CDZ redistribution of wealth

[RKMBrown]

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.

ROFL tyranny of the majority that's the basis for this "social power" huh.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ironically, capitalism requires both redistribution and concentration of wealth, as profits earned from increased sales of goods and services by businesses can only take place if there are more consumers who can pay for more goods and services.

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Socialism doesn't bail out capitalism. Rather, with capitalism, those in financial power take over and control the government. That's why Washington bailed out Wall Street.

That's actually not true. The companies that crashed during the 2008 sub-prime crisis, were not bailed out. They are gone. Bear Stearns doesn't exist. Lehman Brothers, doesn't exist. IndyMac, WaMu, Countrywide, all of them are gone. They don't exist.

If those with financial power take control of the government, are you telling me that they forced the government to force themselves out of business?

The government bailed out the other Wall Street banks and various organizations. That's why they are still around. It also engaged in multiple rounds of quantitative easing for several years and ended only last year.

bull honky

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.

So all the people in your town surround your home, and start carting away all your stuff by force. You would call this anarchy. Rule of the strong over the weak.

So now we've 'modernized'. Today all the people in town, vote for someone who sends police and the IRS, to cart away your stuff by force. You call this "delegated by the people".

In either case, it's using coercion, to forcibly take what isn't rightfully yours to be taken.

Democracy is just tyranny of the majority. That's why we were never supposed to be a democracy.

If we get enough people to vote that we should have your property, I highly doubt you'd be so accepting of it being "delegated by the people". Pretty easy to support such a concept, when it's not your property being confiscated.

the difference is the social Contract and rule of law.

What law? Obama's law? ROFL When the law is crooked, there is no law.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

Why not invest in the general welfare, like Good capitalists should, and lower our Tax burden via our Commerce Clause and recourse to an official Mint?

Why do you quote my post?

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.

ROFL tyranny of the majority that's the basis for this "social power" huh.

Our social Contract is the basis for that social Power.

 

[danielpalos]

Is capitalism useless to you to?

The relevant question regarding income distribution is whether it will be voluntary or coerced.

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.

So all the people in your town surround your home, and start carting away all your stuff by force. You would call this anarchy. Rule of the strong over the weak.

So now we've 'modernized'. Today all the people in town, vote for someone who sends police and the IRS, to cart away your stuff by force. You call this "delegated by the people".

In either case, it's using coercion, to forcibly take what isn't rightfully yours to be taken.

Democracy is just tyranny of the majority. That's why we were never supposed to be a democracy.

If we get enough people to vote that we should have your property, I highly doubt you'd be so accepting of it being "delegated by the people". Pretty easy to support such a concept, when it's not your property being confiscated.

the difference is the social Contract and rule of law.

What law? Obama's law? ROFL When the law is crooked, there is no law.

our supreme law of the land.

 

[RKMBrown]

What nation does not have coerced redistribution of income?

What do you mean by "coerced" The social Power to Tax is clearly delegated by the People.

So all the people in your town surround your home, and start carting away all your stuff by force. You would call this anarchy. Rule of the strong over the weak.

So now we've 'modernized'. Today all the people in town, vote for someone who sends police and the IRS, to cart away your stuff by force. You call this "delegated by the people".

In either case, it's using coercion, to forcibly take what isn't rightfully yours to be taken.

Democracy is just tyranny of the majority. That's why we were never supposed to be a democracy.

If we get enough people to vote that we should have your property, I highly doubt you'd be so accepting of it being "delegated by the people". Pretty easy to support such a concept, when it's not your property being confiscated.

the difference is the social Contract and rule of law.

What law? Obama's law? ROFL When the law is crooked, there is no law.

our supreme law of the land.

Yeah well you can take your "supreme" law given to yourself by your majority and put it where the sun does not shine.

 

[danielpalos]

it is the only (legal) opinion that counts.

 

[RKMBrown]

it is the only (legal) opinion that counts.

