NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/articles/kolakowski.html


The Polish Author of this won the John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Human Sciences. The article is a good read and pretty interesting.

Don't post here unless you read it ALL and are prepared to demonstrate intelligence.

If you agree with me and post something lame don't expect me to show any mercy while I disembowel you IN ALL CAPS!

If you disagree and say something lame fear not - you are only living up to my expectations. :)

I did not need this article to convince me that socialism is utterly inferior to capitalism. While it did a good job of articulatling the nuances of this, I doubt it will do much to convince socialists - their mindset is a one not easily changed by an obviously biased article containing information we have all heard before.

DON'T LOOK!!!!!!!!

(Not socialist, nor capitalist...more toward the middle...but I felt this needed to be said...:))

Ahh some workers do have it pretty bad ummm 3rd world anybody. We need a little socialism to jumpstart some basic rights for workers then the market can go ahead...

good article, too lazy to articulate why I thought it was, but I liked it.

If we didn't want you to read that, you would not have.

Socialists don't really care what people read.

umm, why wouldn't i want you to read that? seemed to generally have good things to say about the kind of socialism worthy of the name.

Unimpressive. There are far more kinds of socialism than Marxism. In addition, while it is true that capitalism evolved organically, the same is true of feudalism, slavery, monarchy, and sexism, yet those aren't good as a result.

Laughing as I watch my prediction come true...

Unimpressive. There are far more kinds of socialism than Marxism.

well, we did get a mention in the middle of it.

"What Marxism is the least capable of explaining is the totalitarian socialism that appointed Marx as its prophet. Many Western Marxists used to repeat that socialism such as it existed in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Marxist theory and that, deplorable as it might be, it was best explained by some specific conditions in Russia. If this is the case, how could it have happened that so many people in the nineteenth century, especially the anarchists, predicted fairly exactly what socialism based on Marxist principles would turn out to be—namely, state slavery? Proudhon argued that Marx’s ideal is to make human beings state property. According to Bakunin, Marxian socialism would consist in the rule of the renegades of the ruling class, and it would be based on exploitation and oppression worse than anything previously known. According to the Polish anarcho-syndicalist Edward Abramowski, if communism were by some miracle to win in the moral conditions of contemporary society, it would result in class division and exploitation worse than what existed at the time (because institutional changes do not alter human motivations and moral behavior). Benjamin Tucker said that Marxism knows only one cure for monopolies, and that is a single monopoly."

As a liberal, I have to say that ironically, the typical excuse that Russian socialism doesn't mirror Marx is not quite correct. While Marx wouldn't have wanted any government, his problem is not so much that he had too much faith in humanity, but too little, as he believed that it would be necessary to kill capitalists to make social changes. Obviously, the socialism which people support currently is that of France, Sweden, Norway, etc., which doesn't have a lot to do with Marx, since it allows for wealthy people and doesn't enfoce itself with an iron fist. In fact, one could argue that high taxes are a sensible move, as they do not depend upon humans to be virtuous enough to help the needy based on their own volition.

People tend to forget that Marx was one of the great Sociologist in the world. He come up with many theories. Unfournatley because he was the founder of "Communism" people see him as a bed person.

Trying to discredit him won't work. He was actully talking about Germany when he wrote the Communist Manifesto with Engels. There are numerous reasons that his ideas failed. In fact he often said that the modern revolution would be in more industrailzed countries like America and England, not Russia.

In fact that article is wrong. Marx infulenced the conflict theory, in which is actully showing to be true. Maybe if you know a two or thing about Sociology you can apprecite him.

Marx and Engels were first philosophers and political scientists second. Personally I find that Engel's writings are more profound and wider ranging than Marx's. I recommend people to read this [i]and[/] to read the original sources. Never take someone else's word. Read and think for yourself.

Marx was correct. Only instead of a national stage for the debacle of the 'free market' to thrive, we have an international one.

