1%er$ Are Strangling Our Economy

[georgephillip]

My dollars are available to other people by three means:

1. Confiscation by the government in the form of taxes.

2. Theft by individuals.

3. Voluntary purchase of goods and services.

You support a combination of 1 and 2, using the government to confiscate money from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

You don't much like 3, due to your irrational hatred of business.

Tell me, if money is a finite resource, how come the GDP keeps going up? Wouldn't that be impossible?

Hint: Yes, it would.

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid Bitch

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

The FIRE sector rich have gotten richer by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off unearned income and onto wage labor and small business owners.

It's a simple concept that butt-kissing slaves have a hard time grasping.

 

[daveman]

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid Bitch

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

The FIRE sector rich have gotten richer by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off unearned income and onto wage labor and small business owners.

It's a simple concept that butt-kissing slaves have a hard time grasping.

When you stop believing everything you believe, then you can lecture others on the difficulty of grasping concepts.

 

[georgephillip]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

 

[Wiseacre]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

No capital to start a business, no labor getting paychecks.

 

[daveman]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

Without capital to build the workplaces, labor has no job.

 

[daveman]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

No capital to start a business, no labor getting paychecks.

Then labor sits around the union hall bitching impotently and blaming The Man.

 

[Chris]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

Without capital to build the workplaces, labor has no job.

Not true at all.

Labor existed before money was even invented.

 

[Chris]

Hint Two:

Money is a commodity, not a finite resource.

How many of your dollars are available to others AT THE SAME TIME they are in your possession?

Stupid Bitch

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

The FIRE sector rich have gotten richer by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off unearned income and onto wage labor and small business owners.

It's a simple concept that butt-kissing slaves have a hard time grasping.

It's true.

Everything is set up to enrich the banks and the insurance companies.

 

[Chris]

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

Actually you are wrong.

The rich got richer by getting a bigger tax cut from the Republicans than the middle class did. This effectively transferred $10 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the wealthy.

The link shows no such thing, you sir are full of shit.

You haven't done much reading, have you?

Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said the Reagan tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

Reagan and the two Bushes lowered taxes for the superwealthy and transferred trillions of dollars of debt to the middle class taxpayer.

And all rank and file Republicans can say is, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

 

[georgephillip]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

No capital to start a business, no labor getting paychecks.

How would you rank the factors of production in order of primacy?

Land.
Labor.
Capital.

It's my view that without the first two, capital doesn't exist.

 

[georgephillip]

You really need to make up your stupid little mind, dumbass.

If money isn't a finite resource, then it's not a zero-sum game. The rich got richer, but not by making poor people poorer.

Quit making that argument. That is, if you care at all about being consistent. History suggests you don't.

Dumbass.

The FIRE sector rich have gotten richer by bribing elected Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off unearned income and onto wage labor and small business owners.

It's a simple concept that butt-kissing slaves have a hard time grasping.

It's true.

Everything is set up to enrich the banks and the insurance companies.

Michael Hudson has written extensively on FIRE sector privilege, this from last November:

"Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat!

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

 

[daveman]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

Without capital to build the workplaces, labor has no job.

Not true at all.

Labor existed before money was even invented.

Yeah. It doesn't work that way now, however. Try starting a business and hiring people with no money. Let me know how it works out for you.

 

[daveman]

I believe labor is prior to and independent of capital and that capital would never have come into existence if not for labor; Labor is therefore superior to capital and deserves "much the higher consideration."

Should I stop believing this?

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

No capital to start a business, no labor getting paychecks.

How would you rank the factors of production in order of primacy?

Land.
Labor.
Capital.

It's my view that without the first two, capital doesn't exist.

Your view is wrong. Same challenge as for Chris: Try starting a business and hiring people with no money.

 

[editec]

My argument with the basic premis of this thread is simple.

Not even the TOP 1% are guilty of what is haappening in this nation.

The criminals, the economic traitors, the people who burned the economy HAVE NAMES.

Their actions were NOT on the behalf of the top 1%.

Their actions served THEM and THEM ALONE.

Yes the rich are getting richer, do doubt.

But not every wealthy or even megaweathy person is responsible for what is wrong with this nation.

 

[Wiseacre]

Ever hear the saying that it takes money to make money? Well, it's true, before a business can be started there has to be capital investments made, loans guaranteed, financial instruments signed. All of this is done before the land and labor come into play. THEN you buy or rent the land or space, build the factory or store, hire the people, get to work building a business.

