Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15050087
Julian658 wrote:OK, let's try this one. I am The Beatles and I wrote a lot of music that gave immense pleasure to the listeners . In return the listeners paid a small stipend that was not much at the individual level. The listeners felt it was worth it to spend the money on the music. BTW, when one spends money the assumption is that one gets value in return. I would not spend money if I do not get value from my money. Millions of listeners felt it was worth to buy the records and hence the The Beatles became VERY RICH.

You've picked a very exceptional example. Almost none of the rich have contributed anything like what the Beatles did. But let's go with it.

Let's say there is a bakery that sells 100 loaves of bread/day for $5/loaf. The customers are paying for the bread voluntarily, they think the bread is worth $5, blah, blah, blah. But here's the rub: by law, no one else is allowed to sell bread in that town. If other bakeries were allowed to compete, there would be a larger market for bread at a lower price, call it 200 loaves at $3/loaf, or even 400 loaves at $2/loaf. So even though all the customers are "voluntarily" paying $5/loaf, they like the bread, they think they are getting their money's worth, blah, blah, blah, they are nevertheless being robbed of $2 or $3/loaf through the bakery's monopoly privilege.

Do you understand that much?

The Beatles also enjoy monopoly privilege that reduces the supply of music people can enjoy, increasing the price and profit, just as the monopoly bakery does.
How were they privileged?

They had -- and have -- copyright monopolies.
Do you mean they were talented? How did The Beatles take the wealth create by others? What wealth did the others create? Were they robbed by The Beatles?

See above, which explains how monopoly privilege enables robbery in the form of nominally consensual trade.
Steve Jobs work out of a car garaf-ge and invented the Apple computer. At the onset he was penniless, however, he designed a product that millions wanted to have. Obviously the people felt they were getting a LOT of value by purchasing Apple computers. Jobs became rich. How did he steal money from the customers? He provided a gadget that customers wanted very badly. How is this stealing? How is this stealing the wealth of others?

See above.
Could you explain this? Thanks

That is how monopoly privilege works: it reduces production to increase price and profit. See above. This is Economics 101.
#15050091
Jumping in late, without really reading much of the thread (not even the OP to be honest :p ), there should be a wealth cap set at a few billions allowing people the potential for all sorts of luxuries to be obtained, yet without upsetting the social order or having too heavy concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.
#15050140
Truth To Power wrote:You've picked a very exceptional example. Almost none of the rich have contributed anything like what the Beatles did. But let's go with it.

Let's say there is a bakery that sells 100 loaves of bread/day for $5/loaf. The customers are paying for the bread voluntarily, they think the bread is worth $5, blah, blah, blah. But here's the rub: by law, no one else is allowed to sell bread in that town. If other bakeries were allowed to compete, there would be a larger market for bread at a lower price, call it 200 loaves at $3/loaf, or even 400 loaves at $2/loaf. So even though all the customers are "voluntarily" paying $5/loaf, they like the bread, they think they are getting their money's worth, blah, blah, blah, they are nevertheless being robbed of $2 or $3/loaf through the bakery's monopoly privilege.

Do you understand that much?


Ah, a post with a condescending remark! :D Nice!

If there is a law that does not allow other bakeries to compete then that is not capitalism. That is corruption where the government does not allow competition because politicians are accepting kickbacks or donations.. Some people call this crony capitalism and I hate that as much as you do.

In a true capitalist state there is competition and every baker is looking out for himself (or herself). Did you get that? The baker should look out for his own interest. The baker wants to succeed and do better than the competition. While trying to look out for his own interest the baker has no choice but to sell a better bread at a lower price. And that is the magic of capitalism.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." Adam Smith

In a socialism the state sells the bread at a cheap price but they do not care about quality since no one owns the bakery. The bakery belongs to the state and the state has no competition. The state could bake the worst bread in the galaxy and you would have to eat it.

