Agree. Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - there couldn't be a better advertisement for capitalism).
BUT:
When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government, you have:
Low taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, leading to:
Agree. Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - there couldn't be a better advertisement for capitalism).
BUT:
When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government, you have:
Low taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, leading to:
Monopoly.
Government by the wealthy.
Collusion by corporations against the public interest.
In other words, the things Adam Smith stated in his 1776 warning to the American experiment.
You are quite correct, dump Reagan, dump Bill Clinton, dump George W. Bush, dump Hillary Clinton (Ugh!), dump Barack Obama, and above all DUMP DONALD J. TRUMP:
There are no antitrust or anti-monopoly laws any more; say thank you to Clinton economics-Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism, is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism, which had fallen into decline following the Second World War. These economic principles are a direct contrast to policies of FDR: The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive ordersтАжтАж
Everything started with Ronald Reagan. The end of the Fairness Doctrine, ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches, welfare queens, pull yourself up by the bootstraps (which, BTW, literally means "impossible task.") which helped the turn toward conservatism and fundamentalism, and victimization of the poor, and all that claptrap about trickle down economics. Not to mention Iran/Contra. Read this Wikipedia article, Scandals of the Reagan Administration (I'm sorry I couldn't catch a good link.)
That's even more simplistic. Bork wrote his book before Reagan was President so of course not everything started with Reagan. And the seeds of Reaganism had long been present in the GOP.
And the phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" predates Reagan by a century, and it was Martin Luther King Jr., who was murdered more than a decade before Reagan's Presidency, who observed that "it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps." Did slavery and racism and Jim Crow start with Reagan? Of course not ... Reaganism was built on these things.
You are right in a lot of ways. And of course if we are to take it all the way back to the beginning, we would have to go even farther back than the Trail of Tears. I made a clear list of the misdeeds I saw in Ronald "Teflon Ron" Reagan. And I provided a source for readers to view, and that source contains a list of links to references for its content. Reaganism is exactly the point. All those seeds of selfishness, xenophobia, racism, and viciousness became absolutely clear in Reagan's administration. And he was constantly absolved by the press which he himself had destroyed. It has been worse ever since.
Reagan is certainly worthy of blame for our current politics and division. He rehashed the racism of the past and rode a wave of backlash against the progress made by the Civil Rights movement. His advisor, Lee atwater, admitted this and was recorded explaining the evolved or updated 'southern strategy ' (strategy by republican party candidates of gaining political support by appealing to racism against black ppl.) https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
I couldn't view the article because I won't disable my ad blocker, but I trust The Nation. There's a movie about Lee Atwater called "The Boogie Man." It's available on Prime video. I hope you get to see it.
I will watch it, thanks! The Nation actually has the audio, but here is what he said- You start out in 1954 by saying, тАЬNigger, nigger, nigger.тАЭ By 1968 you canтАЩt say тАЬniggerтАЭтАФthat hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, statesтАЩ rights, and all that stuff, and youтАЩre getting so abstract. Now, youтАЩre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youтАЩre talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.тАж тАЬWe want to cut this,тАЭ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than тАЬNigger, nigger.тАЭ this is insightful in another way- it as an indirect admissions that slavery, Jim Crow and racism have given a significant head start to whites and that the Racial wealth gap is not a result of black ppl being inferior, nor a result of an unwillingness, nor inability to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps'.
Wow! Dead right! That word тАЬ abstractтАЭ- excellent! And these bigoted self righteous a$$h%#|!s hide their prejudice behind the тАЬfairness тАЬ indoctrination.
And LaVelle explained where the name comes from: "a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism" ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Jival, the name "neo liberal" is very confusing to people. It has nothing to do with being liberal, in fact, it is the opposite. When money becomes the be all to end all, one can see that what happened in the last 20 years or so of the 20th century was inevitable or nearly so. Workers were being paid less and less so the owners and money-grubbers could take more and more. I don't know what to call that except unchecked corporate greed. That is fewer syllables than neoliberalism but more words. It does not play as well with fast-moving business guys. It is also a truth and can't have that.
