Poverty research
Christiaan Jordaan
University
(Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
that
eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
solutions.
As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
perhaps
eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
your
perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
Questions:
1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
economic disparity?
3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
gap between rich and poor nations?
4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
cliff hulcoop
"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
jobs, therefore reduced salaries.
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
I think providing other counties' employees better wages and better
technology (but see 4, its is not the highest priority)
>
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
>
It is making poor nations reliant on rich nations. It is the slave trade of
the present.
Rather than threatening death through disobediance, they are being offered
death through starvation for not working slave labour wages and hours.
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
>
Rebuild their countries, i.e. spend on health, hospitals, clean water, etc.
So initially concentrate on facilities the locals will appreciate, if you
just give the workers it they will squander it, and explain to them where
the money has gone. If they can see that their work has helped produce some
benefit to the community, they may be less unhappy to work (though they have
no choice).
Once local issues are solved, and they have community issues resolved, then
give them a better wage.
Rather than stars of adverts for Nike etc being given a stupid amount of
money, they should donate their fees to the development of the nations that
build the shoes, and the celebs could then get cudos from this by saying
they donated their fee to "charity" to help the poor workers.
Lets face it, $2M will benefit the poor in these countries far more than a
sports star, that already has a lot of money.
>
>
Joshua Holmes
: Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
: University
: (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
: of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
: that
: eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
: solutions.
: As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
: practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
: perhaps
: eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
: say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
: your
: perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
: Questions:
:
: 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
: your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
The problem of poverty is one of relative vs. absolute. In the
United States, the run-of-the-mill poor person has a car, a television, a
VCR, a microwave, and access to emergency health care that was unthinkable
50 years ago. The average poor person in the US lives better than 80% of
the world's population and better than 99% of the people who have ever
lived.
The reason why is very simple: the United States has a (sadly
diminishing) history of free markets, open political expression, and
individual liberty. As its citizens has been relatively free by
comparison with most of the rest of human history, its people have been
free to design, create, innovate, design, and dream to do things that are
constantly improving the lot of life for it citizens (and eventually, the
rest of the world).
While it is true that the disparity between rich and poor is
growing in the United States, it's interesting to note that the incomes of
both are GROWING, just that the rich's incomes are growing more quickly.
If the government cares about this, the proper policy is not to punish the
rich with taxation and hand it to the poor, but to free the poor from the
burden of licensing and small business regulation, from paying tariffs,
social security, medicare, medicaid, and corporate income taxes. Abolish
all of them.
: 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
: prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
: What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
: improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
: economic disparity?
It's very simple. The nations of the world that are poor are
those who lived the longest under fascist and socialist dictatorships
(there's no real difference, really, between the two). If they throw off
the bonds of dictatorship and respect the rights of individuals to life,
liberty, and property, they will experience the benefits of capitalism,
that economic system where individuals peacefully exchange their private
property for goods and services they desire. When that system is in
place, economic prosperity follows. Quickly.
: 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
: integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
: gap between rich and poor nations?
It has a widening effect because the process of globalization is
not addressing the barriers the Third World experiences to selling their
products in the First World - namely, quotas and tariffs on the very
things poor countries produce (food and textiles).
: 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
: countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
: to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
If the rich nations of the world want to help the poor nations,
they can start by immediately revoking every tariff and quota on products
coming from the poorest countries of the world. By opening their markets
to their goods, the third World countries will have a greater market and
be able to expand and develop their economies. Over the longer term
(maybe six months *laugh*), the rich countries of the world should
abolish all tariffs, all quotas, and all subsidies on every product from
every country in the world. Doing so will give the Third World a terrific
boost by letting them have access to the richest markets as their
economies develop.
But is this in the interest of the rich nations? Absolutely.
Socialists and demogogues make a lot of political hay about the closing of
factories and the shifting of production to areas with low labor costs.
But the reality is this shift is beneficial to the losing as well as the
gaining country. The reason is that lowered labor costs translate into
cheaper products for the nationals back home. When this happens, there is
an amount saved by each individual who is purchasing this product which
can in turn be used to purchase other products or to save (which is later
spent on capital goods). Either of these produces more jobs (one shorter
term, one longer term) both in the home country and abroad and replace the
ones lost and then some.
Furthermore, by dropping these tariffs, they can help the poorest
of their societies. With the death of tariffs, the products they buy are
that much cheaper by however much the tariff was assessed for. Opening
the borders to goods from every corner produces worldwide competition in
the home market, too, which produces cheaper goods with better quality.
The result is that prices on basic needs like food and clothing fall
again, giving the poor more wiggle room with what money they do have.
They can afford to save up for bigger purchases or to open a modest
savings account. The poorest become an engine for economic growth and
find relief from their poverty.
If the rich countries are serious about helping the poor, the key
is no tariffs and no quotas on every sort of product from every country.
This will produce increased prosperity for everyone at home (but
disproportionately helping the poorest through lower prices on essential
goods), increased prosperity in the Third World, and greater peace,
stability, and cooperation among nations.
If the poor countries are serious about helping themselves, they
need to respect the life, liberty, and property of individuals, end
political violence and repression, and open themselves to international
investment.
--
Joshua Holmes
jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
- Henry David Thoreau
Bernard
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
It is having a negative effect as the first world nations are not playing
fair, for instance Textiles form india are not being allowed into the
worldwide market without tariffs as they are several orders of magnitude
cheaper than any the first world nations can provide, the reason, : OUR
JOBS..... it stinks but hey, at least we're not on the other end... :-)
ZsaZsa
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
Better or worse than what? Better or worse than in other countries, better
or worse than a year ago, a decade ago, or a generation ago?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
>University
>(Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
>of poverty.
First, read "Progress and Poverty," by Henry George. If you haven't
read it, you don't understand anything about poverty. Period.
>We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
>that
>eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
>solutions.
The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
who did earn it.
>1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
>your country?
Better.
>What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
The rising tide of economic growth.
>2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
>prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
>What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
>improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
>economic disparity?
Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government. The
greatest political and economic thinkers have all understood this:
"The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
for the maintenance of it."
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
"The revenues of the state are the fraction that each subject gives of
his property in order to secure or to have the agreeable enjoyment of
the remainder."
-- Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1751
"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is
like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate,
who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective
interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim
consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
-- Adam Smith, The wealth of Nations, 1776
"It is generally alowed by all, that men should contribute to the
public charge but according to the share and interest they have in the
public peace; that is, according to their estates or riches."
-- Sir William Petty, British Prime Minister, 1782-3
"Every man is bound to contribute to the public revenue in proportion
to the benefits he receives from the public protection."
-- Thomas M Cooley, Constitutional Limitation, 1868
It should be noted that all five of the above were noted advocates of
freedom, limited government, equality before the law, and human
rights, including property rights.
>3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
>integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
>gap between rich and poor nations?
Free trade would narrow the gap, but "globalization" is not free
trade. It is primarily a modern version of extraterritoriality,
whereby poor governments are bullied into extending privileges like
enforcement of "intellectual property rights" to wealthy corporations
headquartered in wealthy countries, on the backs of their own peoples.
>4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations?
Stop lying to them about how countries become rich.
>If rich
>countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
>to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
Depends how they interpret "self-interest." Do they regard other
peoples' productive powers as an opportunity to gain by trade, or only
as a competitive threat?
-- Roy L
tkdowning
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
> poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
> rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
> without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
> who did earn it.
I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
to pay federal taxes.
> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
around.
The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
poor. The great majority of government funding comes from the middle
classes who get that money in the form of wages from the rich. Without
wealth created by the rich, the government (and the poor) would have
no funding and would collapse economically.
By "rich" I mean the "productive rich". ie, the ones that have money
invested in the private sector, are employing people, ect. Not the
do-nothing, country club types, or the very high wage earning
employees (there not enough of these to grab a significant amount of
money from anyway). By heavily taxing the productive rich, you take
money out of their hands before they can use it to create even more
wealth which would eventually make it down to the poor and middle
classes (Killing the goose that lays the golden egg). It is a good
government policy to reduce or even eliminate taxes on those rich who
are involved in creating wealth.
Eric©
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
I have no idea. I would have to ask everyone else in Canada, which would
be rather time consuming. I think that the 'status quo' always entails
some people getting richer and some getting poorer.
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
I think that we need a strong communist regime, in which all the
unemployed will suddenly become employed, shooting and killing people who
prefer to produce and transfer wealth on their own. In fact, if we
simply kill all poor people, there is no doubt that we will have a rather
wealthy society.
In fact, if we killed everyone but me, I feel I could manage the economy
just fine. As long as god still provides the guns and chicks, that is.
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
Neither.
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
I believe in a policy of non-interference. If people in Africa want to
kill each other this should be accepted as a 'cultural feature' and we
should allow them to go at it.
If I make a few bucks exporting some spears to these folk, am I any worse
than if I work in a potato chip factory?
'Utility' must be your watchword!
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
____________________________________________________________________
'Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual
truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to
abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to
complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence,
from dependence back again to bondage' - Disraeli (attrib.)
Pawel Baranowski
for any language mistakes - I'm good at economics, but I don't speak
English very well. If you don't understand anything or have futher
questions, please do write.
>Questions:
>
>1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
>your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
Since the Transformation which began in 1990 it is getting worse. E.g.
unemployment rate is over 17 % now (end of 2001). The goverement is trying
to prevent from a growth of unemp. rate, but without effect. The main
causes of that, I think are:
1) Growing public debt & CPI forced Central Bank to raise interest rates.
Now we have CPI 3.5 % annualy and main interest rate 11 % ! This caused
small recession in Poland.
2) High structural unemployment - e.g. uneducated people form the village
cannot find any job.
3) Too high taxes & para-taxes (e.g. compulsory workers insurance is about
50 %; it means that if firm wants to pay 1000 PLN its worker, it has to pay
additionaly 500 PLN for insurance and 200 PLN for taxes !!!). The tax
system is very, very complicated and rich people are able to avoid taxes,
because they can afford to hire tax-lawyer. In Poland there is social
permission for avoiding taxes, so it is very easy.
4) Polititians are interested in fighting with effects by giving poor
people money. It causes only higher public debt or higher taxes. I'd rather
they lower & simlify taxes. People cannot run small firms because they
spend all time counting diffrent taxes & para-taxes and other bureaucracy
and they don't have time for work. (only bigger companies - >5 workers can
afford for extra worker who is doing it). The small buissnes is dying out.
The goverment kills it by bureaucracy & high taxes & fees. E.g. if somebody
wants to open a company, he have to pay from 200 to 1000 USD (excluding
lawyer) what is a big amount of money in counry which has GDP about 8500
USD per capita.
>
>2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
>prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
>What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
>improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
>economic disparity?
Don't know. maybe free education, lower duties for poor countries, help in
investemnts in poor countries
>3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
>integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
>gap between rich and poor nations?
Partly. Very poor countrie will never be rich, while quite rich (developed)
may be rich if it works hard.
>4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
>countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
>to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
lower duties for poor countries, help in investemnts in poor countries,
they should make also work places in other countries, not only inside
Mason Clark
snips
Pawel, your English works fine here; no need to apologize.
You can help us understand economics by your observation in Poland.
>1) Growing public debt & CPI forced Central Bank to raise interest rates.
How is the CB "forced" to raise interest rates? Is it fear of inflation?
Or is there outside influence such as the IMF?
>2) High structural unemployment - e.g. uneducated people form the village
>cannot find any job.
But surely there must be labor jobs building the infrastructure -- roads,
water lines, sewers, etc? Even electric transmission lines require uneducated
labor.
>3) Too high taxes & para-taxes (e.g. compulsory workers insurance is about
>50 %; it means that if firm wants to pay 1000 PLN its worker, it has to pay
>additionaly 500 PLN for insurance and 200 PLN for taxes !!!). The tax
>system is very, very complicated and rich people are able to avoid taxes,
>because they can afford to hire tax-lawyer. In Poland there is social
>permission for avoiding taxes, so it is very easy.
How did this develop? Did the "rich people" have too much political
influence?
>lower duties for poor countries, help in investemnts in poor countries,
>they should make also work places in other countries, not only inside
One has to wonder if the solution must come from inside, rather
than from outside.
Mason C
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6d96f2...@news.telus.net>...
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
>> poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
>> rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
>> without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
>> who did earn it.
>
>I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
>to pay federal taxes.
That is of course false. While those with low incomes (who may or may
not be poor -- many of them are rich) are exempted from direct federal
income taxation, there are many federal taxes the poor must pay:
tariffs, excise taxes, plus all the taxes they must pay as a result of
burden shifting by those who pay directly.
>> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
>> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
>
>The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
>around.
That is of course completely false. Without government, the rich,
whether productive or idle, would be living in caves along with the
rest of us. Didn't you read the quotes I provided from all those
great thinkers, who obviously understand the issue so much better than
you?
>The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
>poor.
That is of course false, too. The productive create all of the
wealth, not the rich. The rich merely own more of it. Most of the
rich are unproductive because they are retired, and those that are
productive almost all collect far more income than their productive
efforts actually merit.
>The great majority of government funding comes from the middle
>classes who get that money in the form of wages from the rich.
That is also, of course, completely false. They do not get the money
from the rich, who pay very little of the wages earned. Unlike the
rich, the middle classes get their money in return for productive
effort. Their wages are paid, overwhelmingly, by other productive
middle class people, in their capacity as consumers.
>Without
>wealth created by the rich,
The rich create almost no wealth. They merely own it.
>the government (and the poor) would have
>no funding and would collapse economically.
That is also false. The productive fund the government. The rich pay
almost no tax.
>By "rich" I mean the "productive rich". ie, the ones that have money
>invested in the private sector,
The mere owning of "investments" is not productivity.
>are employing people, ect.
But the rich employ, directly, almost none of the working population.
Yes, some rich people do employ people, and are productive themselves
in their capacity as owners/managers of productive enterprises. But
not very many of them.
>Not the
>do-nothing, country club types, or the very high wage earning
>employees (there not enough of these to grab a significant amount of
>money from anyway). By heavily taxing the productive rich, you take
>money out of their hands before they can use it to create even more
>wealth which would eventually make it down to the poor and middle
>classes (Killing the goose that lays the golden egg).
Right. But it is taxation of _earned_income_ that kills the goose.
Not taxation of owned assets.
>It is a good
>government policy to reduce or even eliminate taxes on those rich who
>are involved in creating wealth.
It is not the productive people but the _activity_ of production that
should be untaxed. People seem unable to understand that taxing the
productive effort of private individuals who contribute to society is
just wrong, while recovering, for public purposes, what the public
contributes to the rich is simple justice.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Baranowski) wrote:
>Hello ! I am from Poland. I study economics at the Univerity of Lodz. Sorry
>for any language mistakes - I'm good at economics, but I don't speak
>English very well. If you don't understand anything or have futher
>questions, please do write.
Your English is fine. Your economics could use some work, though...
>>Questions:
>>
>>1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
>>your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
>Since the Transformation which began in 1990 it is getting worse. E.g.
>unemployment rate is over 17 % now (end of 2001).
Ah. There must be almost no taxation of land value, then.
>1) Growing public debt & CPI forced Central Bank to raise interest rates.
>Now we have CPI 3.5 % annualy and main interest rate 11 % ! This caused
>small recession in Poland.
Such high real interest rates, if continued for longer than a very
short time, are usually disastrous. Real after-tax interest is a
measure of the subsidy to the rich.
>2) High structural unemployment - e.g. uneducated people form the village
>cannot find any job.
Classic symptom of inadequate land taxation.
>3) Too high taxes & para-taxes (e.g. compulsory workers insurance is about
>50 %; it means that if firm wants to pay 1000 PLN its worker, it has to pay
>additionaly 500 PLN for insurance and 200 PLN for taxes !!!).
The taxes are not too high at all. They are just levied on the wrong
things.
>The tax
>system is very, very complicated and rich people are able to avoid taxes,
>because they can afford to hire tax-lawyer. In Poland there is social
>permission for avoiding taxes, so it is very easy.
There's your problem, obviously: government is taxing what the
productive contribute to society, rather than what society contributes
to the rich.
>4) Polititians are interested in fighting with effects by giving poor
>people money. It causes only higher public debt or higher taxes.
That wouldn't be so bad, if they were taxing the right things.
>I'd rather
>they lower & simlify taxes. People cannot run small firms because they
>spend all time counting diffrent taxes & para-taxes and other bureaucracy
>and they don't have time for work. (only bigger companies - >5 workers can
>afford for extra worker who is doing it).
Complexity of a tax system is usually rationalized as an attempt to
introduce fairness. But income tax and sales tax and most other
commonly used taxes are just inherently unfair. When you use an
inherently fair tax, such as a land value tax, it can be extremely
simple, yet still fair.
>The small buissnes is dying out.
>The goverment kills it by bureaucracy & high taxes & fees. E.g. if somebody
>wants to open a company, he have to pay from 200 to 1000 USD (excluding
>lawyer) what is a big amount of money in counry which has GDP about 8500
>USD per capita.
Wrong thing being taxed, again. So simple, yet so hard to
understand...
-- Roy L
David Lloyd-Jones
"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> asks:
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
Yes. Which trend?
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
I'm not sure I understand the question. isn't an "initiative" vague enough
for all UN bureaucratic purposes? Surely a the idea of a "possible"
initiative is taking things to extremes.
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
What gap? We're all contiguous.In every sense.
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
Continue to buy their cheap high quality goods. Increase labour mobility.
(None of this has anything to do with "countries," you understand: it's what
people do.)
Countries have very litle in the way of interests, but their ruling
bureaucrats have strong and pressing interests. Riding "poverty" is a
hobby-horse likely to keep many bureaucrats in work.
