The Pope is a Communist

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The Pope does not understand economics

Post by cassowary » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:27 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:41 pm
It was economic growth that led to the reduction of poverty since Charles Dicken’s time. Not government spending.
Not incompatable.

Logically, economic growth permits greater government spending.

Economic growth is only a key. A key is there to open doors.
I agree. Economic growth allows government to spend more to help people. But there is a problem. High spending requires high taxes. High taxes reduces economic growth. You can see what happened when Trump and his Republicans cut taxes. The economy boomed leading to improved statistics around the board which Trump bragged about in the SOTU.

GDP growth rate, on average, grew faster in the last three years than in the oBUMa years. Unemployment fell. That includes for the minorities that Democrats claimed to champion. The best part is that the wages for the bottom income group grew faster than for the top.

So if you retard growth with a too large welfare state, then in the long run, the poor will be worse off. In general, Capitalism grows average wealth faster than Socialism. But there is more inequality. Socialism seeks to reduce inequality by income transfer by taxing and spending. High taxes cause slower growth, higher unemployment and poverty.

I propose a balance. Government spending should not be more than 20% of GDP. In the US, Federal Spending, as I shown earlier, is 25% of GDP. But that does not include State and Local government spending. If you add it all up, it comes to 40% of GDP for the US. I believe that if government spending and hence tax revenue are kept at 20% of GDP, economic growth will not be retarded. So the poor will benefit more in the long run.

That needs to go down by half.
.........................................................................................................................

But that is beside the point Cassowary. Had the present Pope been alive and on the Throne of Saint Peter in Charles Dickens' time he would probably have identified the exploitative socio-economic-political structure they had in place in Britain at the time as sinful.

Just as (in more recent memory) his predecessor in office, Pope John Paul the Second, identified environmental abuse in our time as sinful (or are you unaware of that?).

In that regard Pope Francis is arguably only walking in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor.
I don't know whether the socio-economic political structure in Britain during Charles Dicken's time was sinful or not. But I consider the current economic political structure of today to be sinful.

That's because it is basically based on theft. Suppose there are 1000 people in a small town. 333 are the richer residents and the balance 667 are the poor. If the 667 using their sheer numbers gang up and rob the 333 with guns, then I am sure you agree that is wrong.

But what if the 667 elect a mayor who promised to tax the 333 and transfer the money to the 667? It may be democracy. But it is also theft. Currently, Socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders are promising taxes to pay for all sorts of free stuff. Isn't that robbery as well?

If you don't pay taxes, the police who have guns will arrest you. So it is no different than if the 667 people use their own guns to rob the 333 in the small town. People are just using their vote to rob others. I think the welfare states in most western countries have grown too big. Their governments need to slim down.
Last edited by cassowary on Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by Sertorio » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:13 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
High taxes reduces economic growth.
They don't, except in exceptional situations. Taxes are applied on profits, and growth depends on investment. All you have to do is deducting investment from gross profits, and tax only the net profit. In that way high taxes do not reduce economic growth.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by cassowary » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:15 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:13 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
High taxes reduces economic growth.
They don't, except in exceptional situations. Taxes are applied on profits, and growth depends on investment. All you have to do is deducting investment from gross profits, and tax only the net profit. In that way high taxes do not reduce economic growth.
You are wrong on this. Businessmen create jobs by risking their capital. If you tax their profits too much, it is not worthwhile to risk their capital. They might as well spend their money on girls, wine and song.

Socialists/Communists don't understand how risky doing business is. They only think (jealously, I suspect) of the success stories of people becoming fabulously rich and forget those who go broke.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by Sertorio » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:28 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:15 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:13 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
High taxes reduces economic growth.
They don't, except in exceptional situations. Taxes are applied on profits, and growth depends on investment. All you have to do is deducting investment from gross profits, and tax only the net profit. In that way high taxes do not reduce economic growth.
You are wrong on this. Businessmen create jobs by risking their capital. If you tax their profits too much, it is not worthwhile to risk their capital. They might as well spend their money on girls, wine and song.

Socialists/Communists don't understand how risky doing business is. They only think (jealously, I suspect) of the success stories of people becoming fabulously rich and forget those who go broke.
The point is knowing when taxes become too much...

neverfail
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:33 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:27 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:41 pm
It was economic growth that led to the reduction of poverty since Charles Dicken’s time. Not government spending.
Not incompatable.

Logically, economic growth permits greater government spending.

Economic growth is only a key. A key is there to open doors.
I agree. Economic growth allows government to spend more to help people. But there is a problem. High spending requires high taxes. High taxes reduces economic growth. You can see what happened when Trump and his Republicans cut taxes. The economy boomed leading to improved statistics around the board which Trump bragged about in the SOTU.

GDP growth rate, on average, grew faster in the last three years than in the oBUMa years. Unemployment fell. That includes for the minorities that Democrats claimed to champion. The best part is that the wages for the bottom income group grew faster than for the top.

