Warp schrieb:
>>>> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<
>>>   I'm not exactly sure why it wouldn't be.
> 
>> Maybe because it's exactly this liberal capitalism that got us to where 
>> we're at right now??
> 
>   It's also what got us with free health care, hospitals, free education and
> schools, public libraries, free roads for anyone to use, and all this while
> maintaining basic human rights and freedom. Well, in most capitalist countries
> at least.

Free <whatever> is /definitely not/ a capitalism invention. That's all 
non-capitalist "add-ons".

Pure capitalism leads to toll roads instead; private schools; health 
care for people who can pay for it; etc.

Capitalism does not care about human rights or freedom either. It 
appears to have less need of suppressing them than other economic 
models, but it has no interest in encouraging them either. Well, aside 
from the freedom to sell and buy whatever you want.

Free speech? Free press? Why should capitalism want that? 
Environmentalist movements are a pain in the neck, and likewise 
newspapers revealing what companies don't want their customers to know.

As I said: Capitalism needs to be offset by some regulatory influences. 
It is, in the so-called 1st world countries, but sometimes that 
regulatory influence is lacking. Like in the financial sector in recent 
years. To think that having even /more/ capitalism and /less/ regulation 
would help fix economy is an idea that appears particularly stupid to me.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> and therefore needs 
>> to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
>> work for good.
> 
>   Btw, that's true to *all* forms of economy. It's not exclusive to
> capitalism.

But capitalism is what I'm talking about.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>     I think the people of every country view their system as "centrist" 
> or a good balance. So the capitalism in the US is the "standard" for 
> them, and the stuff in Europe is too far off to be called it the same 
> thing.

Even in Germany, the German economic system isn't called "capitalism", 
but "social market economy", and is considered to be /different/ from 
capitalism (which is usually interpreted to mean "laissez-faire 
capitalism" in particular).

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>>         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.

As long as they act responsible, I find nothing wrong.

If however /they/ exhibit greed, then I'm not surprised that the 
/others/ exhibit jealousy.

>   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),

I just heard a report on the radio of a millionaire who openly revealed 
that he pays no more than about 3000 EUR a year in taxes, due to tax 
loopholes.

/That's/ the sort of things that make poorer people /seriously/ jealous.

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

 From the social market economy point of view, this has nothing to do 
with punishment, but having those who /can/ carry a lot actually /do/ 
carry a lot.

Doesn't always seem to work, as seen from that millionaire example.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   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.

There would also be the problem that most rich people are rich because 
they were born into a rich family, and most poorer people are poorer 
because they were born into a poorer family.

Success may not always depend on performance, but also on the possession 
of assets.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 16:32, Warp wrote:
>    In light of this, it starts sounding less ridiculous Steve Ballmer calling
> Linux "communism".
>
>    (Well, it *is* still completely ridiculous, but you know what I mean.)

	What? You mean not all code is equal? Sacrilege!

-- 
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

On 08/14/09 16:41, Warp wrote:
>    I'm not an economist, but from the little understanding I have, burdening
> rich people with exorbitant taxes is not good for the economy in the long
> run. People tend to vote with their feet, so to speak.

	Not disputed.

>    I have yet to hear any good argument why rich people should be punished
> with high taxes, other than emotional things like it being "fair".

	Again, you use the word "punishment". Since when was taxing punishment? 
If increasing taxes for the rich is punishment, then isn't increasing 
taxes for *any* group punishment?

	It may simply be the case that the government needs the money, and 
having a progressive tax rate is the most optimal way to do so for the 
economy. Wasn't that the criterion you yourself set?

>    Taxing rich people a lot is not very productive because they are so few.

	What is "a lot"? In the US, the highest is 35% federal - and that's 
only for the amount above $350,000. And if you believe people like 
Buffet, they pay a lot less (I think he said about 17%) - without even 
trying to find tax loopholes.

	Yes, in Europe, I can understand the rich getting really upset if their 
taxes increase. They're likely paying a lot already. It's different here.

> If the same amount of money was taxed from medium wealth people, they would
> get their tax % raised only very little because they are much more numerous.
> Leveling out the tax percentage a bit raises low and medium wealth people's
> taxes only a bit, but reduces the taxes of rich people by a considerable
> amount (because they are a small minority). The *advantage* of this is that
> the rich people are rewarded for succeeding, will keep running their
> business in the country, will keep employing people and thus will keep the
> economy of the country running.

	A 1% tax increase hurts the medium and low income citizens more than it 
hurts the rich. Because everyone has to pay certain fixed costs (rent, 
food, etc), taxing is not linear. For a medium income person, a 10% 
increase in tax may result in 20% less savings. When it comes to 
purchasing decisions, that can drastically reduce the amount of stuff 
he'll buy.

	Someone making 500,000 a year will lose very close to 10% in savings by 
a 10% tax increase, because his fixed costs are a small percentage of 
his salary. That amount isn't going to affect his purchasing as much 
(unless he keeps buying really expensive stuff all the time).

	I can see increasing the tax for the middle class as resulting in lower 
spending, hurting the economy.

	Is that what really happens? I don't know. The point is that we can all 
construct reasonable scenarios. I can see things both ways. I just don't 
see people dogmatically sticking to one viewpoint (e.g. no progressive 
tax) without actual *evidence* that not doing so is better for the economy.


-- 
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

On 08/14/09 17:29, andrel wrote:
>> From my perspective, that was a talk that gives a good argument
>> against the Canadian system. It's really crappy that she found a way
>> to push herself to the front of the line.
>>
> I don't think so. The real problem is the line.
>
> Would you find it better if she could have bought an earlier operation?

	If it didn't push people back, then yes (i.e. if there's a separate 
system of doctors who get paid directly, and who don't deal with the 
people normally in the line).

	The real problem may be the line. However, her jumping it likely caused 
problems for others. How can that not be negative?

> I am working in a hospital in Amsterdam and even here that helps for
> certain procedures. In any country, in any system knowing the physician
> helps. So IMHO that in no way disqualifies the Canadian system.

	And somehow, it seems to go against the whole point of having a 
publicly funded system. Not all that different from only providing care 
to pay for it. Both ways, you just learn to play the system to your 
advantage, at the expense of others.

-- 
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

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >>>> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<
> >>>   I'm not exactly sure why it wouldn't be.
> > 
> >> Maybe because it's exactly this liberal capitalism that got us to where 
> >> we're at right now??
> > 
> >   It's also what got us with free health care, hospitals, free education and
> > schools, public libraries, free roads for anyone to use, and all this while
> > maintaining basic human rights and freedom. Well, in most capitalist countries
> > at least.

> Free <whatever> is /definitely not/ a capitalism invention. That's all 
> non-capitalist "add-ons".

> Pure capitalism leads to toll roads instead; private schools; health 
> care for people who can pay for it; etc.

  You don't understand. I said it has got us those things because capitalism
has got us *wealth*. Capitalist countries are generally rich countries, where
people earn a lot and thus pay a lot of taxes, which are then used for free
services for everybody.

  Other economic and governmental models certainly also produce some free
services, but in practice that seems to mostly come at the cost of limiting
other freedoms and human rights.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> and therefore needs 
> >> to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
> >> work for good.
> > 
> >   Btw, that's true to *all* forms of economy. It's not exclusive to
> > capitalism.

> But capitalism is what I'm talking about.

  By singling out capitalism you are making it sound like it's the only
economic model which needs governmental control, while that's certainly
not true.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message