Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Wow. Just.. Ugh.


woodsmoke

Recommended Posts

I think you confuse lack of regulation with lack of protection.

 

I think I do, too, and you make an excellent point. To be honest, until now I'm afraid I'd never discussed the topic with anyone who made a distinction between the two.

 

I don't see how this demonstrates that value is intrinsic.

 

Objectively, it doesn't. That's why I said we'll likely just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

That's not the capitalistic notion, per se. Payment can occur in more ways than just money.

 

Another excellent point, and again, one that's never been raised in all my previous discussions with others.

 

As I said, we live with other people in a society for two reasons: business and emotions.

 

Pretty much, yeah.

 

I wish it'd been you I discussed the topic with all those times rather than other folks. I don't know that I'll come around to seeing capitalism as the best system, but I'm certainly learning a lot I'd never thought about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Valgeir

    21

  • Asimov

    19

  • Vigile

    13

  • Ouroboros

    11

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, what I mean is, in a system with no regulations, people essentially would have to take it- what else can they do, petition legislators to do something about it? However, in socialism, with government already involved in business, those regulations to protect people can be put in place. That being said, exploitation will ALWAYS be possible- but something COULD (not necessarily would) be done with a socialistic system, or a mixed economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Btw Asimov, do you know that the cop in your little gif animation is a Swedish police officer?

 

I didn't know Swedish Police were so awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of people taking advantage of each other, yes, it's possible in both systems, but capitalism doesn't seem to offer any protection against it, whereas socialism could.

 

Of course it does. That's what a government is for. Protecting the rights of citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish it'd been you I discussed the topic with all those times rather than other folks. I don't know that I'll come around to seeing capitalism as the best system, but I'm certainly learning a lot I'd never thought about here.

 

Thanks man, I appreciate it.

 

I don't think any "system" devised is the best, or the worst. Capitalism is a system which offers the most freedom that I've studied, and I like that about it.

 

Why give the government power to dictate economic policy when we look at all the examples of the government doing so and see so much money wasted on bullshit.

 

Look at Sweden with this whole fiasco over naming a child "Metallica"? Who cares? It's a small example, but 10 small examples can lead to millions of dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know Swedish Police were so awesome.

Of course. You can't expect anything less from the old Vikings. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, how in a pure capitalisic society could, for example, monopolies be handled? Let's say one company literally owns oil. As in, they are the only source for miles. They demand 12-hour shifts from their workers, the pay is hardly enough to feed yourself on. Their prices are outrageous, people are barely able to make it by and afford their oil. What could be done about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, how in a pure capitalisic society could, for example, monopolies be handled? Let's say one company literally owns oil. As in, they are the only source for miles. They demand 12-hour shifts from their workers, the pay is hardly enough to feed yourself on. Their prices are outrageous, people are barely able to make it by and afford their oil. What could be done about that?

 

The workers unionize and don't work until the company is more reasonable, the people don't buy oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon, you're a rational guy, you know that doesn't always work. Going on strike is nice and all, but you know... people need to eat. And I doubt landlords are going to take kindly to the "standing up for my rights" excuse for missing payments. And oil is essential for powering cars... and heating homes... and not to mention oil companies can't really be effectively boycotted if they're supplying other industries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who would protect us from the Protectors?"

 

Thing is in any "protective-ist society", (and hell yeah baby, look at here in AmeriKa s we have slipped away from our foundations) you are either a sheep, or a sheepdog.. There are a few wolves, they are allowed, encourage, to keep the sheep afraid and in line by the sheepdogs.

 

It isn't money, it isn't the wimmins, drinkin's, or the cool ass shit the Proctors have, but the sheer control the sheep have socially contracted to the Sheepdog Owners.

 

Please webcrawl and grok, understand deeply the thoughts and workings of "social contracts" and how they effect and affect your choices of living.

 

I am not an eager social contractor. Want to have opportunity to earn, or not, fuckup (and hopefully down some too), live my life to the standards earn- and keep able.

