BowTiedAgorist t1_it8ghrl wrote on October 21, 2022 at 6:15 PM

>One way or another, government has to be funded, and the State Stores in NH are well run, efficient, generate much revenue for the state and offer a good service at a great price. So, I'm okay with it.

Not only do I not believe government -has to be funded- I don't even believe it should be funded in 90% of what it does.

I have no intentions of going to town - I just think we have a difference of perspectives. which is why we we won't find common ground.

I will agree, many things are seemingly made easier by government organization and safety nets that catch people are genuinely good. I think overtime though the inherent corruption of government+money makes this trend downward over time.

I will never concede that a free market system isn't better for the 90% of things. and just because you don't see an operating free market healthcare system - in a world dominated by authoritarian centralized governments - doesn't prove its not possible.

I'm not insistent on a free market system for healthcare - that industry is entirely captured and until the Gordian knot of government interference is untangled, you'll never see a remotely free market.

As far as tycoon capitalists - most instances of that throughout history can be almost directly linked to government interference. From railroad tycoons to insulin shortages - government puts its thumb on the scale.Bezos\Amazon and Musk\Tesla is the best example of that. the left screams bloody murder about how wealthy he is... then passes billions of dollars that subsidize his products on the market... wacky.

ShortUSA t1_it8ymhj wrote on October 21, 2022 at 8:17 PM

I think you and I have some common ground. The government regularly errors on the side of putting too much money in areas it often should put some. As you point out, railroads, thus far relatively small amounts towards electric vehicles and the required infrastructure. But notice I said too much money, railroads were great and imperative to the US's very successful industrial revolutions. But yes, too generous. Nonetheless, extreme wealth is mostly not due to government largesse, but great innovation without redistribution. If you look at emerging billionaires, rather than inherited wealth, they are generally either tech or private equity. Yes, there is some government involvement in both, and of the last couple of decades too much to bail out financial institutions and therefor indirectly private eq and hedge funds. But all in all the vast majority of wealth was what I think you and I would call legitimately earned, but that wealth generally pays less than half of the tax rate you pay, as you said 40%. To me, that is unjust and un-American. In the time of railroads, the oil industry made even more wealth, but not government subsidized as RRs were.

The federal government is doing much too much to provide corporate welfare, often in the name of helping Americans. It is the new era or corporate exploitation. One great example is heathcare, another Rx drugs, another broadband access, etc. In all of these industries, rather than being competitive and therefore economical, the industries choose to exploit Americans with the highest prices in the world, then lobby government to subsidize Americans, which is really just lining the global corporations' owners pockets. The government should be fostering competition. Unfortunately, political leaders are beholden to global corporations for the large donations that they are allowed to make.

BowTiedAgorist t1_it91pg8 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 8:38 PM

I think you and I are talking past each other - so let me kind of boil this down. I think we fundamentally disagree on what "corporate welfare" and "fraud" looks like.

Most if not all of the big tech billionaires have had their products subsidized - if not directly, then indirectly by the fact that we publicly paid for most of the internet backbone the y run off. This is a derivative "you didn't build that" argument that is ignorant in my opinion and just a way of justifying theft from profitable companies. A trucking company that uses roads isn't subsidized, just like a tech billionaire using the internet isn't subsidized.

Bezos almost got 10 Billion dollars in Blue Origin money because he literally has senators and congressional reps in his back pocket - fraud.

Banks and Hedgefunds who have the SEC re-write rules for them while they lock out commercial investors. Banks that got bailouts because their former VP's are all members of the potus cabinet or vice versa - fraud

Nestle electing california senators to secure water rights to steal water from aquafers for profit during a draught - fraud.

Tesla and SpaceX wouldn't exist without massive subsidies from the federal government for EV's\Space Exploration - hell the entire EV vehicle market wouldn't exist without billions being pumped into it. Same goes for big oil\LNG, Healthcare, College, the MIC. All of it propping up industry profits so that politicians can go buy up shares of and make themselves wealthy - all corporate welfare all fraud.

What you are saying - is that you are okay with government stealing money from profitable industries and people so long as they steal more from them and less from you. "redistribution" is a joke. They don't redistribute anything to individuals, the scraps you get in social spending or new infrastructure pales in comparison.

The reality of it is corporations are paying governments for access to public coffers and backing - and the exchange rate is hella profitable for them. You're looking for government to be Robin Hood when what you're getting is people robbing the hood.

"Helping Americans" is just the cloth they drape their crime in. Bailouts didn't help a single american, they got thrown into the streets while the bank got to keep the bailout and their house.

Best case ... Billionaires and Government is just one hand washing the other. Worst case its velvet glove covering an iron fist (Pfizer\Vaccine Mandates)

As far as wealth and redistribution... that used to be the salaries and wages people made, there was no better job in this country fifty years ago than a manufacturing gig. You'd walk right out of public high school with entry level competency in how to use tools and a tape measure from your shop or autoclass - into a career that would support you the rest of your life.

