Yes a strong economy can produce a safety net. However, most capitalistic societies order rank people, and it becomes painful to live in the country. Theres also an attempt to hoard power and displace people. We see this in India, China, and other places.
Yes a strong economy can produce a safety net. However, most capitalistic societies order rank people, and it becomes painful to live in the country. Theres also an attempt to hoard power and displace people. We see this in India, China, and other places.
Ranking is basic Marxist communism at play. There has to be a class separation so that the under class becomes resentful and makes revolution. The large middle class stabilizes capatalism.
I think that's not really the argument, now that I've read more about it. It has nothing to do with trusting companies.
So if a company decides to take in those tax cut benefits to buy more fancy cars instead of helping their own labor force, that has nothing to do with company practices?
I never said anything about company practices. What I meant is that the trickle down economy proposed by the left as a strawman for what the right believes was never proposed by any right wing economist. It's a strawman.
So you don't think that right wing politics are trying to sell the idea of giving tax breaks to the rich to help their companies pay their workers?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
No I don't think so.
Do you think that maybe an option where tax is separated into tax towards the government and tax towards the workers at the company in the form of stocks would be a decent compromise
I don't get how that would work or how that addresses what Turncoat said, namely that right wingers are trying to sell the idea that by giving tax breaks to the rich we boost worker salaries.
Do you mean that you'd like to tax workers by asking them to give out stocks or what? Or to tax stocks more? How would you divide the tax to workers and government? I don't get what you want or what you think it would achieve so it's hard for me to say anything.
last edit on
12/21/2024 4:47:35 AM
I think i get the name of the game after studying this more.
The game is as follows. Everyone agrees a free market with minimal regulations will in principle boost economy in the longer term as it optimises for the best strategies to cater to customers. By allowing everyone unfettered access to creating businesses, everyone can take the initiative to identify business opportunities, which means identifying areas that are lacking in some aspects (e.g., technology). If you can do something cheaper than others, it will profit you, and it will benefit the customers. This will drive development and economy. However, this ignores the fact that the large majority of people are self interested. As a consequence, a total free market will lead to issues.
Example issues are the destruction of environment, oligarchies, monopolies, misleading marketing, and unfair business strategies. Misleading marketing would be for example sugar companies funding health research that supports that sugar is healthy, and that we should avoid fat, or that over fishing is actually good for the ecosystem. This has happened. Another example is unfair business practices, such as driving small companies or buying out small companies that could out-compete existing businesses, which threatens one of the fundamental assumptions of free market, which is that the best ideas strive. This happens all the time. Environmental issues include things like dumping oil into oceans and fucking the eco system because it's cheaper and profitable to the companies. It's safe to say this has happened. Another example is that the billionaire class can become so powerful that they take over the political system. This has happened in some countires but I would argue not the US. The current answer to patchwork these problems appears to be regulation. It's mostly done by the left, but also by the right.
I think I get it now. I guess this is all going back to what I already learned in high school, when I didn't pay attention...
As the free market increases in complexity, as it tends to do, regulation increases in complexity. I think mathematically speaking the current solution is unstable. I think it will fall flat on its face, as everything is killed by regulation, or oligarchs raise to take over the system. Interesting how fragile and necessarily temporary the system really is.
last edit on
12/21/2024 5:11:42 AM
I don't get how that would work or how that addresses what Turncoat said, namely that right wingers are trying to sell the idea that by giving tax breaks to the rich we boost worker salaries.
Do you mean that you'd like to tax workers by asking them to give out stocks or what? Or to tax stocks more? How would you divide the tax to workers and government? I don't get what you want or what you think it would achieve so it's hard for me to say anything.
No, I'm talking about a pretty draconian tax system. Where for example, every year the state would tax you 1-5-10% of the ownership of the comapany. But instead of this tax being a monetary amount to be paid, it would go to the employees of the company in some weighted way by law.
I mean you could do that but I'm largely undecided on what the consequences would be. I think the point is that it was never the argument that unfettered free markets "trickle down" to the workers. You could probably build a system like that, and it would likely promote more work than some of the other alternatives.
However, the counter argument appears to be that by taxing companies you drive them away, discourage innovation, etc, which will then trickle down to a worse economy. The country also becomes less attractive for top talent to migrate to. USA has been excellent at attracting top talent so far, be it for work in the silicon Valley or attracting top talents to their universities. It's an undeniable fact that free markets have produced more for the economy than any other system in existence. The more I learn about this stuff, the more I think economy is rather a difficult topic.
One thing that is missing from the socialist argument is flexibility. A free market created a useful mathematical instability that drives economy, because it's driven by self interest. In a socialist economy something else needs to drive innovation. Perhaps intrinsic motivation. But how do you make an instability that drives intrinsic motivation without an enormous bureaucratic nightmare of a machine that requires an ever growing amount of resources? It's difficult.
Which makes me think.... How did we ever get rid of slavery? There must have been an economical reason for it. The world didn't just wake up and say, oh, slavery might be bad. Something else must've happened.. better I start reading about the history of slavery.
I guess the best argument against the free markets is the meaning of life and the realization that it's not all about money.... It's ok to live with less. But then this will eventually, IMHO, lead to murder and mayhem because countries need to participate in game theory, and weaker countries are eaten.
What a headache...
last edit on
12/27/2024 12:10:05 PM
I mean you could do that but I'm largely undecided on what the consequences would be. I think the point is that it was never the argument that unfettered free markets "trickle down" to the workers. You could probably build a system like that, and it would likely promote more work than some of the other alternatives.
However, the counter argument appears to be that by taxing companies you drive them away, discourage innovation, etc, which will then trickle down to a worse economy. The country also becomes less attractive for top talent to migrate to. USA has been excellent at attracting top talent so far, be it for work in the silicon Valley or attracting top talents to their universities. It's an undeniable fact that free markets have produced more for the economy than any other system in existence. The more I learn about this stuff, the more I think economy is rather a difficult topic.
One thing that is missing from the socialist argument is flexibility. A free market created a useful mathematical instability that drives economy, because it's driven by self interest. In a socialist economy something else needs to drive innovation. Perhaps intrinsic motivation. But how do you make an instability that drives intrinsic motivation without an enormous bureaucratic nightmare of a machine that requires an ever growing amount of resources? It's difficult.
Which makes me think.... How did we ever get rid of slavery? There must have been an economical reason for it. The world didn't just wake up and say, oh, slavery might be bad. Something else must've happened.. better I start reading about the history of slavery.
I guess the best argument against the free markets is the meaning of life and the realization that it's not all about money.... It's ok to live with less. But then this will eventually, IMHO, lead to murder and mayhem because countries need to participate in game theory, and weaker countries are eaten.
What a headache...
Did we really get rid of slavery or simply outsourced and modernized it?