I had food delivered to my home via Instacart from Publix here in Florida. I live in a senior community. Some man decided this would be a good place for disabled younger than 55yr olds to be. We could keep them busy and cared for. We the owners of our homes and community were not asked.
I oppose any younger persons being here needing services we over 55yrs can hardly get ourselves. We are vulnerable with younger, needy living here in great numbers. Residents with their needy people, bad criminal record, mental children and grandchildren may be okay with the owners of our community (who don't support those services) but not with me. Not to mention the problems they bring.
A younger than 55yr old man with a monitor ankle band was in our community living with his mother. In our community pool he was looking for work and talked religion. Later on I learned he robbed a local store of clothes. They also bring crime to our community. Few jobs available in this community for a guy with criminal record.
A few days ago a food delivery person (not the first) delivered my order who was a downs syndrome person and spoke no English. What?? Something is not right. I complained since I can not communicate with that person. It was also not "Angel" delivering my order as stated. It was a young man. Twice now this occurred. Countries sending their disabled illegals here like Castro did?
Well, "people" are ignorant, but they need not be. "being liberal" and liberalism are not the same thing. Try reading the links. And don't misspell my name ... that earns a mute.
P.S. Sorry ... I of course did not know that you're blind.
Neoliberals absolutely did call themselves that. (The word тАЬliberalтАЭ to anyone outside the US referred and refers to someone who believes in unregulated commerce and laissez-faire economics, which were not dominant in post-war democracies, hence the тАЬneo-тАЬ, in part. The NeoтАЩs of course were a bit different in character because their approach in that context was reactionary, hence angry and vengeful.
If course it all goes back to Regan and Ridiculous Reganomics! No dispute there!!!!!ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│My point was WHERE WAS THE LOYAL OPPOSITION?ЁЯлиЁЯлиЁЯлиЁЯлиTHE VOICE OF REASON WHEN WE NEEDED IT SO DESPERATELY 35 YEARS AGO???????? Ask Mr. Reich. Read one (or more!) of his books. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/reich.html (Or read this old article- before all the political polishing). https://www.salon.com/1996/03/09/reich1/
Joe, there are antitrust laws to stop the kind of stuff Musk is doing, but somehow, we just don't get around to enforcing them. It is as though our own government officials are scared of the rich guys and don't want to rock their boats. We need some boat rocking, wealth taxing, higher tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations, etc. We need to get these things going now because global warming is cutting in on our lives and will break us as a nation and planet if we don't put our efforts into stopping it. Right now, we are wrapped up with worshipping money and are distracted from what needs to be done.
Well said Ruth... Warren, Sanders, and others "Have a plan for this"... Climate change is coming for all of us in one way or another. Let the $ from the wealthy apply towards our major global warming and ecosystem challenges... Make it a nobel action to request they change the focus with their money and redirect it to leave a legacy to save the planet.
Musk is a bad actor - a bombastic, arrogant, thinks he knows it all kind of dangerous jerk. Boycott Tesla, and replace our contracts with SpaceX with something else. Any communication modality or media entity these days with that much power or that many viewers/users they can influence and gaslight- should be dismantled for the protection of democracy.
Biden is trying to enforce them but I think they are fighting him. The two cases I know of right now that are in the courts are the Exxon/Mobil merger and the Kroger/Albertson merger neither of which we want to see happen. So keep fighting.
GOP are lawless. We have no money to run certain agencies since Bush closed and downsized so many. They been doing that with the IRS yet military are in the trillions now. Where were they on 911 and Jan.6th? Right. A big stand down by the most powerful military in the world.
Biden won't regulate corporations for their fraud and Fascist funds. Corporations are owned by workers, shareholder and the community. All parties are represented not just one. Politics should be out for all corporations to be fair and equal. Where is their "Corporate Governess and Responsibility"?
"Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - there couldn't be a better advertisement for capitalism)."
Nonsense ... there were many differences besides the presence or absence of capitalism. There's no reason to think that a democratic socialist East Germany--as opposed to the totalitarian DDR--would not have thrived.
"When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government"
The only way to prevent it is democratic socialism.
