"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a85177a@news.povray.org...
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
> > >    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely
free
> > > commerce which keeps the cash flowing.
>
> >         In which direction?
>
>   It's impossible for cash to flow into one single direction. It has to
> circulate for the flow to keep going.
>
>   You may be thinking that cash tends to flow towards big companies.
However,
> people paying money to those companies have to *get* that money from
somewhere
> first. Where do you think they get it from?

No only that, but if the rich were like black holes that hoard the money
without letting it flow back, they would no longer be rich and it would
actually raise the value of money for everyone else's pockets.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> And no, it's mathematically impossible for *all* people to get health care
> for free. Not saying it's a bad thing, but if some people are getting it for
> free, some other people are paying extra, for those as well as themselves.

  You don't have to pay extra if tax money is redistributed better, rather
than taxes increased.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a8572e9$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>> (I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes 
>>> sense...)
>> 
>>   While the pages are humoristic, the "pure capitalism" actually *does*
>> make sense to me:
>> 
>>   "You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."
>> 
>>   That's rational behavior, looking towards the future and welfare.
>
> Well, that's true I guess.

It makes perfect sense. But we don't have free trade. The most
capitalist countries intervene heavily on trades. Of course, things
are free until it goes against what we want; so that's not free at
all.  And, if capitalism, cannot live without intervention, then it
fails because that's what it proposes. (Nobody knows whether it can
live without it; we never had such thing.)

We don't live under free trade. We live under some form of economic
model based heavily on capital. The inhumane side of it is that even
humans are capital.

(*) What happens to human capital?

If you don't own your work, you don't own your machinery of
production, so you join someone else's machinery. So you are hired or
something. If you become useless, like a burned out cpu, you must be
replaced in the machinery. It doesn't really matter whether you like
it; it makes sense to replace a part of a machine that became
obsolete.

Sometimes it's too expensive to do that. Sometimes people fight
against being replaced or exploited, which increases the price and
burden of being replaced. Sometimes governments protect these parts of
the machinery. Sometimes companies see that it's cheaper to just to
move the useless part aside instead of replacing it. So the part is
still in the machinery consuming energy, but it does not bother the
production too much, and that is financially worth it, and the
machinery goes on producing its goods.

It is usually said that although this kinda sucks, with enough work
laws based on humane treatment of people and financial compensation,
that is... workable.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 08:56, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>> On 08/14/09 07:45, Warp wrote:
>>>     Of course capitalism seems to work best with democracy because they are
>>> both based on the same concept: Freedom.
>
>>          It can't be freedom if the goods aren't free.
>
>    Now you are confusing the two completely different meanings of the
> word "free". Most other languages have completely separate words for
> these two meanings.
>
>    "Freedom" in this context does not mean "no monetary cost".
>

	That's funny coming from a guy who's repeatedly had to defend POV-Ray 
etc when it comes to the very same word.

	(It was a joke, BTW).

-- 
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every waking moment of it.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 09:11, Warp wrote:
>    It may be true that economy is somewhat more controlled in Europe, and
> particularly in the northern countries, than it is in the US, but it's still
> capitalism.

	I know. My point, though, is that when suggestions like universal 
health care, high taxes, or any form of extra government regulation are 
brought up, comparisons are made with European countries and with shouts 
of "We don't want socialism! We want capitalism!".

-- 
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every waking moment of it.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 08/14/09 09:11, Warp wrote:
> >    It may be true that economy is somewhat more controlled in Europe, and
> > particularly in the northern countries, than it is in the US, but it's still
> > capitalism.

>         I know. My point, though, is that when suggestions like universal 
> health care, high taxes, or any form of extra government regulation are 
> brought up, comparisons are made with European countries and with shouts 
> of "We don't want socialism! We want capitalism!".

  I find it rather odd to claim that high taxes are incompatible with
capitalism.

  Since the people making that claim are already paying some taxes, and
they seemingly think they are still in a capitalist community, that would
imply that they think that there's a limit over which taxes cannot go
without destroying capitalism.

  Exactly how much is that limit? 20%? 25%? 30%? Something else? And why?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 09:22, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          It's a question of rates. In the US, the percentage of the overall
>> wealth owned by the top 1% keeps increasing (depending on who you ask -
>> I'm seeing some contradictory figures). That's a net flow in that
>> direction.
>
>    Is that a bad thing? I'm asking that seriously.

	Perhaps not - as long as the rest of the people's wealth doesn't go down.