 

Having visited and seen *some* of the NothernEuro "socialist" format countries, can say that the folks have simply for the most part become nutless sheep. Years of being spoonfed and handed goodies to have make a nice, usually clean, and very accepting society of folks who seem to have surrendered their testicles at puberty to the Sheepdogs..

Not to say there aren't a few Men who have got the ability to turn society over, kick ass, serve in military, do *manly things*, however they are few, and their venues to go raise hell are few and usually away from "nice society".

 

Contracted long prior before their birth, inheritors of a system that ate their abilities to do as they damn well want....

 

Yeah, I admit, I am not a *nice guy* when Capt'n Asshat and the Equalizers want to come to haciendaFatman and take from me or mine things we've earned or bartered into.

 

Made decision long ago that the Constitution of uS is not much more than a lawyers dream, but beats fuck outa the mess we have now.. That in mind, that *system* codiefied into the Law of the land I so choose to live in, then, is so much better than what we have now..

 

Politicians in general will always codify *Laws* to, for and on the People. Same folks will never *be* the fool knocking on the doors. They will indeed send you woodie, drafted for this purpose, into harms way to do the bidding of the Proctors.

 

This assortment of odd nodding at so many various thoughts is to simply say, "There ain't no system". We have to realize that when it all comes down to the nuts and bolts of human interaction, it is what we do to our neighbors and friends that matter.

 

Kindness works. Given the opportunity to either fuck woodsmoke right in the wallet, or give him a good deal, this mean_old_man is inclined to do him well. Do I *expect* that in return? Indeed, being able to trust him is the glue of a form of contracting that actually works.

 

I find no mercy in modern corporations and the methods the 'Highly Well Off' seem to have to extract every single last penny they can from "us" all the time they keep the few Wolves and AHhhhHhHHhYyYraBBBs loose to keep calamities and events going to continue to frighten the nutless.

 

As far as the mean_old_man and his? We'll do well to those we can, and keep at a distance those who wish to hurt.

 

Read Heinlein and Menken.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm as confident as you guys that corporations would work in a free market economy. People take advantage of people to the greatest extent that they can.

 

And this is the problem that free marketers are not willing to address. There doesn't have to be an either or situtation here. We don't have to make a choice between a planned economy or a laissez faire economy.

 

Corporations have no conscience. They are not people, but organizations that have one goal in mind; profit. They will bribe government officials (legally and illegally) to make a profit. They will create polution and make others clean up their messes via bribing government officials and other means, they will bleed their laborers, etc...

 

There has to be a way to address these problems and a pure free market economy does not. This does not mean that the alternative is socialism.

 

European countries seem to have done a better job at reigning in corporate greed than the US has. Examples of where I'm wrong can certainly be provided, but in whole, I would say that the average European has a much better experience with the corporate world than the average American. Likewise, the average European (Western mind you) company seems to produce less polution due to stricter regulations.

 

As a result the American economy is probably stronger, but the seperation between rich and poor is wider and the overall level of happiness amongst the citizenry is lower (my observation - not backed up by stats.).

 

For the record, I'm not arguing that the European model is ideal or even the way that the US should go. At a minimum though, the US needs to disavow the corporations from government influence via lobby efforts, etc... This hurts the citizens and it hurts the environment and it brings any illusions to a real democracy to a standstill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Sweden is good, except the taxes are extremely high,

 

This I don't get. I'm not going to defend Swedish socialism, because I don't wish to live under that type of over taxed environment myself. However, I think Americans would be hard pressed to show that they are paying significantly less taxes than the average Swede.

 

As I've stated before, if you add up all the taxes that Americans pay (income, SS, gas, property, sales, etc) it adds up to over 50% of the average American's wages (this becomes less true as you move to the upper income brackets). Then on top of that the American is forced to pay around $600/month per person for health insurance. If they lose their jobs, they are destitute despite the small unemployment benis. In other words, yes Swedish taxes are high, but they get a hell of a lot more in return for virtually the same level of taxes.