To some, тАЬsocialismтАЭ means absolute government control of the economy. To others, the slightest whiff of government control is тАЬSocialism!тАЭ (Used as an epithet.) In reality, there are many degrees of socialism. A little can be very beneficial to the disadvantaged, while too much can bring an economy to its knees. Nordic capitalism has a degree of socialism that would horrify the American right, but here you deny it is socialist at all. Cuban socialism is actually more of a kleptocratic oligarchy, and is no more true socialism than the тАЬDemocratic Republic of North KoreaтАЭ is democratic.
The Nordic model was created by democratic socialists and has far more in common with democratic socialism then with the capitalism of the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
And anyone who humps capitalism like Lonny here is a right winger ... not a MAGA type, but very much right of center, and other of his comments here make that clear, e.g., responding to a suggestion to tax capital gains like regular income so as to secure greater social benefits with "why so even less money files into new business? Not so smart" -- supply side economics is very much a hallmark of the right-of-center. Lonny notably has no concern at all about "even less money" flowing to the working class and poor, to infrastructure, amelioration of climate change, etc. He's free market uber alles guy, which is very much a brand of right winger.
P.S. "Where do I say anything about "supply side"? "
Imagine being this dim. *I* just laid out how his statement is supply-side economics (and it oh so obviously is). That he doesn't acknowledge it is predictable and irrelevant.
The countries you you mentioned as socialism are not socialism, they are instead communists. Britain is not a socialism state. I think you need to learn what a socialism state is because you have no idea what it is because you actually think communism and socialism are the same thing and they absolutely positively not in any way shape or form whatsoever the same.
Your own country by your own definition is a socialist country then. AMTRAK is government owned and operated. The United States ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕ has many social programs such as welfare,unemployment insurance,old age security, food stamps. So the United States ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕ is a socialism state,just like Canada ЁЯЗиЁЯЗж where I live,the only thing that's added on is our Healthcare system. We also have VIA RAIL which is government owned and operated, same as your AMTRAK. England ЁЯЗмЁЯЗз by the way is the run the same way as Canada ЁЯЗиЁЯЗж which is run the same way as the USA ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕. BUT,the problem is that you equate our systems with Communism which is not the same thing as our system. This is disturbing because communism is controlling and depressing of a population whereas socialism is a proping up of a population and helping them to thrive.
You are right wing. I expressed no binary thinking--you have no idea what other categories are in my ontology, you simply leapt to an ad hominem as right wingers do. And I am a critical thinker, but no one who says that democratic socialism "does not exist" is--that's childish trolling, as right wingers do. And your deeply ignorant and unintelligent and--given your accusation--hypocritical--list is the ultimate in binary thinking--there is vastly more variety even in that list of only 5 items than you make out. And the claim that socialism is "played out" based on that list is deeply dishonest.
Why doesn't blocking work here? Anyway, I won't be responding to Lonny again.
ThatтАЩs an ignorant statement. IтАЩve lived in two democratic socialist states, though under Margaret Thatcher the British neoliberals decided they wanted to imitate the US and by now have surpassed us in greed, cruelty and infrastructure collapse.
Have you lived there and participated in its politics and studied its history? Sounds like maybe not.
Its government is now of course pro-capitalist on steroidsтАФwithout even the (rather trivial) virtues of classic capitalism such as prudence or efficiency, and hampered by the isolationist nationalism of BrexitтАФonce a merely unpleasant fantasy, now a disastrous reality.
"... Agree. Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - ..." For me wealth is a poor second to relationships. The death of my partner the third grade teacher left me relatively wealthy (her teaching annuity and savings.), but I'm intensely sad, not just from her absence, also, because of so few close friends.
Re: The comparison. The BRD was subsidized by the US while Russia striped the East even to taking train rails.
I attended a German language class in Dresden the last year of the DDR. I weekly would train to Berlin and cross over to the West for bananas and oranges, but couldn't wait to return to which I found so much more pleasant.
It's not Capitalism since there is competition but huge, International Monopolies who destroy the market. Monopolies destroy competition, research and innovation, fix high prices and destroy products. Less on the market of choice.
