SUPERFLUOUS PEOPLE
Jim Blair
Just trolling for comments ;-)
SUPERFLUOUS PEOPLE
We are the superfluous people.
We are the unionized workers replaced by robots or slaves,
the secretaries ousted by computers.
We are the people of color, the over-50, the people with disabilities,
the ones who don't belong on the team.
We are the displaced homemakers,
the parentless children,
the partnerless parents,
the poets without readers,
the teachers without students,
the students who can't afford college,
the graduates who didn't get hired,
the scientists without grants,
the executives who got downsized.
Why is this?
Isn't there enough work to do in the world?
Aren't there enough stomachs to be filled,
enough limbs to be clothed,
enough babes to be rocked,
enough children and youth to be taught,
enough neighborhoods to be beautified,
enough trees to be planted,
enough fields to be tilled,
enough songs to be sung,
enough stories to be told,
enough riddles to be solved,
enough wounds to be healed,
enough houses and cities to be built right?
But the market does not ask these questions.
The market cannot ask what people need.
It can only ask what those who have the money
want.
Only community can ask
what people need.
And time may be short.
As slave labor replaces free,
as machines replace people,
as large corporations swallow up small ones
and cut their staffs
and buy up the press and the government,
I tell you Spaceship Earth is flying
with a shrinking crew,
a skeleton crew
with skeleton motives,
and the rest of us are not passengers.
We are ballast.
And we feel the moment edging closer
when we could be pushed off.
But let's keep our heads, my friends.
Let us put them together.
Together let us learn to ask the question
what we, the people, need.
We are the superfluous people.
Nobody needs us
except ourselves.
But if you'll say you need me
I'll say I need you.
And we can start.
By Esther Cameron
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Snark
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Just trolling for comments ;-)
>
>
>
>SUPERFLUOUS PEOPLE
>
<snip>
The two things that seem to be lacking in the US are imagination and
morality. The imagination to somehow provide what people want and the
morality to not exploit thy fellow man to achieve such goals.
As an example of imagination, let's look at Coca Cola, The founder's
most important ingredient in his successful company wasn't anything
found in the formula for his cola. The most important ingredient was
imagination. - to found a whole company based on the distribution of
wholesome sugar water. Yet it's more valuable than that. Thanks to
marketing, it stands for a consistent product found throughout the
world. It might even occasionally serve as common trust uniting ever
so slightly people from across nations. If I may be so campy, I might
even say it may not solve any wars, but it might start a friendship.
The other lacking quality is morality. It is to work with, but not
exploit your fellow man in creating wealth. We need more companies
that actually make wealth in terms of real goods instead of just
creating money. We need less companies that saturate domestic
markets with products made by virtual slave labor. We need more
places willing to train and make workers more efficient instead of
simply hiring more poor souls for the same tired old process. We need
less "financial" institutions who only exist to make paper gains by
fees, interest, and speculation. We need more income equality and
less civil litigation. Sure, the more the populace gets, the more
they ask for in the future - but isn't that progress?
T. Snark
(When I run into a genie dispensing 3 wishes, after I make an ice
cream sundae appear from thin air, there will be some mighty big
changes around here...)
ro...@telus.net
>As an example of imagination, let's look at Coca Cola, The founder's
>most important ingredient in his successful company wasn't anything
>found in the formula for his cola.
Well, the physically addictive cocaine, caffeine and sugar in his
formula might have had something to do with it...
>The most important ingredient was
>imagination. - to found a whole company based on the distribution of
>wholesome sugar water.
It was marketing, not distribution, and there has never been anything
wholesome about it.
>Yet it's more valuable than that. Thanks to
>marketing, it stands for a consistent product found throughout the
>world.
No. It stands for profiting by the planned, systematic and well
financed exploitation of the vulnerable.
>If I may be so campy, I might
>even say it may not solve any wars, but it might start a friendship.
Absolutely. Two people who both got diabetes from drinking cola could
meet in hospital, and fall in love. Coke is beautiful that way!
>The other lacking quality is morality.
Yeah. How about the morality of threatening a magazine that publishes
_facts_ contrary to the interests of the Coca-Cola Company with enough
lawsuits to bankrupt it before any of those suits would even get to
trial? I saw it, pal. With my own eyes.
-- Roy L
Snark
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:26:33 GMT, snar...@bigfoot.com (Snark) wrote:
>
>>As an example of imagination, let's look at Coca Cola, The founder's
>>most important ingredient in his successful company wasn't anything
>>found in the formula for his cola.