That is a very well-written article, I must say

capitalism without socialism generally devolves into corporate fascism

-The world is not Black and white, Good vs. bad, Right Vs. Wrong and Right vs. Left. I think alot of Americans could learn something :rolleyes:

-Socialism is not all good. Kapitalism is not all good. They are both good and bad :eek: The trick is to combine the two and try to remove the bad stuff :D Just look at Scandinavia :fluffle:


Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not English)

Laughing as I watch my prediction come true...
I don't know that you should really be patting yourself on the back for this one, it's a defensive-almost defeatist prediction. The article could be 'blah blah blah, so there,' and you could say "Well done" and then predict "But they won't listen, the fools!" You'd be right, people would point out that the argument is just "blah blah blah." At this point you are both right-they didn't listen and your argument is just 'blah blah blah.' Hardly makes you Kresgin.

Marx was correct. Only instead of a national stage for the debacle of the 'free market' to thrive, we have an international one.

How exactly is it a debacle? Compare the Asian countries who opened up their markets while the Africans closed theirs. How are their respective economies doing now?

A completely free market isn't a good thing, but protectionism is the worst form of capitalism.

While I disagree with socialism personally, I feel that a great debt is owed to the early socialist movement for pointing out social injustices and for dramatically improving life for all. Without these early campaigners many would still be living life in the dumps like in London's East End towards the end of the 19th century and for that we should all be grateful.

Socialism and Communism are not the same things, Marx may have been a socialist but he did not invent it. Largely attributed to French pre revolutionary philosophers eg Voltaire.

Socialism has nothing about abolishing private property or political freedoms or any of that crap. Yes the idea is no nationalise a lot of services and certain key industries, like steel or rail, in order to provide high levels of employment. (I admit it has its faults though) But the prime idea of socialism is trying to give everyone an equal shot at life.

Americans really haven’t grasped the concept of socialism odiously, unlike most of Europe which as a whole is undoubtedly socialist. What in the hell is evil with, the many not the few. i just don’t freaking understand that. Oh and by the way you need taxes to pay for public services. Such as free health care and education.

Socialism and Communism Different ok, even Marx wasn’t great on that.

Again well written, but a degree dosent hide the propaganda undertones. and he mainly uses pre and Stalinist Russia as a case study, were as that was never really officaly communist more Bolshevikism then stalinism (aka do as your toldism)

Well thats my Diagnosis, Cure
People on this board should read a helluva lot more Geogre Orwell before they start insulting the left.

There are no successful purely capitalist free market societies on the planet. All successful economies tax the markets and fund social progams. To argue that economies should more closely resemble Somalia, Azerbaijhan or Haiti where the majority of the market is untaxed and social spending non-existant, requires as much blind faith in the ideal and sheer idiocy as to argue that the market should be banned as in the USSR and North Korea.

Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised in terms of shear productive capacity. However it is an unstable system owing to the fact that it derives its power from human nature (greed). In order to keep it from harming the society it exists in, capitalism must be controled via some regulation, some subsidies, some taxes, and constant vigilance to stop monopolistic practices from ending competition.

umm, why wouldn't i want you to read that? seemed to generally have good things to say about the kind of socialism worthy of the name.

anyone care to answer my question?

anyone care to answer my question?

Reverse psychology

An interesting article.

"A lie repeated enough times will become the truth." - Adolf Hitler

This is sadly true, considering politics in Canada. Thus it is possible to bring about social fraternity as he calls it with enough propaganda.

His views in what Marx said about a worker's revolution has yet to occur, this does not say it will not occur in the future. On the current course of technological advancement, it is wholey possible that society will become automated, people will still search for a profit under a Capitalist system. No one will have money to buy their products and society as a whole will collapse. Thus, capitalism fails. The idea of making a profit is short sighted at best. I agree that capitalism works and it works well, in societies that are becoming industrialised, the moment they reach an industrialised society, it fails. Even if suppliers no longer search for a profit once they reach this stage, and everything is done as in a Communist system, with distribution of goods for no cost, it will become a Communist system.

He also discreditted all socialist and communist policies as totalitarian, which isn't true. While it has yet to be acheived, it is because countries are entering into it too quickly. It requires a gradual transition and a economic strong base. While Stalin industrialised the USSR in 20 years, it wasn't originally industrialised, so there was no solid base to keep it from becoming tyranny.