The Beatles also enjoy monopoly privilege that reduces the supply of music people can enjoy, increasing the price and profit, just as the monopoly bakery does.

They had -- and have -- copyright monopolies.


Monopoly?? They were countless of competing English and American bands. They were simply exceptional. I purchased all their albums because I felt i was getting a lot for the money invested. In capitalism you buy something that you think is worth the money you pay for it. At times you get even more than what you pay. If not for capitalism Americans would have never heard the music. There would have been no incentive to disseminate the music to others. I got a lot out of the music and felt they deserved to be rich for creating something that made my life (and that of many others) much better.





That is how monopoly privilege works: it reduces production to increase price and profit. See above. This is Economics 101.


In which planet do you live? The competition of capitalism makes things better and way cheaper. A flat screen TV was very pricey not that long ago. Now you can get a better larger one for $200.00. This is not because the corporation wants to be nice. This is because of competition!

Image
#15050142
B0ycey wrote:What. So a revolution that happened a hundred years ago is so many more years than a war 120 years ago that they cannot be compared. Bullshit. The simple matter is capitalism is linked to the same crimes as authoritarianism. The British causes delibrate famine in India. Americans to Indians. Not to mention the genocide against them. Then there was salvery. Today they bomb the Middle East because they happen to sit on oil. Sanctions against states that dare to question America. You think Capitalism is roses. You are so fucking naive you are unaware of what Capitalism does to the world. You are a head dunker. Fingers in the ears. You cannot even see the system over there will kill you for the crime of being sick and poor.


The Muslims invaded Spain and the south of France. They also invaded Sicily and at one point entered Rome and sacked Saint Peters. The Muslims had more slaves than the Americans and they castrated the males. They kidnapped blue eye women from Nordic countries and made them sex slaves.

No one has had more tribal warfare than Africa.

The Japanese invaded the Korean peninsula and enslaved the Koreans.

The list of invasions and conquering of others is universal and all ethnic groups have done it. The list is endless.
List of Invasions in world history

You people think that only Europeans invaded and conquered others. No! This is something that ALL groups in world history have done.
#15050145
Julian658 wrote:If I am a plumber and I fix your toile I make a profit by fixing your toilet. I am not going to fix your toilet for free. If I becoming the king of toilets and everybody in the nation wants me to fix their toilets I will build a fleet of mobile plumbers that carry my name to attract business. All the hired plumbers have to do is purchase the name brand from me and they will have a plumbing franchise with my name on it. They will make a lot of money and I will also make money by helping them with the brand name. That is wealth creation! and yes, profit! And everybody wins?

The owner of the plumbing enterprise would live off of his company's profits, and not work themselves. They get the wealth produced by their workers that they hire and exploit. That is theft.
And you are the only person in the world who thinks the Trabant was a better car than a Mercedes Benz.

I never claimed that Trabant is better than Mercedes Benz. Both have reliable, long lasting automobiles. Both have more advanced designs. There were a lot of Mercedes Benz automobiles in various socialist countries including the DDR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam. Mercedes Benz was the most common luxurious automobile in socialist countries. It was extremely rare to see American Lincolns or Cadillacs in socialist countries.

Trabants are easier to drive than Mercedes Benz. Trabants are easier to repair than Mercedes Benz. Trabants use less natural resources than Mercedes Benz.
#15050147
SSDR wrote:The owner of the plumbing enterprise would live off of his company's profits, and not work themselves. They get the wealth produced by their workers that they hire and exploit. That is theft.

I never claimed that Trabant is better than Mercedes Benz. Both have reliable, long lasting automobiles. Both have more advanced designs. There were a lot of Mercedes Benz automobiles in various socialist countries including the DDR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam. Mercedes Benz was the most common luxurious automobile in socialist countries. It was extremely rare to see American Lincolns or Cadillacs in socialist countries.

Trabants are easier to drive than Mercedes Benz. Trabants are easier to repair than Mercedes Benz. Trabants use less natural resources than Mercedes Benz.