>
>Well, the physically addictive cocaine, caffeine and sugar in his
>formula might have had something to do with it...
>
Originally, perhaps but I think the DEA would have something to say
about that today. But there ARE other colas that have more sugar and
caffine and other stuff, but only Pepsi seems to be a match for coke.
Other cola's such as Jolt have claimed to add more of everything so
why isn;t it #1? Is it perhaps because of that nasty M word?
>>The most important ingredient was
>>imagination. - to found a whole company based on the distribution of
>>wholesome sugar water.
>
>It was marketing, not distribution, and there has never been anything
>wholesome about it.
>
OK perhaps wholesome wasn't a good word, but consistancy is. You can
crack open a bottle in even South Korea and be reasonably sure it's
safer than the local drinking water. (soda fountians excluded)
>>Yet it's more valuable than that. Thanks to
>>marketing, it stands for a consistent product found throughout the
>>world.
>
>No. It stands for profiting by the planned, systematic and well
>financed exploitation of the vulnerable.
>
Possibly, but marketing does fill a need even if it's a very lame one.
Coke has created an image that makes those there bottles of sugar
water fetch more than other bottles from other guys. It may not have
a powerful Marlboro man image, but it definitely has nostalgic
Americana all over it. You can argue, that marketing has no value,
but it would be an argument against success. Then again, one person's
definition of success may be another's definition of systematic
cheating.
>>If I may be so campy, I might
>>even say it may not solve any wars, but it might start a friendship.
>
>Absolutely. Two people who both got diabetes from drinking cola could
>meet in hospital, and fall in love. Coke is beautiful that way!
>
Ahh, even you agree. Ain't love grand! The same thing about
friendship also can apply to beer too. Actually more so since I
suspect more people suffer from beer goggles than go blind from sugar
shock because of coke. I would dare say if we were to take away
saturday night drinking, we could systematically half this nation's
birth rate!
>>The other lacking quality is morality.
>
>Yeah. How about the morality of threatening a magazine that publishes
>_facts_ contrary to the interests of the Coca-Cola Company with enough
>lawsuits to bankrupt it before any of those suits would even get to
>trial? I saw it, pal. With my own eyes.
>
I'll agree with you on that one. Some of these companies are
downright evil. As far as their employee policies go, Coke isn't the
worst, but it's up there. So, what company do you think is the best
to work for? (exclude dot-com's please)
T. Snark
Don't know what I can personally do about changing how Coke run's it's
company other than developing a taste for Moxie instead. Either that
or SAM's cola (by Walmart) - but I have yet to be able to choke one of
those cans down!
Ron Peterson
> Originally, perhaps but I think the DEA would have something to say
> about that today. But there ARE other colas that have more sugar and
> caffine and other stuff, but only Pepsi seems to be a match for coke.
> Other cola's such as Jolt have claimed to add more of everything so
> why isn;t it #1? Is it perhaps because of that nasty M word?
There's nothing nasty about Mountain Dew except for caffeine free
version that I bought last time by mistake.
The brown sodas including Dr. Pepper and rootbeer usually contain
phosphoric acid which may interfere with your calcium balance when
excessive amounts are consumed.
> I'll agree with you on that one. Some of these companies are
> downright evil. As far as their employee policies go, Coke isn't the
> worst, but it's up there. So, what company do you think is the best
> to work for? (exclude dot-com's please)
Apple was one of the best, but it had to get lean to compete.
Companies that have a large profit per employee can be more
generous with their employees.
Ron
Peter Lawrence
>
> Hi,
>
> Just trolling for comments ;-)
There is something of a verbal trick here, that once you remove it reveals
the answer. "Superfluous" is meaningless by itself, since it must always be
"superfluous TO" something - a something that is often implied by the
context. Once you supply that, you see that it is pretty much the old
distinction between "demand" as ordinarily understood, and as used
technically in economics, i.e. the EFFECTIVE demand where there are means to
give practical expression to people's wishes (the other sense of "demand").
These people are purely and simply superfluous to effective demand, which is
quite another thing from the moral question of their personal significance
and also suggests the question of what brings about that demand (or lack of
it). The wrong question is asked in the headline, or else the wrong
illustrations are supplied, since none of the human experiences outlined
relate to whether the people are superfluous or not.
The following notes should clarify this:-
.
.
.