Capitalism is running as intended. There is nothing wrong with it. It is performing exactly as devised. When are people going to realize this. This system has to be replaced. Adjustments have been tried before but the end result is always the same. Producing ever more billionaires and multi-millionaires. Power and influence being gifted to corporations and we wonder how to fix it? We canтАЩt. This is how itтАЩs supposed to operate.
And the rich make money by having money/wealth, but wealth isn't taxed, only labor is. Also, "we just dont tax everyone" is a standard issue right wing lie. Not everyone pays *income* tax, because they pay such a large percentage of their income as sales and payroll taxes.
Used to be if you obtain wealth regardless of type of work you paid a big chunk to Uncle Sam. Our country had money to fix our roads, pay our government employees, do research, health care, etc. Bridges were falling apart and airports not safe, etc. without money to fix them. Money went to the few in control, etc.
There were high marginal income tax rates pre-Reagan, as high as 91% under Eisenhower (these are marginal rates, not on the entire amount, so it wasn't confiscatory, contrary to right wing claims) but there's never been a wealth tax. Many of the rich obtain most of their wealth by having money, not by doing any sort of work. Someone like Paris Hilton does no work.
Listen up. I don't know if your statistics are right or wrong. Let's assume they're right. Then I'm already assuming you're talking Federal rates of 26% for the top 1%, which is way too low. Now, that doesn't even include State and Local taxes.
But even that's not the point. The top 1-10% bear most of the tax burden. I get it, and I agree. But here's the point. The top 0.1% pay very little and the top 0.01% pay almost nothing. But that's where the real money is.
As for Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, and the Koch Brothers, well they pay, in relation to their actual wealth, nothing.
You think that's right, pal? You think this is a good system?
Lenny, you again raise good points, and although I agree on some of them, I quite disagree on most.
1) "50$ of taxpayers pay little or no taxes." You're singing to the choir. First, I think everyone should pay taxes - it makes us better citizens. Second, I agree, 1-10% pay most of the taxes. This isn't right, so what exactly is your point? That it's OK for Bezos et al not to have to pay on the $3-4 trillion they accrue in wealth every year?
2) Yes, there should be a wealth tax.
3) Yes, taxing wealth is difficult - that's why we need politicians with the balls to do it, like Sanders and Newsom. Just saying it's difficult is passive and self-defeating. What are you saying? That Adolf Hitler ran over France and Belgium, therefore he was unstoppable?
3) YES you should be taxed on the increase in equity of your home, WHEN you decide to sell it, and thereby have the money to pay for the taxes. What planet are you on, brother?
4) When you lose money on your stocks, you get a tax break.
Man, this is not difficult, why are you making it so?
Agree. Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - there couldn't be a better advertisement for capitalism).
BUT:
When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government, you have:
Low taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, leading to:
Monopoly.
Government by the wealthy.
Collusion by corporations against the public interest.
In other words, the things Adam Smith stated in his 1776 warning to the American experiment.
You are quite correct, dump Reagan, dump Bill Clinton, dump George W. Bush, dump Hillary Clinton (Ugh!), dump Barack Obama, and above all DUMP DONALD J. TRUMP:
It's very simple: Tax...the...Rich.
Unleash America.
The US recognised the dangers 150 years ago (or thereabouts) with anti trust laws. Are they now ineffective?
There are no antitrust or anti-monopoly laws any more; say thank you to Clinton economics-Neoliberalism, also neo-liberalism, is a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism, which had fallen into decline following the Second World War. These economic principles are a direct contrast to policies of FDR: The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive ordersтАжтАж
This is simplistic fabrication. The toothlessness of anti-trust law enforcement is due to Robert Bork far more than Bill Clinton.
And to Ronald Reagan who broke up the unions, a major countervailing force to wealthy corporations.
Everything started with Ronald Reagan. The end of the Fairness Doctrine, ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches, welfare queens, pull yourself up by the bootstraps (which, BTW, literally means "impossible task.") which helped the turn toward conservatism and fundamentalism, and victimization of the poor, and all that claptrap about trickle down economics. Not to mention Iran/Contra. Read this Wikipedia article, Scandals of the Reagan Administration (I'm sorry I couldn't catch a good link.)