You do not understand capitalism. I will be happy to try again.
#15050198
Julian658 wrote:The Muslims invaded Spain and the south of France. They also invaded Sicily and at one point entered Rome and sacked Saint Peters. The Muslims had more slaves than the Americans and they castrated the males. They kidnapped blue eye women from Nordic countries and made them sex slaves.

No one has had more tribal warfare than Africa.

The Japanese invaded the Korean peninsula and enslaved the Koreans.

The list of invasions and conquering of others is universal and all ethnic groups have done it. The list is endless.
List of Invasions in world history

You people think that only Europeans invaded and conquered others. No! This is something that ALL groups in world history have done.


What the fuck has this to do with Socialism or Capitalism? I haven't even brought up religion at all. I have only mentioned that historically Capitalists have as much blood on their hands as authoritarianism and this is your rebuttal! So this is by definition a strawman and something someone would do when they have lost the argument. Good day Julian.
#15050228
B0ycey wrote:What the fuck has this to do with Socialism or Capitalism? I haven't even brought up religion at all. I have only mentioned that historically Capitalists have as much blood on their hands as authoritarianism and this is your rebuttal! So this is by definition a strawman and something someone would do when they have lost the argument. Good day Julian.



Do not be upset. You raised this theme first:

B0ycey wrote:The simple matter is capitalism is linked to the same crimes as authoritarianism. The British causes delibrate famine in India. Americans to Indians. Not to mention the genocide against them. Then there was slavery.


You assume that capitalism was the colonization of the Americas by Europeans. Capitalism is not about war, slavery or conquering others. War, slavery, and conquering others has been done by ALL groups in world history way before there was something called capitalism.

The philosopher Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations, was an important book that developed the ideas of capitalism and the free market. The word "capitalism" was not used until the 19th century. The greatest invention of capitalism is often said to be the joint stock company.[3][4] A joint-stock company is a business where different stocks can be bought and owned by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion to the number of their shares.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I will admit that many people do not perform well under capitalism and hence need help. But, that is another story.
#15050231
SSDR wrote:The owner of the plumbing enterprise would live off of his company's profits, and not work themselves. They get the wealth produced by their workers that they hire and exploit. That is theft.


No, it would be theft if the person doing the work wasn't paid.

The worker decides if the compensation offered by the owner of the plumbing company is fair for the work he does. As that decision is his, and his alone, it cannot be not theft...
#15050232
BigSteve wrote:
No, it would be theft if the person doing the work wasn't paid.

The worker decides if the compensation offered by the owner of the plumbing company is fair for the work he does. As that decision is his, and his alone, it cannot be not theft...
The Left usually says, one has to ensure the worker has sufficient power to decide, rather than only giving a collection of unacceptable choices and forcing the worker to choose.

IMHO the line between reasonable set of choices and implicit coercion is rather hard to draw.
#15050241
Julian658 wrote:Do not be upset. You raised this theme first:


No I did not. You harped on about Socialism death rates like every other bourgeoisie lacky and I pointed out the same is true for Capitalism. You then blamed "the Muslims" which says it all about your lack of argument.

You assume that capitalism was the colonization of the Americas by Europeans. Capitalism is not about war, slavery or conquering others. War, slavery, and conquering others has been done by ALL groups in world history way before there was something called capitalism.


You assumed I assume. Perhaps quoting might help your assuming and prevent your confusion, stopping these bloody strawman you keep making. I have told you what Capitalism is already. It is an economic model and not political model. And guess what? The same is true for Socialism. If Capitalism hasn't killed anyone, neither has Socialism. Although the acts of sustainablity via government legislation has.

I will admit that many people do not perform well under capitalism and hence need help. But, that is another story.