 

Bottom line, this is not an argument to say that Sweden is better. It's a dispute against the argument that Sweden is worse because taxes are higher.

 

Your experience there Hans had much more to do with the job you had there I think than it had to do with the tax structure. I can find a lot of Americans who also drive rust buckets and who struggle to make ends meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there really are only two positions- government regulation or no government regulation. If you state that government regulation is necessary (which I believe), it becomes a problem of how much liberty the government has to get involved. There is some truth to the notion, though, that any control can become complete control if the government wills it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valgeir, I doubt you will find an economy on the planet that doesn't have some form of goverment control over it. My argument that corporations should not be able to lobby or bribe (legally or otherwise) government officials would go a long ways toward solving a lot of problems.

 

Asimov mentioned that workers can protect themselves via unionization. Unions are generally crushed in the US market due to corporate lobbying for laws and regulations against it.

 

One additional problem, which is a doozy, and which I have no answer for, is globalization. How in the hell can western economies compete against low cost, educated and skilled laborers in countries like India and E Europe, or in the low skilled, but very cheap labor in China? They just can't do it.

 

Unions will never survive this new labor environment; never.

 

In fact, I would argue that the problems we are discussing in this thread will only be magnified exponentially in the decades to come.

 

We are on the verge of witnessing economic survival of the fitest like we haven't seen since the dawning of the industrial age. It's going to be ugly for a lot of people who used to have things pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you both that the system you propose is superior to our current one, and that there are no truly free markets in the world. The establishment of one is the principle behind modern capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations have no conscience. They are not people, but organizations that have one goal in mind; profit. They will bribe government officials (legally and illegally) to make a profit. They will create polution and make others clean up their messes via bribing government officials and other means, they will bleed their laborers, etc...

 

Again, I think this is where lack of regulation is confused with lack of protection. Not minimizing the pollution one has on the environment is causing harm to everyone...violation of rights. Bribery, coercion, perjury, embezzlement, dishonesty is a method of trying to get out of the consequences that ones actions have...again all examples of immoral acts.

 

"bleeding laborers" is another example of violating rights.

 

What you and Valgeir are arguing against is not laissez-faire capitalism but anarcho-capitalism. The government plays a role in the economy. As I advocate it, a government should be responsible for operating a court system for the settlement of disputes, maintaining stable currency, protecting market competition and consumers, and protecting the country through national defense.

 

There has to be a way to address these problems and a pure free market economy does not. This does not mean that the alternative is socialism.

 

I don't understand what you mean by a pure free market economy. You seem to be saying that anarchy is necessary for pure freedom, but I disagree.

 

European countries seem to have done a better job at reigning in corporate greed than the US has. Examples of where I'm wrong can certainly be provided, but in whole, I would say that the average European has a much better experience with the corporate world than the average American. Likewise, the average European (Western mind you) company seems to produce less polution due to stricter regulations.

 

Well I think Democracies and Republics offer large scenarios for political corruption and corrupting those in power. I don't think that any body should really be IN power to be corrupted.

 

As a result the American economy is probably stronger, but the seperation between rich and poor is wider and the overall level of happiness amongst the citizenry is lower (my observation - not backed up by stats.).

 

When you "equalize" everything, it is obvious that there will be less separation between the rich and the poor. I don't know how you gauge happiness, but I'd be interested to hear it.

 

For the record, I'm not arguing that the European model is ideal or even the way that the US should go. At a minimum though, the US needs to disavow the corporations from government influence via lobby efforts, etc... This hurts the citizens and it hurts the environment and it brings any illusions to a real democracy to a standstill.

 

I don't know why we keep bringing up the US. It's a terrible system. I don't believe in "democracy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, as a comedic aside, I found this while researching this topic.