Yes, that's the way tyranny works. Right up to the point where the freedom fighters end it.

 

[danielpalos]

it is the only (legal) opinion that counts.

Yes, that's the way tyranny works. Right up to the point where the freedom fighters end it.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause.

 

[RKMBrown]

it is the only (legal) opinion that counts.

Yes, that's the way tyranny works. Right up to the point where the freedom fighters end it.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Yeah just put my tail between my legs and act like a good little ___, lol you self appointed tyrants are all alike.

 

[danielpalos]

it is the only (legal) opinion that counts.

Yes, that's the way tyranny works. Right up to the point where the freedom fighters end it.

dude, you don't have a clue or a Cause.

Yeah just put my tail between my legs and act like a good little ___, lol you self appointed tyrants are all alike.

i don't claim to have any social Powers.

 

[ralfy]

I have. And you are wrong. I did not say "no bailouts took place". I did not say that.

There was a bailout. What I am disputing, is who was bailed out.

Bailout list with amounts:

Bailout List Banks Auto Companies and More Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

You claim the banks were bailed out. That is false. The banks were closed, and the people laid off, and the stock holders (the people who owned the banks) were wiped out.

I don't think most of the largest banks and financial corporations that dominate Wall Street were closed. In fact, 90 pct of them have been gaining:

Banks Rack Up Profits but Investors Aren t Happy

So all the people you claim had control over government, were wiped out.

That's just a fact. You can dispute it if you like, but you are wrong. Those are the facts.

I don't understand how they were wiped out when they are now richer than ever:

The One Percent Just Keeps Getting Richer According to the 2014 Global Wealth Report Mother Jones

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/

Who was bailed out? Who got the money?

The bond holders. Now who are they?

With an investment firm, or bank, or whatever, you have three groups of people. You have the employees of the firm (management and so on), you have the owners of the firm (stockholders), and then you have the bond holders (the people who give money to the firm).

The first two were wiped out. The bond holders, are the people who give money to the firm, to invest with.

What the bailout, gave money to another bank.... not to bailout that bank.... but to allow that bank to buy the bank that was crashing. This usually wiped out the employees and the owners (management and stockholders), but the money was enough to pay back the bondholders in full.

So JPMorgan Chase & Co would never have paid a huge amount of money to buy Bear Stearns, because it was a failing investment company. The amount of money they might have paid, would have result in the Bear Stearns bondholders taking a hair cut (getting paid back cents on the dollar).

The government steps in, and said JPMorgan Chase & Co, we'll give you X Billions to buy Bear Stearns. The amount is just high enough that Bear Stearns Bondholders get 100¢ on the dollar, zero gain, but zero loss. The management and stockholders still lose everything.

So who specifically are the bond holders? That's a wide variety of people.

I won't deny that some are in fact banks, which would lend an indirect truth to what you said.

But most are not. Most are institutional investors. Pension funds. Government agencies. Mutual funds, like 401Ks and IRAs. For example, JP Morgan Chase was sued over the purchase of Countrywide Bonds, by Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, and Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston.

Government and Pension funds, and retirement funds. These are the people who were bailed out. Not the big banks.

But banks received direct injection of capital:

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And although stockholders suffered because of bailouts, the rich only got richer:

The Rich Have Gained 5.6 Trillion in the Recovery While the Rest of Us Have Lost 669 Billion Les Leopold

 

[ralfy]

Before a money-based economy, exchange of goods was more or less direct. Goods can be capital. Money is a form of capital. A profit can be obtained through direct trade or exchange, in the form of more goods than one started with. Using just money, only more money is directly gained.

The elaborate system in place today that is called capitalism stems from this. That is why, in the simplest terms, it was described that way in the earlier post.

Communism, similarly, can be reduced to a very elemental level. Today, when some people hear the word, they see Joseph Stalin peering in the window. Look in Acts of the Apostles and you'll see the early Christian community put all their possession into common holdings. Were they Marxists? Of course not.

