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

Reply to comment by BowTiedAgorist in Dr. Tom Sherman vows to legalize weed by Final_Act6703

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.