-dlj.
tkdowning
> On 15 Feb 2002 18:27:23 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6d96f2...@news.telus.net>...
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
> >> poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
> >> rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
> >> without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
> >> who did earn it.
> >
> >I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
> >to pay federal taxes.
>
> That is of course false. While those with low incomes (who may or may
> not be poor -- many of them are rich) are exempted from direct federal
> income taxation, there are many federal taxes the poor must pay:
> tariffs, excise taxes, plus all the taxes they must pay as a result of
> burden shifting by those who pay directly.
Tariffs, excise taxes adds up to what? Not very much i'll bet.
> >> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
> >> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
> >
> >The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
> >around.
>
> That is of course completely false. Without government, the rich,
> whether productive or idle, would be living in caves along with the
> rest of us. Didn't you read the quotes I provided from all those
> great thinkers, who obviously understand the issue so much better than
> you?
Caves? Did the government invent houses and construction as well as
the Internet? Look, Im definitely not advocating getting rid of the
government. Im just sick and tired of people seeing the government as
some magical Wizard of Oz which has mystic powers to generate wealth
and create an upper-middle class lifestyle for all of it's citzens.
Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
our government does. It has everything to do with our private sector
and the freedoms that our style of government allows our private
sector.
> >The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
> >poor.
>
> That is of course false, too. The productive create all of the
> wealth, not the rich. The rich merely own more of it. Most of the
> rich are unproductive because they are retired, and those that are
> productive almost all collect far more income than their productive
> efforts actually merit.
And just who the are you to judge what "income their productive
efforts actually merit". If I took the risks associated with starting
or purchasing a buisness, then made it profitable, I should have the
right to take whatever income I please. If I'm greedy and I pay myself
too much or my employees to little, my investment will suffer.
> >The great majority of government funding comes from the middle
> >classes who get that money in the form of wages from the rich.
>
> That is also, of course, completely false. They do not get the money
> from the rich, who pay very little of the wages earned. Unlike the
> rich, the middle classes get their money in return for productive
> effort. Their wages are paid, overwhelmingly, by other productive
> middle class people, in their capacity as consumers.
>
> >Without
> >wealth created by the rich,
>
> The rich create almost no wealth. They merely own it.
You seem to be a little confused about what constitues "wealth
creation" {No, its not when the government prints money :-) }. Wealth
creation comes when a new product or market is created. This happens
though ideas and then investment by rich people who have money to
gamble. Sure, some investment comes from the government, but the
government is using confiscated money to do it, and they tend to be
stupid hacks at the game.
>
> >the government (and the poor) would have
> >no funding and would collapse economically.
>
> That is also false. The productive fund the government. The rich pay
> almost no tax.
True, the productive middle classes mostly fund the government. But
with what? With money that they have earned as wages. Wages that are
paid by the private sector for their services.
>
> >By "rich" I mean the "productive rich". ie, the ones that have money
> >invested in the private sector,
>
> The mere owning of "investments" is not productivity.
>
> >are employing people, ect.
>
> But the rich employ, directly, almost none of the working population.
> Yes, some rich people do employ people, and are productive themselves
> in their capacity as owners/managers of productive enterprises. But
> not very many of them.
Moving large amounts of money through the economy and investing are
productive. Working on an assembly line is also productive. You seem
to want to discount the first, and exhalt the second, but both are
needed.
>
> >Not the
> >do-nothing, country club types, or the very high wage earning
> >employees (there not enough of these to grab a significant amount of
> >money from anyway). By heavily taxing the productive rich, you take
> >money out of their hands before they can use it to create even more
> >wealth which would eventually make it down to the poor and middle
> >classes (Killing the goose that lays the golden egg).
>
> Right. But it is taxation of _earned_income_ that kills the goose.
> Not taxation of owned assets.
>
> >It is a good
> >government policy to reduce or even eliminate taxes on those rich who
> >are involved in creating wealth.
>
> It is not the productive people but the _activity_ of production that
> should be untaxed. People seem unable to understand that taxing the
> productive effort of private individuals who contribute to society is
> just wrong, while recovering, for public purposes, what the public
> contributes to the rich is simple justice.
Rich people spending money, investing, and owning/running buisness
_IS_ "activity of production". Why cant you see that?
Look, Im definitely not rich, just a grunt engineer. But I'm smart
enough to see who gives me money (The rich people who own my buisness)
and who takes away almost half of my money (The government). Who's
side do you think I should be on?
> -- Roy L
David Lloyd-Jones
I have two questions:
(and I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking)
When you say that the Poloish unemployment rate is now 17%, what does this
mean? Do they collect pogey? Are they out there peddling souvenirs to
touroists? What is going on>
>
> Since the Transformation which began in 1990 it is getting worse. E.g.
> unemployment rate is over 17 % now (end of 2001). The goverement is trying
> to prevent from a growth of unemp. rate, but without effect. The main
> causes of that, I think are:
By what objective measures have things been getting worse? [Is it better to
be a Provo on the street than to be a beggar on the street?]
Like hunh?
-dlj.
Mason Clark
>Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
>our government does.
Another, and stunning, addition to my collection of great
quotations from the intellectual giants on that world-renowned
economics forum called "sci.econ."
Mason C
Tim Worstall
Roy, you're just wonderful....a shining example of monomania. Every
economic problem is the result of not taxing land enough. You apply
this to the US, a rich country, and you now apply it to Poland, a
country struggling to throw off the results of 40 years under the most
absurd econopmic system yet tried, communism.
Could it just be vaguely possible that previous state ownership of the
means of production could be a fault ? Or Poland's effective
bankruptcy in 1981, or the overhang of foreign debt, or the corruption
in the society, or the lingering effects of the Russian occupation ?
Poland, like the rest of E Europe, is getting out from under the
effects of Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and the rest of the economic
doollalies and know nothings.
Land taxation is the least of their problems.
Tim Worstall
> -- Roy L
Tim Worstall
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
First, define poverty......absolute poverty ? Then it's getting
better. In every country not at war ( or, this year, Argentina as well
).
>
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
increased relative poverty.
So which of the two types of poverty are you worried about ?
>
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
Irrelevant. As long as globalisation lifts the Third World out of
absolute poverty then that's a good thing.
>
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations?
Free Trade, promote good Govt. Whacking Mugabe, for example, would
help Zimbabwe immensely. Other places come to mind.
If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
Yes, it is in our self interest to have 6 billion rich people on the
planet rather than 2 billion and 4 billion poor. 4 billion more people
to trade with is good in an economic sense ( and no I don't want to
get into a catfight about whether that is good in a environmental
sense ).
Tim Worstall
ro...@telus.net
>"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>
>> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
>> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
>First, define poverty......absolute poverty ? Then it's getting
>better. In every country not at war ( or, this year, Argentina as well
>).
>>
>> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
>> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
>> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
>> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
>> economic disparity?
>
>Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
>economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
>increased relative poverty.
You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
>> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations?
>Free Trade, promote good Govt. Whacking Mugabe, for example, would
>help Zimbabwe immensely.
Whacking him would certainly give one a feeling of having done
something worthwhile, but it's not clear it would actually do any good
for Zimbabwe, unless you have some special insight as to what would
follow a whacked Mugabe.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6ee288...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 15 Feb 2002 18:27:23 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6d96f2...@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
>> >> poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
>> >> rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
>> >> without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
>> >> who did earn it.
>> >
>> >I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
>> >to pay federal taxes.
>>
>> That is of course false. While those with low incomes (who may or may
>> not be poor -- many of them are rich) are exempted from direct federal
>> income taxation, there are many federal taxes the poor must pay:
>> tariffs, excise taxes, plus all the taxes they must pay as a result of
>> burden shifting by those who pay directly.
>
>Tariffs, excise taxes adds up to what? Not very much i'll bet.
Poor people don't _have_ very much. Such taxes may only raise 5% of
the federal revenue, but account for 10% or 20% of a poor person's
discretionary spending.
>> >> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
>> >> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
>> >
>> >The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
>> >around.
>>
>> That is of course completely false. Without government, the rich,
>> whether productive or idle, would be living in caves along with the
>> rest of us. Didn't you read the quotes I provided from all those
>> great thinkers, who obviously understand the issue so much better than
>> you?
>
>Caves? Did the government invent houses and construction as well as
>the Internet?
It is the thing that makes housing and construction possible.
>Look, Im definitely not advocating getting rid of the
>government. Im just sick and tired of people seeing the government as
>some magical Wizard of Oz which has mystic powers to generate wealth
>and create an upper-middle class lifestyle for all of it's citzens.
But in fact, it has such powers. It just doesn't usually exercise
them.
>Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
>our government does.
Idiocy beyond measure, beyond imagination.
>It has everything to do with our private sector
>and the freedoms that our style of government allows our private
>sector.
You know what? People -- i.e., the ones who run the private sector --
are pretty much the same everywhere. It's their _governments_ that
are different.
>> >The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
>> >poor.
>>
>> That is of course false, too. The productive create all of the
>> wealth, not the rich. The rich merely own more of it. Most of the
>> rich are unproductive because they are retired, and those that are
>> productive almost all collect far more income than their productive
>> efforts actually merit.
>
>And just who the are you to judge what "income their productive
>efforts actually merit".
The market can judge. But it is not the market that gives the rich
their unearned incomes. It is government. I know, however, that you
are not intelligent enough to understand how it does so.
>If I took the risks associated with starting
>or purchasing a buisness, then made it profitable, I should have the
>right to take whatever income I please.
Oh, but if _you_ are the one who makes it profitable, your income is
not unearned. That is not what the rich do, however. They (normally)
just collect income for doing nothing.
>> >Without
>> >wealth created by the rich,
>>
>> The rich create almost no wealth. They merely own it.
>
>You seem to be a little confused about what constitues "wealth
>creation"
No, _you_ are.
>Wealth
>creation comes when a new product or market is created.
That is false. A "new market" is not wealth. Products are wealth.
>This happens
>though ideas and then investment by rich people who have money to
>gamble.
That is false. If funds for investment are needed, they may be
provided in many ways. Direct investment by the rich is one of the
less common ones.
>Sure, some investment comes from the government, but the
>government is using confiscated money to do it, and they tend to be
>stupid hacks at the game.
Most funds for investment come from small and institutional investors,
or internal profits. The rich typically own land, large-cap stocks
(i.e., they are not providing money for investment, but merely buying
the income stream previous work and investment created), and low-risk
debt instruments rather than genuine investments in productive
capital.
>> >the government (and the poor) would have
>> >no funding and would collapse economically.
>>
>> That is also false. The productive fund the government. The rich pay
>> almost no tax.
>
>True, the productive middle classes mostly fund the government. But
>with what? With money that they have earned as wages. Wages that are
>paid by the private sector for their services.
Right. By consumers. Not the rich.
>> >are employing people, ect.
>>
>> But the rich employ, directly, almost none of the working population.
>> Yes, some rich people do employ people, and are productive themselves
>> in their capacity as owners/managers of productive enterprises. But
>> not very many of them.
>
>Moving large amounts of money through the economy and investing are
>productive.
Most of what you call "investing" is mere rent-seeking, and entirely
unproductive.
>Working on an assembly line is also productive. You seem
>to want to discount the first, and exhalt the second, but both are
>needed.
Much less of the first is needed than currently occurs.
>> >It is a good
>> >government policy to reduce or even eliminate taxes on those rich who
>> >are involved in creating wealth.
>>
>> It is not the productive people but the _activity_ of production that
>> should be untaxed. People seem unable to understand that taxing the
>> productive effort of private individuals who contribute to society is
>> just wrong, while recovering, for public purposes, what the public
>> contributes to the rich is simple justice.
>
>Rich people spending money, investing, and owning/running buisness
>_IS_ "activity of production".
No. Running a business is productive, passively owning one is not.
Very little of rich people's "investing" activities actually
contributes anything to society.
>Why cant you see that?
Because it is false.
>Look, Im definitely not rich, just a grunt engineer. But I'm smart
>enough to see who gives me money (The rich people who own my buisness)
Unfortuantely, you are not smart enough to see that it is consumers of
your employer's products and the people who manage the enterprise who
pay your salary, _not_ the ones who own it.
>and who takes away almost half of my money (The government).
You don't understand how government gives that money to the rich.
Don't worry. Probably not one person in a thousand understands it.
Maybe not even one in a million.
>Who's
>side do you think I should be on?
Yours. But simply for lack of understanding, you aren't.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>Roy, you're just wonderful....a shining example of monomania. Every
>economic problem is the result of not taxing land enough.
No, there are many causes. Land taxation is just the simplest, most
effective, and currently least used remedy. In particular, inadequate
land taxation is the primary cause of economic problems in countries
that have got most of the more obvious things right, like Japan.
>You apply
>this to the US, a rich country, and you now apply it to Poland, a
>country struggling to throw off the results of 40 years under the most
>absurd econopmic system yet tried, communism.
It was socialism; and if I gave it some thought, I could probably
think of a more absurd one.
<pause>
I know: the pre-feudal plutocracy of the Late Roman Empire.
>Could it just be vaguely possible that previous state ownership of the
>means of production could be a fault ?
No. State ownership of capital goods is undoubtedly the primary cause
of Poland's low _starting_ level. But it's more than a decade since
liberation, and we have to start looking at what is happening _now_
for the cause of low current growth.
>Or Poland's effective
>bankruptcy in 1981, or the overhang of foreign debt, or the corruption
>in the society, or the lingering effects of the Russian occupation ?
But those don't have any clear relationship to _current_growth_.
>Poland, like the rest of E Europe, is getting out from under the
>effects of Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and the rest of the economic
>doollalies and know nothings.
But that's just it. They _aren't_.
>Land taxation is the least of their problems.
On the contrary. It is the best of their solutions.
-- Roy L
darkness
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
Within the UK, absolute poverty is about stable, but relative poverty
is worsening.
This is probably caused by the increased earnings power that
technology gives to the very top members of society, widening the gap.
Also, the problems of location and incentive are worst for the bottom
20%: effective 100% marginal tax rates (any income is offset by loss
of state benefits), and the poorest often live in the most isolated
areas in cities and the countryside.
>
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
Between countries, the most important is undoubtedly the reduction of
trade barriers. The First World exerts tremendous trade barriers
against the Third, most particularly in the areas of agriculture,
textiles, footwear, commodity industries like steel.
These barriers completely offset any benefits derived from foreign
aid, for most countries.
>
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
Whether it narrows or widens the gap is unclear. The benefits accrue
to the rich country consumers (because they consume the most) and to
poor country producers.
What is clear is that it allows hitherto basket countries to begin to
make serious progress. First in the transformation of Southeast Asia
over the last 50 years. But even 'basket' countries like Bangladesh
and Morocco have found their way into the world trade system.
>
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
1. accelerate debt foregiveness
2. restrict the sale of arms to poor nations
3. untie their aid from requirements that it be used to buy specific
first world goods
4. support and expand global healthcare initiatives (especially AIDS,
but also tuberculosis, malaria)
5. use all means possible to censure corrupt and violent governments,
and third world governments which engage in wars against other
countries
6. increase aid budgets to meet the above 5
on the second question: absolutely yes. The demographics, plus the
increasingly international nature of disease and economic crisis and
refugees, mean that the First World has an absolute self interest in
encouraging the rapid as possible industrialisation of the Third World
and to invest capital in these countries. The First World is getting
OLD, fast. To offset the impact of retiring populations, it needs to
expand the active labour force in countries that have growing young
populations.
S G
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
>
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
>
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
You may find some answers here:
Economics in Six Minutes by Fred E. Foldvary
--------------------------------------------
Economics is the science of utility, which includes people's
preferences and the satisfaction and importance they subjectively
derive from goods. Desires are unlimited, but people get less extra
value from more and more units of the same good.
Demand is a list of prices and the quantities bought at those prices.
The law of demand is that at lower prices, people usually buy greater
quantities and never fewer quantities. The law of supply is that,
holding production methods constant, greater quantities are produced
and provided with higher prices. The law of diminishing returns says
that adding a variable input to a fixed input eventually yields ever
less output per extra input unit.
Where supply intersects demand is where market prices and quantities
are determined. Price controls above this equilibrium such as minimum
wages create a surplus, and prices below it such as rent control
create a shortage. Without price controls a surplus drives the price
down, and a shortage drives the price up, like an invisible hand
directing prices to equilibrium. Eliminating restrictions and taxes on
labor creates full employment.
Firms maximize profits at the quantity where the marginal (extra)
revenue equals the marginal cost. In a very competitive market,
economic profits, above normal costs, lead more firms to enter the
industry, increasing supply and decreasing price until the profits are
just normal. Losses lead to fewer firms and a shift to less supply
until profits are normal.
The factors, categories of inputs and resources, are land, labor, and
capital goods, yielding land rent, wages, and capital-goods rentals.
Entrepreneurs organize the factors and drive the economy to better
directions with better products and marketing, earning their wages in
the form of economic profits. Other labor earns its marginal product,
what it contributes to output.
Land varies in quality, and the production in the better land relative
to that of the least productive marginal land yields a rent to the
more productive land. Speculative holdings reduce the margin of
production, hiking up rent and pushing down wages.
Civic services such as parks, streets, and security increase the
demand for land, raising the rent. If these are paid for by taxes on
labor and capital goods, the users pay both the tax and the extra
rent. When rent is used to pay for the public goods, the landowners
get neither subsidized nor penalized, since they pay back to the
provider the rent generated by the works. Paying the rent to the
community and charging market prices for utilities also eliminates
urban sprawl by making the best use of urban land.
