NationStates Jolt Archive

About this Obama is a socialist/far leftist stuff.....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008


So Socialism is right of center, and raising the top tax rate 4% on high income earners to the incredibly high degree of 39% is socialism? Have I got that right? Or is this the New Socialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_US#History_of_top_rates

So according to this, we were socialist until the last 2 years of Reagan's Presidency?

What the hell are you talking about?

It's sarcasm directed at the right wingers who think Obama is a socialist.

It's sarcasm directed at the right wingers who think Obama is a socialist.

Funny that you're calling it sarcasm, I'd call your original post a reasonable set of questions-rhetorical questions, but reasonable, because tossing labels about when we don't have a fucking clue what (if any) of Obama's current policy positions will remain his after 09/01/20 is excessive.

And calling people "Socialists" because you don't like them, just like calling people you don't like "Fascists" because you don't like them, <i>is</i> stupid, and deserves to be mocked.

The only things we who aren't drinkers of the Kool-Aid "Know" is that the man ran a very successful campaign against an opponent weakened by eight years of mediocre management and gross incompetence, that he wrote two autobiographies, and that he looks and sounds good on television. Everything outside of that is claims and hearsay-because the man's never actually governed beyond finding easy legislation he can co-sponsor without having to work.

His current policy may not be (well, not all of them).

That said, he has said himself in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang with Marxists. Ayers has now admitted that he was close friends with Obama, and more than just "some guy living down the street". Ayers is a Communist.

One would presume that one's selections of close friends in college and afterwards reflect one's personal beliefs.

If McCain had written in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang out with neo-Nazis, and had the author of the Turner Diaries as a close friend, you would all be calling McCain a white supremacist Nazi.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Socialism is the belief that society requires governmental guidance. Bush and Obama, though slightly different in their approaches, both believe that government must meddle in every interaction through regulation, taxation, and bureaucracy. Obama has stated a desire to regulate everything from business transactions to breathing (you exhale CO2, remember? :P ) and he has promised to redistribute wealth through taxation. See the link in my sig for Bastiat's complete argument against socialism if you want a longer explanation of what it is and what the consequences are.

In America socialism has been made a bogeyman, the 'red under the bed' waiting to crush American values and destroy freedom. Tied up with the Cold War and the importance of individualism to American political culture.

The propagandists of the libertarian fringe know the instinctive negative reaction elicited by the utterance of the word "socialism" and so a number of them deliberately distort the meaning of the word so that, instead of referring to a very particular ideology, it shoves anyone who supports anything other than totally unregulated free market capitalism into the same box.

They know full well that Obama is far from being a socialist. But use of the term is politically useful and creates an air of panic against someone they dislike. So they use it. Thats politics, and the power of language.

Everything outside of that is claims and hearsay-because the man's never actually governed beyond finding easy legislation he can co-sponsor without having to work.

His current policy may not be (well, not all of them).
But are you guys seriously suggesting Obama might come out on inauguration day wearing a beret, raise his fist and address the nation, "Privyet, tovarischi!"...?

We don't know every single policy outline of Obama's, no. Neither did we know every single policy outline of McCain's, nor any of the candidates for the Presidency. Heck, if you can find a full policy outline of any candidate for any major executive position in any Western country prior to his or her election, I'd be damn surprised.



That said, he has said himself in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang with Marxists. Ayers has now admitted that he was close friends with Obama, and more than just "some guy living down the street". Ayers is a Communist...

If McCain had written in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang out with neo-Nazis, and had the author of the Turner Diaries as a close friend, you would all be calling McCain a white supremacist Nazi.
That criticism would be valid if non-Stalinist Marxists and neo-Nazis were in any way comparable.

You're talking about anti-authoritarian, anti-Stalinist libertarians who believe capitalism is a destructive force, not baby-crunching, mythical Stalinists...

That criticism would be valid if non-Stalinist Marxists and neo-Nazis were in any way comparable, and if communists were something to fear.


Indeed. Also, if you ever go to Uni, it's pretty much impossible not to hang out with communists, probably more so in Obama's day.

Socialism is the belief that society requires governmental guidance. Bush and Obama, though slightly different in their approaches, both believe that government must meddle in every interaction through regulation, taxation, and bureaucracy. Obama has stated a desire to regulate everything from business transactions to breathing (you exhale CO2, remember? :P ) and he has promised to redistribute wealth through taxation. See the link in my sig for Bastiat's complete argument against socialism if you want a longer explanation of what it is and what the consequences are.
Awesome, 1840s Frenchman says that taxes are bad because they stop people having everything that they produce belonging to them, and taxes make people into brothers of each other.

Yeah, you know what? So do companies. So what do we have? A mid-19th Century anarchist venting off because the left was doing pretty well at the time. Aww.

In America socialism has been made a bogeyman, the 'red under the bed' waiting to crush American values and destroy freedom. Tied up with the Cold War and the importance of individualism to American political culture.

The propagandists of the libertarian fringe know the instinctive negative reaction elicited by the utterance of the word "socialism" and so a number of them deliberately distort the meaning of the word so that, instead of referring to a very particular ideology, it shoves anyone who supports anything other than totally unregulated free market capitalism into the same box.

They know full well that Obama is far from being a socialist. But use of the term is politically useful and creates an air of panic against someone they dislike. So they use it. Thats politics, and the power of language.
^^ This, thanks.

Income tax needs to be capped at 25% just silly to give more then 1/4 what you make to the government.

Income tax needs to be capped at 25% just silly to give more then 1/4 what you make to the government.

Is this an abitrary silly/non-silly cut-off or the result of a careful integral with respect to silly?

In fact I may need to refer to Professor Goofballs on this...

There is a plus side to this. The S-word is becoming less and less of a scary thing in American discourse. Plus, this douchebaggery got Brian Moore on the Colbert Report, which is the most media coverage my party has had since Eugene Debs.

Plus, there's another level to think about. How bad must the GOP feel right now? It portrayed Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, an America hater, and a friend of terrorists. And of course a corrupt Chicago politician. A majority of American voters said, "Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican."

Plus, there's another level to think about. How bad must the GOP feel right now? It portrayed Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, an America hater, and a friend of terrorists. And of course a corrupt Chicago politician. A majority of American voters said, "Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican."

the great thing about being totally intellectually dishonest is never having to admit that the past happened

whats the worst that could happen?

In America socialism has been made a bogeyman, the 'red under the bed'

why does everything evil have to be sexy :mad:

His current policy may not be (well, not all of them).

That said, he has said himself in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang with Marxists. Ayers has now admitted that he was close friends with Obama, and more than just "some guy living down the street". Ayers is a Communist.

One would presume that one's selections of close friends in college and afterwards reflect one's personal beliefs.

If McCain had written in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang out with neo-Nazis, and had the author of the Turner Diaries as a close friend, you would all be calling McCain a white supremacist Nazi.

What a load of shit.

The leanings of your friends, even the leanings of your school, do not make you a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'.

I'd call your original post a reasonable set of questions

really?

