No mystery, greed. The rich are after a plutocracy. The tea baggers are just a tool to get it. They are feeding the idiots and the idiots are loving it. After the next election, if the tea bagger blowback is severe enough, the rich will drop them like syphilitic whores. They are using them.
I don’t know. David Hume claimed that, “No ‘is’ implies an ‘ought,’” which I think is overbroad. But just because things are done a given way doesn’t make it right, I would say.
I bring this up because it seems to me that you’re the one taking a descriptive analysis of economics for prescriptive:
Just because someone agrees to a deal doesn’t mean that’s fair in any absolute sense. Maybe there is no absolute standard of “fair” or “right” & your “morality” is culturally constructed. As a consequentialist, I would disagree. But it’s certainly the case that a different set of economic customs could change the calculus of labor value, because economics is descriptive, & a different set of expectations and powers changes the end result.
Mutually consensual freedom to contract for labor at a mutually agreed-upon price is not “natural” any more than slavery, or guild monopolies, or state socialism. It’s a set of rules that influences outcomes, & it is derived from a theory of liberalism to which not everyone subscribes.
So if the culture &/or law said you had to get permission from the guild to hire this person, that would redefine “moral” in that culture, even though the existence of that restriction would be arbitrary in an absolute sense.
We in the liberal West value freedom enough to let you hire someone at an agreed-upon price–except where we don’t. (Union rules, licensing, patent rights, etc.) Apparently our laws take other concerns beyond liberty into consideration. If we decide that it’s “better” to redistribute wealth more broadly in some way, that’s just another bit of our particular legal landscape, & a relativist would call it no more “wrong” than requiring a license requiring a degree requiring years of specialized schooling to practice medicine.
So then, shall we be libertarian absolutists? I don’t see why.
So then, shall we try some redistributive taxation? If it tends to spread capital around a bit & shore up demand, that might be desirable in a pragmatic sense, whether it’s libertarian-moral or not.
Check out Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Rawls revises himself in Political Liberalism.
Of course you would also want to check out other contemporary works on the topic.
To answer the OP, I think the GOP may not care one way or the other.
I wonder if the banks would not benefit from an arbitrary overnight increase in interest rates. If they make a profit, why care about anything (ANYTHING) else? This is admittedly a paranoid suspicion.
Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Close many of the military installations we have around the world and stop trying to police the world. It’s expensive. We can fund defense just fine without trying to be all around the globe.
Start looking at entitlement programs and cutting where we can. I realize we can’t just get rid of them, that’s silly and no one would vote for that. So cut the waste where we can. Reform the tax code to make it way more simpler. I am also for (along many within the libertarian circle) raising taxes on the rich (not an INSANE amount, though), but we REALLY need to cut spending.
I’m Libertarian mostly for civil liberties and protecting the Constitution, but I’m for government regulation of the banking industry (come on, it’s the foundation of the economy, if we had regulated it better, we could have avoided the mess we’re in now) and other industries. I’m a geek so I keep up with what’s happening with ISPs, and the government really should step and force some regulation to force ISPs to be more competitive.
I’m for situational regulation and involvement, when it absolutely calls for it, do it, but otherwise, let the markets work it out.
Unwarranted assumptions? “.. but people are idiots and ideological idiots are some of the worst sorts.” Okay.. I’m the one making assumptions? Maybe you take all Tea Party members, Libertarians, etc to be totally radical but I’m in agreement with you. Raise taxes, and cut spending. We need to do both (though, corporate taxes could come down, I’m a fan of Estonia’s tax system for corporations).
Diminishing revenues at this point is stupid, but in the long-run no it’s not. If we cut spending to appropriate levels, we could afford to lower taxes, but right now our main focus should be paying off that massive debt, so I’m for some tax increases on the extremely wealthy. But the amount of money we spend is insane and has always kept increasing, it’s a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped. Functional government can easily be done without many of the things that comprise the Federal government right now for sure.
