Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What. The. Heck. Schiff undercover at the DNC. "Ban corporate profits"

This post has 75 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous Posted: Wed, Sep 5 2012 9:09 PM

 

He might very well have cut out the reasonable people, but still - daaaaamn. Krugman is far-right libertarian compared to these people.

  • | Post Points: 125
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

I swear, it sounds like all of these people came over from the U.S. Communist Party. They're basically reciting it's platform.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

we should ban money.

we will all be richer.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

I swear, it sounds like all of these people came over from the U.S. Communist Party. They're basically reciting it's platform.

Yup.

I remember an anecdote (no idea if it is true), but it involved Soviet spy handlers telling their agents not to worry about the liberals in the US as they were already on board. Soviet propaganda was focused on undermining the opposite and letting the liberals keep screaming.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

lol.  that was amazing.  I love how baffled they are by the question of banning profits.  its the look of what a brilliant idea, why isnt this on obama's to do list?! 

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Yeah. It's funny because I recently watched an interview with a Polish Ron Paul supporter who was protesting Romney's visit to Warsaw. When he was asked about what he thought of Obama, he said something like "I can tell you that Obama is definately a socialist. Some Polish people, particularly the elder generation who lived in the communist era, would even say he's a communist."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

At video: Lol.

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

SkepticalMetal:
I swear, it sounds like all of these people came over from the U.S. Communist Party. They're basically reciting it's platform.

You should hear the OWS people.

this is from a series of videos in which a former Soviet citizen confronts these ignoramuses.

 

kelvin_silva:
we should ban money.  we will all be richer.

Oh there's advocating of that too.

 

Venus Needs Some Austrians

Nature based economy?

TZM and Scarcity

Alex Jones Interviews Zeitgeist Producer Peter Joseph

A Review of Zeitgeist: Final Edition

A Review of Zeitgeist: Addendum

Zeitgeist delusion = hilarity.

Zeitgeist playlist

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Holy crap. Neo-Stalinists. Somebody send these morons to the DPRK and see how much they want to stay in it then. IDIOTS.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590

These people believe - mistakenly, if you ask me - that business activity won't change if corporate profits are taxed at 100%. But it's the hope (if not the expectation) of material profit that motivates people to engage in business activity. Remove that, and what sort of business activity would people engage in? Psychic profit is all well and good, but one can't buy bread with it.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570
  • These people believe - mistakenly, if you ask me - that business activity won't change if corporate profits are taxed at 100%. But it's the hope (if not the expectation) of material profit that motivates people to engage in business activity. Remove that, and what sort of business activity would people engage in? Psychic profit is all well and good, but one can't buy bread with it.

Presumably, corporate profits are what is left over for the corporation (as an entity) and stockholders (as individuals) after all operating costs and new purchases have been made.  Think of how a non-profit corporation works.  The employees can still be paid very well, and new equipment and facilities can be aquired, but there's no "extra" on top for non-employees or outside investors.  So eliminating all corporate profits doesn't entirely mean that an end would come to all business activity.  But it WOULD have some important implications.  Seeking outside capital for investment would diminish greatly, among other things.  You also have the possibility of creating mal-investments in in-house capital, rather than having that money be used elsewhere on new and completely unrelated projects as the profits are collected and reallocated to new investments.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

What i want to know is how the occupy wall street socialists are SOOOOO incredibly uneducated (for the most part), but believe they understand socialism so much?  Everytime someone asks those morons SIMPLE questions they dont have answers and it looks like they never even thought about it.

Seriously, ANY action at all that i do i can defend , from going to see a particular movie to choosing walmart brand butter over the popular expensive brands, and answer anyone better than these people who are standing outside protesting for weeks on end.

Who is telling these people about 'how great socialism is' because they are obviously not educated enough to come up with that decision on their own?  Or are they seriously so greedy/selfish that they want a system of society that they can prosper without having to do anything?  i dont understand them at all.

 

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

I usually am quite optimistic, but that video JJ posted sent a shockwave of incredulity and hopelessness through me.

"What's the difference between North Korea and South Korea, I wonder?"