> Isn't there enough work to do in the world?
Yes, but who wants what's on offer at the prices asked? Many of those who
would wish these things are themselves out of the loop.
> Aren't there enough stomachs to be filled,
Ditto.
> enough limbs to be clothed,
Ditto.
> enough babes to be rocked,
No babies ever need to be rocked. That is purely and simply a technique
common in certain cultures. But even if we stipulate that it is more general,
then the previous reservations still apply.
> enough children and youth to be taught,
Ditto.
> enough neighborhoods to be beautified,
No. One man's meat is another man's poison - urban renewal shows that. But if
we stipulate it, the usual applies.
> enough trees to be planted,
No. Tree plantations are usually ugly, and as for commercial uses - see above
for the usual.
> enough fields to be tilled,
Not if you don't need to feed people. (Oh, THEY need to be fed? But WE don't
need to feed them - for the usual reasons. Vagrancy costs are an externality,
but they don't need to be met by Danegeld.)
> enough songs to be sung,
> enough stories to be told,
> enough riddles to be solved,
These last three, as for "babes to be rocked". ("Babes"? How nauseating and
cloying. They are babies, damnit.)
> enough wounds to be healed,
Rather ask why there are wounds. Nobody ever healed a wound, though many
interfered and some few allowed nature to heal.
> enough houses and cities to be built right?
A mixture of the last two answers. NOBODY ever aimed to build well and also
succeeded, save by accident. These things can only integrate with human
aspirations organically.
>
> But the market does not ask these questions.
> The market cannot ask what people need.
Nonsense. It can and does do these things - ONCE everything relevant is
factored in. Now that does not always happen, but through the fault and
failing of men not the market.
> It can only ask what those who have the money
> want.
Nonsense - economic pressures need not arise in these ways alone.
> Only community can ask
> what people need.
Horrible and tyrannical, in that it requires individuality to bow the neck to
community. I may not say what I want, and nor may you, for we are not "the
people" - just people.
>
> And time may be short.
> As slave labor replaces free,
It doesn't, actually. The externalities involved work to "free" people for
casual work.
> as machines replace people,
> as large corporations swallow up small ones
> and cut their staffs
> and buy up the press and the government,
> I tell you Spaceship Earth is flying
> with a shrinking crew,
> a skeleton crew
> with skeleton motives,
Nonsense. There are no motives, no meanings, within this narrow economic
circuit - no hand is at the controls, for the central planners, nor any
framework for an invisible hand to work upon, just imperfect inputs with no
mind behind.
> and the rest of us are not passengers.
> We are ballast.
Not even that, just overlooked swarf from earlier work.
> And we feel the moment edging closer
> when we could be pushed off.
Crowded out, actually.
>
> But let's keep our heads, my friends.
> Let us put them together.
> Together let us learn to ask the question
> what we, the people, need.
There's that tyranny again.
>
> We are the superfluous people.
> Nobody needs us
> except ourselves.
> But if you'll say you need me
> I'll say I need you.
> And we can start.
Your solution is worse than any doom blind fate can throw upon me, for from
that I can hope to escape since it does not pursue. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Sean
wage deflation.
Stan Rothwell
produce something that others want or need, and are willing to pay for
Snark
>The CEO s of McJob corporations which should be wound up because they cause
>wage deflation.
>
Don't get mad - get even. Just vote for people who implement
progressive tax systems instead of flat taxes. If you run into a flat
tax type, you might point out to them that compounding investment
returns used by the rich are not linear so tax rates shouldn't be
linear either. Then again, if you can get the average Rush Limbaugh
brainwashed guy at the bar to remember what even a non-linear equasion
is (such as a log curve, x - squared, x-cubed, etc.) you're doing
better than I.
T. Snark
When asked what the most powerful force known to humanity was, Albert
Einstien replied "compound interest"
Thomas Sauve
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:36:39 +0100, "Sean" <sean...@yahoo.ie> wrote:
>
> >The CEO s of McJob corporations which should be wound up because they cause
> >wage deflation.
> >
> Don't get mad - get even. Just vote for people who implement
> progressive tax systems instead of flat taxes. If you run into a flat
> tax type, you might point out to them that compounding investment
> returns used by the rich are not linear so tax rates shouldn't be
> linear either. Then again, if you can get the average Rush Limbaugh
> brainwashed guy at the bar to remember what even a non-linear equasion
> is (such as a log curve, x - squared, x-cubed, etc.) you're doing
> better than I.
yeah, make it so whatever money a person tries to make, the government
will take it away immediately. That'll stimulate investment!