>    A bit of balance between rich and poor can be achieved with progressive
> taxing (ie. tax rich people with a higher percentage than poor people),
> but that's a dangerous path to follow too far. If you punish rich people
> too much with heavy taxes, the economy of your country may suffer. On the
> other hand, if people are rewarded for succeeding (in the form of allowing
> them to become filthy rich), that may actually improve the country's economy.
> People who know how to make money circulate will want to succeed in that
> country. If the country imposes heavy penalties on them in the form of taxes,
> they may well move to another country and improve that country's economy.
	
	Progressive tax is simply finding the right level. However, the current 
rate for the rich in the US is lower than the norm in most European 
countries. And then there are loopholes to exploit to pay even less.

	But let's talk about the progressive tax in the reverse direction. Do 
you think rich people should pay _less_ tax than the ordinary person? 
That's the direction both Clinton and Bush went. See the following:

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece?print=yes

	I believe he even offered something like a million dollars if any of 
the 400 paid the same or more taxes (percentage wise) as their 
secretary. As far as I know, he didn't have to pay it.

	(And just as an FYI, if you look at the tax rates for the rich in the 
US during the 20th century, they used to be *much* higher - and yet 
people whine a lot about tax increases now).

>    Is there any rational reason to punish rich people with heavy taxes,
> other than jealousy and a generic sentiment of "fairness"?

	Well, yes. Jealousy and fairness have little to do with it. Ultimately, 
you have to look at the purpose of taxing to begin with. If a country 
needs to collect a certain amount of money, and they decide to do it 
using a flat tax, it may become too onerous on the poor and perhaps even 
the middle class. So they have two choices: Drop a lot of government 
programs, or tax more those who won't get hurt much by taxes - and 
that's the rich.

	It's all an optimization. Tax too much and things will go downhill. 
Give everyone an equal tax, and it may go downhill there as well.


-- 
I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every waking moment of it.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         But let's talk about the progressive tax in the reverse direction. Do 
> you think rich people should pay _less_ tax than the ordinary person? 

  Maybe, if there's a good economical reason to do so. However, I'd say
equal tax % for everybody is a good lower limit (well, as long as that %
is not exorbitant). Rewarding success shouldn't be done at the cost of
punishing poor performance. That's morally daunting.

  I think there are at least some countries where everybody pays the same
percentage of their income as tax. Would be interesting to see how their
economy and well-being is doing.

>         It's all an optimization. Tax too much and things will go downhill. 
> Give everyone an equal tax, and it may go downhill there as well.

  Personally I think Finland has gone too far into imposing high taxes to
rich people, and that's one of the reasons why Finland's economy is
suffering (especially during this economic crisis, and probably even more
than other countries).

  It has been proclaimed for decades that Finland needs labor force and,
very especially, entrepreneurs. In other words (even though nobody says
it loud), Finland needs more high-income rich employers. However, how
many people want to come to Finland to create firm with such high taxes?
On the contrary, there's a steady flow of educated experts out of Finland
because here success is punished with exorbitant taxes.

  The solution of Finnish government to all problems seems to be raising
taxes. That just doesn't work in the long run. Finland is going down, I'm
pretty sure of it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14-8-2009 0:24, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
> news:4a847bbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't take
>> care of individuals who get sick because they don't have insurance, we
>> risk infecting everyone else.
> 
> I think people on all sides miss the real issues. Health care doesn't 
> magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health care 
> in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably stinks 
> more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health care 
> needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major 
> decision, but the quality is all in the implementation, economy, management, 
> logistics... etc. 
> 
> 

obligatory ted reference:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/allison_hunt_gets_a_new_hip.html

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 12:44, Warp wrote:
>    I find it rather odd to claim that high taxes are incompatible with
> capitalism.

	Oh, in these dialogues, a lot of conflation goes around. Capitalism, 
libertarianism, what's the difference?

>    Since the people making that claim are already paying some taxes, and
> they seemingly think they are still in a capitalist community, that would
> imply that they think that there's a limit over which taxes cannot go
> without destroying capitalism.

	They seem to act that way.

>    Exactly how much is that limit? 20%? 25%? 30%? Something else? And why?

	30% is way too high for some of them...

	As I said earlier, they always feel that the current system is the 
ideal centrist one. Sure, they pay taxes and are fine with it (to an 
extent). But ask them for any more and you're a socialist. Same goes for 
any kind of regulation (including the type meant to prevent the economic 
mess we found ourselves in). Some (probably a minority) want to take 
national public TV and radio off the air. Some more want to do the same 
with the postal service.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message