"The workers in North Korea are paid a decent wage."

Thats what we're up against? And she isn't even a young'n...

Oh well, I'm just glad the truth is onthe side of liberty.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570
  • What i want to know is how the occupy wall street socialists are SOOOOO incredibly uneducated (for the most part), but believe they understand socialism so much? 

Eh, go to any Tea Party rally and ask the protesters to define capitalism, Austrian economics, or the role of the State.  You'll probably get equally uneducated answers.

The bottom line is that public education has failed spectacularly when it comes to educating people about various economic concepts and schools.  Most people are coming from a position of near total ignorance and trying to learn about it informally themselves.  Some of the OWS crowd might have the benefit of having read some rudimentary Marx in a few college classes, but for the most part they don't know what they're talkinga about any more than your average "free-market" supporter.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Phi est aureum:
And she isn't even a young'n...

That's a good thing. 

"truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

-Max Planck

LogisticEarth:
Eh, go to any Tea Party rally and ask the protesters to define capitalism, Austrian economics, or the role of the State.  You'll probably get equally uneducated answers.

Notice they're a bunch of old fogeys too.

 

Young people are the future...and this is where they're looking...

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, Sep 6 2012 12:04 PM

LogisticEarth:
Presumably, corporate profits are what is left over for the corporation (as an entity) and stockholders (as individuals) after all operating costs and new purchases have been made.  Think of how a non-profit corporation works.  The employees can still be paid very well, and new equipment and facilities can be aquired, but there's no "extra" on top for non-employees or outside investors.  So eliminating all corporate profits doesn't entirely mean that an end would come to all business activity.  But it WOULD have some important implications.  Seeking outside capital for investment would diminish greatly, among other things.  You also have the possibility of creating mal-investments in in-house capital, rather than having that money be used elsewhere on new and completely unrelated projects as the profits are collected and reallocated to new investments.

Good points. With the term "corporate profits", I was implicitly referring to accounting profit, which to me doesn't include expanding business activity as part of the operational costs. I wasn't clear about that, though - sorry about that.

Anyway, a "non-profit" corporation could certainly still make accounting profit, but as you wrote, it would have to be entirely re-invested in the corporation. Indeed, were corporate profits to be taxed at 100%, I would expect all corporations to become de facto "non-profit corporations" overnight. This would mean that owning stock in a corporation would no longer convey dividends, only voting and other co-ownership rights. It would also likely mean a massive sell-off and devaluation of corporate stock in practice (i.e. a massive stock-market crash). However, it would not necessarily result in higher wages/salaries for workers or lower costs for consumers.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, Sep 6 2012 12:05 PM

Wheylous:
He might very well have cut out the reasonable people, but still - daaaaamn. Krugman is far-right libertarian compared to these people.

Another way to look at it is: PETER SCHIFF TROLLING PEOPLE IRL LOLOLOLOLOL!!! cheeky

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 295
Points 4,255
David B replied on Thu, Sep 6 2012 12:37 PM

Phi est aureum:

I usually am quite optimistic, but that video JJ posted sent a shockwave of incredulity and hopelessness through me.

Ditto... I also went off on a 1hr youtube "related video" click-fest and ended up watching some seriously ridiculous stuff...

"What's the difference between North Korea and South Korea, I wonder?"

"The workers in North Korea are paid a decent wage."

Thats what we're up against? And she isn't even a young'n...

Oh well, I'm just glad the truth is onthe side of liberty.

I guess the part I'm struggling with now, is trying to get my head around some parts of social science that aren't quite clear yet.  I'm struggling to come to grips with the fact that we can become so wealthy as a society (first world industrial) that we can somehow manage to support people such that they can manage to not kill themselves and yet still maintain these views...  

When you say the truth is on our side, I interpret that as reality has a set of rules and no matter how much spin, propoganda, etc. you apply to your thinking, if you have ideas that are demonstrably inaccurate then the emergent behaviors will necessarily be self-destructive.  This is what I think is embedded in that statement.

