DescentBB

callmeslick: "By 2016, 1% of the world's people will own more than the other 99% combined. Still, to mention that is called 'class warfare' and to address it is called 'socialism'."

Slick, if you're familiar with the works of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, in particular, its political philosophy,it is interesting to know your opinion on this matter. And why these ideas are supported by many people in different countries, but the implementation of these ideas proved to be awry.

good question, Sigma. I have read some from both(more from Marx),and my take is this: Marx was dealing with politics tangentally, but economic structures, primarily. By the time Lenin, Trotsky and others came along, they were primarily dealing with political structures. Implementation of Socialist ideas(Marx and others in the 1800s) have been widely adopted, and successful, in a host of nations worldwide(even in the US). Lenin et al developed a system of collectivism which went far beyond Marx' original thinking, from my reading, and thus have proven not only difficult but nearly impossible to implement and keep working. My best guess as to why would be human nature, in that collectivism takes away too much incentive for workers to produce. Witness China, which didn't start to flex any significant economic muscle until they started capitalizing their economy.

If 50% the wealth is held by 1% of the world's population, that means that remaining 50% has to be spread around to the rest of the entire population of the earth. Pretty thin isn't it? If that's the case, why would there be any incentive for any person to work any harder than necessary than to just survive like an animal? Where's the incentive to work just that much harder to advance one's station in life and be more productive, when getting to that higher station is for all intensive purposes, pretty much now out of reach because the system is rigged against them by the few that control it? Then the question remains, wouldn't resentment of that elite class foster or encourage people to resort to crime, theft, graft, war or even revolution, all to gain a status that most people used to have a chance of attaining though honest hard work and perserverance? These questions can be applied to either capitalism or socialism by the way and the answers would be the same for both.

What do you think, why the Indians abandoned the advantages of the capitalist way of life and they proclaimed a new state the Republic of Lakotah in epicenter of capitalism? Do you think it was a kind of socialist revolution and how do you assess the social system in this republic today?

Sigma, it would take the equivalent of several volumes to explain to you the odd system by which we have sovereign nations for Native Americans within the US, or how they operate. Suffice it to say the 'nation' cited is completely dependant upon the greater nation of the US which both services it and surrounds it.

All I know is that this topic is giving me a massive urge to blast some Rage Against the Machine.

But seriously, "communism" in its purest form as Marx and Engels proposed it is probably untenable in the real world, which is made largely moot by the fact that the future leaders (particularly Lenin and Mao) who paid lip service to them espoused philosophies which were radically different than theirs on key points, and almost always wound up producing repressive autocracies anyway. Complicating all of this are the many individuals out there who sling the term around without having any real grasp of its definition and history.

And the Republican dream of laissez faire Capitalism is concentrating all the wealth in the hands of the few to this day, only it's now global, not just an American problem. It still ends up oppressing most of the people who aren't either insiders, corporations or people born into wealth, and that will end up untenable and unsustainable in the long term. Something that top heavy will always collapse under it's own weight. If we had the tax structure we did in 1979, every worker in this country would be $25,000 dollars richer today and would have far more money to spend in our economy.

tunnelcat wrote:And the Republican dream

George Soros might disagree with you

My childhood and youth passed in the Soviet Union, in the socialist system. Today I live in the bourgeois system (the social system in Russia can not be called "capitalism" today). People here do not want to change their moral value for money. There is still the power of morality has more power than the rule of law. As it was in the socialist system.

Keenan Dakota, resident of Twin Oaks: An interesting difference between communism and capitalism consists in the fact that here, in our collective society, people are happier, but probably less productive. And there, outside, in the mainstream capitalist society, people show a good performance, but I do not think that they are happy.

I put my signature under this statement.

sadly, you never really lived in a Socialist system, but in a collectivist Communist system. As noted by others, this always has fallen apart because of the dropping productivity over a rather short period of time.

don't feel bad, sigma, far too many Americans confuse the two, also.

callmeslick wrote: As noted by others, this always has fallen apart because of the dropping productivity over a rather short period of time.

I'm sure you know the traditions of primitive tribes. Their traditions are not allowed to kill animals more than is necessary for life. This is similar to socialism. While the capitalist system is devouring everything around, like a virus. Psychology capitalist arranged so that his business needs to expand more and more, even if he has earned a lot of money and ensure a carefree life for all of their relatives in three generations of his family ahead.
Also, I want to add that because under capitalism the only value is money, moral values have already been absolutely no value.
That is why today, capitalism does fight not with other countries, not with Muslims, not with the Slavs, not with blacks, but capitalism fights with their moral and religious values. That is, the concept of democracy and freedom, capitalism is trying to substitute concepts unruliness and lack of morality. Do you want to be gay, pedophile, f*ck your mother, take drugs, trade in children and their internal organs - nobody forbids! Only money is important, then you will be happy!

sigma wrote:I'm sure you know the traditions of primitive tribes. Their traditions are not allowed to kill animals more than is necessary for life. This is similar to socialism. While the capitalist system is devouring everything around, like a virus. Psychology capitalist arranged so that his business needs to expand more and more, even if he has earned a lot of money and ensure a carefree life for all of their relatives in three generations of his family ahead.
Also, I want to add that because under capitalism the only value is money, moral values have already been absolutely no value.

to a large degree, I would agree. Except that many prudent capitalists(I try to be one) know when they have enough money for themselves and their dependants, and leave the income stream from labor to others. My Dad did so(retired at 60), as did I(retired at 57).