 

Secondly, Asimov, since you seem to be advocating the most alien and least understood position, would you mind stating some of the core ideas and methods used, and answering questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I don't get. I'm not going to defend Swedish socialism, because I don't wish to live under that type of over taxed environment myself. However, I think Americans would be hard pressed to show that they are paying significantly less taxes than the average Swede.

When I lived in Sweden, I was making $20,000 gross annual income, and payed 67% in tax. (Today, in the new tax system I probably wouldn't hit that bracket until 40-50k.) And the VAT (sales tax) was 25%.

 

In US, after I moved, I increased my gross income to 50k, and tax lowered to 20-25%, and sales tax is just under 8%.

 

In Sweden I did get child support, which I think was around $200 a month, but in US I got lowered tax because of dependents. So that evened out.

 

A rough estimated I did was that I made, net income, after health costs, child support/dependency reduction etc and everything etc, I was making about 6 times more in US. Net income, 6 times, that's quite a lot when you have 5 kids. I could afford my first brand new car.

 

As I've stated before, if you add up all the taxes that Americans pay (income, SS, gas, property, sales, etc) it adds up to over 50% of the average American's wages (this becomes less true as you move to the upper income brackets). Then on top of that the American is forced to pay around $600/month per person for health insurance. If they lose their jobs, they are destitute despite the small unemployment benis. In other words, yes Swedish taxes are high, but they get a hell of a lot more in return for virtually the same level of taxes.

When I lived in Sweden, there was an organization that worked on lowering the taxes because including sales, gas, property etc taxes, they had figured out the Swede payed 99% in tax.

 

One year, a very long time ago, early 80's, a famous author, Astrid Lindgren payed over 100% in tax one year, because of book rights and sales tax on her books.

 

I ran my own company for a couple of years, and I paid 20% in company taxes.

 

The benefits you got from all these taxes were, as you correctly stated free health care. But the ones benefiting from it are the ones that would not afford it, or don't have income, which is the idea of socialism. And like you said, if you lose your job you have support from the state. Besides that you also have 9 months (or maybe it was up to a year) to stay home with your newborn, which really is great too. So yes, you do gain some benefits, but you pay a very high price for it.

 

The problem is that you pay high taxes for a lot of people in the bureaucracy, and you have no control what so ever where the money is going. You don't have a choice where your money is spent, and you can't make your own decision. If you feel that more money should be spent on health care, well, that's not up to you, but the politicians that rather use the money for a study trip to Bahamas. (And that last one is not a joke, but was very common practice.)

 

Unfortunately, you see the same things in US, the tax money spent on things you don't agree with. But at least it isn't as much of my money.

 

Bottom line, this is not an argument to say that Sweden is better. It's a dispute against the argument that Sweden is worse because taxes are higher.

True. Most everyone I knew over there loved it. They don't mind paying the high taxes and have big brother take care of them, and not have options or a free choice. I'm not like that. I want to control my destiny and control what I can do with what I make. I don't like to give my hard earned money to someone else to spend at their leisure. That's just me, and that's just why I liked America better.

 

Your experience there Hans had much more to do with the job you had there I think than it had to do with the tax structure. I can find a lot of Americans who also drive rust buckets and who struggle to make ends meet.

True. I was hurting more because I had a high paid job. (i.e. high paid, higher tax). And it's true, many Americans struggle because they have a low paid job, but they don't pay much tax.

 

The ones benefiting in a socialism are not the high paid workers, but the low income or no income citizens. That's the idea of socialism. You protect the ones that can't do the things you can. It's the idea of social enforced altruism. "You have to give to the poor." And it has some advantages, especially for the poor, weak and needy people.

 

What kind of upset me enough to move was that I found out that I would have more money in my pocket back then if I quit my job and started to live under a bridge, because then I would pay zero in tax, and yet get $1-2000/month. Which would be the same net or even more compare to when I was working.