His claims that it causes stagnation were also unfounded, the USSR under totalitarian rule were the first into space and were on par with the Americans. In a Communist society people are required to work hard to advance themselves (if you work hard the community benefits, if the community benefits, you benefit, Communism does not eliminate greed), thus they will work hard for humans are greedy. This will lead to more advances.

Socialism is simply less extreme Communism. It is the nationalising of key industries and services only, allowing the market to produce some needs and the desires of the populace. All countries currently are socialist, in various degrees of left and right.

Reverse psychology

tricky bastards...

....... But the prime idea of socialism is trying to give everyone an equal shot at life.


"...how could it have happened that so many people in the nineteenth century, especially the anarchists, predicted fairly exactly what socialism based on Marxist principles would turn out to be—namely, state slavery? Proudhon argued that Marx’s ideal is to make human beings state property. According to Bakunin, Marxian socialism would consist in the rule of the renegades of the ruling class, and it would be based on exploitation and oppression worse than anything previously known. According to the Polish anarcho-syndicalist Edward Abramowski, if communism were by some miracle to win in the moral conditions of contemporary society, it would result in class division and exploitation worse than what existed at the time (because institutional changes do not alter human motivations and moral behavior). Benjamin Tucker said that Marxism knows only one cure for monopolies, and that is a single monopoly. "

I suppose you have a point - if everyone were slaves then everyone would have an equally dismal shot at life.

God save the Queen!!!

"...how could it have happened that so many people in the nineteenth century, especially the anarchists, predicted fairly exactly what socialism based on Marxist principles would turn out to be—namely, state slavery? Proudhon argued that Marx’s ideal is to make human beings state property. According to Bakunin, Marxian socialism would consist in the rule of the renegades of the ruling class, and it would be based on exploitation and oppression worse than anything previously known. According to the Polish anarcho-syndicalist Edward Abramowski, if communism were by some miracle to win in the moral conditions of contemporary society, it would result in class division and exploitation worse than what existed at the time (because institutional changes do not alter human motivations and moral behavior). Benjamin Tucker said that Marxism knows only one cure for monopolies, and that is a single monopoly. "

I suppose you have a point - if everyone were slaves then everyone would have an equal shot at life.

but then again, all of those people mentioned there were socialists - two of them are among the most important early socialist thinkers and organizers.

I hope these idiots live long enough to see the downfall and implosion of Capitalism. Probably brainwashed by American Propoganda...

I'm not a socialist, but I am very anti-Capitalist.

Oh, and Marxism = Communism = Just one kind of Socialism. Don't generalize.

Yeah, I hate to say it...but if you say "socialist" just about anywhere else but the US...you're likely enough describing one of the ruling parties of the nation. "Socialism" as a modified form of Capitalism is possibly the dominant form of economic structure in Europe. What do you think the Labor party is in Britain? The US is actually quite unique for its strong drive to dispell any form of "socialist influence" from its borders.

Yeah, I hate to say it...but if you say "socialist" just about anywhere else but the US...you're likely enough describing one of the ruling parties of the nation. "Socialism" as a modified form of Capitalism is possibly the dominant form of economic structure in Europe. What do you think the Labor party is in Britain? The US is actually quite unique for its strong drive to dispell any form of "socialist influence" from its borders.

While this may have been true a little while ago, the republican government of the USA is doing all it can to expand the size of the government and expand it's role in society. Government has expanded more and faster than at any time in history. So the USA is fast catching up on the Europeans.

While this may have been true a little while ago, the republican government of the USA is doing all it can to expand the size of the government and expand it's role in society. Government has expanded more and faster than at any time in history. So the USA is fast catching up on the Europeans.

Not quite, the US's new programs do not represent social programs, instead they simply are expanding programs internally and creating new agencies with no direct links to the people nor accountibility for their actions. Don't forget they also are privitzing areas of government and then supporting those very companies with government subsidies.