T. Snark
<ts0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Snark wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:36:39 +0100, "Sean" <sean...@yahoo.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >The CEO s of McJob corporations which should be wound up because they cause
>> >wage deflation.
>> >
>> Don't get mad - get even. Just vote for people who implement
>> progressive tax systems instead of flat taxes. If you run into a flat
>> tax type, you might point out to them that compounding investment
>> returns used by the rich are not linear so tax rates shouldn't be
>> linear either. Then again, if you can get the average Rush Limbaugh
>> brainwashed guy at the bar to remember what even a non-linear equasion
>> is (such as a log curve, x - squared, x-cubed, etc.) you're doing
>> better than I.
>
>yeah, make it so whatever money a person tries to make, the government
>will take it away immediately. That'll stimulate investment!
>
>
The biggest myth in this country is that the rich create jobs. The
rich already have theirs - and they won't lift a finger to change
anything. The poor don't have the means or background. The middle
class are the only ones with the means, education and the motive. If
this government was serious about increasing productivity and
innovation in this country, it would adopt a 95% tax rate for any
person with over 5 million in income a year (including unearned
income).
Once a person makes that much, they are no longer innovating. They
become the ones who stifle innovation by not wanting anything to
change - especially anything that might change their income! I for
one am tired of being a pawn in these rich kid financial "games". They
have played these money games since the early 1980's and all that's
left is an empty shell of an American Dream . So I say it's time to
soak-em. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening. I watch in
horror as the G.W. Bush team lowers the upper tax rates - and our
economy and expectations of life sink lower and lower each year.
T. Snark
Jim Blair
>The biggest myth in this country is that the rich create jobs.
Hi,
Yea like Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller or Andy Grove. None of those guys
ever created a job. All those "jobs" at the Ford Motor Company, Standard
Oil and Intel already existed before those rich guys founded those
companies. Just that the people doing those jobs now were doing something
else. Well you know what I mean.
You are looking at this backwards. It is less that "the rich" create jobs
than that people who found new companies or introduce new and more
productive ways to do things BECOME rich as a result. People who create
jobs become rich.
>....The
>rich already have theirs -
??? Most of them were not rich before they got theirs. Any Grove for
example. Or John D. Rockefeller. They were born to poor families and
BECAME rich as the result of their ideas and efforts.
>....and they won't lift a finger to change
>anything.
You mean AFTER they become rich? Well that depends. Some of them do. Like
Rockefeller and Ford.
The poor don't have the means or background.
Like Andy Grove or John D.? I mean when THEY were poor?
>...The middle
>class are the only ones with the means, education and the motive.
Means to do what? And do "classes" innovate? Or do people?
>....If
>this government was serious about increasing productivity and
>innovation in this country, it would adopt a 95% tax rate for any
>person with over 5 million in income a year (including unearned
>income).
Why not make that 150%? Then those stupid rich guys would pay the
government million of dollars a year more than they make.
>
>Once a person makes that much, they are no longer innovating. They
>become the ones who stifle innovation by not wanting anything to
>change - especially anything that might change their income!
You must mean pro-athletes, or movie or rock stars here? They are the
most obvious examples of people with million dollar a year incomes.
>....I for
>one am tired of being a pawn in these rich kid financial "games". They
>have played these money games since the early 1980's and all that's
>left is an empty shell of an American Dream .
???? The last 20 years have been the best in US history. Least time in
recession (under 5%) and people now have the highest incomes and highest %
of home owners ever. They live longer and travel more and have more
education than ever, etc. Or does any of that matter?
>.....So I say it's time to
>soak-em. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening. I watch in
>horror as the G.W. Bush team lowers the upper tax rates - and our
>economy and expectations of life sink lower and lower each year.
>
>T. Snark
Like they have for the last 20 years?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>snar...@bigfoot.com (T. Snark) wrote:
>
>>The biggest myth in this country is that the rich create jobs.
>
>You are looking at this backwards. It is less that "the rich" create jobs
>than that people who found new companies or introduce new and more
>productive ways to do things BECOME rich as a result. People who create
>jobs become rich.
Right. So taxing their _earned_incomes_ is wrong and destructive.
But in what sense is the Duke of Westminster creating jobs by
collecting rent on the land he owns in NYC? The land would be there,
just the same, even if he did not exist.
