Mixed Economy

[Lafayette]

A problem is that when religion endorses capitalism as a lesser evil they might forget that it could still contain evil. So religions might appear defensive if they oppose the left wing even though this is short-sighted. Religions really need to be devoted towards the poor given the extent of natural evil. So religions might be better off advocating capitalism as the last resort rather than to taint their own beliefs in charity by conflating the economy with religion.

Do show me how "religions endorse capitalism". I've been speaking with the Pope lately and he did not say one word about capitalism!

Religions do not "endorse" political thinking - or they are not religions! Where they do in countries there exist exceedingly uneducated populations. Which is the key-attribute to manipulating individuals for political-purposes.

Some people together can purport to be a religion, but the matter of fact is that they are not. Most religions in the western-world are about the God we-the-sheeple have decided exists. That fact has been indigenous for centuries and it is a hand-me-down at birth. That is, we are taught the religion of their parents and continue in the same manner. Often but not always.

To discuss capitalism or any other subject regarding the nature of an economy is NOT FOR RELIGIOUS BANTER. Historically the mix of religions in the Western World has worked well enough, especially over the past years since WW2.

Except when feeble-minded individuals decide to impress or manipulate people - and that happens often enough in a society that is not properly educated in the matter of "how to think for oneself"!

We all decide our "religion" and many accept to continue that which they new as a child - we humans are like that ...

 

[Michael McMahon]

I've made a committment never to be seen walking out of a shop with toilet paper rolls. From now on I'll only ever buy multi-purpose kitchen paper!

 

[Michael McMahon]

If we ignored the innovative qualities of millionaires then they might have silver linings solely in preventing communism. For example even if we conceded that the super-rich are treated like royalty then a monarchy is still less worse then certain historical communist regimes. Ideally the upper middle class is really all that's needed when it comes to work incentives. For example university students don't need to be paid hundreds of thousands each to study creatively at their courses. Students work hard for long-term goals even without any pocket money. Yet if the mixed economy had to compete with puritanical socialists then all we could say is that rich people deter socialists from taking it to the extreme of communism. Millionaires are the ultimate symbol of individualism which is still a heavy price for society to pay.

 

[Lafayette]

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO AVOID EMPLOYMENT-DISASTER IN AMERICA

If we ignored the innovative qualities of millionaires then they might have silver linings solely in preventing communism. For example even if we conceded that the super-rich are treated like royalty then a monarchy is still less worse then certain historical communist regimes. Ideally the upper middle class is really all that's needed when it comes to work incentives.

Yes, and that is because Uncle Sam (under a series of Replicant Presidents) did not understand that such work (for instance in the plastics-shop where my parents worked in central Massachusetts) was no long producing even dog-shit. And that Something had to be done. (And this was especially true for knot-head Replicant-PotUS Trump who did absolutely nothing to remedy the loss of jobs.)

NOPE! NOTHING WAS DONE - because a solution would have called for those kids not finishing high-school and those who lost manufacturing-jobs be PUT BACK INTO SCHOOLING TO PREPARE THEM FOR HIGHER-LEVE WORK! They could have been reeducated into certain jobs that required a learning of how-to-do-the-job! Even the women who tend to find jobs less in Manufacturing and more in the Services Industries!

But no! Under repeated Replicant presidencies NOTHING WAS DONE TO PREPARE AMERICANS FOR WHAT WAS HAPPENING ALREADY IN THE 1990S MANUFACTURING-INDUSTRIES. The jobs were all going south ... to Middle and South America! And especially China!

And Uncle Sam, under both Democrat and Replicant Presidencies, DID NOTHING to what had become obvious. Jobs were exiting the US and going elsewhere!

What should have been done is this: Uncle Sam help/fund states to establish Competence-Training in the remaining industries. Both Manufacturing but particularly Services! Most developed-countries did not see the impetus-of-change that the Internet would bring to the Services Industries! (See unemployment-chart here. Uncle Sam is back to 4%!)

And frankly today we still are not doing enough to retrain high-schoolers in the key services-industries that remain! Uncle Sam is back to 4% unemployment, which is about as good as unemployment-gets in America.

But, America must still make an effort to enhance employment-training in the Services Industries ...

 

[Lafayette]

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) here:

Nov 4, 2022 — Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 261,000 in October, and the unemployment rate rose to 3.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor ...
40 pages

Uncle Sam is on a lucky-streak for any unemployment rate lesser than 4%.