Taxes on labor and goods must be added to the costs, raising prices
and reducing quantities, placing an excess burden on the economy
beyond the actual tax. Land is fixed in supply and has no cost of
production, so taxing the rent does not shift the supply or reduce the
rent. Taxing the rent keeps wages high and eliminates poverty both by
letting workers keep their full product and by making the most
productive use of resources.
Folks tend to prefer goods today rather than in the uncertain future.
This time preference and difference in present versus future prices
gives future goods a discount and present-day goods a premium, the
difference creating the natural interest rate. Market interest rates
then make savings equal to investments as we get more investment with
lower rates.
Money is a medium of exchange and can either be based on a commodity
such as gold or be fiat, based on nothing but laws and custom like
today. If the growth of money is greater than the growth of goods,
this is monetary inflation that leads to a continuous increase in the
level of prices, or price inflation. Free-market banking with money
based on a commodity leads to a flexible supply of money and
purchasing media without inflation.
Business cycles are caused by speculative real-estate buying and
building, fueled by excessive money growth. Depressions can be avoided
by using the rent for public revenue and with free-market banking,
avoiding the financial and real causes for cycles.
Pollution is caused by making the public rather than polluters pay the
social cost. Charging polluters will make them avoid pollution or pass
the cost to consumers, reducing quantities and pollution. Likewise,
cars and parking should be charged during the most congested times.
Eliminating restrictions on private transit and using rent for more
public transit eliminates traffic congestion.
Trade is mutually beneficial. Even countries with higher costs benefit
from free trade by concentrating on their comparative advantage, what
they are most productive in. Global free trade with a common
environmental policy leads to universal prosperity.
Public choice is the branch of economics that studies the decisions of
voters and government officials. Having concentrated benefits while
spreading the cost thinly among consumers and taxpayers leads to
seeking privileges, subsidies, special protections, and other
transfers. Mass democracy and the need for expensive media campaigns
leads to this transfer seeking. Switching to small-group voting with
bottom-up multi-level governance, along with constitutional
constraints, minimizes this corruption.
The French Physiocrats of the 1700s such as Quesnay advocated a single
tax on rent and also free trade. Adam Smith in the late 1700s said a
market turns self-interest into public benefits, but benevolent giving
in addition to that is virtuous. David Ricardo came up with the margin
of production and comparative advantage.
Karl Marx thought labor creates all value and get exploited when they
don't get the whole value, but the Austrian economist Carl Manger said
no, values are subjective. American economist Henry George said the
surplus is rent, so tax that, and have free trade. Austrian economist
Ludwig von Mises pure socialism would be hopelessly inefficient, and
government intervention makes the economy worse. Friedrich Hayek said
so too, because knowledge is decentralized, so just let the
spontaneous market order work.
John Maynard Keynes in Great Britain thought government should make
and spend money during depressions, but New Classical economists point
out that when people expect inflation, government stimulus just raises
prices. Milton Friedman in the USA says don't try to manipulate the
money, and let folks choose for themselves.
The bottom line to all this is that economic freedom leads to the most
prosperity. Don't restrict labor and capital other than to prevent
coercive harm to others. Don't tax labor or enterprise. Get public
revenues from rent and pollution fees. Let the market handle the money
and banking. True free trade and enterprise are good; decentralized
and market-based governance works best. As Henry George said,
economics and ethics are one. The environment and the economy are one.
Good governance and economics are one. Share rent, charge for damage,
don't steal wages.
That's economics in six minutes, and the path to prosperity.
Found at The Progress Report - http://www.progress.org/
--
SG: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/
Georgist News now available on the web!
tkdowning
Heres some more quotes for your "collection"
"Private enterprise... manages so much better all the concerns to
which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Ann. Message, 1806. ME
3:423
"[The] policy [of my country] is, to leave their citizens free,
neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. Though the
interposition of government, in matters of invention, has its use, yet
it is in practice so inseparable from abuse, that they think it better
not to meddle with it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787. ME
6:255
"We remark with special satisfaction those [favorable circumstances]
which, under the smiles of Providence, result from the skill, industry
and order of our citizens managing their own affairs in their own way
and for their own use, unembarrassed by too much regulations,
unoppressed by fiscal exactions." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Annual
Message, 1802. ME 3:340
Mark Neglay
> ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6ee288...@news.telus.net>...
> > On 15 Feb 2002 18:27:23 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6d96f2...@news.telus.net>...
> > >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
> > >> poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
> > >> rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
> > >> without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
> > >> who did earn it.
> > >
> > >I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
> > >to pay federal taxes.
> >
> > That is of course false. While those with low incomes (who may or may
> > not be poor -- many of them are rich) are exempted from direct federal
> > income taxation, there are many federal taxes the poor must pay:
> > tariffs, excise taxes, plus all the taxes they must pay as a result of
> > burden shifting by those who pay directly.
>
> Tariffs, excise taxes adds up to what? Not very much i'll bet.
Just glancing at the historical budget numbers, we collected .97% of
our total government revenues from "customs duties" and 3.3% from
excise taxes last year. Individual income taxes accounted for half of
all revenues. The other major contributors are FICA and corporate
income taxes.
Mason Clark
Interesting. But wouldn't quotes from a slave-holder? Now read them again.
darkness
> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
and also his books 'Peddling Prosperity' and 'Pop Internationalism'.
Krugman is an accomplished economist, but also a liberal. What he had
to say about, for example, the Southeast Asia Meltdown ('The Age of
Depression Era Economics') is worth a read and a re-read.
Tim Worstall
> On 17 Feb 2002 07:44:05 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>
> >"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> >
> >> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> >> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
> >
> >First, define poverty......absolute poverty ? Then it's getting
> >better. In every country not at war ( or, this year, Argentina as well
> >).
> >>
> >> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> >> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> >> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> >> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> >> economic disparity?
> >
> >Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
> >economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
> >increased relative poverty.
>
> You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
Sure, hunter gatherer societies are famously egalitarian in their
wealth distribution. Developed economies are not.
>
> >> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations?
> >Free Trade, promote good Govt. Whacking Mugabe, for example, would
> >help Zimbabwe immensely.
>
> Whacking him would certainly give one a feeling of having done
> something worthwhile, but it's not clear it would actually do any good
> for Zimbabwe, unless you have some special insight as to what would
> follow a whacked Mugabe.
Knowing, as I do, a number of Zimbabwean diplomats and junior
governemental types, yes, I think I do have an insight. Get rid of
Mugabe and the edifice will crumble. Perhaps not an immediate return
to the prosperity of, say, the late 80's, but certianly a stopping of
the spiral downwards.
Michael Dietrich
>
> >"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> >
> >economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
> >increased relative poverty.
>
> You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
Firstly, why do we use the term "relative poverty"? In my humble opinion,
this is misleading, because poverty is an absolute measure. Why not use the
term inequality? That would make it less confusing.
I'm afraid that neither of the propositions of the previous two posters is
well-founded. As far as I recall, there is no strong relationship between
poverty and inequality. Empirically, one used to find the U-shape
relationship between average income and inequality, however, this does not
seem to be very stable and one couldn't give a "proper" economic explanation
for it. Hence it might have been spurious or caused by the Latin American
countries. More recent econometric studies don't show a strong relationship.
(Sorry, don't have time to look them up, but probably you'll find something
on www.worldbank.org).
From a welfare perspective, it does not seem to be sensible to target
inequality instead of poverty.
Michael
(Sorry, can't post to bc.politics)
Grinch
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c7004e9...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 17 Feb 2002 07:44:05 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>>
>> >"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>> >
>> >.....
>> >Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
>> >economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
>> >increased relative poverty.
>>
>> You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
>> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
>> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
>> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
>> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
>
>Sure, hunter gatherer societies are famously egalitarian in their
>wealth distribution. Developed economies are not.
"'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"
(From "The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless",
1/22/02.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/social/22CHEA.html )
Just a thought. ;-)
Joshua Holmes
: "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
:> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
:> University
:> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
:> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
:> that
:> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
:> solutions.
:
: You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
: international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
: Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
Reading Paul Krugman is a great idea. Take everything he says and
believe the exact opposite. That will give you a good introduction to
economics.
--
Joshua Holmes
jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
- Henry David Thoreau
Mark Neglay
You seem to think that new investment will occur regardless of the
state of the secondary market. Even assuming that the wealthy only
invest in large cap companies or existing assets, they are just as
important to wealth creation as anyone else. I would not buy a stock
at IPO if I didn't think I could sell it later. Most wouldn't even
buy it if they found out that they couldn't sell it at any time.
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c7004e9...@news.telus.net>...
>>In point of fact, absolute
>> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
>> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
>> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
>> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
>
>Sure, hunter gatherer societies are famously egalitarian in their
>wealth distribution. Developed economies are not.
But the _least_ egalitarian societies are not "developed." They are
economically stagnant Third World plutocracies.
>> >> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations?
>> >Free Trade, promote good Govt. Whacking Mugabe, for example, would
>> >help Zimbabwe immensely.
>>
>> Whacking him would certainly give one a feeling of having done
>> something worthwhile, but it's not clear it would actually do any good
>> for Zimbabwe, unless you have some special insight as to what would
>> follow a whacked Mugabe.
>Knowing, as I do, a number of Zimbabwean diplomats and junior
>governemental types, yes, I think I do have an insight. Get rid of
>Mugabe and the edifice will crumble. Perhaps not an immediate return
>to the prosperity of, say, the late 80's, but certianly a stopping of
>the spiral downwards.
Who or what would replace him?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<m.j.d_...@gmx.net> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:3c7004e9...@news.telus.net...
>> On 17 Feb 2002 07:44:05 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>>
>> >"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
>news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>> >
>> >Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
>> >economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
>> >increased relative poverty.
>>
>> You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
>> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
>> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
>> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
>> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
>
>Firstly, why do we use the term "relative poverty"? In my humble opinion,
>this is misleading, because poverty is an absolute measure. Why not use the
>term inequality? That would make it less confusing.
Agreed.
>I'm afraid that neither of the propositions of the previous two posters is
>well-founded. As far as I recall, there is no strong relationship between
>poverty and inequality. Empirically, one used to find the U-shape
>relationship between average income and inequality, however, this does not
>seem to be very stable and one couldn't give a "proper" economic explanation
>for it. Hence it might have been spurious or caused by the Latin American
>countries.
Well, it seems to hold for much of Africa, too.
>More recent econometric studies don't show a strong relationship.
>(Sorry, don't have time to look them up, but probably you'll find something
>on www.worldbank.org).
Hmm. Having had some experience on a World Bank-organized policy
discussion group, I would be willing to bet that such studies are not
worth the electrons it takes to download them.
>From a welfare perspective, it does not seem to be sensible to target
>inequality instead of poverty.
Too bad the World Bank won't even allow discussion of what _really_
needs targeting: injustice.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c70067e...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
>> wrote:
>
>You seem to think that new investment will occur regardless of the
>state of the secondary market.
It will.
>Even assuming that the wealthy only
>invest in large cap companies or existing assets, they are just as
>important to wealth creation as anyone else.
Nope. Flat, outright wrong.
>I would not buy a stock
>at IPO if I didn't think I could sell it later.
But that is just an artifact of the tax regime, which rewards capital
gains above dividend income.
>Most wouldn't even
>buy it if they found out that they couldn't sell it at any time.
That's not the issue.
The claim was that the rich _per_se_ were necessary as owners. They
aren't. A secondary market can as easily be based on small and
institutional investors.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Mason Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<g8qu6ugi3eqi6divc...@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
>>
>> >Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
>> >our government does.
>>
>> Another, and stunning, addition to my collection of great
>> quotations from the intellectual giants on that world-renowned
>> economics forum called "sci.econ."
>
>Heres some more quotes for your "collection"
>
>"Private enterprise... manages so much better all the concerns to
>which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Ann. Message, 1806. ME
>3:423
Jefferson here is assuming -- perhaps, in your case, without grounds
-- that people are intelligent enough to understand his implication
that there are also concerns to which it is _not_ equal, and that
government's competent management of such is absolutely crucial to the
public welfare.
>"[The] policy [of my country] is, to leave their citizens free,
>neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
He means, of course, their _lawful_ pursuits. Unfortunately, you are
not intelligent enough to understand such "understood" qualifications.
>"We remark with special satisfaction those [favorable circumstances]
>which, under the smiles of Providence, result from the skill, industry
>and order of our citizens managing their own affairs in their own way
>and for their own use, unembarrassed by too much regulations,
>unoppressed by fiscal exactions." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Annual
>Message, 1802. ME 3:340
Unfortunately, you are not intelligent enough to understand that
Jefferson's use of "too much" was quite deliberate. If he had meant
"any," he would have said, "any."
-- Roy L
Martin Philippens
Christiaan Jordaan <c...@sfu.ca> schreef in berichtnieuws
a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
>We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially
unconventional
> solutions.
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
The latest official measure in Europe is called Risk of poverty rate (=share
of population below the cut-off threshold) before social transfers
('original income'). Original income includes pensions but excludes all
other social transfers. The low income line is set at 60% of median
equivalised income per person. The OECD uses half of average income as the
threshold for poverty. This corresponds closely with inequality. That means
that inequality is an important factor for poverty. In my country (the
Netherlands) the
inequality remains rather steady till 1996, but indications are that a
slight increase ocurred after that date. In the UK inequality has grown
rather
sharp since 1980. The US and Australia have also slightly higher
inequalities in 1996 compared with 1980. (The Measure of the Welfare State,
aug 2000, Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau the Netherlands). Of the countries
investigated
in this study (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium,
France, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, US) the US' score in the field of
income inequality, income levelling and poverty remains one of the lowest
(whatever measure is used). The UK's score has worsened ands is, together
with Australia and Canada
also low. A medium score is for Netherlands, Germany and France. Best
scores are for Scandinavian countries and Belgium.
The cause for the UK rise is attributed to the demolition of the welfare
state by neo-liberal measures. I guess they mean Thatcherism.
The level of relative poverty/inequality is to my view closely connected to
the corporate governance of companies and the shareholdervalue. The goal of
shareholdervalue for companies means that more money is going to the
shareholders (higher dividends) and less to the employees (wages are costs
that diminish results, firing results in lowest costs). Because shareholding
is extremely skewed (10% of population owns 90% of shares), shareholder
value-oriented companies are
important (re)distributors of income from low to high. Anglo-saxon
countries are predominantly shareholdervalue oriented. The correlation
between shareholdervalue orientation and inequality among countries is
high.
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
This is about economic inequality between countries and within countries.
There is no simple cure but a number of actions are needed. Some of these
are: A much higher level of aid from the whole developed world including the
richest countries, especially directed to education and health.
Encouragement and support for more fair and stable governments even if they
do not line up with developed world-policies and interests. Higher and
sustainable investments together with more strict control on money-flows. A
different policy of IMF, no longer only directed to the interests of the
developed world. Free exports to the developed world. Protection of own
markets, even if that means no free imports.
Within countries the same measures as for developed countries, directed to
force private companies towards responsible behaviour. That means no
(re)distibution of income from low (workers) to high (shareholders) .
>
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
An answer is given in the Briefing Paper of CEPR, The scoreboard on
Globalisation 1980- 2000. The presented evidence does not prove the policies
associated with globalisation were responsible for the deterioration in
performance. But it does present a very strong prima facie case that some
structural and policy changes implemented during the last two decades are at
least partly responsible for these declines.
>
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
See also 2. It is in our own interest to adress poverty in other nations. If
we do not adress these problems we or our children will be the victims. If
we do not help the poor or poor nations they will enforce their share. The
use of our power is only a temporary and futile defence. In the end
desperation is a much stronger force then military power.
Martin Philippens
>
>
tkdowning
> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> wrote:
>
> >> >> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
> >> >> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
> >> >
> >> >The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
> >> >around.
> >>
> >> That is of course completely false. Without government, the rich,
> >> whether productive or idle, would be living in caves along with the
> >> rest of us. Didn't you read the quotes I provided from all those
> >> great thinkers, who obviously understand the issue so much better than
> >> you?
> >
> >Caves? Did the government invent houses and construction as well as
> >the Internet?
>
> It is the thing that makes housing and construction possible.
If I own some land and some material, and wish to construct a house,
how does the government "make it possible"?
>
> >Look, Im definitely not advocating getting rid of the
> >government. Im just sick and tired of people seeing the government as
> >some magical Wizard of Oz which has mystic powers to generate wealth
> >and create an upper-middle class lifestyle for all of it's citzens.
>
> But in fact, it has such powers. It just doesn't usually exercise
> them.
>
> >Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
> >our government does.
>
> Idiocy beyond measure, beyond imagination.
>
Our system of government as founded is great because it
constitutionally _LIMITS_ it's own power and coerciveness in private
affairs. Our founders were wise enough to see that government has a
monopoly on power, is not subject to market competition, can easily
become coercive and tyrannical, and naturally gravitates toward
mediocraty.
Government contributes very little in a positive sense to the economy
besides backing the money.
On the negative side, it is a huge wealth re-distributer, often
transferring wealth from the productive to the unproductive in order
to buy votes/power. It is comparable to a huge leech riding on the
body of the economy, sucking it's life-blood.
> >It has everything to do with our private sector
> >and the freedoms that our style of government allows our private
> >sector.
>
> You know what? People -- i.e., the ones who run the private sector --
> are pretty much the same everywhere. It's their _governments_ that
> are different.
>
LOL! You almost made me fall off my chair. I'll borrow your phrase
"Idiocy beyond measure, beyond imagination." Are you trying to tell us
that if we swapped the staffers of our private sector with those of
Romania, that we would be "pretty much the same"???
America has a high standard of living because of Silicon valley.
America has a high standard of living because of GM, Chrysler, and
Ford.
