of the day in co-ordination with our central bank astutely steer this country through the global GFC storm brought on by their damned subprime mortgage meltdown. Considering that this country is not an economic colossus like the USA, the EU or today's PRC but arguably one of the world's smaller players I consider that to have been quite a remarkable achievement: though who live out here did not all see it as that - just the government discharging a duty we would expect any government to duly carry out. Yet even before that government out here had likewise steered this country through the 200-01 tech wreck recession without missing a beat along with a few years earlier the Asia currency crisis. Yet over there they seem not to have even yet invented sound macro-economic management by the organs of government.

Steve: I can only dimly grasp what you and Doc mean by "government picks winners". That does not even remotely coincide with my own experience of government management of our national economy. It seems to me that you are too accustomed over there to the sceptre of a shambolic, ill structured system of government working to favour privileged vested and sectional interests and cannot imagine government behaving any differently.

I have never suggested a Soviet style command economy or even anything that tilts in that direction. Why must you Americans consider it a matter of going to one extreme or the other?
Canada was widely praised for its handling of the 07-08 crisis. I attribute that to our tradition of letting the technocrats do their job.

The problem as much as anything is that many Americans see America as uniquely great in the world, which is true, but then attribute the reasons for that greatness to America's rather unique situation regarding health care, guns and lax regulation, which actually hold them back.

There's also the American cultural motif of rural ignorance always beating urban sophistication; never happens in real life but for many Americans it's an unquestionable truth.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Tax plan raises taxes on liberal states and lowers them for the rest.

Post by Doc » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:58 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:47 pm
Doc wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:42 pm

They mostly do it with their own money. Not someone else's money. If it is someone else's money and they choose too many losers they don't get anymore money.
Not someone else's money? :lol: Doc, are you unaware that joint stock corporations use shareholders' funds; money borrowed from business banks; money raised by bond issuesn including junk bonds to fund their activities? What is this other than using other' people's money?

As for "picking winners" have you not heard about the corporate takeover? Company mergers? When free enterprise corporations fail to pick winners they usually go broke.

As for the state, is that not the biggest "corporation" of them all in which all citizens are stakeholders?
The second sentence in my reply covers other people's money. OF course they go broke if they fail to pick winners. The Difference is that government does not go broke when it does the same. IT just raises taxes from other people's money that have no choice in the matter except to move elsewhere.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jim the Moron and 6 guests