Karl Marx and Hillary Clinton Statements

[pervert]

@MaxTheVool

(Note: I’m not a trained economist, and none of what I just typed is meant to be analyzable-with-rigor. But the ideas behind it are sound.)

Well, I’m going to pick apart some of the things you wrote. I don’t mean it in a nitpick sense. I really do mean it in the sense of getting to some flaws in the basic thinking.

I certainly have no objection to anything of that sort, in principle. Although saying that you’re for “reducing overhead” is kind of like saying that you’re "against murder’.

Agreed. I was being breif. a full discussion of the ways in which government policies limit the supplies of health care in America is outside the scope of this thread. I only meant that there are ways to reduce regulations and increase the amount of helath care available to the poorest of us. It simply requires us to stop thinking in terms of the government providing us with health care.

I certainly don’t look at the US right now and think “wow, among the gravest problems facing the US today is the fact that rich people just aren’t rich enough”.

Neither do I. I suspect that it requires a bit of zero sum thinking to see what I wrote in this way. I’m not sure, but I am begining to suspect that.

However, I would definitely (if I were in charge) structure taxes of this sort so that things like stock dividends and particularly inheritance taxes, things that apply to people who are already very wealthy, would be hit harder than income tax, taxes on businesses that are just starting up, etc. I don’t see the benefit of extremely wealthy people being able to sit around and just own things. I do see the benefit of there being an incentive to work hard, create jobs, build the economy, and (in the process) become rich.

The power of capitalism is that large amounts of capital (wealth) can be accrued to individuals or small groups of individuals. Capital acts as a multiplier or lever if you will for economic activity. “Wealthy people being able to sit around and just own things” is what the amassing of capital looks like. We could very easily institute policies that any large amounts of wealth invested was subject to confiscatory taxes. ut the result would be the opposite of what you hope. Investment (in this country at least, money always finds a way to travel) would slow down considerably. The opportunities for poorer people to work hard and get ahead would literally dry up.

Taxes have to get pretty ridiculously much higher than they are now before there completely ceases to be any incentive to work hard.

I agree. But the incentives for hard work do not have to be eliminated for serious damage to be done to the economy and to the poorest members of that economy to boot. Once again, you have to remember that the power of capitalism is not that a person can work hard in his garage, invent some new widget, and make money selling them to the rest of us. That sort of thing happens in one way or another in all sorts of economies. The power of capitalism is that a group of investors (or a particularly rich individual) can put together enough money to pay for better equipment for his early experiments, build a factory to mass produce them, and market billions of them around the world. The large amouts of money are able to multiply the productivity of the inventory at every stage. Meanwhile, each multiplication results in more money for everyone involved. They make enough money to justify their investment, the inventor makes much more money than he could have hoped for selling widgets himself, many more people are employed making and selling widgets, and finally (but almost certainly most importantly) more people are able to benifit from the use of these new widgets. This last bit is the real engine which drives the economy, and the real reason why many government programs have the opposite effect than intended.

Also, if the highest rate only applies to income above a pretty preposterously high cutoff, then the vast majority of small-business-building-people will still have plenty of incentive.

What amounts to a “preposterously high cuttoff” is open to debate. I would only like to add that the money above and beyond this cuttof point is precisely the sort of money I’m talking about when I talk about investment money. If we think back to the 6 or 8 million dilema, I could note that the last 2 million might have been the amount used in more high risk investments. Those are the ones which typically are more far reaching and most likely to create new technologies. So, the capitalist with 6 million might be content to invest almost all of it in guaranteed government bonds, or low risk investments. While the lat 2 million in the hands of the 8 million dollar capitalist would be freer to be invested in new medical technology, or perhaps even some new housing technique.

On the flip side, I do think that one of the most serious problems facing the US today is the lack of a properly-set-up social safety net, which ensures that people who are unemployed will have the ability to survive, raise healthy children, and (most importantly!) receive job-training and -placement education.

I agree entirely. I would state the problem in terms of affordable services rather than a social safety net. But I agree with the principle. The number one thing which reduces life expectancy is poverty. If there were more and cheaper services available for our poorer citizens this would not be as much of a problem.

One final point on this topic: Let’s not forget that this is all a matter of scale. It’s not like (unless you’re a closet absolutist) what you would propose and what I would propose are night and day different. And I’m certainly not calling for confiscation, 85% income tax rates, etc.

I understand and appreciate this very much.

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, but… I would obviously choose the first option.

I’m talking about the principle that the more control over our economy you give to government, the more political pull is a necessary skill.

The quick answer is that I do give money to charity, some of it to social programs of the sort I wish the government was funding. I don’t tend to give as much as I think I should, but that’s more due to laziness and general non-perfection-of-character than hypocrisy, as I see it.