Enjoy! It aint-gonna-last. It plays hippity-hop as shown in the figure here ( Unemployment Rate 1991-2022) ...

 

[Michael McMahon]

American billionaires are relatively frugal compared to the commercial assets they own. Perhaps they might have a palace and a few smaller mansions around the American nation. Yet what would working class Americans think if a few billionaires actually wanted the same luxurious assets as the British royal family? So would every American be willing tolerate a lone individual owning a remake of Buckingham Palace, Kensignton Palace and Windsor Castle together? There really wasn't a limit on what a historical aristocrat could spend their money on when they could rely on blatant extortion of their serfs. Should there be a cap on palaces if we were to still allow an individual own a multitude of mansions? Perhaps such a socialist rule would only be a token victory when we consider just how lavish their remaining assets would still be.

 

[Michael McMahon]

America's view of capitalism as freedom is helped by how their history didn't have to contend with lots of English plantations. Their war of independence was a backlash against English political aggression and high taxation. America's colonisation was unique in having lots of spare native American land. Thus we shouldn't view tax-free styles of capitalism as the only form of freedom when it's not reflected in other former colonies. The unlimited economic freedoms of America seeps into other debates about gun rights in an overly ideological way. Yet the American centre-left can also claim to be representative of European styles of freedom. After all there are plenty of economically permissive European nations like Austria and Malta that don't define the rest of their culture by their lax economic system. Too many European nations bow to Americanised anti-socialism despite them being totally independent of America. In other words America can no longer use Cold War logic of destabilising left-wing nations when most of them are not militarily threatening America. Socialism is so broad a spectrum that a centrist mixed economy could even be viewed as a spiritual, symbolic and mild form of socialism. The American ideology of capitalism should lead by example and shouldn't have to rely on socialist failures in other countries. Hypothetically a successful socialist state shouldn't undermine America's belief in capitalism if America saw their own capitalism as a truly good ethical system rather than as a lesser evil.

 

[Liberty One]

I tend to think a mixed economy with both generous welfare from government along with private market innovation seems to be pragmatic and viable. It captures more 'positive externalities' like education and healthcare than an exclusively private market and is more charitable. The slight problem I find with socialist thinking is that a free market isn't feudal. People are free to dollar vote and buy from cooperative businesses. Redistributive taxation seems to be working where it's tried compared to a collectivised communal sort of economy.

The problem is that it's never stable. Government provision of services like education and health care will continually move towards inefficiency and state-goals instead of societal-goals. Welfare will grow and grow as each new crop of politicians aims to buy support and will eventually collapse the budget.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The problem is that it's never stable. Government provision of services like education and health care will continually move towards inefficiency and state-goals instead of societal-goals. Welfare will grow and grow as each new crop of politicians aims to buy support and will eventually collapse the budget.

If you're so afraid of socialism then why not put a maximum tax rate in the actual constitution? Though shall not tax more than 60% on income unless there's a war/natural disaster?!

 

[Liberty One]

If you're so afraid of socialism then why not put a maximum tax rate in the actual constitution? Though shall not tax more than 60% on income unless there's a war/natural disaster?!

Well, I think the tax rate should be zero and the government abolished because it is an institution of evil and all taxation is theft. But that's a different question. Your original post was that a mixed economy was pragmatic and viable. I was arguing why it is not pragmatic or viable.

Putting a cap on tax rates won't do anything as long as the government controls the currency. They can just get the money via the inflation tax. Additionally, if you say they can raise the tax rate if there's a war, then there will always be a war going on, creating knock-on evil effects.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Well, I think the tax rate should be zero and the government abolished because it is an institution of evil and all taxation is theft. But that's a different question.

If you want to promote private charity as a viable alternative then why not have a tithe among a religious group? Let the lay people of each religion democratically vote in their own internal tax rate. Poor atheists can look to humanist organisations for tithes too. This conforms perfectly with your sense of religious freedom in America and is far superior to a minimal government tax rate.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Your original post was that a mixed economy was pragmatic and viable. I was arguing why it is not pragmatic or viable.