>>....The
>>rich already have theirs -
>
>??? Most of them were not rich before they got theirs. Any Grove for
>example. Or John D. Rockefeller. They were born to poor families and
>BECAME rich as the result of their ideas and efforts.
Right. So it's the _becoming_ rich that should be tax free. Not the
_being_ rich.
>>....If
>>this government was serious about increasing productivity and
>>innovation in this country, it would adopt a 95% tax rate for any
>>person with over 5 million in income a year (including unearned
>>income).
>
>Why not make that 150%? Then those stupid rich guys would pay the
>government million of dollars a year more than they make.
I agree, snark's idea is foolish and indefensible. He doesn't even
seem to understand the difference between the rich and the productive.
>>Once a person makes that much, they are no longer innovating. They
>>become the ones who stifle innovation by not wanting anything to
>>change - especially anything that might change their income!
>
>You must mean pro-athletes, or movie or rock stars here? They are the
>most obvious examples of people with million dollar a year incomes.
Pro athletes are the beneficiaries of subsidized arena construction
and the system of awarding broadcast licenses (sports broadcasts are
automatically assumed to be in the public interest). Movie and rock
stars are the beneficiaries of the subsidy to copyright holders.
In fact, the rich are the ones who most violently oppose any
fundamental change to the tax system. They know they are making out
like bandits just the way things are.
-- Roy L
T. Snark
wrote:
>snar...@bigfoot.com (T. Snark) wrote:
>
>
>>The biggest myth in this country is that the rich create jobs.
>
>Hi,
>
>Yea like Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller or Andy Grove. None of those guys
>ever created a job. All those "jobs" at the Ford Motor Company, Standard
>Oil and Intel already existed before those rich guys founded those
>companies. Just that the people doing those jobs now were doing something
>else. Well you know what I mean.
>
>You are looking at this backwards. It is less that "the rich" create jobs
>than that people who found new companies or introduce new and more
>productive ways to do things BECOME rich as a result. People who create
>jobs become rich.
>
That statement I use is not totally correct - but it does get people
thinking about the issue as I'm sure your statements do too.
It seems that we are both right sometimes. I think if you were going
for accuracy, you might say something like "people who found new
companies or introduce new and more productive ways to do things MIGHT
become rich as a result". Many good money making ideas are developed
by people other than those who originally founded a company. Not that
this is a bad thing. It's a team effort. However all too often, some
members of the team seem to do THOUSANDS of times better than those
who made the large productivity gain possible at all. I'm not saying
that we should go to a totally communist system. However one similar
to the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream way of doing things seems to work
well. In the company charter, they stated that "no employee makes
more than 10 times the lowest paid worker". With this rule, the
founders made out quite well, the workers seem happy, and the company
is rock solid.
Your last statement should also be changed to something like "People
who create jobs MAY become rich OR MAY GO BROKE". Yep. It happens
with 95% of new businesses within 5 years. People doing the wrong
things. The causes can range from under-performing sales people to
non-efficient workers.
What I am trying to say is that BEING rich does not always make one an
instant job creation wonder. The already wealthy have the means, but
nobody can control what they use that power for. Some create more
jobs - but others such as corporate raiders and bad managers actually
eliminate them. One "rich" person who is clearly bad for
productivity is our greatest broken window fallacy wonder called Bin
Ladin.
>>....The
>>rich already have theirs -
>
>??? Most of them were not rich before they got theirs. Any Grove for
>example. Or John D. Rockefeller. They were born to poor families and
>BECAME rich as the result of their ideas and efforts.
>
>
Ah, so you admit that some very good innovation does come from the
non-super wealthy and moderately ok? If this is so, should we not
give these small guys a break until they get to be large and wealthy
enough to afford the taxes that must be paid?
>>....and they won't lift a finger to change
>>anything.
>
>You mean AFTER they become rich? Well that depends. Some of them do. Like
>Rockefeller and Ford.
Not without 'help' from the government. With an estate tax, the
government said essentially, "when you die, you can't pass it on". So
of course many of these folks gave to their favorite charities. Now,
thanks to the King George administration, the estate tax is being
repealed. That's where the bulk of the tax cuts are going to go -
not to the $600 voter bribery checks that were handed out this summer.
Not only will this move be expensive, but it will stifle innovation.
>
>
>The poor don't have the means or background.
>
>Like Andy Grove or John D.? I mean when THEY were poor?