America has a high standard of living because it has aboundant natural
resources
America has a high standard of living because of it's institutions of
higher learning
America has a high standard of living because of the greatness of it's
individuals.
America has a high standard of living because of it's freedom.
America does _NOT_ have a high standard of living because of the
participation of it's government in it's economy.
> >> >The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
> >> >poor.
> >>
> >> That is of course false, too. The productive create all of the
> >> wealth, not the rich. The rich merely own more of it. Most of the
> >> rich are unproductive because they are retired, and those that are
> >> productive almost all collect far more income than their productive
> >> efforts actually merit.
> >
> >And just who the are you to judge what "income their productive
> >efforts actually merit".
>
> The market can judge. But it is not the market that gives the rich
> their unearned incomes. It is government. I know, however, that you
> are not intelligent enough to understand how it does so.
>
> >If I took the risks associated with starting
> >or purchasing a buisness, then made it profitable, I should have the
> >right to take whatever income I please.
>
> Oh, but if _you_ are the one who makes it profitable, your income is
> not unearned. That is not what the rich do, however. They (normally)
> just collect income for doing nothing.
Please let me in on this little secret on how to collect income for
"doing nothing" I'd love to get in on that.
".
>
> No. Running a business is productive, passively owning one is not.
> Very little of rich people's "investing" activities actually
> contributes anything to society.
>
> >Why cant you see that?
>
> Because it is false.
>
> >Look, Im definitely not rich, just a grunt engineer. But I'm smart
> >enough to see who gives me money (The rich people who own my buisness)
>
> Unfortuantely, you are not smart enough to see that it is consumers of
> your employer's products and the people who manage the enterprise who
> pay your salary, _not_ the ones who own it.
>
a) What if the managers of my enterprise are the ones who own it?
(often the case in small buisness).
b) The consumers would not buy the products if the owner had never
started the buisness.
c) The owner may have never started the buisness or made it succeed if
he had been taxed to death to support "poor" people (many of whom he
may employ).
> >and who takes away almost half of my money (The government).
>
> You don't understand how government gives that money to the rich.
> Don't worry. Probably not one person in a thousand understands it.
> Maybe not even one in a million.
>
If I accepted your premise that the government owns all wealth and
property, and just let's us "borrow" it, then I could agree with you.
But I dont accept that premise because it is patently untrue.
Mason Clark
>
>Government contributes very little in a positive sense to the economy
>besides backing the money.
tk_downing, please desist! I have all such quotations I need.
This is getting grotesque.
Mason C
darkness
> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> :> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> :> University
> :> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> :> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> :> that
> :> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> :> solutions.
> :
> : You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
> : international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
> : Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
>
> Reading Paul Krugman is a great idea. Take everything he says and
> believe the exact opposite. That will give you a good introduction to
> economics.
So, we can take it from this that:
- you are opposed to free trade
- you are opposed to private property rights
- you are opposed to activist monetary policy and believe that money
has no place in economics
- you don't believe in path dependence
- you have read Krugman's theoretical work, and disagree with him
regarding the formation of international monetary crises, the nature
of the evolution of cities and strategic trade theory?
In other words, I suspect you know very little about Krugman's
economics, what you know is that you are opposed to him because you
are opposed to his ideological liberalism, to wit, that he favours
redistributive economic policies within the United States. Since he
is never anything but clear about that, you strike me as typical of
his critics: upset because he actually makes cogent, readable
arguments based on good economic theory for a lot of his positions.
Tim Worstall
Jared Diamond ( Guns Germs and Steel ) notes that the leading cause of
death for adult males in hunter gatherer socities is murder .
Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall
At present probably Morgan Tsvangirai.....just as if the elections
next month were free.
Tim Worstall
Finally, something I can agree with you on. Indeed let's target
injustice. Lets get rid of the power mad dictators....let's install
reasonable clean, reasonably efficient Govt south of the Sahara. Given
the level these guys are starting from now, that would be huge boost
to justice. Like what's been done in Liberia and Sierra Leone
recently...
sp...@sympatico.ca
Sounds like a scam to keep us in poverty.
Joshua Holmes
:> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> : "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
:> :> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
:> :> University
:> :> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
:> :> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
:> :> that
:> :> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
:> :> solutions.
:> :
:> : You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
:> : international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
:> : Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
:>
:> Reading Paul Krugman is a great idea. Take everything he says and
:> believe the exact opposite. That will give you a good introduction to
:> economics.
:
: So, we can take it from this that:
:
: - you are opposed to free trade
I am fully in favor of free trade. But what gets called "free
trade" in the press is actually managed trade: quotas, tariffs,
environmental/labor standards, etc. I am for free trade: no tariffs or
quotas on any products from any country ever. Paul Krugman does not hold
that position.
: - you are opposed to private property rights
I am fully in favor of private property rights. He, however, is
not, because apparently he believes that private property is actually the
property of the government, since they can confiscate as much as one of
his precious formulas says is "optimal". If he believed in private
property, any aggression against that, including taxation, would be
considered immoral. He obviously doesn't hold to that, since he actively
advocates socialist policies in the US.
: - you are opposed to activist monetary policy and believe that money
: has no place in economics
I am strongly in favor of free banking, that is, the government
has no role whatsoever in money. I don't believe in the government
having a monetary "policy" anymore than I think they should have a size
of toilet flush "policy".
: - you don't believe in path dependence
I'm not certain what this is.
: - you have read Krugman's theoretical work, and disagree with him
: regarding the formation of international monetary crises, the nature
: of the evolution of cities and strategic trade theory?
My guess is that he misses the point on international monetary
crises, since he supports the World Bank and the IMF. International
monetary crises are alwmost always a result of the lack of moral hazard
due to some government or quasi-government organization interfering in the
market process of money. To wit, the IMF and World Bank are global
socialist organizations, making taxpayers bear the risk of monetary
speculation while private persons bear any profit. When there's no chance
of losing, there's no reason not to speculate lavishly.
Since he supports the IMF and World Bank, he misses the moral
hazard problems of a compulsory lender-of-last-resort. As such, he misses
the root cause of international monetary crises and why they turn into
big, nasty economic problems like the Asian crisis.
<ad hominem deleted>
Mark Neglay
> On 18 Feb 2002 11:37:32 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c70067e...@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >You seem to think that new investment will occur regardless of the
> >state of the secondary market.
>
> It will.
>
> >Even assuming that the wealthy only
> >invest in large cap companies or existing assets, they are just as
> >important to wealth creation as anyone else.
>
> Nope. Flat, outright wrong.
>
> >I would not buy a stock
> >at IPO if I didn't think I could sell it later.
>
> But that is just an artifact of the tax regime, which rewards capital
> gains above dividend income.
No, Roy, it's an artifact of this human desire (call them humans
crazy) to avoid unnecessary risk.
> >Most wouldn't even
> >buy it if they found out that they couldn't sell it at any time.
>
> That's not the issue.
That is exactly the issue. The first person to buy a stock or bond is
not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
What about a bank, taking deposits from hundreds of people, and
investing them in a mortgage loan? Is the bank the only investor of
consequence to the new home ownner? Would she get her new loan,
regardless of whether that bank attracted deposits?
> The claim was that the rich _per_se_ were necessary as owners.
Not as owners, as investors.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c70067e...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
>> >> >> taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
>> >> >
>> >> >The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
>> >> >around.
>> >>
>> >> That is of course completely false. Without government, the rich,
>> >> whether productive or idle, would be living in caves along with the
>> >> rest of us. Didn't you read the quotes I provided from all those
>> >> great thinkers, who obviously understand the issue so much better than
>> >> you?
>> >
>> >Caves? Did the government invent houses and construction as well as
>> >the Internet?
>>
>> It is the thing that makes housing and construction possible.
>
>If I own some land and some material, and wish to construct a house,
>how does the government "make it possible"?
By stopping others who would take that land and those materials from
you, for one.
>> >Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
>> >our government does.
>>
>> Idiocy beyond measure, beyond imagination.
>
>Our system of government as founded is great because it
>constitutionally _LIMITS_ it's own power and coerciveness in private
>affairs.
Right. It (nominally) limits government to the things
_government_is_needed_for_.
>Our founders were wise enough to see that government has a
>monopoly on power, is not subject to market competition, can easily
>become coercive and tyrannical, and naturally gravitates toward
>mediocraty.
They were also wise enough to specify what government _must_ do to
make civilization possible.
>Government contributes very little in a positive sense to the economy
>besides backing the money.
And yet, the universal condition of those who have no government is
poverty.
>On the negative side, it is a huge wealth re-distributer, often
>transferring wealth from the productive to the unproductive in order
>to buy votes/power.
That is certainly true, and the main beneficiaries of government
redistribution are the unproductive rich.
>> >It has everything to do with our private sector
>> >and the freedoms that our style of government allows our private
>> >sector.
>>
>> You know what? People -- i.e., the ones who run the private sector --
>> are pretty much the same everywhere. It's their _governments_ that
>> are different.
>
>LOL! You almost made me fall off my chair. I'll borrow your phrase
>"Idiocy beyond measure, beyond imagination." Are you trying to tell us
>that if we swapped the staffers of our private sector with those of
>Romania, that we would be "pretty much the same"???
<yawn> Have you checked out the last names of some of our private
sector staffers?
Of course we would not be pretty much the same swapping staff with
Romania. People who can't speak English aren't going to be able to do
much in an English-speaking country. But their kids would do just
fine. And have.
>America has a high standard of living because of Silicon valley.
Nope. It has Silicon Valley because of its high quality of
government.
>America has a high standard of living because of GM, Chrysler, and
>Ford.
Nope. GM, Chrysler and Ford would not be here if government had not
supported their activities with extensive legal, social, and physical
infrastructure.
>America has a high standard of living because it has aboundant natural
>resources
Nope. The XSSR has more natural resources than the USA, and it is
poor. Japan has almost no natural resources, but it is rich.
>America has a high standard of living because of it's institutions of
>higher learning
Most of which are government-funded.
>America has a high standard of living because of the greatness of it's
>individuals.
And what made great individuals leave their own countries and go to
America?
>America has a high standard of living because of it's freedom.
Which is preserved (more or less) by its government.
>America does _NOT_ have a high standard of living because of the
>participation of it's government in it's economy.
<sigh> See above.
>> >If I took the risks associated with starting
>> >or purchasing a buisness, then made it profitable, I should have the
>> >right to take whatever income I please.
>>
>> Oh, but if _you_ are the one who makes it profitable, your income is
>> not unearned. That is not what the rich do, however. They (normally)
>> just collect income for doing nothing.
>
>Please let me in on this little secret on how to collect income for
>"doing nothing" I'd love to get in on that.
"To turn $100 into $200 is work. To turn $100M into $200M is
inevitable." -- Samuel Bronfman, Canadian billionaire.
>> >Look, Im definitely not rich, just a grunt engineer. But I'm smart
>> >enough to see who gives me money (The rich people who own my buisness)
>>
>> Unfortuantely, you are not smart enough to see that it is consumers of
>> your employer's products and the people who manage the enterprise who
>> pay your salary, _not_ the ones who own it.
>
>a) What if the managers of my enterprise are the ones who own it?
>(often the case in small buisness).
Then they are productive _in_their_capacity_as_managers_.
>b) The consumers would not buy the products if the owner had never
>started the buisness.
?? Don't you know the difference between starting a business and
owning a business? The former is work. The latter is not.
>c) The owner may have never started the buisness or made it succeed if
>he had been taxed to death to support "poor" people (many of whom he
>may employ).
It is the working poor who are taxed to death to support the owner.
>> >and who takes away almost half of my money (The government).
>>
>> You don't understand how government gives that money to the rich.
>> Don't worry. Probably not one person in a thousand understands it.
>> Maybe not even one in a million.
>
>If I accepted your premise that the government owns all wealth and
>property, and just let's us "borrow" it, then I could agree with you.
That is not my premise. Please provide a quote where I say any such
thing, or admit that you are a liar.
>But I dont accept that premise because it is patently untrue.
Too bad you can't seem to argue against what I have actually said.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
But is there any practical way to do it? I'm skeptical.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c716a28...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 18 Feb 2002 11:37:32 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c70067e...@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >You seem to think that new investment will occur regardless of the
>> >state of the secondary market.
>>
>> It will.
>>
>> >Even assuming that the wealthy only
>> >invest in large cap companies or existing assets, they are just as
>> >important to wealth creation as anyone else.
>>
>> Nope. Flat, outright wrong.
>>
>> >I would not buy a stock
>> >at IPO if I didn't think I could sell it later.
>>
>> But that is just an artifact of the tax regime, which rewards capital
>> gains above dividend income.
>
>No, Roy, it's an artifact of this human desire (call them humans
>crazy) to avoid unnecessary risk.
>
>> >Most wouldn't even
>> >buy it if they found out that they couldn't sell it at any time.
>>
>> That's not the issue.
>
>That is exactly the issue.
No, it isn't.
>The first person to buy a stock or bond is
>not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
>in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
>is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
>act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
>banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
>They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
>same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
>And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
That is a quibble. The point is, those who buy an IPO or corporate
bond are providing funds for real investment. Those who buy shares in
an established company are not.
The main reason successful companies can't finance expansion
internally is because their profits are taxed. And the reason their
profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
for money to fund expansion.
The main reason productive individuals can't start their companies
with their own money is because their earned incomes have been taxed
away and given to the rich. So the productive have to go begging to
the rich for money, too.
>What about a bank, taking deposits from hundreds of people, and
>investing them in a mortgage loan? Is the bank the only investor of
>consequence to the new home ownner? Would she get her new loan,
>regardless of whether that bank attracted deposits?
A bank is just an intermediary. It doesn't care if its deposits are
the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
wealth of one unproductive person.
>> The claim was that the rich _per_se_ were necessary as owners.
>
>Not as owners, as investors.
It's still not true.
-- Roy L
Mason Clark
>
>The main reason successful companies can't finance expansion
>internally is because their profits are taxed.
But the *do* finance expansion internally. They spend as much
money as they wish on R & D, on improving equipment, on hiring
more expensive employees, on and on and on.... all well above
the bottom line -- *before* profit. No manager lets money leak
to the bottom that can be usefully spent earlier.
Mason C
Mark Neglay
Is that a good book? I noticed a friend reading it once and it
sounded quite interesting.
Josh Dougherty
> ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c6d96f2...@news.telus.net>...
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:32 -0800, "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > The only real solution is as simple as it is "unconventional": let the
> > poor earn, and let them keep what they earn, by just not giving the
> > rich what they haven't earned. Every dollar that the rich receive
> > without earning it is a dollar that has been taken from working people
> > who did earn it.
>
> I Agree. As a matter of fact, here in the US, the poor dont even have
> to pay federal taxes.
>
>
> > Relieve the poor of the burden of taxation, by making the rich pay
> > taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
>
> The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
> around.
The government benefits from the production of all
> The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
> poor.
No, labor creates wealth.
> The great majority of government funding comes from the middle
> classes who get that money in the form of wages from the rich. Without
> wealth created by the rich, the government (and the poor) would have
> no funding and would collapse economically.
No without "wealth created by the rich", the poor and middle classes
would be in charge of creating capital for themselves...rather than
being paid to create more capital for the rich and being paid less in
return.
> By "rich" I mean the "productive rich". ie, the ones that have money
> invested in the private sector, are employing people, ect. Not the
> do-nothing, country club types, or the very high wage earning
> employees (there not enough of these to grab a significant amount of
> money from anyway). By heavily taxing the productive rich, you take
> money out of their hands before they can use it to create even more
> wealth which would eventually make it down to the poor and middle
> classes (Killing the goose that lays the golden egg).
Wealth does not "trickle-down", that is contrary to the principle of
capitalism and the free market. Wages "trickle down" (iow what has to
be paid to labor in order to keep wealth trickling up) and only in a
proportion to the advantage of the one allowing it to "trickle down".
If X trickles down and X+ doesn't trickle up (IOW...if wealth is not
being re-distributed upwards) there is no profit for the capitalist
and no point.
Josh
darkness
> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Joshua Holmes <jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<a4r6u7$jsk$3...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> :> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> : "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> :> :> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> :> :> University
> :> :> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> :> :> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> :> :> that
> :> :> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> :> :> solutions.
> :> :
> :> : You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
> :> : international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
> :> : Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
> :>
> :> Reading Paul Krugman is a great idea. Take everything he says and
> :> believe the exact opposite. That will give you a good introduction to
> :> economics.
> :
> : So, we can take it from this that:
> :
> : - you are opposed to free trade
>
> I am fully in favor of free trade. But what gets called "free
> trade" in the press is actually managed trade: quotas, tariffs,
> environmental/labor standards, etc. I am for free trade: no tariffs or
> quotas on any products from any country ever. Paul Krugman does not hold
> that position.
>>> Query? I just finished reading 'pop internationalism' which is a
discussion of his views on international trade policy. His basic
conclusion is that, while on theoretical grounds, there might be
reasons for 'strategic trade policy' in policy terms there is little
merit in advocating them, because the gains are slight and the risks
much larger.
So where did you pick up that he is opposed to free trade?>>>
>
> : - you are opposed to private property rights
>
> I am fully in favor of private property rights. He, however, is
> not, because apparently he believes that private property is actually the
> property of the government, since they can confiscate as much as one of
> his precious formulas says is "optimal". If he believed in private
> property, any aggression against that, including taxation, would be
> considered immoral. He obviously doesn't hold to that, since he actively
> advocates socialist policies in the US.
>>> 1. I don't think you can call his policy mix 'socialist'. Surely
any sensible definition of 'socialist' would approximate the economies
of Syria, Cuba or North Korea ie state control of all the key
industries.
