The Bush Tax Cuts and The Working Poor

As a tax, income tax is the greatest insult. Using force to penalize folks for adding value to the economy through their work has to be the greatest paradox. It’s like beating your kid because he likes to read and mow the elderly neighbor’s lawn!

This core legal illegitimacy doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the nuances of income tax. There is a lot of talk about extending the Bush tax cuts. And, not surprisingly, most of it is bull.

The biggest fallacy is that cutting taxes to the upper tiers of income creates economic expansion and benefits everyone. This is really a laugher. Allowing a group of taxpayers to keep a proportionately larger chunk of their money benefits whoever gets to keep the money relative to those who don’t. If you want to benefit everyone, allow everyone to keep their own money.

The basis of this myth is the notion that the rich own businesses and allowing them to keep their tax money will convince them to expand their businesses and create jobs for others. But the object of investing is to make a profit, right? Wouldn’t the rich, who already have money, which is why we call them the rich, expand their business now, regardless of tax rates, if investing now would bring them profit? That is what people do to become rich isn’t it, invest money and earn profit? Are the Bush tax policy advocates saying that keeping the cuts might allow the rich to invest money in enterprises that would lose money just to give poorer folks jobs?

The other mythical reason for upper end tax breaks is that the money will “trickle down” to the squalid, swarthy masses due to the generous consumption habits of the elite class. Of course, the well off consume more than the not so well off. But what do they consume?

For the most part, the wealthy consume a greater share of services and specialty consumer items. So, yes, if you want more people mowing expansive lawns and scrubbing floors in opulent houses and you think a couple of more custom yacht companies or exotic travel agencies will turn the economy around, then “trickle down” theory is for you.

What the upper end really does is purchase assets. And when they get extra money back they purchase even more assets. As we have found in the last ten years, this has some not so beneficial effects on the economy.

Economic busts are really very simple. When the cost of assets exceeds the return on those same assets, people decide it’s not worth taking economic action just to end up with less money than they started with. So they don’t. If the price of assets can’t adjust downward for some reason such as capital overinvestment and debt, then the boom becomes the bust.

And speaking of busts; any tax cut during a period of deficits not accompanied by spending cuts is not a tax cut at all but a loan, to be paid back with taxes, from the future.

Those who advocate letting the rich skate on taxes relative to the not so rich, point to three periods of upper end tax relief that stimulated the economy: the twenties, the sixties and the eighties. Here are some other things to investigate during those eras: monetary oversupply, credit expansion, government stimulus spending and economic subsidy, and asset booms and busts.

In other words, upper end tax cuts are a collaborative state effort that involves several monetary planning tools and controls and is a short lived phenomenon that always ends in the bust. And, yes, the upper income tiers are more than happy to contribute to this false cycle of voodoo economics. There are great profits to be made if you pass the bag at the right time but no long term change in economic cycles ever came about because of high end tax cuts.

The conservative claims to be anti tax. In reality, what he is, is ATIMB {anti tax in my bracket}. High wage tax rates help keep capital exactly where the conservative wants it, in the hands of the capitalist.

The liberal claims to want to help the disadvantaged. The majority of liberal programs instead disadvantage folks and let industry off the hook for actually paying a living wage. Why should a corporation worry about a worker’s health care or retirement when the government will do it and pay for it by taxing the worker’s own wage?

It’s the lower income tiers that can’t afford to consume what they need, in no small part due to taxes. Consumption equals production, that’s a fact. You want tax policy that will ensure long  term prosperity? Then get your stubborn politically conserving and liberalizing heads together and do what is right: stop taxing the poor and working poor. Eliminate every semblance of an income tax or payroll tax below thirty thousand a year per individual, federal, state or local. Who could be against that?

It may not cost the federal government a dollar. Keeping all earnings below thirty thousand should take absolutely everyone who has a job off government services and subsidies. The economy would be stimulated at all levels of basic necessities, stabilizing the fundamental building blocks of economic growth. Since lower income brackets would have more disposable income for food costs, all farm subsidies {hundreds of millions of dollars a year} could be immediately ceased, although this in itself would probably lower, not raise, food costs.

Then, again, prosperity and justice are not really political priorities.

Gene DeNardo is a freelance writer and jazz musician living in the Pacific Northwest. Read other articles by Gene, or visit Gene's website.

56 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2010 at 12:30pm #

    I’m not sure whether this was a typo …

    The conservative claims to be anti tax. In reality, what he is, is ATIMB {anti tax in my bracket}. High wage tax rates help keep capital exactly where the conservative wants it, in the hands of the capitalist.

    High wage tax rates does the opposite. It take money out of the hands of capitalists and REDISTRIBUTES it through the government to the poor via services. Capitalist hate this and why the prefer cuts to the progressive tax rates in favor of raising regressive tax rates.

    The real problem is the nature of the Capitalist system and governments that are structured to enforce Capitalism. Such an arrangement is legalized exploitation. If for example labor income taxes were eliminated it would mean that the rich would label all of wealth as “labor income” and pay no taxes.

    What is needed is a restoration of the progressive tax system (if one wants to maintain Capitalism). However Capitalists are going to do everything in their power to avoid reinstating a progressive tax structure since they worked for the past 30 years to dismantle it. This didn’t just start with the Bush tax cuts.

  2. mnbob said on October 4th, 2010 at 2:57pm #

    Hi Gene:

    I’ll give you credit you’re passionate about your subject matter. Unfortunately you don’t know the first thing about economics. There are too many errors to write about them all, I’ll touch on just a couple.

    “The liberal claims to want to help the disadvantaged. The majority of liberal programs instead disadvantage folks and let industry off the hook for actually paying a living wage. Why should a corporation worry about a worker’s health care or retirement when the government will do it and pay for it by taxing the worker’s own wage?”

    Wages and benefits are earned by the person receiving them. In the aggregate, how you receive them is irrelevant.

    “If for example labor income taxes were eliminated it would mean that the rich would label all of wealth as “labor income” and pay no taxes.”

    Huh? Physical assets are wealth, but not labor. Any money generated by such assets are rent income(or usury if you prefer).

  3. gene said on October 4th, 2010 at 4:19pm #

    “Wages and benefits are earned by the person receiving them. In the aggregate, how you receive them is irrelevant. ”

    If how you receive payment is irrelevant, then why did the soviet union fail?

    It is extremely relevant where wages and benefits come from. The “taxing” of wage to produce benefits completely socializes the wage system and allows employers to “adjust” wages downward in relation to the government redistribution of the remaining wage of the employee.

    When the only wage and benefits an employee recieves is from the employer [rather than forced redistribution of wage], it is completely evident and transparent what the “actual” wage is and how beneficial or detrimental it is to that employee or group of employees.

    Employees have little bargaining power, other than special groups with high demand skills, to demand what is already provided for through social programs.

    For an analogy, if a developer was building a subdivision in an area that already has a nice public park, would prospective buyers be more or less likely to ask if the developer might build another? Did the money for the public park come out of the taxpayers pockets or the profits of the developer? Would the extra value of the park that adds to the price and value of the house have anything to do with the builder?