Income tax.. heh. I’m really a bit torn on that. We need some form of revenue for sure, but I don’t see a high sales tax or something could replace the income tax. A sales tax would encourage saving and people would only pay it if they bought something, unlike the income tax. Though I haven’t read enough on the topic to really offer a solid and informed opinion, I gotta be honest. If anyone cares to elaborate on why a sales tax like I said would be good/bad, I’m all for hearing the case. I do recognize the need for a revenue source.
You’re making assumptions that just because someone is Libertarian he instantly wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, etc, those are pretty typical REPUBLICAN stances. Sure, many Libertarians have it too, but realize that many of us are pretty sensible too and grounded in reality.
We wouldn’t be at this point of saying we need to raise the debt ceiling sure.. but we’d still have a massive debt. And I view that as a big issue. It’s an elephant in the room that no one seems to ever want to address until it becomes political popular and/or relevant (like now) to.
I’m not speaking on the behalf of CATO, I’m speaking on the behalf of myself. The wars were wrong, any sensible person will agree to that. Even a Republican (well, some, lol).
That’s an interesting word, “overbroad”. It sums up a great deal for me:
And likewise for the alternative. (Can’t get to “ought” from “isn’t”, either.)
Then there’s no absolute moral reason to keep on keeping on, or to change things; “fair” and “right” are just as irrelevant to changes as to maintaining the status quo.
Without specifics, that sounds – overbroad.
It could, yes. As per Hume, so what? What “ought” shall I deduce from that hypothetical “is”, if I’m not to deduce an “ought” from the current “is”?
And someone like you would then be free to point out that “just because things are done a given way doesn’t make it right, I would say.” At present, I respect mutually consensual freedom; were I hypothetically a fan of “a different set of economic customs”, I wouldn’t; your criticism would be exactly as relevant.
If both the status quo and its alternatives can only be called “arbitrary in an absolute sense”, then I still can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. If the current culture is irrelevant, so is the postulated one.
And if you’d ended that with “I don’t see why not,” I’d be exactly as stymied for a reply. Abolishing “ought” by ladling on the “is/ought” dichotomy doesn’t let us see why or why not.
Ah, “desirable in a pragmatic sense”. So if I find the current situation to be “desirable in a pragmatic sense”, that disposes of the issue? Or leaves us deadlocked? Or becomes a question for society to decide? Or what?
[QUOTE=TheBlackOut]
I’m Libertarian mostly for civil liberties and protecting the Constitution, but I’m for government regulation of the banking industry (come on, it’s the foundation of the economy, if we had regulated it better, we could have avoided the mess we’re in now) and other industries.
[/quote]
In other words you’re not a pure Libertarian - which is totally OK with me. It means you’re not an absolutist, and you’re willing to compromise that stance when it makes sense to do so.
Possibly. I wasn’t strictly thinking of Libertarians when I said that but really anyone who doesn’t let facts interfere with their thinking. If you’re not one of those people the remark isn’t directed at you.
MOST Libertarians I’ve met seem, as you put it “totally radical” though of course my experience is not a scientific poll. ALL the Tea Party people I’ve met strike me as delusional, though, again, I’m sure there are moderates out there, I’m just not running into them.
Sure, there’s “functional” government and then there is “functional” government. I know that many want a bare bones government but I’m not so sure that’s really the best course. I’m not in favor of wasting money (though we need to realize no large-scale system ever works with perfect efficiency), but if a majority wish the government to do something - universal health coverage, for an example, rather than the patchwork mix of private “system” and public “system” we currently have - then I’m OK with that as long funding is actually provided. Would that mean more taxes? Yes… but you’d get something in return for those taxes. You pay road taxes and you get roads. You pay sewer tax and get a sewer system. Pay a tax for the health system and you get healthcare life-long. The hitch is that a government program has to be adequately funded in order to work properly. (Note that I’d be OK with each of the 50 states having a universal health plan instead of a overall Federal one, though I think there are advantages of scale with the Federal one).