So, we got wealthy not off of the good economic ideas, but off of good economic behavior.  It's a naturally occuring thing.  The incredible wealth and prosperity we have in the industrial nations can support some bad ideas creeping in without actually imploding the entire social fabric of society.  For some reason however, our modern democratic societies don't seem to be robust, or even better "anti-fragile", when it comes to bad ideas.  I see how it's happening, but how do we get from here to a social ecosystem that more rapidly and efficiently weeds out these bad memes?

Do we have to actually run through this Democracy experiment until it devastates the globe?  Is there a way to shortcut the process without violent revolution, global war, famine, economic depressions?

I appreciate that the socialists in that video are so incredibly off base that it's a wonder they can even cash the checks they get from the government.  However, they aren't the only one's who are wrong.  It's like the citizen's of the democratic states are alcoholics, who keep changing the drink thinking that if I just mix it with Fruit Juice, or make it into a frozen drink, somehow it'll be ok.

We're never going to live in a society in which everyone sings kumbayah, and everyone has everything they could possibly desire, and nothing bad happens.  But in trying to get to a better one, why do we have to ignore so much basic logic and science.

Systems theory, chaos theory, evolutionary theory all explain how the free market works and that the results will be better.  But how do we get to a free market for politics?  What's the path?  Because right now all I see is global devastation on the horizon.  I'm trying to educate my children so that they understand economics, and politics, and political power, and how to apply basic logic and scientific thinking to life in all of it's realms.  But what world will they have?  Do we really have to set the world back 100 years just to be able to move forwards?  

If I were to put on my "optimistic" hat, I'd guess that the first world state governments will basically fall apart and regional and local governments will take over and begin putting back together some loose confederations.  But, I can just as easily see some larger scale authoritarian governments at the sametime.  Similar to the USSR and Germany in WWII.  China today.  North Korea.  That's the sad truth about massive standing armies.

Sorry, I'm feeling a little flustrated today.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Another good example...look at the difference between young people statements and old people statements.  Like Ron said, there's a revolution goin' on.

 

Sure a lot of the OWS-ers are a bit misinformed and/or misguided, but at least they see what's right in front of them.  They may not understand the actual solution, but at least they see the real problem.

They just need a little help.  And it doesn't always take much...

What you should be doing

This is what you can do with OccupyWallStreet

A model of the liberty message...this is what you can be

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 295
Points 4,255
David B replied on Thu, Sep 6 2012 1:28 PM

Love the video, John.

Video:

DNC Delegate : "It's not like you contributed to me, [so] I'll give [money/contracts/legislation] to you. No!"

Interviewer : "It [sure] seems like that?!"

DNC Delegate : "Well to the uninformed, Ok?  It's part of the policy to create."

Uninformed my ass...  

It's a little reminiscent of that scene in the Wizard of Oz.  "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

You guys think all of this is bad? Watch this.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

SkepticalMetal:
You guys think all of this is bad? Watch this.

Yeah I posted those last month.  Personally I don't find simple economic illiteracy worse than "the difference between the two is, in North Korea the workers get paid a decent wage.  We need Stalin back."

But that's just me.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

Very true on the youth being the future and bright spot. I guess I was just shocked that someone who lived through so much time while the USSR was still alive and kicking would be so in favor of socialism and would suggest it doesn't result in poverty and murders. But I guess I should be no more shocked than young folks not being able to see what's plain to see, that government is behind the problems in the economy and society. Thanks for the other video too, JJ.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130

What i want to know is how the occupy wall street socialists are SOOOOO incredibly uneducated (for the most part), but believe they understand socialism so much?  Everytime someone asks those morons SIMPLE questions they dont have answers and it looks like they never even thought about it.

Seriously, ANY action at all that i do i can defend , from going to see a particular movie to choosing walmart brand butter over the popular expensive brands, and answer anyone better than these people who are standing outside protesting for weeks on end.

Who is telling these people about 'how great socialism is' because they are obviously not educated enough to come up with that decision on their own?  Or are they seriously so greedy/selfish that they want a system of society that they can prosper without having to do anything?  i dont understand them at all

People walking around with minds not their own, believing things without knowing why they believe them, acting on those beliefs without knowing what they are doing. Automata. Zombies. Surely not "people" in the important sense of the word.

