Mixed Economy

[Michael McMahon]

Criminally insane economist:

"How are you? I'm actually a capitalist too. However I'm self-employed. I use my physical skillset to rob my customers. Some people just don't understand there's a muscular hierarchy in society!"

"Sorry I bumped into your shoulder. I'm a poor person too. I'll need all of your money. Otherwise I'll put you into a communist sex workhouse! We all have different roles in a society. An equal allowance of forced prostitution will help our comrades!"

"I'm in a somewhat different sect of Christianity. I believe if everyone were pure evil then we'd be able to reincarnate into a stronger future where people no longer need to be evil. It's a pity that I'll need to kill you. Don't worry though. Our unconscious grows stronger!"

 

[Michael McMahon]

The working classes can often be a bit volatile in being divided between right wing and left wing voters. Yet left wing politicians insist on government aid to all poor people. From a tactical perspective this inadvertantly means that left wing politicians are helping the supporters of adversarial right wing parties. This allows the right wing to compensate on past aid to justify lower taxes. As such pure socialism as a theory might be more suitable on a local council level rather than a federal level. Socialism might struggle in dangerous professions like mining. A society obsessed about financial equality would struggle to reward those who literally risk their lives on their job. An ideological socialist state would really have to overcompensate for the horrors of communism through hard work and education. Communism not only robbed rich people but actually forced them to work like POWs in basic jobs. No country requires forced labour of rich people to function given their low numbers even if communists also demanded forced labour of poor people. One of the few rich people I met was at an uncle-in-law's funeral. He told me about how him and his father made a small DIY airplane. From a socialist's perspective it's always better for rich people to build their own recreational goods rather than buy them ready-made!

 

[Michael McMahon]

"Much pricing in Communist economies was far from rational; it was not to any meaningful extent based on the cost of labour or usefulness." academic.oup

Socialism would struggle to deal with land redistribution to urban folk compared with wealth redistribution. The objective value of land is unquantifiable when it's a natural good. For example no one can pay builders to construct a Himalayan mountain. A small farm could be worked as intensely as the farmer desired. For example a small farm next to skyscrapers in Manhattan might be economically viable if there were horticultural plants and vegetables being grown in dense multilayer plots. Then passersby could get really fresh goods that the sellers could charge more for in comparison to stale food that took hours to transport. A wealthy landowner thus has an absurd income meaning that industrial capitalists should never see their wealth as a reflection of megalomaniacal personal worth.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The slogan "taxation is theft" could be reversed as "theft is taxation" to disprove castle-doctrine fanatics who tolerate taxes but violently despise petty thieves. A problem with moral absolutes on tax policies is that wealth is far removed from pure athleticism. If we lived in an egalitarian ancient society where everyone was paid according to physical labour then no one would demand more wages than their physical strength permitted. Moreover such a Spartan society would never like central government taking their hard-earned cash. A lot of capitalist societies create a theme of moral absurdism by tolerating millionaire company owners but nonetheless heavily taxed the middle-class. Yet few rural people would tolerate a tax on medium-sized farms that was less than a tax on large farms. The idea that high taxes on rich people will prevent them working full time is on a par with owners of large-sized farms being more passive when the crops didn't need much work. For example an owner of a forestry could simply wait and let the trees grow taller until a socialist government lost an election for the trees to be cut with less tax. Atheism is often combined with socialism but we could invert the stereotype where a capitalist would be spiritual only about wealth creation as an atheist. Then we'd realise that high taxes on hard workers was limiting how much they could dedicate themselves to their money. Hence if everyone were devote about money then we'd view high taxes as being very interfering to the personal lives of rich people. People who literally don't want an afterlife might claim that taxes were burdensome on their version of material heaven. As such the debate on taxe rates can be open-ended. However capitalism could also be at risk of concocting a rural attitude towards land for urban people who interpret subjective house values as if they were their part of the natural earth! Maybe only rural people were supposed to be possessive about their arbitrary, inherited wealth!

The Bull McCabe - The Law of the Land - The Field

 

[Michael McMahon]

Citizens have finite energy to contribute to the public good and so it might always be possible to be fanatical about collectivising one sector of the economy by compromising another. For example society could hypothetically ditch free education and instead turn private farm land into a communal commons where anyone can grow their own subsistence food. Hence socialists might eventually disagree with one another on which form of good is worth prioritising.

 

[Michael McMahon]

A cap on dividends rather than wealth isn't actually insulting to wealthy people when we realise that intergenerational "old money" often keep the vast majority of their wealth in commerce. It's really the formerly working and middle class people who become "nouveau riche" that end up being stereotyped as extravagant. As such I might be remembered by posterity as a middle class supremacist against money-obsessed poor people and the conspicuous consumption of rich people!

"The Nouveau Riche carries what they call “new money” or first-generation acquired wealth, whereas the old rich keeps “old money” that been passed from one generation to the next... Apparently, old money is inherited and inheritance comes in the form of properties and investments too. These families bound by tradition are therefore careful with spending their wealth to be able to sustain the family’s assets. Some who possess old money may even be asset-rich, but are cash-poor."

Old Rich Vs. Nouveau Riche: Which Kind Of Wealthy Are You?

“Money talks, wealth whispers.” There are numerous variations of wealthy. Some are born already with a silver spoon in their mouths, while others had to do

www.ecomparemo.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

People in first world countries can sometimes be tempted to avoid giving charity to third world countries. This is on the basis that there are too many poor people in third world countries for charity to make a difference. Yet the irony is that millionaires and billionaires in the third world are likely using the same excuses as the first world in avoiding charity to overpopulated regions. Thus first-world people who give money to charity will help remind middle and upper class people native to the third world to give greater help to their own people. Moreover rich people in first world countries might be tempted to give less money to tax when they view their own working class as if they were from a foreign poor country. If working class African Americans endorse unlimited capitalism then there's a risk that they're own community could be ignored by American social welfare as being in the African continent itself. Hence capitalism can contain psychopathic themes if poor people are unable to assert themselves.