    Social programs paid for through income taxes are in place to dismiss the employers role in providing a “full” wage. Debt has been the answer to this insufficiency.

  4. mnbob said on October 4th, 2010 at 6:01pm #

    Hi Gene

    “If how you receive payment is irrelevant, then why did the soviet union fail?”

    Simple, lack of entrepreneurship.

    “It is extremely relevant where wages and benefits come from. The “taxing” of wage to produce benefits completely socializes the wage system and allows employers to “adjust” wages downward in relation to the government redistribution of the remaining wage of the employee. ”

    If that is true, where is the money to subsidize the employees going to come from?

    “Social programs paid for through income taxes are in place to dismiss the employers role in providing a “full” wage. Debt has been the answer to this insufficiency.”

    Again where is the money going to come from? Who are you planning on borrowing from?

    “For an analogy, if a developer was building a subdivision in an area that already has a nice public park, would prospective buyers be more or less likely to ask if the developer might build another? Did the money for the public park come out of the taxpayers pockets or the profits of the developer? Would the extra value of the park that adds to the price and value of the house have anything to do with the builder? ”

    I assume you mean build another park. Ok, location, location, location. The three rules in real estate. If you want to live by a park, on the lake, ocean, by the school, etc. You will incur additional expense in the cost of the land. The more desirable the higher the price, the extra cost in purchasing a home by the park in your scenario is already built into the price, and it generally also comes with higher property taxes. Non of that has anything to do with a builder, unless he built the park, lake or whatever. But he decided to buy land and build houses in a desirable location, so what is your point? What determines a house’s value is what I started with, location.

  5. gene said on October 4th, 2010 at 6:34pm #

    1. no the fall of the soviet union wasn’t that simple.
    2.the money comes from the wage. the employee assumes he is taken care of because uncle sam said so, which he is not. since wage is competitive, the employee cannot bargain for more based on non sustainable wages [remember, he is "taken care" of by the gov. from his own wage]. he goes into debt. the difference becomes part of the profit line.
    3. if i knew where the money is going to come from, i could save our economy.
    4. additional expense for the cost of a public park or a public sewer or public water is quite a bit different when applied to a large tract as when applied to individual lots that sit under individual or multi unit dwellings. one developer purchases a tract, hundreds of homeowners could purchase his homes. if you actually think that the cost of a public park is already built into the price of undeveloped property, then why would a developer ever buy land near a park [school, sewer, water, road]? what benefit would it have if it didn’t profit him more? might as well build in the middle of the desert where the land is cheap.

    to say that it is the ‘same’ for the gov to remove wages and promise to pay the employee later. as it would be for the employer and employee to freely negotiate what is a proper wage to sustain the employee on his own is an absurdity. the use of ‘socialization’ [welfare, unemploy., SS, medicare,etc] to pretend we will all be taken care of when we are no longer able to work is simply an effort to inflate profit margins and stock prices and put off paying the piper. the bill is coming due.

    you can talk all you want about “where does it come from”, but in the end, that is where it is going to have to come from, the wage. and if it doesn’t, and if it gets bad enough, the system will fail completely. there is no difference between debt and profit in an economy, they are simply the other side of the same coin.

  6. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2010 at 9:02pm #

    mnbob writes …

    DB: “If for example labor income taxes were eliminated it would mean that the rich would label all of wealth as “labor income” and pay no taxes.”

    Huh? Physical assets are wealth, but not labor. Any money generated by such assets are rent income(or usury if you prefer).

    Wealth is what society willfully or coerced into accepting. The only reason a physical asset has wealth is because it is private and private property prevent society access to the means of production.

    The point I made is that the Capitalist class has the power to rig the system for its benefit. The author makes a point that income should not be taxed. I disagree because if that occurs the Capitalist class will just reframe their wealth as “income” and pay no taxes.

    Taxes are needed to redistributive wealth because unfettered Capitalism concentrates wealth. The problem is SYSTEMIC. While the author is advocating the expiration of the Bush tax cut IMO he should go further and demand the REPEAL of the 1981 Kemp/Roth tax cuts. This is the main reason why workers are overpaying the payroll tax, the main reason for 80% the accumulated debt, inequality and inflated asset prices which lead to the financial crisis.

    The absurdity of Capitalism today is the fact that we even need such an archaic conception called money and policing to protect the moneybags.

    We need to get beyond the idea that Capitalism can be “fixed”.

  7. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2010 at 9:08pm #

    mnbob is asking some very good questions about where the money is going to come from to pay for social program. The answer is easy — TAX THE RICH. However over the past 30 years the sector that is concentrated with Liberals actually got richer while the sector where the “Right” congregates got the shaft. How ironic. Liberals don’t want to see their taxes go up. Ask Amy Goodman if she wants to see much of her $1,000,000.00/year salary redistributed.

  8. gene said on October 4th, 2010 at 9:19pm #

    deadbeat writes,
    ‘The point I made is that the Capitalist class has the power to rig the system for its benefit. The author makes a point that income should not be taxed. I disagree because if that occurs the Capitalist class will just reframe their wealth as “income” and pay no taxes.’

    If there were no income taxes, would there still be a “system” for the capitalist class to rig? that would be 1 trillion less to redistribute, although the fed would still exist.

  9. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2010 at 9:31pm #

    If there were no income taxes, would there still be a “system” for the capitalist class to rig? that would be 1 trillion less to redistribute, although the fed would still exist.

    Of course there would still be a system for the Capitalist to rig which means the advocacy for the people is to dismantle the system rather than to maintain it or to fix it.

    Look gene, we have 30 years of evidence to examine what happens when taxes are greatly reduced on the rich. So if there were no income tax the economic crisis would be even worse than what it is today. Eliminating income taxes on the “poor” would not solve the problem of maldistribution and would only defund the government further. The Federal government would have to borrow FROM THE RICH increasing the deficits and debt levels.

    What is needed is MUCH HIGHER taxes on the RICH in order to redistribute the awful inequality and reduce its concentration. Tell the the LIBERAL Amy Goodman to get off her high horse and PAY UP!!

  10. gene said on October 5th, 2010 at 8:34am #

    It’s actually quite a bit more than thirty years.

    If you seperate {eliminate} the state, do you still envision concentration of wealth? How? Who would provide the force? Isn’t “force” expensive?
    We have examples in history of capitalistic wealth concentration without the state. The king used to say “I am the state”. Capital grew with the growth of the state.
    Google “Tucker’s four points” and see what you think.

  11. bozh said on October 5th, 2010 at 8:44am #

    In basics of living and most base rights, i see no diff between US and that of, say, brazil, jordan, et al.
    And understanding their economies is like understanding an unicorn. Or, to put it this way, there is no one understanding of economy [overuse, waste, lust, overpollution, overwealth for some, overmastery by some, use of money, etc] but trillions; or, in principle, one for each human.
    Now, that’s a babel or blabble i am not ever gonna get caught in.