Fair enough. Please believe that I was not attacking or even accusing you of any sort of hypocrisy. I was merely trying to point out that the argument is not completely without merit.

Thanks for the civil discourse on this BTW.

[MaxTheVool]

@pervert

a full discussion of the ways in which government policies limit the supplies of health care in America is outside the scope of this thread. I only meant that there are ways to reduce regulations and increase the amount of helath care available to the poorest of us. It simply requires us to stop thinking in terms of the government providing us with health care.

I suspect that we’re basically in agreement here… although I’m curious whether you think that the appropriate time for outright government handouts/support is (a) rarely or (b) never?

The power of capitalism is that large amounts of capital (wealth) can be accrued to individuals or small groups of individuals. Capital acts as a multiplier or lever if you will for economic activity.

Are you basically endorsing “trickle down economics”? To make the poor better off, give more money to the rich? I’m curious what serious economists who have studied the issue, and how well it worked (or didn’t work) during the Reagan 80’s, would say about that. I wish I could speak on this topic with more certainty, but I certainly don’t have the impression that, in general, the lot in life of the average American poor person improved significantly.

I’m talking about the principle that the more control over our economy you give to government, the more political pull is a necessary skill.

I’m still not sure where you’re coming from, here. I don’t see how there being a higher income tax rate, with that money being used to provide medical insurance for all (which seems to be the kind of thing we’re discussing here) leads to a situation in which political pull helps individuals or companies thrive.

Thanks for the civil discourse on this BTW.

You too.

[jshore]

@MaxTheVool

Are you basically endorsing “trickle down economics”? To make the poor better off, give more money to the rich? I’m curious what serious economists who have studied the issue, and how well it worked (or didn’t work) during the Reagan 80’s, would say about that. I wish I could speak on this topic with more certainty, but I certainly don’t have the impression that, in general, the lot in life of the average American poor person improved significantly.

Well, here is some evidence on the subject. Basically, the conclusion is that the gains made in the 1990s were more broadly shared than those made in the 1980s (although even in the 1990s, the top 1% had higher percentage real income gains than everyone else). One can quibble with the exact years that CBPP (a liberal think-tank) chooses to look at but this general qualitative conclusion [which you can use the original CBO numbers themselves (see Table 3c) to investigate] still holds up if you compare, say, income gains between 1980 and 1988 to those between 1992 and 2000.

And, as rjung pointed out on Friday in this thread, the Economic Policy Institute (another liberal think-tank) gives various numbers that tend to point to the fact that the gains from the latest recovery are again being very unequally distributed (see here and here), with the inflation-adjusted average hourly wage of blue-collar and non-managerial workers (who represent 80% of the workforce) at the same level now as they were in Nov. 2001. Also, percentage growth in corporate profits over the last 12 quarters has far, far outpaced the growth in labor compensation…and this is true to a much greater degree than has been true on average at the same point in the last 8 economic recoveries.

So, the preliminary evidence seems to suggest that, once again, “trickle down economics” policies are proving that what “trickles down” isn’t very much. And, that more middle-of-the-road economics policies, such as those that Clinton pursued (which included, for example, a rise in the minimum wage and in top tax rates) can result in a somewhat broader (if still unequal) sharing of the economic gains.

[Liberal]

It was a liberal, John Kennedy, who eliminated the 70% tax rate. It is a centrist, Hillary Clinton, who wants to bring it back. Incidentally, it was absolutely vulgar to accuse the OP of bordering on trolling. I agree with the OP. Hillary’s remark was so Marxist that Ayn Rand is kicking her own corpse for failing to have conceived it for her own characters’ dialog.

[pervert]

@MaxTheVool

I suspect that we’re basically in agreement here… although I’m curious whether you think that the appropriate time for outright government handouts/support is (a) rarely or (b) never?

I probably fall into the rarely camp. I suspect that if the government controled less of the economy things would be more easily afforded by the poorest of us.

Are you basically endorsing “trickle down economics”? To make the poor better off, give more money to the rich?

No. I am talking about capitalism economics. To make the poor better off, give (or more precisely, take less from) everybody. I you prefer to take less from the poor first, that’s fine by me.

What I’m really refering to here is more long term thinking. Basically, the more an economy is left to its own devices, free of political tinkering, the more robust it is. I’m not trying to propose some absolutist capitalist state where no government service beyond police and army is allowed. But I would appreciate if we could at least acknowledge the massive contribution that capitalists have made in imporving our standard of living over the last 200 or so years.

I’m curious what serious economists who have studied the issue, and how well it worked (or didn’t work) during the Reagan 80’s, would say about that. I wish I could speak on this topic with more certainty, but I certainly don’t have the impression that, in general, the lot in life of the average American poor person improved significantly.

jshore gave you a pretty good bit of information. My impression is that most economics do not think the radical proposals of trickle down economics are very reasonable. That is, tax cuts for the rich do not produce enough economic activity to offset the revenue losses. But again, I’m really not talking about trickle down economics. As far as I understand the term, it is simply a way for Republicans to promise tax cuts and more government services.