The propagandists of the libertarian fringe know the instinctive negative reaction elicited by the utterance of the word "socialism" and so a number of them deliberately distort the meaning of the word so that, instead of referring to a very particular ideology, it shoves anyone who supports anything other than totally unregulated free market capitalism into the same box.
Actually, socialists themselves have no idea what socialism actually means. Everybody seems to make up their own system: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552527

That's not so much a point about US politics as a general observation making the use of the word a tad iffy.

What a load of shit.

The leanings of your friends, even the leanings of your school, do not make you a communist, socialist, or any other 'ist'.

Yeah his guilt by association fallacy was pretty obvious. It was just silly when he tried to pawn it off by saying that, you know, in the hypothetical event that McCain hung with Nazis, hypothetical persons would hypothetically make that same guilt by association fallacy with McCain, therefore it's justified because he's doing it in response to what someone hypothetically might do!

Is this an abitrary silly/non-silly cut-off or the result of a careful integral with respect to silly?

In fact I may need to refer to Professor Goofballs on this...

because i find it stupid to give more then 25% of my income to the government ???

because i find it stupid to give more then 25% of my income to the government ???

That would be arbitrary then.

Not that I would know how to derive a silly/non-silly tax cut off from the fundamental theory of silly anyway. I'm no sillimatician.

because i find it stupid to give more then 25% of my income to the government ???

I find it stupid that people would object to a mere 25% tax.

It's a funny old world.

because i find it stupid to give more then 25% of my income to the government ???

its not yours to begin with...

its not yours to begin with...

Really? How so?

Really? How so?
Don't get him started. They love that sort of thing: everything you are, can do and actually do is only due to the collective. Your existence is only meaningful within the collective. Resistance is futile.

Don't get him started. They love that sort of thing: everything you are, can do and actually do is only due to the collective. Your existence is only meaningful within the collective. Resistance is futile.

You forgot the picture of Borg Jesus.:tongue:

Don't get him started. They love that sort of thing: everything you are, can do and actually do is only due to the collective. Your existence is only meaningful within the collective. Resistance is futile.

at the very least, specific property regimes and rules of wealth transfer are completely dependent on and decided by society. thus claiming that it is inherently wrong that the government takes your money on the basis of it being your money is to commit an error.

Socialism is the belief that society requires governmental guidance.

Uh... Nope. Nope, that is not what socialism is. Nice try, though.

Bush and Obama, though slightly different in their approaches, both believe that government must meddle in every interaction through regulation, taxation, and bureaucracy.

No, pretty sure this isn't true either. Obama doesn't really give a shit if I loan my next door neighbor a pencil.

Obama has stated a desire to regulate everything from business transactions to breathing (you exhale CO2, remember? :P ) and he has promised to redistribute wealth through taxation.

No, and no. 0/4. Please insert coins to try again.

Funny that you're calling it sarcasm, I'd call your original post a reasonable set of questions-rhetorical questions, but reasonable, because tossing labels about when we don't have a fucking clue what (if any) of Obama's current policy positions will remain his after 09/01/20 is excessive.

And calling people "Socialists" because you don't like them, just like calling people you don't like "Fascists" because you don't like them, <i>is</i> stupid, and deserves to be mocked.

The only things we who aren't drinkers of the Kool-Aid "Know" is that the man ran a very successful campaign against an opponent weakened by eight years of mediocre management and gross incompetence, that he wrote two autobiographies, and that he looks and sounds good on television. Everything outside of that is claims and hearsay-because the man's never actually governed beyond finding easy legislation he can co-sponsor without having to work.

U amuse me

at the very least, specific property regimes and rules of wealth transfer are completely dependent on and decided by society. thus claiming that it is inherently wrong that the government takes your money on the basis of it being your money is to commit an error.

Holy crap! You were right NL!

But are you guys seriously suggesting Obama might come out on inauguration day wearing a beret, raise his fist and address the nation, "Privyet, tovarischi!"...?

Of course not. He'll be long gone before that.

International Con Man Barack Obama Leaves U.S. With $85 Million In Campaign Fundraising
CHICAGO—In a devastating blow to millions of unsuspecting Americans, newly elected president and international con man Barack Obama fled the country Wednesday with nearly $85 million in campaign funds.

According to FBI investigators, Obama's sudden disappearance was discovered at 6:15 p.m. when the former Illinois senator failed to arrive at a gala event in Lincoln Square, prompting several aides to rush back to his campaign headquarters. At 6:23 p.m., flight logs at O'Hare International Airport confirmed that two passengers, a male carrying two silver briefcases and dressed in a perfectly tailored Brioni tuxedo, and an African-American female wearing a fur coat and speaking in a thick Russian accent, were seen boarding a private plane.

Obama's campaign office, sources said, was completely vacant aside from a discarded Abraham Lincoln portrait, behind which was an emptied safe that his aides claimed never to have seen before.

In addition, three unconscious Secret Service agents were discovered at the scene, along with two lit cigarettes still burning in an ashtray, and Obama's daughters, who authorities now believe were taken from an Alabama foster home six years ago.

The only item found inside the metal safe was a letter, handwritten with a fountain pen and titled "An Explanation, My Dears."

"To my tender little pawns, the all-too-trusting people of America," said FBI lead investigator Ray Hilland, quoting the letter at a press conference Wednesday. "If you are reading this, then I have already left your silly country in my private jet, and am right now sipping fine champagne with my lovely associate, a woman you have come to know as 'Michelle.'"

"I assure you, this was the most pleasurable and fulfilling con I have ever pulled off," the note continued. "Not since the Moroccan elections in 1984 have I taken so much joy in raising, and then crushing, the hopes and dreams of so many pathetic, disenfranchised, and downtrodden people."

"It's been an absolute delight doing business with you. Rest assured, your generous contributions will be well spent," the note concluded. "Fondly yours, Ψ."

... more ... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/international_con_man_barack_obama)

Hey, everyone! I have a letter to Santa Claus I want to share with you!

*Annoying child voice*

"Dear Santa,

This Christmas I want nothing for me. However, I need to tell you about those people I know of. I don't know if they've been good or bad, but I know they need help. They keep claiming people are "socialists" when they themselves clearly don't know the meaning of the word. So, since I've been a good boy, for Christmas, I want you, Santa, to, please, give them all dictionaries. It will make the world a better place. Thank you,

Heikoku Jayel"

So, liked it?

Hey, everyone! I have a letter to Santa Claus I want to share with you!

*Annoying child voice*

"Dear Santa,

This Christmas I want nothing for me. However, I need to tell you about those people I know of. I don't know if they've been good or bad, but I know they need help. They keep claiming people are "socialists" when they themselves clearly don't know the meaning of the word. So, since I've been a good boy, for Christmas, I want you, Santa, to, please, give them all dictionaries. It will make the world a better place. Thank you,

Heikoku Jayel"

So, liked it?
It will make the world a better place.:D

It will make the world a better place.:D

Yup. For ME.

See? Capitalism. ;)

Holy crap! You were right NL!

but the question is, is there some error in my argument?

Holy crap! You were right NL!