2. It seems a remarkable stretch to presume that taxation is a
complete infringement of private property rights. I mean, how then
would we provide for national defence, policing all the other usual
functions we assign to government?
Actually, I've not seen any evidence that Krugman has a formula which
determines the 'optimal' level of government spending or taxation. He
simply argues that 1). in his judgement, redistribution to offset the
impacts of the widening income distribution observed in the US economy
over the last 30 years would be a good thing and 2). the protestations
of the very well paid about such a redistribution seem very tinged
with self interest.
'precious formulas' is simply the mark of a good economist ie a formal
model underlying a judgement. >>>
>
> : - you are opposed to activist monetary policy and believe that money
> : has no place in economics
>
> I am strongly in favor of free banking, that is, the government
> has no role whatsoever in money. I don't believe in the government
> having a monetary "policy" anymore than I think they should have a size
> of toilet flush "policy".
>>> Hmmm... I've seen no evidence anyone has ever made such a system
work: indeed, any approximation of such a system created huge
instabilities. We might, in the era of cyberspace, be evolving
towards it, but rather I suspect what is going on is that the world
has settled on a currency of reserve (the US dollar) because of the
political and military preeminence of the US, and because the US has
the decency to run a huge current account deficit (worse if you count
drug dollars) which floods the rest of the world with a ready, trusted
currency.
The Federal Reserve system (and its central bank proxies in other
countries) was created precisely because of the instabilities
associated with people not trusting their money and the solvency of
the banking system. A lot of Krugman's work is this very tendency of
the system to oscillate unstabley, and the need for intervention when
it does. >>>
>>>
>
> : - you don't believe in path dependence
>
> I'm not certain what this is.
>>> Also known as the 'qwerty phenomenon'. A lot of Krugman's work on
trade theory and on urban economics is centred around this notion that
things are, because they started that way.
So, for example, the market leader (Remington) used a qwerty keyboard,
so eventually we all do, despite its inadequacies. Similarly, we use
MS Windows as an operating system (90% of all desktops) again despite
its inadequacies.
As another example, large cities seem to stay large cities because
they are already centres of economic activity. Since services are
relatively more important to the modern city than manufacturing, this
trend seems to be self reinforcing. For example, in a form of
controlled experiment, the USAAF devastated urban Japan in 1944-45
(something like 90% of the buildings in Tokyo were destroyed or
severely damaged). Yet, Japan reformed itself with largely the same
urban structures and levels of importance. >>>
>
> : - you have read Krugman's theoretical work, and disagree with him
> : regarding the formation of international monetary crises, the nature
> : of the evolution of cities and strategic trade theory?
>
> My guess is that he misses the point on international monetary
> crises, since he supports the World Bank and the IMF. International
> monetary crises are alwmost always a result of the lack of moral hazard
> due to some government or quasi-government organization interfering in the
> market process of money. To wit, the IMF and World Bank are global
> socialist organizations, making taxpayers bear the risk of monetary
> speculation while private persons bear any profit. When there's no chance
> of losing, there's no reason not to speculate lavishly.
> Since he supports the IMF and World Bank, he misses the moral
> hazard problems of a compulsory lender-of-last-resort. As such, he misses
> the root cause of international monetary crises and why they turn into
> big, nasty economic problems like the Asian crisis.
>>> He specifically notes those problems (see 'Return to Depression
Era Economics') but his theories of monetary crises focus on
contagion: how countries which were not pursuing bad or unsafe
policies, get dragged into the downward spiral because of the impact
of global speculators.
Having watched Europe crash in 87, for the simple reason that America
was crashing, I have great sympathy for such models. >>>
>
> <ad hominem deleted>
>> My apologies if that comment was ad hominem. Mea culpa.
I have seen a lot of criticism of Krugman, which really boils down
to people not liking his redistributive ideas, and his tendency to
argue from very strong roots in economic facts and theories.
But he has bitten people on the 'left' as well, and his books make him
one of the clearest exponents of free trade.
Among such 'liberal' managed trade exponents Krugman has taken on we
can count Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, Ira Magaziner. If he has
directed withering fire at the supply-siders, to good effect (see
'Peddling Prosperity') then he has done the same to the populist trade
barrier types (see 'Pop Internationalism').
darkness
> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Joshua Holmes <jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<a4r6u7$jsk$3...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> :> In uk.politics.economics darkness <darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> : "Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> :> :> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> :> :> University
> :> :> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> :> :> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> :> :> that
> :> :> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> :> :> solutions.
> :> :
> :> : You should read virtually everything about foreign trade and
> :> : international monetary policy written by Paul Krugman, of MIT and
> :> : Princeton University, and latterly also a columnist in the NW Times.
> :>
> :> Reading Paul Krugman is a great idea. Take everything he says and
> :> believe the exact opposite. That will give you a good introduction to
> :> economics.
The point of my posts was that Krugman writes very readably from the
viewpoint of the mainstream of economic theorists on trade.
Your own posts indicate that you take somewhat more extreme views, I
am not even sure I would call them Chicago or CMU-friendly.
Josh Dougherty
> enough to see who gives me money (The rich people who own my buisness)
"Massa ain't so bad, i eats three good meals and I gets my very own
room to sleep. How would I eat or sleep if not for Massa?"
:)
Josh
Thumper
Don't know much about economics do you? Only money that is left over
AFTER spending on expansion etc. is taxed.
>The main reason productive individuals can't start their companies
>with their own money is because their earned incomes have been taxed
>away and given to the rich. So the productive have to go begging to
>the rich for money, too.
>
First of all productive individuals do start companies with their own
money everyday. Ever try to get a business loan or venture capital?
It's almost impossible for a startup. Most businesses are small
businesses and the overwhelming majority of those were started with
private money from individuals and their families.
Thumper
sp...@sympatico.ca
About five or six guys, just on my street alone, (self included), have
little businesses of their own. All started with their own cash.
king.arthur
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
Unloved Children
It's time for the truth! The evil wind of "child abuse" which is screamed by
psychologists and sycophant bureaucrats is in reality
nothing more than a huge hoax designed to destroy families and doom
thousands of children to dependence on government.
That is real Poverty
While child abuse certainly exists, the purpose is to reveal the truth that
the actual "exploitation" and "victimization" is being done by "elites" who
believe in a sterile
environment in which to raise children, remarkably similar to the plans of
Adolf Hitler's "master race". Children of the Third Reich were
institutionalized and fed, but otherwise never touched or in any way LOVED.
This environment produces BRUTES, such as the heartless youngsters who
maimed and killed in the High School at Columbine, CO. SHOWING LOVE AND
AFFECTION TO
CHILDREN IS NOT A CRIME!
But depriving them of love is the worst
abuse of all!
Do a study on that you might learn how fuckup the system really is.
xenman
news:a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
I'm from the U.S. The consumption of luxury goods in the U.S.
by people in "poverty" are at an all time high. Look at such
goods as automobiles, televisions, dishwashers, expensive athletic
shoes, etc. Also look at the average size of housing of the poor.
People on welfare get their own apartment. They no longer have
to share space with other families. My dad grew up without
running water in his house. How many poor people live like
that today?
> 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
>
There is nothing wrong with disparity. Think what would happen
should there be no disparity. We would live in a police state
like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc. Disparity is increasing
because there is a new wave of technology happening. This has
historically occured many times. Think about societies that
first had: metalurgy, irrigation, iron, steel, steam engines,
railroads, radio, and lately computers. Those that command new
waves of technology create new wealth and therefore cause
disparity in income and wealth. Poorer countries and peoples
benefit from these new technologies also, but at a later time.
Without disparity you will have little technological advancement,
and therefore a stagnant standard of living.
> 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
>
Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations. No
country was as dependant upon world trade in the last half of
the twentieth century as Hong Kong. It went from an extremely
poor country to one of the wealthiest countries in less than 50
years. Singapore too. Since globalization has returned the giants
of American corporate power, such as IBM, General Motors, US Steel,
are less powerful not more. Why competition. Other countries
that have turned to global trade such as Indonesia, South Korea,
and Malaysia have made great strides in economic growth, along
with a few stumbles.
> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
>
Encourage free-market modern capitalism, low tax rates, low welfare
state programs. The rule of law, private property rights with
clear title to land is also required. Add stable monetary policies
and you get the recipe for strong and continued economic growth.
Look at Hong Kong for an example and various periods of U.S. history
also. These policies attract investment capital which is required
for economic growth. Compare the government tax, regulation, and
welfare policies of Canada vs the U.S. against which country
attracts the most relative investment capital. While the U.S.
is far from ideal, the standard of living in the U.S. has been
growing faster over the last 20 years than that of Canada and
Western Europe.
Mike Warren
> Firstly, why do we use the term "relative poverty"? In my humble
> opinion, this is misleading, because poverty is an absolute
> measure. Why not use the term inequality? That would make it less
> confusing.
...and ignore inflation.
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Grinch
>Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<7m527ugg53vk1df4u...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Feb 2002 01:29:44 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>>
>> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c7004e9...@news.telus.net>...
>> >> Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
>> >> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
>> >> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
>> >
>> >Sure, hunter gatherer societies are famously egalitarian in their
>> >wealth distribution. Developed economies are not.
>>
>> "'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
>> harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
>> Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"
>>
>> (From "The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless",
>> 1/22/02.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/social/22CHEA.html )
>>
>> Just a thought. ;-)
>
>Jared Diamond ( Guns Germs and Steel ) notes that the leading cause of
>death for adult males in hunter gatherer socities is murder .
Ah ... now *there's* a fact not often advertised by those who long for
a return to the simpler, live off the land, egalitarian existence!
>
>Tim Worstall
Randy Park
news:a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Please forgive the cross-post. I represent a group of Simon Fraser
> University
> (Vancouver, Canada) students who are conducting research on the problem
> of poverty. We believe that the problem of poverty is not insoluble, but
> that
> eradicating it will require thoughtful and potentially unconventional
> solutions.
> As such, our research is part of a project which intends to generate
> practicable suggestions for national and global initiatives to lessen and
> perhaps
> eliminate poverty. We are very interested in hearing what others have to
> say on this issue. If you are interested, please take the time to give us
> your
> perspective on the four brief questions which follow. Thanks very much.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you perceive the problem of poverty as getting better or worse in
> your country? What do you see as possible causes for this trend?
>
> prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> economic disparity?
>
> integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to the
> gap between rich and poor nations?
>
> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
>
Here's a guide to find the answer to your question.
There are several countries and former countries (hint) that
have risen from dire poverty after World War II to become
economic powerhouses. They did it on their own. No Marshall
Plan aid. Find these countries and then look at their
institutions, their tax policies, and their general law.
Your second question places a judgement upon economic disparity.
I'm assuming you mean income or wealth disparity. I suggest you
reexamine your assumption that any disparity is bad. Just look
at societies in history that claimed an attempt to eliminate
disparity: Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia.
With respect to world trade look at the theory of comparative
advantage.
tkdowning
Thank you Josh! :) Due to your brilliant parody, I am now seeing
things in a completely different light! To reflect my change in
thinking, I have decided to reword my phrase...
My capitalist, bourgios employer exploits my labor and pays me slave
wages. The kind, benevolent, all-knowing government, to whom I owe my
very existence, allows me to __KEEP__ almost half of my earnings!!!
With this newfound insight, I now bow down, facing Washington DC,
before every meal. Thanking the US government for making it possible
for me to eat. Begging them for their profound guidance in my lonely,
directionless existence.
Mark Neglay
They are providing funds to those who provided funds to buy an IPO or
buy a bond.
> The main reason successful companies can't finance expansion
> internally is because their profits are taxed.
(shaking my head)
> And the reason their
> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
> for money to fund expansion.
The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
implemented.
> >What about a bank, taking deposits from hundreds of people, and
> >investing them in a mortgage loan? Is the bank the only investor of
> >consequence to the new home ownner? Would she get her new loan,
> >regardless of whether that bank attracted deposits?
>
> A bank is just an intermediary.
...that's the point.
> It doesn't care if its deposits are
> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
> wealth of one unproductive person.
Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
So what?
S G
> I'm from the U.S. The consumption of luxury goods in the U.S.
> by people in "poverty" are at an all time high. Look at such
> goods as automobiles, televisions, dishwashers, expensive athletic
> shoes, etc. Also look at the average size of housing of the poor.
> People on welfare get their own apartment. They no longer have
> to share space with other families. My dad grew up without
> running water in his house. How many poor people live like
> that today?
When the North American continent was first being colonized, the homes
and communities the emigrants made for themselves were of necessity
primitive; but the knowledge they carried with them and their
communications with the western world enabled them to advance rapidly.
At first, there were no rich men and everyone was obliged to work for
his daily bread, but there were no poor men. As these early
settlements grew rapidly into great cities, as the population
increased bringing with it all the advantages of the division of
labour, as scientific methods were introduced and the powers of
production leapt up, at the same time wages were driven down; some men
grew very rich, but the majority were slowly reduced to poverty. With
the railway engine came the tramp and with the library and museum the
beggar and the pauper.
This same movement can be traced through the development of the older
nations of the western world from the barbaric tribes which swept
across the territories controlled by the crumbling Roman Empire. That
there was a steady, uninterrupted decline in wages is not the case,
there have been ups and downs, but after civilization passed a certain
point the general tendency was for wages to fall towards a minimum.
Thus in the last hundred years in England there has been a
considerable improvement in the standard of living amongst the poorer
people. Two hundred years ago, however, the average working week in
industry was four days. Then the artisan earned enough in these four
days to maintain himself during the whole week at a standard of
comfort which satisfied him. True, running water was not laid on to
his house, he had no wireless set and could not indulge his leisure at
the cinema; but these amenities were denied to King George himself.
Relatively, the artisan of those days was far better paid than the
tradesman of today. Four hundred years ago the lot of the poorer
classes, judged by their wages, was better still. In the 1540's the
golden age of English history was drawing to a close.
- "Nature of Society" Chap.6 by Leon Maclaren
> There is nothing wrong with disparity. Think what would happen
> should there be no disparity. We would live in a police state
> like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc. Disparity is increasing
> because there is a new wave of technology happening. This has
> historically occured many times. Think about societies that
> first had: metalurgy, irrigation, iron, steel, steam engines,
> railroads, radio, and lately computers. Those that command new
> waves of technology create new wealth and therefore cause
> disparity in income and wealth. Poorer countries and peoples
> benefit from these new technologies also, but at a later time.
> Without disparity you will have little technological advancement,
> and therefore a stagnant standard of living.
* The most pressing cause of the abject poverty which millions of
people in the world endure is that a mere 2.5% of landowners with
more than 100 hectares control nearly three-quarters of all the
land in the world, with the top 0.23% controlling over half.
* The world now has more than 350 billionnaires whose combined net
worth equals the annual income of the poorest 45% of the world's
population.
* The richest 1% of Americans possess greater wealth than the
bottom 90%.
* At best, a generous interpretation would suggest that about 3%
of the population owns 95% of the privately held land in the USA.
* 568 companies control 22% of US private land, a land mass the size
of Spain. Those same companies land interests worldwide comprise a
total area larger than that of Europe - almost 2 billion acres.
* A United Nations study of 83 countries showed that less than 5% of
rural landowners control three-quarters of the land.
* According to a 1985 government report, 2% of landowners hold 60%
of the arable land in Brazil while close to 70% of rural households
have little or none. Just 342 farm properties in Brazil cover 183,397
square miles - an area larger than California
* In Florida, 1% owns 77% of the land. Other states where the top 1%
own over two-thirds of the land are Maine, Arizona, California,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon.
* 86% of South Africa is still owned by the white minority population
* 60% of El Salvador is owned by the richest 2% of the population
* 80% of Pakistan is owned by the richest 3% of the population
* 74% of Great Britain is owned by the richest 2% of the population
* 84% of Scotland is owned by the richest 7% of the pop.
* More than half of all corporate earnings are generated by real
estate and real estate-related activities.
- http://www.earthrights.net/geodata.html
> Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations. No
> country was as dependant upon world trade in the last half of
> the twentieth century as Hong Kong. It went from an extremely
> poor country to one of the wealthiest countries in less than 50
> years.
Hong Kong is the sparkling paragon of a rich territory that embraced
magnetic tax policies. As a Crown colony, it redoubled its natural
magnetism by shunning repellent taxes of most kinds. Its public
coffers overflowed, nonetheless, because the Crown owned all the land
there, and did a tolerable job - not excellent, but
better-than-average - of collecting much of the rent for public
purposes. With a land area about the same as the Cayman Islands, it
became a world center of both secondary and tertiary industry, with a
large population, and a high per capita income by world standards.
Those who have eyes to see, let them see.
- Mason Gaffney
"The Worldwide Benefits of International Tax Competition"
(found at 'The Progress Report': http://www.progress.org/ )
> Encourage free-market modern capitalism, low tax rates, low welfare
> state programs. The rule of law, private property rights with
> clear title to land is also required. ...
The function of land ownership serves no useful purpose. No one needs
to own land for any reason except to exploit others by appropriating
the common rent fund. All one needs is security in occupation. This is
guaranteed by LVT, in that annual payment of site value to the
exchequer gives the right to exclusive use of the piece of land in
question - with no taxation of improvements or of the processes or
products of industry.
Landowners do not "provide the land". God did that, some time back.
Landowners, purely in their capacity as owners of title to land,
provide nothing. They take. For graciously agreeing to allow labour
and capital to exert themselves in wealth creation on "their" land,
landowners collect a rent as tribute.
- Supplement to Practical Politics No.106
http://www.landvaluetax.org/pp106sup.htm
There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs
and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange
of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the
uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is
the political means.
