The Capitalist End Game Engineered by the GOP (4 Viewers)

[Huntn]

The Capitalist End Game
Think about it, this is the “patriotic”, “traditional values”, “moral”, “Christian values”, “fiscal hawk” party who railed about National Debt in the 1990s and personal responsibility while robbing us blind. Their genius? Focused on whites, brought out the racist in us, pitting us against one another, preaching to us the virtue of “traditional values”, “fiscal responsibility”, LOL, fool’d ya white privilege types. What they were preaching “I got mine, I want yours” and you’re on the menu.

“The National Debt is Evidence of the Crime- The first shots were fired in 1981, when Republicans’ so-called supply-side tax cuts began a forty-five-year upward transfer of over $50 trillion in wealth that made billionaires fabulously rich while it hollowed out our nation’s Treasury. They stole $38 trillion from our government, and another $12 trillion (at least) from working class families via wage freezes and the destruction of unions.”


https://substack.com/@thomhartmann/...&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

 

[MT15]

yeah, i get the desire, but i think in practice it would be pretty difficult to implement, particularly when it comes to individuals with their wealth tied up in single companies or assets. I think forcing liquidation would have unintended consequences (although I could be wrong).

However, I do like to think about taxes in relation to wealth... this country has a total wealth of $169 trillion. Our federal budget is $7 trillion (which is insane). Subtract corporate taxes of $500 billion, that roughly equates to about 3.8% of our wealth every year. I currently pay about 2.5% of my wealth every year... a flat tax of 3.8% of wealth would raise my tax bill by 50%, which would definitely have a substantial impact on my economic activity going forward. It should be noted that currently we only collect about $4.3 trillion in income and social security taxes per year right now (which is coincidentally 2.5% of total household wealth).

I don't have a prescription here, but it's the way I think about the problem.

People who are proposing a wealth tax don’t propose that it affect anyone except for billionaires. I think Warren has a decent plan on it. I can’t recite it from memory but it is highly progressive and wouldn’t affect anyone who is not worth more than a billion dollars.

 

[MT15]

With network effects where a product derives value from universal adoption, it actually crowds out sometimes "better" alternatives (we can debate "better" though b/c to some degree that's subjective and a market purist would say that the best by definition always wins). So, I could argue that Windows might have actually destroyed even "better OS" out there by virtue of being first to market adoption, and therefore Bill Gates actually hindered more efficient processing.

I am going from memory being more involved in computers years ago. But I do remember reading that Gates actively pursued and destroyed companies who were developing better alternatives to Windows. And I remember hearing computer people birch and moan about Windows’ shortcomings and vulnerabilities which still needlessly exist today.

Gates hasn’t done our computer industry any favors.

 

[UriUT]

So, I get what you're saying, but I disagree on the "worth" part of it. For one, I think if Bill Gates got hit by a bus sometime before Windows took off, and Paul Allen decided to pursue water colors, someone else would have created something similar (maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse). I'm not a big believer in these sort of unique geniuses. Not that entrepreneurs like Gates, or Musk or Bezos or whatever aren't geniuses in one respect or another... just that there are a LOT of people with similar or sometimes even better qualities that either were late to market, didn't have the right backing or whatever -- but if there's a market need, there are probably hundreds of people or more in the economy (or even more), who have the capability and desire to fill those needs.

With network effects where a product derives value from universal adoption, it actually crowds out sometimes "better" alternatives (we can debate "better" though b/c to some degree that's subjective and a market purist would say that the best by definition always wins). So, I could argue that Windows might have actually destroyed even "better OS" out there by virtue of being first to market adoption, and therefore Bill Gates actually hindered more efficient processing.

I'm not being super coherent here... more vomiting general ideas, but I don't know that simple being first and networking better than potential competitors is necessarily something we should place an inordinate amount of value on. Now, I still think the market is a better determinant of a winner than some sort of centralized decision maker -- but I also don't think it's necessarily perfect or absolute.

All that to say that I think, yes, when someone innovates and delivers new and interesting products, I think it's great when they get tremendous rewards for that. I just think the weight gets skewed.

Bill Gates over promised IBM that he had a working OS. He didn't have an OS but told IBM that he did anyway. He looked around and bought what would become MS-DOS from someone else.

 

[RobF]

Bill Gates over promised IBM that he had a working OS. He didn't have an OS but told IBM that he did anyway. He looked around and bought what would become MS-DOS from someone else.

Mainly true. Thing is, he was also incredibly lucky. Because firstly IBM approached him because his mum referred IBM's CEO to Microsoft. And secondly, he initially referred IBM to the actual developers of CP/M, DRI, for the OS, and they only came back to him - at which point Microsoft said they could provide an OS and bought QDOS - because IBM didn't reach a licensing agreement with DRI.

Thing is, I don't think any specific debate about whether what someone actually did deserved the income and wealth that came their way is going to shift the discussion, because it ultimately seems to be boil down to two opposed viewpoints.

1) Money comes from other people, and is essentially what you get for providing goods and services to other people, and is in turn what enables you to have goods and services provided to you. It can be argued that various things follow on from that, like that it should be proportional to your own personal contributions, that everyone should have enough to enable them to obtain the essential goods and services they require and enable the productivity of the people around them, and that no-one should have vastly more than they need or that can possibly be derived from their own personal efforts and contributions.

2) Or, no, essentially, the wealth itself determines whether they deserve it. If they've gained the wealth, it just follows that they deserve it, and this can be seen by simply observing how the system has enabled them to accumulate that wealth. E.g. if the company they own has been successful, creating vast wealth for them, then that will be because the company has created useful products and services that people highly value, hence they deserve the wealth accordingly as the owner of the company. It typically seems to follow on from this that this is how it works, how it must work, and either that "this is fine" or if it isn't, there's no other way anyway. The system works, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter because there's no alternative.

With 1, it crucially matters what someone personally did, and what was the results of the efforts of others. But with 2 it doesn't. No matter how indirect their own contribution, the system has spoken, the wealthy person deserves it. So no discussion of what that person actually contributed, and what was the results of the efforts of large numbers of other people, really shifts the discussion. It just doesn't matter to what extent other people did the work, those other people wouldn't have been in a position to do it without that person, so that person deserves an overwhelming share of the wealth generated. The outcome is justified by the system.

So to take a hypothetical, someone could start a company with inherited money and literally do the absolute bare minimum. Not even come up with an idea, they could hire someone to come up with an idea, and have that person do everything else; appoint all the staff, direct the company, etc. And a proponent of 2 might say, if they became insanely wealthy as the result of the company becoming successful and their being the sole owner, they would deserve it simply for creating the company, and they would talk about the "risk" they took, and discuss how great the company is, imply that in the absence of the company demand for the type of products and services they provide simply wouldn't exist and wouldn't be provided by anyone else so the related jobs just wouldn't exist, and argue that any increased taxation on such people is driven only by jealously and would be harmful because think of the jobs.

And even if they allow that OK, maybe this person doesn't deserve to be quite that wealthy, there'd be no way to address that without unfairly targeting all the other billionaires who totally do deserve it.

Whereas a proponent of 1 might say it's not that the owner doesn't deserve anything but the work that actually turned the company into what it is was actually carried out by other people and enabled by even more people and the local and national infrastructure that enabled all of those people to do that, and the created wealth should really be spread out accordingly, and if the owner is taking vast amounts of wealth regardless, then yes, they probably should be taxed pretty heavily on it and it might be even better if the system is structured to ensure the created wealth is spread out in the first place.

 

[MT15]

Everyone who achieves prominence in one way or another has quite a bit of luck (or random chance if you prefer) behind it plus the work and help of countless other people. A lot of prominent people admit it, I seem to remember Obama admitting it, Warren Buffet as well.

If someone doesn’t want to admit that luck played a role, or chance, then there is some evidence that they have some issues with their own ideas about themselves.

 

[UriUT]

Mainly true. Thing is, he was also incredibly lucky. Because firstly IBM approached him because his mum referred IBM's CEO to Microsoft. And secondly, he initially referred IBM to the actual developers of CP/M, DRI, for the OS, and they only came back to him - at which point Microsoft said they could provide an OS and bought QDOS - because IBM didn't reach a licensing agreement with DRI.

Thing is, I don't think any specific debate about whether what someone actually did deserved the income and wealth that came their way is going to shift the discussion, because it ultimately seems to be boil down to two opposed viewpoints.

1) Money comes from other people, and is essentially what you get for providing goods and services to other people, and is in turn what enables you to have goods and services provided to you. It can be argued that various things follow on from that, like that it should be proportional to your own personal contributions, that everyone should have enough to enable them to obtain the essential goods and services they require and enable the productivity of the people around them, and that no-one should have vastly more than they need or that can possibly be derived from their own personal efforts and contributions.

2) Or, no, essentially, the wealth itself determines whether they deserve it. If they've gained the wealth, it just follows that they deserve it, and this can be seen by simply observing how the system has enabled them to accumulate that wealth. E.g. if the company they own has been successful, creating vast wealth for them, then that will be because the company has created useful products and services that people highly value, hence they deserve the wealth accordingly as the owner of the company. It typically seems to follow on from this that this is how it works, how it must work, and either that "this is fine" or if it isn't, there's no other way anyway. The system works, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter because there's no alternative.

With 1, it crucially matters what someone personally did, and what was the results of the efforts of others. But with 2 it doesn't. No matter how indirect their own contribution, the system has spoken, the wealthy person deserves it. So no discussion of what that person actually contributed, and what was the results of the efforts of large numbers of other people, really shifts the discussion. It just doesn't matter to what extent other people did the work, those other people wouldn't have been in a position to do it without that person, so that person deserves an overwhelming share of the wealth generated. The outcome is justified by the system.

So to take a hypothetical, someone could start a company with inherited money and literally do the absolute bare minimum. Not even come up with an idea, they could hire someone to come up with an idea, and have that person do everything else; appoint all the staff, direct the company, etc. And a proponent of 2 might say, if they became insanely wealthy as the result of the company becoming successful and their being the sole owner, they would deserve it simply for creating the company, and they would talk about the "risk" they took, and discuss how great the company is, imply that in the absence of the company demand for the type of products and services they provide simply wouldn't exist and wouldn't be provided by anyone else so the related jobs just wouldn't exist, and argue that any increased taxation on such people is driven only by jealously and would be harmful because think of the jobs.

And even if they allow that OK, maybe this person doesn't deserve to be quite that wealthy, there'd be no way to address that without unfairly targeting all the other billionaires who totally do deserve it.

Whereas a proponent of 1 might say it's not that the owner doesn't deserve anything but the work that actually turned the company into what it is was actually carried out by other people and enabled by even more people and the local and national infrastructure that enabled all of those people to do that, and the created wealth should really be spread out accordingly, and if the owner is taking vast amounts of wealth regardless, then yes, they probably should be taxed pretty heavily on it and it might be even better if the system is structured to ensure the created wealth is spread out in the first place.

I agree. I find the question of worth in taxation useless. These companies and individuals operate within the confines of our system. We provide the infrastructure/environment and demand (See @Dragon's comments regarding Denmark). Regardless of how much the individual contributed, they will be taxed a certain amount based on their income or profits. Taxation should not determine how much minimum wage worker actually contributed so it shouldn't matter to the other end. As much as I detest musk and will scream he doesn't contribute much, I look at the size of his wealth to say the baboon needs to be taxed more. I deeply respect buffets approach and look at the size of his wealth to say the man needs to be taxed more.

We are not living in the era of divine rights. We dont need to worship any one person nor group.

 

[UriUT]

We’ve actually had forms of wealth taxation for decades, and no—companies are not fleeing the country because of it.

In Denmark, there’s broad support for the idea that everyone should contribute according to their means. It reflects a recognition that we’re all interconnected, and that a strong society depends on contributions from both the wealthy and the less well-off.

Businesses, in particular, benefit from this model. They rely on a well-educated workforce, solid infrastructure, and a stable, safe environment—politically, economically, and socially. Those things don’t exist by accident; they’re the result of collective investment.

Are you telling us that Denmark has a specialized economy? Because of the high wages and high education you don't bite off the low hanging fruits like textile? Even if you may have some advantage and can produce more fabrics.... you choose to have high end industries? Companies that utilizes your expertise like asml??? People in India make 5 dollars a month in textile. Surely, you want that for Denmark? That would be a doozie of an opportunity cost....

 

[MT15]

The current anti-billionaire sentiment is a self-own by these guys. They have only themselves to blame.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Our constitution is written to protect individual rights and is designed to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority.

That's only half of the whole truth. Our constitution is also designed to prevent the minority from infringing on the rights of the majority. It doesn't just protect the minority from the majority.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

yep we have rules. In this country it is called the constitution. One of those rules is that we are free to chose for ourselves what makes us happy.

We are free to choose what makes us happy, but none of us are free to do whatever we choose to do. You can choose to be a pyromaniac, but when you get caught making yourself happy by burning a building down, you will be put on trial. You can choose to be a serial killer because it makes you happy, but when you get caught killing people, you will be tried.

You can choose driving drunk makes you happy, but it's against the law to drive drunk. The list goes on and on. Hoarding billions of dollars harms society in a lot of ways. People don't have a right to harm others in pursuit of their own happiness. People do not have a right to hoard billions of dollars, because that hoarding harms the majority of the people in our society.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

All it takes is super majorities in both legislative chambers and a super majority in the states. What that does is protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

You've got that backwards. Requiring super majority votes to pass something is a protection against tyranny by the minority. The Senate having an equal number of senators for every state is a protection against tyranny by the majority.

It has worked pretty well for us for 250 years.

Things have been working very far away from well since 2020 and the weaknesses and mistakes in our Constitution played a significant role in us ended up in the shirt show that we are in.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Job outsourcing is not just about increasing profits. It's really more a mechanism to keep costs down.

Keeping costs down is part of increasing profits. Decreasing a net loss is increasing profits.

 

[Dragon]

Keeping costs down is part of increasing profits. Decreasing a net loss is increasing profits.

What he forgets is that while it may improve the profit - it will do the opposite if people can't afford to buy the products due to loss of income. Every company needs customers and they will overwhelmingly be salaried workers.

 

[bird]

The current anti-billionaire sentiment is a self-own by these guys. They have only themselves to blame.

They are children handling loaded weapons.

 

[Huntn]

Job outsourcing is not just about increasing profits. It's really more a mechanism to keep costs down. Good example near and dear to me is Hanes Brands, which held as long as it could, but had to close its textile manufacturing plant in Winston Salem in 2008 (IIRC) because they simply could not compete pricewise.

As far as infrastructure, which you keep bringing up, it's not a 1-way street. Corporations still pay taxes, spend money in the local economy, generate jobs, and not just jobs within the company. The last big campus I worked at, the area boomed with small businesses catering to the corporation as well as the employees of that corporation.

Patriotism, well... I don't know anyone who only buys American made. As I said on another post, your average 'Murican may chant "U.S.A.!" but still goes to Walmart to buy cheap stuff made in China.

Is your computer at least a Velocity Micro?

Keeping costs down… increase profits, period. As far as manufacturing being exported, all fine and dandy, unless you end up with a bunch of disenfranchised citizens struggling because the never ending expansion is a myth, and besides the profit generators don’t want to pay for the retraining of people they disenfranchised, and then wait until the next major war, where the manufacture of vital components are held in foreign hands, and virtually no one in your Nation has hands on experience manufacturing a product.

The key to most of the issue of a market that’s been undermined to such a point, because the corporations are not paying their fair share, that your products no longer sell, that profit margins can’t be maintained, it’s all part of the Capitalist End Game, any profit based system can and will run amuck especially when there is a broad belief that “everyone can be rich” without consequence. More accurately, you can become wealthy at someone else’s expense. We have to collectively acknowledged what expense is acceptable and retain a happy, healthy, functional society.

 

[Huntn]

imagine if we lived in a world where the intent was to recycle and repair items instead of an onslaught of new cheaper items designed primarily for profits?