Not really. 'Property rights exist by consensus' and 'everything you own and everything you are you owe to the collective' are slightly different concepts.

at the very least, specific property regimes and rules of wealth transfer are completely dependent on and decided by society.

Rules of wealth transfer, yes, possibly. But wealth itself? Nah. I do agree though that government taking money is not inherently wrong.

Rules of wealth transfer, yes, possibly. But wealth itself? Nah. I do agree though that government taking money is not inherently wrong.

What do you think 'wealth' is, then?

What do you think 'wealth' is, then?

Well, according to wiki, wealth literally means well being. Which makes sense. Today, I guess you could say currency is like having shares in a company, except this company is actually the national (or perhaps even international) economy and its collective worth or utility etc... The worth of the currency, and how it is distributed to you, may be dependent on society, but once you have the currency, its yours, regardless of how much worth it has.

Of course not. He'll be long gone before that.
I knew there was something shifty-lookin about that fella...

His current policy may not be (well, not all of them).

That said, he has said himself in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang with Marxists. Ayers has now admitted that he was close friends with Obama, and more than just "some guy living down the street". Ayers is a Communist.

One would presume that one's selections of close friends in college and afterwards reflect one's personal beliefs.

If McCain had written in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang out with neo-Nazis, and had the author of the Turner Diaries as a close friend, you would all be calling McCain a white supremacist Nazi.

Oh yeah, high taxes and concentration camps, they're one and the same. *eyeroll* Comparison fail.

I don't get what all the hysteria is about. Now I have not read Marx directly, only what others have said about him (good and bad), but I take what I have heard of him to mean that he defines socialism as "the workers owning the means of production." That sounds like an economic model to me, not really a governmental model. Marx had some ideas about what kind of government one would need to usher in socialism, but in the end he felt (so I've heard) that with pure socialism government would no longer be necessary. So, ultimately, if that's true, he was an anarchist more than a totalitarian. If anything, as I understand it, you can lay most of the ideas about socialism requiring long-term totalitarianism at the feet of Vladimir Lenin, not at those of Karl Marx.

But, again, I could be mistaken. And you know, I'm no less knowledgeable about this subject than is the average Republican or other United States conservative who rails about socialism til they're just as red as the people they're denouncing--only in the face, not the flag. For all the ranting some of us do, you'd think we were experts on the subject. But apparently not.

Another thing about it--I don't think it is inherent in socialism to ship people off to extermination camps, particularly not for the "crime" of belonging to a religion or an ethnic group. But if you want to believe that Marx would have wanted Hitler's final solution, I guess you can, if it makes you feel better. Likewise I suppose you could compare modern-day Sweden to the Stalinist USSR. Why not?

For my part I don't see how socialism is incompatible with democracy--actually, since a 300-million strong heterogenous national population is not going to pull off anarchy very well, democracy's the best form of government you could ask for to have a socialist economy. For that matter, I could see where an economy could exist wherein most of the businesses were worker-owned and yet you could still have elements of capitalism in play.

But most people who rant about socialism aren't ranting about an economic model. They're ranting about totalitarianism. And that's a valid rant, but it's aimed at the wrong target.

As for your precious income taxes, I'm about fed up with people complaining about income taxes in the U.S. I hope you have educated yourself about income tax brackets, because a 36 percent tax rate would not apply to every dime a person made who was in that tax bracket. I also hope you have educated yourself about the difference between being wealthy and having a high income, because the two states are not synonymous and if you really are wealthy, income taxes by definition do not punish you because they do not apply to held assets. Frankly, I think you should be thankful you're making enough to owe any taxes at all. I think the last time I could say that was 1999. Maybe not even then, as I qualified for the EIC.

And as for Ayers, is that the best you've got? Jeez, if you had something on Obama and Jim Jones, maybe I'd listen. But Ayers? Obama was in grade school when Ayers was supposedly blowing stuff up. What was he supposed to do to stop him? And what's he supposed to do now? The government dropped charges against Ayers--a Republican government, now! Nixon! What was Obama supposed to do in all this time, go conduct a citizen's arrest? What's the point, really? And if the government's not seen fit to press charges again in all this time, and Ayers hasn't gotten into any more trouble (and he hasn't), what are people supposed to do, pretend he doesn't exist? The man's got to live his life just like anybody. Deal.

You know, women's rights groups have been complaining about attacks at the hands of so-called "pro-lifers" for decades now. How many clinics have been blown up, shot at, rendered inoperable for periods of time; how many doctors have been killed? We don't know for sure Ayers ever actually killed anyone. Anti-choice leaders haven't either, as far as we know, but they sure do like to incite it and then disclaim responsibility.

Then there are all the things the Klan does. You get Republican politicians going and speaking to racist groups all the time, or to colleges and universities that promulgate racist ideas. You know, they incite hateful attacks too. People of color are assaulted and murdered by these troglodytes every year. Yes, even now. In 2008.

Tell you what. You get on the horn to the Oval Office while your boy's still in the White House. Tell him you insist that he go round up Klan leaders, Operation Save America goons, and especially Randall Terry and those Army of God whackjobs. Round 'em up and ship 'em to Gitmo. It's his responsibility as the most visible member of the GOP, since most of those dorks vote for his party. Do that, and when he's done what you asked, then get back to me on what we're supposed to do about Ayers. Because I don't know about you, but somehow I don't think one statue being blown up quite compares to being terrorized and murdered. But hey, maybe that's no big deal to a good conservative. I have no idea.

Oh and, as I mentioned democracy being very compatible with socialism, don't start in on me about the U.S. not being a democracy. It is certainly a representative democracy, unless you have something to tell the class about all those voting machines and how they "lose" and "miscount" and "reassign" votes. Muddy water is still water.

Obama is communist

Well, according to wiki, wealth literally means well being. Which makes sense. Today, I guess you could say currency is like having shares in a company, except this company is actually the national (or perhaps even international) economy and its collective worth or utility etc... The worth of the currency, and how it is distributed to you, may be dependent on society, but once you have the currency, its yours, regardless of how much worth it has.

I don't think that answers the question. What do you think it is?

A subjective state? I'm happy, therefore I'm wealthy?

That's what 'well-being' suggests... happiness... sufficient food... health? What? None of those things really work with the TRANSFER of wealth concept, so the 'well-being' angle seems a little nonsensical.

Wealth is... currency? Is that what you are saying? So - when currency means nothing, no one has wealth?

So... wealth is little rectangles of paper?

Obama is communist

Where's your evidence?

I don't think that answers the question. What do you think it is?

A subjective state? I'm happy, therefore I'm wealthy?

That's what 'well-being' suggests... happiness... sufficient food... health? What? None of those things really work with the TRANSFER of wealth concept, so the 'well-being' angle seems a little nonsensical.


Sure they do, you could not gain resources in our economy if there was no 'transfer of wealth'. Regardless, it doesn't matter what wealth actually is, all it matters is that currency indicates that you have a share in this wealth, and you own this currency.

Sure they do, you could not gain resources in our economy if there was no 'transfer of wealth'. Regardless, it doesn't matter what wealth actually is, all it matters is that currency indicates that you have a share in this wealth, and you own this currency.