That's even more simplistic. Bork wrote his book before Reagan was President so of course not everything started with Reagan. And the seeds of Reaganism had long been present in the GOP.
And the phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" predates Reagan by a century, and it was Martin Luther King Jr., who was murdered more than a decade before Reagan's Presidency, who observed that "it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps." Did slavery and racism and Jim Crow start with Reagan? Of course not ... Reaganism was built on these things.
Shaf
just now
You are right in a lot of ways. And of course if we are to take it all the way back to the beginning, we would have to go even farther back than the Trail of Tears. I made a clear list of the misdeeds I saw in Ronald "Teflon Ron" Reagan. And I provided a source for readers to view, and that source contains a list of links to references for its content. Reaganism is exactly the point. All those seeds of selfishness, xenophobia, racism, and viciousness became absolutely clear in Reagan's administration. And he was constantly absolved by the press which he himself had destroyed. It has been worse ever since.
Absolutely right-on! Which is why FDR said тАЬ they are unanimous in their hatred of me and I welcome their hatred!тАЭ https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-madison-square-garden-new-york-city-1
Reagan is certainly worthy of blame for our current politics and division. He rehashed the racism of the past and rode a wave of backlash against the progress made by the Civil Rights movement. His advisor, Lee atwater, admitted this and was recorded explaining the evolved or updated 'southern strategy ' (strategy by republican party candidates of gaining political support by appealing to racism against black ppl.) https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
I couldn't view the article because I won't disable my ad blocker, but I trust The Nation. There's a movie about Lee Atwater called "The Boogie Man." It's available on Prime video. I hope you get to see it.
I will watch it, thanks! The Nation actually has the audio, but here is what he said- You start out in 1954 by saying, тАЬNigger, nigger, nigger.тАЭ By 1968 you canтАЩt say тАЬniggerтАЭтАФthat hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, statesтАЩ rights, and all that stuff, and youтАЩre getting so abstract. Now, youтАЩre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youтАЩre talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.тАж тАЬWe want to cut this,тАЭ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than тАЬNigger, nigger.тАЭ this is insightful in another way- it as an indirect admissions that slavery, Jim Crow and racism have given a significant head start to whites and that the Racial wealth gap is not a result of black ppl being inferior, nor a result of an unwillingness, nor inability to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps'.
How the truth stands out when you see it! Not everyone does. Thank you.
Wow! Dead right! That word тАЬ abstractтАЭ- excellent! And these bigoted self righteous a$$h%#|!s hide their prejudice behind the тАЬfairness тАЬ indoctrination.
It's no coincidence that Reagan nominated Bork to the SCOTUS.
But note that the issue here is anti-trust laws and the lack of their enforcement specifically, and that can very much be laid at the feet of Bork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox
Why and how did they come up with that name?
Who is "they"? Neo-liberals don't generally call themselves that; the term comes from their critics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
And LaVelle explained where the name comes from: "a term used to signify the late-20th century political reappearance of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism" ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Jival, the name "neo liberal" is very confusing to people. It has nothing to do with being liberal, in fact, it is the opposite. When money becomes the be all to end all, one can see that what happened in the last 20 years or so of the 20th century was inevitable or nearly so. Workers were being paid less and less so the owners and money-grubbers could take more and more. I don't know what to call that except unchecked corporate greed. That is fewer syllables than neoliberalism but more words. It does not play as well with fast-moving business guys. It is also a truth and can't have that.
I had food delivered to my home via Instacart from Publix here in Florida. I live in a senior community. Some man decided this would be a good place for disabled younger than 55yr olds to be. We could keep them busy and cared for. We the owners of our homes and community were not asked.
I oppose any younger persons being here needing services we over 55yrs can hardly get ourselves. We are vulnerable with younger, needy living here in great numbers. Residents with their needy people, bad criminal record, mental children and grandchildren may be okay with the owners of our community (who don't support those services) but not with me. Not to mention the problems they bring.