    Wld any of u explain to me why money cannot be used as tool? Plows almost always are and money almost never! Let’s study why! tnx

  12. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 12:21pm #

    gene writes …


    It’s actually quite a bit more than thirty years.

    You’re right if you want to start with the Jimmy Carter tax cuts of 1978 where he reduced Capital Gains tax rates. Or with Kennedy reducing the top rate of 92% to 70%. However the major cuts started with Kemp Roth that reduced the top rate from 70% to 50% and then ending with the Bill Bradley inspired “tax reform” which took the top rate down to 28% in 1986.
    So during the Reagan years the top rate dropped from 70% to 28%. Yet you are more focused on the Bush cuts. I don’t hear Liberals demanding a return to the 70% top tax rate because ironically the Reagan tax cuts actually transferred a lot of wealth to the “Liberal” sectors (academia, entertainment, law, etc) of the economy.

    If you seperate {eliminate} the state, do you still envision concentration of wealth? How? Who would provide the force? Isn’t “force” expensive?

    It depends on what you mean by “expensive”. Do you mean in term of “money” or in terms of impediments to human progress and development?
    Eliminating the state isn’t something that will just happen. What I would advice you to do is to read Marx and educate yourself on this question. You can learn a lot from Marx because he address this question. He learn a lot of lessons from the sucess and failures of Paris Commune.

    We have examples in history of capitalistic wealth concentration without the state. The king used to say “I am the state”. Capital grew with the growth of the state. Google “Tucker’s four points” and see what you think.

    I think you have it wrong. The state grew with the growth of Capital not the other way around. Also the discussion is not about the 15th Century the discussion is about the neoliberal period and should there be an elimination of the Income Tax. That the premise and basis of this discussion. My take is that Capitalism with is the political economy should be critiqued and examine and whether it is worthwhile to “rescue” the system. I contend no. Most of the solutions being offered today are the same Keynesian (Liberal) bromides that has now shown not to work and are discredited because the Capitalist class used its power to dismantle and distort Keynesian solutions primarily because the raison d’etre of Keynesian economics was to maintain the Capitalist class.

    Another reason why you should study Marx is that you’ll learn why Capitalism differs in relation to Feudalism. And the other thing that important is that economic should ONLY be viewed from the lens of Western Culture. Other cultures organized the political economy differently from the West and ultimately Western POWER destroyed those economies in order for Capitalism to expand.

    Here’s a link to an excellent series on Marx’s Law of Value that can help clear up some of your confusions.

  13. gene said on October 5th, 2010 at 1:39pm #

    You are seperating capital and the state, which is impossible.
    Where is “money” created? What are legal tender laws? Who enforces property rights?
    Capital is the State, the State is Capital. There is no seperation.

    Marx wanted to seize power from the owner class by overthrowing the state and imposing the socialist state. What is the point of that? From one oppressor to the next. One master to the next.

    There is no just reason that any human shall possess “coercive” authority over another. That is the root of the problem.

    There is very little difference between any system that uses coercive force. The king lost his power to the aristocrats and the aristocratic class eventually expanded to include any who held “title”, first individual and then corporate. It doesn’t matter how “big” the ruling class is, just whether force is used to allow the unproductive to live off the productive.

    Income tax is based on force and can never be just. It is always the struggle to steal what one produces and give a portion to another.

  14. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 1:49pm #

    gene writes …

    You are seperating capital and the state, which is impossible.

    Where did you get that conclusion from what I wrote. You stated the following …

    Capital grew with the growth of the state.

    I correct that faulty premise with the following …

    DB: I think you have it wrong. The state grew with the growth of Capital not the other way around.

  15. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:10pm #

    gene writes …

    Marx wanted to seize power from the owner class by overthrowing the state and imposing the socialist state. What is the point of that? From one oppressor to the next. One master to the next.

    For you to say what you just did it’s obvious that you have a lack an understanding Marx. Seizing the state is for the WORKING CLASS to seize power meaning the proletarian MAJORITY. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” means a society ruled by the working class majority. It’s the ultimate redistribution of power. Unless you are part of the Capitalist class and not a wage slave I’d think you want to embrace overthrowing the existing order.

    There is no just reason that any human shall possess “coercive” authority over another. That is the root of the problem.

    In order for that to happen the majority must seize the current power structure — the coercive Capitalist government — and dismantle it. I can tell you have no desire to read up on Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune and to understand where it succeeded and why it failed.

    There is very little difference between any system that uses coercive force. The king lost his power to the aristocrats and the aristocratic class eventually expanded to include any who held “title”, first individual and then corporate. It doesn’t matter how “big” the ruling class is, just whether force is used to allow the unproductive to live off the productive.

    No you have that wrong. The King didn’t lose power to the “aristocrats”. They lost their power to the Capitalist class. The King was enlisted to ENFORCE the laws of Capitalism. Read the Rothschild quote. It’ll set you straight on who seized power.

    Income tax is based on force and can never be just. It is always the struggle to steal what one produces and give a portion to another.

    Therefore you need to end Capitalism because you’re wrong about the Income Tax. The Income Tax is a Capitalist REGULATION on wealth accumulation.

    mnbob is right you don’t know much about political economy.

  16. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:20pm #

    A correction …

    Should have written …

    And the other thing that important is that economic should NOT ONLY be viewed from the lens of Western Culture.

  17. Max Shields said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:25pm #

    Deadbeat who is the “working class”, the “proletariat” you make such hay about? Anyone with a job? If all who had a job also owned the business would that be Marxism? or would it be a form of capitalism minus Wall Street?

    Rather than look at this with the same old rhetoric of the 20s, 30s, 40s why not take a fresh look at the world; one that reflects reality of NOW?

  18. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:31pm #

    I went to gene site and it’s clear that his ideological framework is grounded in Capitalism. Here is a link to the limits of his thinking …

    Libertarianism: Left and Right

    There you’ll find a diamond representing the extent of his perception of political ideologies: Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, Statist and Centrist. The problem is all 5 of these ideologies do not challenge the Capitalist assumption. None of the 5 are anti-Capitalist which means their ideas are LIMITED to the maintenance of Capitalism and the Capitalist class. In other words all 5 supports varying degrees of INEQUALTY.

    This is why Gene naturally rejects even the consideration of Marxism out of hand.

    Marxism (a radical critique of Capitalism) doesn’t fit within his rigidly diamond shaped ideologies.

  19. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:34pm #

    Max Shield has returned for yet another round rhetorical questions.

    Deadbeat who is the “working class”, the “proletariat” you make such hay about? Anyone with a job?

    As T42 says “kryst”!

    Look Max we’ve been through this before and you know exactly who represents the proletariat. You said you’ve studied Marx so there is no need to teach the already trained.

  20. gene said on October 5th, 2010 at 2:37pm #

    “Seizing the state is for the WORKING CLASS to seize power meaning the proletarian MAJORITY. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” means a society ruled by the working class majority. ”

    I couldn’t put it any better. seizing the power of the state to enforce the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. in other words, it is not the fact that one class has authority over another, just that you get on the right side and get to decide who gets to do what. so the right to authority is simply based in power.