So... the transfer of wealth can be described as being allowed by consensus... and the actual wealth itself can't because... it's a meaningless cop-out?

So... the transfer of wealth can be described as being allowed by consensus... and the actual wealth itself can't because... it's a meaningless cop-out?

The fact that I have possession of my currency is meaningless?

The fact that I have possession of my currency is meaningless?

Since currency is meaningless... yes?

Are you defining 'wealth' as 'ownership of currency'?

Since currency is meaningless... yes?

Are you defining 'wealth' as 'ownership of currency'?

No, you're not keeping up, I'm saying that the definition of wealth isn't important. You're not going to dispute that currency represents wealth are you? If the currency did not have any worth attached to it, it wouldn't be able to be traded for goods and services etc... You own currency, currency has worth, thus you have wealth. I'm not disputing that the actual worth of currency can change depending on society, but it still has worth. Anyway, in the context of this thread, FS quite clearly meant that you don't even own your money, or property. I'd rather debate whether we actually own property or not, rather than what wealth means.

No, you're not keeping up, I'm saying that the definition of wealth isn't important. You're not going to dispute that currency represents wealth are you? If the currency did not have any worth attached to it, it wouldn't be able to be traded for goods and services etc... You own currency, currency has worth, thus you have wealth. I'm not disputing that the actual worth of currency can change depending on society, but it still has worth. Anyway, in the context of this thread, FS quite clearly meant that you don't even own your money, or property. I'd rather debate whether we actually own property or not, rather than what wealth means.

I'm sure you'd 'rather' do that.

You made a nonsensical statement, got called on it, and have spent your last few posts carefully NOT explaining what you think you meant.

Obama is communist

Where's your evidence?

No no no...

Obama is a Closet Muslim Liberal Commie-Socialist Elitist with a Whitey-Hating Christian Pastor and a Terrorist Fist-Bumping Radical Wife. Who just happens to pal around with terrorists.

Get it right.

:D

I'm sure you'd 'rather' do that.

You made a nonsensical statement, got called on it, and have spent your last few posts carefully NOT explaining what you think you meant.

Which statement did not make any sense to you?

Obama is communist

Santa! A dicitionary for him too!

Anyway, in the context of this thread, FS quite clearly meant that you don't even own your money, or property.

at least not the bit that society claims. their cut was written into you getting anything, so to speak.

at least not the bit that society claims. their cut was written into you getting anything, so to speak.

Not sure what you mean here.

Why don't we give the guy a chance and see what he does first?

The idea that socialism is pro-poor people is flatly refuted by the financial bail-out that's going on of millionares and billionares. The problem with socialism is that the government wastes money and then gives the rest to political friends. However, the problem with capitalism is that it fails to account for the inefficiency created by wealth stratification. I propose a new solution: Tax the ownership class based on how much they pay their lowest paid employees. This would direct economic forces towards a just wage and negate the problems with laissez faire economics.

No no no...

Obama is a Closet Muslim Liberal Commie-Socialist Elitist with a Whitey-Hating Christian Pastor and a Terrorist Fist-Bumping Radical Wife. Who just happens to pal around with terrorists.

Get it right.

:D

You forgot, not only is he a Muslim he's also an atheist.

Actually, according to at least one protest sign Obama is MUSLIN.

Which statement did not make any sense to you?

I notice you're STILL not answering the question.

It's not about a statement that didn't make any sense 'to me'... it's a statement that didn't make any sense. Period.

Free Soviets was talking about: "specific property regimes and rules of wealth transfer are completely dependent on and decided by society".

Here's what you said: "Rules of wealth transfer, yes, possibly. But wealth itself?"

So - we can ALL agree that the means of 'wealth transfer' is consensus?

Right - then what do you mean by 'wealth'?

So - we can ALL agree that the means of 'wealth transfer' is consensus?


No, that doesn't make any sense either. The 'rules of wealth transfer' (which is a pretty vague concept) may be a product of the greater society of a nation, but that doesn't mean it's determined by a consensus.


Right - then what do you mean by 'wealth'?

In the context of FS's statement, money.

No, that doesn't make any sense either. The 'rules of wealth transfer' (which is a pretty vague concept) may be a product of the greater society of a nation, but that doesn't mean it's determined by a consensus.


I don't think 'rules of wealth transfer' is a vague concept, at all - the way I see it, that's actually a slightly more specific way of saying 'economic model'.

It isn't pure consensus, but it is basically consensus.... if your theoretical model is laissez-faire capitalism, and half of your nation actually practises a bastard somewhere between barter and collectivisation, then your 'rules of wealth transfer' are similarly, a hybrid.


In the context of FS's statement, money.

You think FS means money? Or - YOU mean money?

Money - like 'currency' is a meaningless phrase. It has no intrinsic value... ALL of it's 'value' is attributed to it by the economic model.

Right - then what do you mean by 'wealth'?
For the sake of getting somewhere, we can define "wealth" as physical objects we derive happiness from, either from using them or just having control over or access to them.

I can have wealth all by myself, regardless of the existence of any other person on the planet, right?

If there are two people on the planet, I can transfer wealth to that other person (as a gift or a payment of some sort) independently of the existence of any third person, right?

Both the existence and the transfer of wealth don't require a society to exist or interfere. It is merely a question of the protection of wealth, which society makes a whole lot easier for us by creating general and enforcable rules on it. In return for this, one may be expected to have to make a payment for these services in the form of a part of one's wealth. What I never understood is the idea that this payment, rather than being one, is never actually your wealth in the first place.

Awesome, 1840s Frenchman says that taxes are bad because they stop people having everything that they produce belonging to them, and taxes make people into brothers of each other.

Yeah, you know what? So do companies. So what do we have? A mid-19th Century anarchist venting off because the left was doing pretty well at the time.

This is what i dislike about these debates, they almost immediately degenerate into vague statements that are thrown out at such a pace that it would be impossible to address them all.

First, There were no left wing economics in 1840, the world was not divided between Social Engineers and Free-market thinkers, it was between Free market thinkers and Protectionists or pro-industrialists. Marx and Engels didn't show up until a few years later, and did not become popular untill considerably later. Bastiat was fighting a losing battle against individuals that even a socialist would scoff at, men who wanted the government to aid business in a nationalistic, protectionist manner, even if it came at the expense of the consumer.

Second, If you want to address a specific complaint about Bastiat, please tell me, i'd be more than happy to try and refute it. Your comment on his beliefs on taxation are rather vague, i CAN tell you, that the jist of Bastiat's beleifs on taxation are a rather simple logical axiom, if there are any issues of this axiom you want to refute, please do so, and I'll try and address them.

Businessmen are more shrewd than the government, as are investors, they operate on the profit motive; this means that they will put their money in ways which they deem are most profit raising; profits in a free market society are created when an individual gains the largest consumer base. [Only in a government controlled economy are people forced to buy products that they do not want or need]

Government, on the other hand, does not opperate on the profit motive. A semi-socialist government generally does not own enterprise, and even if it did, it would NOT run on the profit motive. As such, governments cannot produce wealth, they can only acquire wealth by taxation, which is the act of taking wealth that was produced privately and redistributing it. It is safe to call the act of tax and spend, wealth redistribution, even if the wealth isn't distributed to individuals, because it taxes wealth from one and gives it elsewhere... Whether or not this is morally right or wrong is of no consequence.