- 'Our Enemy the State' by Albert Jay Nock
Men did not make the earth... It is the value of the improvement
only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property...
Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the
land which he holds."
- Tom Paine (Agrarian Justice)
"The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and to
live on. ...
Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor,
it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended
as to violate natural right."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The land, the earth God gave to man for his home, sustenance
and support, should never be the possession of any man,
corporation, society or unfriendly government, any more than
the air or water if as much."
- Abraham Lincoln
The great ones of the world have taken this earth of ours to
themselves; they live in the midst of splendor and superfluity.
The smallest nook of the land is already a possession; none may
touch it or meddle with it.
- Goethe, "Wilhelm Meister"
Land should be taxed as much as possible, and improvements as little
as possible.
- Milton Friedman
The earth belongs to the people. I believe in the gospel of single tax.
- Mark Twain
Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or
economising. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does
from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the
community and not the individual who might hold title.
- John Stuart Mill
Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many
cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents
are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have
a particular tax imposed upon them.
- Adam Smith
The most comfortable, but also the the most unproductive, way
for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in
sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for
land, has to pay his price.
- Andrew Carnegie
> Look at Hong Kong for an example and various periods of U.S. history
> also. These policies attract investment capital which is required
> for economic growth. Compare the government tax, regulation, and
> welfare policies of Canada vs the U.S. against which country
> attracts the most relative investment capital. While the U.S.
> is far from ideal, the standard of living in the U.S. has been
> growing faster over the last 20 years than that of Canada and
> Western Europe.
The bottom line ... is that economic freedom leads to the most
prosperity. Don't restrict labour and capital other than to
prevent coercive harm to others. Don't tax labour or enterprise.
Get public revenues from rent and pollution fees. Let the market
handle the money and banking. True free trade and enterprise are
good; decentralized and market-based governance works best. As
Henry George said, economics and ethics are one. The environment
and the economy are one. Good governance and economics are one.
Share rent, charge for damage, don't steal wages.
- Fred Foldvary: "Six Minute Economics"
--
SG: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/
Georgist News now available on the web!
S G
> 2. It seems a remarkable stretch to presume that taxation is a
> complete infringement of private property rights. I mean, how then
> would we provide for national defence, policing all the other usual
> functions we assign to government?
The PEOPLE'S RIGHTS
By the Right Hon. Winston Spencer Churchill, M.P.
President of the Board of Trade 1909
The best way to make private property secure and respected is to bring
the processes by which it is gained into harmony with the general
interests of the public.
We are often assured by sagacious persons that the civilization of
modern States is largely based upon respect for the rights of private
property. If that be true, it is also true to say that respect cannot
be secured, and ought not, indeed, to be respected, unless property is
associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with ideas of
justice and of reason.
It is, therefore, of the first importance to the country - to any
country - that there should be vigilant and persistent efforts to
prevent abuses, to distribute the public burdens fairly among all
classes, and to establish good laws governing the methods by which
wealth may be acquired. The best way to make private property secure
and respected is to bring the processes by which it is gained into
harmony with the general interests of the public. When and where
Property is associated with the idea of reward for services rendered,
with the idea of reward for high gifts and special aptitudes displayed
or for faithful labour done, then property will be honoured. When it
is associated with processes which are beneficial, or which at the
worst are not actually injurious to the commonwealth, then property
will be unmolested; but when it is associated with ideas of wrong and
of unfairness, with processes of restriction and monopoly, and other
forms of injury to the community, then I think that you will find that
property will be assailed and will be endangered.
It is quite true that the land monopoly is not the only monopoly which
exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - is a perpetual
monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is
quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of
unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure;
but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived
from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are
positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a
necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all
wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in
geographical position - land, I say, differs from all other forms of
property in these primary and fundamental conditions. Nothing is more
amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist opponents to prove
that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same and
are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land. They
talk to us of the increased profits of a doctor or a lawyer from the
growth of population in the towns in which they live. They talk to us
of the profits of a railway through a greater degree of wealth and
activity in the districts through which it runs. They tell us of the
profits which are derived from a rise in stocks and shares, and even
of those which are sometimes derived from the sale of pictures and
works of art, and they ask us, as if it were the only complaint,
'Ought not all these other forms to be taxed too?' ....
=====
Taxes on goods, on services, on trade, on spending, on saving,
penalise and inhibit the process of wealth production. Existing
taxation involves juggling a balance of evils to come up with the
least damaging and least unacceptable mixture.
Tax labour, and you discourage employment of workpeople. Tax capital,
and you drive it away. Tax the site value of land on the other hand,
and more of it becomes available, more cheaply.
Taxation to-day is essentially little more than a structure of fines
and penalties for engaging successfully in legal economic endeavour.
People know this and consequently public acceptance of taxation is
dwindling. Assent is further undermined by growing doubts about the
uses to which tax revenues are being put. A worrying proportion of the
best talent is dissipated in tax-related legal, accounting, and
general administrative activity. At the purely practical level, the
collection of the rental value of land (land value taxation) scores
over all rival fiscal measures.
Land values are lowest at the outer fringes, reflecting these regions'
geographical disadvantage as compared with the centre. Taxes like
PAYE, VAT, and motor fuel duty take no account of this, and at the
margin tip potential wealth creation into unprofitability. With such
taxes replaced by nation-wide collection of site values, however, the
impost bears lightly at the fringes. and there is no need for
compensatory churning of taxpayers money, first taken out of the
economy and then ploughed back in as special assistance grants - a
system that is hit-and-miss, open to abuse, expensive to run, and apt
to create a regional dependency culture.
Substituting collection of land rent (site values) for existing
methods of taxation has important consequences for the land hoarder.
Until funds have been generated to pay it, LVT acts as a stick.
Thereafter it is a carrot. The initial return to the occupier of land
is not just zero. it is negative. Once the land value duty has been
paid. however, the net return becomes 100%. That is the Incentive.
Definition of the rights of ownership and of property determines the
relationship of citizens to each other, and of the citizen to the
state. Whether there was a Divine Creator or not, the Earth was
certainly not made by man. It follows that all men have equal rights
in the bounty of Nature. A man may not own what neither he nor any
other man created. It is the exertion of labour by man which confers
legitimacy on a claim to ownership.
The vield from LVT is certain and secure: land cannot be hidden or
moved to a foreign tax haven, so that the duty can he neither avoided
nor evaded.
Economists know full well that the entire Rent of Land can be taxed
away without affecting supply. Indeed, in so far as it penalises
withholding and under-use, it corrects what at present appears as
under-supply and over-pricing.
The function of land ownership serves no useful purpose. No one needs
to own land for any reason except to exploit others by appropriating
the common rent fund. All one needs is security in occupation. This is
guaranteed by LVT, in that annual payment of site value to the
exchequer gives the right to exclusive use of the piece of land in
question - with no taxation of improvements or of the processes or
products of industry.
- Supplement to Practical Politics No.106
http://www.landvaluetax.org/pp106sup.htm
--
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:07:14 GMT, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>On 19 Feb 2002 07:37:48 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The first person to buy a stock or bond is
>>>not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
>>>in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
>>>is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
>>>act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
>>>banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
>>>They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
>>>same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
>>>And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
>>
>>That is a quibble. The point is, those who buy an IPO or corporate
>>bond are providing funds for real investment. Those who buy shares in
>>an established company are not.
>>
>>The main reason successful companies can't finance expansion
>>internally is because their profits are taxed. And the reason their
>>profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
>>for money to fund expansion.
>>
>Don't know much about economics do you? Only money that is left over
>AFTER spending on expansion etc. is taxed.
Sorry, it is you who knows little of economics. In order to avoid
taxation of money used for expansion, is must be used in the same year
it is earned. That is a huge problem for any company that needs to
build up a fund over a period of years to make a specific investment
when the opportunity is right (and no, the depreciation allowance does
not make up for this problem -- it just encourages debt financing).
>>The main reason productive individuals can't start their companies
>>with their own money is because their earned incomes have been taxed
>>away and given to the rich. So the productive have to go begging to
>>the rich for money, too.
>>
>First of all productive individuals do start companies with their own
>money everyday. Ever try to get a business loan or venture capital?
>It's almost impossible for a startup.
OTC, it happens every day.
>Most businesses are small
>businesses and the overwhelming majority of those were started with
>private money from individuals and their families.
?? Sure. Because they started small enough to be financed that way.
If you want to start a type of business that can't start that small --
mining, say -- you have to borrow.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c72923e...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 19 Feb 2002 07:37:48 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The first person to buy a stock or bond is
>> >not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
>> >in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
>> >is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
>> >act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
>> >banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
>> >They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
>> >same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
>> >And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
>>
>> That is a quibble. The point is, those who buy an IPO or corporate
>> bond are providing funds for real investment. Those who buy shares in
>> an established company are not.
>
>They are providing funds to those who provided funds to buy an IPO or
>buy a bond.
Garbage. That's like claiming the people who pay millions for old
paintings are financing the original artist.
>> And the reason their
>> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
>> for money to fund expansion.
>
>The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
>successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
>reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
>paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
>income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
>implemented.
They are politically feasible because they are in the interests of the
rich.
>> >What about a bank, taking deposits from hundreds of people, and
>> >investing them in a mortgage loan? Is the bank the only investor of
>> >consequence to the new home ownner? Would she get her new loan,
>> >regardless of whether that bank attracted deposits?
>>
>> A bank is just an intermediary.
>
>...that's the point.
Too bad you don't understand it.
>> It doesn't care if its deposits are
>> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
>> wealth of one unproductive person.
>
>Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
>
>So what?
So the claim that the rich are needed to finance investment is just an
outright lie.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Right. _In_that_year_. A company can't _accumulate_ money for
expansion in a subsequent year without being taxed. So they have to
borrow it from the rich.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<xen...@sprynet.com.nospaam> wrote:
>Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations.
Only if by "globalization" you mean free trade, and not the modern
version of extraterritoriality that commonly goes by the name,
"globalization."
>No country was as dependant upon world trade in the last half of
>the twentieth century as Hong Kong. It went from an extremely
>poor country to one of the wealthiest countries in less than 50
>years. Singapore too.
It is worth noting that both HK and Singapore get a large part of
their public revenue from land rents, and have done for many decades.
Japan prospered mightily in the 50s and 60s when land taxation
accounted for much of government revenue, but as the land tax rate was
gradually reduced, growth fell off, even as land prices rocketed to
the moon. Japan committed economic seppuku when it replaced falling
land tax revenue by a consumption tax in 1989 (increased twice since
then). Proving that prosperity has a lower priority than giveaways to
landowners, it stopped taxing land altogether in 1998, even as massive
public infrastructure spending was filling landowners' pockets with
additional unearned income.
>Other countries
>that have turned to global trade such as Indonesia, South Korea,
>and Malaysia have made great strides in economic growth, along
>with a few stumbles.
>
>> 4. What should first-world countries do to help poor nations? If rich
>> countries act only out of self-interest, do they still have a good reason
>> to want to address poverty issues in other nations?
>>
>
>Encourage free-market modern capitalism, low tax rates, low welfare
>state programs. The rule of law, private property rights with
>clear title to land is also required.
Oddly enough, HK and Singapore hold large fractions of their land
bases under government administration.
Do you begin to see? Do you _want_ to see?
>Look at Hong Kong for an example and various periods of U.S. history
>also.
100 years ago, most government revenue in the USA was derived from
land rents, and that was true during almost all periods of the
country's most rapid growth.
>These policies attract investment capital which is required
>for economic growth. Compare the government tax, regulation, and
>welfare policies of Canada vs the U.S. against which country
>attracts the most relative investment capital. While the U.S.
>is far from ideal, the standard of living in the U.S. has been
>growing faster over the last 20 years than that of Canada and
>Western Europe.
The fraction of land rent recovered by taxation varies widely by
state, but is typically higher in the USA than in Canada or Europe.
The states with the highest property tax rates -- New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, etc. -- tend to have much better
economies than the states with the lowest property tax rates: Alabama,
Arkansas, Wyoming, California (post-Proposition 13).
Despite its Rust Belt location, Pittsburgh, which taxes land at six
times the rate on improvements, has a vibrant economy, low housing
cost, and no homelessness. Despite being the world financial center,
NYC, which taxes land at _half_ the rate on improvements, suffers
poverty, homelessness, an outrageous cost of housing, blighted areas
of abandoned buildings, etc.
Do you begin to see? Do you want to see?
-- Roy L
Martin Philippens
xenman <xen...@sprynet.com.nospaam> schreef in berichtnieuws
a4upvo$re6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Poverty is a relative value. Your dad was most probably rich compared to
people from 100 years ago.
>
> > 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> > prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> > What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> > improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> > economic disparity?
> >
>
> There is nothing wrong with disparity. Think what would happen
> should there be no disparity. We would live in a police state
> like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc. Disparity is increasing
> because there is a new wave of technology happening. This has
> historically occured many times. Think about societies that
> first had: metalurgy, irrigation, iron, steel, steam engines,
> railroads, radio, and lately computers. Those that command new
> waves of technology create new wealth and therefore cause
> disparity in income and wealth. Poorer countries and peoples
> benefit from these new technologies also, but at a later time.
> Without disparity you will have little technological advancement,
> and therefore a stagnant standard of living.
Too high disparity/inequality has a negative influence on total wealth. All
economical evidence/studies I have seen point to that. I would like to see
any evidence to the contrary.
>
> > 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> > integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to
the
> > gap between rich and poor nations?
> >
>
> Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations.
This is not confirmed by the facts.
Stefan Spielberg
citizens.
The nation is deep in a strangulating recession, and the numbers of
unemployed losing their benefits is enough to make millions of grown
men cry.
The State of Georgia will not even pay out $300 a week to someone who
earned over $85,000 and then got canned.
Even Paul Krugman, reporter with the New York Times, recently wrote:
"Last week's major political event, though it went largely unnoticed
by the general public, was a hostage drama: House Republicans blocked
vital aid to the nation's most vulnerable workers, and have refused it
unless they secure passage of a dying stimulus plan. The plan, you
won't believe surprised to learn, consists almost of entirely of tax
cuts for corporations and the wealthy".
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/CHAOS.html
Stefan
labatyd
> > > taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from government.
> >
> > The government benefits from the productive rich, _NOT_ the other way
> > around.
>
> The government benefits from the production of all
>
>
> > The rich create all of the wealth that feeds the government and the
> > poor.
>
> No, labor creates wealth.
>
>
> > invested in the private sector, are employing people, ect. Not the
> > do-nothing, country club types, or the very high wage earning
> > employees (there not enough of these to grab a significant amount of
> > money from anyway). By heavily taxing the productive rich, you take
> > money out of their hands before they can use it to create even more
> > wealth which would eventually make it down to the poor and middle
> > classes (Killing the goose that lays the golden egg).
There is no difference "productive rich" and "idle rich". The idle rich
simply lose their wealth over time. The productive rich became rich by being
productive and stay rich as long as they stay productive, that is, continue
to use their wealth in a wise methods of investment.
>
> Wealth does not "trickle-down", that is contrary to the principle of
> capitalism and the free market. Wages "trickle down" (iow what has to
> be paid to labor in order to keep wealth trickling up) and only in a
> proportion to the advantage of the one allowing it to "trickle down".
> If X trickles down and X+ doesn't trickle up (IOW...if wealth is not
> being re-distributed upwards) there is no profit for the capitalist
> and no point.
>
> Josh
Wealth does neither. Wealth is created by investment capital and labor.
Investment capital is simply surplus labor for time past. What labor is not
consumed in current time is saved for future. That re-invested labor
increases the productivity of future labor.
Mike Warren
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:17:34 -0800, "xenman"
> <xen...@sprynet.com.nospaam> wrote:
> >Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations.
> Only if by "globalization" you mean free trade, [..]
Which doesn't include patents or copyrights, unlike the current
``globalization'' agenda.
Mike Warren
> The USA is now a very poor country, if you take into account only the
> citizens.
<URL:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/uow-npo022002.php>
Mark Neglay
> On 20 Feb 2002 08:26:32 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
> wrote:
>
> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c72923e...@news.telus.net>...
> >> On 19 Feb 2002 07:37:48 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The first person to buy a stock or bond is
> >> >not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
> >> >in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
> >> >is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
> >> >act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
> >> >banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
> >> >They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
> >> >same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
> >> >And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
> >>
> >> That is a quibble. The point is, those who buy an IPO or corporate
> >> bond are providing funds for real investment. Those who buy shares in
> >> an established company are not.
> >
> >They are providing funds to those who provided funds to buy an IPO or
> >buy a bond.
>
> Garbage. That's like claiming the people who pay millions for old
> paintings are financing the original artist.
So you are claiming that stock certificates have intrinsic value?
> >> And the reason their
> >> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
> >> for money to fund expansion.
> >
> >The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
> >successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
> >reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
> >paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
> >income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
> >implemented.
>
> They are politically feasible because they are in the interests of the
> rich.
The reason a specific tax is politically feasible depends on who is
being taxed. For example, it is ok by most Americans to tax corporate
income because most Americans think that is a tax on someone else who
can afford it. And in any case, each tax we have is also easily
implemented, one reason why your asset taxes will not come to pass any
time soon.
> >> A bank is just an intermediary.
> >
> >...that's the point.
>
> Too bad you don't understand it.
...you think that this is witty, don't you?
> >> It doesn't care if its deposits are
> >> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
> >> wealth of one unproductive person.
> >
> >Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
> >
> >So what?
>
> So the claim that the rich are needed to finance investment is just an
> outright lie.
I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
the system does not punish investors.
xenman
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:3c73f9c1...@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:17:34 -0800, "xenman"
> <xen...@sprynet.com.nospaam> wrote:
>
> >Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations.