Socialism in a European sense doesn't consist of departments of Homeland Security, they consist mostly of maddening education beuracracy and job-stifling workplace safety regulatory bodies. Not the kind of thing that is likely to emerge from the US legislative bodies this term.

but then again, all of those people mentioned there were socialists - two of them are among the most important early socialist thinkers and organizers.
Oh, well if SOCIALISTS say that slavery is good then it must be. You sign up first.

As a socailist I'm going to post a prper reply to this tomorrow - this is just to flag the topic so I can find it again BUT while the article is incredably biased and very poorly written you have a point - a good, major point that undermines mainstream socailism. Unfortunately I've already considered all the points made and incoperated them into my belief system - a revised version of Capitalism and Socailism.

Watch this space, I'll be back soon.

.... the article is incredably biased and very poorly written .....
Watch this space, I'll be back soon.

Maybe you can inform the The John W. Kluge Center (http://www.loc.gov/loc/kluge/kluge-home.html) of your own literary prowess as well as their lack thereof in the post as well.

Oh, well if SOCIALISTS say that slavery is good then it must be. You sign up first.

jeebus h. w. christ, learn to read. where did anyone say anything of the sort?

in the part of the article that you quoted, it talks about how an entire branch of the socialist movement rather acurately predicted the horrors of leninism and stalinism decades before those things ever came to power anywhere in the world, based solely on marx's ideas alone.

Yeah, I hate to say it...but if you say "socialist" just about anywhere else but the US...you're likely enough describing one of the ruling parties of the nation. "Socialism" as a modified form of Capitalism is possibly the dominant form of economic structure in Europe. What do you think the Labor party is in Britain? The US is actually quite unique for its strong drive to dispell any form of "socialist influence" from its borders.

Then why does the US have relatively high corporate taxes?

The US is much more capitalistic than the European Union, or Canada for that matter.
However, Canada has managed to strike an almost perfect balance between socialism and capitalism, not to mention Canadians feel so safe that even in the inner city they leave their doors unlocked and spare keys in their unlocked cars. Canada is what the US should be like.

Then why does the US have relatively high corporate taxes?

I said "drive" not "success" concerning the dispelling of socialist economic policies. The two are quite different.

Then why does the US have relatively high corporate taxes?
According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures in 2003 Portugal and South Korea had corporate tax rates averaging about 10%, Germany 20%, Canada 17&, Switzerland 15-23% and the US 6.5-9.99%. It is not reasonable therefore to say that it has relatively high corporate taxes as it is in fact at the lower end of the spectrum and has relatively low levels.

According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures in 2003 Portugal and South Korea had corporate tax rates averaging about 10%, Germany 20%, Canada 17&, Switzerland 15-23% and the US 6.5-9.99%. It is not reasonable therefore to say that it has relatively high corporate taxes as it is in fact at the lower end of the spectrum and has relatively low levels.

Taxes on Corporations are meaningless and counter-productive.
Their accountants are paid (very well) to minimize taxes.
They (and all of their local competitors) raise prices to cover the local taxes.
They set up foreign "affiliates" in low-tax countries, and their accountants "transfer" the taxable profits there (e.g., Bahama's, etc).
They "out-source" to grossly reduce labor-costs AND labor-taxes (e.g., benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and ALL OTHER SOCIALIST TAXES AS SOON AS THEY ARE FABRICATED).
IF THEY DO NOT HAVE "AFTER-TAX-PROFIT", THEY LEAVE (and their local employees are fired).

Socialist countries that try to raise taxes on Corporations:
Lose local jobs.
Collect LESS taxes.
And their "Trophy" companies fail, or move, or get "acquired" by a company in a lower-tax country. [e.g., Volvo and Jaguar are now owned by Ford Motor Co., U.S.A.]

Europe is a perfect example of: Raise Taxes = Lose Jobs = Ruin Your National Economy = Collect LESS Taxes.

Socialists (like Kerry in the U.S.) tell lies to the lower-classes to get votes. If they win, you lose (thanks to the world-economy).

Europe is a perfect example of: Raise Taxes = Lose Jobs = Ruin Your National Economy = Collect LESS Taxes.

