Economics Questions

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

Autolykos — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:39:30 GMT

Ban-Evader:
Socialism is all about redistributing the wealth ("stealing" is a bit innaccurate because it implies random non-progressive taxation) to put it towards things that do the most good for the most people. Taxes are reasonable to me as long as they accomplish that (without impinging on any real human rights like immediate personal safety).

So you define "stealing" as "random non-progressive taxation"? Or what?

Who determines what's "the most good for the most people"?

It sounds like your definition of "reasonable" is actually "redistributing wealth to put it towards things that do the most good for the most people". Do you agree?

What do you mean by "real human rights"?

Taxes do impinge upon this purported right to immediate personal safety. What do you think happens when people refuse to "pay their taxes"?

Finally, your definition of socialism seems to contradict that of Marx, which was something like "common ownership of the means of production". In other words, it wasn't just about redistribution of existing wealth.

Ban-Evader:
[No, the majority of CEO salaries does not always or necessarily come from stock options.]

Then why did you say otherwise before?

Ban-Evader:
They're different things.

Well I'm not sure. That's why I asked. Originally you distinguished between salary income and rental income (i.e. "salary income" and "rental income" are mutually exclusive categories), but later you said that some salary income is rental income, which would mean they're not mutually exclusive categories. Either that or you're using different definitions of "salary income" and "rental income" from what I understand to be the traditional definitions. Which is it?

Ban-Evader:
In some cases, quite a lot.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Explain.

Ban-Evader:
Oh yeah. It's entirely possible for unions to be bloodsucking leeches too. But if the goal is to redistribute income to the proles there's no point in taxing them.

But I thought you consider "income from capital" (which you've defined as "income from rent and interest") to be bad and "income from labor" (which you've defined as "income from wages and salaries") to be good. So if a union acts like a bloodsucking leech - that is, if it's earning any income from capital - then, by your reasoning, it should be taxed. Are you now saying that you consider some income from capital to be good? If so, exactly when do you consider it to be good and when do you consider it to be bad?

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

Lady Saiga — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:25:50 GMT

Didn't anybody else immediately think "I would tax Raquel Welch" while reading this thread?

Nice boobs, OP.

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

RagnarD — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:40:00 GMT

I've never had any "Rich" people extract a dime from me. I've had a mugger extract money from me at knifepoint (I'm only guessing that the crackhead wasn't rich), and the government extract money from me at (implicit) gunpoint. Other than that I've only chosen to give my money to people in return for them giving me something.

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

Esuric — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:59:42 GMT

HOWEVER what they 'extract' from the working class -cash they impose on the working class- is 300% higher than the same amount (through fees, rents, costs, charges, and general cost of living)

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.

On another note, would you like to meet up some time for coffee? I live near NYC.

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

xahrx — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:02:12 GMT

"The top 1% actually pays 36% (Not 40%) HOWEVER what they 'extract' from the working class -cash they impose on the working class- is 300% higher than the same amount (through fees, rents, costs, charges, and general cost of living) than it was before Ronald Reagan took office. In other words, the 1% pay a fraction of the same cost compared to the increase they've imposed by 'hiring' the Republican party to 'de-regulate' the economy for them."

Since there are few to no Republicans on these boards, what's your point?

The economy has never been de regulated, it has repeatedly been re regulated to satisfy the special interests who pay for the campaigns of the people in power at the time.

To the extent The Top 1% 'extracts' anything from anyone else, so long as it's voluntary, tough fuckin' nuggies. To the extent the government enables them, they should be ashamed and stopped, period.

Do your calculations also take into account what the remaining 99% 'extract' from their employers via union and labor regulations?

P.S. Nice tits.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

alsdjfalsdjfos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:22:13 GMT

Why should I believe that this is honestly your definition of "reasonable"?

Socialism is all about redistributing the wealth ("stealing" is a bit innaccurate because it implies random non-progressive taxation) to put it towards things that do the most good for the most people. Taxes are reasonable to me as long as they accomplish that (without impinging on any real human rights like immediate personal safety).

always and necessarily comes from stock options?

And now you're redefining (some) salary income as rental income?

They're different things.

To what extent do (you think) they "influence" the salary boards?

In some cases, quite a lot.

Regardless, by that reasoning, higher wages that union workers get from "collective bargaining" (i.e. influencing company management) would also constitute rental income and thus income from capital, not labor.