With that in mind, The act of government taxation and spending shows some flaws, first, Governments do not have as much pressure to put money in places where it is needed or where it would create the greatest amount of production because even if their investments failed, they could not 'go out of business' in this sense. And even if they could 'go out of business', they would not go out of business because governments can, generally, aquire as much wealth and distribute as many dollars as necessary due to the power to tax and print money indefinitely. The notion that government tax and spend is more profitable for society than letting the money stay in the hands of competing, free market entrepreneurs who are neither hurt nor given special favors by the government assumes that government is as careful with spending as a private company. One can argue that a democratic government has competition in the form of competition political parties and office holders, but i don't consider it a truth that democratic elections are a better test of an office holders ability to run the government, than free market competition is to show how a private investor can best allocate capital or how a company can best produce a product for a consumer; The Free market elections are steeped in true contests of production, efficiency, and competing labor markets; where as political elections seem more founded on rhetoric, sensationalism, mudslinging, and the ability to twist arms. Such tactics are likely also employed in a free market society, but at least in a free market these tactics are all done for the benefit of the consumer, not the office holder. A business that lies and cheats on the quality or price of it's goods and services generally does not survive for long, where as politicians have been using the same political tactics, effectively, since the beginning of democracy.

Furthermore, Government has it's own form of personal greed that socialists label the private sector. [And justifiably so!] That greed is called power. Democratic socialists and democratically elected controllers stay in power through votes, and the power to tax and redistribute wealth as the government sees right and necessary assumes that the government is not as greedy as a private corporation. Corruption in government is fairly undeniable, and it exists in nearly all governments. Tax money collected by government that is supposed to be used for social welfare, entitlements, or internal improvements, might be spend for or on things that do not serve the public good but only serve to win votes for the politician. Even in the united states it's an obvious fact that legislatures add addendum to laws giving them certain amounts of taxed wealth [ and sometimes merely printed wealth] on the federal level that they can claim was 'earned' for their state. Republicans and democrats have been known to spend federal money for winning votes, this is the essence of corruption. The desire to put money in places that are politically expedient would, in a society where mankind is selfish, be a rational decision for a man who wants his job; that job being the job of political office.

Finally, if it is assumed that taxed wealth is wealth taken from somewhere else, it seems logical to postulate for that every dollar spent by government on a project that may or may not be for the common good, a dollar is extracted from another place where it likely would have been spent. [People will always need to buy things for as long as they live, even the rich] You can argue that taxes taken from the rich is not damaging to the public because the rich wouldn't have spent that money in the first place. This is true, but spending is only one form of benefiting the public with the use of money, Rich people also invest, whether it be in the stocks or in a bank. if a Bourgeoisie elite is as evil and greedy as one might say he/she is, then it can be assumed that they will be using their money to make even more money, and money is worthless if kept in an individuals mattress, The wealthy elites are not stupid, they know how to make money, their profits from investment are proof that their descisions for capital allocation were wise, solely BECAUSE they raised profits. A grand road or canal or telephone line might have been constructed by the government, and seeing such a government constructed marvel makes an individual very confident in the success of bureaucracy, but what is not seen by the individual is the money that HAD to have been taken away from an individual who would have either spent that money where he needed it most, or an elite investor who would have invested that money where he felt would bring the most profits.

I don't think 'rules of wealth transfer' is a vague concept, at all - the way I see it, that's actually a slightly more specific way of saying 'economic model'.

It isn't pure consensus, but it is basically consensus.... if your theoretical model is laissez-faire capitalism, and half of your nation actually practises a bastard somewhere between barter and collectivisation, then your 'rules of wealth transfer' are similarly, a hybrid.


I don't think it's that simple. Often it's a system inherited from other countries, rather than decided upon by societies.


You think FS means money? Or - YOU mean money?


FS.


Money - like 'currency' is a meaningless phrase. It has no intrinsic value...
ALL of it's 'value' is attributed to it by the economic model.

I wasn't disputing this. But then I come from a perspective that no object has intrinsic value. Lack of value =/= meaningless however.

Edit: I edited this a few times, if you read this the first time and got completely confused, you probably read a version that I mistyped.

His current policy may not be (well, not all of them).

That said, he has said himself in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang with Marxists. Ayers has now admitted that he was close friends with Obama, and more than just "some guy living down the street". Ayers is a Communist.

One would presume that one's selections of close friends in college and afterwards reflect one's personal beliefs.

If McCain had written in his autobiography that he went out of his way to hang out with neo-Nazis, and had the author of the Turner Diaries as a close friend, you would all be calling McCain a white supremacist Nazi.

One of my friends is some form of far left wing. Anarcho syndicalist I think he said. Whatever that means.

Another is a mormon.

I'm a liberal Democrat.

For the sake of getting somewhere, we can define "wealth" as physical objects we derive happiness from, either from using them or just having control over or access to them.

I can have wealth all by myself, regardless of the existence of any other person on the planet, right?

If there are two people on the planet, I can transfer wealth to that other person (as a gift or a payment of some sort) independently of the existence of any third person, right?

Both the existence and the transfer of wealth don't require a society to exist or interfere. It is merely a question of the protection of wealth, which society makes a whole lot easier for us by creating general and enforcable rules on it. In return for this, one may be expected to have to make a payment for these services in the form of a part of one's wealth. What I never understood is the idea that this payment, rather than being one, is never actually your wealth in the first place.

If 'wealth' just means 'material shit that I'm holding', then yes - it doesn't require society to have 'wealth'.

Wealth transfer, on the other hand, absolutely does. You actually said it there, yourself - you transfer some of your wealth to another person 'as a gift or a payment of some sort'. In that model, you and your friend are the 'society' (either in toto, or in microcosm) and the rules by which you exchange those good are the rules of 'society' (or part of it, if that's just a microcosm of the whole model).

The problem, of course, is that your 'wealth' is ONLY 'your' wealth because of an agreement with society. It's your house... but why? Because you 'own' it? No - ownership makes no intrinsic material difference. Because you live there? Then your property is only YOUR property as long as you are holding it. 'Wealth' exists IN society, because we allow it to be so.

Nothing you have is intrinsically yours, intrinsically earned or deserved. You're holding some stuff, at the moment, we all agree with you. There's no reason why we should always agree with you, though. You have wealth, because you are allowed to.

As for the question of tax - at root, you use the government's means of exchange, it's mechanisms, and it's protections. ALL of that stuff has a reasonable chargeable value. It's logical to retain of the exchange, rather than hand over the whole exchange and then bill someone.