Well it isn't another story. It is the story. Especially in a thread saying the top bracket of income tax should be 99% to prevent inequality as the bourgeoisie have stacked the cards in their favor resulting in the poor suffering. And if there is a fault in any economic model it needs addressing FYI. If more people suffer than those who prosper that is a fucking problem. Nationalising key infrastructure and vital services and increasing the tax threshold on income tax is a small concession to solve the problems of Capitalism we both agree are there I would say just so the Beatles can keep selling records and Gates software.
#15050245
B0ycey wrote:If Capitalism hasn't killed anyone, neither has Socialism.


I agree! However, the killing methods are vastly different. Socialist leaders killed those that did not conform to the state rules. They killed their own citizens. Furthermore, the numbers of deaths in the 20th century is greater with socialists leaders. Nevertheless you are correct.



Well it isn't another story. It is the story. Especially in a thread saying the top bracket of income tax should be 99% to prevent inequality as the bourgeoisie have stacked the cards in their favor resulting in the poor suffering.


This will not solve the plight of the poor. It will be a temporary band-aid. You don't fix poverty by giving them fish. You fix poverty by teaching them how to fish.

Nationalising key infrastructure and vital services and increasing the tax threshold on income tax is a small concession to solve the problems of Capitalism we both agree are there I would say just so the Beatles can keep selling records and Gates software.


Mugawe nationalized as you suggest and drove the nation into chaos. What was once the bread basket of Africa had to ask for humanitarian help and food. It is not that easy!
#15050253
Julian658 wrote:I agree! However, the killing methods are vastly different. Socialist leaders killed those that did not conform to the state rules. They killed their own citizens. Furthermore, the numbers of deaths in the 20th century is greater with socialists leaders. Nevertheless you are correct.


Are the tribal Indians not American citizens to you? Although Stalin killed his prisoners, the same as America kills theirs by the electric chair or syringe. Are you saying America doesn't kill it's own citizens today? Bullshit. And Holodomor was a famine by mismanagement. The same as preventable deaths caused by the American healthcare (or lack of) system we see today. I don't excuse it. However I don't call it something it isn't due to anti Russian propaganda.

This will not solve the plight of the poor. It will be a temporary band-aid. You don't fix poverty by giving them fish. You fix poverty by teaching them how to fish.


Are you aware Socialism provides work for everyone who wants it. It is Capitalism that gives its poor fish by giving them benefits and not work so they don't figure out their class distinction. And it is socialism that provides the rods. Although I personally ask for compromise and a fair tax system. You ask for the divide to increase some more by letting things stay as they are. What a lackey.

Mugawe nationalized as you suggest and drove the nation into chaos. What was once the bread basket of Africa had to ask for humanitarian help and food. It is not that easy!


Mugabe didn't do anything that I ask for from Socialism or that I think was reasonable to do as a government. He evicted white farmers from their land and didn't replace them, turning his land into dust and ruining his food supply. Although really it was outside sanctions that really fucked up his economy. Socialism simply isn't left to figure its own path by Western government.
#15050307
Julian658 wrote:Ah, a post with a condescending remark! :D Nice!

It wasn't condescension. I was skeptical that you would find a willingness to understand what I wrote, and in the event you unfortunately demonstrated that you in fact did not understand it:
If there is a law that does not allow other bakeries to compete then that is not capitalism.

Sure it is. Capitalism is defined by ownership, not competition. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron. No capitalist economy has ever come close to a free market or absence of monopoly.
That is corruption where the government does not allow competition because politicians are accepting kickbacks or donations.

There's nothing uncapitalist about that.
Some people call this crony capitalism and I hate that as much as you do.

I doubt that.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." Adam Smith

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith
Monopoly?? They were countless of competing English and American bands.

See? You chose not to understand. The Beatles' monopoly was the copyright monopoly on the music they wrote and performed. No one else was allowed to produce additional copies or create different arrangements without paying them for permission. That is how they got so rich.
They were simply exceptional. I purchased all their albums because I felt i was getting a lot for the money invested.