Oh yeah. It's entirely possible for unions to be bloodsucking leeches too. But if the goal is to redistribute income to the proles there's no point in taxing them.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

Autolykos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:10:04 GMT

Ban-Evader:
Enough to justify socialist theft of private property to the gullible, naturally public healthcare-wary Canadian proletariat.

Why should I believe that this is honestly your definition of "reasonable"?

Ban-Evader:
That's a borderline case. Most of their compensation comes from stock options, and that salarly is pretty much rent to the extent that they influence the salary boards.

Most (51% or more, per your earlier definition) of their compensation always and necessarily comes from stock options? And now you're redefining (some) salary income as rental income? To what extent do (you think) they "influence" the salary boards? Regardless, by that reasoning, higher wages that union workers get from "collective bargaining" (i.e. influencing company management) would also constitute rental income and thus income from capital, not labor.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

alsdjfalsdjfos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:05:31 GMT

I'll ask you again: what's your definition of "reasonable"?

Enough to justify socialist theft of private property to the gullible, naturally public healthcare-wary Canadian proletariat.

If so, do you understand then that, as per your definitions, CEOs making multi-million-dollar salaries are earning income from labor and not from capital? And that's just one example.

That's a borderline case. Most of their compensation comes from stock options, and that salarly is pretty much rent to the extent that they influence the salary boards.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

Autolykos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:00:32 GMT

Ban-Evader:
You've said yourself that commonsense has no place in political discussion. "Reasonableness" is irrelevant.

I'll ask you again: what's your definition of "reasonable"?

Ban-Evader:
Capital/labor income are measured separately in the national accounts, you can go to the BEA and look them up. One comes from wages and salaries, the other from rent and interest.

Why are you suddenly introducing "national accounts" into this discussion? I don't see its necessary relevance. Regardless, are you saying here that you think income from rent and interest constitutes "income from capital", and that income from wages and salaries constitutes "income from labor"? If so, do you understand then that, as per your definitions, CEOs making multi-million-dollar salaries are earning income from labor and not from capital? And that's just one example.

Thanks for implicitly admitting that you're implicitly changing your definition of "capitalism". Another shining example of intellectual dishonesty from our local ban-evader.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

Aristophanes — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:53:25 GMT

Aristophanes...

So what happens if he gets banned (yet again)?

Someone should tell the mods that a "temporary ban" is not a thing. "Ban" is a permenant thing. "Kick" or "Boot" are terms for suspensions which is itself what a "3-day ban" is.

Those vegetarians who don't eat their missed steak the first time are doomed to reheat it. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that standard we're both pretty much nuts.

Where did you hear this?

You ramble.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

alsdjfalsdjfos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:52:21 GMT

You've said yourself that commonsense has no place in political discussion. "Reasonableness" is irrelevant.

Capital/labor income are measured separately in the national accounts, you can go to the BEA and look them up. One comes from wages and salaries, the other from rent and interest.

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

Autolykos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:48:01 GMT

Ban-Evader:
Well, in order for Marxism to work, "we" have to limit that segment to something reasonable. Say, the people who gain most of their income from capital rather than labor.

What's your definition of "reasonable"? What do you think constitutes "income from capital" vs. "income from labor"? Regardless, you do understand that you're implicitly changing your definition of "capitalism", right? (I believe you do.)

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

HumanActionJackson — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:40:18 GMT

MissSocialist,

What is the difference between extracting money from someone and earning money through trade? Is there a difference, in your mind?

Re: An economic misconception that irks me...

alsdjfalsdjfos — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:37:51 GMT

Aristophanes...

So what happens if he gets banned (yet again)?

Those vegetarians who don't eat their missed steak the first time are doomed to reheat it. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that standard we're both pretty much nuts.

If your definition of "most" is "51% or more", fine. I can go along with that arguendo. By your definition, however, a society in which 51% of people hold 51% of the "capital" (not sure what your definition of that is) would count as "capitalism". After all, 51% of people in a society counts as a "segment of society", doesn't it? So basically the definition of "capitalism" you gave proves too much.

Well, in order for Marxism to work, "we" have to limit that segment to something reasonable. Say, the people who gain most of their income from capital rather than labor.

Re: An economic misconception that you marketeers often use...

SkepticalMetal — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:34:22 GMT

Why do I get the feeling that MissSocialist is Kylio undercover?