    “The “dictatorship of the proletariat” means a society ruled by the working class majority.”

    Since when does the majority have the “right” to rule over the minority? That is referred to as “democratic tyranny” and is no different than the minority ruling over the majority. Both are based in force.

    The whole point is not to “seize” the power struggle, the point is no power structure at all.

    ” The King didn’t lose power to the “aristocrats”. They lost their power to the Capitalist class. The King was enlisted to ENFORCE the laws of Capitalism.”

    you missed a few hundred years there. have you heard of the “Magna Carta”? the aristocratic class were the nobility who wrested absolute power from the kings and formed landed “estates”. the aristocratic class were the link to capitalism, not the kings. kings became figureheads for the emerging states [which coincindently emerged along with capital], such as the existing royal english family.

    “The Income Tax is a Capitalist REGULATION on wealth accumulation”

    If that is the case, why are you for income tax?

    I don’t need to make any personal comments as you did, facts are enough.

  21. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:25pm #

    gene writes …

    I couldn’t put it any better. seizing the power of the state to enforce the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. in other words, it is not the fact that one class has authority over another, just that you get on the right side and get to decide who gets to do what. so the right to authority is simply based in power.

    That is exactly correct. The right to authority is based on power however we currently have a system where a TINY MINORITY has all the power.

    Since when does the majority have the “right” to rule over the minority? That is referred to as “democratic tyranny” and is no different than the minority ruling over the majority. Both are based in force.

    So you are then advocating that the majority forever remain the exploited tools of the tiny Capitalist class? Since when? As soon as the Capitalist class exploited the first worker. The point of revolution is to seize power and to forever smash the Capitalist class in order for the majority create a democratic society and to maintain it in such a way to minimize inequality.

    The whole point is not to “seize” the power struggle, the point is no power structure at all.

    Again I invite you to read up on Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune so that you can understand why seizing of power is the FIRST step in order to get to the society that you envision. Power is not going to “wither” away. Power must be smashed.

    you missed a few hundred years there. have you heard of the “Magna Carta”? the aristocratic class were the nobility who wrested absolute power from the kings and formed landed “estates”. the aristocratic class were the link to capitalism, not the kings. kings became figureheads for the emerging states [which coincindently emerged along with capital], such as the existing royal english family.

    Have you ever heard of BANKS! We don’t live in Feudal England. We live in global Capitalism.

    DB: “The Income Tax is a Capitalist REGULATION on wealth accumulation”
    gene: If that is the case, why are you for income tax?

    You are doing selective editing gene, I’ve explained why…

    DB: Therefore you need to end Capitalism because you’re wrong about the Income Tax. The Income Tax is a Capitalist REGULATION on wealth accumulation.

    I’ll explain it again. Since we have a commodity based economy, people don’t produce for enjoyment . They produce for money so that they can purchase the means of subsistence with it. Thus the economy is all about exchange value represented by money. In Capitalism, Capitalist accumulates money from coercive EXPLOITATION — EVERY DAY. This is called “Income”. Thus Capitalist accumulates money from the activity enforced by Capitalism. Unless you are advocating the complete overthrow of Capitalism, and you haven’t said such, then Income Taxes are needed to REDISTRIBUTE money obtained via exploitation of workers from Capitalists back to society (workers) via government services such as unemployment, welfare payments, stipends, and pensions.

    I’ll say it again and to clarify, Liberal are NOT advocating a restoration of the Income tax rates and BRACKET levels that existed prior to 1981. I contend the reason they are not is the irony that they have been beneficiaries of the Reagan tax cuts these past 25 – 30 years.

    I don’t need to make any personal comments as you did, facts are enough.

    Really. Where did I level a personal attack? You have a public website where you present your ideas. I critique your ideas and ascertained your unwillingness to explore Marxism. The ideologies presented on your site are stuck within the narrow bands of Capitalism. None are anti-Capitalist and pro working class.

    Why do you take such critiques personally? Even Alan Greenspan admitted flaws in his ideological framework. I’ve challenged my own over the years and had my own framework challenged. That’s the point of debates.

    Also I believed in this discussion I’ve presented more facts to support my arguments than you have to support your own.

    You’ve also tried to shift the focus of this discussion off into a tangent of Feudalism rather than stay within the framework of the neo-Liberal period which is the premise of your article. Why don’t you stay focused on that and provide evidence to support your contentions.

    thx,
    DB

  22. bozh said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:32pm #

    I am not gonna defend marx nor put any words in his mouth.
    However, i can assert that socialists {i prefer the label “egalitarians} like me want equal pay for needs that are about equal.
    So if that wld be achieved; the earnings being equal or therabouts and in some people’s eyes earned the label diktatorship or any other name, such phenomenon wld be butiful anyway.

    People do [perhaps deliberately] confuse two diff phenomena: restrutcuring a society into another structure, which may take a century or longer to complete, with a finished one, such as the evilly structured society we have now and which may have taken millennia to complete.

    Most people have been taught for possibly 10 k yrs and in all cultures,
    save indigenous ones, to be selfish, independent, strong.
    Now some of us teach people to behave in interdependent way. And on all levels: interpersonal, interfamily, intrafamily, intergroup, interethnic, international.

    Living independently or striving to live that way [as movies show: strong, taciturn, loner: such eastwood, waine, willis, bogart, gable] leads to drugs, drinking, despair, anger, psychosis, etc.

    We survived by being highly interdependent. We shared. Nobody was homeless, stupid, crazy, or unwanted.
    We hunted in groups. We sat in circles and talked. We had no army, police. spies, taxes, economy, jails, whore houses, drugs, govt, ‘laws’, yet we survived even tho considered to have been highly uncivilized {as per margaret mead].
    In short, we lived like zunis, hopis, navajos. And when whites and their priests saw that kind of life, they knew they had to destroy it.
    And now nature is getting even with them! And they still do not learn; they still want to live an an animalistic way: good enough for dogs, lions, good enough for us.
    And the lies tell on u! tnx

  23. Max Shields said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:44pm #

    This is like school children debating a subject they seem to have no knowledge of and yet continue to rattle on and on.

    A dictatorship is a dictatorship is a dictatorship. Domination by any other name is domination.

    This “working class” is what, the millions of unemployed? Again, simple question: if workers own their production, does that mean we have a form of Marxism?

    This is the simple question. Instead of ignoring the question, a simple answer will do.

    Deadbeat, you are not advocating the overthrow of anything, because you don’t have time to actually carry this out. You are far too busy posting like a “true revolutionary”.

  24. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:47pm #

    bozh writes …

    However, i can assert that socialists {i prefer the label “egalitarians} like me want equal pay for needs that are about equal.

    I think we should consider a society where there is no money and no pay. Therefore there would be no need for income taxes which would satify gene. But the only way that could happen is when Capitalism is overthrown. People are too afraid to imagine such a society and the level of sacrifice required to achieve it.