But others were not permitted to produce them. That is a monopoly.
In capitalism you buy something that you think is worth the money you pay for it. At times you get even more than what you pay.

But monopoly means your rights have been taken away to given someone more profit at your expense and the expense of potential competitors.
If not for capitalism Americans would have never heard the music.

Nonsense. If not for the copyright monopoly, they would have heard more of it.
There would have been no incentive to disseminate the music to others.

More nonsense. The albums would just have cost close to their production cost.
I got a lot out of the music and felt they deserved to be rich for creating something that made my life (and that of many others) much better.

Your feelings do not alter the fact that they got rich through government-issued and -enforced copyright monopoly privileges.
In which planet do you live? The competition of capitalism makes things better and way cheaper.

Competition does. Monopoly doesn't.
A flat screen TV was very pricey not that long ago. Now you can get a better larger one for $200.00. This is not because the corporation wants to be nice. This is because of competition!

Image

But it is still more expensive than it would be in the absence of the patent monopolies that reduce production and increase prices. You just can't even imagine what that genuine free market would be like, how much more abundant almost everything would be.
#15050311
B0ycey wrote:Are the tribal Indians not American citizens to you? Although Stalin killed his prisoners, the same as America kills theirs by the electric chair or syringe. Are you saying America doesn't kill it's own citizens today? Bullshit. And Holodomor was a famine by mismanagement. The same as preventable deaths caused by the American healthcare (or lack of) system we see today. I don't excuse it. However I don't call it something it isn't due to anti Russian propaganda.


I agree both sides have killed, but two wrongs do not make a right. Famine in capitalist country is highly unlikely. If anything the poor in America are experiencing an obesity epidemic due to abundant high caloric food.

Are you aware Socialism provides work for everyone who wants it.


Doing a job for the heck of doing a job is the same as not doing a job. There is no wealth creation. This is welfare! IN a capitalist system a job is supposed to be meaningful and needed. I know Marx spoke about work alienation but I cannot think of anything more alienating than doing a job that no one needs.

It is Capitalism that gives its poor fish by giving them benefits and not work so they don't figure out their class distinction. And it is socialism that provides the rods. Although I personally ask for compromise and a fair tax system. You ask for the divide to increase some more by letting things stay as they are. What a lackey.


Welfare destroys the human spirit, I agree. This is how American White liberals damaged the black community. They establish the war on poverty in 1965 and that caused the disintegration of the black family. This manipulation caused the black people to be 95% faithful to the American left on elections.

Mugabe didn't do anything that I ask for from Socialism or that I think was reasonable to do as a government. He evicted white farmers from their land and didn't replace them, turning his land into dust and ruining his food supply. Although really it was outside sanctions that really fucked up his economy. Socialism simply isn't left to figure its own path by Western government.


Mugabe, Chávez, Castro, MAO, Stalin, Lenin, et al destroyed their countries by imposing socialism. I know you will say that was not real socialism and that was a human defect.

If you become a nation leader: How do you know you will do socialism the right way? Will you refrain from not punishing those that want to remain capitalists? How will you be able to make every citizen a socialist?
#15050356
BigSteve wrote:No, it would be theft if the person doing the work wasn't paid.

Someone being payed by an owner is wage slavery. In a moneyless economy, no one is paid, since currency would not exist. The abolition of private property via currency destroys the construct of economic "theft."
The worker decides if the compensation offered by the owner of the plumbing company is fair for the work he does. As that decision is his, and his alone, it cannot be not theft...

The worker does not have the decision since they would have their occupation terminated due to imposing an economic threat to the plumbing company's exploiting owner.
#15050378
SSDR wrote:Someone being payed by an owner is wage slavery. In a moneyless economy, no one is paid, since currency would not exist. The abolition of private property via currency destroys the construct of economic "theft."

The worker does not have the decision since they would have their occupation terminated due to imposing an economic threat to the plumbing company's exploiting owner.

