cawacko
Well-known member
What economic reading do you do? (Publications, sites or authors)
A historic disaster is coming for the US from the tax bill
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
What economic reading do you do? (Publications, sites or authors)
Why don't you go learn about the concept that the wealthy can take too much from society; that there is a difference between 'earning' a higher amount, and the activities that are parasitical and simply TAKE a higher amount, producing no value or even harm.
Then we can have a chat.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
You need to explain that which you think is “taking a higher amount”
How do these billionaires take it?
Who are they taking it from?
Are they taking it against people’s will?
you are a poor loser, and taker trash. go work the field, serf.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
Let me try to explain this to Craigy Waigy
I despise Bill Gates. He is the epitome of the liberal “I got mine fuck you” liberal attitude.
For years I have refused to buy any Microsoft products. None. Nothing. No software. No Windows computer.
Bill Gates gets no money from me for anything.
Now the only way he can get access is through bribing corrupt politicians by being a rent seeker and securing taxpayer dollars. Short of that he gets nothing from me
That is how the free market works. Get it? Good. The education is free. What you do with it is up to you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I despise Bill Gates. He is the epitome of the liberal “I got mine fuck you” liberal attitude.
For years I have refused to buy any Microsoft products. None. Nothing. No software. No Windows computer.
Bill Gates gets no money from me for anything.
Now the only way he can get access is through bribing corrupt politicians by being a rent seeker and securing taxpayer dollars. Short of that he gets nothing from me
That is how the free market works. Get it? Good. The education is free. What you do with it is up to you
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I'll answer if you ask a slightly different question - would you like some recommended reading sources?
I feel badly for you being this misinformed and uninformed.
You explained some things clearly, but not what you think. You explained clearly how uninformed you are and how little you understand. You mean well, no doubt, but it's sad. But you take offense to Gates, and not the Kochs? Really?
Last edited:
Wow, this idiot is 'staff'? On ignore regardless. Hopefully an exception for the site. Edit: can't put moderators on ignore, but I can not read this one. The site should take action to improve the quality of its staff.
You seem to basing this on a common false narrative. That there is a limited and finite amount of wealth / monies in this world. There is not.
He’s a good mod, but he’s been a social reject for so long it’s starting to make him a bit sensitive to others with superior debating skills, just give it back to him, he loves it.
This a very big, important topic you should try to learn about, but it'll take some time.
I wish I knew one good book I could point you to to answer it. Instead I'll just give you one example.
CEOs used to make about 25 times as much as their average workers. Pretty nice. But in recent decades, that has increased to about 300 times as much.
It's not because they have added more than ten times as much value compared to workers.
In fact, I'd like you to look at this chart, which shows that workers have constantly increased their productivity - but not been compensated for it. Where has all that increased productivity gone? To the rich.
https://gerrycanavan.files.wordpres...income_median_income_growth_productivity1.png
And note how it changed from before 1980 - with higher taxes on the rich - and after 1980. This is the key issue for modern America that fuels everything else including the rise of the libertarian right Republicans.
But it's not all about taxes. The anecdote I mentioned:
One change to CEO compensation has been their simply learning to 'game the system' better and better. They have appointed each other to their boards, to 'oversee' them - in fact, creating a club that protects itself. As they gave each other more and more money for no good reason, they responded to the backlash by starting to use 'compensation advisers' supposedly provide impartial advice on the compensation levels for the executives.
But who selects the compensation advisers? You guessed it. And they know the answers expected for them to be selected. It's created a pretty story of fairness while actually corrupting the system. And they understand how the shareholders as a practical matter pretty much never organize and challenge the abuse - and this is one of many ways in which the inequality has increased.
One more point for you to consider.
Look at Wall Street's history for decades after FDR. Wall Street has a legitimate role in the economy, in 'greasing the wheels', and it has historically been compensated for that by about 10% of the nation's profits going to them.
But since Reagan, and deregulation, Wall Street has added all kinds of activities that are parasitical - and some even harm the economy, but let them extract more ant more wealth.
There are books on this (I like Nomi Prins, for one writer), but let's pick one example, high-speed trading. This is where computers are located as near as possible to the market physically so as to execute trades in microseconds, which algorithms, determined by armies of Ph.D mathematicians and physicists taken from productive jobs design. These trade - a majority of all the trades done - add no value to anyone else, they simply extract wealth from society.
These increased parasite activities have increased their share of the economy's profits from the historic 10% for greasing the wheels, to up to 40% of the economy, not for doing anyone any good. Just parasites.
And of course, they've used that wealth for political power so that THEIR incomes which are some of the least deserved, get taxed at LOWER rates than the hard-working middle class and normal earned income.
Last edited:
I'll cut him slack because you asked. But I won't 'give it back to him', I find that responding to idiotic comments helps no one - 'getting in the mud with the pig only gets you muddy'.
After so many years on this forum, I get down with the pigs, but good for you. I enjoy your posts.
You're telling a misinformed, false, partisan story.
I repeat, Clinton reduced the deficit all 8 years by similar amounts, INCLUDING the first two years when Democrats controlled all branches.
The changing event from the constant high deficits of the 12 previous years under Republican Rule to the 8 years of deficit reduction was the passage of Clinton's tax hikes, which all Republicans said would DESTROY the economy, but which did the opposite.
How do those facts - the all-Democratic government starting deficit reduction - square with your story that the Republicans deserve the credit?
Isn't it amazing that when the Republicans had power the 12 years before Clinton, and the 8 years after, that EVERY ONE of those years exploded the deficit? So that the moment that same Republican Congress that under Clinton you give credit for the low
deficits, the MOMENT Clinton was replaced by Bush, that same Republican congress suddenly saw massive increases in the deficit? Maybe THEY weren't the cause after all?
Now, you can go on to the next bit of Republican propaganda to explain this - 9/11!
It's true that Bush did explode the 'security spending' - massive increases to things like a new 'Homeland defense' bureaucracy, military spending, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - but only 30% of the deficit increase was from all the 'security spending.
Maybe you should go get informed a little about the actual reasons - here's a hint, the biggest was the Bush tax cuts for the rich, EVERY PENNY of which was added to the debt.
One last thing.
Social Security is NOT on a path to unsustainability. It can be easily 'fixed'. In the 1930's Republicans said it couldn't last. They're still telling that lie. The truth is they SIMPLY WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE POORER TO TAKE THEIR MONEY FOR THE RICH.
Thanks, and I enjoy yours.
evince
Truthmatters
when a society is plauged with a section of the population who are emmeshed in lies it is incombant on that society to publically shame the liars until they acept facts again or SHUT THE FUCK UP
I tear them a new one at every opportunity
It is a public service
cawacko
Well-known member
Since tone is hard to tell here I wasn't yelling the question at you. It was with legitimate curiousity after you mentioned reading lots on economics. Who are your go to people?
cawacko
Well-known member
Why should one be offended by the Kochs? (I mean I guess if you dislike free markets...)
As you see in this thread, I respond to the lies on issues. But the pure garbage - the personal insults - there's not much point to answering the bile. They speak for themselves.