The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government[W:261:356]

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

You continue to obsess over free markets when the issue in this thread is Big Govt and High Taxes, not the mythical free market

The content of the OP implies much more than that. Social democracy and big government are not one and the same.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

The content of the OP implies much more than that. Social democracy and big government are not one and the same.

No it does not, and I don't remember saying anything about social democracies. I'm not even sure what you mean by that

 

[ksu_aviator]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Today, what kind of nations are the most successful? What nations' populations have the highest standards of living, the longest life expectancies, the highest levels of education, the greatest ability to travel to outside their nations' borders?

The problem with this article is the list of assumptions that you use to define success. You prize standard of living, life expectancy, education and ease of international travel as the standard barer for and idealistic nation. I would counter that only one of those four assumptions is partially accurate. Freedom is the first and last standard each nation must achieve to reach a man-made nirvana. Only the ease of international travel comes close to hitting the mark. The others require the loss of treasure or freedom for an individual in order for the government to achieve the goal.

Take, for example, "longest life expectancy." This is clearly a reference to universal health care/socialized medicine. No matter how you cut it, socialized medicine schemes must take treasure from individuals in order to fund their objectives. This comes in the form of taxes or fees. Besides the inherent secondary freedoms that are lost as the result of taxes and as there must be regulation to prevent the free market from circumventing the reduced care at increased costs that comes from all socialized medicine schemes, individuals must surrender certain freedoms and rights. Whether it is the right to fair compensation for medical professionals or the right to seek competing care outside the socialized system, freedoms must be usurped by the ruling government. Without such loss of freedom, no ruling government can sustain a health care system. We don't have to look far to find the loss of freedoms. Great Britain is denying women the ability to have mammograms until the appointed age. Canada has drastically long waits for routine and urgent visits to the doctor. The list goes on.

With each of your assumptions comes a litany of lost freedoms. While you look to outcomes as the sign of a great government, I look to the opportunities. While you seek a system that delivers a result regardless of effort, I seek a system that doesn't limit my effort or my results. While you seek security and certainty, I seek responsibility. This is the difference between a socialized government and a free people. The two cannot coincide.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Yes, they are a myth. Even the "non-perfect" versions of free markets have not existed. Nothing even close. The economic history of nations is a history of govt involvement and manipulation of the market.

Every instance of voluntary exchange is an instance of the free market. The fact that government has historically manipulated those markets does not mean they have not existed in varying degrees. Your argument is simply absurd, looking at the effects of markets as either 100% or 0% and ignoring the possibilities of mixed economies in between.

I have no idea what was in your hear when you said what you said, but here is what you actually said:

I see no mention of licensing. You only talk about "starting a business".

And the business I started required a license. It was not difficult to acquire.

Typically when people start a business they are talking about the type of business that requires a business license. The fact remains that obtaining a business license in Australia takes about 2 days, and obtaining one in most of the US takes far longer than that.

By being real, and not mythical.

Circular reasoning. You said markets are a myth because businesses operate on the maximization of profit. You then said the reason for this is because markets are a myth. The maximization of profit is perfectly in line with the market. In fact, markets are often criticized because of the maximization of profit.

Nothing empty about it. It is a fact that "supply and demand" is "economic theory" and not "free market principle", as proven by the fact that it applies to "non-free markets" just as much as it applies to those mythical free markets you keep talking about.

That free markets are mythical is an empty assertion that you have yet to prove.

But since you like to talk about how they're not mythical, maybe someday you'll actually identify a nation that had a free market.

I already did. The US had quite a free market for much of its history. If you are asking me to identify a nation that has had a perfect free market, you are right, I can't. But that's irrelevant to the point.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

For one thing, I don't remember using the phrase "social democracies". For another, you only see it that way because you're obsessed with free markets, even though it is not the issue being discussed. Again, the issue is "big govt and high taxes"

And no one has said "bigger is always better"

The issue being discussed is whatever the OP laid out. The OP discussed social democracy, not merely big govt and high taxes. Perhaps you should read more than just the title of the topic.

That is closer to the mark. However, there has never been a nation whose govt limited itself to protecting property rights and contracts. Again, that is a myth.

If someone were to argue "a perfect free market has existed" that would be a myth. But nobody is arguing that, you just keep bringing that up as a strawman.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No it does not, and I don't remember saying anything about social democracies. I'm not even sure what you mean by that

Read the OP. You are trying to say my talk of markets is irrelevant to the OP. Its not because the OP mentioned social democracies, suggesting that first-world nations are wealthy because they are social democracies. I am saying no, they are better off due to the relatively large extent free markets have existed in those countries.