I will admit that working for someone else is a form of slavery. However, not all people in the world can work for themselves and be the CEO of their own company. Sadly humans align themselves according to talent and competence. A few are destined to be at the top, some are high end professional earners including gifted athletes and musicians, most are average, many are low income earners, and quite a few are destined to be in the gutter. This is the way it has always been. There is NO EQUALITY. Not two humans are alike, even siblings are quite different. Socialism cannot change this alignment.

Wealth creation requires brains and hard work:

I invent a laptop. I sacrifice everything I have to build a prototype. Then I hire workers to build the laptop to my specifications in a line assembly. Because of my ingenuity many men and women now have a job and can put bread on the table. The laptop becomes a big success and I become rich. However, I must keep innovating and creating a better product as my competitors will want to build a better laptop for less. Before long the laptops cost less and work better.

Meanwhile, the buyers of my laptop are now 100 times more efficient and productive in their work because of my laptop. They feel the price of the laptop is more than justified because they earn more money. In other words they did not lose any money. Whatever money they send me for the laptop they get back in increased productivity.

And so the buyers have created wealth for themselves after buying my laptop. And I become a billionaire and open massive large factories that employ workers that never had a job. The money I made was not stolen from anyone. The money is the wealth I created by inventing the laptop.
#15050400
Truth To Power wrote:It wasn't condescension. I was skeptical that you would find a willingness to understand what I wrote, and in the event you unfortunately demonstrated that you in fact did not understand it:

Sure it is. Capitalism is defined by ownership, not competition. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron. No capitalist economy has ever come close to a free market or absence of monopoly.

There's nothing uncapitalist about that.

I doubt that.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith

See? You chose not to understand. The Beatles' monopoly was the copyright monopoly on the music they wrote and performed. No one else was allowed to produce additional copies or create different arrangements without paying them for permission. That is how they got so rich.

But others were not permitted to produce them. That is a monopoly.

But monopoly means your rights have been taken away to given someone more profit at your expense and the expense of potential competitors.

Nonsense. If not for the copyright monopoly, they would have heard more of it.

More nonsense. The albums would just have cost close to their production cost.

Your feelings do not alter the fact that they got rich through government-issued and -enforced copyright monopoly privileges.

Competition does. Monopoly doesn't.

But it is still more expensive than it would be in the absence of the patent monopolies that reduce production and increase prices. You just can't even imagine what that genuine free market would be like, how much more abundant almost everything would be.


You call copyright and patents a monopoly. Assume you invent the lightbulb and your neighbor copies your idea. He then sells the lightbulbs to make money and there is nothing you can do because there is no such thing as patents or copyright. Your intellectual property has been robbed and there is no law to protect you. Is that what you really want?
#15050845
Julian658 wrote:You call copyright and patents a monopoly.

Correctly.
Assume you invent the lightbulb and your neighbor copies your idea. He then sells the lightbulbs to make money and there is nothing you can do because there is no such thing as patents or copyright.

What do you mean, "nothing I can do"? What would I want to do? Why would I want to prevent production of my invention? Given that I invented it, he would probably pay me to help him produce it because I understand it better than anyone else.
Your intellectual property has been robbed and there is no law to protect you.

What do you mean, "intellectual property"? Knowledge and ideas are not rivalrous. Anyone can use them as much as they like without affecting anyone else's ability to use them, too. And what do you mean, "robbed"? He hasn't taken anything from me or deprived me of anything I would otherwise have. I am not made any worse off by his light bulb business. Isn't society better off if light bulbs are more abundant rather than scarcer?
Is that what you really want?

Of course. Why wouldn't I want freedom, justice and prosperity?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Divine decadence empowers fascists

The winner of eight academy awards, the 1972 music[…]

Election 2020

These folks ^ are without doubt discussing their […]

But the way I would put that is that Putin's ambi[…]

Breaking the law is a part of the case. Breaking[…]