Lassaiz-faire conservatives are subconsciously relying on American left-wingers to tame their belief in capitalism. An American right-winger can look cool advocating for economic anarchy only because the country still appears civilised. However if Americans pursued individualism to an absolute degree then over many years America would be the exact same as multi-racial South Africa. Although you'd also have a huge number of white slums. We forget that corruption is a mild form of evil and that evil can be perverted. For example colonialism industrialised the colonies as a pyrrhic victory to all the natives that were exploited and killed. As such the absolute poverty in South Africa is technically more libertarian than America when the high tax rates of South Africa are almost futile against the scale of poverty.

 

[Liberty One]

However if Americans pursued individualism to an absolute degree then over many years America would be the exact same as multi-racial South Africa.

I don't know what multi-racial has to do with anything, and I'm not sure what you mean by individualism. I support private property rights, which is something that is severely lacking in South Africa. Everywhere on the planet there is a strong connection between a lack of private property rights and poverty. I assert that the connection is causal. South Africa is hardly libertarian.

 

[Michael McMahon]

South Africa is hardly libertarian.

Sometimes you can view high taxation as being sarcastic when so many poor people are still left empty handed. New York is extremely right-wing by having so many millionaires and can only afford to vote in so many left-wing politicians in an almost facetious way! There are so few New York Republicans simply because capitalists have already won and don't want to gloat!

 

[Liberty One]

Sometimes you can view high taxation as being sarcastic when so many poor people are still left empty handed. New York is extremely right-wing by having so many millionaires and can only afford to vote in so many left-wing politicians in an almost facetious way! There are so few New York Republicans simply because capitalists have already won and don't want to gloat!

Poor people are empty-handed because of a lack of private property rights and capitalism. Taxation doesn't make poor people less poor. And to say that having millionaires living in New York makes them right-wing is nonsensical.

 

[Michael McMahon]

I bought 2 national book vouchers and 3 Easons bookstore vouchers today in order to "diversify" my Christmas presents!

 

[Michael McMahon]

Poor people are empty-handed because of a lack of private property rights and capitalism. Taxation doesn't make poor people less poor. And to say that having millionaires living in New York makes them right-wing is nonsensical.

Communism misperceived the human baseline to be humble poor people. Yet if we go back to ancient history we can see that the bedrock of humanity was actually evil. Ancient Rome had to be tamed through Christianity while the Mongol empire was chastised through eastern religions like Buddhism. Jesus is often viewed as a socialist. Yet a full-blown communist could hardly have converted the chauvinism of the Roman people. Ancient people were poor through technological deprivation rather than just feudalism. No egalitarian economic system could ever succeed if the majority of people were evil. Thankfully we're not so pessimistic as to attribute most people in a capitalistic society as being evil. Yet if we remove all religious incentives then we'd be quickly confronted with a growing number of amoral people. Communist academics found argumentative support in the exploitation of poor people in the medieval era but they didn't look back as far as the pre-Christian era.

 

[Michael McMahon]

I did business studies for my junior cert but opted to give it up for my leaving cert study in favour of science. I briefly thought about doing economics as an extra subject for a repeat year but never got into the rhythm of it. Economics is a higher scale form of analysis which makes it distinct from the hard sciences. Yet it might be possible to view economics in a mentally anti-real way. Imbuing capitalism with spiritual qualities runs the risk of glorifying wealth inequality when even rich people don't view their money religiously. Yet seeing as we're stuck with capitalism then it might serve as a conscious side of science. This viewpoint might only make sense if you were surrounded by corporations in a major city though. Viewing your personal identity as being with a corporation rather than as an individual or as a citizen in a state might be too deferential for many people. The randomness of wealth creation is almost a form of quantum non-reality if we were to be truly fundamentalist about economics. The luckiness of entrepreneurs would be a probabilistic rather than deterministic form of physics!

"Hard sciences use math explicitly, they have more control over the variables and conclusions. They include physics, chemistry and astronomy. Soft sciences use the process of collecting empirical data then use the best methods possible to analize the information. The results are more difficult to predict. They include economics, political science and sociology."

What's the gripe between 'hard' and 'soft' sciences? The debate rages on

What's the gripe between 'hard' and 'soft' sciences? The debate rages on

www.usu.edu

 

[psikeyhackr]

View attachment 67429411

. Yet seeing as we're stuck with capitalism then it might serve as a conscious side of science. This viewpoint might only make sense if you were surrounded by corporations in a major city though. Viewing your personal identity as being with a corporation rather than as an individual or as a citizen in a state might be too deferential for many people. The randomness of wealth creation is almost a form of quantum non-reality if we were to be truly fundamentalist about economics. The luckiness of entrepreneurs would be a probabilistic rather than deterministic form of physics!

