That would be because otherwise, the value of the coins, if denominated, say in dollars, could be arbitrary and not directly dependant on the market value of the gold they contain. It’s not like the official of gold and silver coins, when they were used, was strictly related to the value of the precious metal they were made of. The government usually stated “this coin is worth that many dollar” and that was it. I suppose the point is to prevent the government from regulating currency in any way.
Thanks for the responses, anyway…It’s a little more clear now (though it still doesn’t make much sense)
Yeah, why we can’t we be like those “advanced cultures” with 11% unemployment, 1% annual economic growth, and an endless succession of strikes, protests, and riots like the ones currently paralyzing France?
Yeah, European governments and economies are definitely better than their US counterparts. Everyone knows that this has been proven to be true. That must explain why so many Americans give up their US citizenship and emigrate to European countries. Oh, I forgot, it’s the other way around.
I expected as much from you 'Murkins…
Still, I stand by what I posted. Richer is not always better. (Rarely so, in fact).
Do you seriously mean to dispute that governments are primarily responsible for inflation and depression? Were the American voters wrong to turn out Herbert Hoover in 1932, and Jimmy Carter in 1980? Is it mere coincidence that we stopped having 15% annual inflation at the same time that the Fed stopped growing the money supply by 15% per year? If this is “pimping”, a lot of whores have won Nobel Prizes.
Also-- jklann and John Mace–
which one of you wants to be “distrust” and which will be “animosity”?
Also-- jklann and John Mace–
which one of you wants to be “distrust” and which will be “animosity”?
(or would you both choose to be both?)
As for the first part, it’s easy. Anarchism is (like libertarianism) an utopy. In other words, you wouldn’t need a governemnent preventing people from cheating because everything would spontaneously works smoothly. People would have seen the light, and besides, if you were cheating, other people would eventually know about it, and it would ultimately turns against you, you would be ostracized, etc…
As for the second part, that’s quite easy to understand to… It’s the same idea than in communism. Owners oppress other (poor) people because they have the means to do so (since you need some work to feed you, and you aren’t in an equal position with potential employers), plus since they’re rich, they own the medias, essentially hold the government in their filthy hands, etc…All this stuff about government and democracy is only a way used by rich people to keep the poors under control and keep their priviledges.
Finally, essentially all wealth has been at point illegitimately acquired (you inherited it, or get it from someone who stole it [you can came back all the way to, say, the middle-ages if needed to prove that it wasn’t originally acquired in a legitimate way], or you coerced in some way people, like workers for instance, in giving up what should be their just share of the wealth because you were more powerful than them and had the means to do so, etc…)
-
I would say that the UK, Germany, and the US are so close in living standards that one couldn’t call any of them significantly richer than the other. And yet, my statement is still true (about emigration being overwhelmingly one-way). Why do you suppose that is?
-
Huh?
Yes, I seriously dispute the joint statement. Having some economic literacy, it’s clearly in its context a stupid argument.
-
On inflation, while rather clearly any entity regulating the money supply is going to have responsibility for inflation - which is not a bad thing in the end all of itself - inflationary pressures of themselves arise quite without government influence. I’ll freely allow that double-digit inflation such as seen in the 1970s was a product of poor money supply management and even deliberate policy, but that is a different statement from government is primarily responsible for inflation per se.
-
Depression, by which I would presume is meant deflation is very much a market driven effect and not ‘caused’ by government, except insofar as a government does not watch out for a good fiscal and monetary policy mix. Japan appears to be a decent example of this, as perhaps Europe and the US were in the 1930s.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Turning out Carter in 1980 was not particularly relevant to monetary policy as Volcker had already decided to break the inflationary cycle by raising interest rates drastically and sticking to them.
Expectations.
Money supply management, and as noted above there is a difference between this issue of excessive money supply growth and inflationary pressures.
Pimping the gold standard is a sure sign of economic illiteracy, as in general is the flat tax idea. Of course Mace has raised Friedman, but he has a very particular if not peculiar vision of the society and government he wants to see which frankly most voters clealry would not accept.
It is quite clear that a flat tax is not “fairer” in the ordinary sense of the word in the manner most people use it in this context. It may be fairer if one accepts Friedman’s rather strong assumptions and world view.
As to the last point, the Libs merely show they’re morons.
I’ve had dealings in the past in countries that effectively have no standard money and have competing currencies. It’s a motherfucking nightmare. Pure free market of currencies, it introduces unaccaptable risk and raises transaction costs. The idea that competing currencies is an efficient solution to a non-problem is deeply moronic.
As to their position, the discussion and particular attention to gold all rather imply a gold standard. Yes, they do leave it fairly vague - as they should given how stupid it all is with the concept of competing mints and the like as a solution to issues of monetary stability.
The excuse about the illegality of holding bullion from 1933-1974 seems fairly fucking weak to me. I would hope these idiots could be somewhat forward looking and drag their economics out of the folk economics of the 19th century.