I’m still not sure where you’re coming from, here. I don’t see how there being a higher income tax rate, with that money being used to provide medical insurance for all (which seems to be the kind of thing we’re discussing here) leads to a situation in which political pull helps individuals or companies thrive.

Governments which have money spend that money. Where, precisely, they spend it depends on the political pull of those looking for it. The more money, as a percentage of the economy, that the government spends, the more political pull one must have in order to succeed in the economy. That’s all I’m saying.

[Frank]

@Liberal

It was a liberal, John Kennedy, who eliminated the 70% tax rate. It is a centrist, Hillary Clinton, who wants to bring it back.

Cite, please, that Hillary Clinton believes any tax rate should be increased to 70%.

[Liberal]

It was a rhetorical device. And you knew that because you did not ask for a cite that Ayn Rand is dead.

[DrDeth]

@Liberal

Incidentally, it was absolutely vulgar to accuse the OP of bordering on trolling.

Absolutely. I wouldn’t use the word “bordering” at all. :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

I think that’s the same sort of accusation that the mob on a predominately conservative board would have hurled at an OP suggesting someting positive about Hillary. Equating her declaration to take people’s property with Marx’s manifesto promising to do the same is a perfectly legitimate point of discussion and debate. I think the hysterical reaction toward the OP in the first few posts is born of an emotional indignation and not an intellectual objection.

[jshore]

@Liberal

quating her declaration to take people’s property with Marx’s manifesto promising to do the same is a perfectly legitimate point of discussion and debate.

So, I suppose that we could equate Bush to Marx too since he is “taking people’s property” to fight his war in Iraq? Or does that not count just because he is putting the bill on the national credit card rather than having people pay up right now?

[MaxTheVool]

@pervert

What I’m really refering to here is more long term thinking. Basically, the more an economy is left to its own devices, free of political tinkering, the more robust it is.

So, you don’t believe the Federal Reserve should exist? What about anti-trust laws?

I think that letting people spend money however they like to try to make more money, and hoping that that will stimulate the economy in general, and so forth, is a fine idea. I don’t, however, have unlimited faith in the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.

But I would appreciate if we could at least acknowledge the massive contribution that capitalists have made in imporving our standard of living over the last 200 or so years.

As have social advocates, many of whom have been strongly opposed by capitalists, and vice-versa.

Governments which have money spend that money. Where, precisely, they spend it depends on the political pull of those looking for it. The more money, as a percentage of the economy, that the government spends, the more political pull one must have in order to succeed in the economy. That’s all I’m saying.

Which brings up one of the other problems with capitalism, which is that concentrating huge amounts of money in one person/corporation’s hands seems to inevitably lead to corruption of the system. Not that this means we should throw the system out…

[Liberal]

@JShore

So, I suppose that we could equate Bush to Marx too since he is “taking people’s property” to fight his war in Iraq?

Abso-doodly-utely. At least Hillary had the balls to declare her intentions in front of God and everybody. Bush is sneaky about it, calling himself a conservative while taxing and spending like a drunken sailor.

[pervert]

@MaxTheVool

So, you don’t believe the Federal Reserve should exist? What about anti-trust laws?

I’m not really married to the fed, no. I think that a gold (or other rare commodity) standard would be far less open to abuse.

I’m not particularly in favor of anti trust laws either. In balance I think they have done more harm than good.

Having said all that, I am also NOT calling for a repeal of the fed or anti trust. I’m more interested in moving slowly in the direction of more freedom than of letting the floodgates open all at once.

I think that letting people spend money however they like to try to make more money, and hoping that that will stimulate the economy in general, and so forth, is a fine idea. I don’t, however, have unlimited faith in the “invisible hand” of the marketplace.

Well, I don’t think my position is really that the “invisible hand” will fix each and every conceivable problem. I do believe that capitalism is the best solution for the vast majority of problems that we face. Limited government has its place, surely. But it also has vast capacity for doing harm.

As have social advocates, many of whom have been strongly opposed by capitalists, and vice-versa.

In a way. But if you read any educational history you’ll see the “social advocates” hailed as heros and the capitalists decried as robber barons. I’d simply like some balance. At least to start.

Which brings up one of the other problems with capitalism, which is that concentrating huge amounts of money in one person/corporation’s hands seems to inevitably lead to corruption of the system. Not that this means we should throw the system out…

Well, but this is only true since the political system has so much power over the economy. If the government were barred from deciding which product was legal, or which company could sell which widget where, comanies would not feel the need to lobby on their own behalfs so much. So, in a sense, this is really a problem of government, not capitalism.