Does physics only work on the supply side? Do only machines on the supply side whose depreciation can be filed with the IRS wear out.

Before 1900 what machines did consumers buy?
GNP/GDP was an idea developed during the Depression. Technology increased productive capacity so much people needed to consume and waste Mor to avoid a 3-day workweek.

Where is the depreciation of all of the consumer junk tracked?

 

[Michael McMahon]

"Inheritance tax can sometimes result in relatives who inherit property having to sell the property to pay the inheritance tax." moneyguideireland

Inheritance taxes vividly captures the paradoxes of an economic system. On the one hand death taxes don't benefit the dead person. As such an upwardly mobile individual might feel offended by the family house being sold after death if the state didn't help them proportionately during life. In other words if the previous generation grew up during a recession then paying death taxes might feel like it's too little too late for the government to return a service to them. On the other hand death taxes are charitable to poor people which captures the Christian ethos of self-sacrifice. Moreover the money is of no use to the dead person even if the imminent loss of family assets might be a sentimental worry before death. The money the government receives will indirectly benefit the dead person's relatives through a provision of public goods. The left wing's justification for death taxes is that a tax on relatives is a more accurate description when the dead person isn't directly involved in the transaction. Death taxes could also be a measure of last resort against aristocratic wealth if income taxes fail to stop a return to feudalism.

 

[Michael McMahon]

"Workfare is a governmental plan under which welfare recipients are required to accept public-service jobs or to participate in job training."

We could theoretically avoid the burden on government for job creation by letting unemployed people work freely for private businesses. Yet workfare for private businesses could lead to poor people viewing their own labour as critical for the economy. By contrast free welfare reminds poor people that only innovative labour is relevant for capitalism. As such social welfare trumps workfare for reducing the risk of communist revolutions. Idle unemployed people allow working class people to tolerate idle rich people much easier.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree that society must of course help people who are struggling. But other aspects of socialism might be slightly pessimistic towards the economy. The emphasising of the "bourgeoisie" versus the "proletariat" is sometimes perhaps a bit too cynical!

It depends on how that ‘help’ is given. Poverty is the condition were consumption exceeds production. Increasing someone’s ability to consume (via government income redistribution programs) without increasing their ability to produce doesn’t end poverty - it simply makes (remaining in) poverty become a more comfortable option.

 

[vegas giants]

It depends on how that ‘help’ is given. Poverty is the condition were consumption exceeds production. Increasing someone’s ability to consume (via government income redistribution programs) without increasing their ability to produce doesn’t end poverty - it simply makes (remaining in) poverty become a more comfortable option.

It should be comfortable for those that can't produce

 

[Michael McMahon]

Increasing someone’s ability to consume (via government income redistribution programs) without increasing their ability to produce doesn’t end poverty - it simply makes (remaining in) poverty become a more comfortable option.

Modern day proponents of communism sometimes claim that past communist regimes failed solely because of bad leadership. Yet to rise the ranks in the military requires a lot of skill. As such the communist generals were assigned that position in a cut-throat meritocratic way that reflected the politics of communism. Yet the relative meritocracy was based on committment to financial equality rather than democratic work effort. As such it was a failure of communist ideals that lead to murderous and envious politicians getting leadership roles. A problem with communism is that few are willing to promote violent, upwardly-mobile versions of communism. For example we could replace the risks entrepreneurs take with their life savings with mandatory extreme sports participation for all citizens. Then no one could claim they were more innovative than others if everyone were forced to be rock-climbers and mega-wave surfers! Or we could have a 9am-6pm 6 day work week where few could claim to be more hard working then others. Perhaps there could be high minimum grade policies in school where every student was forced to be equally focused. Yet all these measures are blatantly too extreme for many socialists these days.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Inheritance tax sounds like a socialist policy but ironically it could also be used by conservatives. A government can often be tempted to increase foreign borrowing in order to make themselves more popular. Moreover if an opposition party is likely to get elected in the next cycle then the present government can try to burden them with debt so as to get strategically re-elected in the second election (after the opposition party's time in government). So inheritance tax increases to pay back national loans can deter an entire generation from burdening the younger generation.