 

I think what I'm trying to say is that different systems appeal to different people. And for me, socialism does not fit me. I want to control what I make, and I do not trust politicians to handle my money and make the decisions for my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Shit, I had a long reply, did the Control A, Control C to ensure it got saved in case of a crash, and then I slipped up and did another Control C and lost my reply.

 

Sorry Hans, but I have no intention of doing that again right now. Ugh...

 

I will say that you picked the wrong country if you really want more control over how your tax dollars are spent. The best way to do that is to live as an expat; then you can control how all your dollars are spent.

 

One point I made that I would like to repeat though. In Sweden, at least you get some benis from the taxes you pay. In the US, the majority of taxes (besides SS) get sent to the military, corporate incentatives, and farm subsidies. Roads, cops, etc could easily be paid for by just corporate taxes if they would stop spending money on things people don't need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean by a pure free market economy. You seem to be saying that anarchy is necessary for pure freedom, but I disagree.

 

I'm not saying that because their are distinctions between liberty and freedom. Since you interpret LF capitalism as a system where courts can step in against poluters, et al, I'm fine with that. It wasn't clear to me that's what you supported.

 

When you "equalize" everything, it is obvious that there will be less separation between the rich and the poor. I don't know how you gauge happiness, but I'd be interested to hear it..

 

Ha ha. Your word equalize seems to imply I support some form of socialism. I don't.

 

I'm not sure how I would define happiness, but I can tell you what it isn't and I recognize it when I see it/have it.

 

It isn't working 80 hours a week at a job you hate and getting fat on McDs. I see that happening to a lot of people in America. I suppose someone could be happy in that situation, but I certainly couldn't nor could a semi rational person who has lived a more carefree existance.

 

I don't know why we keep bringing up the US. It's a terrible system. I don't believe in "democracy". .

 

Agreed, it is terrible. We keep bringing it up because real world examples are helpful in these debates. Your version of LF doesn't exist anywhere so we can only look at what does exist and offer adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argumentation was not to imply that Sweden is awful, but to explain that it is not Heaven on Earth. My first response was based on some comment that socialism, like Sweden, is so much better than capitalism. And I don't think it necessarily is, it isn't better, but it isn't worse either, it's just two different system with benefits and drawbacks. One give something the other one doesn't, and vice versa.

 

And yes, I know US spend a lot of money on stuff I don't want to too, which I stated in one of the posts, but I rather give only 20% of my salary for stupid spending than 50%. I think US spend most per capita on defense (which is a oxymoron, since it seems we use most of our defense technology for offense). I'm sure there's a lot of waste there. Sweden cut back on the defense during the 80's and 90's, so one wondered where the money went when taxes were going up. Oh, that's right, the salaries to the politicians, who got tax breaks on their income. One year they put a stop on salary increase for everyone in the country (they can do that through the unions) but then the explanation came out why they did it, it was so they could increase their own salary with 10%.

 

Besides, I believe you when you say there are places where it is even less tax etc. I wish I could go, but after the accident in 96, we've been pretty much stuck here until the lawsuits are over (and it's not yet). And many other things kind of forces me to stay now. It isn't as easy now to move again as it was when I moved here the first time. If I was single I would move. When we first came here I didn't know the flip sides of some things either. But overall, I do feel I do better here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that because their are distinctions between liberty and freedom. Since you interpret LF capitalism as a system where courts can step in against poluters, et al, I'm fine with that. It wasn't clear to me that's what you supported.

 

Ok, because I'm not much of a libertarian and I don't support anarchy (neither did Ayn Rand). A government shouldn't own any businesses (because then it has interests) and it shouldn't tell people what to make. I don't support the current monetary system, wher the actual value of the money is less than toilet paper.

 

I support a government whose job it is to protect the rights of citizens.

 

Ha ha. Your word equalize seems to imply I support some form of socialism. I don't.

 

I'm not sure how I would define happiness, but I can tell you what it isn't and I recognize it when I see it/have it.