Yes, I agree with that. Before there was money, they still had Capitalism. The farmer owned his land, and he owned the labor on his land. He owned the produce of the field. He 'bartered' traded his produce for other things, like horses, plows, wood, what have you.

The farmer 'invested' just like a modern capitalist, by trading his goods for material to make a new barn, to hold more produce, or live stock, so he could 'profit', in producing more produce and live stock.

And no, the book of Acts of the Apostles has nothing at all to do with communism or marxism. The situation described by the Bible, was based on voluntary choice, and was controlled by no one. There was no "social" control. No government coercion. It was more like charity, where people voluntarily gave by choice, and there was no 'social' authority figure determining who got what.

It is very likely that money was used because barter is very inefficient in markets. Given that, profit, wage labor, investments, and even returns on investment emerged thanks to the use of money.

Also, from what I know, social authority in the Bible took the form of religious leaders, traditions, and beliefs.

Not at all. Not from the new testament perspective. I would direct you to Acts 5. The story of Ananias and Sapphira, where Peter, the leader of the new testament church, says very clearly "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?".

Peter made it very clear, the property was his, and when he sold it, the money was his. He was not required to sell it, or give the money to the church.

And again, I would argue that 'returns on investment', existed before money did. Yes, obviously money makes transactions easier, and thus economic growth easier. I agree.

But it is not required.

Why just Acts 5? Why not include other events from the NT where opposing views are given?

Also, I was referring to religious authority. That is ironically seen in the same Acts 5 you mentioned.

Finally, my point isn't that ROI didn't exist before money. Rather, money makes that and profit-making much easier.

 

[ralfy]

You only gave part of the definition. Capitalism requires private property and profit. That's because the source of capital is profit. Look up "capital accumulation."

Capitalism Define Capitalism at Dictionary.com

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Where do you see the word "profit"?

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Where do you see the word "profit"?

Profit is a natural result of capitalism, because people tend to not invest their money without making a profit as a goal. A farmer invests seed into the ground, with the profit of a large harvest. I invested money into education, with the profit of getting a hire paying job. I invested money into a car, for the profit of getting to work.

The fundamental definition of Capitalism, does not require a profit. Profit is what naturally happens when you can control your own investment.

Socialized systems have profit too. It's just a profit of the state, instead of a profit to the individual.

If a state run company makes no profit, the result is disaster. The difference is, in a capitalist system, the lack of profit for a company is a disaster for the company. In a socialized system, lack of profit is a disaster for the entire country, because the entire country pays for it. Think Fannie and Freddie as an example.

You are not countering my argument. In fact, you just proved it.

The fact that profit is a result of capitalism proves my point. The same goes for investing money: where do you think the return on investment comes from?

As I said, your definition is lacking. Try this longer one:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While you are at it, look up "capital accumulation."

The source of capital can be profit. But that is not a requirement. If profit was absolutely required, then how did man ever start the economic system?

Can you create profit without any capital to profit from?

At the start of the human race, where was no capital. Right? Nothing had been made yet.

Man created capital from his own labor, with zero profit.

A man digs for gold with his hands. Zero profit, and yet his capital is increasing.

A man builds a home from trees, stones and mud. He now has capital, but has not made any profit.

When he sells the gold, the home, or whatever he has created, then he has profit.

Where do you think my mistake in logic is?

The first man has to eat and use tools to dig for gold. That's his capital. The same goes for the man who builds a home.

Presumably, both will sell to earn a profit, which in turn will be used to expand their businesses.

There's your capitalism. The problem is that you got stuck with the initial part of the process.

You can make your own tools, and hunt for your own food. Even if he didn't sell for a profit, he could still grow his capital. That is my primary point. Profit is not an absolute requirement, to have capital, and thus capitalism.

The point isn't that you can make your own tools or hunt for your own food. It's that you can use your profit to hire others to do that for you and acquire more capital to produce more and make even more profits.