India’s 100 Richest 2023

After hosting the G20 Summit in New Delhi this September and becoming the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the moon, India is on a high. Reflecting that sentiment, the stock market rose 14% since we last measured fortunes. But that jump, tempered by a weaker rupee, isn’t reflected in the...

www.forbes.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

Middle class employees are extorted by their bosses seeing as a lot of employees would be upper class were it not for the fact their own company over-rewarded management. As such extreme forms of government socialism is at risk of extorting middle class people when they're already being extorted. Socialism fails to criticise communism sufficiently which means they're unable to pursuade fellow socialists to form a more comprehensive theory of socialism. For example entrepreneurs from poor backgrounds would almost need to underpay staff for the initial few weeks of a company in order to wait for a customer base.

 

[Michael McMahon]

One way to investigate the morality of striking is if only one employee went on strike. A replacement strikebreaker might be called in after a few days. The employee would likely be suspended as regulated capitalism only allows for employers to be taxed rather than for employees to be paid bonuses. Yet an employee is entitled to holidays and sick days meaning that any further suspension of an employee beyond the strike period might only relate to a lack of notice before the strike. Permanently firing a striker would be an immoral slippery slope to feudalism.

 

[Michael McMahon]

In order to prevent corporate taxes being offloaded to the customer through higher prices there'd need to be price controls. Yet the lack of price controls means that the effective tax rate might be smaller in terms of a temporal tax on working hours dedicated to the taxman. Moderate and competitive price-controls would really require a lot of expertise from civil servants to prevent market boycotts. Although fine-tuned price-controls might exceed the economic experience of the civil service given the government's lack of innovation in the private sector. Yet workers could rebel to price controls by working less much like the criticisms of high income taxes. The government cannot force people to work full time in the same way that students are forced to be at school on every weekday. High-paid part-time workers would prioritise recreation time over taxes. The problem with the left-wing is that they don't try to convert people to their ethical system in the same way a religion would. Good-will might be required to prevent the majority of professionals trying to pass on taxes to extorted customers. Then any ill-intentioned professionals would be outcompeted by more charitable rivals who offer cheaper services. Fundamentally if the majority of people are amoral than any system imposed on them will gradually contain amoral cover-ups where a lot of good might be accidental. Patriotism isn't always sufficiently espoused by left-wing parties which makes them vulnerable to nationalist parties. The idea of paying private charity to the taxman shouldn't sound ridiculous if the government is effectively using their resources for charity.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“The land in China belongs to the state and the collectives. A land user obtains only the land use right, not the land or any resources in or below the land. A land grant contract shall be entered into between the land user and the land administration department of the people's government at municipal or county level.” wiki

A large inheritance tax that forces your next of kin to sell the home is almost like the principle of land rent in China where your home ownership is temporary. The dilemma for lowered rates of inheritance tax for business ownership and farmland is that elderly people could simply invest their bank savings in shares or land to reduce the inheritance tax bill. Inheritance tax doesn’t fully counter nepotism where small businesses have a culture of family ownership. As such inheritance tax is only a partial form of equality where income and corporate taxes must also be proportionate.

 

[psikeyhackr]

“The land in China belongs to the state and the collectives. A land user obtains only the land use right, not the land or any resources in or below the land.

The land in every country belongs to the government. Fail to pay the taxes and see how fast they kick you out. So the give different names to the money.

Rent, taxes, mortgage installment.

Who decided the Laws, like single family zoning?

Is that decided by so called Market Forces?

 

[ralfy]

Mixed economies are inevitable as private capitalism needs public corporations for legal and practical reasons, e.g., legal systems for private property and limited liability, fiat currencies, shared resources for industries which have no competition (like utilities), etc.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The land in every country belongs to the government. Fail to pay the taxes and see how fast they kick you out. So the give different names to the money.

The left wing aren’t metaphysical enough to compete with the individualism espoused by right wingers. The left wing isn’t unified internationally which limits their ideological appeal. Centrism is a transcendent version of the left wing where centrism rejects the dominance of the right wing. By contrast the left wing tolerates the right wing and accepts an alternating right wing to left wing sequence of governments. Yet centrism has the capacity to be permanently elected in government if voters wanted a consistent national identity of moderate charity.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The left wing aren’t metaphysical enough to compete with the individualism espoused by right wingers.

An individual who claimed to be a Swedish socialist high school teacher told me that he, "objected to mandatory accounting in the schools on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical to the students."

Sometimes I can contemplate lynching the socialists along with the economists.

 

[Michael McMahon]

An individual who claimed to be a Swedish socialist high school teacher told me that he, "objected to mandatory accounting in the schools on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical to the students."

Sometimes I can contemplate lynching the socialists along with the economists.

Even if we consented to lassaiz faire capitalism there can still be karma because status symbols are often needed to undermine other peoples’ status symbols the moment status symbols are legalised. The reality is that people aren’t talented at everything where a status good can mimic the idea you’re not good at a particular discipline by over-relying on high costs but the message is that if only you were focused on the discipline you’d likely be better than others. For example no matter how talented you are at driving you’re no match for a full time formula one driver where driving a sports car at low speed can downplay the potential arrogance of other fast drivers. A mercedes car mimics the smoothness of a limousine and in doing so limits how splendid the super-rich can feel about their limousine service! A BMW car can resemble the sturdiness of a jeep without needing the macho vibe of jeep drivers in a way that could make a BMW car owner appear like a more ethical version of a jeep owner. A neo-French house design is telling the owner that they’re so good they can be as polite as a French person while reducing how superior French people could appear to others.