Wealth transfer, on the other hand, absolutely does. You actually said it there, yourself - you transfer some of your wealth to another person 'as a gift or a payment of some sort'. In that model, you and your friend are the 'society' (either in toto, or in microcosm) and the rules by which you exchange those good are the rules of 'society' (or part of it, if that's just a microcosm of the whole model).
Yes, but that's not really the same thing, is it. The issue of taxation comes into it because the government acts as a third party that facilitates the transfer, basically without our expressed consent. Of course I can't give an apple to anyone if no one else exists. But that doesn't necessarily mean that if I give an apple to you, the government or society is the only way this transaction can occur.

The problem, of course, is that your 'wealth' is ONLY 'your' wealth because of an agreement with society. It's your house... but why? Because you 'own' it? No - ownership makes no intrinsic material difference. Because you live there? Then your property is only YOUR property as long as you are holding it. 'Wealth' exists IN society, because we allow it to be so.
It could also be mine because I defend it and no one can take it from me. I don't think that's a moral argument for property, by the way, but it is a practical one. I don't even have to be there - I could put battle robots all around it that would prevent anyone else from taking it.

If I had lots of stuff that I could hold on to in this way, would it all be my property and I wouldn't be required to pay taxes?

Nothing you have is intrinsically yours, intrinsically earned or deserved. You're holding some stuff, at the moment, we all agree with you. There's no reason why we should always agree with you, though. You have wealth, because you are allowed to.
That's because you appear to start with the assumption that nothing is morally earned. If I had in fact earned my property, then you wouldn't be allowed to take it. You might be able to in practice, but you'd be wrong in doing so. If I then had to pay you taxes in order to prevent you from doing the wrong thing and making me suffer, then taxes would be some form of blackmail. But that doesn't really address the question I had.

As for the question of tax - at root, you use the government's means of exchange, it's mechanisms, and it's protections. ALL of that stuff has a reasonable chargeable value. It's logical to retain of the exchange, rather than hand over the whole exchange and then bill someone.
Two points then:
1. If that's the model that justifies taxation, then someone should in theory be able to calculate a fair sum of taxes to be paid. In practice, that's not even being attempted, instead it is basically held to be the prerogative of society to set tax rates at whatever level they want.
2. And this is the real question: regardless of the mechanics (ie keeping it vs billing me after I received it), if I pay some fraction of my wealth as tax in order to "buy" government services, then this exchange can only mean something if we start out with me owning this wealth. But that's not really FS' point - he argues that I don't own any of my wealth, and as such the government/society is free to withhold a fraction of it and grant me the rest, not as a direct result of my having earned it, but presumably some combination of my need for it and pure nicety. That's the only way in which "you don't own the money you pay as taxes in the first place" makes sense.

he argues that I don't own any of my wealth, and as such the government/society is free to withhold a fraction of it and grant me the rest, not as a direct result of my having earned it, but presumably some combination of my need for it and pure nicety. That's the only way in which "you don't own the money you pay as taxes in the first place" makes sense.

you own whatever portion society says you own. that's how it works. sure, you could try to assert some independent 'mine!' and fight off all comers (until it's time to sleep...), but we stopped doing that when we started trying to live in societies. this is the price of sociality. you cannot have it both ways, and so you can only attempt to convince society that it should institute different rules.

Obama is about as socialist as John McCain is a racist. :p

The fact is that Obama raised all that money for his campagne. I would imagine a true honest to goodness socialist would have gone crying to the government for campagne funds. Even if Obama has socialist leanings, he's like any other red-blooded American when it comes to money and earning money.

If America goes a socalistic, I expect it will be socialism-lite. It's not going to throwoff it's core values on captalism. But it's not going to fully embrace pure socialism either. So I expect a sort of a lite form of it.

Government, on the other hand, does not opperate on the profit motive. A semi-socialist government generally does not own enterprise, and even if it did, it would NOT run on the profit motive. As such, governments cannot produce wealth, they can only acquire wealth by taxation, which is the act of taking wealth that was produced privately and redistributing it. It is safe to call the act of tax and spend, wealth redistribution, even if the wealth isn't distributed to individuals, because it taxes wealth from one and gives it elsewhere... Whether or not this is morally right or wrong is of no consequence.

Governments produce wealth, For one, they create stable property rights, without which individuals have few incentives to create wealth. Second, they invest in the physical infrastructure necessary to facilitate business. Third, they invest in the intellectual infrastructure which helps make businesses prosper in the form of R&D subsidies and the formation of human capital in school. Fourth, with subsidies for the the direct costs of raising children and lowering the opportunity costs of parenthood through taxation on labor the future labor supply is boosted.

You forgot, not only is he a Muslim he's also an atheist.

Actually, according to at least one protest sign Obama is MUSLIN.

He's a type of finely-woven cotton fabric, introduced to Europe from the Middle East in the 17th century? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslin)

Governments produce wealth, For one, they create stable property rights, without which individuals have few incentives to create wealth. Second, they invest in the physical infrastructure necessary to facilitate business. Third, they invest in the intellectual infrastructure which helps make businesses prosper in the form of R&D subsidies and the formation of human capital in school. Fourth, with subsidies for the the direct costs of raising children and lowering the opportunity costs of parenthood through taxation on labor the future labor supply is boosted.

The first issue [emboldened], creating stable property rights. This is something that is supposed to be a permanent, unchangeable-given in a capitalist society, including laissez-faire society. And it's somewhat arrogant for a government to claim that it GIVES people the right to own property.

Second, [the rest of your paragraph] doesn't address the issue of efficiency of wealth distribution in 'state capitalism' 'regulated capitalism' 'mixed market' 'semi-socialism' 'new economics' or whatever term you want to label it with.

Businesses prosper when the government gives them money, but I've already made a few points on that issue. Your argument is that government redistribution of wealth creates wealth... This fails to distinguish between fostering and actually creating wealth, and does not acknowledge that in order for tax dollars to be given, tax dollars need to be taken, which my lower points addressed... to review. Here's what i stated previously at the bottom paragraph:

"the wealthy elites are not stupid, they know how to make money, their profits from investment are proof that their descisions for capital allocation were wise, solely BECAUSE they raised profits. A grand road or canal or telephone line might have been constructed by the government, and seeing such a government constructed marvel makes an individual very confident in the success of bureaucracy, but what is not seen by the individual is the money that HAD to have been taken away from an individual who would have either spent that money where he needed it most, or an elite investor who would have invested that money where he felt would bring the most profits."

The fact that government spending can cause certain sectors to grow is undeniable. Bastiat never sought to refute that. But first first consider a few basic points. that i had already made.

Henry Hazlitt can probably explain it better...

"We need not go here into the merits of the TVA or public projects like it. But this time we need a special effort of the imagination, which few people seem able to make, to look at the debit side of the ledger. If taxes are taken from individuals and corporations, and spent in one particular section of the country, why should it cause surprise, why should it be regarded as a miracle, if that section becomes comparatively richer? Other sections of the country, we should remember, are then comparatively poorer. The thing so great that “private capital could not have built it” has in fact been built by private capital—the capital that was expropriated in taxes (or, if the money was borrowed, that eventually must be expropriated in taxes). Again we must make an effort of the imagination to see the private power plants, the private homes, the typewriters and television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam."