I assume you are talking about the ‘Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’, which is only colloquially called the ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’. The problem here is twofold. On the one hand, such prizes are given for specific achievements (in the case of Friedman, that was “for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy”), which doesn’t mean that the laureate is right in all things, but that his publications on that subject have planted a milestone in the field.
The other issue is of course that ‘Economic Sciences’ is a description favored largely by economists themselves. Yes, it has scientific aspects, but more in the line of social sciences. As such, what is advisable under economic sciences is to no small degree a question of what political and social goals one wants to achieve. ‘Cluelessness’ is not a description of ‘doesn’t agree with my politics’ when the goals themselves have been largely dismissed as unworthy of pursuit not just by the individual in question, but by a larger community. Given the results of the monetary experiments in the 70s, the suggestion that a certain proposal, even if it indeed was put forth by Friedman, is ‘clueless’ is not as invalid as you suggest. It merely suggests that the author thinks that while Friedman may have made important contributions, his ideas are outdated. That may be worthy of debate, but isn’t really the issue in this thread.
On top of that, the political basis for a given theory can be totally removed by commonly agreed-on principles and responsibilities in a given nation. (E.g. the paragraph 2 of article 14 of the german constitution, stating ‘Property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal.’) If thus the political basis for a given economic theory is not given in a nation, suggesting to apply it on that nation is clueless, because it ignores the basic setup of society.
No, the folk economics of the 19th century involved a bizarre worship of silver. Gold worshiping comes from an earlier point in history.
So, in summary, are you saying that M.F. can reasonably be called clueless wrt tax policy? Yes, his “Nobel” prize is given for specific achievements, but he is a well respected economist with a long academic career and many, many accomplishments. And advocating a flat tax is not inherently inconsistent with the idea that “property imposes duties”.
Your point on the Nobel prize is noted, but I would say it is much more than “coloquially” called a Nobel prize in Economics. Only in the most rarefied of academic circles will you hear it not referred to as such. But that’s neither here nor there. If you prefer, I’ll retract my statement and say that he has been awarded the highest level of recognition that an economist can achieve, worldwide. Doesn’t change the substance of the argument.
Define “American”.
Armeys proposal is so full of crap I am shocked. First of all, notice how he never mentions that his plan only taxes WAGES, not interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. In fact, he even says “the only income not subect to tax would be a generous personal exemption…”. But his form has only one line for income, and “unearned” income isn’t on it. So, the very richest Taxpayers, the ones who now pay about half the current income tax would basicly pay nothing or close to it. The poor would still pay nothing. So- who pays the taxes? Well, even I, a very middle class American would get a slight tax cut from Armeys plan- and that is simply impossible. Everyone can’t pay less- the rich MUCH less- and have the plan revenue neutral . Math doesn’t work that way. The Treasury did an independent study, and they concluded that a flat tax would have to tax everyone at a base rate of around 20% in order to be revenue neutral. At 20%, the rich would pay less, and I’d pay about 30% more. Armeys plan also relies heavily upon a “tax overpayment”, that is the budget surplus we had back then, which was a one time short term occurance. Thus the plan is simply out of date, also.
OK, sure, you can talk about “smaller government” and you can talk about a “flat tax”. But let’s not get one mixed up with another. First, I want to see “Uncle Miltie’s” plan for cutting the government in half. Then, after he tells me that we are going to let all the old folks starve to death, and try to defend ourself with a voluntary unpaid militia, or whatever “pie in the sky” ideas he might have- and he can get a majority of dudes to go along with such deep cuts- THEN & only then we can talk about the best way to collect that half-the-current-income-tax amount. Otherwise- Nobel prize or no, he is just using “smoke & mirrors”. A “flat tax” does not mean LESS taxes- in fact, in a revenue neutral plan- which is the only fair way to compare a flat tax with the current system- the overall tax burden is exactly the same. In every other Flat tax plan I have seen, the tax burden is shifted heavily from the rich to the Middle class & Uppper Middle class.
See- first you tell us how you’re going to cut the budget, then tell us how your going to collect the lessened needed tax. Becuase, you see- if you cut the government’s budget in half- they could simply tell all of us under the current tax plan to “pay half” and everyone would be happier. I am sure that Friedman is a brilliant economist- but that doesn’t mean he is incapable of bullshitting dudes with “smoke & mirrors”. We don’t need a "flat tax’ to pay less taxes if you cut government spending in half. The two have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
And there is the other part about “flat taxes”. No plan I have seen suggests having that flat tax pay for the FICA, FUTA & Medicare tax portion. So, even under Armeys BS plan, where I’d only pay about 13% of my gross in INCOME taxes, I’d continue to pay another 13% in Payroll & State income taxes. (Not to mention sales tax, excise tax, import tax, utility tax, property tax, parcel tax, etc etc). Armeys site blathers on about how high the total tax burden is- but the fact is, his plan does nothing about MOST of the tax burden. In fact, for most of us middle class americans- his plan (based upon bogus figures mind you) only gives us the kind of mild tax cut we should have recieved during the "tax overpayment/budget surplus"period- which is long gone. In other words, setting aside the fact that the rich would pay less- us Middle classes would now pay the same.