...now here's a scary thought. Is it possible that it's always been this way? Could the idea that most people are basically rational and self-aware be a hopeful delusion on the part of the few who actually are rational and self-aware? Are we already living in the zombie apocalypse?

Queue Twilight Zone soundtrack, end rant.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 285
Points 4,140

How did Schiff get his credentials to gain access inside the DNC?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Thu, Sep 6 2012 10:31 PM

how about

banning government

governments not recognizing corporations, separation of government and corporation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

*Protests obama's policies*

*Calls self keynsian*

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 7,345
Fephisto replied on Fri, Sep 7 2012 12:52 PM

Autolykos:

Wheylous:
He might very well have cut out the reasonable people, but still - daaaaamn. Krugman is far-right libertarian compared to these people.

Another way to look at it is: PETER SCHIFF TROLLING PEOPLE IRL LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

New signature.

Latest Projects

"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

I would just like to point out, this video was uploaded 2 days ago, and it already has more than 3 times the number of views of his next most popular video.

Anyone know who the tastemaker is?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2
Points 10
xion replied on Fri, Sep 7 2012 10:09 PM

They did as far as i am consinered the dnc is the communist party . Never been much diffrence in there platforms

Government is not the solution to our problems Government is the problem .
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:
He might very well have cut out the reasonable people,...

Luckily he was asked...

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

"these are the smart democrats"

hahahahaha

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 172
Points 4,070

If you use profits in the classical/marxian meaning, I'm all for banning profits, unearned income in general.

Suum cuique
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 295
Points 4,255
David B replied on Sun, Sep 9 2012 8:29 AM

The only "bad" income is fraud.  Where you've lie, cheat, or steal.  Marxists seem to think if there was profit, then you necessarily lied, cheated or stole, nevermind whether or not it's actually true.

The problem is that the large financial institutions did lie, cheat, and steal.  But they somehow are deemed "too big to fail" so they get bailed out instead of failing, that's theft.  They didn't start out too big to fail.  They had to lie cheat and steal, with the protection and help of government in order to prevent competition or legitimize behaviors they could not have engaged in with sound money and ethical oversight.

Income is profit.  Profit is income.  If you got it you earned it.  Theft and fraud are different.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 172
Points 4,070

If there is profits (in classical sense) means there was employment, and that's stealing, because the workers alienated their labor, which is illegitimate.

Suum cuique
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Okay Papi, (rhymes with happy), how about you go ahead and tell us what "profit" is, instead of just cryptically throwing out polemics.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

@JJ

Papi() said he's using the Marxian term (I assume in jest).  Marx said that profits were only possible if labor is exploited.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Aristophanes:
Marx said that profits were only possible if labor is exploited.

...meaning people were paid (and voluntarily accepted) less than their labor is "worth".  He said he's in favor of banning such profits.  I'm curious how he plans on determining how much one's labor is worth.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

...meaning people were paid (and voluntarily accepted) less than their labor is "worth".

I'm not sure that this necessarily follows.  People get paychecks.  Is it voluntary that they are tax through withholding?  I realize contracts are signed, but what could I do to prevent taxes from being withheld?

He said he's in favor of banning such profits.

Again, I'm sure he was being sarcastic.

I'm curious how he plans on determining how much one's labor is worth.

It's in Capital.  It's been awhile and I just got up and am not about to get it out and read it.  Labor value is determined by effort and time or something super identifiable like that.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 172
Points 4,070
Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 11 2012 8:55 AM

John James

I'm curious how he plans on determining how much one's labor is worth.

By the price that the products were sold at (or the services paid).

Aristophanes

Again, I'm sure he was being sarcastic.

Actually, no, I'm a "state mutualist" devil

Labor value is determined by effort and time or something super identifiable like that.

For enlightenment thinkers and to the latter (libertarian) socialists- labor theory of value meant basically a subjective theory of value mixed with the just price theory. Marx was an idiot.

Suum cuique
  • | Post Points: 50
Page 1 of 2 (76 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS