NFIB

[Don]

Just thought everyone would like to see what NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, had to say about the presidents economic plans.

VOICE e-newsletter for Don Frantz

Welcome to the February 24, 2004, edition of VOICE: Volunteers Organized to Influence Congress and Elections. This e-newsletter is sent to NFIB members twice monthly. Look to NFIB to keep you informed about what's happening in Washington and the states, and how YOU can shape the politics and policy that affect small businesses.

MAIN STREET MESSAGE
President Bush Touts Permanent Tax Relief

As President Bush gears up for the 2004 election, he's making sure that the American people understand his priorities. He showed support for small business in his State of the Union address when he mentioned Association Health Plans (AHPs) and tax-cut permanency and reinforced his commitment to these issues by including funding for both in his fiscal year 2005 budget proposal.

One way that the president is communicating with the public is by holding roundtable discussions on important issues. On Feb. 19, President Bush heard firsthand from several small-business owners, families and farmers about the importance of making permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax packages. The participants included NFIB member Rex Hammock of Hammock Publishing in Nashville, Tenn. Hammock talked to the president about the benefits of recently enacted tax packages and the need to make them permanent.

After the closed-door discussion, the five roundtable participants stood behind President Bush while he told an audience why the tax cuts should be made permanent. He gave examples of how the tax cuts he has enacted have helped the economy and have encouraged companies to grow. He mentioned in his speech that Hammock Publishing was able to invest $100,000 in computer hardware and software due to the recent increase in expensing of capital investments. He noted that Hammock added two new employees last year, and plans on adding five this year.

NFIB's most recent Small Business Economic Trends Report (SBET) is further testimony to the benefits of the tax cuts. In January, the NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism hit 105.8, the fourth-highest quarterly reading in the survey's 30-year history.

The president also stressed the need for certainty in the tax code. NFIB's 600,000 members have long fought for eliminating mystery from the tax code. Uncertainty in the tax code is unfair to small-business owners. Small-business owners need a consistent tax code that allows them to plan and fully realize the potential of the recently enacted tax packages.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 provides small-business owners relief from high individual tax rates, eliminates the death tax, eliminates the marriage penalty, makes a number of significant tax cuts, and reforms our nation's pension laws. However, some of the provisions, such as the death-tax repeal, are scheduled to return, and procedural hurdles in the U.S. Senate have prevented the provisions from becoming a permanent change to the tax code.

The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 was signed into law in May 2003, accelerating the income tax rate reductions from the 2001 bill, increasing small-business expensing limits, and lowering capital gains and dividend taxes. However, just like the 2001 bill, many of these provisions will expire unless Congress passes permanent tax-relief legislation.

VOICEBOX
Go to http://www.nfib.com/getinvolved. Urge Congress to pass President Bush's
budget and make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.

FEDERAL FOCUS
NFIB President Participates in SBA Events

In honor of its 50th anniversary, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is holding regional events in 11 cities throughout the country. The SBA's 50th Anniversary Regional Events allow small businesses, SBA's resource partners, community leaders, and elected officials to gather together to discuss the challenges and opportunities for small businesses throughout America. These events are a chance for business owners to voice their opinions and come together to find workable solutions to the problems facing small business. The SBA began its 11-stop tour in October of 2003 and will make four stops before finishing the tour in April.

NFIB President Jack Faris was the luncheon key-note speaker at SBA regional events in Jacksonville, Fla.; Reno, Nev.; and Albuquerque, N.M. In his speech in Reno, he said that small businesses are desperate for a health care plan that would bring premiums down for small businesses.

Faris said, "The employee who manufactures a Chevy truck has health insurance. However, the mechanic down the street who repairs that same Chevy does not. The reason for the difference - the size of the company each man works for. And that's unfair. The family-owned garage and the giant auto manufacturer should have access to the same health insurance options."

The regional events enable entrepreneurs and small-business owners to meet with their local bankers, venture capitalists, resource and trade partners, and local SBA staff to kick-off a new small business or advance an existing one. There is a luncheon with the SBA Administrator and Deputy Administrator as well as representatives from each local community to discuss the challenges of owning a small business, and how to improve opportunities for entrepreneurs.

Upcoming stops include Morgantown, W.Va.; Green Bay, Wis.; Denver, Colo.; and Kansas City, Mo. Jack Faris will be the luncheon key-note speaker in Denver on April 5 and in Kansas City on April 12. For more information on SBA's 50th Anniversary Regional Events, visit http://www.sba.gov/.

STATE SPOTLIGHT
Election Watch 2004

Congressional primaries will take place in six states during the month of March. Make your voice heard and vote on primary election day.

California: March 2

Maryland: March 2

Ohio: March 2

Mississippi: March 9

Texas: March 9

Illinois: March 16

GRASSROOTS POWER
Sign Up to Attend the Summit for Permanent Death-Tax Repeal

If you think the death tax is unfair to small businesses, join NFIB and other death-tax opponents for the Summit for Permanent Death-Tax Repeal, a one-day event taking place March 31, 2004 in Washington, DC. Participants will hear from Congressional champions for death-tax repeal and spend the day meeting directly with members of Congress, helping them understand why permanent repeal is critical to small-business owners, their families and their employees. If you and others you know would like to be a part of this important event, contact us at 1-800-552-NFIB, x2015 or send an e-mail to mailto:grassroots@NFIB.org.

[Mark]

I still get a kick out of people's calling it the death tax.

[Cathy]

Thanks Don, that was very interesting. But you can be certain that even if small business owners and the less than "well to do" actually like and support the tax changes, the left liberals will hate them because Bush enacted them.

[Mark]

I hate the changes because I can read.

Click for info on the "death tax" myth. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm)

The uberwealthy don't need more tax breaks.

[Don]

what do you do for a living Mark? Just curious.

[Cathy]

I hate the changes because I can read.

Click for info on the "death tax" myth. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm)

The uberwealthy don't need more tax breaks.

"...because you can read" says absolutely nothing about exactly what you have a problem with in regard to the tax cuts.

In my debates with a left liberal leaning very good friend of mine, I get the impression that he will never be satisfied with any tax change that does not make certain that the tax structure isn't progressive enough to assure that a person making over $100,000 pays more in taxes than the person in a lower income bracket even makes.
Good tax policy, in the mind of a socialist liberal, only comes if you tax lower income folks very little, and you tax the higher income folks so much that all they have left is the same amount of income as the lower income person made in total. And it doesn't count to factor in the higher level of sales tax paid by people with more discretionary income. Or to even entertain the idea of creating a higher tax rate for "luxury item" purchases.
If the "death tax" causes double or triple taxation on the same property, then it is wrong, no matter which income bracket benefits most. The attempt to explain that away on this cited website can only be swallowed by a socialist. Property taxes go up whether you sell or stay, live or die, and tax will be paid on the appreciated value of the estate somewhere along the line
Let's go after corporate welfare instead.

[Wuptdo]

Mark, this is from Don's question; is this you?

http://www.bradrickforncsenate.com/


A simple yes or no will do.

Peace-out!

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

Mark, this is from Don's question; is this you?

http://www.bradrickforncsenate.com/


A simple yes or no will do.

Peace-out!

Wuptdo B-)

Well, if it is, I want to know when & how Mark co-opted the phrase "Common Sense". That belongs to Thomas Paine and Common Sense Cary! :)

[Cathy]

Do you really think that Mark might be a Republican?????

[Don]

what do you do for a living Mark? Just curious.

I'm still waiting for an answer. I didn't ask to be sarcastic, but to "try" and understand why Mark believes the way he does. As a small business owner, while it could be even much better, I am encouraged by what I read in my NFIB report. The group is also involved at the state level. Mark considers it humorous and I cannot understand why?

[johnb]

That is one seriously envious little person.

Mark has that very European fear that somewhere, someone is making something of their life and enjoying the fruits of their own labors.

Sad really.

[Anonymous]

I work for the Wake County unit of a nationally organized non profit - which I will decline to name because I honestly believe that certain members of this forum would give them a hard time or find that my political affiliation would tarnish the image of the institution.

Anyway, the estate tax is a protection from the formation of an entrenched aristocracy - a particularly unamerican and undemocratic concept. John accuses me of trying to hinder those making fruits of their own labors. John, apparently, has difficulty in understanding this issue. I object to people "making something of their life" (living luxuriously?) by enjoying the fruits of some else's labors, and not working for their own. Such as thing is odious democratic principles. And such a thing is guarded against, in part, and to a degree, by the estate tax.

And, I might add, that John is perpetuating a myth by avering that people make something of themselves by "the fruits of their own labors." It's the myth of the self made man. No doubt hard work, ingenuity and skill will dispose one to have more success, but to find that people are successful totally relying on factors internal to themselves is absurd. The political state and society generally affords a great many enhancements to the prospect of wealth creation. It's beacause states invest in infrastructure that business can be done. That there is a military and police force that society is reasonably safe and stable, and attractive for investment. That so much is spent on public universities and research that technological innovation makes, again, this country a beacon for investment and business profitable. It's because we educate our children, provide electricity, ensure a set of standard accounting practices, and a thousand other things that allows anyone to be as successful as they are in today's society.

Those things cost money, and if one wants to be successful one needs to pay for them through taxes. That is precisely why it is so objectionable that corporate taxes keeping dropping, and subsidies increasing - because what allows those corporations to function is the massive investment by society into all those factors that facilitate business. It makes sense that businesses, and not just individuals, should bear the costs.

Having said all that, I will acknowledge that taxes are a somewhat arbitrary beast. But, insofar as corporate tax rates have been declining and the highest tier personal income tax rates have been declining it is true to say that the richest Americans are paying a decreasing share of their wealth towards our national prosperity and, conversely, solidly midde and lower middle class people are paying more. I needn't flesh out any more the disparity in that. Suffice it to say that taxes create wealth for the richest people, yet the richest people are paying less and less for the source of their wealth. Fair? Hardly. And, as an aside, it's generally for these reasons that I'm opposed to the stock market as it is simply a vehicle for wealth redistribution, from the less well off to the wealthy... but rich people never seem to mind when it goes their way.

John thinks I'm envious. I am. I long for the day when I can make $200,000 a year as much as I long for the days when the top tax rate nearly 90%. Would that they both happened tomorrow. We'd all be better off for it.

[Anonymous]

Cathy, I agree that corporate welfare is a far more serious problem, the remedy of which would bring in far more revenue than would preserving the estate tax.

But, if I may comment, the double or triple tax argument is weak. It's often employed with respect to dividend receipts, corporate profits generally and even sometimes capital gains as well.

It's faniciful to pretend that money is only taxed once. My income is taxed. The same dollar is taxed at the Whole Foods when I pick up something for dinner. Whole Foods invests in some market index fund, it's taxed as some dividends come back. It's taxed again as sales tax for the company that supplies Whole Food with new checkout scanner equipment. That company keeps that money as retained earnings. Their stock price goes up, causing a bunch of people to sell at a new higher price. Their realized gains are (decreasingly) taxed again. One of those people uses that money to invest in her own business. It can build inventory, and be taxed. Then it's paid to an employee where it's taxed again.

A single unit, whatever it may be, can generate a lot of tax between individuals and I see no way of determining which are "valid" instances of double, triple, or quadruple taxation, and which are not. The issue of corporations being legal persons in a sense notwithstanding. wouldn't it also seem odd that some businesses are taxed on their sales, on selling certain products but not others (often because they're thought to be immoral), then again on research, then again on their profit, then again on the money it pays to it employees, which is to say, essentially, it pays to itself?

I agree with your friend. Any change in tax policy that reduces the tax burden of the wealthy is unjust. Such a change requires the less well off to pay a proportionately larger share - a larger share of improvements that tend to help the rich even more than the poor. So, to me, all tax code changes should be tend toward the most progressive rates possible - with each step towards that goal being less unjust than the step prior to it. It may at some point in that trend be necessary to expand the number of tiers to ensure that some incentive remains for people to acheive higher technical expertise or education. I have no problem with that, I model it similarly to the federal government's (perhaps this country's most socialist institution) pay scale.

[johnb]

-John accuses me of trying to hinder those making fruits of their own
-labors. John, apparently, has difficulty in understanding this issue.

Not at all, John understands quite clearly your desire to control other people's lives and fortunes. You didn't earn the money, the money is the property of the individual who earned it. If they wish to pass it on to their child that is NONE of your concern, period. Your accusation that it would create an "aristocracy" is hilarious. There is no aristocracy in America as you insinuate since this nation does not recognize noble titles and blood claims to the same.

-I object to people "making something of their life" (living luxuriously?)
-by enjoying the fruits of some else's labors, and not working for their
-own.

Manure. You object to other people being richer than you Mark. That burns you. You display that envy in your rather mean spirited attack on successful people. You have no right to dictate how another person disposes of their property, the fact that you are filled with envy and rage over the fact that there are people who are financially more successful than yourself seems to fill you with the urge to attack them for it. If that other person wants to leave their estate to their kids that is NONE of your concern.

-Such as thing is odious democratic principles. And such a thing is
- guarded against, in part, and to a degree, by the estate tax.

That is a lie. What is against democratic principles is YOU insisting on the right to control other people's lives and property.

-It's the myth of the self made man.

You are a true socialist Mark. Is there anything Marx and Engles wrote that you disapprove of?

-It makes sense that businesses, and not just individuals, should bear
-the costs.

Well, just like a socialist, you don't understand economics. Businesses don't pay taxes. Ever. All the cash looted from businesses by government is passed right back on to the customers in the form of higher prices and passed on to the owners (shareholders) in the form of no or lower dividends.

-Having said all that, I will acknowledge that taxes are a somewhat arbitrary beast.

That is true, arbitrary and punitive and the perfect way for socialists to attack/destroy those engaged in behaviours or at income levels you folks dislike. The true is, your socialist economics is more about envy and hate than anything else. You'll make false statements about your "concern" for this or that but that's horsesh!t and we both know it. Leftist economic/tax policies are about the leftists own envy, greed, hatred, and desire for control.

-John thinks I'm envious. I am. I long for the day when I can make
-$200,000 a year as much as I long for the days when the top tax rate
-nearly 90%.

Thank you for confirming exactly what I've said Mark.

Rather than get off your @$$ and EARN the money, you day dream about it while working at your nonprofit. It ain't gonna happen without government intervention. Your comment explains a lot.

[dhyatt]

Mark,
You're a socialist. Watching you debate John (a Libertarian) has got to be one of the most fascinating things I've seen in a while. I don't mean this in a mean way (so please don't take it that way) but I thought people like you were a myth conjured up by the ultra-conservatives. There is incredible paradox in your statement "I long for the day when I can make $200,000 a year as much as I long for the days when the top tax rate nearly 90%." I think you'll find most people don't see much benefit in earning another $50K if they can only bring home <$5K of it - especially when they worked hard and/or taken considerable risk to earn that extra amount. Suppose you and everyone else actually did make $200K (exactly $200K), you'd be just as "broke" as the rest of us. Forced redistribution of wealth is tacitly immoral to begin with and the fact that you think society would actually be better off if everyone had equal "net worth" is truly frightening.

I understand and applaud your willingness to help those that are less fortunate than you but they (and you IMO) would be better off embracing the concept of capitalism instead of pushing a socialist agenda which has been proven to eventually fail everywhere and everytime it's been tried.

[kellyc]

I'm not sure where I fall in this mix. The only times I think people should get a "free ride" is when they are little/young or old. I think all kids regardless of their parents should have access to any and all medicine/treatments they ever need. I also think that they should have all the same doors open to them, because I think every kid has the potential to succeed. And to some extent I think the same thing for the elderly. I dont think they should ever have to worry about paying for medication, heating bills...whatever.

However if you are of a working body I think everything is on your dime or time. I think if you want to collect welfare, but cant find a job...then the government should require 40 hours of documented volunteer time a week to get your benefits. I think whether or not a person chooses to help a fellow citizen to succeed is up to them, and the potential for success proabably a lot higher if someone helps from the heart instead of from forcably having the money removed from their wallet.

Just my 2cents worth.

Kelly

[Cathy]

Dear Guest,

It is extremely difficult for me to understand a person who holds onto the belief that more government oversight is the answer to the problems of life, and actively campaigns for the expansion of government bureaucracy. History and logic should prove to anyone that the larger the program and the farther it is removed from local control, the less efficient and more costly it becomes. You must see this every day.

I believe a grave mistake was made when corporations were given the status of an individual citizen. And although we do agree on some issues, like corporate welfare, since you have plainly stated your desire to see the highest tax rate reach 90%, I doubt that you and I could ever agree on the larger solution. When people are penalized for doing well and being successful, you will find your percentage of income earners that reach that bracket will become smaller and smaller, so what have you achieved?

Yes, our current tax policies have managed to put a tax on every turn of money, so double, triple taxation and more is inherent in the system, but that does not make estate taxes a "good thing". It sounds like just hate and envy for the rich, who according to the IRS information given to the Congress' Joint Economic Committee, in 1999, the top 25% of wage earners in this country pay more than 83% of all federal income taxes, while earning 66% of all income. Let's not "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" just because one holds the belief that social utopia will be achieved when the government gets to "play Robin Hood".

When you say things like "So, to me, all tax code changes should be tend toward the most progressive rates possible - with each step towards that goal being less unjust than the step prior to it.", I am left wondering "What is your definition of justice????" Don't you realize in the slightest way that when this kind of socialism is forced on everyone in such a heavy handed manner that the "contributors" start to just "opt out" and become "takers"????? Why wouldn't they???? Yes, it takes 'self interest' to become wealthy. That's how it works. You can't keep penalizing people for achieving the wealth that you want to 'redistribute' without destroying the source you are drawing from eventually.

You appear to be solidly socialist in your views about governance, and there is where you and I WILL NEVER AGREE! Socialism is a proven failure. It will only work under the auspices of a genius, benevolent dictator, and there aren't any of those around, and history hasn't seen one yet.

[Cathy]

Reading your post to John is quite an experience! Questions abound!!
You are an avowed Socialist, and laying it out for all to see. The honesty, at least, is refreshing. But the commitment to socialism that I see here is puzzling at best. I wonder why a person would think this is the answer for humanity?
Do you subscribe to this ideology because you think that human beings are inherently "bad" i.e., selfish and therefore need to be forced to be "good", (unselfish)? Or is it that you think that human beings are inherently "good" and since all humans are actually, unselfish, highly motivated, hard working, striving to evolve into the best and the brightest that they can be, it only stands to (your) reason that socialism the ideal because only the truly needy will be in line for "assistance"?

Do you honestly think that without government intervention and assistance, we would have no infrastructure or educational opportunities? No philanthropy or charity? Or those "thousand other things that allows anyone to be as successful as they are in today's society" ??????? How conveniently vague!! Wow, it all seems like a winner when it is only a theory in your head, doesn't it?

My last question is that I am wondering what percentage of that dreamed for $200,000.00 a year would you be putting into the collective pool of social largess if we all lived in your ideal of society and governance???

Cathy

[johnb]

Cathy,

Let's not "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" just because one holds the belief that social utopia will be achieved when the government gets to "play Robin Hood".

This is where the socialists cease to be amusing and start to become dangerous. They actually believe government is the "good guy" in all this. I am left wondering when that has ever turned out to be the case.

Was it BMW that burned 6 million Jews at Auchwitz, Treblinka, and Babi Yar in the Shoa?

Was it Faberge that slaughtered 20 million Ukrainian kulaks in the aftermath of Lennin's New Economic Plan?

Was it Toyota that sponsored the Rape of Nanking?

What Chinese capitalists engineered the Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution into which somewhere around 25 million human beings were slaughtered for being insufficiently socialist?

Was it GM that carried out the Indian Wars against the Plains Indians?

Funny isn't it that when you get to the core of all the truly large scale evil events there's always some government employee trying to explain himself/herself later saying they "meant well" or were "only following orders".

Government as the good guy, great fairy tale.

[kellyc]

SUrely John you dont think the corporations are the save all of society. I can only imagine what we'd be like if Bernie Ebbers or Fastow or Skilling ran the country.

Kelly

[kellyc]

Reading your post to John is quite an experience! Questions abound!!
You are an avowed Socialist, and laying it out for all to see. The honesty, at least, is refreshing. But the commitment to socialism that I see here is puzzling at best. I wonder why a person would think this is the answer for humanity?
Do you subscribe to this ideology because you think that human beings are inherently "bad" i.e., selfish and therefore need to be forced to be "good", (unselfish)? Or is it that you think that human beings are inherently "good" and since all humans are actually, unselfish, highly motivated, hard working, striving to evolve into the best and the brightest that they can be, it only stands to (your) reason that socialism the ideal because only the truly needy will be in line for "assistance"?

Do you honestly think that without government intervention and assistance, we would have no infrastructure or educational opportunities? No philanthropy or charity? Or those "thousand other things that allows anyone to be as successful as they are in today's society" ??????? How conveniently vague!! Wow, it all seems like a winner when it is only a theory in your head, doesn't it?

My last question is that I am wondering what percentage of that dreamed for $200,000.00 a year would you be putting into the collective pool of social largess if we all lived in your ideal of society and governance???

Cathy

Im not 100% sure who this is aimed at me or Mark.

Kelly

[johnb]

Did I say that Kelly?

I pointed out the obvious, government is NOT the "good guy". More often than not, government is a monster, a viscious blood soaked monster.

[Cathy]

Reading your post to John is quite an experience! Questions abound!!
Cathy

Im not 100% sure who this is aimed at me or Mark.

Kelly

Sorry for the confusion, Kelly.
It was to Mark. I'm not sure why you might think it was to you.(?)

Cathy

[kellyc]

Well I guess cause I had mentioned footing the bill for old people and kids. And you might say thats kind of socialist on my part.

Kelly

[Cathy]

Well I guess cause I had mentioned footing the bill for old people and kids. And you might say thats kind of socialist on my part.

Kelly

I don't disagree with caring for children and the elderly. It's the natural duty of any God respecting person who believes what the Bible teaches.
It's not necessarily socialist.

Cathy

Kelly,

Just because you are born or you get old, does not make it my responsibilty to foot the bill for your meds. How about lets let there family take care of that.

[kellyc]

Kelly,

Just because you are born or you get old, does not make it my responsibilty to foot the bill for your meds. How about lets let there family take care of that.

Well you are free to your opinion...its just a good thing people dont think the same about schools. I think its part of being human. You assume that someone has a family that can afford meds. You would really deny a kid medicine/treament because his Mom didnt have insurance and couldnt afford it? You really think the elderly should have to decide between paying the heating/water bill or paying for their heart medicine.

Kelly

[Anonymous]

Kelly,

You don't need insurance to get medicine. You can pay as you go, like when you go to the grocery store. What did people do before medical insurance? I know when I got sick as a kid my father would take me to the doctor and pay him in cash or write a check. The problem is people relate medical treatment with insurance. Maybe what we need is more people not using insurance. I am sure the cost of treatment will go down when peolpe stop going to the doctor for every little ache or pain.

[Anonymous]

John.

First, to where should I send a check for your psychoanalysis services? You've certainly got me totally figured out - it's all hate, greed, and envy.

And I'm lazy and generally don't want to make something of myself.

Here are some things John assumed in his post.

That I've always done what I do now, that is, that I never held another job, never made more money than I do now and don't have career goals beyond my current position. He further assumes that I'm not "sucessful" which I'm sure he roughly translates as "he doesn't have assests over x value."

He wants to accuse me of suggesting to control other people's lives and fortunes - as if this is something governments never did. I'll assume he drives though red lights for kicks. I'll bet he really minds that states keep 15 year olds from buying vodka. And, the point I've been making about the estate tax is that people who earn money should have a broad range of rights of things to do with it - but everyone accepts there are certain things one cannot do with money - I'm arguing that passing it onto ones children should be one of them. You can disagree on that one point, but don't pretend that it is any different in principle than the host of other limitations of people's actions.

John starts from the wrong assumption as well. That the money is the property of those that earn it. Not really true, it's the government's after all, and not just in a strict sense. The government makes it, the government sells it to the public, the government decides how, where, and for what it can be used and the government can take it. And, most importantly, that dollar bill you're borrowing only has any value because the United States has value, whatever value it holds you can reap only because the government is well funded enough to make this state secure, stable, and attractive enough for business. You seem to have forgotten that.

And, you needn't be so defensive about aristocracy. I doubt you admit to supporting a permanent monied class that adds no value in labor to this country but only extracts wealth. That aristocracy, and it happens now, and it's getting worse, and we should all be tired of paying for these people. (Interesting to note that many rail against having to pay for welfare recipients, but seldom speak out against the ultra wealthy that extract wealth from the rest of the system.)

I don't understand you're assertion that business don't get taxed. It's just absurd. Moving on...

More hate, desire for control, envy, blah blah blah exhortation for me to "get off my *** and EARN the money" blah... Again, you assume I already haven't. Even prior to that, you assume I don't prioritize my life around some other quantitative measure other than monetary gain. Both assumptions would be false. And that's kind of the funniest thing about John, apparently he can't even begin to see how that could be, that someone could be content with what they have, not really need any more, but still recognize the dangers of an aristocratic class, dislike supporting luxurious leisure with my hard work, and recognize that the value of that money that John holds so dear comes from the whole variety of institutions in this country, all regulated by that oh so loathsome federal government.

Mark

[Anonymous]

Don.

You've slightly misunderstood my position on taxation. Notice that I've written that I support ever increasing progressive structure within a tiered system. Taken to its logical extension this results in a discreet number of bands of income, and if the top tier is 100%, a maximum wage one can earn. It does not mean that everyone earns the same thing. However, I would probably be the case, and I would be satisfied if the top rate was somewhat short of 100%, but still much higher than it is now. Taken this way you'll see that my position isn't perhaps as extreme as John was characterizing it. It's simply a matter of degree within the exsisting framework.

I can't think of any state off of the top of my head where I think a pure socialism would work today if implemented. Though, had that been the initial condition in some places, it might have prevailed.

Anyway, your point is well taken that there would seem to be a disincentive in a pure socialist system where everyone earns the same. That's why I support the system I described above. My feeling is that people are generally good and want, maybe lamentably, to make as much money as they can. So long as there is an opportunity to make more money than one had before, people will avail themselves of it. So I don't think, as you do, that people will stop trying to make the most money possible just because the government will take more of it. That won't stop people from becoming doctors, from starting a business, or from undergoing some research. Sure not everyone will be so inclined, but not everyone is today either.

I'm going to contest two other things in your post. First, that if such a progressive rate were to be in place that the amount of revenue the government had, and the corresponding amount of spending they could, would radically redefine what "broke" is. If everyone made a little less but we had fantastic universal healthcare, food pricing support, a higher minimum wage, education scholarships or even free higher education than I quickly see many of things people feeling "broke" about resolving away.

Second, you write that "Forced redistribution of wealth is tacitly immoral..." And I wonder from where you have authority to write that. Is that a religious principle of your church, that people should horde money and live in a permanent state of splendor on earth? Last time I check most people were Chirstians in this country, and Christians, such as it is, are prone to do things that are against scripture now and again. Few seem to mind when government steps in to try and curtail bad behavior on the basis that it's immoral - think about gambling, but one example. So, I'd argue that there is a much better case to be made that having money in excess of your needs is immoral, and forced redistribution, as it only stands to help those in need, is, to put it bluntly, an act of moral charity on behalf of the state where individuals have so obviously failed.

A quick note to Cathy. More taxes need not necessarily go to a federal government and federal planners. That is cold war era thinking. It could just a feasibly be collected by states, or more local municipalities, or be distributed there. Admittedly, there would naturally be slightly more coordination of policy, but I'd argue that this would be of a setting a minimum standard (for example, of health care coverage) type.

Again, it's only in your mind that a tax is a penalty, or "successful" people are penalized. Doing so first admits that money seeking is a noble and moral goal that, the curtail of which, is immoral. I'll never admit that. I think of tax a supply stream for strengthening the ability of the entire nation to add value. That is 180 degrees away from punitive.

It doesn't concern me how much of the federal budget is paid for by the taxes of the rich for two reasons. Those people get the most out of the system, why shouldn't they pay the most - yes they're fewer in number, but they also take beyond their share of the profits and gains made by all members of society. Second, what I'm really concerned with is changes in the overall makeup of funding. If there is tax cut in the highest bracket, that means the most wealthy people will pay less of the total revenue stream. Which means every one else will pay more, all things being equal. That place more burden on people with less money... fair? No. Or, alternately, there is less revenue from the rich so the government cuts spending. Invariably those spending cuts affect programs with which lower income people are involved - there are no programs to cut for the super wealthy.

My definition of justice is that of John Rawls as described in "A Theory of Justice." It is, simply, fairness. Or, more precisely, that situtation which would be agreed upon by a set of members of society if they were to somehow discuss it in such a way that each had no idea where they stood in society. That is, if none had any notion that they were to return to society as say, a doctor or mason, black or white, male or female, rich or poor or any other mark of social recognition. Only when people can judge an outcome free of such factors are we sure that the solution is, simply, fair. And I believe that if such a situation were to have actually occured, or could occur now, that something tending towards the socialism I've described would result.

Socialism is not a proven failure. Socialism proper has never been tried. A name doesn't mean everything - John can say he's a libertarian all he wants, but he's a republican - no libertarian could support Bush's protectionist trade policy. Anyway, the type of socialism which recognizes human potential is alive an well in the world, and shades of it are in practice, most notably in the Scandinavian countries, though it can be found even on our continent too.

Mark

[Brent]

Mark,

There is so much tommyrot to quibble with in your last two posts (but please don't get me wrong -- you write well and your posts are very thoughtful. Sometimes I can even find something to agree with. But mostly they're just bad ideas expressed well).

In any case, I'll start with just two:
- Who are the people in this privileged class who are sucking the government dry of money, taking more than their share, and just how is it that they're doing this?

- Who are "the rich"? Please specify what conditions make one "rich". Apparently there is some line, and on one side of that line, a person is not "rich', whereas on the other side, the person is "rich" and therefore needs to be forced to contribute a larger share of his/her assets to government. So who are the rich? Oh, and I'm betting a big cookie that you don't consider yourself one of them...I am sure that part of the definition of "the rich" always includes "people with more assets than me", right? :roll:

[Wuptdo]

As this thread is a little too "deep" for me, I do submit the following:

1) Since 1960 the burden of "federal" taxes has shifted: 60% Corp/40% Individual. Now it is about 63% Individual/37% Corp in 2002.

2) In 2002, the top 10% individual taxpayers paid 65% of total federal income tax.

I used this data on a paper last year and can't remember which "taxpayer" website I pulled it from.

So who is really running the country?

Wuptdo B-)

[Cathy]

As this thread is a little too "deep" for me, I do submit the following:

1) Since 1960 the burden of "federal" taxes has shifted: 60% Corp/40% Individual. Now it is about 63% Individual/37% Corp in 2002.

2) In 2002, the top 10% individual taxpayers paid 65% of total federal income tax.

I used this data on a paper last year and can't remember which "taxpayer" website I pulled it from.

So who is really running the country?

Wuptdo B-)

Great additional points, Wuptdo!
Who's running things? I'd say it is the big money corporations! And I still don' t believe the Democrats will change that any more than the Republicans.

Cathy

[johnb]

First, to where should I send a check for your psychoanalysis services?

No fee til you're cured my friend, you're still sick, you're still a socialist.

You've certainly got me totally figured out - it's all hate, greed, and envy.

Yes it is. That is the root of socialism and what motiviates socialists. Marx himself was a horrific failure at capitalism, the man lived off the handouts of others. He lived like an animal in London because he refused to take action to sustain his own existance and relied on others to give him the means to survive. His hatred of capitalism was classically socialistic.

And I'm lazy and generally don't want to make something of myself.

Who is the one whinning about wanting to make $200,000 per year Mark? And yet works for a nonprofit? You indict yourself.

And, the point I've been making about the estate tax is that people who earn money should have a broad range of rights of things to do with it - but everyone accepts there are certain things one cannot do with money - I'm arguing that passing it onto ones children should be one of them.

Here is where your post becomes even more freakish, if that is possible. I concur with laws that are aimed at protecting A from B. B has no right to take action that would harm A. A would harm B by running a red light. A is NOT harmed if B passes his estate on to his child at his death. That harms NO ONE, except the socialist control freaks who are terrified that people may live their lives and dispose of their assets as they wish without your consent.

You can disagree on that one point, but don't pretend that it is any different in principle than the host of other limitations of people's actions.

Were you thinking when you wrote this Mark? Clearly, not.

John starts from the wrong assumption as well. That the money is the property of those that earn it. Not really true, it's the government's after all, and not just in a strict sense.

Yes Mark. John does make that assumption. John is not a socialist. John did not vote for JULIEFORCARY! for Mayor nor will John vote for Ralph Nader for President. Hyatt, Please, take Mark's comment and make it a banner or something. It is so breathtaking it hurts.

And, you needn't be so defensive about aristocracy. I doubt you admit to supporting a permanent monied class that adds no value in labor to this country but only extracts wealth.

You confuse defensive with condescending Mark. Your posts are so naively socialistic, I never thought I'd meet anyone past their teenaged years who thinks like you do. No sober adult subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value anymore Mark, it has been thoroughly discredited. Furthermore, the alleged "dangers" of a permanent monied class developing is overhyped on your part. Much like theories about Jews controlling the world and the illuminati it's 99% hype and 1% liquor. Money invested in stocks, bonds, land, and other resources most certainly does add value to this nation. If it does not the family fortune soon dwindles to nothing. It is unfortunate you know so little of economics.

I don't understand you're assertion that business don't get taxed. It's just absurd.

That is because you are a socialist. My bet is MOST Of the Cary City Council members don't understand it either. Especially not the RINO, JULIEFORCARY, Shoeboy, probably the Soccer Mommy as well. I suspect Joyce, McAlister, and possibly Smith understand it.

Let me spell it out for you Mark. I'll use simple words:

TAXES IMPOSED ON BUSINESSES GET PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES. *if* THE BUSINESS IS UNABLE TO PASS ON THE COSTS TO CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES DUE TO COMPETITION OR OTHER FACTORS THEY DEDUCT IT FROM THE DIVIDENDS PAID TO THE OWNERS.

At this point you're slobbering at that thought, however, stock portfolio's are owned not just by the "aristocracy". They largest owner of Disney stock is CALPERS. The California State Employees Personnel Retirement fund......the state employees retirement system is funded by investments in stocks. HORROR OF HORRORS! The workers rely upon the capitalists for their retirement! Put the booze down Mark, it happens all the time.

Business profits don't get converted into gold bars where some Daddy Warbucks troglodyte buries them in a vault in Manhattan. They are plowed back into the economy in numerous ways. Reducing that harms me, you, and everyone else.

And that's kind of the funniest thing about John, apparently he can't even begin to see how that could be, that someone could be content with what they have,

I'm not the one complaining about not making $200,000 per year am I Mark?

You're the only one making any comments indicating you are worried about or unhappy about your present income. Sorry 'bout that for you.

[johnb]

I'm going to contest two other things in your post. First, that if such a progressive rate were to be in place that the amount of revenue the government had, and the corresponding amount of spending they could, would radically redefine what "broke" is. If everyone made a little less but we had fantastic universal healthcare, food pricing support, a higher minimum wage, education scholarships or even free higher education than I quickly see many of things people feeling "broke" about resolving away.

Why don't you give some practical examples where these things have been implemented Mark. Please note that the cost, both in terms of money and personal liberty will be discussed immediatly thereafter along with the practicality of it.

So, I'd argue that there is a much better case to be made that having money in excess of your needs is immoral, and forced redistribution, as it only stands to help those in need, is, to put it bluntly, an act of moral charity on behalf of the state where individuals have so obviously failed.

The scary thing about this is that you would, of course, demand the right for yourself or someone who thinks as you do, to define what "Excess" means. Of course, the "forced redistribution" part needs no definition on your part Mark, we have seen that in action in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and countless other socialist paradises worldwide.

If you wish to engage in charity you have ever right to do so, what you have no right to do is steal others property from them for your income redistribution schemes. See, you and I both know the truth Mark. It isn't about helping anyone, it's about power. Socialists want the power of life and death over everyone else. It's a pattern that has repeated itself everywhere socialism has been implemented.

Those people get the most out of the system, why shouldn't they pay the most...

Conversely, the homeless wino's on the street add nothing of value to the system as such they should be happy to get the same in return.

My definition of justice is that of John Rawls as described in "A Theory of Justice." It is, simply, fairness.

Your words are meaningless, there is no objective definition for the word "fair". Furthermore, combined with the left's desire to use the tax code punitively, every tax hike will be justified as being more "fair". There can never be finality to the demands of the left for "fairness", "fair" is a unicorn, it is not a goal it is a tool to reach the goal. The goal is unlimited political power, then come the Killing Fields.

Only when people can judge an outcome free of such factors are we sure that the solution is, simply, fair.

Mark, do you live in the grown up world or in a John Lennon song?

Socialism is not a proven failure. -Mark

That is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. I guess those 20 million Kulaks killed in the Ukraine during the Soviets land redistribution program/pogrom didn't really die did they? Where is Socialism a success Mark? So far I see North Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Albania, Cuba, and a host of other now most defunct regimes in eastern Europe.

Socialism proper has never been tried.

Yes it has. The first step in implementing socialism is the secret police and the mass execution of resistors/counter-revolutionaries. That is the only way to implement socialism. It has been tried numerous times and each time it has opened with mass death. It has always been and always will be.

A name doesn't mean everything - John can say he's a libertarian all he wants, but he's a republican - no libertarian could support Bush's protectionist trade policy.

Your right. You're also not very observant. I don't support Bush's trade policies. Why would you think I would? If you look at my little republic on Nationstates you'd see I have no tariffs, I am a free trader.

Anyway, the type of socialism

So how many different types of socialism are there Mark?

[johnb]

Let's start by identifiying one rather virulent socialist variant: National Socialism.

Balls in your court Mark. :P

[Cathy]

Thanks John, for dissecting Marks last post. It was so unbelievably, naively, blatantly absurd that I could almost not (or just didn't want to) try to make any sense of it!

I just wish that people like Mark who find themselves here in this country by birth, and are so unhappy, would move to a country that suits them better, instead of taking upon themselves, as their own perceived moral duty, to try to deprive all of us (who appreciate the form of governance that this country was founded on) of the continuation of this "noble experiment".

Socialism proper has never been tried.

That's what they all say, because it's all they have.

Cathy

[Anonymous]

[quote="Brent"]Mark,

There is so much tommyrot to quibble with in your last two posts (but please don't get me wrong -- you write well and your posts are very thoughtful. Sometimes I can even find something to agree with. But mostly they're just bad ideas expressed well).

In any case, I'll start with just two:
- Who are the people in this privileged class who are sucking the government dry of money, taking more than their share, and just how is it that they're doing this?

Brent, I'm not sure that I've written that there is any group of people sucking the government dry of money, only people that withhold what should be their due. There are people that rob the entire nation of wealth, however, and these happen to be the wealthiest people. Invariably the majority of the fortunes of the most well off is invested in the stock market. The market is unproductive, it does not create net wealth for the businesses for which it ostensibly operates. It functions as an extraction mechanism - shareholders reap profits on the value added by others. It's classicly undemocratic and, like John accuses me, all about power. Except when a few wealthy people want power I call it aristrocratic, when I espouse denying them that I call it democratic.

Next, your question concerning "who are the rich." Practically speaking there is not a line on one side of which a person suddenly beomes "rich." It's kind of a bad term to start with anyway. I've been asserting that it should be the duty of those that extract the most wealth from the system to pay for its upkeep. This includes all stockholders, though it doesn't make much sense to call all stockholders rich. Where we might start using that term is when, by a general agreement, a person's income or wealth is far out pacing their contributions to society and, more importantly, their income is a result of the work and value that is added by others. So an executive who sits on a half dozen boards, works for about 30 days a year, and takes home $300,000 certainly falls into that category.

I'm hesitant to put a dollar value on income or assests for this definition. There are far too many variables and different occupations command too various levels of compensation. There is, of course, at some point, which everyone agrees on, a certain level of wealth that can only be called excess. Wealth that so clearly no longer contributes to the health, well being or sustainment of a person or her family, but exsists only to create more wealth. And it is probably at that point, where the purpose of the wealth is no longer to create goods for the family, but to create more money that it becomes categorically rich, and I'd argue, immoral.

I hope that clears some of that issue up. And, to close, I do not have so much wealth that its only purpose is to create more. But, admittedly, I do probably have more than I need. So, in a way, I do consider myself among the wealthy, as opposed to those in poverty. I'm not suggesting that anyone without enough to be out of poverty should be considered "wealthy" for the purposes of our discussion here, however. Only that I'm sure that there are those with more than have I that I wouldn't consider excessively wealthy and those with less that I would.

[Anonymous]

John. You apparently missed where I wrote that I'd like to make $200,000 a year so I could get taxed at 90% on it. That's hardly the same as "whinning" that I don't make enough.



Here is where your post becomes even more freakish, if that is possible. I concur with laws that are aimed at protecting A from B. B has no right to take action that would harm A. A would harm B by running a red light. A is NOT harmed if B passes his estate on to his child at his death. That harms NO ONE, except the socialist control freaks who are terrified that people may live their lives and dispose of their assets as they wish without your consent.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It does harm people. Democracy and the overwhelming majority of individuals who we could not call wealthy in any meaningful way need to be protected from the few ultra wealthy people that contiuously reap wealth. Not only is it odious to democratic principles it is actually harmful to workers health, well being, and families by denying them wages and assets which they create. Wealthy stockholders are as dangerous to poor people as a malfunctioning red light. You don't see the contradiction in your thought do you? I'm a control freak but "that people may liv[ing] their lives and dispos[ing] of their assets as they wish" is actually preventing the multitude from having as much control of their own lives as is afforded to the wealthy. You thought seeks power and control - it simply happens to be the status quo, so you needn't speak about it in those terms.


Yes Mark. John does make that assumption. John is not a socialist. Please, take Mark's comment and make it a banner or something. It is so breathtaking it hurts.

Yet you ignored the most salient point I raised. Here it is again. " The government makes it, the government sells it to the public, the government decides how, where, and for what it can be used and the government can take it. And, most importantly, that dollar bill you're borrowing only has any value because the United States has value, whatever value it holds you can reap only because the government is well funded enough to make this state secure, stable, and attractive enough for business. " You cannot deny this. I minored in economics at university, John. This is 101 level. The money isn't yours, you've convinced yourself that it is, and that you, and only you, were the sole factor in acquiring it. That is, frankly, hilariously naive.

Here's another notion for you. First, I don't accept that no one "subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value anymore." Plenty of people do, not people with whom you associate, sure, but it is alive and well. But, who cares? How about a man near and dear to your heart, John Locke. Go read the second treatise again. You'll be surprised. A man can only own something by mixing his labor with it. It is wrong to use capital to acquire more than you can utilize on ones own. Such things must be guarded against to ensure democracy. I'm less Marxist and more Lockean than you'd think.

Money invested in stocks, bonds, land, and other resources most certainly does add value to this nation.

False, false, false. Well, at least how you're thinking of it with respect to the stock market. The stock market creates the most wealth for already wealthy individuals, and some wealth for lesser stockerholders. It doesn't create money businesses, or, more importantly, the human and environmental communities that support business. The market is extractive, it doesn't create wealth for business - business pays ivdividuals, I don't how many ways I have to say this.

You're using a semantic argument with respect to business taxes, not a principled one. I'll leave it.

At this point you're slobbering at that thought, however, stock portfolio's are owned not just by the "aristocracy". They largest owner of Disney stock is CALPERS. The California State Employees Personnel Retirement fund......the state employees retirement system is funded by investments in stocks. HORROR OF HORRORS! The workers rely upon the capitalists for their retirement! Put the booze down Mark, it happens all the time.

Ok, thanks for the example. Lets not ignore the facts which are actually important. The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. That's Reserve Bank data from 1996. The top 1% alone owns 42% of all stock. So true, stock is not owned exclusively by the ultra wealthy (though when less than 25% of all U.S. households own more that $10,000 of stock, it's hard to grant even this - especially because the vast majority of that 25% is concentrated in mutal funds and retirement programs like the one you're describing) but it is the ultra wealthy who take the most out of and control board to ensure that the extraction mechanism stays working in their favor.

Profits do come back into the economy, though in most inefficient, dangerous and distorted way. I have no problem with companies retaining earning, or spending more on R+D for example. But, profits also get passed on in other ways that hurt society, like exhorbitant executive pay, dividends to shareholders who contribute nothing, increased stock price that allows the uber rich to reap more capital gains, further reducing the efficacy of the people that actually created the wealth... the employees of the business.

I'm for protecting and empowering them, you're for protecting and empowering the fabulously rich. I'm a control freak, and that makes you... a control freak, as well as a proponent of organized economic violence.

[Anonymous]

John, please read the post to Brent about defining excess.

Of course, the "forced redistribution" part needs no definition on your part Mark, we have seen that in action in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and countless other socialist paradises worldwide.

And every other country in the world that collects taxes? Oh, I see, you're connoting that forced redistribution goes from the rich to the poor. That's you're own hang up - I want resources spent on the impovement of all society.


If you wish to engage in charity you have ever right to do so, what you have no right to do is steal others property from them for your income redistribution schemes. See, you and I both know the truth Mark. It isn't about helping anyone, it's about power. Socialists want the power of life and death over everyone else.

See the previous posts. You can't steal from someone that which isn't theirs. Society creates wealth for all, the ultra rich capitalists keep it from all. It's really that simple. Socialists want not the power of life and death over everyone else, rather they wish to give everyone in society the satisfaction of at least a minimum set of options with which to choose how to live their lives. So long as predatory economic violence is an established part of this and other countries, you deny many the options to live as you do.

Conversely, the homeless wino's on the street add nothing of value to the system as such they should be happy to get the same in return.

Glad to finally get that off your chest?

[quote=johnb"
Your words are meaningless, there is no objective definition for the word "fair".[/quote]

If you're unfamiliar with Rawls that isn't my problem John. His theory is clear and concise and does have precise definition. You're obviously deny or refusing to acknowledge the crux of his argument anyway. I highly doubt that you'd choose the current economic system if you had no way to ascertain whether or not you'd be that homoless wino on the street. In fact, given the fact that it would be more likely that you'd be in poverty than be very wealthy, I suspect you, or anyone, would choose a more progressive system.

Again, there are progressive states across the globe implementing democratic socialism. Failed "socialist" states of yore were rarely even socialist in spirit, and never in practice - as that require a constant fostering of civic engagement and democracy. I wonder, too, how many deaths the cause of liberal capitalism has caused? Comparable, if not more, I'm sure - the difference being that it actually was capitalism on the one hand, and not really socialism on the other.

[johnb]

It does harm people.

How? Make your case Mark. At what dollar amount does one's annual income begin to "harm" others? Quantify that alleged "harm".

Democracy and the overwhelming majority of individuals who we could not call wealthy in any meaningful way need to be protected from the few ultra wealthy people that contiuously reap wealth.

And you socialists are just the guys ready to volunteer to "protect" society from people making money and believing their should be allowed to keep that which they have earned ain't that right Mark?

Not only is it odious to democratic principles it is actually harmful to workers health, well being, and families by denying them wages and assets which they create.

So the owner of a restraunt doesn't deserve to benefit from the investment of his life's savings, his labor, and his risk nearly as much as the hourly employees he hires is that right Mark?

Wealthy stockholders are as dangerous to poor people as a malfunctioning red light.

The hilarious thing about this is that those wealthy stockholders, well, all stockholders, are responsible for the job creation and economic growth required to raise living standards and create the opportunities for individuals with the desire to to raise themselves out of poverty. What is dangerous to the poor is what is dangerous to the rich, socialists with political power. Once in power, the shooting isn't far behind.

You don't see the contradiction in your thought do you?

I appreciate your confusion Mark. I have no desire to dictate the terms of other peoples lives. As long as A is not taking action to harm B I have no desire to see government harass or otherwise penalize A. I have no envy or greed driven anxieties which cause me to want to see A harmed or attacked by an intrusive and vicious government.

I'm a control freak but "that people may liv their lives and dispos[ing] of their assets as they wish" is actually preventing the multitude from having as much control of their own lives as is afforded to the wealthy.

Interesting, so now if letting people live their lives and dispose of their own assets as they wish is somehow preventing others from living their own lives and disposing of their assets as they wish I have to surmise that baldness is a hair color to you. Your statement is void of logic Mark.

The government makes it, the government sells it to the public, the government decides how, where, and for what it can be used and the government can take it. And, most importantly, that dollar bill you're borrowing only has any value because the United States has value, whatever value it holds you can reap only because the government is well funded enough to make this state secure, stable, and attractive enough for business.

The government makes green pieces of paper Mark. The value of any and all items is beyond their control. Including the value of that green piece of paper. The value is determined by you and I and everyone else, you see the value is what we will pay for that green piece of paper, that loaf of bread, or that 1/2 acre of land. The value is what we are willing to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay the price the seller is asking the item remains unsold or the price falls to the point where a buyer is attracted. That we use the US gov't little green pieces of paper is not significant Mark, if the public had reason to doubt the soundness of the little green pieces of paper we'd use copper, gold, silver, or platnium coins. We'd use Euros or Pounds Sterling. You confuse the medium of economic exchange with that which is bought by that tool. Your point is utterly worthless.

[i]You cannot deny this. I minored in economics at university, John.

THERE IS NO FRIGGIN' WAY! IF THIS IS TRUE YOU SHOULD SUE THE UNIVERISTY FOR EDUCATIONAL MALPRACTICE!

First, I don't accept that no one "subscribes to Marx's labor theory of value anymore."

I should have clarified myself, I'm speaking of sober, educated, and thoughtful people.

I'm less Marxist and more Lockean than you'd think.

You're quite Marxist my friend, that you may pull a few out of context quotes here and there to take the edge of your militant socialism is not much of a sop.

You're using a semantic argument with respect to business taxes, not a principled one. I'll leave it.

Since you seem incapable of understanding basic economics I think this is a point that needs to be gone over til you are made capable of understanding. Business expenses are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for the goods and services offered for sale. In the case of a competitive marketplace this works against the interests of the workers employed at that firm since "wages" and "benefits" are simply expenses to the firm in line with "taxes". The firm must pay the taxes. Wage increases and enhanced benefits can simply be denied to cap business expenditures. *IF* we lived in a socialist system prices would rise or government would have to subsidize the venture to compensate for their tax burden. Either way, the workers are again penalized. While businesses may cut the dividend paid to the owners, the net result is that the owners will be less likely to allow pay/benefit raises to the employees and will be less able and less likely to invest in/particiapate in additional businesses. Again, net harm to the workers all the way around.

but it is the ultra wealthy who take the most out of and control board to ensure that the extraction mechanism stays working in their favor.

So stocks are nothing but "extraction mechanisms" for depriving the poor of money and power huh? This is hilarious.

But, profits also get passed on in other ways that hurt society, like exhorbitant executive pay, dividends to shareholders who contribute nothing, increased stock price that allows the uber rich to reap more capital gains, further reducing the efficacy of the people that actually created the wealth... the employees of the business.

Allowing the owners of a business, the guy who sunk his life savings into his landscaping business or restraunt, to reap the benefits is now nothing more than economic violence directed against the poor huh?

I am laughing myself silly over the dividends comment Mark. You have no idea how utterly foolish you sound. Coming on the heels of your claim to have minored in economics in college it is simply preposterous. Your data is the stuff of Communist Party USA bumperstickers, not sober, rational though my friend.

I'm a control freak, and that makes you... a control freak, as well as a proponent of organized economic violence.

You don't understand, again, I am all about preventing control freaks, such as yourself, from ever aquiring the political power where you could implement your agenda. I am all for empowering people, not bureaucrats, not homicidal socialist maniacs. :wink:

[johnb]

John, please read the post to Brent about defining excess.

No need, you and I both know the truth Mark, socialists want the right to define what "excess" income is and the right to punish the miscreant for claiming or having said income. You cannot deny what has been socialisms pattern time after time. What socialist nation has NOT had the prison camps and killing fields for it's caplitalist counter-revolutionaries?

You can't steal from someone that which isn't theirs.

That's not the problem. No one said socialists were going to steal the moon from anyone. Socialists will steal the income, assets, business, and lives of those they don't like. That is the problem, they will take that which does belong to others.

Society creates wealth for all, the ultra rich capitalists keep it from all. It's really that simple.

The only thing "simple" here is how simple minded you are Mark. "Society" creates nothing, society is a group of individuals. Individuals engaging in innumerable economic transactions every single day is what makes up this economy. "Society" as a term has value only when it is understood to be a grouping of individuals. That, of course, is antithetical to socialism. People create wealth, those that create that wealth through their work, their investment, and their risk taking are entitled to and in fact own that result. Good or bad.

Socialists want not the power of life and death over everyone else,

Bu!!$hit. Socialism is a political ideology using an economic system as a tool with which to aquire it's goal, unlimited political power. That naive fools are used to propogandize on behalf of this utopian fairy tale is immaterial. At the end of the road the Stalin's kill the Bukharin's and the Trotsky's. Always has been and always will be.

His theory is clear and concise and does have precise definition.
He is a horse's a$$ matched only by Foucault in pretensiousness.

My comment stands: Your words are meaningless, there is no objective definition for the word "fair".

[Brent]

Mark,

I am astounded that someone who claims to have minored in economics seems blisfully unaware that those who invest in the stock market risk their own money to buy an ownership stake in a corporation and provide capital so that the corporation can create and maintain jobs, perform R&D and provide goods and services. That investment risk can be rewarded with profit which is shared among the owners. It also can result in loss that is shared among the owners. Which university in China did you attend? :lol:

And if "the rich" are "those who have more than they need", then your solution of having the government confiscate the excess (that which is beyond basic needs) probably would indeed put everyone in the same financial situation. Of course, it also would remove all incentive to better oneself through education, hard work, risk-taking and innovation. I'm pretty sure that, among zillions of other things, this forum wouldn't exist in such a society.

Welcome to America.

[Anonymous]

I just wish that people like Mark who find themselves here in this country by birth, and are so unhappy, would move to a country that suits them better

Why? You were, in all probability, simply born here too, have you more right to this place than do I?

instead of taking upon themselves, as their own perceived moral duty, to try to deprive all of us (who appreciate the form of governance that this country was founded on) of the continuation of this "noble experiment".

You totally misunderstand the problem then. Why leave? Why not spend the time to make it better? I'm not trying to deny this country to anyone, but rather to extend and fulfill its promise to all. I believe that this country has as, or nearly, good a founding document as any in the world. It's truly magnificent. But it has been betrayed and this state is perhaps slipping into a polar system that has no intention of honoring the spirit of our constitution. I want to see that spirit realized, for all, not just some. This country is quite good comparatively, but quite good is relatively easy... making it great will take some work. And it is a challenge that we should all accept.

Which brings me to the most poignant criticism of conservatism yet. You call it a "noble experiment." But, at nearly every stage of the game, there has been traditional folk who are fine with the status quo - not for any principled or logical reason, merely because that's the way it is. You can imagine some young man in the 20's saying, "women, voting... you can't be serious. Why, they've never done that, and we've been just fine without them." But, fortunately, he loses that debate. Fast forward 40 years. He's fine with women voting, still might not love it - but the situation is now acceptable. But, then he says, "Blacks, hell no, never had any use for them but in the fields."

The position is totally inconsistent and not logically defensible. It relies on the preception that, whatever we've done up until this point is enough, we've reached the most favorable blend and state of being - it might even be the supreme manifestation of God's will. That is totally irrational.

If the United States ever was a liberal (small L) experiment than it cannot ever stop so being. It must always change itself and stive to be a "more perfect" union - it will never get there, but it can approach it asymptotically. The faster the better.

[dhyatt]

[snip]
I'm not trying to deny this country to anyone, but rather to extend and fulfill its promise to all. [snip]

Mark,
Therein lies the problem. You cannot simply extend the promise to someone. It's not up to you to somehow grant me or anybody else the ability to succeed. That's what makes this country different. Anybody - and I repeat anybody - with the wherewithal to work hard, take risks, and strive to succeed can do so. You can help someone by teaching them and affording them opportunities but you nor anyone else can simply guarantee their success. Even lottery winners often wind up broke so simple redistribution of wealth (especially forced redistribution) won't solve the problem.

Are you willing to look some poor kid in the eye and tell them point blank that they'll have to work harder and smarter than most everyone else in order to succeed? I am. Because I believe they really can do it if they want to. You see, I really do believe that all are created equal. You and most other libs say you do but you really don't. You're convinced that some need 'extra' help because they really aren't quite as good as the rest of us...

[Anonymous]

To my myriad detractors, I'll begin addressing you generally now.

First, let us no longer beat around the bush. You are all blissfully unaware of the true nature of the stock market. Maybe you will have never heard nor read the information that I will presently impart to you. Maybe you never cared to listen.

First, an analogy that you've surely heard before. I buy a car from Nissan. I drive it 6 years, it's been a good car 80,000 solid miles. I need a minivan though, kids on the way, so I sell to John. I paid $22,000 for, I let it go for $4000... it's in reasonably good condition. Just in case you didn't realize, Nissan of America nor Nissan Japan sees a dollar of that second purchase. Obvious, right? Why would they, it's a private sale. Further, Nissan is no longer bound to honor any warranty left and they certainly don't pay that second owner to drive their car around. Keep all this in mind.

I've written many times that the stock market is unproductive. It's true, and you cannot refuse it. Let us know find out why.

It is argued, as Brent did, that individuals buy stock to provide to corporations capital with which to buy capital equipment, hire workers, and pay other costs. There is a risk in this for which these investors are compentsated with dividends. Also, the investors, and the market generally, provides fluidity, which costs money, so they're also compensated for function as well.

However, only those people who purchase the inital offering of stock are sending money to any corporation. Every subsequent sale does not fund the company - those sales are speculative. The risk involved is not that the investment in the company will fail, it's that the companies profits will fall, cutting dividends or, worse, the stock price will tank.

Moreover, subsequent sales of stock still transfer ownership rights. Isn't that odd? You've provided nothing, aboslutely nothing, of value to help the company operate, yet they've given you decision making power over how they operate. Moreover, they'll pay you for the privelege. It's like John's buying my Nissan, demanding that the company reinstate the warranty, given him power to decide the terms and then pay him for advertising their product.

I think you're all ready for some numbers. One way to look at it is this. In 1999, the last year for which I have figures, the value of all new common stock was $106 billion. $106 billion dollars reached corporations. That's tons of money. But, the value of all shares traded was $20.4 trillion. Less than 1% of stock market activity actually went toward the much heralded purpose of the market, funding corporations.

We might look at is another way by examining only the increase in stocks from year to year with respect by how much was put into the system. From 1998-99 there were sales of roughly $83 billion in new offerings while the total market added about $1.1 trillion. Roughly 7%. So maybe the market is 7% productive.

But, it's not. The situation gets even worse. We haven't included buybacks which make up a substantial piece of the pie. The Reserve calculate the net new equity each year, ipos less buybacks, and for that period in 1998 the figure was, brace yourselves, negative $267 billion. To say it another way, corporations paid out more to "investors" than they got from them, to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars.

By the way, we still haven't even talked about dividends. What did all these owners get for not contributing anything? Another $238 billion in dividends that year. Individuals do not, do not, fund a rising market, the corporations they control pump money into the system to prop it up.

Pause, to let that all sink in.

So all these people who "own" these companies and extract wealth from them haven't helped the corporation. The inital investors have, and they should be compensated, but they can be by a fixed rate bond of some sort. And what are these companies? Let us turn to John for the answer. Society, he wrote, creates nothing because it's just a collection of individuals. A ha, he's onto something here. What is a business? A collection of individuals and, well, a lot of stuff. Without human elements to operate, manage, and run things a plant full of equipment does nothing but depreciate. Business too are nothing but collections of individuals, and it is the individuals that add value, and it is they that should reap the benefit.

Such is the essence of socialism. John can refuse to acknowledge my Locke example for value added labor- refuse to acknowledge that is the actions of a complex network of actors, acting in concert under the rules set by the political state they among them founded - refuse to acknowledge that stealing the wealth from those that created it, causing a downward pressure on wages, health, and well being creates a demonstrable harm - refuse to acknowledge that the matrix of control exerted by the wealthiest individuals does, in fact, limit the choices of the bulk of society. And he can remain a "rational, educated, and thoughful" person of the most curious variety, one that will not confront the irrationality of his cherished stock market, chooses to remain uneducated about how it actually functions, and thoughtlessly denies any complicity in the harm it causes.

That is all for today.

[Anonymous]

And if "the rich" are "those who have more than they need", then your solution of having the government confiscate the excess (that which is beyond basic needs) probably would indeed put everyone in the same financial situation.

Brent, you're mischaracterizing my position - and I believe you're doing it deliberately, attempting to set up a straw man only to easily put it asunder.

Here is the crux of what I wrote again. "There are far too many variables and different occupations command too various levels of compensation. There is, of course, at some point, which everyone agrees on, a certain level of wealth that can only be called excess. Wealth that so clearly no longer contributes to the health, well being or sustainment of a person or her family, but exsists only to create more wealth. And it is probably at that point, where the purpose of the wealth is no longer to create goods for the family, but to create more money that it becomes categorically rich"

I did not say that the rich are those who have more than they need. As I've written the rich are those with a certain portion of their assests the sole value of which is to accrue more money. I've shown that they do this largely through the stock market, at the expense of other productive members of society, and that such behavior is harmful to the health, well being, and financial prospects of others, and should, on those grounds, be curtailed. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have some savings, or are not allowed to spend money on their own enjoyment or leisure (though I'd question the morality of doing so excessively), only that money, which gets its value from all society, should not be used to gain ever more money at other's expense. I will forever fail to see what is exactly so radical about that proposition.

Further, I've written repeatedly that I favor a tiered progressive tax system that does offer incentive of higher pay for those with more skill, knowledge, talent and ambition. There are jobs that need to be done that benefit society that society must be willing to pay a premium for if it wishes to partake of them. I do not think it possible to institute pure socialism in the United States today. Ideally, the system as I envision it consists of something like 10 to 15 tiers with tax rates ranging from about 10% to 90%, or maybe slightly higher. While this does not explicitly forbid the possibility of wealth being used solely to create more wealth, it would effectively curtail the rate at which fortunes could accumulate, resulting in a more equitable distribution.

I said in my previous post that it would be the last of today, but I just caught this part of yours and could not let the inaccuracy stand.

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Mark 10:25

[johnb]

Mark,

That is breathtaking.

You have demonstrated, in spades, that you lack even a basic understanding of economics. There is no way you minored in economics in college, if you did sue the school for educational malpractice. They cannot be allowed to turn out graduates of such poor academic calibre.

Just in case you didn't realize, Nissan of America nor Nissan Japan sees a dollar of that second purchase. Obvious, right? Why would they, it's a private sale.

You don't seem to understand basic economics and law. Company stock is not a product the company makes and sells. Nissan makes and sells automobiles. On the stock market Nissan itself is sold. The stock is NOT analguous to the car, by purchasing a share of stock one is purchasing a share of the company itself. If Nissan goes bankrupt the owner of a 10 year old Nissan automobile is out absolutely nothing. The owner of 5,000 shares of stock is out the cost of the shares. Just ask the owners of stock in Kmart, WorldCom, Enron, or any other firm that has ever gone bankrupt what happened to their investment.

It is beyond stupid to compare the sale of company products to the trading of stocks. It's not even apples to oranges, are you too ideologically blinded to understand basic economics and law?

I've written many times that the stock market is unproductive. It's true, and you cannot refuse it.

This is simply bizarre. You are chattering nonsense Mark, do you even understand what you're typing? I've seen Larouche propoganda that's made more sense than what you're making.

creates a demonstrable harm -


You ever gonna get around to showing how the stock market "harms" non investors Mark?

[johnb]

There is, of course, at some point, which everyone agrees on, a certain level of wealth that can only be called excess.

That is a lie. "Everyone" does not agree to that.

What you want though, is the power to define what is "excess" and what is not "excess" for other people and punish the miscreants accordingly. What makes you fit to pronounce these judgements on other people? Who died and made you the local deity?

Wealth that so clearly no longer contributes to the health, well being or sustainment of a person or her family, but exsists only to create more wealth. And it is probably at that point, where the purpose of the wealth is no longer to create goods for the family, but to create more money that it becomes categorically rich"

Who in the h@ll do you think you are that you have some divine right to make pronouncements like this on other people's property? Again, who died and made you the local deity?

As I've written the rich are those with a certain portion of their assests the sole value of which is to accrue more money.

Who truly gives a d@mn what you say on the subject? It isn't your money, it isn't your investment portfolio, it isn't your work, your risk nor is it your reward or loss in the end. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS Mark. Your intense desire to stick your nose into the financial affairs of others is perverse and a gross violation of your neighbors right to privacy.

I've shown that they do this largely through the stock market, at the expense of other productive members of society, and that such behavior is harmful to the health, well being, and financial prospects of others, and should, on those grounds, be curtailed.

You've not shown any such thing. The stock market is an extremely productive area of our economy, providing enhanced wealth and standards of living for large percentages of the population. It is an effective tool to spread business risk and reward and allow everyone to participate in the national and international economy.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have some savings, or are not allowed to spend money on their own enjoyment or leisure (though I'd question the morality of doing so excessively), only that money, which gets its value from all society, should not be used to gain ever more money at other's expense.

Oh Thank YOU! Who the h@ll cares what you question or don't question regarding the alleged morality or immorality of other people's spending habits. It isn't your money to fret over you nosey socialist. This post truly crystalizes the abhorent and autocratic mentality you bring to quesitons of personal liberty Mark. I'm not sure why you think yourself so morally justified in passing judgement on other people with respect to their savings, investments, and economic status but here is a clue for you - you have every right to chatter, you have no right to take action to deny others their own property, no matter how you attempt to justify it. You are no more fit or worthy of being the moral arbiter of the nation than anyone else. Get over yourself.

I will forever fail to see what is exactly so radical about that proposition.

Because the people that think like you start with and progress through:

1- I'm a good person.
2- My politics are moral.
3- People who disagree with me aren't good.
4- Their politics are evil.
5- Evil must be stopped.
6- People who disagree with me must be stopped.

Since you have no respect for private property rights (the ultimate of which is the right to one's own life) there is nothing to protect innocent people from folks like you once in power. The people of Cambodia, North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, et al had no way to defend themselves against your socialist kin. Minus the barrier of the rule of law backed up by free people ready to defend themselves socialists have always progressed to the Killing Fields. It can be no other way.

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Mark 10:25

Stop trying to play God, let Him handle the questions of morality and money and you worry about your own affairs. Keeping your nose in your own business and leaving other people alone to tend to theirs would be a welcome change.

[Brent]

Here is the crux of what I wrote again. "There are far too many variables and different occupations command too various levels of compensation. There is, of course, at some point, which everyone agrees on, a certain level of wealth that can only be called excess. Wealth that so clearly no longer contributes to the health, well being or sustainment of a person or her family, but exsists only to create more wealth. And it is probably at that point, where the purpose of the wealth is no longer to create goods for the family, but to create more money that it becomes categorically rich"

OK, we'll go with that. What is that point that "everyone agrees on" that is "excessive"? I think there is no such thing. It is your premise that at some point wealth exists for its own sake, rather than to provide benefit to its owner or those whom the owner decides to provide for, that is in error. Let's pick the wealthiest guy, Bill Gates. He must be one of these people with "excessive" wealth, according to your criteria. I'm not his #1 fan, but he's giving billions to good causes. He is contributing to the health, well being and sustainment of a whole lot of people, beyond his own family. I guess you want to take most all of his money (the "excess" part...how much would that be?) so that you can instead help, whom? Other people of your choosing instead of his?

I did not say that the rich are those who have more than they need. As I've written the rich are those with a certain portion of their assests the sole value of which is to accrue more money. I've shown that they do this largely through the stock market, at the expense of other productive members of society, and that such behavior is harmful to the health, well being, and financial prospects of others, and should, on those grounds, be curtailed. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have some savings, or are not allowed to spend money on their own enjoyment or leisure (though I'd question the morality of doing so excessively), only that money, which gets its value from all society, should not be used to gain ever more money at other's expense. I will forever fail to see what is exactly so radical about that proposition.

What is that "certain portion"? Maybe they're accruing more money to start new foundations or companies (i.e., help others/create jobs). And you want to curtail that?!? How much savings are you going to allow people to have? Who gets to decide when people are spending on their own enjoyment "excessively"? (oh, I forgot, you do :roll: ). What is so radical about your proposition is that (1) people who are lawfully making money aren't doing so at the "expense" of others; they're producing, buying and selling things, and paying wages and sharing profits and losses, all based on mutually agreeable terms; and (2) the idea that YOU get to decide how much is too much and what is "fair".

Further, I've written repeatedly that I favor a tiered progressive tax system that does offer incentive of higher pay for those with more skill, knowledge, talent and ambition. There are jobs that need to be done that benefit society that society must be willing to pay a premium for if it wishes to partake of them. I do not think it possible to institute pure socialism in the United States today. Ideally, the system as I envision it consists of something like 10 to 15 tiers with tax rates ranging from about 10% to 90%, or maybe slightly higher. While this does not explicitly forbid the possibility of wealth being used solely to create more wealth, it would effectively curtail the rate at which fortunes could accumulate, resulting in a more equitable distribution.

Which is fine, if "equitable distribution" is your goal. It's not mine. Equal opportunity, not equal results, is what makes sense, as Hyatt pointed out. You assume that money can be put to good use only if the government takes it from the people who make it. Scary.

I said in my previous post that it would be the last of today, but I just caught this part of yours and could not let the inaccuracy stand.

Well, pardon my paraphrasing, but it still seems like you have some idea of when a person has more money than they ought to have. Whether it's just above basic needs or at some higher point, it's arbitrary and I don't see why you should get to decide.

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Mark 10:25

You are the last person I would have guessed would use a Christian citation to support your argument. I will await your explanation of the generally accepted Christian theological interpretation of the lesson to be found in this chapter, from which you have cited one verse in isolation.

[Brent]

Mark, I don’t vehemently agree with JohnB very often (in fact, it made headlines in the Cary Politics News awhile back when we agreed on something), but I’m 100% in agreement with him that this stock market post of yours is “breathtaking”. In fact, I find it so outrageous that I had to stop and wonder if you are serious, or if you’re just pulling our legs and we’ve missed out on some really entertaining satire because we didn’t catch your biting sarcasm.

I’m still hoping that you’re going to tell us that it’s all in fun and the joke’s on us. But on the off chance that you really are serious, and if so, on the off chance that any of this will actually get through to you, here goes:

To my myriad detractors, I'll begin addressing you generally now.

I certainly won’t claim that the majority is always right, but when you have “myriad detractors” from such a diverse group, there may be a lesson in there for you.

First, let us no longer beat around the bush. You are all blissfully unaware of the true nature of the stock market. Maybe you will have never heard nor read the information that I will presently impart to you. Maybe you never cared to listen.

Certainly someone here is “blissfully unaware” of the true nature of the stock market, or chooses to ignore the big picture. I will admit that I had heretofore not heard such a myopic explanation of it.

First, an analogy that you've surely heard before. I buy a car from Nissan. I drive it 6 years, it's been a good car 80,000 solid miles. I need a minivan though, kids on the way, so I sell to John. I paid $22,000 for, I let it go for $4000... it's in reasonably good condition. Just in case you didn't realize, Nissan of America nor Nissan Japan sees a dollar of that second purchase. Obvious, right? Why would they, it's a private sale. Further, Nissan is no longer bound to honor any warranty left and they certainly don't pay that second owner to drive their car around. Keep all this in mind.

Ignoring the fact that Nissan probably DOES need to honor any remaining warranty, depending on the terms and conditions of the warranty, it is entirely unsurprising that Nissan gets no money from the resale. You see, Nissan transferred ownership of the car to a dealer before you bought it, at a mutually agreeable price. The dealer transferred ownership to you, at a mutually agreeable price. You transferred ownership to John, at a mutually agreeable price. This car has now caused $26,000 to change hands, not counting the dealer. John now owns a car he wanted. You no longer own that car, but you have $4,000 that presumably you will apply toward a purchase of a minivan. Meaning that more money will change hands and more goods and services will be provided, more profits will be made and more wages will be paid. Regardless of whether you buy a new Nissan minivan or some other minivan, some corporation presumably profits from your purchase. Based on your decision and the decisions of many others, the various automotive corporations become more or less valuable, based on the level of profits that they return to their owners – the stockholders. Some of those owners might choose to transfer their ownership of Nissan to others at a mutually agreeable price. They may profit or incur a loss on that sale. But as a result, the buyer takes ownership of a piece of the company and the seller has some more $ that might be used to buy something else of value at a mutually agreeable price (maybe stocks, maybe a car, maybe food, maybe a yacht). As a result, more goods and services are produced, more wages are paid, more profits are made.

I've written many times that the stock market is unproductive. It's true, and you cannot refuse it. Let us know find out why.

It’s false and absurd and easily contradicted when one looks at all of the data rather than just selected data. Let us now find out why.

It is argued, as Brent did, that individuals buy stock to provide to corporations capital with which to buy capital equipment, hire workers, and pay other costs. There is a risk in this for which these investors are compentsated with dividends. Also, the investors, and the market generally, provides fluidity, which costs money, so they're also compensated for function as well.

However, only those people who purchase the inital offering of stock are sending money to any corporation. Every subsequent sale does not fund the company - those sales are speculative. The risk involved is not that the investment in the company will fail, it's that the companies profits will fall, cutting dividends or, worse, the stock price will tank.

If the price tanks, it probably is an indication that the company’s outlook for continued profits is bleak. It certainly means that people generally are not willing to pay as much for an ownership stake in the company as they previously were. The company NEVER had any expectation that it would get more money from resale of its ownership shares, as you pointed out (unless the company owns a lot of its own shares, which can happen but which need not be considered in this argument, although it would amplify my point…oh, and I see we’ll get to that later). The fact that the price that people are willing to pay for an ownership stake in the company changes is unrelated to the fact that the transfer of that ownership does not result in additional $ flowing to the company. When you bought your Toyota, Nissan made its profit and expected no more money. The fact that you transferred ownership of the car to John is irrelevant to Nissan (ignoring things like warranties or maintenance revenue). But it’s NOT irrelevant to the value of the car, and it’s NOT irrelevant to the affect on the economy. The company sold an ownership stake at an agreed upon price. The company didn't expect any additional money if that ownership stake is transferred to someone else.

Moreover, subsequent sales of stock still transfer ownership rights. Isn't that odd?

Not at all! A “sale” means transferring ownership in exchange for something of value, generally $. Do you really find it odd that if I buy something, I own it?!? 8O

You've provided nothing, aboslutely nothing, of value to help the company operate, yet they've given you decision making power over how they operate.

You have agreed with the seller about the value of owning a piece of the company. That tells them something about how well they are doing, but that’ secondary. The company has given you some say in their operations because that is what goes with owing a piece of the company. The seller gave up that right when they sold the stock. The company assigned a value to that ownership when they originally sold the stock. You and the seller assigned a new value to that ownership when you traded the stock. Just because that value may be different now than it was then doesn’t mean that owning the stock has different rights or risks. Why would it?

Moreover, they'll pay you for the privelege. It's like John's buying my Nissan, demanding that the company reinstate the warranty, given him power to decide the terms and then pay him for advertising their product.

It’s nothing of the sort. You paid a price to buy a piece of the company. You gained some rights and took on some risks in doing so, the same as the original buyer did. When John bought your Toyota, he assumed ownership rights and risks that went with it. If John can operate the car more cheaply than you could, or if he finds $100 in the glove compartment, or if the engine blows tomorrow, he expects nothing from Nissan (unless the warranty transferred with the sale), and Nissan expects nothing from you or from John. But all this trading put more money in the economy to pay wages and make profits.

I think you're all ready for some numbers. One way to look at it is this. In 1999, the last year for which I have figures, the value of all new common stock was $106 billion. $106 billion dollars reached corporations. That's tons of money. But, the value of all shares traded was $20.4 trillion. Less than 1% of stock market activity actually went toward the much heralded purpose of the market, funding corporations.

We might look at is another way by examining only the increase in stocks from year to year with respect by how much was put into the system. From 1998-99 there were sales of roughly $83 billion in new offerings while the total market added about $1.1 trillion. Roughly 7%. So maybe the market is 7% productive.

Apparently the money that did flow directly to corporations made them overall more profitable, thus increasing their value in their owners’ eyes. You are proving the opposite of what you are trying to show, which is that the market actually is highly leveraging capital to increase the overall value of the economy.

But, it's not. The situation gets even worse. We haven't included buybacks which make up a substantial piece of the pie. The Reserve calculate the net new equity each year, ipos less buybacks, and for that period in 1998 the figure was, brace yourselves, negative $267 billion. To say it another way, corporations paid out more to "investors" than they got from them, to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Corporations buy back their own stock when they think it is undervalued; i.e., they believe that the value of owning the corporation will increase over time. Just means that the corporation is taking on some of its ownership and the risks/rewards that go with the ownership. The corporations expect to make back the money they paid as dividends and to purchase the stock by increasing the value of the stock. They may be right or wrong about that; it’s the risk of ownership.

By the way, we still haven't even talked about dividends. What did all these owners get for not contributing anything? Another $238 billion in dividends that year.

What are you talking about, not contributing anything? Those people bought those ownership shares from other people with an expectation of receiving dividends, and took the risk that maybe they wouldn’t receive them. The people who sold the stock no longer expect to share in its profits (dividends) or loss. The ownership transferred. So what? Different people are participating in the ownership of the company, that's all.

Individuals do not, do not, fund a rising market, the corporations they control pump money into the system to prop it up.

Absurd, and totally backward. The corporations share their profits in the form of dividends among their owners. If profits grow, the value of the corporation grows, causing people to be willing to pay more for a stake in its ownership, and when the ownership is transferred for a higher price, the buyers are funding a rising market.

Pause, to let that all sink in.

Please do. If this didn’t sink in when you took econ in college, I expect you will need a very long pause. :lol:

So all these people who "own" these companies and extract wealth from them haven't helped the corporation.

Why do you place “own” in quotes? These people do own the company. Whether they are initial investors or they bought the shares from someone else, they own the company. They aren’t “extracting wealth” from the corporation, they are sharing in its profits or losses. By your reasoning, if the company stops paying dividends and the stock price falls, apparently the owners are “injecting wealth” into the corporation?!? :roll:

The inital investors have, and they should be compensated, but they can be by a fixed rate bond of some sort.

No, the initial investors should NOT be “compensated”. They should share in the profits, if there are profits. If they choose to sell their ownership stake to someone else, increasing their profits or losses, that’s their business, if they can find a willing buyer. Then that buyer takes on ownership and associated rights and risks.

And what are these companies? Let us turn to John for the answer. Society, he wrote, creates nothing because it's just a collection of individuals. A ha, he's onto something here. What is a business? A collection of individuals and, well, a lot of stuff. Without human elements to operate, manage, and run things a plant full of equipment does nothing but depreciate. Business too are nothing but collections of individuals, and it is the individuals that add value, and it is they that should reap the benefit.

And they do. They get wages if the corporation succeeds. They COULD use those wages to buy stock, perhaps, if they’re interested in an ownership stake and risking some of their money on themselves and their colleagues. Oh, and all the “stuff” was purchased with the money of the investors.

Such is the essence of socialism.

What, ignoring how successful economies operate? Yeah, I guess so.

John can refuse to acknowledge my Locke example for value added labor- refuse to acknowledge that is the actions of a complex network of actors, acting in concert under the rules set by the political state they among them founded - refuse to acknowledge that stealing the wealth from those that created it, causing a downward pressure on wages, health, and well being creates a demonstrable harm - refuse to acknowledge that the matrix of control exerted by the wealthiest individuals does, in fact, limit the choices of the bulk of society. And he can remain a "rational, educated, and thoughful" person of the most curious variety, one that will not confront the irrationality of his cherished stock market, chooses to remain uneducated about how it actually functions, and thoughtlessly denies any complicity in the harm it causes.

Well, there are a lot of things I disagree with John about. But he has exhibited a much better understanding of the stock market and economics than you have. Apparently you are entirely uneducated about how the stock market and overall economy functions, or you just choose to ignore the reality of it.

That is all for today.

Thank heavens. That was more than enough. One surreal fantasy per day is plenty for me. :lol:

[Brent]

This country is quite good comparatively, but quite good is relatively easy... making it great will take some work.

Wrong, pardner. "Great" is thoroughly overused and all too often misapplied. But this country is indeed great. It did take a lot of work, and keeping it great will require a lot more work.

[Don]

[quote="Anonymous"]To my myriad detractors, I'll begin addressing you generally now.

First, let us no longer beat around the bush. You are all blissfully unaware of the true nature of the stock market. Maybe you will have never heard nor read the information that I will presently impart to you. Maybe you never cared to listen.

First, an analogy that you've surely heard before. I buy a car from Nissan. I drive it 6 years, it's been a good car 80,000 solid miles. I need a minivan though, kids on the way, so I sell to John. I paid $22,000 for, I let it go for $4000... it's in reasonably good condition. Just in case you didn't realize, Nissan of America nor Nissan Japan sees a dollar of that second purchase. Obvious, right? Why would they, it's a private sale. Further, Nissan is no longer bound to honor any warranty left and they certainly don't pay that second owner to drive their car around. Keep all this in mind.

quote]

WRONG!!!!!!. You see while Nissan is not making any money off the resale of the car, surely they are making money on parts sales........and possibly more than they did off the original sale of the car.

70% of vehicle manufacturer's profits is from parts sales. John now has cheap transportation, but it needs repaired periodically, as well as serviced. Nissan continues to see the "fruits" of THEIR labor.

[Don]

I'm just gonna agree with John and Brent and go grab a beer. I had to read these three times to absorb it all. Unbelieveable to say the least guys.

[Anonymous]

Yeah folks, I am still waiting for my 40 acres and one mule!

Jess

[dhyatt]

Yeah folks, I am still waiting for my 40 acres and one mule!

Jess

Jess Ward? :D Where the heck have you been!??? :-D

[Brent]

I'm just gonna agree with John and Brent and go grab a beer. I had to read these three times to absorb it all. Unbelieveable to say the least guys.

I had to read Mark's post twice before I could believe that anyone would seriously espouse such dung. I'm still hoping he's going to tell us that he was just kidding (Mark, let us in on the joke, we'll all have a good laugh!). Surely no one could find it "odd" that when you buy something, the ownership rights are transferred. Right? Right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? :lol: :roll:

[Cathy]

Mark wrote:
To my myriad detractors, I'll begin addressing you generally now.

(Sounds like he does think he is King already!)

Yes, please do tell us, Mark, your version of the meaning behind the "eye of the needle" parable!! I can't wait!

Yes Mark, we are both here in this country by birth. I appreciate and am quite happy with the form of governance that was created by the Founding Fathers. You apparently find it highly flawed because it is insufficiently socialist. I think that it has been corrupted more than enough by socialists. I will fight just as hard (and do), against people who think the way you do, to stop the effort to tranform this nation into a socialist state. The socialists should go find somewhere else in the world that will give them free reign to attempt their utopia.

Certain things about our form of governance should not be changed, and the reason for the Bill of Rights and the 'checks and balances'. Expanding the inclusion of more people to those rights does not erode the American form of governance. Exchanging property rights, free commerce, and individual liberty (bedrock basics of America!) for a communal, socialist style governance "for the common good" most certainly erodes what has made America a land of opportunity, innovation, increasing wealth for more people.

I believe that I have "certain unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (commonly understood at the time written as a right to property)" And I recall something about "self-determination". No where do I read that one has a "right" to take that away from me in order to "evolve" to some "higher, more perfect,