In other words, stop saying my talk of markets is irrelevant to a post you didn't bother to read.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Every instance of voluntary exchange is an instance of the free market.

No it's not. That's just nonsense.

The fact that government has historically manipulated those markets does not mean they have not existed in varying degrees. Your argument is simply absurd, looking at the effects of markets as either 100% or 0% and ignoring the possibilities of mixed economies in between.

I never said it has to be 100% of 0%. Once again, you're seeing things that are not there.

Typically when people start a business they are talking about the type of business that requires a business license. The fact remains that obtaining a business license in Australia takes about 2 days, and obtaining one in most of the US takes far longer than that.

No, that's not what they're usually talking about. And many types of business licenses take far less than a month to acquire.

Circular reasoning. You said markets are a myth because businesses operate on the maximization of profit. You then said the reason for this is because markets are a myth. The maximization of profit is perfectly in line with the market. In fact, markets are often criticized because of the maximization of profit.

Wrong. For one thing, I didn't say "markets are a myth"; I said *free* markets are a myth

In addition, I never said that "business operate on the principle of maximizing profit because free markets don't exist".

They operate on that principle because making a profit, and as large a one as possible, is what businesses are formed to do.

That free markets are mythical is an empty assertion that you have yet to prove.

It's a negative assertion. I don't have to prove it, just as I don't have to prove that unicorns are mythical. If you're going to claim that they exist, then you're going to have to identify one.

For some reason, you refuse to identify one free market economy.

I already did. The US had quite a free market for much of its history. If you are asking me to identify a nation that has had a perfect free market, you are right, I can't. But that's irrelevant to the point.

No. The US has, from it's very beginning, been far more involved in the economy than merely protecting property rights and contracts. And back then, we were far from an economic success story. We were an economic backwater, of little to no importance to the world's economy

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Read the OP. You are trying to say my talk of markets is irrelevant to the OP.

Again, you are seeing things that are not there. Talk of markets is relevant. Talk of free markets is not

Its not because the OP mentioned social democracies, suggesting that first-world nations are wealthy because they are social democracies. I am saying no, they are better off due to the relatively large extent free markets have existed in those countries.

In other words, stop saying my talk of markets is irrelevant to a post you didn't bother to read.

And the OP does not say that first world nations are wealthy because they are social democracies. He implies the opposite by mentioning several nations which are not social democracies but are first world nations (ex Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain)

And you are wrong about their success being due to their having, to a large extent, free markets. As we have pointed out to you many times, those nations have extremely large amounts of govt intervention and regulation (ex social safety nets, socialized health care to varying extents, safety regulations, central banking, environmental regs, etc)

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Again, you are seeing things that are not there. Talk of markets is relevant. Talk of free markets is not

As explained previously, the mention of social democracy makes free markets a relevant topic of discussion.

And the OP does not say that first world nations are wealthy because they are social democracies. He implies the opposite by mentioning several nations which are not social democracies but are first world nations (ex Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain)

He mentions those several nations as outliers. Meaning they are the exception to the rule, which he then goes on to describe as social democracies.

And you are wrong about their success being due to their having, to a large extent, free markets. As we have pointed out to you many times, those nations have extremely large amounts of govt intervention and regulation (ex social safety nets, socialized health care to varying extents, safety regulations, central banking, environmental regs, etc)

Not all of them, which brings us right back to the original argument that you keep trying to say is irrelevant. Back around full-circle. I already had this discussion, mentioning Australia in particular. The first-world nations are all more free relative to third-world nations, according to the freedom index which I am still waiting for you to actually dispute.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No it's not. That's just nonsense.

That's how the free market is defined. Offer another definition if you disagree with it.

I never said it has to be 100% of 0%. Once again, you're seeing things that are not there.

Then stop saying perfect free markets don't exist. None of my points require that they do.

No, that's not what they're usually talking about. And many types of business licenses take far less than a month to acquire.

Yes it is. But that's irrelevant anyway. Its far easier to obtain a business license of any kind in Australia than is typical in the US.

Wrong. For one thing, I didn't say "markets are a myth"; I said *free* markets are a myth

In addition, I never said that "business operate on the principle of maximizing profit because free markets don't exist".

They operate on that principle because making a profit, and as large a one as possible, is what businesses are formed to do.

And a business can be formed to make a profit on the free market, so I fail to see how their existence contradicts free markets at all.

It's a negative assertion. I don't have to prove it, just as I don't have to prove that unicorns are mythical. If you're going to claim that they exist, then you're going to have to identify one. For some reason, you refuse to identify one free market economy.