  25. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:53pm #

    The corrupting influence of Max Shield scrawls …

    This is like school children debating a subject they seem to have no knowledge of and yet continue to rattle on and on. A dictatorship is a dictatorship is a dictatorship. Domination by any other name is domination.

    Yes Max use ridicule when you have nothing to offer to the discussion. At least bozh made a rational contribution about pay equity. What do you offer other than ridicule and distortion. So you mean to say Max that you never abide by the dictates of your parents when you were going up? That’s a dictatorship too.

  26. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:55pm #

    Max Shield writes …

    Deadbeat, you are not advocating the overthrow of anything, because you don’t have time to actually carry this out. You are far too busy posting like a “true revolutionary”.

    So why are you here Max? I’m sure you were grooving with George Clinton last Saturday.

  27. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:55pm #

    Max Shields said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:44pm

    “This is like school children debating a subject they seem to have no knowledge of and yet continue to rattle on and on.”

    “Deadbeat, you are not advocating the overthrow of anything, because you don’t have time to actually carry this out. You are far too busy posting like a “true revolutionary”.”

    All that poster does on this board is insult the other posters who don’t agree with her very narrow rightwing pov. The posters on this thread were doing fine discussing their differences, then max arrived and started tossing insults around because of her childish grudge against DB. She never provides a substantive contribution, just childish ad hominim.

  28. gene said on October 5th, 2010 at 4:32pm #

    “mnbob is right you don’t know much about political economy.”

    this is what i take personally, not your half baked marxists parodies. by the way, i do not have a website. i write on the “nolan chart”, which is open to anyone to contribute articles.

    “Thus Capitalist accumulates money from the activity enforced by Capitalism.”

    How does “Capitalism” enforce anything? does “Capitalism” have armies?
    No. The state has armies. The state has laws. There is no seperation between the state and capital, they are one and the same.

    The state however, is not an economic entity. The state cannot “produce” anything. The state can only exist by leeching the productive value produced by the people under its dominion. The income tax is simply one way of doing that.

    Yes what Max said is entirely correct, domination by any name is still domination. whether its the socalled “free market” which isn’t free at all or some Marxist “workers” state, it is still domination. That isn’t a right wing opinion at all, its as left as it gets.

    There is no right to agressive force of any kind. There is no right to coercive authority of any human over any other human or group over group for any reason. Utilitarian force is just another name for force.

    The state is the “monopoly of force”. I cannot support a state of any kind, whether it be the capital monopoly state or your marxist workers state. Until all associations are consensual in nature, we will simply be trading one master for another.

    In a better world, you are welcome to have you little marxist state or any organization you want, as long you respect the freedom of others to carry on in a similar NON AGRESSIVE manner with whatever means of or lack of organization they want. You have given me no indication that you wish to allow others the freedoms you crave.

    ” Society exists for the benefit of its members, not the members for the benefit of society. ” ”
    We do not commonly see in a tax a diminution of freedom, and yet it clearly is one.”
    Herbert Spencer

  29. Max Shields said on October 5th, 2010 at 5:27pm #

    hayate

    Only those rare few who have spent little time here on DV would think your statements are anything but hypocritical. But for those who’ve been here a little while we all know your name-calling and insulting is quite flagrant.

    But this is just another example of red herrings rather than answering a simple question, that you and sonny, Deadbeat seem to find so challenging.

    It does appear Gene has done a much better job of cutting through the bs.

  30. bozh said on October 5th, 2010 at 6:16pm #

    DB, thanks for ur response. Money or a hammer cannot do anything;thus, also not evil. What people do with the money or hammer is another matter. I do not, tho, reject ur wish we do away with money a priori.
    At this time i do not see anything sinister about money. tnx

  31. bozh said on October 5th, 2010 at 6:38pm #

    The label “state” labels a fiction; thus, “state” cannot have army, diktats or lawlesness or anything else.
    People have that. But even the label “people” i evaluate as fictive, but smwhat less than th elabel “state”.
    But saying that forbes, gates,, soros, et al have more [how much more?] econo-military-politico-governmental powers than all congress and prez, even if not true, one, nevertheless, has s’mthing to chew on.

    It does matter what label to give to events. It does matter if one calls what is happening “all happening we know of and don’t know of” or state, capitalism, zionism.
    And in a highly intimocratic governance like one in india, pak’n, jordan, US a lot is hidden from us.
    About time one invented a label for such affairs, instead of using a sentence.
    Satrapy, mafia,, satania, tsardom, aghastan, beyluk come to my mind! tnx

  32. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 6:43pm #

    Capitalism at work:

    Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
    Reporter – Jason Hibbs
    Photojournalist – Mark Owen

    Story Created: Sep 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM CDT

    Story Updated: Sep 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM CDT

    OBION COUNTY, Tenn. – Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won’t respond, then watches it burn. That’s exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

    A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

    The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning.

    Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

    The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck.

    This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn’t put it out. It wasn’t until that fire spread to a neighbor’s property, that anyone would respond.

    Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

    “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.

    Because of that, not much is left of Cranick’s house.

    They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

    The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

    “When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn’t,” Paulette Cranick.

    It was only when a neighbor’s field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn’t.

    We asked him why.

    He wouldn’t talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

    We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

    “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.

    Friends and neighbors said it’s a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don’t blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

    “They’re doing their job,” Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. “They’re doing what they are told to do. It’s not their fault.”

    To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff’s Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

    http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

    This is post 1980′s neo-con/neo-lib/libertarian america.

  33. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 7:54pm #

    Gene writes …

    DB: “mnbob is right you don’t know much about political economy.”
    this is what i take personally, not your half baked marxists parodies by the way, i do not have a website. i write on the “nolan chart”, which is open to anyone to contribute articles.

    So that means that you are not Gene DeNardo the author of the article. My apologies to Gene DeNardo then. ;-) However your “nolan chart” as I stated before is bogus because every political designation you consider are all PRO-CAPITALIST which means you limit your ideas to the acceptance of the EXPLOITATION of the majority and thus you cannot envision a society that is free of exploitation. Thus it is YOU whose ideas are in severe contradiction. How to you plan to resolve your contradiction? If you limit your ideas you won’t be able to.

    “Thus Capitalist accumulates money from the activity enforced by Capitalism.”How does “Capitalism” enforce anything? does “Capitalism” have armies? No. The state has armies. The state has laws. There is no seperation between the state and capital, they are one and the same.

    Your argument is circular and illogical. You contend that Capitalism has no armies then you say Capitalism and the state are one-in-the-same whereby the state has armies. Therefore Capitalism has armies.

    The state however, is not an economic entity. The state cannot “produce” anything. The state can only exist by leeching the productive value produced by the people under its dominion. The income tax is simply one way of doing that.

    Really. And what Capitalist produces anything? Tell me the last time Bill Gates wrote a computer program. Tell me the last time Steve Jobs assembled an iPhone. Tell me the last time AIPAC rolled a matzo ball? Show me what you think a Capitalist produces and I’ll show you a MASS of EXPLOITED WORKERS.