>
Andy Grove wasn't incredibly well off, but he wasn't poor either. If
you think growing up on a farm means you are poor, just try to buy
yorself a farm. As for John D.s background, his background is so
manufactured by now that it would be hard to tell what really went on
back then. What was clear was that he did have a high school
education - which in his day was at least as useful as a 4-year degree
is now. The point is that these people were not wealthy, but they
also weren't poor uneducated street urchins either.
>
>>...The middle
>>class are the only ones with the means, education and the motive.
>
>
>Means to do what? And do "classes" innovate? Or do people?
>
…to make sure people still have the means to innovate.
>>....If
>>this government was serious about increasing productivity and
>>innovation in this country, it would adopt a 95% tax rate for any
>>person with over 5 million in income a year (including unearned
>>income).
>
>Why not make that 150%? Then those stupid rich guys would pay the
>government million of dollars a year more than they make.
>
No, I'll just be satisfied with the tax structure that was in place
just after WWII (which did have a 95% upper income tax bracket for
the super-wealthy). It seemed to work. The 50's and 60's were golden
times for the US. So I say that since the tax rate didn't prevent us
from being a superpower, it is at the very least harmless to
re-implement. Who knows, it may have even been the CAUSE of us
becoming the economic engine we were in the 50's, 60's and early 70's.
>>
>>Once a person makes that much, they are no longer innovating. They
>>become the ones who stifle innovation by not wanting anything to
>>change - especially anything that might change their income!
>
>You must mean pro-athletes, or movie or rock stars here? They are the
>most obvious examples of people with million dollar a year incomes.
>
>
You got it. Why, if they are making that much, why aren't we
hopelessly addicted to TV by now? Instead, when I flip through the
channels, I find myself thinking of that Dire Straits lyric "99
channels and nothin on". I definitely don't find anything in the
media that justifies as an example a $250 million dollar salary for a
baseball player. These salaries don't seem to increase the quality of
entertainment. Instead, all they do by getting paid that much is
erode the value of my dollars.
>>....I for
>>one am tired of being a pawn in these rich kid financial "games". They
>>have played these money games since the early 1980's and all that's
>>left is an empty shell of an American Dream .
>
>???? The last 20 years have been the best in US history. Least time in
>recession (under 5%) and people now have the highest incomes and highest %
>of home owners ever. They live longer and travel more and have more
>education than ever, etc. Or does any of that matter?
>
Where do you live? Oh, Wisconsin. I suppose you also believe that
true unemployment is only 5%, the tooth fairy is real and that G.W.
Bush will keep a balanced budget.
>
>>.....So I say it's time to
>>soak-em. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening. I watch in
>>horror as the G.W. Bush team lowers the upper tax rates - and our
>>economy and expectations of life sink lower and lower each year.
>>
>>T. Snark
>
>Like they have for the last 20 years?
>
Yes. As a member of the first generation NewsWeek magazine said would
NOT do as well as our parents, I say it's time to soak the rich. We
need to raise the upper tax bracket rates and bring back the estate
tax for the super wealthy.
T. Snark
(The plot to turn the US into a 3rd world country continues)
Mark Neglay
> I'm not saying
> that we should go to a totally communist system. However one similar
> to the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream way of doing things seems to work
> well. In the company charter, they stated that "no employee makes
> more than 10 times the lowest paid worker". With this rule, the
> founders made out quite well, the workers seem happy, and the company
> is rock solid.
I think it was 7, but in any case, they had to violate their own rule
because no qualified individual would take the position.
> What I am trying to say is that BEING rich does not always make one an
> instant job creation wonder. The already wealthy have the means, but
> nobody can control what they use that power for. Some create more
> jobs - but others such as corporate raiders and bad managers actually
> eliminate them.
If by corporate raiders, you mean those who buy 51% control of a
company and liquidate its assets, then you should realize that one of
our economy's strengths is our willingness to let bad companies fail.
> >You mean AFTER they become rich? Well that depends. Some of them do. Like
> >Rockefeller and Ford.
>
> Not without 'help' from the government. With an estate tax, the
> government said essentially, "when you die, you can't pass it on".
And wealthy people just bought MECs, invested in trusts, gifted as
much as possible during their lifetime, etc,...
> So
> of course many of these folks gave to their favorite charities. Now,
> thanks to the King George administration, the estate tax is being
> repealed. That's where the bulk of the tax cuts are going to go -
Actually very little.