This is why conservatives believe you don't raise taxes on the rich in a recession or a slow economy like this one. You want them putting up as much capital as possible, generating new businesses which are responsible for almost 75% of the new jobs created.

I grant you that in the early 90s Clinton raised taxes on the rich a little but the economy expanded anyway. Which was great, but this ain't the early 90s and we don't have the lower debt and "irrational exuberance" we had then. It seems to me this is not a time to be raising or lowering the tax rates, although I would support streamlining the tax code by taking out most if not all of the tax breaks, loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the rates so that the overall revenues do not decline.

What we really need is more "irrational exuberance", which I think could come from the general optimism from a new president with new policies that are more business friendly. People have gotta feel that the corner has been turned and things are going to get better, but right now they're not seeing that. Maybe a GOP president won't be the answer either, but what we're doing now ain't working.

 

[georgephillip]

No capital to start a business, no labor getting paychecks.

How would you rank the factors of production in order of primacy?

Land.
Labor.
Capital.

It's my view that without the first two, capital doesn't exist.

Your view is wrong. Same challenge as for Chris: Try starting a business and hiring people with no money.

Show me how you can run a business without land and labor.

Then explain why a factor of production that doesn't even exist without the other two is entitled to the share of profits that capitalism extracts.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I cannot BLAME most companies that are sitting on oodles of cash for not investing it in job creation.

There are people, PEOPLE WITH NAMES AND HISTORIES, who truly are guilty of crashing this economy.

Turning their CRIMES (in COLLUSION with other PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT... WHO ALSO HAVE NAMES) into a mindless class conflict screed is counter-productive.

Capitalism is NOT the villian.

GOVERNMENT is NOT the villian.

Corruption of the capitalism system in collusion with a corrupted government IS the problem.


Not every person with capital, not even every member of the TOP 1% or the top 1/10th of 1% is guilty of ANYTHING.

What has happened is that we have allowed immoral people in some businesses to take over and control our government.

That's exactly how they could CRASH the economy, GET PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR DOING SO, and still nobody is guilty of any CRIME.

It isn't a class war (yeah yeah, of course class is important, obviously)

It's a battle for the SOUL of this nation.

And MAMMON is winning, folks.

Gee, and nobody was interested in my thread about the Anti-Renaissance

 

[Hum Dinger]

My favorite line from the OP's article is"

"it's time for the private sector to 'stand up and lead the recovery.'"

Funny how conservatives try to block every government initiative to help the economy, but blame the government for the bad economy.

The American economy is overwhelmimgly controlled by the private sector and it's the private sector's responsibilty to recover from a recession.

If capitalism works, let's see it.

Making it easier for the wealthiest to achieve their profit goals by reducing taxes is exactly the worst thing that the government can do.

Higher taxes mean that the wealthy are forced to invest in higher risk ventures and to expand business activity in order for them to maintain their profit goals.

 

[daveman]

How would you rank the factors of production in order of primacy?

Land.
Labor.
Capital.

It's my view that without the first two, capital doesn't exist.

Your view is wrong. Same challenge as for Chris: Try starting a business and hiring people with no money.

Show me how you can run a business without land and labor.

Then explain why a factor of production that doesn't even exist without the other two is entitled to the share of profits that capitalism extracts.

If I own my own business, and I have no employees, and I rent space for my business...that's how.

You really are a dumb little man.

 

[Wiseacre]

Ever hear the saying that it takes money to make money? Well, it's true, before a business can be started there has to be capital investments made, loans guaranteed, financial instruments signed. All of this is done before the land and labor come into play. THEN you buy or rent the land or space, build the factory or store, hire the people, get to work building a business.

This is why conservatives believe you don't raise taxes on the rich in a recession or a slow economy like this one. You want them putting up as much capital as possible, generating new businesses which are responsible for almost 75% of the new jobs created.

I grant you that in the early 90s Clinton raised taxes on the rich a little but the economy expanded anyway. Which was great, but this ain't the early 90s and we don't have the lower debt and "irrational exuberance" we had then. It seems to me this is not a time to be raising or lowering the tax rates, although I would support streamlining the tax code by taking out most if not all of the tax breaks, loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the rates so that the overall revenues do not decline.

What we really need is more "irrational exuberance", which I think could come from the general optimism from a new president with new policies that are more business friendly. People have gotta feel that the corner has been turned and things are going to get better, but right now they're not seeing that. Maybe a GOP president won't be the answer either, but what we're doing now ain't working.

One more time, you have to have capital. You have to have a business environment that is favorable to starting new businesses AND increases consumer confidence. Obama's track record has not helped and I think even hurts in this regard.