Socialists (like Kerry in the U.S.) tell lies to the lower-classes to get votes. If they win, you lose (thanks to the world-economy).
First, so how come US firms are outsourcing jobs as well then? Anyway what has all that got to do with my post, I was pointing out the relative tax levels to someone.

Second, Kerry a socialist? ROFLMAO!

According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures in 2003 Portugal and South Korea had corporate tax rates averaging about 10%, Germany 20%, Canada 17&, Switzerland 15-23% and the US 6.5-9.99%. It is not reasonable therefore to say that it has relatively high corporate taxes as it is in fact at the lower end of the spectrum and has relatively low levels.


What? The US fed corp tax rate is in the 30% range.


KPMG found that the United States has the fourth highest corporate income tax rate in the 30-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The combined U.S. federal and average state rate of 40 percent is almost 9 percentage points higher than the average OECD top corporate rate of 31.4 percent.



http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-04-02.html

What? The US fed corp tax rate is in the 30% range.
Average top corporate tax rate in 2002.

I was quoting average rates in 2003.

Socialists (like Kerry in the U.S.) tell lies to the lower-classes to get votes. If they win, you lose (thanks to the world-economy).

If John Kerry is a socialist then Adolf Hitler was an anarchist. John Kerry is a right-wing stooge, Shrub Lite. Besides, why mention Kerry? He's already been discarded into the dustbin of history.

Average top corporate tax rate in 2002.

I was quoting average rates in 2003.


Can you source that?

According the IRS, corporations pay 30%+ on income over 75k (which is nothing).

Are you giving the average tax after figuring in deductions?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

Can you source that?

According the IRS, corporations pay 30%+ on income over 75k (which is nothing).

Are you giving the average tax after figuring in deductions?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
Certainly, I've been going through the site myself and I seem to have made a mistake. I was apparently quoting something called a "Sub-central corporate income tax rates". So I will have to look again and get back to you on the comparative tax issue :)

The link is: OECD Tax Database (http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_37427_1942460_1_1_1_37427,00.html)

Right so I owe you an appology, you are right about US corporate tax being amongst the highest. Wow, that is a suprise, what do they spend all that money on? And with that huge deficit, and no public healthcare. Where is it all going?

Right so I owe you an appology, you are right about US corporate tax being amongst the highest. Wow, that is a suprise, what do they spend all that money on? And with that huge deficit, and no public healthcare. Where is it all going?


Pretty funny, eh? US corporate taxes are much higher than those in 'socialist' Norway.

Well, it can be argued that the US is a 'military-welfare' state. Instead of social programs, we make guns. If you can't find a job, enlist!

Of course, plenty of corporations use skillfull accounting to get out of paying taxes altogether. I found some info about what % of govt income comes from corporations (prob. a more accurate gauge of taxes actually paid)...and I'll post it if I can dig it up again.

Pretty funny, eh? US corporate taxes are much higher than those in 'socialist' Norway.

Well, it can be argued that the US is a 'military-welfare' state. Instead of social programs, we make guns. If you can't find a job, enlist!

Of course, plenty of corporations use skillfull accounting to get out of paying taxes altogether. I found some info about what % of govt income comes from corporations (prob. a more accurate gauge of taxes actually paid)...and I'll post it if I can dig it up again.
I like the idea of 'socialist' Norway, is it near the normal one? Military-welfare state huh? Has the ring of truth to it, also a good way of subsidising industry to the tune of billions without anyone complaining. I'd be interested to see those figures, thanks.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/articles/kolakowski.html


The Polish Author of this won the John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Human Sciences. The article is a good read and pretty interesting.

Don't post here unless you read it ALL and are prepared to demonstrate intelligence.

If you agree with me and post something lame don't expect me to show any mercy while I disembowel you IN ALL CAPS!

If you disagree and say something lame fear not - you are only living up to my expectations. :)

Is it lame to tell that both you and the author of this piece of shit do not understand the difference between communism and socialism? That most of the article is using cliches that conservatives make of "socialists" in order to critic them ? or are you the lame one? please die or shut up.