"As a character in Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan replies when told of the theory of Pythagoras that the earth is round and revolves around the sun: “What an utter fool! Couldn’t he use his eyes?”"

________________________________________________________________

If the government had the power to create wealth out of thin air, it would require that the wealth not be taken from someone else, which is impossible. And the process of printing paper likewise distributes the losses taken from one to benefit another, because inflation devalues everyone's assets.

Now the point is whether or not public works projects can allow for sectors to grow at a rate that is faster than what would occur if the money had not been taken from one and given to another is of optimal importance, if government redistribution of wealth is provably capable of fostering growth faster than when it is done privately is hard to prove because is it impossible to see the result of two scenarios when only one can be played. However, logical postulations can be made that would indicate that the private sector is most usually better than the public sector at creating jobs, I've touched on a few of them already in my previous post, but if you want to discuss it further, go ahead and ask me to. ;)

John Galt, generally you make a good point. However, you ignore three things:
1. Capitalism inevitably leads to greater disparity between rich and poor
2. Raw capitalism leads to speculation and short-selling, which is a huge inefficiency
3. Capitalism ignores invisible costs such as global warming.
4. Capitalism can emphasize quality at the expense of price, as you see in the health care system.
5. People at the top of a company didn't necessarily get there through quality, but perhaps rather through politics. Although this happens in government as well, the power to oppress those beneath is greater in capitalism.
6. Finally, capitalism tends to underpay those at the bottom while over-paying those at the top.

I propose a completely new taxation system. Wealth redistribution without the money going through government. Tax the ownership class based on how much they pay their workers.

The first issue [emboldened], creating stable property rights. This is something that is supposed to be a permanent, unchangeable-given in a capitalist society, including laissez-faire society. And it's somewhat arrogant for a government to claim that it GIVES people the right to own property.

Property rights are not supposed to be unchanging. Circumstances change, Before airplanes were invented it there was a common law doctrine that people owned the sky over the land they owned. The Plains Indians didn't have a concept of land ownership since the plains were huge, the human population was relatively scarce, and the herds they followed wandered far. No nation I know of lets thinks that the oner of a piece of real estate owns the part of the radio spectrum in the "space" the real estate takes up. The fact that the government makes and enforces (with the limits of social norms) and thus creates property rights is undisputed.

Second, [the rest of your paragraph] doesn't address the issue of efficiency of wealth distribution in 'state capitalism' 'regulated capitalism' 'mixed market' 'semi-socialism' 'new economics' or whatever term you want to label it with.

Businesses prosper when the government gives them money, but I've already made a few points on that issue. Your argument is that government redistribution of wealth creates wealth... This fails to distinguish between fostering and actually creating wealth, and does not acknowledge that in order for tax dollars to be given, tax dollars need to be taken, which my lower points addressed... to review. Here's what i stated previously at the bottom paragraph:

If the government had the power to create wealth out of thin air, it would require that the wealth not be taken from someone else, which is impossible. And the process of printing paper likewise distributes the losses taken from one to benefit another, because inflation devalues everyone's assets.

Now the point is whether or not public works projects can allow for sectors to grow at a rate that is faster than what would occur if the money had not been taken from one and given to another is of optimal importance, if government redistribution of wealth is provably capable of fostering growth faster than when it is done privately is hard to prove because is it impossible to see the result of two scenarios when only one can be played. However, logical postulations can be made that would indicate that the private sector is most usually better than the public sector at creating jobs, I've touched on a few of them already in my previous post, but if you want to discuss it further, go ahead and ask me to. ;)

You don't seem to be realizing how the government creates wealth. No one creates wealth out of thin air. Also, the government invests in a number of projects which have large externalities. The social rate of return is much higher than the (possibly nonexistant) private rate of return. Its a truism that a society that earns these returns would be much wealthier than one that doesn't.

Property rights are not supposed to be unchanging. Circumstances change, Before airplanes were invented it there was a common law doctrine that people owned the sky over the land they owned. The Plains Indians didn't have a concept of land ownership since the plains were huge, the human population was relatively scarce, and the herds they followed wandered far. No nation I know of lets thinks that the oner of a piece of real estate owns the part of the radio spectrum in the "space" the real estate takes up. The fact that the government makes and enforces (with the limits of social norms) and thus creates property rights is undisputed.

You don't seem to be realizing how the government creates wealth. No one creates wealth out of thin air. Also, the government invests in a number of projects which have large externalities. The social rate of return is much higher than the (possibly nonexistant) private rate of return. Its a truism that a society that earns these returns would be much wealthier than one that doesn't.

On the first issue, i can see your point, when one discusses property rights, in capitalistic society the private individual generally remains sovereign, it may have been an overstatement on my part to say that the government didn't have any right to take away any money from it's citizens, only because there are three primary functions of government which i logically beleive could not be performed privately [only because the use of force is a requirement,] namely, funding of the law enforcement, [primarilly to protect people's lives and their property from being taken or destroyed] Courts, and Army.


"No one creates wealth out of thin air."

And for the second, i do not beleive for one second that it's a truism that government spending can create more wealth than the private sector, had the money not been taxed in the first place [while i do beleive that government spending can create wealth, surely more than if the government taxed the people and then locked the money up away in a vault or something] since every single tax dollar spent by the government is taken from the private sector. [the only exception is communism, where people don't own anything to be taken away in the first place, not legally at least]. The government puts money in an industrial sector that comes from tax dollars that our taken out of peoples pockets. I consider it logical that private investors are more business conscience than political investors. I've already explained political motives [rather than reasonable economic motives] will most usually precede economic motives, if you want me to elaborate on political motives for wealth redistribution i will do so. But i already consider it evident that a politician or bureaucrat will put money in places that help their political career the most; not places where people need it the most or where the greatest productivity can be yielded. And even if a politician has the goals of the community in mind; a politician might fool themselfs into thinking that it's in the public's best interest to operate government public works with the greatest gross product instead of the greatest net product; since large gross products employ optimal levels of labor, whereas net product attempts to maximize efficiency [Which is synonymous to Marxist interpretations of exploiting the worker class, or synonymous to Luddites with using machines instead of manual labor to complete a task] in order to make a business a top competitor.

The consequences of gross focused public works products are best explained with a real life example in good ol' USA, the story of the great Capitalist Exploiter Robber Barron Elitist, James J. Hill.

http://www.railserve.com/JJHill.html#N_10_

I'm not FORCING you to read the entire history, but if you don't take my word for it The above article will support my claims.

Hill serves to show why Private entrepreneurship both CAN exist without government subsidy, and why when it DOES exist with government subsidy, it tends to be more efficient. For starters, Hill was interested in maximizing efficiency, in virtually every aspect; His goal was to create a transcontinental railroad that would take the shortest distance possible for the least possible cost.

[I]"Many people thought Hill could never accomplish such a goal. Never before had someone tried building such a railroad without government land and loans. Railroads like the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Northern Pacific were each given millions of acres of public land to build their transcontinental routes. People thought that even if Hill could construct his dream, how could he possibly compete with government-funded lines? Hill's idea to build a railroad to the Pacific became known as Hill's Folly."