For the millionth time, nobody is claiming that perfect free markets exist. You are conflating terms, and inserting "perfect" before "free market" each time I use the term. When I say free markets I am not referring to a 100% perfect free market. So stop arguing as if I am.

No. The US has, from it's very beginning, been far more involved in the economy than merely protecting property rights and contracts. And back then, we were far from an economic success story. We were an economic backwater, of little to no importance to the world's economy

Did I say the US was only involved in property rights and contracts? No. Please try to address my actual arguments. The fact remains that the US had arguably the freest economy the world had ever seen.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

As explained previously, the mention of social democracy makes free markets a relevant topic of discussion.


He mentions those several nations as outliers. Meaning they are the exception to the rule, which he then goes on to describe as social democracies.


Not all of them, which brings us right back to the original argument that you keep trying to say is irrelevant. Back around full-circle. I already had this discussion, mentioning Australia in particular. The first-world nations are all more free relative to third-world nations, according to the freedom index which I am still waiting for you to actually dispute.

Yes, all of them. Australia has a host of laws and policies which make it not even close to a free market. Health care, social safety net, child labor laws, govt roads, bridges, trains and airports, labor laws, environmental regulations, industrial policies, business subsidies, licensing of businesses, post offices, patents, trademarks, copyrights, fire depts, and on and on.

Do you consider any of those things I just mentioned to be "free market policies"?

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

That's how the free market is defined. Offer another definition if you disagree with it.

No, that is not how a free market is defined.

Then stop saying perfect free markets don't exist. None of my points require that they do.

I never said "perfect free markets don't exist". What I've been saying is free markets, even "non-perfect" ones do not exist. Nothing even close to the libertarian delusion of a free market exists.

Yes it is. But that's irrelevant anyway. Its far easier to obtain a business license of any kind in Australia than is typical in the US.

I've seen no evidence that this is true, but it is irrelevant. Free markets are not defined by how long it takes to get a license to run a business.

And a business can be formed to make a profit on the free market, so I fail to see how their existence contradicts free markets at all.

D'oh!!

1) Free markets don't exist, so businesses can't be formed in a free market.

2) I never said the existence of based on maximizing profits proves that free markets don't exist.

3) I said that the principle of maximizing profit is not a "free market principle". It's an "economic principle".

For the millionth time, nobody is claiming that perfect free markets exist. You are conflating terms, and inserting "perfect" before "free market" each time I use the term. When I say free markets I am not referring to a 100% perfect free market. So stop arguing as if I am.

I didn't ask you to identify a perfectly free market. Just identify one that you think comes anywhere close. The US has never been anything close to a free market.

Did I say the US was only involved in property rights and contracts? No. Please try to address my actual arguments. The fact remains that the US had arguably the freest economy the world had ever seen.

You said that the US came close to a free market, which you identified as one where the govt is only involved in property rights and contracts

The problem is that the US govt has *always* been far more involved than that. The US has never had anything close to a free market, and when we were closer to a free market, it was a time when our economy was poor.

Not exactly the kind of support for the idea that free markets work that you were looking for.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

People are incapable of self-limiting. Nothing good comes from wealth and power.

Of course they can't. That's where progressive taxes save the day. They learn that it is more satisfying to return more of your profits back into your business and employees that just give it away to Uncle Sam. And everyone benefits including the wealthy...well most of them. The vultures will not be pleased. A healthy growing economy where all wage classes benefit is not likely to have so many business failures.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Yes, all of them. Australia has a host of laws and policies which make it not even close to a free market. Health care, social safety net, child labor laws, govt roads, bridges, trains and airports, labor laws, environmental regulations, industrial policies, business subsidies, licensing of businesses, post offices, patents, trademarks, copyrights, fire depts, and on and on.

Do you consider any of those things I just mentioned to be "free market policies"?

No. So what? I was never arguing Australia was a perfectly free economy. I was arguing that relative to third-world countries, first-world countries are freer. The big issue with third world countries is that they have no property rights, so virtually no free market foundation can be built. All of those social programs you list are financed by the market economy of Australia. Had free (not perfectly free) markets not generated the wealth in the first place, there would not be a foundation upon which to build all of those social programs.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No, that is not how a free market is defined.

Ok...then offer you definition, like I asked.

I never said "perfect free markets don't exist". What I've been saying is free markets, even "non-perfect" ones do not exist. Nothing even close to the libertarian delusion of a free market exists.

No degree of free markets exist? Well that's a pretty outrageous claim. You must be defining free markets in a very odd way.