So.. then the discussion is between very low taxes (and despite the screaming, Americans DO have the lowest tax rate in the first world) and very bare bones government, or higher taxes with a government that, say, provides guarantees on student loans/educational opportunities, universal healthcare, a social safety net… and it’s not even a matter of two extremes but a spectrum of choices. There are many people willing to pay for those “extra” services which they use and value.
But until we get the deficit under control you and I are in agreement that there needs to be cost trimming AND increased revenues, including on the wealthiest in the nation. Right now, the Republicans/Tea Party want to solve the problem solely by cutting, and often by cutting things the most vulnerable depend on. There’s talk that if the government goes into default, for example, foodstamp money will cease. Since, right now, 1 in 6 people in this country are receiving some degree of that benefit that’s fifty million people whose food budget will be impacted. In other words, people will go hungry. In some cases, very hungry. Fixing a problem like the national deficit by taking food from the poor while millionaires either are called upon to make no sacrifice or even offering them additional tax cuts is just morally wrong, it’s inhumane, and long term just stupid. Why? Because hungry people get desperate, and if enough of them get desperate things get very ugly - see French and Russia Revolutions.
The only downside that comes to mind is that if you make the sales tax TOO high and start to seriously discourage buying of goods and services you’ll slow the economy… which is not what is needed right now. But, again, that’s a matter of an extreme, not an inherent flaw in a sales tax.
I’m looking for specific and concrete “what ought to be” answers in the post you copy-and-pasted – in hopes of then bootstrapping 'em up to a general and abstract answer. I explained how I would hire someone to paint my house: by looking to pay as little as possible for the quality I have in mind, provided offer and acceptance line up in a voluntary transaction between consenting adults. As foolsguinea would note, that also happens to be how I think things ought to be – but if you disagree, then, by all means, tell me how I ought to pay a housepainter.
I explained how I would, upon putting up the money for supplies and advertisements and so on, hire a guy to paint other people’s houses as my employee: I want to pay as little as possible for the quality I have in mind, what with offer and acceptance and voluntary and consent and et cetera. As per foolsguinea, that “is” description matches my “ought” prescription – but if you disagree, tell me how I ought to pay the guy.
I’m all ears. And, by all means, give me the overbroad general answer as well; just give me a couple of specific ones along the way, huh?
The main problem of sales tax is that it is a regressive taxe. That is, the poorer you are, the more you pay in %age of your income (because poor people will spend every dollar they have, hence will pay the tax on about all of their income, why wealthy people will save/invest and won’t pay the tax on this part of their income).
Also, on a personnal level, I dislike sales tax for another reason. It’s a “sneaky” tax in that you don’t really notice you’re paying it each time you’re making a purchase, and you don’t really know how much you’ve paid over the course of a year.
If it were up to me, I would like to up the income tax and lower the sales tax if only for this last reason. I think it’s better when the citizen clearly realizes how much he’s paying in taxes.
In the US, the price you see on the item or shelf is the price… and the sales tax is added on top of that, at the check out, so yes, you DO notice how much your paying at every transaction. It’s a separate line item on every receipt you receive as well.
Finding out how much you paid over the course of a year would require adding up all those little bits, which I doubt most people would do, but here you do see the amount of tax every time you buy something.
What’s paranoid about it, given the culpability of the financial industry in the economic meltdown that led to the Current Unpleasantness? They made bad loans, they bundled them with good loans to hide their awfulness, they committed fraud, knowingly selling those bad loans as good loans to pension fund managers, etc … all the evidence indicates that the financial industry, on the whole, are thieves at heart.