Part of the reason Hill's Railroad was such a success was not only because of his ingenuity, but because of the short-sightedness of the gross product thinking subsidies that payed the railroads, like northern pacific, by the mile of track. Obviously, being paid by the mile of track, these companies found profits by abusing government tax money in making very long winding and inefficient rail roads.

So what is wrong with making inefficient railroads? It's wrong because the only people who benefit are those who are employed by the government, the consumers are hurt because government inefficiency such as this, that focuses on gross product, makes it difficult for incompetently run buisnesses to manage themselfs without charging High Rates, for example, The longer and more inefficient the railroad, the more labor and energy is needed to transport goods from place A to place B, this hurts the consumer because labor and energy comes out in the form of cost, the higher one is, the higher the other will become.

Again, to reiterate, Government subsidized work projects are gross product founded....

[Why are they gross product founded? because government can, during an election, claim that they employed, say, 100,000 people and gave that many people jobs, this is certainly more appealing to voters than to say that you employed 25,000 workers and you maximized efficiency in order to yeild the greatest net product, the bureucrat would look like a robber baron trying to extract as much wealth as possible from the consumer]

... For this reason, they are very often inefficient, uncompetitive...

[Uncompetitive because government subsidized projects and buisnesses really can't "Fail" per say, the risk of failiure at the hands of more competitive buisnesses is what makes buisnesses work harder to win the consumer over]

... This hurts the consumer due to items being more expensive.

Again, please explain to me why you beleive that government subsidized work projects create more growth than would have OTHERWISE been created if the government simply let these so called exploiters keep their money and invest it properly in order to yield the greatest productivity. To argue government work projects provide externalizes that do not exist in private markets does not make very much sense to me... Are you arguing that private buisnesses employ [and subsequently pay] no-one? provide products for no-one?

James J Hill's project, for example, had immense externalize, if you read the article, you would learn that, aside from his railroad efficiency, he actually paid people to create towns by his railroads to foster growth and developement; thinking about it from a proletarian stand point, Hill's capacity to ship goods at lower costs enabled him to do business with a certain group of people who might have otherwise not have been able to pay fairs on other inefficient railroads.

As for social rate of return, you need to elaborate on what you mean. If you are talking about the fact that governments employ more people and pay them higher wages, you are forgetting that the only people who benefit from lavish employment by the government are government employees, Consumers who get paid private wages [you can call them exploitation wages, i would call them realistic wages] are hurt either by the increased cost due to government inefficiency [See my point on Gross product for more information] or they are hurt by the poor quality of consumer goods if the businesses manage to employ large numbers of people, pay them exorbitant wages, and manage to hold prices down at the same time, because then the only thing that can be done to balance out the problem [aside from public debt :D, which in America is obvious] is poor quality.

interesting enough, sometimes government run or regulated buisnesses are so pathetically managed that they pay workers poorly, have high service costs, poor quality, AND public debt at the same time.

You MAY argue that municipally provided items, such as water on long island [where i live] is cheaper than buying it privately [this would be true]. However, this does not take into consideration that municipal water is supported by taxes, which means that it's basically the same as a business sending thugs into your house and robbing you [partially at least] and then offering you discount prices on their products, somehow, magically, they are efficient enough to offer low prices and high quality; they're not cheap because they're efficient, they're cheap because they are supported by taxes, and every one of those tax dollars get's taken away from someone who'd have that money to spend.

I know other people on this forum posted arguments, I'll answer them later, but right now I've got a serious headache. :$

The funny thing is you are talking about ideal capitalism. Your rail example is exactly what happens now, but with private enterprise being inneficient and milking the state, as private enterprise interests own the state.
The government can be highly efficient when it doesn't have lobby groups and private interest groups leaching off it. The worst welfare cheats sucking off the government teat at the moment are groups like Halliburton.
"No one creates wealth out of thin air."

And for the second, i do not beleive for one second that it's a truism that government spending can create more wealth than the private sector, had the money not been taxed in the first place [while i do beleive that government spending can create wealth, surely more than if the government taxed the people and then locked the money up away in a vault or something] since every single tax dollar spent by the government is taken from the private sector.
I would question this. How do the majority of Americans (and for that matter, most people around the world) own their land? At some point a group of people united by their government got an army together and kicked someone out and claimed it for themselves. There would be no wealth for you to make if collective action by your countrymen through the auspices of your government hadn't got you your country.
So the private sector couldn't make any profit without the public sector.

Well yeah, he is in the same way McCain is Bush lite.

More socialist yeah, socialist maybe not so much.

On the first issue, i can see your point, when one discusses property rights, in capitalistic society the private individual generally remains sovereign, it may have been an overstatement on my part to say that the government didn't have any right to take away any money from it's citizens, only because there are three primary functions of government which i logically beleive could not be performed privately [only because the use of force is a requirement,] namely, funding of the law enforcement, [primarilly to protect people's lives and their property from being taken or destroyed] Courts, and Army.

Others have more expansive lists on what can not be performed (optimally) privately.

*Hill's snip*

So a guy created a railroad network without some government subsidies, which hardly means he went without any subsidies. Hell, by this point in time governments had been subsidizing railways for decades promoting a good deal of innovation in rail road technology

Again, please explain to me why you beleive that government subsidized work projects create more growth than would have OTHERWISE been created if the government simply let these so called exploiters keep their money and invest it properly in order to yield the greatest productivity. To argue government work projects provide externalizes that do not exist in private markets does not make very much sense to me... Are you arguing that private buisnesses employ [and subsequently pay] no-one? provide products for no-one?

James J Hill's project, for example, had immense externalize, if you read the article, you would learn that, aside from his railroad efficiency, he actually paid people to create towns by his railroads to foster growth and developement; thinking about it from a proletarian stand point, Hill's capacity to ship goods at lower costs enabled him to do business with a certain group of people who might have otherwise not have been able to pay fairs on other inefficient railroads.

Much of that which is taxed would not be invested properly. Instead it would be consumed. I am arguing that with many investments would not made without government intervention. The Interstate Highway System, in the US didn't exist before the federal government decided to build it yet entrepeneurs were free to do so beforehand.

Also, don't see it as public sector vs. the private sector. They often are complementary.


As for social rate of return, you need to elaborate on what you mean. If you are talking about the fact that governments employ more people and pay them higher wages, you are forgetting that the only people who benefit from lavish employment by the government are government employees, Consumers who get paid private wages [you can call them exploitation wages, i would call them realistic wages] are hurt either by the increased cost due to government inefficiency [See my point on Gross product for more information] or they are hurt by the poor quality of consumer goods if the businesses manage to employ large numbers of people, pay them exorbitant wages, and manage to hold prices down at the same time, because then the only thing that can be done to balance out the problem [aside from public debt :D, which in America is obvious] is poor quality.

The social rate of return is the return that benefits society at large rather than private individuals. Take children. Without them the labor force shrinks and the population median age grows ever higher. Yet parents receive little benefit from them now that the family is not much of an unit of production. Therefore the birthrate drops.

Obama is communist

Happy hundredth birthday, Joe. The fiftheenth, wasn't it?