>
Well of course.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c73efae...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 20 Feb 2002 08:26:32 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c72923e...@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On 19 Feb 2002 07:37:48 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The first person to buy a stock or bond is
>> >> >not the only person responsible for investment in a company. In fact,
>> >> >in almost every case, the first to buy a stock or bond from the issuer
>> >> >is only an intermediary. It never had any other goal in mind than to
>> >> >act as an intermediary. Would you try to argue that a syndicate of
>> >> >banks, taking bonds to market are the only investors that matter?
>> >> >They buy bonds by the thousands with one goal in mind: to sell those
>> >> >same bonds, within as little time as possible, to other investors.
>> >> >And you want to claim that only the primary investors matter?
>> >>
>> >> That is a quibble. The point is, those who buy an IPO or corporate
>> >> bond are providing funds for real investment. Those who buy shares in
>> >> an established company are not.
>> >
>> >They are providing funds to those who provided funds to buy an IPO or
>> >buy a bond.
>>
>> Garbage. That's like claiming the people who pay millions for old
>> paintings are financing the original artist.
>
>So you are claiming that stock certificates have intrinsic value?
What is "intrinsic" value?
>> >> And the reason their
>> >> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
>> >> for money to fund expansion.
>> >
>> >The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
>> >successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
>> >reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
>> >paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
>> >income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
>> >implemented.
>>
>> They are politically feasible because they are in the interests of the
>> rich.
>
>The reason a specific tax is politically feasible depends on who is
>being taxed. For example, it is ok by most Americans to tax corporate
>income because most Americans think that is a tax on someone else who
>can afford it.
And it is OK by the rich because they know it is mainly paid by the
middle class, and also makes their own cash assets yield more unearned
(and largely untaxed) income.
>And in any case, each tax we have is also easily
>implemented,
ROTFL!! Do you know _anything_at_all_ about how the US income tax was
implemented, and what it takes to maintain it?
>one reason why your asset taxes will not come to pass any
>time soon.
<yawn> Asset taxes (especially on land) are the easiest to implement
of all. That's why they are the oldest taxes.
>> >> It doesn't care if its deposits are
>> >> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
>> >> wealth of one unproductive person.
>> >
>> >Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
>> >
>> >So what?
>>
>> So the claim that the rich are needed to finance investment is just an
>> outright lie.
>
>I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
>the system does not punish investors.
But investors, in the economic sense (the only kind we need to be
concerned about), are those who pay for purchases of capital goods.
Because most capital goods other than buildings depreciate rapidly, a
well designed asset tax would "punish" them far less than does the
current tax on income and (especially operating) profits.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>There is no difference "productive rich" and "idle rich".
??? Is there similarly no difference betweeen the working poor and
the welfare poor?
>The idle rich
>simply lose their wealth over time.
That is false. "To turn $100 into $200 is work. To turn $100M into
$200M is inevitable." -- Samuel Bronfman, Canadian billionaire
>The productive rich became rich by being
>productive and stay rich as long as they stay productive, that is, continue
>to use their wealth in a wise methods of investment.
That is false and idiotic. Most rich people are unproductive. Their
unearned incomes would flow to them, and their assets continue to
increase, just the same if they were comatose. And you don't even
have to be very rich for this to happen. Most people who own their
own homes at the time they retire, and continue to own them, have more
assets when they die.
>Wealth is created by investment capital and labor.
Applied to land and other natural resources.
-- Roy L
Martin Philippens
xenman <xen...@sprynet.com.nospaam> schreef in berichtnieuws
a4upvo$re6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Poverty is a relative value. Your dad was most probably rich compared to
people from 100 years ago.
>
> > 2. The United Nations' publication, State of the Future 2001,
> > prognosticates a global trend of increasingly acute economic inequity.
> > What possible initiatives do you see as having the greatest potential to
> > improve the current (and potentially worsening) situation of extreme
> > economic disparity?
> >
>
> There is nothing wrong with disparity.
Too high disparity/inequality has a negative influence on total wealth. All
evidence and studies I have seen point to that. I would like to see any
evidence to the contrary.
>
> > 3. Do you view the process of globalization (WTO agreements, economic
> > integration) as having a narrowing or widening impact with respect to
the
> > gap between rich and poor nations?
> >
>
> Globalization decreases the gap between rich and poor nations.
This is not confirmed by the facts.
The evidence presented in the CEPR study "The Scoreboard on Globalisation
1980 - 2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress" does not prove that the
broad decline in progress in the areas of economic growth, health outcomes,
or other social indicators are a result of any or more of these policy
changes. But it does present a very strong prima facie case that some
structural and policy changes implemented during the last two decades are at
least partly responsible for these declines. And there is certainly no
evidence in these data that the policies associated with globalisation have
improved outcomes for the most low to middle-income countries. To argue that
this is the case, it would be necessary to show that outcomes would have
been even worse in the era of globalisation, if countries had not adopted
these policies.
Red Cross Beverage
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/uow-npo022002.php
and
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/CHAOS.html
concerning:
"Ninety percent of young white male workers now doing worse than they
would have 20 years ago", and
"MILLIONS Now Out of Unemployment Checks --- Desperation MOUNTS!!
Congress STALEMATES over extending unemployment benefits beyond the
standard 26-week cutoff".
stefans...@blackplanet.com (Stefan Spielberg) wrote in message news:<973e5326.02022...@posting.google.com>...
Mark Neglay
Rephrase: Are you claiming that people buy paintings from the original
painter based wholy (or even partially in most cases) on the future
cash flows those assets would generate and the risk of not realizing
those cash flows?
People buy paintings for different reasons than they buy stocks and
bonds. When I buy a stock or bond, its future value, tax
implications, and liquidity are all I care about. I don't care about
how pretty the certificates are or whether they would look nice in my
bedroom. Your analogy was poor. Now you know why.
> >> >> And the reason their
> >> >> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
> >> >> for money to fund expansion.
> >> >
> >> >The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
> >> >successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
> >> >reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
> >> >paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
> >> >income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
> >> >implemented.
> >>
> >> They are politically feasible because they are in the interests of the
> >> rich.
> >
> >The reason a specific tax is politically feasible depends on who is
> >being taxed. For example, it is ok by most Americans to tax corporate
> >income because most Americans think that is a tax on someone else who
> >can afford it.
>
> And it is OK by the rich because they know it is mainly paid by the
> middle class, and also makes their own cash assets yield more unearned
> (and largely untaxed) income.
Provide evidence that the wealthy generally favor corporate income
taxes.
Here's my (admittedly weak) evidence that they oppose corporate taxes:
The wealthy tend strongly to vote Republican. Republicans tend to
oppose corporate income tax.
<snip, I'm not getting in to your conspiracy theories>
> >> >> It doesn't care if its deposits are
> >> >> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
> >> >> wealth of one unproductive person.
> >> >
> >> >Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
> >> >
> >> >So what?
> >>
> >> So the claim that the rich are needed to finance investment is just an
> >> outright lie.
> >
> >I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
> >the system does not punish investors.
>
> But investors, in the economic sense (the only kind we need to be
> concerned about), are those who pay for purchases of capital goods.
Then only the bank matters to mortgage investment and not the
depositors.
> Because most capital goods other than buildings depreciate rapidly, a
> well designed asset tax would "punish" them far less than does the
> current tax on income and (especially operating) profits.
As screwed up as FSAB is, you want to base a system of taxation on it.
Ouch.
Tim Worstall
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in message news:<825e2890.02021...@posting.google.com>...> > > On 18 Feb 2002 01:29:44 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > >
> > > >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c7004e9...@news.telus.net>...
> > > >> On 17 Feb 2002 07:44:05 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >"Christiaan Jordaan" <c...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:<a4js3l$iiv$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> > > >> >
>
> > > >> >Ah, you mean relative poverty. You might want to note that the
> > > >> >economic development that reduces absolute poverty has historically
> > > >> >increased relative poverty.
> > > >>
> > > >> You have some evidence for this claim? In point of fact, absolute
> > > >> poverty tends to be worst in countries with very unequal distributions
> > > >> of wealth. Economic growth is fastest in countries where people are
> > > >> allowed to produce, and rewarded according to their contributions to
> > > >> production -- and people's contributions are mostly about the same.
> > > >
> > > >Sure, hunter gatherer societies are famously egalitarian in their
> > > >wealth distribution. Developed economies are not.
> > >
> > > "'Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not
> > > harmoniously so,' said Dr. Herbert Gintis of the University of
> > > Massachusetts ... 'They are violently egalitarian.'"
> > >
> > > (From "The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless",
> > > 1/22/02.
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/social/22CHEA.html )
> > >
> > > Just a thought. ;-)
> >
> > Jared Diamond ( Guns Germs and Steel ) notes that the leading cause of
> > death for adult males in hunter gatherer socities is murder .
>
> sounded quite interesting.
I certainly enjoyed it.
He tries to answer the question, ' Why did the Spanish turn up in
Cuzco, not the Incas conquer Madrid ' .....He cites the proximate
causes as the Europeans possession of guns , germs and steel , thus
the title of the book. But then he tries to look back at the ultimate
cause, for why the Europeans had these, and most other societies of
the time did not.
He thinks back through population density, luck and happenstance, and
comes down to the shape of the continents themselves, and the genetic
inheritance of modifiable food crops and animals that existed in
various areas.
To my mind well written, and while I don't take all he says without a
pinch of salt, he certainly makes a convincing case. Strongly
recommend it.
Tim Worstall
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Uh, no. Why?
>People buy paintings for different reasons than they buy stocks and
>bonds.
Indeed.
>When I buy a stock or bond, its future value, tax
>implications, and liquidity are all I care about. I don't care about
>how pretty the certificates are or whether they would look nice in my
>bedroom. Your analogy was poor. Now you know why.
OTC, my analogy was perfectly apt. When people buy old paintings, it
is usually as an "investment" or for subsequent tax advantages rather
than for personal enjoyment. But in fact, such purchases, like
purchases of land or the stock of established companies, contribute
absolutely nothing to society. It's just rent-seeking.
>> >> >> And the reason their
>> >> >> profits are taxed is so that they will have to go begging to the rich
>> >> >> for money to fund expansion.
>> >> >
>> >> >The reason their profits are taxed is because the government has
>> >> >successfully tried to tax US citizens and businesses at ever
>> >> >reasonable transaction. The government can tax us during a sale, when
>> >> >paychecks are written, when corporations show a positive net
>> >> >income...because all of these are politically feasible and easily
>> >> >implemented.
>> >>
>> >> They are politically feasible because they are in the interests of the
>> >> rich.
>> >
>> >The reason a specific tax is politically feasible depends on who is
>> >being taxed. For example, it is ok by most Americans to tax corporate
>> >income because most Americans think that is a tax on someone else who
>> >can afford it.
>>
>> And it is OK by the rich because they know it is mainly paid by the
>> middle class, and also makes their own cash assets yield more unearned
>> (and largely untaxed) income.
>
>Provide evidence that the wealthy generally favor corporate income
>taxes.
We have them, rather than far fairer and more economically benign
taxes. That's not just evidence. It's proof.
>Here's my (admittedly weak) evidence that they oppose corporate taxes:
>The wealthy tend strongly to vote Republican. Republicans tend to
>oppose corporate income tax.
<snicker> Well, at least you admitted it was weak...
The Republicans are in charge. If they oppose corporate income tax,
why do we still have it?
><snip, I'm not getting in to your conspiracy theories>
IOW, you'll swallow any lie, as long as it is implausible enough....
>> >> >> It doesn't care if its deposits are
>> >> >> the untaxed earnings of lots of productive people, or the untaxed
>> >> >> wealth of one unproductive person.
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither does a bond holder, selling his asset on the open market.
>> >> >
>> >> >So what?
>> >>
>> >> So the claim that the rich are needed to finance investment is just an
>> >> outright lie.
>> >
>> >I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
>> >the system does not punish investors.
>>
>> But investors, in the economic sense (the only kind we need to be
>> concerned about), are those who pay for purchases of capital goods.
>
>Then only the bank matters to mortgage investment and not the
>depositors.
No, only the _money_ matters. It doesn't matter who owns it. You
seem to have swallowed whole the absurd notion that high after-tax
returns to ownership, at the expense of returns to production, are
needed to stimulate saving for investment in productive capital.
>> Because most capital goods other than buildings depreciate rapidly, a
>> well designed asset tax would "punish" them far less than does the
>> current tax on income and (especially operating) profits.
>
>As screwed up as FSAB is, you want to base a system of taxation on it.
??? You mean FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board?
It is screwed up only because of the irrational demands placed on it
by income and profits taxation.
-- Roy L
Maria Cocco
> http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/CHAOS.html
>
> concerning:
>
> "Ninety percent of young white male workers now doing worse than they
> would have 20 years ago", and
>
> "MILLIONS Now Out of Unemployment Checks --- Desperation MOUNTS!!
> Congress STALEMATES over extending unemployment benefits beyond the
> standard 26-week cutoff".
> > The USA is now a very poor country, if you take into account only the
Mark Neglay
Here is the problem: The original investors in stock only care about
the status of their new assets as investments. (Risk, including
liquidity, future value, cash flows). Therefor, they are indeed
concerned with whether or not people will purchase their investments
hour or years later. Meanwhile, original investors in paintings are
not necessarily concerned with the status of the painting as an
investment. Therefor, they are not nearly as concerned with whether
or not people will buy it hours or years later. You attempted to
claim that by my logic, they would care. That is a misapplication of
my logic.
Are we clear yet?
> >Provide evidence that the wealthy generally favor corporate income
> >taxes.
>
> We have them, rather than far fairer and more economically benign
> taxes. That's not just evidence. It's proof.
That's called a circular argument. You claim that we have the tax
structure that the wealthy prefer, implying that it is defined by the
preferences of the wealthy. Yet your proof that the wealthy prefer
today's tax system is the fact that it exists in it's current state.
If you cannot prove that the wealthy prefer the existance of corporate
income taxes, then your argument is based on assumptions.
> >Here's my (admittedly weak) evidence that they oppose corporate taxes:
> >The wealthy tend strongly to vote Republican. Republicans tend to
> >oppose corporate income tax.
>
> <snicker> Well, at least you admitted it was weak...
>
> The Republicans are in charge. If they oppose corporate income tax,
> why do we still have it?
It represents a smaller and smaller proportion of Federal income every
year. But obviously, the fact that one party has more power at any
given time does not mean that all of it's policies will become law.
Likewise, not all Republicans would support a complete elimination of
all corporate income taxes. Neither political party represents any of
its constituencies completely.
> >> >I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
> >> >the system does not punish investors.
> >>
> >> But investors, in the economic sense (the only kind we need to be
> >> concerned about), are those who pay for purchases of capital goods.
> >
> >Then only the bank matters to mortgage investment and not the
> >depositors.
>
> No, only the _money_ matters.
And the money comes from the bank in the case of mortgages. So by
your logic, the loans will occur regardless of whether banks attract
any deposits.
> >> Because most capital goods other than buildings depreciate rapidly, a
> >> well designed asset tax would "punish" them far less than does the
> >> current tax on income and (especially operating) profits.
> >
> >As screwed up as FSAB is, you want to base a system of taxation on it.
>
> ??? You mean FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board?
Yes, and in fact I made two errors, I should have written GAAP, not
FASB. FASB determines GAAP.
> It is screwed up only because of the irrational demands placed on it
> by income and profits taxation.
GAAP (and FASB) is currently unconcerned with tax accounting. GAAP
determines *financial accounting* standards. These standards are used
for filing reports with the SEC, not the IRS. (See Roy, you learn
something new every day) These include how we draw up balance sheets
and the like for reporting to investors. You have it backwards. Tax
accounting as it is requires companies to declare income or loss to
determine their tax liability. Your system would require an
application of GAAP-like standards to determine tax liability. In
other words, we would need to come up with standards to determine
asset values for tax reasons. This makes tax accounting much more
difficult, much more complicated, and much more open to
interpretation.
Compare the difficulties the IRS may have in determining whether
businesses are declaring their tax liability correctly, and auditing
those businesses, to the difficulties the SEC has in forcing companies
to "correctly" represent the value of intangible assets, land,
building, equipment, and depreciation on their balance sheets.
Mark Neglay
No, companies can carry losses forward several years.
> >>The main reason productive individuals can't start their companies
> >>with their own money is because their earned incomes have been taxed
> >>away and given to the rich. So the productive have to go begging to
> >>the rich for money, too.
> >>
> >First of all productive individuals do start companies with their own
> >money everyday. Ever try to get a business loan or venture capital?
> >It's almost impossible for a startup.
>
> OTC, it happens every day.
Companies, with no other financing, get VC money every day?
> >Most businesses are small
> >businesses and the overwhelming majority of those were started with
> >private money from individuals and their families.
>
> ?? Sure. Because they started small enough to be financed that way.
> If you want to start a type of business that can't start that small --
> mining, say -- you have to borrow.
Mining companies started from scratch like this will generally form
limited partnerships. They often don't require large enough
investments to classify their owners as wealthy. (Minimum investments
of say, $50,000) In any case, they don't borrow, they sell ownership
in the venture. Even when they do borrow, they don't necessarily have
to borrow from the wealthy. If they secure their debt with equipment
(very common in oil and gas or other types of mining) they can go
right to banks, which finance their loans with deposits of people with
any level of income and wealth.
John Magner Tirman
found themselves in the swelling ranks of the magazine unemployed. Ms.
Parnass, who had worked for Marie Claire for six years, ... discovered
that except for one person in the art department, no one had a single
lead for a position anywhere.