That is why today, capitalism does fight not with other countries, not with Muslims, not with the Slavs, not with blacks, but with their moral and religious values. That is, the concept of democracy and freedom, capitalism is trying to substitute concepts unruliness and lack of morality. Do you want to be gay, pedophile, f*ck your mother, take drugs, trade in children and their internal organs - nobody forbids!

here, you go off the rails, In my opinion. Nothing about responsible capitalism precludes respect for others, or their lifestyles. Drugs, conversely, are rampant in most societies, no matter the economic model, and, in fact, have been around in some form since time immemorial. Hell, the ancient Chinese discovered opium, and the Incan people knew about cocaine.

By the way, this is quite an interesting statistic. If only a few years ago, American public opinion has named Barack Obama "intelligent liberal socialist", today they call it "intelligent incompetent dictator"

luckily, more than half of us, at least, aren't THAT stupid, sigma.

tunnelcat wrote:... If we had the tax structure we did in 1979, every worker in this country would be $25,000 dollars richer today and would have far more money to spend in our economy.

Connect the dots for us : from whatever that tax structure would be . . . . . . to the increased wealth of every worker....

I'm assuming you mean to increase the tax rate somewhere to create a net increase in tax revenue. So exactly how does increasing revenue into the governments tax coffers guarantee to transfer out to every worker?
And what total dollar increase in tax is required to provide that outlay of $25,000 per worker?

turn that rhetoric into evidence, please.

I'd like to see that math, myself. Not that I doubt the system wasn't more equitable than the current one, but there would seem to be a LOT of assumptions going forward from 1979 to make the assertion true. Also, if I read your words literally, you are saying every worker would be $25,000 richer today, but is that on earnings since 1979? In which case, we're talking like $800 per year. Hardly worth firing up the wayback machine.

Will Robinson wrote:Connect the dots for us : from whatever that tax structure would be . . . . . . to the increased wealth of every worker....

I'm assuming you mean to increase the tax rate somewhere to create a net increase in tax revenue. So exactly how does increasing revenue into the governments tax coffers guarantee to transfer out to every worker?
And what total dollar increase in tax is required to provide that outlay of $25,000 per worker?

turn that rhetoric into evidence, please.

Since the comment came from an argument between Larry Summers and Joe Kernan on CNBC, it's potentially worthless.

However, looking at the Fed tax rates between now and 1979, the top income taxpayers AND corporate tax payers are paying a lot less today than they did way back then. Some of those rates were even higher under Reagan, so it wasn't a Jimmy Carter problem. Just by the fact that the top tax payers and corporate tax payers are paying considerably less today, consequently the working middle class, which IS the largest group of taxpayers in this country, must be carrying much more of the tax load and NOW has less spending reserves left over in their pockets.

You will also notice that right before the Great Depression, corporate and high income earner tax rates were only slightly lower than today's comparable rates. That's even more compelling evidence to me that we're in a setup for another Great Depression. Elect a Republican president in 2016 and BINGO, the dominoes will be lined up again and it'll be time to pull out of the market. But for all you high tax complainers, from 1952 to 1963, the era that had the largest growth and most prosperity for the American middle class, the taxes were astronomical compared to today's, so quit complaining. But as a thought, maybe we need to return to something similar to those tax rates to save our dying middle class. Just sayin'.

http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthebest.com/l/64/1979

The tax rates during that era were put in place to pay for a war, and reclaim a portion of windfall profits gained as a direct result of said war. (never meant to be permanent)

There were a large number of factors that led to the great economy of that era, taxes were only a very small part, and by themselves can’t really do squat, if implemented today, without the rest of the conditions being in place, and that would be impossible.

......................

Taxes also had very little or nothing to do with the great depression, as there were also many factors in place at the time that lead to it, starting with a run on the banks, and piss poor agricultural practices, just to name a couple.

Spidey wrote:The tax rates during that era were put in place to pay for a war, and reclaim a portion of windfall profits gained as a direct result of said war. (never meant to be permanent)

good, it's reassuring that we don't have to do that today, huh?(short memory apparently, on your part)


still, I never get a very good response to my question, asked here a few times: how did we manage to grow the middle class, maintain and grow the wealth of the whole population and spur a generation's worth of technological development in the mid 1950-1965 timeframe, with high corportate taxes, a top tier rate of 90% Federal Income tax and deficit spending on top of war debts from the Second World War and Korea?

