Fuck You Barack Obama
- Thread starter Dwight Schrute
- Start date
If you really wanted to see the data on tax-cuts vs economy boost you could just look at tax data during presidential terms and compare them to GDP growth during the same terms.
You are right about the lending part... that is why interests rates are at all time low's. If rates are low it entices people to borrow and the more we borrow the better the GDP is.
But at what cost? Banks were forced to lend to unqualified buyers and looked what happened and now we want to borrow our way right back out!
there are other implications to taxing the rich.... if you increase taxes on the rich and forcibly take there earnings it can spawn several things, no more new development (stunt in job creation), no more spending on luxury items like cars, boats, other random shit, which leads to decreased revenue (job loss), maybe some of these rich people are at the age where they can close shop and retire because they are sick of paying for the poor man (more job loss), maybe these rich people no longer have the desire to donate to charities because they don't want the new tax to impose on their lifestyle that they are accustomed too....and the list goes on.
This is already happening target has cornered their own angle in which they do a better job than wal-mart.
Affordable, yet stylish clothes, furniture, among other things!
competition keeps the round go world!
When you redistribute, you are redistributing saved profit. Savings are capital.
When you consume capital, an economy shrinks. The wealthy reinvest capital so we can have expensive things like airlines, and hotels and Facebook.
If a bunch of welfare slobs get checks and blow it on fritos and dvds, then you have arbitrarily stripped capital from across the economy, and given it to the frito and dvd industries, creating a boom for them (artificial) while hurting everyone else.
And the frito and dvd industries will probably start changing their production processes (malinvestment) thinking the boom is here to stay which means when the redistribution stops, or the welfare consumers tastes change, they are going to have massive layoffs and bankruptcies, triggering a recession.
The people who earn profit, and save it to use as capital, are the correct people to allocate that capital to future economic growth, first because it is their own money they are playing with (unlike politicians or people getting bailouts/subsidies) and second because they have already proven their business acumen by earning the profits in the first place.
Other firms can't always compete though--eg. monopolies of scale. If a service requires a huge infrastructure--say cell phone towers all over the country or other stuff like that--another company can't legitimately compete until they can establish such a huge infrastructure, which they will rarely if ever be able to do. This has always been my understanding at least.
Prolly better to use Wikipedia's definition for clarity:
"A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single form. In some cases, this gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines); therefore, it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market."
I can't switch to another company if no such company exists due to such barriers to entry. So even if a company doesn't provide the best service, a competitor can't legitimately compete unless they're willing to invest an incredibly huge and often overwhelming amount of capital.
I just don't see how the free market is the best choice for ALL industries--the vast majority, yes, but all of them? I don't see it.
Also, on a separate note--how is the consumer's vote (by shopping at that particular company, etc) infallible? I question this especially with environmental issues. Consumer's may be about maximizing their utility, but what about society as a whole. As long as it's not in someone's backyard, they typically could care less about environmental issues.
These are pretty much my major issues with a radical application of free markets. I support it in most cases, I just think government still has some roles that it needs to play (although certainly much less than it does now). Always open to be proven wrong though.
**Also, I am drunk, otherwise I would not be responding to this thread.
You combat natural monopolies by building your own infrastructure. With your argument Fed-Ex or UPS would never exist. You can build large scale infrastructure.
How did cable take out over the air, dish tried to take out cable, cell takes out wired phone, wired phone tries to take out cable..... and on it goes.
If you have a better phone service maybe it will not be with cell towers - maybe something else. the key is innovation can trump existing infrastructure.
As for you Walmart haters - the same argument could have been made about Sears or KMart years ago - who could compete with such large stores? WalMart did - the rest is history. Maybe you are too young to remember a time before anyone had even heard of WalMart.
How about in electronics, I mean Apple went from a company that no one thought would survive to where it is now, close to overcoming Exxon in market cap - how? innovation.
How did cable take out over the air, dish tried to take out cable, cell takes out wired phone, wired phone tries to take out cable..... and on it goes.
If you have a better phone service maybe it will not be with cell towers - maybe something else. the key is innovation can trump existing infrastructure.
As for you Walmart haters - the same argument could have been made about Sears or KMart years ago - who could compete with such large stores? WalMart did - the rest is history. Maybe you are too young to remember a time before anyone had even heard of WalMart.
How about in electronics, I mean Apple went from a company that no one thought would survive to where it is now, close to overcoming Exxon in market cap - how? innovation.