I've seen no evidence that this is true, but it is irrelevant. Free markets are not defined by how long it takes to get a license to run a business.

Did I ever say that is what defines free markets? NO. For goodness sake, I was using it as an example of how many different factors are involved, not just taxes. How long it takes to start a business is one of the factors. That was the whole point

D'oh!!

1) Free markets don't exist, so businesses can't be formed in a free market.

2) I never said the existence of based on maximizing profits proves that free markets don't exist.

3) I said that the principle of maximizing profit is not a "free market principle". It's an "economic principle".

You said maximizing profits contradicts free markets. That doesn't make sense, and its not true.

I didn't ask you to identify a perfectly free market. Just identify one that you think comes anywhere close. The US has never been anything close to a free market.

Its as close as any economic system has ever been.

You said that the US came close to a free market, which you identified as one where the govt is only involved in property rights and contracts

The problem is that the US govt has *always* been far more involved than that. The US has never had anything close to a free market, and when we were closer to a free market, it was a time when our economy was poor.

Not exactly the kind of support for the idea that free markets work that you were looking for.

When we were closer to a free market, our economy grew exponentially. Ironically, it is the wealth produced by the free market that allowed the government to grow, since the government took a portion of the wealth for itself.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No. So what? I was never arguing Australia was a perfectly free economy. I was arguing that relative to third-world countries, first-world countries are freer. The big issue with third world countries is that they have no property rights, so virtually no free market foundation can be built. All of those social programs you list are financed by the market economy of Australia. Had free (not perfectly free) markets not generated the wealth in the first place, there would not be a foundation upon which to build all of those social programs.

Australia has far more govt involvement in the economy than most third world nations. You are confusing "economic freedom" with "a free market".

And most third world nations do have property rights. They just don't have a govt big enough and strong enough to enforce and protect them.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Ok...then offer you definition, like I asked.

I thought (one of) the definitions you offered was pretty close to the libertarian ideal - a govt whose only involvement in the economy was to protect property rights and enforce contracts.

No degree of free markets exist? Well that's a pretty outrageous claim. You must be defining free markets in a very odd way.

See above. No such nation exists or has even existed.

Nothing even close has ever existed

Did I ever say that is what defines free markets? NO. For goodness sake, I was using it as an example of how many different factors are involved, not just taxes. How long it takes to start a business is one of the factors. That was the whole point

You have argued that the time it takes to get a license is correlated with the extent of a free market.

You seem to have a tendency to declare anything you lie or agree with as being "free market". Heck, you even declared that "supply and demand" was a "free market principle". That's like saying "Gravity is a democratic theory"

You said maximizing profits contradicts free markets. That doesn't make sense, and its not true.

No, I didn't say that. I said that businesses in a free market don't operate on the principle of maximizing profits because businesses don't exist in a free market. That's because free markets don't exist.

It's like saying "business in Narnia operate on free market principles". Narnia doesn't exist, so "businesses in Narnia" don't exist either.

Its as close as any economic system has ever been.

1) No, it's not. The US govt has always been extremely involved in the economy

2) If it was, then it undercuts your argument that free markets can be first world economies because, at the time, the US was a third world economic backwater of little significance. Not just by todays standards, but by the standards of the time.

When we were closer to a free market, our economy grew exponentially. Ironically, it is the wealth produced by the free market that allowed the government to grow, since the government took a portion of the wealth for itself.

No, back then we were a third world economy. Our economwy grew fastest after WWII, when the govt became exceedingly involved in the economy

 

[vash1012]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No, that is not how a free market is defined.



I never said "perfect free markets don't exist". What I've been saying is free markets, even "non-perfect" ones do not exist. Nothing even close to the libertarian delusion of a free market exists.