The justification for higher taxes has to be made on current conditions, not some fantasy about a magic pill that will take us back to a day where half of the world’s factories were burnt to the ground and energy was cheap as hell…etc.

Justify them on today's needs...that's fine with me, but please stop treating people like they are stupid.

no one is, Spidey. You make valid points, but the same math and logic, especially around deficit spending, still apply.

Spidey wrote:The tax rates during that era were put in place to pay for a war, and reclaim a portion of windfall profits gained as a direct result of said war. (never meant to be permanent)

There were a large number of factors that led to the great economy of that era, taxes were only a very small part, and by themselves can’t really do squat, if implemented today, without the rest of the conditions being in place, and that would be impossible.

......................

Taxes also had very little or nothing to do with the great depression, as there were also many factors in place at the time that lead to it, starting with a run on the banks, and piss poor agricultural practices, just to name a couple.

Um, those rates started climbing BEFORE war broke out, unless FDR knew he was going into war beforehand. Plus, the Dust Bowl happened during the 1930's as well, AFTER the start of the Depression.

Funny how history gets distorted and rewritten over time. Maybe people should watch some old movies that were made during the Depression. The hatred and vilification of the wealthy was raw and blatant. People during that time period blamed the rich for trashing the economy, pure and simple. They clamored for movies that made the wealthy into evil villains. The Shirley Temple movie "Bright Eyes" is a good example of the attitude towards the wealthy of the times. Watch it sometime.

Today, we have spoiled nere do wells like this little prick. The resentment will take hold amongst the dirty, soiled masses, eventually. Economic cycles always repeat, because the market is greedy and without conscience, which makes it inherently unstable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -will.html

I'm just pleasantly surprised that no one savaged me here for copping to having read the works of Marx and Lenin!

Yea tc, if history has taught us anything, it’s that minorities make the best scapegoats.

meanwhile in Russia:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/ ... ar-AA8BGqT


there's capitalist economics, socialist economics and stupid economics. Putin prefers that latter.

callmeslick wrote:there's capitalist economics, socialist economics and stupid economics. Putin prefers that latter.

I do not question your competence. You just do not want to tell the truth. I am sure that you know about Non-Aligned Movement. And of course you know that India gave refusal of a request Barack Obama in cooperation with the US against Russia. Despite the fact that Barack Obama's visit to India in the American press called "historic" and "breakthrough."

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote:there's capitalist economics, socialist economics and stupid economics. Putin prefers that latter.

I do not question your competence.

that makes this a good day!! You did, just yesterday.

and, India just signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, along with an economic agreement with the US, so you are incorrect there, too.

and, I got the details on those agreements from the Indian Press, as an old work pal is over there for a wedding, and sent me the national press links.

It only says that Barack Obama went to great concessions to India. Although I think from India it was a gesture of courtesy. Russian nuclear power and weapons in any case it is better and cheaper than the American counterparts.

I'm sure yours are cheaper, as your currency is worthless on the global market. Chernobyl would indicate issues about 'better'. And, I don't know what you see, but the India press indicates a COOPERATION agreement, not concessions. And, indicates great happiness in the renewed, and strengthened arrangement.

Unlikely. All have long known that the US is an unreliable partner, unlike Russia...

hold on a while. I have to stop laughing to reply in detail! Suffice it to say, there are a few English and Dutch investors who would disagree.

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote:there's capitalist economics, socialist economics and stupid economics. Putin prefers that latter.

I do not question your competence.

that makes this a good day!! You did, just yesterday.

and, India just signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, along with an economic agreement with the US, so you are incorrect there, too.

Doesn't this scare you a little? India, nuclear power, caste system, next door to China, who they dislike?

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles ... dia-parade

EDIT:

Now it scares me! Should scare the Russians too. Linky

nuclear proliferation sort of scares me, but India's proximity to China is NOWHERE near the issue of their proximity to Pakistan. Now THOSE two really do hate each other.

NONE of them like each other. 2 of them do have nuclear weapons. Do we need a potential third, courtesy of the U.S.? Our foreign policy is just plain stupid.

are you insinuating that you think India doesn't have nukes? They've had that capability for years, just never signed onto international protocols.

tunnelcat wrote:...Should scare the Russians too.

Daydreams, daydreams... I'll give you an example. You know, I served in army. The Russian army has a tradition of flout, humiliate and beat new soldiers. Over time after this "therapy", soldier ceases to feel pain and loses the sense of fear. Russia has already experienced so much suffering and aggression from the West that Russian impossible to scare.

Ya and in 63 the Russian navy was just on a Caribbean cruise before they turn around and went home.

Actually, Russian soldiers often violate the orders of their commanders.

[youtube]BYq79uCiU_4[/youtube]

I can show you more examples