If John Kerry is a socialist then Adolf Hitler was an anarchist. John Kerry is a right-wing stooge, Shrub Lite. Besides, why mention Kerry? He's already been discarded into the dustbin of history.

Kerry, Gore, and Hillary are all in the "dustbin", but democrats specialize in dust clouds.

First, so how come US firms are outsourcing jobs as well then? Anyway what has all that got to do with my post, I was pointing out the relative tax levels to someone.

Second, Kerry a socialist? ROFLMAO!

You need to re-read MY post.

1. US companys outsource to save labor costs and US taxes. (Remember, we are still, barely, capatilists.)

2. My main point was that RELATIVE TAXES ARE MEANINGLESS IN A WORLD ECONOMY, which we have. Jobs and corporations are free to move, to avoid socialists.

jeebus h. w. christ, learn to read. where did anyone say anything of the sort?

.
See post #28 O master of reading comprehension - if you don't have the will to read the entire article.

Is it lame to tell that both you and the author of this piece of shit do not understand the difference between communism and socialism? That most of the article is using cliches that conservatives make of "socialists" in order to critic them ? or are you the lame one? please die or shut up.
Oooo, sounds like someone's ideals have been challenged and they feel threatened.

Good.

Right so I owe you an appology, you are right about US corporate tax being amongst the highest. Wow, that is a suprise, what do they spend all that money on? And with that huge deficit, and no public healthcare. Where is it all going?
Really big toys.

Is it lame to tell that both you and the author of this piece of shit do not understand the difference between communism and socialism? That most of the article is using cliches that conservatives make of "socialists" in order to critic them ? or are you the lame one? please die or shut up.
The author lived under the Soviet boot, I think he's perfectly capable of seeing a socialist regime in action.

You need to re-read MY post.

1. US companys outsource to save labor costs and US taxes. (Remember, we are still, barely, capatilists.)

2. My main point was that RELATIVE TAXES ARE MEANINGLESS IN A WORLD ECONOMY, which we have. Jobs and corporations are free to move, to avoid socialists.


US corporations must pay taxes on income world-wide. This is why many of them either transfer their base of operations elsewhere, or allow themselves to be 'acquired' by a foreign company located somewhere with lower taxes. This way they only have to pay the high income taxes on profits derived inside the US.

So if anything, they are moving to aviod the 'socialist' policies of the US govt. Cutting taxes would make this move less tempting and keep more income in the US.

See post #28 O master of reading comprehension - if you don't have the will to read the entire article.

yes, the one where you quoted the bit of the article where the author mentions that us anarchists said from the beginning that marxism (especially in its authoritarian forms) would lead to horrific oppression and exploitation and must be stopped because it is contrary to everything that socialism should stand for. what about it?

Right so I owe you an appology, you are right about US corporate tax being amongst the highest. Wow, that is a suprise, what do they spend all that money on? And with that huge deficit, and no public healthcare. Where is it all going?

well, mostly the biggest ones just don't pay any income tax at all, or do so irregularly and at a rate well below what is mandated. hell, a bunch of them get enough money from the government through other sources on top of their not paying much tax out that they effectively have negative tax rates.

Most US firms paid no income taxes in '90s (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/)

Many Large Corporations Pay Little or No Income Tax, Report Reveals (http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/7811/1/1/)

well, mostly the biggest ones just don't pay any income tax at all, or do so irregularly and at a rate well below what is mandated. hell, a bunch of them get enough money from the government through other sources on top of their not paying much tax out that they effectively have negative tax rates.

Most US firms paid no income taxes in '90s (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/)

Many Large Corporations Pay Little or No Income Tax, Report Reveals (http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/7811/1/1/)
Good point, I knew there was a counter argument I was missing :D

Good point, I knew there was a counter argument I was missing :D


I'm pretty sure I mentioned that.

Businesses are going to continue to base their operations elsewhere. Lower taxes are needed. All profit either gets reinvested to create more wealth or is distributed to owners, where it is taxed again. I'm in favor of doing away with corporate taxes rather than those on dividends.

