There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
If you really want to reduce our arguments to, "Hi, we're from the government. We're here to take your money at gunpoint to feed the poor. Have a nice day," then I suppose we have to plead guilty. But you have to apply the same argument to every single use of tax money ever, from building a military to building roads to putting people in jail for murder.
"Hi, we're from the government. We're here to take your money at gunpoint to build a road so you can drive to work."
"Hi, we're from the government. We're here to take your money at gunpoint to buy tanks to go invade some country you don't care about."
"Hi, we're from the government. We're here to take your money at gunpoint to prosecute people for rape and murder and imprison them."
"Hi, we're from the government. We're here to take your money at gunpoint to provide schools for your kids."
Is that really the level of discourse we're going to be reduced to?
edited 11th Jul '13 2:47:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay, new tack.
As we've established, again, nobody is against taxes. So I personally would ask that that particular strawman be allowed to retire. And the current tables already exact more from the wealthy. And that's not good enough.
We say go after minimum liveable wages. Not enough. Go for offshore accounts. Takes too long.
It seems every single alternative is met with some reason it can't work, or won't work quickly enough, or won't work to the extent you'd like. The answer is always, go after the rich.
So the question is, how far are you willing to go with this? What is your actual aim? Do you or don't you want a society in which someone gets a minimum income regardless of if they work or not?
And if and once you've done that, and they're still people who lack, and I believe there will be, will you go after the rich again some more? Will you pick another target? Will you start holding the poor responsible for their well-being, or will it continue to be called "victim-blaming"?
edited 11th Jul '13 2:47:15 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYou know, no one is saying you shouldn't deal with off-shore accounts; it's just not sufficient on its own.
If we keep saying "that doesn't work" have you considered it might be because it doesn't work?
Anyway Starship, we're only talking about marginal tax increases whenwe talk about tax increases. I mean, I for one pretty much only want to go back to the levels in the 1950s. I don't think anything has happened since then that makes that level of prosperity for the middle class somehow unsustainable in terms of productivity. The only reason it would be unsustainable would be political, not output.
edited 11th Jul '13 2:52:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Granted, your views are consistent with your utilitarian "might makes right" (or at least "numbers make right") philosophy, so there's no contradiction there.
![]()
![]()
I'm... sort of against taxes? My view on taxes is conflicted. On one hand, I see the need for them in our modern capitalistic society. On the other hand, I see them as not being necessary if we can create a fully socialistic society. But, again, I also see taxes in our current society going to things that I don't agree with and I don't want to send money to, such as financing our imperialistic wars for the benefit of the capitalist class. And I also see the possibility of a sort of taxation system even in a fully socialized economy, as long as it's market socialism, and that potentially being a good thing. So I'm conflicted.
edited 11th Jul '13 2:55:49 PM by deathpigeon
I have. And then I hear the actual explanations, and I'm less convinced.
Would you answer my question of how far you're willing to go to redirect funds to the needy members of society?
edited 11th Jul '13 2:54:18 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorAnd that whole argument could be just as easily applied to capitalists. They're essentially using force to force workers to work for them or die. They have power because, essentially, might makes right.
![]()
Hang on, wasn't the much-lauded 'stability' of the Fifties just a facade? Or does that only apply to social issues and not economic ones? I'd just like an explanation, that's all.
edited 11th Jul '13 2:58:52 PM by optimusjamie
Direct all enquiries to Jamie B GoodThat begs the question that possession of something means rightful ownership.
![]()
Obviously, I don't have any desire to return to the SOCIAL policies of the 50s. I just don't see how, for instance, being unwilling to return to the social policies would mean we're unable to return to the economic policies.
edited 11th Jul '13 3:30:10 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
@deathpigeon: You can abandon taxation as we have it today, but you'll still need a mechanism for the members of the community to contribute to the needs of the community. For example, Kropotkin's proposal that every adult member of the commune, except for women with children, contribute five hours a day to work for the commune may not be "taxation" in the sense that we use the word today, but it's still something that I'd call a form of tax.
@banks: Banks, when the system is working, invest the savings that are given to them into giving out loans for various items. Businesses, housing, automobiles, you name it. This is a productive use of money even if it does amount to purchasing rent rights.
Right now, the economy is in a seizure because banks are afraid to start loaning money out. "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." The solution is to look at our policy mix and figure out what we can do to encourage loans; I don't think that simply jacking taxes is likely to work.
That's cute... (says somebody having been unable to ever work for more than a few months straight most of her life due to... being sick). Without government and family support, I'd be long since dead.
Practically nothing I own is due to my own labour... so, by that argument (and, people have made it to my face, I might add) I am a useless leech.
People are more than their labour. Even economically.
I'm not talking about trade. I'm talking about how the system is structured. A worker has the choice of starvation or working for a capitalist. That's as coercive as holding a gun to someone's back and demanding they do work for you, or you'll shoot them. The choice is work or die.
I reject that axiom in favor of the axiom of no person being able to be owned by anyone, not even him/herself. Not their mind. Not their body.
However, even if I were to agree with that, I'd argue that capitalism doesn't fit with that. People, in capitalism, don't own the products of their labor. They have to share that ownership with the owner of the private property they created those products with/on. Since the owner of that private property, by definition, as private property is property owned absentee, doesn't contribute to the labor, then they are taking some of the products of someone else's labor for no labor of their own. (That's Marx's basic critique of capitalist economist justification for their form of property at his time as the whole "products of your labor" was the justification of private property at that time.)
And I'd have much less of a problem with that than most other forms of taxation. However, I feel I should point out that Kropotkin proposed that as a temporary measure until technology advanced far enough that we wouldn't need to require that.
@Maxima: On the right to tax, let me put this forward as a suggestion.
Say I own a big honkin' plot of several square miles, enough to build a town on. As the owner, I'd have a right to set what rules I like for people who settle there, including the rents and taxes I'd charge for people living there, the local ordinances, and the services that the town will provide.note
Unless you're of the opinion that private property rights themselves are an exercise of force (we have some people here who do), you probably wouldn't consider the right to make your own house rules and taxes for this land to be an exercise of force.
So, if you live on the land of the United States, or hold citizenship in our country, you agree to be bound by these rules and taxes. One of the co-founders of Facebook realized this, decided that his US citizenship was not worth the price, and exercised his right to leave. Those who stayed agreed to remain Americans, and to pay taxes on their income in exchange for the benefits of being American citizens and living in America.
(There's a flaw in this logic, as Tomu and I have both noted in the past, in that we make suicide illegal, and thus membership is not purely voluntary; that issue is mainly of academic interest and not really germane to this discussion.)
edited 11th Jul '13 4:02:05 PM by Ramidel
@Euodiachloris- So, then, what's your conception of property rights?
"I'm hungry, go make me a sandwich."
"No, you make me a sandwich."
"You have a social responsibility to feed me!"
"You have a social responsibility to feed me!"
"By not making me a sandwich, you're coercing me with the threat of starvation!"
"By not making me a sandwich, you're coercing me with the threat of starvation!"
edited 11th Jul '13 4:07:03 PM by Topazan
Damnit Ramidel, you're bringing up suicide now? How many of my Single-Issue Wonk s are we dealing with today?
Though, I keep meaning to do some research onto the economics of suicide.

2.) The people put the cash into the bank, and all these reserves thereby drives down interest rates. This makes it so people can borrow easier , which funds consumption.
We're not about to send soldiers into every shop in town and point guns at them saying "HEY YOU. WE WANT YOUR MONEY!" though, which is the image saying "You're willing to use force" brings up, so I'd argue you're being disingenuous.