So if you retard growth with a too large welfare state, then in the long run, the poor will be worse off. In general, Capitalism grows average wealth faster than Socialism. But there is more inequality. Socialism seeks to reduce inequality by income transfer by taxing and spending. High taxes cause slower growth, higher unemployment and poverty.

I propose a balance. Government spending should not be more than 20% of GDP. In the US, Federal Spending, as I shown earlier, is 25% of GDP. But that does not include State and Local government spending. If you add it all up, it comes to 40% of GDP for the US. I believe that if government spending and hence tax revenue are kept at 20% of GDP, economic growth will not be retarded. So the poor will benefit more in the long run.

That needs to go down by half.
.........................................................................................................................

But that is beside the point Cassowary. Had the present Pope been alive and on the Throne of Saint Peter in Charles Dickens' time he would probably have identified the exploitative socio-economic-political structure they had in place in Britain at the time as sinful.

Just as (in more recent memory) his predecessor in office, Pope John Paul the Second, identified environmental abuse in our time as sinful (or are you unaware of that?).

In that regard Pope Francis is arguably only walking in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor.
I don't know whether the socio-economic political structure in Britain during Charles Dicken's time was sinful or not. But I consider the current economic political structure of today to be sinful.

That's because it is basically based on theft. Suppose there are 1000 people in a small town. 333 are the richer residents and the balance 667 are the poor. If the 667 using their sheer numbers gang up and rob the 333 with guns, then I am sure you agree that is wrong.

But what if the 667 elect a mayor who promised to tax the 333 and transfer the money to the 667? It may be democracy. But it is also theft. Currently, Socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders are promising taxes to pay for all sorts of free stuff. Isn't that robbery as well?

If you don't pay taxes, the police who have guns will arrest you. So it is no different than if the 667 people use their own guns to rob the 333 in the small town. People are just using their vote to rob others. I think the welfare states in most western countries have grown too big. Their governments need to slim down.
Boy, have you got it wrong Cassowary!

neverfail
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:15 pm
Businessmen create jobs by risking their capital....
.....and worker/employees generate their profits for them by agreeing to work for the bastards - all the time running the risk that they will lose their means to an livelihood through no fault of their own should the firm that employs them 1) shed labour due to the onset of recession or 2) (worse still) send the firm broke due to mismanagement.

When it came to providing lifelong employment for breadwinners, the Socialist command economies of yore were better at that. No business cycles = no recessions .

So please cease placing businessmen-entrepreneurs high up on a pedestal. Agreed that they have their uses but I refuse to regard them as demi-gods as you habitually seem to.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:43 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:28 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:15 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:13 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
High taxes reduces economic growth.
They don't, except in exceptional situations. Taxes are applied on profits, and growth depends on investment. All you have to do is deducting investment from gross profits, and tax only the net profit. In that way high taxes do not reduce economic growth.
You are wrong on this. Businessmen create jobs by risking their capital. If you tax their profits too much, it is not worthwhile to risk their capital. They might as well spend their money on girls, wine and song.

Socialists/Communists don't understand how risky doing business is. They only think (jealously, I suspect) of the success stories of people becoming fabulously rich and forget those who go broke.
The point is knowing when taxes become too much...
A very good question. I have gone through this before but perhaps you did not read what I wrote. Let me reintroduce you to James Alexander Mirlees, a leftist economist who once worked for the British Labour Party.

He started out believing, as you do, that the government should tax the rich and give it to the poor. But the Conservatives were claiming, as I do, that high taxes are disincentives and you will end up with less economic growth and hence less money for the government to tax and spend.

Excerpt from link:
One of Mirrlees’s main contributions was his pathbreaking work on optimal
income taxation—a progressive tax that included incentives for earning. An adviser
to the British Labour Party in the 1960s and ’70s (an era of higher taxes and a more
centralized control of the economy), Mirrlees started his work with the assumption
that the government should take money from the rich and give it to the poor.


His conclusions were surprising. Working from this assumption and making further
assumptions about people’s skills and the effect that tax rates have on the incentive
to earn, Mirrlees computed the top marginal tax rate for high-income earners. He
found that this optimal rate was not 83 percent, the top rate in Britain at the time,
but instead only 20 percent.


Moreover, he concluded that the marginal tax rate
should be about 20 percent for everyone, which would make the optimal structure
something very close to what is now called a flat tax rate. “I must confess,” wrote
Mirrlees, “that I had expected the rigorous analysis of income taxation in the
utilitarian manner to provide arguments for high tax rates. It has not done so.”
Mirrlees was knighted in 1998.
So there you have it. 20% is the optimal tax rate for income and company taxes. You have just heard it from the man who set out to prove that its ok to impose high taxes and came up with the conclusion that its better to cut taxes.