That's capitalism.

The problem is that you are stuck with the initial part of the process. For some reason, you cannot imagine that the profit earned will not be used as capital.

 

[ralfy]

That confuses me too. I've heard this before, and I keep wondering... do you know what capitalism is?

Capitalism:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Socialism doesn't bail out capitalism. Rather, with capitalism, those in financial power take over and control the government. That's why Washington bailed out Wall Street.

Yes, when those with enough money realize they can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities. How do you believe the least wealthy learn how to "fish" the system while calling it a game. It was simply the socialism of using the Peoples' monies instead of being better capitalists who need less public sector regulation by finding their funding sources in the private sector.

That's not socialism.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism only functions well when socialism can bail it out.

Socialism doesn't bail out capitalism. Rather, with capitalism, those in financial power take over and control the government. That's why Washington bailed out Wall Street.

Yes, when those with enough money realize they can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities. How do you believe the least wealthy learn how to "fish" the system while calling it a game. It was simply the socialism of using the Peoples' monies instead of being better capitalists who need less public sector regulation by finding their funding sources in the private sector.

That's not socialism.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

 

[dblack]

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

A euphemism party? Is official poverty invited?

 

[danielpalos]

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

A euphemism party? Is official poverty invited?

Using the People's Mint to produce the Peoples' money is a form of socialism not capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

 

[Andylusion]

Before a money-based economy, exchange of goods was more or less direct. Goods can be capital. Money is a form of capital. A profit can be obtained through direct trade or exchange, in the form of more goods than one started with. Using just money, only more money is directly gained.

The elaborate system in place today that is called capitalism stems from this. That is why, in the simplest terms, it was described that way in the earlier post.

Communism, similarly, can be reduced to a very elemental level. Today, when some people hear the word, they see Joseph Stalin peering in the window. Look in Acts of the Apostles and you'll see the early Christian community put all their possession into common holdings. Were they Marxists? Of course not.

Yes, I agree with that. Before there was money, they still had Capitalism. The farmer owned his land, and he owned the labor on his land. He owned the produce of the field. He 'bartered' traded his produce for other things, like horses, plows, wood, what have you.

The farmer 'invested' just like a modern capitalist, by trading his goods for material to make a new barn, to hold more produce, or live stock, so he could 'profit', in producing more produce and live stock.

And no, the book of Acts of the Apostles has nothing at all to do with communism or marxism. The situation described by the Bible, was based on voluntary choice, and was controlled by no one. There was no "social" control. No government coercion. It was more like charity, where people voluntarily gave by choice, and there was no 'social' authority figure determining who got what.

It is very likely that money was used because barter is very inefficient in markets. Given that, profit, wage labor, investments, and even returns on investment emerged thanks to the use of money.

Also, from what I know, social authority in the Bible took the form of religious leaders, traditions, and beliefs.

Not at all. Not from the new testament perspective. I would direct you to Acts 5. The story of Ananias and Sapphira, where Peter, the leader of the new testament church, says very clearly "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?".

Peter made it very clear, the property was his, and when he sold it, the money was his. He was not required to sell it, or give the money to the church.

And again, I would argue that 'returns on investment', existed before money did. Yes, obviously money makes transactions easier, and thus economic growth easier. I agree.

But it is not required.

Why just Acts 5? Why not include other events from the NT where opposing views are given?

Also, I was referring to religious authority. That is ironically seen in the same Acts 5 you mentioned.

Finally, my point isn't that ROI didn't exist before money. Rather, money makes that and profit-making much easier.

There is no 'opposing' doctrine. There are no other parts of the Bible that contradict Acts 5.

Of course money makes profit easier. Having a standardized medium of exchange makes all economic activities easier. If that's your only point, then I agree.

What I had a problem with, was the notion that capitalism didn't exist until we had money. That's the claim I'm arguing is false.