It’s not paranoid to think that people who have behaved irresponsibly in the recent past will behave irresponsibly again. It’s more like … logic. Especially given that there were no repercussions for the bankers … individual bankers and real estate brokers made hundreds of thousands on those bad loans … and sure, they lost money when the economy collapsed but not as much as the rest of us, because you can bet they weren’t putting their money into mortgage-backed securities! And of course, no one ever went to jail for any of the frauds that were committed …
As Robert Reich recently pointed out, cutting government spending during a recession historically makes recessions longer and worse. So all this talk of “the necessity of cutting spending” that is being bandied about as if it were economic Gospel is in fact counter to economic theory and, well … politically motivated baloney.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/278811/lee-admits-he-is-an-extortionist/
A moment of sympathy of John of Orange. Here’s the kind of guys he has to deal with, from your good friends at ThinkProgress, which is a somewhat lefty site, so appropriate contamination protocols are recommended…
From an interview with Chris “Giant Tweety-Bird” Matthews:
What these people are up to is an effort to take a one-off election victory, and use it to permanently alter the government of the USA, and alter it in such a way as to make it effectively impossible to turn back. They are trying to destroy the “majority rules” premise of our government, much like they did when they make 60 votes in the Senate the effective limit by screaming “filibuster!” every ten minutes.
Its no longer about persuading a majority of the people to agree with you, its about denying and destroying the capacity of a majority to govern. They see themselves as losing the game, and so they want to change the rules. And they are desperate enough to take any chance, risk any disaster, to have their way.
Barry Goldwater would puke his guts out.
Well, it makes sense from their standpoint; they are anticipating their future election prospects, so locking in “tyranny by the minority” looks pretty attractive.
Ha ha. This is the point around which we’re going in circles. You want to reduce things to an abstraction out of econ 101. Others are trying to get you to recognize a little more nuance in the actual situation.
All of your examples involve paying somebody peanuts for work you denigrate as practically worthless. How about you paint your own house? With full disclosure, I doubt anyone would want to take the job. Show us all how it is done. Why not notice that there aren’t very many jobs in any field that are spectacularly complicated- and even less in management? The values you assign to things all require a lengthy narrative preamble of economic propaganda.
The question isn’t how to manage an academic transaction between a single worker and employer in fantasyland. You are bull-dogging that aspect of your point.
They ship the job to China and someone there will do it for 50 bucks a week. Goldman just announced they are offshoring a thousand or so jobs to get lower salaries, while the company is making record profits and bonuses. We make offshoring too damn easy.
This is literally true (bolding in original):
I’m not looking for an abstraction; it’s a concrete question. How much should I pay someone to paint my house?
I’m not denigrating the work. Possibly you are; possibly you’re not; tell me. How much ought I pay the guy?
It’s not fantasyland, in that I’d genuinely pay a guy to paint my house right here in the real world and everything. But, assuming arguendo that you have a point, how about the following? Say I want to be the employer for multiple workers – in the real world, even – who don’t merely paint houses, but build them, which is work you might be less eager to denigrate. I know how much I would pay those guys to build houses; how much ought I pay those guys to build houses?
Is that concrete example still too abstract? Is the work still too prone to denigration on your part? How about I hire an auto mechanic to repair my car – or maybe open a car-repair shop, where the auto mechanics I hire can, y’know, repair cars. I know how much I would pay; how much ought I to pay?
Still too abstract? Still too prone to your denigration? How about truck drivers who transport stuff from coast to coast? How much should I pay them, either for a single transaction (if I sell my house and move across the country with all my belongings) or as employees in my fleet (if I open a cargo-shipping corporation)?
If you don’t like those concrete examples, then, by all means, supply other ones.
Oddly enough, we currently have a thread authored by a professional painter - maybe you should ask her?
And the people who make these decisions never find their jobs going to overseas workers. Has anyone heard of a company firing its U.S. executives and hiring lower-cost replacements in a foreign country? Toyota has its headquarters in Japan and runs factories in the U.S. at a profit, so we know the model works; yet no American company has taken this obvious step to improve its bottom line.