Okay, dude, you are essentially arguing with economic theory. Since Austrian economic theory is the most prominent economic theory from which people derive their belief about free market economics (It doesn't in and of itself support it), it would be prudent to accept its definition of what an economic interaction in the a free market is which is a VOLUNTARY exchanging of goods based on the beliefs and priorities of the individuals involved. The key word being VOLUNTARY. If it is coerced, it is INVOLUNTARY. If you are not free to choose, then it is INVOLUNTARY. This is a pretty simple concept. The government telling you you have to buy something or we will put you in jail is an example of an INVOLUNTARY interaction. Living in a communist state where the goods you produce are taken and you are given what the government tells you is an example of an INVOLUNTARY interaction. Any interaction between two people where they are not coerced is a choice made freely. If said interaction involves the exchanging of commodities, then it is an interaction that takes place in a market. If an action occurs voluntarily in a market, it is a FREE MARKET INTERACTION. Every single interaction in a market does not have to be free in order for their to be free market interactions going on. When I buy food at a grocery store, it is a free market interaction because I don't have to buy food at that grocery store or at all. When I buy car insurance, I am required to buy the state so the actual act of getting car insurance is INVOLUNTARY, but I get to choose which company to buy from and what plan to get so that part of the interaction occurs in a FREE MARKET. There are shades of gray in this definition and unless you can, as the other guy has asked more than once, provide an alternate definition of what a free market interaction is then please just move on to another subject.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Okay, dude, you are essentially arguing with economic theory. Since Austrian economic theory is the most prominent economic theory from which people derive their belief about free market economics (It doesn't in and of itself support it), it would be prudent to accept its definition of what an economic interaction in the a free market is which is a VOLUNTARY exchanging of goods based on the beliefs and priorities of the individuals involved. The key word being VOLUNTARY. If it is coerced, it is INVOLUNTARY. If you are not free to choose, then it is INVOLUNTARY. This is a pretty simple concept. The government telling you you have to buy something or we will put you in jail is an example of an INVOLUNTARY interaction. Living in a communist state where the goods you produce are taken and you are given what the government tells you is an example of an INVOLUNTARY interaction. Any interaction between two people where they are not coerced is a choice made freely. If said interaction involves the exchanging of commodities, then it is an interaction that takes place in a market. If an action occurs voluntarily in a market, it is a FREE MARKET INTERACTION. Every single interaction in a market does not have to be free in order for their to be free market interactions going on. When I buy food at a grocery store, it is a free market interaction because I don't have to buy food at that grocery store or at all. When I buy car insurance, I am required to buy the state so the actual act of getting car insurance is INVOLUNTARY, but I get to choose which company to buy from and what plan to get so that part of the interaction occurs in a FREE MARKET. There are shades of gray in this definition and unless you can, as the other guy has asked more than once, provide an alternate definition of what a free market interaction is then please just move on to another subject.

tl;dr

try paragraphs. I don't read rants and screeds

 

[vash1012]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

tl;dr

try paragraphs. I don't read rants and screeds

Thats probably why you are making no sense in trying to argue the definition of what a free market interaction is.

Free Market : Education Modules : Foundation for Economic Education

A voluntary exchange of goods between two parties. Counterpoint? Is that concise enough for you?

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Thats probably why you are making no sense in trying to argue the definition of what a free market interaction is.

Free Market : Education Modules : Foundation for Economic Education

A voluntary exchange of goods between two parties. Counterpoint? Is that concise enough for you?

The text at your link defines a free market, not free market interactions. Since it appears to be a bait and switch, I didn't watch the video.

Try using your words, and when you do, try using paragraphs

 

[vash1012]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No, back then we were a third world economy. Our economwy grew fastest after WWII, when the govt became exceedingly involved in the economy

This is just nonsense. We were not a third world economy. You realize the time before World War I was called the GILDED AGE? This was a time when we were the most industrialized country in the world and still a relatively free economy. Read about it sometime so you will stop spouting utterly untrue things.

Gilded Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vash1012]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

The text at your link defines a free market, not free market interactions. Since it appears to be a bait and switch, I didn't watch the video.

Try using your words, and when you do, try using paragraphs

Oh, wow. I thought I was having a discussion with an adult. My mistake.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

This is just nonsense. We were not a third world economy. You realize the time before World War I was called the GILDED AGE? This was a time when we were the most industrialized country in the world and still a relatively free economy. Read about it sometime so you will stop spouting utterly untrue things.

Gilded Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was wrong about the period after WWII being the period of fastest growth. I'll give you that

However, economic growth does not determine whether or not a nation is a first world nation. Afghanistan could double it's economy overnite, and it would remain a third world nation.

Also, the Gilded Age was a time when labor unions gained more power, and the govt became more involved in the economy. There was also a lack of economic freedom for many (ex black people) And while some became extremely rich, many were extremely poor.

The political system was notable for it's reliance on "party machines", which were based on "the spoils system". Corruption was rife.

Trusts and vertical integration were reducing competitition.

And the economy went through a cycle of booms and busts.

Not exactly a good example of an economy we would desire, or one that allowed economic freedom.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

This is just nonsense. We were not a third world economy. You realize the time before World War I was called the GILDED AGE? This was a time when we were the most industrialized country in the world and still a relatively free economy. Read about it sometime so you will stop spouting utterly untrue things.

Gilded Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem is, the economy we had then would not work well in today's world. It's like saying that we should go back to using the telegraph because at that time it was the best way to communicate in the world.