So how much can the government spend as a % of GDP? Well, if income and company taxes are at 20% and that is all they tax, it means that the government can spend up to 20% of GDP. But if you impose sales (VAT, GST) taxes and property taxes, I guess the government can spend more. But I believe the other taxes will create distortions in the market. Mirlees did not research on other taxes.

I don't know what impact there will be for GDP growth and government revenues in the long run. Likely to be bad. If you want government to help the poor, you must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Instead, you must nourish the goose so that it can lay more golden eggs.

Government should only tax the maximum possible that will not damage economic growth. With growth, you end up with less poor people in the long run. And you will have more money to help those still poor. No matter what, the poor will always be with us.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:47 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:33 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:04 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:27 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:41 pm
It was economic growth that led to the reduction of poverty since Charles Dicken’s time. Not government spending.
Not incompatable.

Logically, economic growth permits greater government spending.

Economic growth is only a key. A key is there to open doors.
I agree. Economic growth allows government to spend more to help people. But there is a problem. High spending requires high taxes. High taxes reduces economic growth. You can see what happened when Trump and his Republicans cut taxes. The economy boomed leading to improved statistics around the board which Trump bragged about in the SOTU.

GDP growth rate, on average, grew faster in the last three years than in the oBUMa years. Unemployment fell. That includes for the minorities that Democrats claimed to champion. The best part is that the wages for the bottom income group grew faster than for the top.

So if you retard growth with a too large welfare state, then in the long run, the poor will be worse off. In general, Capitalism grows average wealth faster than Socialism. But there is more inequality. Socialism seeks to reduce inequality by income transfer by taxing and spending. High taxes cause slower growth, higher unemployment and poverty.

I propose a balance. Government spending should not be more than 20% of GDP. In the US, Federal Spending, as I shown earlier, is 25% of GDP. But that does not include State and Local government spending. If you add it all up, it comes to 40% of GDP for the US. I believe that if government spending and hence tax revenue are kept at 20% of GDP, economic growth will not be retarded. So the poor will benefit more in the long run.

That needs to go down by half.
.........................................................................................................................

But that is beside the point Cassowary. Had the present Pope been alive and on the Throne of Saint Peter in Charles Dickens' time he would probably have identified the exploitative socio-economic-political structure they had in place in Britain at the time as sinful.

Just as (in more recent memory) his predecessor in office, Pope John Paul the Second, identified environmental abuse in our time as sinful (or are you unaware of that?).

In that regard Pope Francis is arguably only walking in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor.
I don't know whether the socio-economic political structure in Britain during Charles Dicken's time was sinful or not. But I consider the current economic political structure of today to be sinful.

That's because it is basically based on theft. Suppose there are 1000 people in a small town. 333 are the richer residents and the balance 667 are the poor. If the 667 using their sheer numbers gang up and rob the 333 with guns, then I am sure you agree that is wrong.

But what if the 667 elect a mayor who promised to tax the 333 and transfer the money to the 667? It may be democracy. But it is also theft. Currently, Socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders are promising taxes to pay for all sorts of free stuff. Isn't that robbery as well?

If you don't pay taxes, the police who have guns will arrest you. So it is no different than if the 667 people use their own guns to rob the 333 in the small town. People are just using their vote to rob others. I think the welfare states in most western countries have grown too big. Their governments need to slim down.
Boy, have you got it wrong Cassowary!
Why?
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by cassowary » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:52 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:49 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:15 pm
Businessmen create jobs by risking their capital....
.....and worker/employees generate their profits for them by agreeing to work for the bastards - all the time running the risk that they will lose their means to an livelihood through no fault of their own should the firm that employs them 1) shed labour due to the onset of recession or 2) (worse still) send the firm broke due to mismanagement.

When it came to providing lifelong employment for breadwinners, the Socialist command economies of yore were better at that. No business cycles = no recessions .

So please cease placing businessmen-entrepreneurs high up on a pedestal. Agreed that they have their uses but I refuse to regard them as demi-gods as you habitually seem to.
The business owner is the first one to take a hit. The worker gets to keep all the wages they were paid since he started working. The business owner may lose all the capital he invested and profits he made since he started the business. The business owner is the hero of the modern economy because he creates jobs at the risk of all his capital. The worker only risks losing his future income if he gets retrenched when there is a recession.

Without the business owner, the country would be very poor.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Pope does not understand economics

Post by neverfail » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:36 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:47 am
neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:33 pm


Boy, have you got it wrong Cassowary!
Why?
I should not need to explain that to you as we have been over this ground again and again for years. Please do not try to pretend that you do not know.

The Pope is neither a businessman nor a macro-economic manager but a humble servant of Jesus Christ here on earth. One who we Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that he gets it right every time but in matters essential to faith I believe that he does. His background is as a bishop in Argentina where he lived modestly and worked long and hard for the poor and disenfranchised in his home country. If a man like that did not identify and speak out against sin (including socio-economic sin) he would be remiss in his duty.

Post Reply