It’s hard to say what’s really a “Libertarian” party; ‘generally in favor of less government interference in people’s private lives as long as they don’t hurt anyone else’ sounds good, but trying to translate it into a real position is much harder. For example just from this message board, Susannan’s assertion that ownership of objects would not be a subject for government regulation in her vision of a Libertarian society is at odds with Libertarian’s comments on how nuclear weapons (and possibly machine guns) would be regulated in his vision of a Libertarian society. Susannan’s postition on immigration and regulation of businesses with foreign assets which she expressed here is at odds with the US Libertarian Party’s (essentially, ‘open borders’).
I think you’d really need to define what would qualify a party as ‘libertarian’ before you can say if such a party exists in other countries, and how big it would need to be to count.
I won’t argue with you about what % the flat tax would need to be to be rev neutral. So, to me, that’s a competely contentless statement. I don’t know what it is and it could well be 20% or 25%. It’s a complicated calculation. But you have omitted a key part of the flat tax idea, which is the elimantion of tax deductions. I’m a pretty well off guy and have worked the current system so that I pay very little income tax. Under Armey’s plan, my taxes would go up significantlly. Right now, the richest 10% pay income tax at an average rate of 22%. They get it that low because of deductions.
Yes, you could have a progressive tax system and still eliminate deductions. So the argument really comes down to how one defines “fair”. But to dismiss the flat tax out of hand is to put one’s own personal politics above the idea that all reasonable proposals are legitimate debateable ideas. That’s all I’m getting at. If you can’t recognize that, then you are blinded by your own politics.
If you keep revenue nuetral as a req’t then every tax code produces the same overall burden. And again, you are ignoring the fact that many rich people are capable of paying few taxes in the current system. There is no reason that the flat tax inherently has to exclude dividens or interest or other income. Again, you are confusing one specific proposal with the general concept. The key, in any system, is to make sure that everyone who should pay taxes does so. The current system is not very good at that.
True, but you rarely see anyone advocate the latter without advocating something akin to the former. Why do you think that is?
You forget that FICA is a flat tax with a reverse exemption (ie at the high end, not the low end). Army’s plan doesn’t touch FICA (or the others). But it could easily be lumped in, while removing the reverse exemption. But FICA is a can of worms in and of itself. It’s got to be about the worst system we’ve ever seen set up in this country.
Bad editting on my part.
"So, to me, that’s a competely contentless statement." was supposed to be the 2nd sentence in my 2nd paragraph, not the 1st paragraph.
It referred to: “If you keep revenue nuetral as a req’t then every tax code produces the same overall burden.”
Last I checked, FICA, etc. are flat taxes. Except for the rich - make more than a certain amount and you don’t have to pay taxes, because its “an investment”. The US government hasn’t come to a crashing halt. (And don’t forget to double FICA to get your real burden, because your employer pays that for you. Unless you own your own business, like all of those rich barbers and day care workers.)
DrDeth, I’m not a real flat tax fan (I’m for something even worse), but you are neglecting a few points. First, our current system has a bzillion exemptions, stipulations, alternatives, etc. Most are inserted in an attempt to make an income tax “fair”. (Of course, it can never simultaneously be fair to everyone, anymore than kids can all get a fair slice of a pie.) But, this is how loopholes get in. Who gets the loopholes? Not you, me, or Joe Middle Class, it is the rich.
Second, a system as complicated as ours has inefficienies. I’ve forgetten how much this country pays for tax preparation, and the IRS, but it is a lot. With a flat tax, you wouldn’t need much of either. I won’t claim I know if it is $100 billion per trillion, but someone in this discussion needs to take it into account. I do know that you don’t have to be an idiot to think a flat tax could save everyone money. It just might not be much.
Third, I would pay much more income tax under a flat tax. I have 5 kids and a house. My “income” tax rate is about 6%. Thank you, America, for subsidizing me, but really you don’t have to. Not that I’m giving the money back, of course. I am not rich, but I am not poor, either. So, Armey’s proposal could be about right, and still give most Americans a tax cut. Just not me. (Also, since when is 17% “total crap”, whereas “about 20%” is correct?)
Finally, I’m ok with not taxing unearned income. Yes, the rich have more of it, but is the tax system really about taking what “is fair” from everyone? (The rich have more of every type of income, by definition.) I thought it was more about helping everyone to be better off and financing the government. In times of high interest rates, it can be tough to save enough to buy a house, because after inflation and taxes your savings shrink. Since those that don’t own a house tend to be poorer than those that do, taxing unearned income can be painful to the lower middle class, poor, and young. Throughout the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s economists whined incessentantly about the American savings rate. Well guess what, it only makes sense to save, if your savings grow. Also, like it or not, job and wealth creation rely on capital. It takes money to start Microsoft, it takes money to start a bookstore. Not taxing unearned income might help a majority of Americans, even if the rich aren’t “paying their fair share”.
So back off. People who believe in a flat tax rate aren’t stupid. (Me, I favor consumption taxes, but that topic is really off OP.)