All those good jobs that supported the middle class were exported to China, South East Asia, and Mexico... by people like clinton, obama, and bush - all backed by IMEX loans that made it easier to secure capital to ship jobs west and south...

Whats left of the American labor market is now involved in a race to the bottom of the wage floor because we'll import laborers to do hard jobs for pennies to live 8 head to a bedroom. Wages stopped growing in this country in 1971... right when the immigration caps got lifted and we started normalizing trade with Japan and China.

this isnt' late stage capitalism... its just early stage globalism.

Edits (for clarity and piss poor grammar)

ShortUSA t1_it9i9cq wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:37 PM

Wow. How we are talking past each other is beyond me. It seems we agree on the major problem. Government subsidizing industry: tech, banking, ..., railroads, oil, etc, etc.
Almost everything you write I agree with: government channeling huge sums to global industry and little to most Americans, crumbs as you say. I completely agree. If tech was greatly subsidized by the public, either directly or indirectly, then how is it inaccurate for people to take down the billionaires' boldness in saying they built it all? They took advantage of the public money, no?
There are details we disagree about: the vast majority of the internet was built out by private companies such as AT&T, L3, etc. You say it was to a large extent, fine, I'll give you that.

Paragraph by paragraph
You paragraph 3: agree,
4: absolutely, but SEC only puts in place what they write! (a nuance)
5: absolutely, and I would add almond growers - much more water than Nestle, the most water intense crop in a water baron area. That is government subsidies for over 100 years.
6: You say the industries would not exist, I think they would, but be less profitable and not grow as fast. But YES.
7: Yes, the scraps do pale in comparison. What we see differently is that I see redistribution as roads, schools, water & sewer generally infrastructure that benefits all, being funded by tax dollars coming from a flat or progressive tax type system, which is not at all what we have today, it starts progressive, but then gets regressive as high-income folks get income from gains rather than wages, which are THE highest taxed thing in the country. I would argue for no corporate taxes, but a very different personal income tax system that is truly progressive or flat. You say these folks make huge money from subsidies, but they should not be taxed too heavily "stolen from". What am I missing here?
8: I do not want government to be Robin Hood. I do not want to regressive tax system, like we have today. I want government out of a lot of stuff they are in today, and work to foster free markets, competition, etc. As it used it. Government is in as much as they are due to industries pulling them in to extract $, which you also said.
I think you are stereo typing me as liberal, but I far from that. Do not read into what I write, just read what I write.
9: completely agree with your "Helping Americas" paragraph, but remember, it does help a handful of rich Americans who are execs of the financial institutions and also helps the largest owners (some American - all rich), and of course keeps the global banks solvent, when they should have been bankrupt, or at least taken huge haircuts.
10: Your best case is exactly as I see it.
11: I agree with you about the good jobs, but know that started in the mid to late 70s and supported by both parties, if you don't remember Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot, check them out. They warned the country about this, and ridiculed primarily by their own party. They were wrong on much, but right on the exporting of jobs. We agree. Back then the jobs were not smart manufacturing jobs, no, just high school was good enough and often not required. But those jobs were lost primarily to automation, and also to exporting.
12: I agree about the race to the bottom, which is foolish of the US.

We are seeing almost exactly the same thing, but yes, from a different view. We both do not like it, and think it should change.

I do not understand some of what I see as contradictory. You think they build it, but say a lot got built with public money. I don't get that. I do not want Robin Hood or handouts, but do want a progressive tax, rather than the regressive we have today. I want gov out of subsidizing, but working to foster competition in order to make things as affordable as they are in most other developed nations.

Ok, here is something I am guessing we very much disagree about, but I look forward to hearing from you on it...
The reason guys putting a nut on a lug and tightening it, and the many other low skill jobs of old school manufacturing paid a good middle class wage was that corporations agreed to pay that good wage, and society expected it, it was normal. There was nothing inherently valuable about the job, they just paid middle class wages. They paid the CEOs about 20 times that wage. Today unskilled people are paid poor wages and the CEOs get 500+ times that compensation. Why not do the same thing today with service jobs? Maybe profits would not be at record highs, maybe the US would not have as many billionaires and multimillionaires, but wouldn't we have a better country of people who would need fewer handouts, etc?

BowTiedAgorist t1_it9lzpv wrote on October 21, 2022 at 11:07 PM

Like I said, we are talking past each other. We agree, but you see government as the solution to those problems - I see them as the cause. So we are both just making those points endlessly.