From the first article (touches on what I mentioned before, about total tax reciepts):


The share of tax receipts paid by corporations has been declining for decades, US government figures show. But it has been falling at an even faster rate in many other countries, said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, and any attempt to raise corporate taxes or close loopholes in this country runs the risk of making US companies less competitive in world markets.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that.
Sorry, just having a silly moment :)

I don't know if only lowering taxes is the right answer. It really depends what is cut to achieve this and/or where the tax burden is moved to. It might be better to close all the loopholes and actually collect the full tax first. Also it would be a good plan to reign in the deficit and for US industry to properly modernise and become as efficient as most competitors have had to. Simply lowering corporate tax would otherwise be a short term solution that would not address the structural problems in the US economy.

Sorry, just having a silly moment :)

I don't know if only lowering taxes is the right answer. It really depends what is cut to achieve this and/or where the tax burden is moved to. It might be better to close all the loopholes and actually collect the full tax first. Also it would be a good plan to reign in the deficit and for US industry to properly modernise and become as efficient as most competitors have had to. Simply lowering corporate tax would otherwise be a short term solution that would not address the structural problems in the US economy.


gotcha...

What do you mean by 'properly' modernize? Wouldn't this be easier if they didn't have to pay taxes?

What do you see as the 'structural' problems?

One thing's for sure, it would be really nice if I could depreciate my assets like businesses do.

gotcha...

What do you mean by 'properly' modernize? Wouldn't this be easier if they didn't have to pay taxes?

What do you see as the 'structural' problems?

One thing's for sure, it would be really nice if I could depreciate my assets like businesses do.
The two are linked. US manufacturers have been able to avoid making efficiency changes as they have been afforded protection by the government. A good example is the steel industry. In the rest of the world the last twenty years have seen a large reduction in the number of plants and in manpower used whilst total production has gone up. In the Us manning levels are still roughly the same and productivity has not increased at the same rate as elsewhere. The recent attempt by the U gov to use tariffs to bolster this industry and to give them the money from tariffs was in order to give them the time and money to make these long overdue changes. Without this the US steel industry will become increasingly uncompetitive. In general offer this time period US companies have increased efficiency through increasing the productivity of individual workers - US employees work far more hours and have fewer holidays than their European counterparts for example. This has not allowed them to be more efficient as there has been less investment in new plant and technology to drive up productivity. Therefore other nations (and this includes Asian nations) industries are getting more product from fewer workers. Medium term the US manufacturing industry will have to do the same or disappear. Tax cuts might help but more effective would be tax incentive to invest in new plant. It is however very politically sensitive as it does cause an upswing in unemployment in areas with long term manufacturing employment. In the UK this happened in the 1980s and those regions took a long time to recover and that was one of the reasons for the big swing against the then government. All in all the longer it is left the worse the consequences and the greater the political cost to fix.
Interestingly this was exactly the problem Britain had just before the second world war. We chose the protection route instead of the modernising route and as a consequence fell seriously behind our competitors. Low taxes would only work if they weren't simply used as a short term profit boost. Taxes are needed to run government and government is the tool society can have to over rule the shortermism inherent in the "anglo-saxon" business model. Reducing government does not address the core problerm that our industries only really consider the next financial year as opposed to say Germany where the business model is based on a 25 year model. Hope that makes sense and doesn't repeat too much :) Of course it is my opinion but I am basing it on a variety of sources and articals I have seen over the last few years.

A big problem with the steel industry is the mind-boggling amount of capital required to build plants. Most of our steel mills are ancient - and no one wants to pour that amount of capital in what is seen as a failing segment. I say we import.

Here are a couple snips from a speech on the steel industry ->


POSCO in South Korea has maybe 20 percent more people than LTV does but three times the output. That is within the same product category or the same integrated steel process. That tells you the whole story. The U.S. mills, the integrated mills, are not terribly competitive.


The fact of the matter is we used up all of our good iron ore. So, they process stuff that is worse than waste in other parts of the world in order to make it usable. That is not competitive. And, by the way, I know that costs are a key part of the cost structure of the integrated industry. Military use is 0.0 percent. It was 28,355 tons last year. This is the year 2000 according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I don't think it's a real issue."


complete trans: http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/speeches/cf-022001.html
This was from 2001...a bit funny how we still ended up slapping on tariffs.