A younger than 55yr old man with a monitor ankle band was in our community living with his mother. In our community pool he was looking for work and talked religion. Later on I learned he robbed a local store of clothes. They also bring crime to our community. Few jobs available in this community for a guy with criminal record.
A few days ago a food delivery person (not the first) delivered my order who was a downs syndrome person and spoke no English. What?? Something is not right. I complained since I can not communicate with that person. It was also not "Angel" delivering my order as stated. It was a young man. Twice now this occurred. Countries sending their disabled illegals here like Castro did?
I'm not feeling safe in my senior community.
Well, "people" are ignorant, but they need not be. "being liberal" and liberalism are not the same thing. Try reading the links. And don't misspell my name ... that earns a mute.
P.S. Sorry ... I of course did not know that you're blind.
jibal, Sorry about your name spelling. I thought what I wrote was what my screen reader said. Perfection rarely works for blind people.
A confusing term. I knew I shouldn't have posed the question, but googled it myself. Wikipedia article is in depth.
Neoliberals absolutely did call themselves that. (The word тАЬliberalтАЭ to anyone outside the US referred and refers to someone who believes in unregulated commerce and laissez-faire economics, which were not dominant in post-war democracies, hence the тАЬneo-тАЬ, in part. The NeoтАЩs of course were a bit different in character because their approach in that context was reactionary, hence angry and vengeful.
If course it all goes back to Regan and Ridiculous Reganomics! No dispute there!!!!!ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│ЁЯШ│My point was WHERE WAS THE LOYAL OPPOSITION?ЁЯлиЁЯлиЁЯлиЁЯлиTHE VOICE OF REASON WHEN WE NEEDED IT SO DESPERATELY 35 YEARS AGO???????? Ask Mr. Reich. Read one (or more!) of his books. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/reich.html (Or read this old article- before all the political polishing). https://www.salon.com/1996/03/09/reich1/
Joe, there are antitrust laws to stop the kind of stuff Musk is doing, but somehow, we just don't get around to enforcing them. It is as though our own government officials are scared of the rich guys and don't want to rock their boats. We need some boat rocking, wealth taxing, higher tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations, etc. We need to get these things going now because global warming is cutting in on our lives and will break us as a nation and planet if we don't put our efforts into stopping it. Right now, we are wrapped up with worshipping money and are distracted from what needs to be done.
Well said Ruth... Warren, Sanders, and others "Have a plan for this"... Climate change is coming for all of us in one way or another. Let the $ from the wealthy apply towards our major global warming and ecosystem challenges... Make it a nobel action to request they change the focus with their money and redirect it to leave a legacy to save the planet.
Musk is a bad actor - a bombastic, arrogant, thinks he knows it all kind of dangerous jerk. Boycott Tesla, and replace our contracts with SpaceX with something else. Any communication modality or media entity these days with that much power or that many viewers/users they can influence and gaslight- should be dismantled for the protection of democracy.
Biden is trying to enforce them but I think they are fighting him. The two cases I know of right now that are in the courts are the Exxon/Mobil merger and the Kroger/Albertson merger neither of which we want to see happen. So keep fighting.
GOP are lawless. We have no money to run certain agencies since Bush closed and downsized so many. They been doing that with the IRS yet military are in the trillions now. Where were they on 911 and Jan.6th? Right. A big stand down by the most powerful military in the world.
They have largely been unenforced the last several decades. Biden is now changing that, but there are changes in the law that are required as well.
Biden won't regulate corporations for their fraud and Fascist funds. Corporations are owned by workers, shareholder and the community. All parties are represented not just one. Politics should be out for all corporations to be fair and equal. Where is their "Corporate Governess and Responsibility"?
Tax capital gains on equities as ordinary income.
In socialist England (60тАЩs), unearned income was double taxed.
Who are you directing this command to?
I think wealth should be confiscated and capped, but that's not going to happen either.
Why not? ItтАЩs happened before.
Speaking of not so smart, right winger Lonny has mastered exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government, you have:" ... The UNITED CORPORATIONS of AMERICA !
"Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - there couldn't be a better advertisement for capitalism)."
Nonsense ... there were many differences besides the presence or absence of capitalism. There's no reason to think that a democratic socialist East Germany--as opposed to the totalitarian DDR--would not have thrived.
"When capitalism wriggles free from the constraints of good government"
The only way to prevent it is democratic socialism.
Your comments are ignorant nonsense, right winger. Muting.
To some, тАЬsocialismтАЭ means absolute government control of the economy. To others, the slightest whiff of government control is тАЬSocialism!тАЭ (Used as an epithet.) In reality, there are many degrees of socialism. A little can be very beneficial to the disadvantaged, while too much can bring an economy to its knees. Nordic capitalism has a degree of socialism that would horrify the American right, but here you deny it is socialist at all. Cuban socialism is actually more of a kleptocratic oligarchy, and is no more true socialism than the тАЬDemocratic Republic of North KoreaтАЭ is democratic.
The Nordic model was created by democratic socialists and has far more in common with democratic socialism then with the capitalism of the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
And anyone who humps capitalism like Lonny here is a right winger ... not a MAGA type, but very much right of center, and other of his comments here make that clear, e.g., responding to a suggestion to tax capital gains like regular income so as to secure greater social benefits with "why so even less money files into new business? Not so smart" -- supply side economics is very much a hallmark of the right-of-center. Lonny notably has no concern at all about "even less money" flowing to the working class and poor, to infrastructure, amelioration of climate change, etc. He's free market uber alles guy, which is very much a brand of right winger.
P.S. "Where do I say anything about "supply side"? "
Imagine being this dim. *I* just laid out how his statement is supply-side economics (and it oh so obviously is). That he doesn't acknowledge it is predictable and irrelevant.
The countries you you mentioned as socialism are not socialism, they are instead communists. Britain is not a socialism state. I think you need to learn what a socialism state is because you have no idea what it is because you actually think communism and socialism are the same thing and they absolutely positively not in any way shape or form whatsoever the same.
Your own country by your own definition is a socialist country then. AMTRAK is government owned and operated. The United States ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕ has many social programs such as welfare,unemployment insurance,old age security, food stamps. So the United States ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕ is a socialism state,just like Canada ЁЯЗиЁЯЗж where I live,the only thing that's added on is our Healthcare system. We also have VIA RAIL which is government owned and operated, same as your AMTRAK. England ЁЯЗмЁЯЗз by the way is the run the same way as Canada ЁЯЗиЁЯЗж which is run the same way as the USA ЁЯЗ║ЁЯЗ╕. BUT,the problem is that you equate our systems with Communism which is not the same thing as our system. This is disturbing because communism is controlling and depressing of a population whereas socialism is a proping up of a population and helping them to thrive.
You are right wing. I expressed no binary thinking--you have no idea what other categories are in my ontology, you simply leapt to an ad hominem as right wingers do. And I am a critical thinker, but no one who says that democratic socialism "does not exist" is--that's childish trolling, as right wingers do. And your deeply ignorant and unintelligent and--given your accusation--hypocritical--list is the ultimate in binary thinking--there is vastly more variety even in that list of only 5 items than you make out. And the claim that socialism is "played out" based on that list is deeply dishonest.
Why doesn't blocking work here? Anyway, I won't be responding to Lonny again.
"you were outsmarted"
LOL. What a troll and a clown.
ThatтАЩs an ignorant statement. IтАЩve lived in two democratic socialist states, though under Margaret Thatcher the British neoliberals decided they wanted to imitate the US and by now have surpassed us in greed, cruelty and infrastructure collapse.
Have you lived there and participated in its politics and studied its history? Sounds like maybe not.
Its government is now of course pro-capitalist on steroidsтАФwithout even the (rather trivial) virtues of classic capitalism such as prudence or efficiency, and hampered by the isolationist nationalism of BrexitтАФonce a merely unpleasant fantasy, now a disastrous reality.
"... Agree. Capitalism is an efficient wealth-producing system (just look at East and West Germany after WWII - ..." For me wealth is a poor second to relationships. The death of my partner the third grade teacher left me relatively wealthy (her teaching annuity and savings.), but I'm intensely sad, not just from her absence, also, because of so few close friends.