 

It isn't working 80 hours a week at a job you hate and getting fat on McDs. I see that happening to a lot of people in America. I suppose someone could be happy in that situation, but I certainly couldn't nor could a semi rational person who has lived a more carefree existance.

 

Well it implies that a less of a gap between rich and poor would mean that the rich has to give to the poor. I really can't comment on what makes people happy, but I think you're right and I think that the slogan of "the pursuit of happiness" in America has gotten lost somewhere.

 

Agreed, it is terrible. We keep bringing it up because real world examples are helpful in these debates. Your version of LF doesn't exist anywhere so we can only look at what does exist and offer adjustments.

 

It's a real-world example of what not to do. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argumentation was not to imply that Sweden is awful, but to explain that it is not Heaven on Earth.

 

Yes, Sweden is too often used as a utopian dream by those on the left. I have my doubts, though since I haven't been there I can only guess.

 

I'm confused why you keep bringing up the 20% tax number for the US though. As I keep pointing out, income tax is only a small part of the overall tax you are paying. You pay at the pump, you pay the assessor for your house, you pay for sales tax (high in CA where you live), etc... etc...

 

And don't forget about farm subsidies. These and other corporate welfare programs take almost as much federal dollars as does the military. We pay farmers not to farm and it's a HUGE portion of the budgetary pie. All this thanks to the strong lobbies.

 

Yeah, I know your situation with your family makes it much more difficult to be flexible. I was just ribbing you a bit. My point is though not that you can find better tax havens elsewhere, but that as a perminent expat you don't have to pay taxes at all on your first $80k. I've heard rumors they will soon be raising this amount to $110 I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused why you keep bringing up the 20% tax number for the US though. As I keep pointing out, income tax is only a small part of the overall tax you are paying. You pay at the pump, you pay the assessor for your house, you pay for sales tax (high in CA where you live), etc... etc...

 

Because I compare apples to apples. You have to compare same tax for same tax, not take one tax in Sweden (income tax 50%) and compare to all the existing or possible taxes in US. Either you compare income tax to income tax, or you compare all taxes to all taxes. US have the same kind of taxes as Sweden, and actually Sweden used to have MORE taxes, not only higher. Like luxury tax. When I moved they had recently made a new luxury tax on houses where you were paying a tax on the number of tiles in your bathroom. No shit. Tiles in a bathroom was considered luxury, and you paid taxes on it. How it is now, I don't know, but I know that farmers also had to pay a "cow farting" tax (environmental tax because of the methane release).

 

You missed the part where I told that you pay the same things in Sweden. You don't have only income tax in Sweden, you have 25% sales tax, compare to 8% in US. You have 90% gas tax compared to (I think) 50% in US etc. You pay tax on your house in Sweden too, and I think it's probably two or three times higher than US. So in the end, if you use the argument you do for US, then you have to use the same formula for Sweden and the taxes are even higher.

 

Did it make sense?

 

(Following numbers are estimates based on what little I can remember from back when)

 

Income Tax:

Sweden: 30%-50%

US: 15-25%

 

Sales Tax:

Sweden: 20-25%

US: 5-8%

 

Profit Tax:

Sweden: 20%

US: 12%

 

Company Tax:

Sweden: 20-25%

US: 10-15%

 

Gas Tax:

Sweden: 90% (there were at least three different gas taxes - environmental, road maintainance and something else, and they were calculated on top of each other, like 20% first, then 15% on the result and so on. Change the base tax and the net result on the other taxes increased simultaneous. Gas costed 4 times more in Sweden than US in 1995, like $4/gallon back then. Today it's probably closer since US have increased their prices radically.)

US: ??? 50%?

 

And so on...

 

All the taxes you can find in US also exists in Sweden, but with higher rates. So in the end, you pay much, much, much more. Seriously.

 

Sweden is the heaven for someone that want to live a regular low income life and be taken care of, with free healthcare and full retirement. So in that sense you can live a happy life. But you have no millionairs living in Sweden, they move to Monaco or somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.