US corporations must pay taxes on income world-wide. This is why many of them either transfer their base of operations elsewhere, or allow themselves to be 'acquired' by a foreign company located somewhere with lower taxes. This way they only have to pay the high income taxes on profits derived inside the US.

So if anything, they are moving to aviod the 'socialist' policies of the US govt. Cutting taxes would make this move less tempting and keep more income in the US.


Um, hellloooo. If they transfer their 'base' then they aren't US comanies anymore. Not one stock in the S+P 500 (http://www2.standardandpoors.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=sp/Page/IndicesConstituentsPg&b=4&r=1&l=EN&s=6&ig=48&i=56&si=138&d=null&xcd=500&dt=01-DEC-2004) is not based in the US.

Offsourcing is done for many reasons, including the high cost of labor + benefits, taxes, overregulation, overseas shipping costs, market expansion, and finding qualified labor.

Um, hellloooo. If they transfer their 'base' then they aren't US comanies anymore. Not one stock in the S+P 500 (http://www2.standardandpoors.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=sp/Page/IndicesConstituentsPg&b=4&r=1&l=EN&s=6&ig=48&i=56&si=138&d=null&xcd=500&dt=01-DEC-2004) is not based in the US.



You're right, they technically are no longer a US corporation.

Yes, they get dropped from the S&P when they move operations. See: Daimler-Chrysler

A big problem with the steel industry is the mind-boggling amount of capital required to build plants. Most of our steel mills are ancient - and no one wants to pour that amount of capital in what is seen as a failing segment. I say we import.
That is certainly true and the longer you leave it the bigger the upgrade cost. Importing is fine but would be a major shift in a country that has aimed for self sufficiency and exports in key industries. It would also signal a general (although temporary) weakening of the economy until other industries grew up plus the political effects of the unemployment.

The author lived under the Soviet boot, I think he's perfectly capable of seeing a socialist regime in action.
No, since the Soviets weren't socialists.

Which Socialists didn't want people to read this article?

Which Socialists didn't want people to read this article?
That would be Dick Cheney and I. We feel that reading is elitist, and so nobody should do it.

That is certainly true and the longer you leave it the bigger the upgrade cost. Importing is fine but would be a major shift in a country that has aimed for self sufficiency and exports in key industries. It would also signal a general (although temporary) weakening of the economy until other industries grew up plus the political effects of the unemployment.


The steel industry reminds of a program I saw on the History Channel about the highway system. It seems Roosevelt disallowed using machinery so that roads would take the most man hours to construct. Ah, good ol' government.

No, since the Soviets weren't socialists.
And the Spanish Inquisition wasn't Catholic.

Most US firms paid no income taxes in '90s (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/)

"US companies paid an average of $11.88 in corporate taxes for every $1,000 in gross receipts, the study said.

Small corporations were more likely to avoid taxation than large ones, it showed. About 38 percent of big companies (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in revenues) paid no taxes during the five-year period."
So, small business isn't paying their fair share....


Many Large Corporations Pay Little or No Income Tax, Report Reveals (http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/7811/1/1/)

"Sept. 22, 2004 (KRT) - General Electric, United Technologies Corp., SBC Communications, Pfizer and Pitney Bowes were among a group of 82 large, profitable U.S. corporations who paid no income tax in at least one year out of the last three, according to a tax analysis released Wednesday.

Over the last three years, UTC has voluntarily contributed more than $2.5 billion to its U.S. pension plans, and those contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes. We believe that ensuring the viability of employee pension funds is not only good for UTC, but also sound policy for the U.S. government,"

Unless you oppose penisons I think they had the right idea. Taking massive write-offs in one year is not the same as paying nothing ever. Maybe you'd just rather read sensationalistic headlines than understand the subject.



As far as the balance between the % of taxes paid by corporations vs individuals, you have to understand there are TWO ways this can happen, corporations paying less money, and individual taxpayors paying more. Individual taxpayors have been hit up for cash by an irresponsible congress over and over again.