    Yes what Max said is entirely correct, domination by any name is still domination. whether its the socalled “free market” which isn’t free at all or some Marxist “workers” state, it is still domination. That isn’t a right wing opinion at all, its as left as it gets.

    You ASSUME domination is bad and that guides your thinking. However your assumption is wrong and distorted. Domination of society by the proletariat is DEMOCRACY because they represent the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

    There is no right to agressive force of any kind. There is no right to coercive authority of any human over any other human or group over group for any reason. Utilitarian force is just another name for force.

    I don’t know what you mean by “utilitarian force”. What I am talking about is ending the domination of society by a parasitic system that exploits the vast majority and the environment to derive its wealth.

    The state is the “monopoly of force”. I cannot support a state of any kind, whether it be the capital monopoly state or your marxist workers state. Until all associations are consensual in nature, we will simply be trading one master for another.

    You clearly are ignorant of Marxism and which to keep your thinking within the constraints of narrow bromides. In fact what you want is EXACTLY what Marxism is. As I stated above to achieve a stateless society you’ll have to TRANSITION from a state of Capitalist domination and indoctrination to one where workers are in control and need to retain control in order to prevent a counter-revolution. The final stage is what Communism is about. That was the failure of the Paris commune. Power will not go quietly. Power will fight back.

    In a better world, you are welcome to have you little marxist state or any organization you want, as long you respect the freedom of others to carry on in a similar NON AGRESSIVE manner with whatever means of or lack of organization they want. You have given me no indication that you wish to allow others the freedoms you crave.

    You mean respect the “freedom” of the former minority Capitalist who will struggle to regain control? Your argument in defense of the “minority” rings hollows to what you claim to want. You are so wrapped up in bromides and cliches that you refuse to see the contradictions of your arguments.

    ” Society exists for the benefit of its members, not the members for the benefit of society. ” ”We do not commonly see in a tax a diminution of freedom, and yet it clearly is one.” Herbert Spencer

    The relationship is two ways not one way as Spencer implies from this quotation. According to Wikipedia, Spencer was a classical liberal (meaning that he supported free market Capitalism) and is best known for the concept “survival of the fittest”. Which is fundamentally why the Capitalist system is in constant crisis.

    You say one thing but advocate another. After this latest post I stand by my earlier observation that you took offense to. You really are conflicted and lack an understanding of how political economy works especially the Capitalist political economy. But what is worse is that you have no desire to examine your contradictions and to challenge yourself.

  34. Deadbeat said on October 5th, 2010 at 7:55pm #

    bozh writes …

    At this time i do not see anything sinister about money. tnx

    I’m not saying money is “sinister”. I’m saying money is USELESS.

  35. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 8:43pm #

    Back in my midteens I flirted with libertarianism for a short while. But then I grew up. ;D Once I realised the philosophy was mostly way for the rich to escape regulation by the great unwashed, and not leftwing at all, I moved on.

  36. bozh said on October 5th, 2010 at 9:13pm #

    DB,
    Sorry about not saying that u did not say nor implied that use of money is sinister. I think u said that we can do away with using money.
    However, those are my words and i do say that that tool is being abused!
    But DB, u do not explain how we are going to barter without use of money.
    So, what are we going to trade our labors for? And how?
    In times past people wld trade, say, ten geese for one pig. Or i’ll help u build ur house, but u will hoe my two vineyards. And both parties were happy about the deal.
    In a pristine and pastoral culture we cld do business without use of money. However, with right to work [which we all had times ago] gone, it means that a better standing person wld abuse unemployed because of the fact that right to work does not exist any more.
    Of necessary truth, all people worked millennia ago. But not any longer. In a just society, all people wld work– because work is part of life.
    Right to work is one of our dearest pan human rights; alas, it, too, had been taken away from us.
    So, i assert, this right has to be restored. It makes no diff if a person is handicapped in any way, s/she’s of use to all of us.
    If for no other reason, but us knowing that we did not abandon the ‘weakest’ [careful about that, please] amongst us.

    But, but, we live in an astounding sick society! So, that has to go before anything useful happens. And one can forget anything good in US happening for at least a two decades.
    And we can think about using or not using money only thereafter! tnx

  37. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 9:57pm #

    Several times mnbob used the cliche “where is the money going to come from?” Where does it come from now? Printing presses and coin stamp mills.

    Years ago I read a great essay by the late Alan Watts on money and how it relates to wealth. He brilliantly equated that cliche mnbob used to the trade of carpentry and converted it to carpentry terms. A rather poor paraphrasing/summary of it:

    A carpenter goes to work, but is told when he gets to the site that he cant work:

    Why, he asks?

    Because we don’t have enough inches.

    What do you mean?

    We used up our allotment of inches and there are no more for now.

    But wait. We have wood, we got nails. All the materials are sitting here. Us workers are here and ready to go to work. I don’t get the problem?

    Well, son, you don’t understand carpentry. Without enough inches we cant do anything.

    I’d better explain. :D

    Money is an abstraction or symbol of wealth, not wealth in itself. It’s basically an IOU. It has no intrinsic value of itself. When a system is based upon an abstraction, then reality is replaced with fantasy. We’ve been living in a fantasy world for a long time where a printed piece of paper/chunk of metal determines whether the real wealth can be of use. By real wealth, for example, I mean that piece of paper being used as a part of a book or maybe toilet tissue. Or that chunk of metal producing a coffee pot or a length of electrical wire. Those items, believe it or not, are real wealth. Gold at fort knox is useless bulk, gold as a connector in electronics or in a tooth filling is real wealth. We have a situation where everyone needs someone else to give them an IOU before they can do anything. And worse than that, we don’t even get a say about it.

    Who determines what this money is worth. The people? No. It’s determined by a small group of individuals who just coincidentally, control access to that money. Money is essentially a tool whereby a few people can control many. How? Because by controlling the allocation of that money,they get to determine what the many can and can not do. They are the imaginary gods of carpentry who determine how many inches the carpenters get to use. The carpenters did not select or vote for these gods. The gods selected themselves. And to enforce their inches control, they allocate a few inches to some gangsters to measure their clubs with. The gangsters getting the most inches, get the bigger clubs.

    How does this apply to taxation?

    Well, it depends on what sort of guv one has. In a capitalist oligarchy, taxation is a way for the oligarchs to fleece the people, beyond that which they do through their capitalist predation. In a capitalist representative guv, taxation is a way for the masses to get something back from the capitalists for their serfdom,if they use it correctly. In a socialist guv, people use real wealth instead of money, so one could collect real items as a tax, and that’ was not uncommon in the past. But a better way is for the guv to provide people with the support needed so they can provide themselves instead of a tax. That would require a guv of the people, by the people, for the people, though, not one of oligarchs, and a great deal of education on the benefits of serving one’s fellow, rather than exploiting one’s fellow, as a way of life. A 180 degree turnabout from the present state of most societies now to an understanding that exploiting one’s neighbour is like exploiting one’s family.