> >Why not make that 150%? Then those stupid rich guys would pay the
> >government million of dollars a year more than they make.
> >
> No, I'll just be satisfied with the tax structure that was in place
> just after WWII (which did have a 95% upper income tax bracket for
> the super-wealthy). It seemed to work. The 50's and 60's were golden
> times for the US.
(Upper rate cut to 70%)
> You got it. Why, if they are making that much, why aren't we
> hopelessly addicted to TV by now? Instead, when I flip through the
> channels, I find myself thinking of that Dire Straits lyric "99
> channels and nothin on". I definitely don't find anything in the
> media that justifies as an example a $250 million dollar salary for a
> baseball player. These salaries don't seem to increase the quality of
> entertainment. Instead, all they do by getting paid that much is
> erode the value of my dollars.
Sounds like you believe that simply paying people more doesn't make
them more productive.
> >Like they have for the last 20 years?
> >
> Yes. As a member of the first generation NewsWeek magazine said would
> NOT do as well as our parents, I say it's time to soak the rich. We
> need to raise the upper tax bracket rates and bring back the estate
> tax for the super wealthy.
Yeah I heard that factoid a lot in the early 80's. I never understood
what it was supposed to mean.
Jim Blair
>>>The biggest myth in this country is that the rich create jobs.
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Yea like Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller or Andy Grove. None of those guys
>>ever created a job. All those "jobs" at the Ford Motor Company, Standard
>>Oil and Intel already existed before those rich guys founded those
>>companies. Just that the people doing those jobs now were doing something
>>else. Well you know what I mean.
>>
>>You are looking at this backwards. It is less that "the rich" create jobs
>>than that people who found new companies or introduce new and more
>>productive ways to do things BECOME rich as a result. People who create
>>jobs become rich.
snark
>>
>That statement I use is not totally correct - but it does get people
>thinking about the issue as I'm sure your statements do too.
>
>It seems that we are both right sometimes. I think if you were going
>for accuracy, you might say something like "people who found new
>companies or introduce new and more productive ways to do things MIGHT
>become rich as a result".
Hi,
The key point is that in the US (unlike some places) those people have the
OPPORTUNITY to become rich. Which gives them the incentive to try.
>...Many good money making ideas are developed
>by people other than those who originally founded a company. Not that
>this is a bad thing. It's a team effort. However all too often, some
>members of the team seem to do THOUSANDS of times better than those
>who made the large productivity gain possible at all.
Sure. And some times some laywer ends up with all the gains. But I say
that the one with the good idea ends up with enough gains enough of the
time, to provide enough incentive to have made the US economy the envy of
the world. The Europeans and Japanese are still trying to find a way to
do this.
>....I'm not saying
>that we should go to a totally communist system. However one similar
>to the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream way of doing things seems to work
>well.
Re, Ben & Jerry's was hardly a "communist system".
In the company charter, they stated that "no employee makes
>more than 10 times the lowest paid worker". With this rule, the
>founders made out quite well, the workers seem happy, and the company
>is rock solid.
Until they could not find a ECO with the talent they wanted for that low
wage. And eventually they were taken over by a BIG Business :-(
>Your last statement should also be changed to something like "People
>who create jobs MAY become rich OR MAY GO BROKE". Yep. It happens
>with 95% of new businesses within 5 years. People doing the wrong
>things. The causes can range from under-performing sales people to
>non-efficient workers.
Or to just bad luck, or changes in taste. But the important point is
still that people have the incentive to try.
>
>What I am trying to say is that BEING rich does not always make one an
>instant job creation wonder.
No. It depends on how they got rich. And also on what they do with the
wealth.
>....The already wealthy have the means, but
>nobody can control what they use that power for. Some create more
>jobs - but others such as corporate raiders and bad managers actually
>eliminate them.
Er, eliminating un-necessary jobs increases productivity and makes the
economy more efficient. Sometimes 2 companies can merge and turn out twice
as much product using fewer people. That eliminated jobs but improves
efficiency. And that is GOOD overall.
>...One "rich" person who is clearly bad for
>productivity is our greatest broken window fallacy wonder called Bin
>Ladin.
I don't like every rich guy. I like the way some people got rich.
>
>
>>>....The
>>>rich already have theirs -
jeb:
>>
>>??? Most of them were not rich before they got theirs. Any Grove for
>>example. Or John D. Rockefeller. They were born to poor families and
>>BECAME rich as the result of their ideas and efforts.