Re: The comparison. The BRD was subsidized by the US while Russia striped the East even to taking train rails.
I attended a German language class in Dresden the last year of the DDR. I weekly would train to Berlin and cross over to the West for bananas and oranges, but couldn't wait to return to which I found so much more pleasant.
It's not Capitalism since there is competition but huge, International Monopolies who destroy the market. Monopolies destroy competition, research and innovation, fix high prices and destroy products. Less on the market of choice.
Capitalism is running as intended. There is nothing wrong with it. It is performing exactly as devised. When are people going to realize this. This system has to be replaced. Adjustments have been tried before but the end result is always the same. Producing ever more billionaires and multi-millionaires. Power and influence being gifted to corporations and we wonder how to fix it? We canтАЩt. This is how itтАЩs supposed to operate.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. I recommend Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. It was written 248 years ago and remains a delightful read.
Some of the rich pay less taxes than you do. Others pay none. 1% have it all.
And the rich make money by having money/wealth, but wealth isn't taxed, only labor is. Also, "we just dont tax everyone" is a standard issue right wing lie. Not everyone pays *income* tax, because they pay such a large percentage of their income as sales and payroll taxes.
Used to be if you obtain wealth regardless of type of work you paid a big chunk to Uncle Sam. Our country had money to fix our roads, pay our government employees, do research, health care, etc. Bridges were falling apart and airports not safe, etc. without money to fix them. Money went to the few in control, etc.
There were high marginal income tax rates pre-Reagan, as high as 91% under Eisenhower (these are marginal rates, not on the entire amount, so it wasn't confiscatory, contrary to right wing claims) but there's never been a wealth tax. Many of the rich obtain most of their wealth by having money, not by doing any sort of work. Someone like Paris Hilton does no work.
Elizabeth Warren wrong about how Musk got rich?
Perhaps you never read Keynes. I don't blame you, BUT:
First, the ultrarich don't pay taxes.
Second, spending is generally a good thing, it stimulates the economy.
Listen up. I don't know if your statistics are right or wrong. Let's assume they're right. Then I'm already assuming you're talking Federal rates of 26% for the top 1%, which is way too low. Now, that doesn't even include State and Local taxes.
But even that's not the point. The top 1-10% bear most of the tax burden. I get it, and I agree. But here's the point. The top 0.1% pay very little and the top 0.01% pay almost nothing. But that's where the real money is.
As for Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, and the Koch Brothers, well they pay, in relation to their actual wealth, nothing.
You think that's right, pal? You think this is a good system?
Lenny, you again raise good points, and although I agree on some of them, I quite disagree on most.
1) "50$ of taxpayers pay little or no taxes." You're singing to the choir. First, I think everyone should pay taxes - it makes us better citizens. Second, I agree, 1-10% pay most of the taxes. This isn't right, so what exactly is your point? That it's OK for Bezos et al not to have to pay on the $3-4 trillion they accrue in wealth every year?
2) Yes, there should be a wealth tax.
3) Yes, taxing wealth is difficult - that's why we need politicians with the balls to do it, like Sanders and Newsom. Just saying it's difficult is passive and self-defeating. What are you saying? That Adolf Hitler ran over France and Belgium, therefore he was unstoppable?
3) YES you should be taxed on the increase in equity of your home, WHEN you decide to sell it, and thereby have the money to pay for the taxes. What planet are you on, brother?
4) When you lose money on your stocks, you get a tax break.
Man, this is not difficult, why are you making it so?
Hi Lonny, hate to say this, but you're confused.
Sure:
1) "Accruing means nothing until the transaction is realized by an exchange of value."
Accruing DOES NOT mean nothing, what it means is massive, tax-free, accumulation of earned income.
2) "Are you asking for double taxation?" Obviously not. Tax wasn't paid in the first place, so what exactly is your point?
3) No question, a wealth tax will be difficult, but that does not mean "it's nearly impossible to implement." What's wrong with you?
Hard to survive on min wage or less.