    Getting back to those carpenters and their used up allocation of inches, well, all they need do is is get out their measuring tapes and go to work. They have the materials, they got the time to do it. They don’t need that inch controlling oligarch and his inch bought minions.

  38. mary said on October 6th, 2010 at 2:32am #

    Hayate – I was about to put up that report about the fire fighters but saw you had got there before me. Do the sheeple there realize that a junta is in power? And as for silly granny Cranick, she is saying the same thing that was heard during the Third Reich and at Nuremberg – they were only doing their job – they were only following their instructions.

    This is an example from the junta here on the other side of the ocean.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11476340

    Shocking and shameful. Note the turnover and the profit.
    This is an outfit, like others called ‘pubcos’, who have acquired our characterful town, village and local pubs and have turned them into soulless eateries where the cook/chill food (swill) is delivered from factories in refrigerated lorries. No longer is there any home cooking on offer and the price of the alcohol is so high that cheap drink is being purchased from supermarkets causing massive problems of rowdyism and drunken bad behaviour in town centres, costing the taxpayer to provide policing and cleaning.

    Incidentally Bliar and co extended the licensing hours of pubs when they were in power no doubt under the influence of the powerful brewing and distilling lobby.

    (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Inns)

  39. mary said on October 6th, 2010 at 3:04am #

    The article about the ‘bystanders at a fire’ is on Medialens too.

    Ged Travers comments. FBU=Fire Brigades Union

    I too was appalled by this report and the very obvious contradictions in the home owning `democracy` of our American cousins. It makes you wonder whether the South Fulton Mayor would deploy his fire service outside city limits in the event of the kind of forest fires we saw in California recently.

    Until 1989 I was a fireman in Birmingham and have since stood on picket lines with FBU strikers. A few months back I popped in to see the night watch at our local station and was shocked at the reduction in cover. There were three firefighters and one pump where there was once a watch of ten firefighters operating two pumps and an emergency tender for car accidents.

    With these skeletal levels of cover already it makes you shudder to think what will happen when the cuts really bite.

    The FBU should take advantage of the military commitments in Afghanistan and call a national strike. If they lie down and accept more station closures the Tories will see it as a sign of weakness and become more aggressive.

    :

  40. gene said on October 6th, 2010 at 8:28am #

    deadbeat said

    “You ASSUME domination is bad and that guides your thinking. However your assumption is wrong and distorted. Domination of society by the proletariat is DEMOCRACY because they represent the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.”

    You’ve indicted yourself, there is really nothing to add.

  41. hayate said on October 6th, 2010 at 11:17am #

    mary

    The idea is to take the world back to the 19th century, with colonizers and colonies, robber baron oligarchs and serfs. The difference is the control will be much more centrally organised and zionists will dominate it totally.

  42. hayate said on October 6th, 2010 at 11:21am #

    gene said on October 6th, 2010 at 8:28am

    I see nothing wrong with dominating fascists. In fact, I see nothing wrong with a guv of the people prosecuting them for their crimes and treating them as the vile criminals they in fact are.

  43. Deadbeat said on October 6th, 2010 at 1:26pm #

    bozh writes …

    But DB, u do not explain how we are going to barter without use of money.
    So, what are we going to trade our labors for? And how?

    bozh the point is to think beyond the idea of “bartering” and “trading”. This is 2010 and we have the means and technology to organize society much differently and around human need rather than the ideas of “bartering” and “trading”. Those concept requires some sort of quid pro quo or equivalence. That’s totally unnecessary in today’s modern world.

    I don’t have the answer for allocation but allocation IMO should not be dependent upon “trade”.

  44. Deadbeat said on October 6th, 2010 at 1:57pm #

    An observation:

    Gene argues for the elimination of income taxes but these Libertarian types never argue for the elimination of SALES taxes. Sales taxes are regressive and are a huge burden on the poor while Income tax are progressive and redistributive while regulating Capital accumulation. Arguing against progressive Income Taxes is arguing for deregulating Capital.

    That’s the real “indictment” of Gene’s class disposition. It’s a class war folks. It’s time to wake up to it.

  45. bozh said on October 6th, 2010 at 2:28pm #

    We have the means and technology and technology to organize society much differently and around human need rather than the ideas of ‘bartering’ and ‘trading’ “.
    This very high utterance; i.e., much removed from actualities or descriptive level, elicits several questions.
    Does one have in mind a technology, but disconnected from knowledge and people who developed it want megapay or megabucks for their inventions.
    Knowledge consists– in addition to technology– also honesty, truthtelling, freedoms, etc.

    Manifestly at this point of time we do not have knowledge, but an imposed ignorance. I am ignorant of much what goes on in US.

    It wld have made much more sense to have said that onepercenters have the knowledge how to distribute nations wealth more equally.
    But we can be certain its is not gonna happen.
    The race for wealth has ended for most people;most ending last. So the new race, with people miles ahead of u, are gonna finish miles ahead in any new race or any new deal imaginable.

    But even if the tools [that's what one may call technology] exist apart from knoweledge, most are still owned by one percenters!

    As i said, i neither see anything wrong with a shovel nor money. Both can be abused or used. Such tools appear as simplicities. Why change simplicities and replace it with who knows what u’r proposing.
    Ok, knives, axes, hammers, cars, drugs, alcohol, kill people, etc. Why not replace them with new technology, but in away that no human cld be even hurt, let alone killed.
    But even some people appear as mere tools– they produce wealth for drones or kill, torture others for them.
    So we cld kill of 99.99% of americans and look how many problems we cld solve! tnx

  46. gene said on October 6th, 2010 at 2:53pm #

    deadbeat says,
    “Gene argues for the elimination of income taxes but these Libertarian types never argue for the elimination of SALES taxes.”

    All coercive taxation is a form of theft, form doesn’t matter, its just another way to steal the value we create with our labor. sales tax, by the way, is simply another income and resource tax.

    deadbeat says,
    “Arguing against progressive Income Taxes is arguing for deregulating Capital.”

    The should be absolutely no regulations or restrictions on the free flow of capital, as long as the transaction is consensual and without force. Regulations such as the legal tender laws are exactly what advantage the elites over the commoners. The federal reserve and its cronies would be powerless without legal tender laws which outlaw the creation of money by anyone [other than the fed] and the use of that same money by anyone who cosents to its use.

  47. Max Shields said on October 6th, 2010 at 3:37pm #

    hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 8:43pm #

    “Back in my midteens I flirted with libertarianism for a short while. But then I grew up.”

    So this is hayate’s way of saying that only youngsters (immature) would consider libertarianism worthy of their time. This sounds like a rather condescending note coming from one so sensitive.

    (btw, I have never “flirted” with Libertarianism. I see some points such as non-interventionism, but general find it too individualistic (over community) for my taste.)

    By the way, DB I think the sales tax is a horrific form of taxation. I stand four-square with eliminating most taxes, with the exception of a rent on land; i.e., socialization of land.

  48. Deadbeat said on October 6th, 2010 at 5:52pm #

    Gene writes …

    The should be absolutely no regulations or restrictions on the free flow of capital, as long as the transaction is consensual and without force.