[...] "This is one of the bleaker times I can recall," says Kathy
Bishop, 39, the former editor in chief of Mode." [from The New York
Times]
Let me see ... 5000 dead due to an undiagnosed implosion within the
substructure of the twin towers of the WTC, like structural engineers
had planned to get rid of two bad pieces of real estate in a corporate
strategy meeting.
Now the whole nation, for over five months has heard nothing but bin
Laden bin Laden and terrorism on our national monopolistic TV
programming. It is time to take the bull by the horns and fix our
country ourselves, without any claptrap from Washington, nor the
Pentagon, nor Fox and CNN. We don't need any of them. They are the
problem.
maria...@hotmail.com (Maria Cocco) wrote in message news:<13d72671.02022...@posting.google.com>...
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
??? What is this crap? I say, "2+2 = 4" and you say, "No, crows are
black." Get a life.
>> >>The main reason productive individuals can't start their companies
>> >>with their own money is because their earned incomes have been taxed
>> >>away and given to the rich. So the productive have to go begging to
>> >>the rich for money, too.
>> >>
>> >First of all productive individuals do start companies with their own
>> >money everyday. Ever try to get a business loan or venture capital?
>> >It's almost impossible for a startup.
>>
>> OTC, it happens every day.
>
>Companies, with no other financing, get VC money every day?
Yes.
>> >Most businesses are small
>> >businesses and the overwhelming majority of those were started with
>> >private money from individuals and their families.
>>
>> ?? Sure. Because they started small enough to be financed that way.
>> If you want to start a type of business that can't start that small --
>> mining, say -- you have to borrow.
>
>Mining companies started from scratch like this will generally form
>limited partnerships. They often don't require large enough
>investments to classify their owners as wealthy.
<yawn> Never tire of the quibbles, do you? You can start a "mining"
_company_ for a few hundred dollars. You can't start _mining_ until
you borrow many millions.
>(Minimum investments
>of say, $50,000) In any case, they don't borrow, they sell ownership
>in the venture. Even when they do borrow, they don't necessarily have
>to borrow from the wealthy.
By definition, you can only borrow from those who have.
>If they secure their debt with equipment
>(very common in oil and gas or other types of mining) they can go
>right to banks, which finance their loans with deposits of people with
>any level of income and wealth.
Which was my point.
-- Roy L
David Lloyd-Jones
Nicely put. (Slightly garbled, but the point is solid.)
-dlj.
"Mason Clark" <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gha17ucp60uvsg6ae...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Feb 2002 19:41:31 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
>
> >Mason Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<g8qu6ugi3eqi6divc...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 16 Feb 2002 20:47:22 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
wrote:
> >>
> >> >Our high standard of living in the US has _NOTHING_ to do with what
> >> >our government does.
> >>
> >> Another, and stunning, addition to my collection of great
> >> quotations from the intellectual giants on that world-renowned
> >> economics forum called "sci.econ."
> >>
> >> Mason C
> >
> >
> >Heres some more quotes for your "collection"
> >
> >
> >"Private enterprise... manages so much better all the concerns to
> >which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Ann. Message, 1806. ME
> >3:423
> >
> >"[The] policy [of my country] is, to leave their citizens free,
> >neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. Though the
> >interposition of government, in matters of invention, has its use, yet
> >it is in practice so inseparable from abuse, that they think it better
> >not to meddle with it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787. ME
> >6:255
> >
> >"We remark with special satisfaction those [favorable circumstances]
> >which, under the smiles of Providence, result from the skill, industry
> >and order of our citizens managing their own affairs in their own way
> >and for their own use, unembarrassed by too much regulations,
> >unoppressed by fiscal exactions." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Annual
> >Message, 1802. ME 3:340
>
> Interesting. But wouldn't quotes from a slave-holder? Now read them
again.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Toto" <lib...@wwinmail.com> wrote
> >>Mason Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >Interesting. But wouldn't quotes from a slave-holder? Now read them
again.
>
> slave-holder?" is a sentence fragment. Please clarify.
Mason's quip was garbled in transmission, but easily understood and spot on.
The haughty liberalism Jefferson expresses in the earlier quotes is just
top-dog's yawp.
By my standards, anybody who uses the pseudonym "Toto" has an obligation to
know about Bleeding Kansas, and to understand that anything on the subject
of free enterprise said by slaveholders means nothing. Or less.
Wey-yull there goes my invitation to head table at the 2004
Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner...
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> sensibly wrote
> ro...@telus.net in some bizarre variant of the Z-th Internationale's
rhetoric du jour had written:
> > Whacking him would certainly give one a feeling of having done
> > something worthwhile, but it's not clear it would actually do any good
> > for Zimbabwe, unless you have some special insight as to what would
> > follow a whacked Mugabe.
> Knowing, as I do, a number of Zimbabwean diplomats and junior
> governemental types, yes, I think I do have an insight. Get rid of
> Mugabe and the edifice will crumble. Perhaps not an immediate return
> to the prosperity of, say, the late 80's, but certianly a stopping of
> the spiral downwards.
I don't think that anybody has suggested whacking Mugabe, in any sense of
the word. A number of people are suggesting that free and fair elections
might be a nice idea.
Widely missed, in between the AIDs pandemic and the various normal average
genocides and stupidities going on, is the fact that large parts of the
African economy(ies) is growing like Topsy. The "resources," i.e. extracted
minerals, sector is horrible, and will never get better than it is today.In
all other economic sectors, things are going quite nicely, and everywhere.
If you could wedge a nickel in sideways in a reasonable sort of way, there
is no faster way of getting rich than investing in an African railway,
cell-phone company, or brewery. I don't in fact advise these investments,
and I have looked into them a good deal: you gotta be there on the ground,
and probably be able to turn up at the local registry office with a posse to
know that your profits are safe. But for people who can do that, these are
wonderful times in the history of private enterprise
With Hassan al-Turabi under house arrest, and the Sudanese war at least
quiescent, in part through the valorous faxes and telexes -- not much e-mail
yet in a world this basic -- of the US State Department getting a handle on
some of the money folks, I have started taking lessons in Dinka. People ask
me what dialect. I say masculine; feminine I hear enough of. If we go over
there, we won't be doing it in these citified ways, but in agriculture,
which is generally a higher-tech occupation than most of the manufacturing
and service economic sectors.
-d
lj.
David Lloyd-Jones
(Tim Worstall) wrote:
> >
> >Jared Diamond ( Guns Germs and Steel ) notes that the leading cause of
> >death for adult males in hunter gatherer socities is murder .
>
> a return to the simpler, live off the land, egalitarian existence!
Grinch,
It's not that all those hippy-dippies are air-head romantics. It's that the
ones still alive are scared out of their minds. Of each other.
I've always been impressed by the acuity of Charles Manson's analysis:
"Whaddya mean `You'll always be"in there'"?"
The fearsome and fearful regimentation of university campuses is only one
aspect of this feral quality of the ambitious unfettered.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote
>
> Jared Diamond ( Guns Germs and Steel ) notes that the leading cause of
> death for adult males in hunter gatherer socities is murder .
Tim,
No big surprise there. Present day hunter-gatherer societies are all over
all maps, varying from the comparative success of the Kalahari Bushmen (who
may no longer be hunter-gatherers, but were pre-paleolithic only 30 years
ago) through the moderate success of the Cushites of Sudan, who would be OK
but for the war, to the utter disaster and disarray of many of the Amazon
River-basin groups.
In the far past there would probably not have been this big variation in
success. They would all have been late teenagers, and they would have died
like Bloods and Crips of their demographics anywhere else.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
> On 19 Feb 2002 02:47:40 -0800, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> >ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c71691...@news.telus.net>...
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:04:54 -0000, "Michael Dietrich"
> >> <m.j.d_...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> Too bad the World Bank won't even allow discussion of what _really_
> >> needs targeting: injustice.
I can't keep track of the indents to know who wrote that last inanity.
Suffice to say it's somebody who has missed the fact that James Wolfensohn
is head of the World Bank, and has the place working on almost nothing but.
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote in message news:<3c768c6f...@news.telus.net>...
>> On 21 Feb 2002 14:18:22 -0800, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >When I buy a stock or bond, its future value, tax
>> >implications, and liquidity are all I care about. I don't care about
>> >how pretty the certificates are or whether they would look nice in my
>> >bedroom. Your analogy was poor. Now you know why.
>>
>> OTC, my analogy was perfectly apt. When people buy old paintings, it
>> is usually as an "investment" or for subsequent tax advantages rather
>> than for personal enjoyment. But in fact, such purchases, like
>> purchases of land or the stock of established companies, contribute
>> absolutely nothing to society. It's just rent-seeking.
>
>Here is the problem: The original investors in stock only care about
>the status of their new assets as investments. (Risk, including
>liquidity, future value, cash flows). Therefor, they are indeed
>concerned with whether or not people will purchase their investments
>hour or years later. Meanwhile, original investors in paintings are
>not necessarily concerned with the status of the painting as an
>investment. Therefor, they are not nearly as concerned with whether
>or not people will buy it hours or years later. You attempted to
>claim that by my logic, they would care.
No. I was not talking at all about original purchasers of paintings.
My point was that those who buy paintings by long-dead artists are not
contributing anything by doing so, and purchasers of the stock of
established companies are in the same position. In fact, buyers of
original art often _do_ have some criterion of "resale value," just as
buyers of IPOs; but once the artist is dead or no longer working,
buying his work can't stimulate further production. Similarly, buying
shares in companies that are profitable enough to fund all their own
expansion stimulates no additional productive activity.
>Are we clear yet?
Obviously not.
>> >Provide evidence that the wealthy generally favor corporate income
>> >taxes.
>>
>> We have them, rather than far fairer and more economically benign
>> taxes. That's not just evidence. It's proof.
>
>That's called a circular argument.
Nonsense.
>You claim that we have the tax
>structure that the wealthy prefer, implying that it is defined by the
>preferences of the wealthy. Yet your proof that the wealthy prefer
>today's tax system is the fact that it exists in it's current state.
No, I previously explained _why_ they would prefer it: it increases
the unearned return to asset ownership.
>If you cannot prove that the wealthy prefer the existance of corporate
>income taxes, then your argument is based on assumptions.
All arguments are based on assumptions called "premises." I assume
those who donate to political campaigns get what they want for those
donations, roughly in proportion to their size.
>> The Republicans are in charge. If they oppose corporate income tax,
>> why do we still have it?
>
>It represents a smaller and smaller proportion of Federal income every
>year. But obviously, the fact that one party has more power at any
>given time does not mean that all of it's policies will become law.
>Likewise, not all Republicans would support a complete elimination of
>all corporate income taxes.
Well, maybe the rich also have other reasons for voting Republican,
then?
>> >> >I think this is a poor way of stating it. What is important is that
>> >> >the system does not punish investors.
>> >>
>> >> But investors, in the economic sense (the only kind we need to be
>> >> concerned about), are those who pay for purchases of capital goods.
>> >
>> >Then only the bank matters to mortgage investment and not the
>> >depositors.
>>
>> No, only the _money_ matters.
>
>And the money comes from the bank in the case of mortgages. So by
>your logic, the loans will occur regardless of whether banks attract
>any deposits.
No, I'm saying the _building_ will occur, whether it is financed by
loans from the untaxed assets of the rich (via banks or whatever) or
by the untaxed earnings of the purchasers.
>> It is screwed up only because of the irrational demands placed on it
>> by income and profits taxation.
>
>GAAP (and FASB) is currently unconcerned with tax accounting.
Get real. Everything happens for tax reasons.
>GAAP
>determines *financial accounting* standards. These standards are used
>for filing reports with the SEC, not the IRS.
<yawn> When are you going to learn that companies use the same books
to calculate their taxes as to produce their SEC filings, and that it
is _illegal_ to keep different accounts for the two functions?
>These include how we draw up balance sheets
>and the like for reporting to investors. You have it backwards. Tax
>accounting as it is requires companies to declare income or loss to
>determine their tax liability. Your system would require an
>application of GAAP-like standards to determine tax liability.
Funny how property taxes don't.
>In
>other words, we would need to come up with standards to determine
>asset values for tax reasons.
Of course. You basically want an estimate as close to market as
possible. For assets that trade in liquid markets, it's easy. For
land, it takes more work, but can still be done with a high degree of
reliability. For everything else that hasn't traded recently, we
could just allow that it's worth what the owner says it is worth,
given that if anyone offers more for it, the owner has to either sell
at that price, or pay double the tax on the difference. Problem
solved.
>This makes tax accounting much more
>difficult, much more complicated, and much more open to
>interpretation.
Nope. Ever paid a property tax bill?
>Compare the difficulties the IRS may have in determining whether
>businesses are declaring their tax liability correctly, and auditing
>those businesses, to the difficulties the SEC has in forcing companies
>to "correctly" represent the value of intangible assets, land,
>building, equipment, and depreciation on their balance sheets.
That's just the point. The SEC doesn't want them overstating their
financial position, while the IRS doesn't want them understating
earnings. Meanwhile, the companies typically _want_ to overstate
their assets to improve their stock prices, but understate their
earnings to reduce their tax liabilities. Taxing assets instead of
income would restore honesty in accounting: overstate assets, and you
pay more tax; understate them, and you are subject to the double tax
penalty described above. Once you can't fudge assets, you can't fudge
earnings.
-- Roy L
Tim Worstall
Roy, I'm amazed that you haven't managed to get land taxation into
this thread yet.
The secondary market in shares does have economic uses.....for
example, it helps to create an efficient market for capital. It
transfers risk ( those who love risk, like myself, invest in start
ups. Those that succeed, float ) ......
You seem to misunderstand the whole idea about secondary markets. Of
course the secondary market does not provide additional capital or
productive capacity. But it makes the primary market more efficient,
and is worthwhile having for that alone.
Tim Worstall
ro...@telus.net
>Roy, I'm amazed that you haven't managed to get land taxation into
>this thread yet.
How about this:
"Pure ground rent is in the nature of a 'surplus,' which can be taxed
heavily without distorting production incentives or reducing
efficiency."
-- Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in Economics
"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved
value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."
--Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics
"It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of
government revenue."
-- Franco Modigliani, Nobel laureate in Economics
"For efficiency, for adequate revenue, and for justice, every user of
land should be required to make an annual payment to the local
government equal to the current rental value of the land he or she
prevents others from using."
-- Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics
"While the governments of developed nations with market economies
collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much
as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of
taxes that impede their economies -- taxes on such things as incomes,
sales, and the value of capital goods."
-- William Vickrey, Nobel laureate in Economics and past
president of the American Economics Association
Happy?
>The secondary market in shares does have economic uses.....for
>example, it helps to create an efficient market for capital.
But how do you know that the tax regime that makes the secondary
market so profitable is not damaging overall allocative efficiency
even more?
>It transfers risk
Is that a fancy way of saying it transfers income from those who
provide real investment capital to those who idly collect rent for
doing nothing?
>You seem to misunderstand the whole idea about secondary markets. Of
>course the secondary market does not provide additional capital or
>productive capacity. But it makes the primary market more efficient,
>and is worthwhile having for that alone.
The issue is not whether to _have_ a secondary market, but whether its
returns should be subsidized at the expense of actual production and
actual investment in productive capital.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
ROTFL!!
I participated in a World Bank policy discussion email group where the
moderators gave new meaning to "editorial activism." They would not
allow refutation of outright lies, and actually rewrote submissions
that proved the Bank's policies were evil and destructive, changing
the meaning entirely, but leaving the author's name attached! It was
so bad that several participants started a parallel group to
distribute the original unedited posts along with rejected material.
The World Bank _fired_ its Senior Vice President and Chief Economist,
the brilliant Joseph Stiglitz, for suggesting that stealing from the
poor to give to the rich might not be the way to alleviate poverty. A
Google search on "Joseph Stiglitz" will take you to many of his essays
that demonstrate how evil World Bank and IMF policies are.
-- Roy L
Nurses Bam Pow!
"Let me see ... 5000 dead due to an undiagnosed implosion within
the
> substructure of the twin towers of the WTC, like structural engineers
> had planned to get rid of two bad pieces of real estate in a corporate
> strategy meeting.
>
> Now the whole nation, for over five months has heard nothing but bin
> Laden bin Laden and terrorism on our national monopolistic TV
> programming. It is time to take the bull by the horns and fix our
> country ourselves, without any claptrap from Washington, nor the
> Pentagon, nor Fox and CNN. We don't need any of them. They are the
> problem."
Many people don't doubt for a moment that it WAS NOT the Taliban
behind the strangely orchestrated total destruction of the two WTC
towers. It was a domestic, inside operation, done by highly organized
professionals, probably with jobs in the government sector.
When Democrats Daschle and Gephart are about as effective as two gnats
in invigorating at least a few jobs and a modicum of health care in
our dreadfully decapitated economy, and with so much misery everywhere
[all you have to do is open your eyes, America] ... and the fraud of
senior citizen rest homes and nursing homes is tantamount to ENRON and
GLOBAL CROSSING turpitude, ... we really in the end can do without any
Congressmen or Senators whatsoever. We can all vote on issues at home
with a click on our PC-internet hookup, and the majority rules, we
don't need one of them Senators, nor their dogs.
There should be a public outcry over the lameness of our intelligence
services and our military leadership, if it REALLY WAS TALIBAN WHO
SNUCK IN HERE AND WERE THE TRUE CULPRITS.
A lot of alert Boy Scouts with pen knives could have stymied the
approach of the commercial jetliners that flew into the Pentagon and
the two tallest towers in NYC. Get hip, get real, and stop playing
with your noodles.
Nurses Committed to Social Action
john_...@yahoo.com (John Magner Tirman) wrote in message news:<75d65aa4.02022...@posting.google.com>...