Your last paragraph is the only thing I need to answer to reflect that (my opinion if you'd like me to expand I'm happy to). Companies can't pay dirt poor labor wages in third world countries without government backing their capital needs. All of the shipping, importing, exporting costs are ASTRONOMICAL... if not for IMEX loans at next to zero percent backing it. Full stop

That labor has an intrinsic value - that value is only undercut because globalism makes it cheaper to have children in sweatshops doing the work vs an adult who expects a wage. A US built refrigerator put food on the table and provided a market for repair, service, and upkeep that kept it running for decades. Now you just buy a new one made in mexico by 50c an hour labor. Those CEO profit margins are even worse than you think and only possible because of global labor markets.

I'm not a big fan of trump - but if he slapped a 10% tariff on all manufactured goods imported to the US and made IMEX charge 2% on their import loans. Maytag would have new facilities across the US because it would instantly make foreign labor a losing proposition. Biden could get my vote tomorrow if that infrastructure bill was designed to end global labor exploitation and put billions toward divesting from the chinese.

The internet wasn't built by private companies - most of the backbone infrastructure it runs on was paid for by government using AT&T\Bell\Comcast to do the work. Telecomms didn't suddenly decide to connect the planet. Not to mention all the research. The internet and race to the moon in my opinion are the only and best arguments for government organization and spending. Free Markets would have never accomplished the task as quickly - and the tech gains we made were ... immeasurable.

All that domestic government spending driving up inflation, cost of living, cost of housing - while wages stayed flat.

I've had fun discussing this and I think you've been very fair minded.

ShortUSA t1_ita1grb wrote on October 22, 2022 at 1:10 AM

How is me agreeing the government is much too large and involved it much too much leads you to think I think it's the solution?

You contradict yourself and don't explain, probably can't, your positions.

You're hell bent on wanting to believe we don't agree on much. You prefer to believe not what I wrote, but your notion of what I believe.

Too bad. There are many Americans like you, hell bent on disagreeing. Too bad for America.

BowTiedAgorist t1_itadfck wrote on October 22, 2022 at 2:50 AM

I'll draw this out as simply as I can.

You view taxes as justified - I view them as the theft, because when you take money from people without their permission under threat of government violence... its theft..

You want a "progressive tax" that funds a government by taxing (robbing) wealthy people more than it taxes (robs) poor people - I don't want people robbed.

I want the government to do FAR FAR less - and suggest funding those few services with more voluntary market based taxes or by simple agency of cooperation - agency that doesn't require force.

You have this notion that government should do less, but advocate for its collection of more revenue (which progressive tax codes are always aimed at) - further that it should do more things with more of the things you think are "redistributive" and less of the things you don't like. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Because:

1 - You are describing the system we already have, you are just disappointed it doesn't do more of what you want. - I know it doesn't do what you want, because its not designed to do what you want.

2 - You think if the tax code was just a bit more progressive - they'd be able to finally do all that stuff you want - I know that the feds pull in about 3 Trillion dollars a year and could do all the wonderful things you want ... if they actually wanted to. Further, when they don't have money to do the things they want to, they just print more of it. They don't provide those redistributive services you want... not because of revenue, but simply because they don't actually care to do them.

3- You have faith in a system that has done nothing to prove itself. - I understand its working exactly as designed to exfiltrate money from you for its own growth and profit.

We may agree on whats fundamentally broken - but our fixes are polar opposites. I don't need to insinuate you're liberal to make that determination.

ShortUSA t1_it9ivzl wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:42 PM

By the way, I do think government should be funded for the 10% of the stuff it should be doing. And not do the other 90%. So taxes.

What do you mean when you write you don't think it should be funded, but that it should do 10% of what it does. How does it do that 10% without funding?

BowTiedAgorist t1_it9jsyy wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:50 PM

90% of what government does... it shouldn't be doing; the other 10% can probably be done without government - just because we haven't seen a model for it doesn't mean its not possible.

The very very very few things I think government organization is beneficial for (military and domestic peacekeeping) could easily be funded through voluntary line item tax funding people vote for or against. Or get funded by voluntary market\excise taxes that don't constitute a death sentence if you refuse to participate in. VS a system that threatens you with death for not surrendering a portion of your labor value to it (income taxes and some sales taxes)

So, we'd vote locally for our fire department spending - as a consumer model for emergency services is something I can't really picture. but we wouldn't charge sales tax on things like - heating and lighting your home like MA does.

Edit - By Vote - I don't necessarily mean on a polling day for representatives. Think more like ben franklin funding the first libraries. Some dude who wants to run a fire department going around saying "hey, I need 1000 dollars a year from 100 house holds in the area to provide fire services - will you be one of them and give me 83 dollars a month "

Renters and sharecropers probably wouldn't give a fuck, but a landlord or major property owner would.

End Edit

Dr. Tom Sherman vows to legalize weed

BowTiedAgorist t1_it88eon wrote on October 21, 2022 at 5:21 PM

ShortUSA t1_it8dbls wrote on October 21, 2022 at 5:54 PM