    Unfortunately the kind of society you are advocating is one whereby the “fetishism of commodities” (as Marx describes) places it well about human needs.

    Regulations such as the legal tender laws are exactly what advantage the elites over the commoners. The federal reserve and its cronies would be powerless without legal tender laws which outlaw the creation of money by anyone [other than the fed] and the use of that same money by anyone who cosents to its use.

    What makes the Federal Reserve powerful is that they have the enforcement power of the U.S. behind it. So you are coerced into accepting debt based money for all transactions. Get rid of money and then you have no need for it or any kind of banking.

    Unfortunately you won’t even entertain such an idea. In a moneyless society there is no need for taxes. So long as “capital” fetish remains paramount then you have to alter how money is distributed and accumulated. Therefore taxes is needed in order to REDISTRIBUTE it to prevent its concentration among the few and deprivation amongst the many.

  49. Deadbeat said on October 6th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    Max Shelds writes …

    By the way, DB I think the sales tax is a horrific form of taxation. I stand four-square with eliminating most taxes, with the exception of a rent on land; i.e., socialization of land.

    We’ve been over this Henry George stuff already and why this is problematic. The boiler room example is proof enough why this won’t work. You’ll be letting the FIRE sector and the LEAP (law, entertainment, academia, publishing) sectors off the hook.

  50. gene said on October 6th, 2010 at 7:28pm #

    deadbeat says,

    “Get rid of money and then you have no need for it or any kind of banking.

    Unfortunately you won’t even entertain such an idea.”

    you really don’t seem to understand what you read. again what I said was “absolutely no regulations or restrictions on the free flow of capital”.

    under that “freedom”, you can do whatever you want, get rid of money, use peebles or use the american dollar or trade tokens. complete and total freedom of exchange or non exchange. do you understand that? no restrictions or regulations.

    LISTEN…………………..DO WHAT YOU WANT, just don’t restrict others from doing the same, enjoying the same freedom.

    which is what yu seem determined to do. I don’t care if you use money or burn it, live on a commune or in a rat hole, live in marxist heaven or capital hell, just don’t impose your restrictions and regulations on other people. no agressive force, does that make any sense to you?

  51. Deadbeat said on October 6th, 2010 at 9:19pm #

    you really don’t seem to understand what you read. again what I said was “absolutely no regulations or restrictions on the free flow of capital”.

    And YOU don’t seem to understand that “free flow of capital” is what causes CRISIS. The financial crisis was caused by the “free[r] flow of capital”.

    The problem is that society is oriented to serve the needs of capital rather than human needs. We are going around in circles because you refuse to examine the contradiction inherent in your ideology.

    under that “freedom”, you can do whatever you want, get rid of money, use peebles or use the american dollar or trade tokens. complete and total freedom of exchange or non exchange. do you understand that? no restrictions or regulations.

    Your statement above illustrates your commodity fetish. What the hell do you need pebbles for. This is 2010 not the Flintstones. You are so stuck and staid on Capitalism that you cannot see how your ideology restricts and limits your thinking. You think that human endeavor REQUIRES a commodity (money) in order to occur. That is a huge obstacle and impediment to human progress.

    LISTEN…………………..DO WHAT YOU WANT, just don’t restrict others from doing the same, enjoying the same freedom.

    This is exactly what “the f[r]ee flow of Capital” does to human progress. It RESTRICTS progress. You are so stuck in your ideology that you refuse to see why Capitalism TODAY impedes human progress.

    which is what yu seem determined to do. I don’t care if you use money or burn it, live on a commune or in a rat hole, live in marxist heaven or capital hell, just don’t impose your restrictions and regulations on other people. no agressive force, does that make any sense to you?

    You sir are living in Science Fiction and clearly enjoy the PRIVILEGES of Capitalism to do so.

  52. gene said on October 7th, 2010 at 7:42am #

    “And YOU don’t seem to understand that “free flow of capital” is what causes CRISIS. The financial crisis was caused by the “free[r] flow of capital”.

    If you really think that what is and has been going on out there financially is the “free flow of capital”, then you lack a basic understanding of economics necessary to have any intelligent conversation or for that matter, any conversation. you are no better or worse than the economic fascism you complain about.

  53. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:52pm #

    gene writes …

    If you really think that what is and has been going on out there financially is the “free flow of capital”, then you lack a basic understanding of economics necessary to have any intelligent conversation or for that matter, any conversation. you are no better or worse than the economic fascism you complain about.

    And what you pretend to want is anarchism but you are too immersed in ideology. The “free flow of capital” SUPPRESSES humanity because it places “exchange” as the most paramount of human activity and expression. The problem is that capital is disconnected from humanity and can be objectified, accumulated, horded and thereby kept from people thus shifting power to those who horde and control capital.

    Getting rid of capital altogether means that rulers would have to use direct force and violence in order to control the masses which would be quite difficult in today’s world.

    What you reveal is your fetish for the object called “capital” over and above humanity. If there is any “fascism” here it is your ideology gene.

  54. Unga_Khan said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:57pm #

    Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:52pm
    “Getting rid of capital altogether means that rulers would have to use direct force and violence in order to control the masses which would be quite difficult in today’s world.”

    I strongly question this assertion. It makes me wonder whether, using your own reasoning, whether the worldwide adoption of capitalism has meant that the use of “direct force and violence in order to control the masses” has become far less necessary in the modern world, thereby reducing global suffering (or at lest replacing it by suffering inherent in capitalist architecture).

  55. Unga_Khan said on October 10th, 2010 at 6:03pm #

    I should say I question whether it would be at all difficult in today’s world- where defense spending makes up half the US federal budget and more than ever the domestic population associates our imperialistic military adventures in Asia with “liberation” and “keeping the peace”.

  56. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 8:46pm #

    I strongly question this assertion … I should say I question whether it would be at all difficult in today’s world- where defense spending makes up half the US federal budget and more than ever the domestic population associates our imperialistic military adventures in Asia with “liberation” and “keeping the peace”.

    It’s obvious that you haven’t been following the debate towards replacing the dollar as reserve currency. One of the reason their is talk about replacing the dollar is that the U.S. is able to finance its military by printing its own money. By “collapsing the dollar” the BRIC nations hope to curtail U.S. military domination. (I think this is wishful thinking BTW).

    Also money serves as a means of population control. Especially if people can accept the “logic” of poverty.

    The point is that without money you eliminate the logic of poverty and thus force become more OVERT in order to control the population meaning that the U.S would have to use much more force to control its own internal population.

    You also may not be aware that one of the reason why the U.S. pulled out of VietNam was because it was concern about the disruption at home and planned to use the military AGAINST her population due to all the radical front that existed in the 1960′s.

    And again to support my point, the growth of the military sector came about not because the U.S. overtly sold empire to her population it came about via covert as well as fear-based claims and false propositions.

    As force become more overt, resistance to it become more pronounced. This is NOT what the rulers want. It’s easier and more stable for the rulers to control the public’s mind than to control their bodies.