>>
>>
>Ah, so you admit that some very good innovation does come from the
>non-super wealthy and moderately ok?
Sure. Most does.
>....If this is so, should we not
>give these small guys a break until they get to be large and wealthy
>enough to afford the taxes that must be paid?
??? If they get taxed enough, they won't make the effort to get rich. As
is the case in much of the world. By the time people GET rich, they can
afford to hire the lawyers to avoid the taxes.
>
>
>>>....and they won't lift a finger to change
>>>anything.
>>
>>You mean AFTER they become rich? Well that depends. Some of them do. Like
>>Rockefeller and Ford.
>
>Not without 'help' from the government. With an estate tax, the
>government said essentially, "when you die, you can't pass it on".
No. With the estate tax the government says "hire a lawyer if you want to
avoid the tax".
>...So
>of course many of these folks gave to their favorite charities. Now,
>thanks to the King George administration, the estate tax is being
>repealed.
Probably not. The lawyers would never permit that.
>....That's where the bulk of the tax cuts are going to go -
>not to the $600 voter bribery checks that were handed out this summer.
Er, where?
>Not only will this move be expensive, but it will stifle innovation.
>
>>
>>
>>The poor don't have the means or background.
>>
>>Like Andy Grove or John D.? I mean when THEY were poor?
>>
>Andy Grove wasn't incredibly well off, but he wasn't poor either. If
>you think growing up on a farm means you are poor, just try to buy
>yorself a farm.
We must mean different people See:
http://www.andygrove.com/intel/people/asg/biography/
I mean when he came to the US from Hungry. He had practically nothing,
and didn't even speak English.
>...As for John D.s background, his background is so
>manufactured by now that it would be hard to tell what really went on
>back then. What was clear was that he did have a high school
>education - which in his day was at least as useful as a 4-year degree
>is now. The point is that these people were not wealthy, but they
>also weren't poor uneducated street urchins either.
Not "uneducated" anyway.
snark:
>>>....If
>>>this government was serious about increasing productivity and
>>>innovation in this country, it would adopt a 95% tax rate for any
>>>person with over 5 million in income a year (including unearned
>>>income).
>>
>>Why not make that 150%? Then those stupid rich guys would pay the
>>government million of dollars a year more than they make.
>>
>No, I'll just be satisfied with the tax structure that was in place
>just after WWII (which did have a 95% upper income tax bracket for
>the super-wealthy).
But no one actually paid it. It was just there to keep lawyers in
business.
>....It seemed to work. The 50's and 60's were golden
>times for the US.
Depends. I say things are better today in many way. Then you had to be
born rich to be rich. Then, your conditions of birth playrd a greater
role in your chances. It was not such a great time if you were born black
or a woman.
snark:
>>>....I for
>>>one am tired of being a pawn in these rich kid financial "games". They
>>>have played these money games since the early 1980's and all that's
>>>left is an empty shell of an American Dream .
jeb:
>>
>>???? The last 20 years have been the best in US history. Least time in
>>recession (under 5%) and people now have the highest incomes and highest %
>>of home owners ever. They live longer and travel more and have more
>>education than ever, etc. Or does any of that matter?
snark:
>>
>Where do you live? Oh, Wisconsin. I suppose you also believe that
>true unemployment is only 5%, the tooth fairy is real and that G.W.
>Bush will keep a balanced budget.
Unemployent has been relatively low for the last 20 years, and employment
has been growing faster than the population. That could all change since
9/11. I doubt the budget will stay balanced. But do you think that it
SHOULD?
>
>>
>>>.....So I say it's time to
>>>soak-em. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening. I watch in
>>>horror as the G.W. Bush team lowers the upper tax rates - and our
>>>economy and expectations of life sink lower and lower each year.
Like since the 1980's after Reagen lowered the rates even more?
>>>
>>>T. Snark
>>
>>Like they have for the last 20 years?
>>
>Yes. As a member of the first generation NewsWeek magazine said would
>NOT do as well as our parents, I say it's time to soak the rich.
Er, I have been reading about how "THIS will be the first generation that
would not do as well as their parents" since at least 1960.
>..We
>need to raise the upper tax bracket rates and bring back the estate
>tax for the super wealthy.
>
>T. Snark
You mean to keep lawyers happy and rich?
>
>(The plot to turn the US into a 3rd world country continues)
Sounds like it ;-)