Right. Also, you are probably not good looking or well endowed enough to land a movie star or supermodel. Life is not fair. The fact it is expensive to do something, isn't an unfair advantage. We should be happy ONE FIRM invested the capital to do it in the first place.
Which industries should not be allowed free competition?
Consumers aren't infallible. But neither are politicians. The difference is, the consumer can and will act in his own perception of his interest. Politicians will decide for that consumer based on the politician's self interest.
The word radical comes from the Greek radic, meaning "root". So you have a issue with the fundamental application of free markets.
And to this I would say, where do you derive the intelligence or moral authority to prevent people from acting freely with their own lives or property?
In Japan they visit the doctor 4 times as much, they spend less than half of what the US does, and they have universal coverage. The costs in the US are higher compared to other nations to such a degree that there can't be a single precise reason.
I've linked in the past to articles detailing 5-10 reasons why costs in the US are so expensive. USA has much higher obesity rates compared to other countries, for example.
Are they still receiving subsidies and other welfare that most smaller businesses can't get?
Here's a link related to Walmart and health care :
Wal-Mart Sells Out…, Part 2 « LewRockwell.com Blog
Why don't you like Obama? :O
He is the US hero ... just admit you voted for him coz you heard always when you just turn on the radio or tv about him.
Obama ... Obama ... Obama
... dump crowd shouted.
This is how the media corporations can control the dump people (not just in the USA ...).
He is the US hero ... just admit you voted for him coz you heard always when you just turn on the radio or tv about him.
Obama ... Obama ... Obama
... dump crowd shouted.This is how the media corporations can control the dump people (not just in the USA ...).
They also live in much smaller dwellings, they work a lot more, they save a lot more, and they don't spend much if anything on military adventurism. Not to mention, they aren't supporting health care for 30 million illegals.
Also, universal coverage is not equal to good coverage. It is just universal.
And, why would a "competitive" free market system, you know, with Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug Plans, and care for illegal immigrants
have higher prices? Why is competition not working in this perfect free market health care system?The US also has patent monopolies. The AMA also restricts the number of medical students. It goes on and on. Market competition hasn't failed. It hasn't been allowed to work.
Probably. But that doesn't undermine the point made up thread that Walmart was not always number one, and one day they will no longer be number one. They occupy a place in the market where they do an exceptional job, and they probably do get some subsidy, but almost everyone does if you want to break that down.
I prefer to judge who is a net tax producer and who is a net tax consumer. Some numbers showing where Walmart lies on that spectrum might be interesting.
Wrt LRC, Lew means well, but his moral compass loses true north from time to time.
Ha... irony.
Of course, anarcho-capitalists, like guerilla, advocate a completely stateless society, which of course means no presidents.
I think a lot of people here aren't seriously in favor of an-cap, they just made some money and are pissed that they have to pay taxes on it.
Really, who here is in favor of dismantling the United States? Who no longer wishes for this to be a country with a government?
You Ron Paul guys might think an-cappers are your allies because they use reasonable-sounding moral arguments to rail against taxes, but if we ever came to some type of minarchist state, don't think they'd want to stop there.
Anarcho-capitalism is an extreme philosophy that is shared by an extreme few, who, like guerilla, are so convinced of their moral certitude and infallible logic they cannot comprehend why any rational person would disagree with them.
The world is not black and white. No system is perfect. We just have to try to make the best of what we have.
People latch onto Ron Paul because they want true change in the right direction. I do not htink anyone really wants "anarcho-capitalism" as you call it. They want Ron Paul because they know that no single President can sway things that far - thank God for checks and balances. Even though there is little to stop the president and both houses like Obama had behind him.
The truth is that people like the social safety net and social programs. But they do not like the blatant wasteful spending. If we cut out the BS spending the the lower taxes would be fine for most.
Of course everyone argues for all privatization - but in the end those private companies would have to contract for their mutual self defense - and that is most efficiently done within a central government that can command the patriotism of the soldier - without that you have all mercenaries and that does not work out well for defense. (Machiavelli).
Even roads and bridges can be built for much less. Having to bid a road project "at scale" increases the labor cost a lot. We end up paying a back hoe operator $100 per hour labor plus gas and backhoe instead of an independent operator $40 per hour which includes gas and backhoe.
The current system is BS. So everyone wants the BS to be shut down.
We need a society that honors profit, honors the capitalist, and does not make anyone work for the benefit of another unless they choose to or unles it benefits themselves. Basic Ayn Rand economy.
I love how you cannot actually argue the merit of the position, all you can do is keep insisting I have an extreme view.
The real irony here, is that your position of mob rule and might makes right is what is extreme and dangerous.