chrisp65 Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 unfair tax ? That requires an explanation if one attempts to justify the point made. Could be the unfair tax on my efforts in work that are hived off to subsidise one of the richest royal families on earth, fund an illegal war and keep index linked politicians in the subsidised lunch luxury they have come to presume to be their right. That can be quite annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 unfair tax ? That requires an explanation if one attempts to justify the point made. Could be the unfair tax on my efforts in work that are hived off to subsidise one of the richest royal families on earth, fund an illegal war and keep index linked politicians in the subsidised lunch luxury they have come to presume to be their right. That can be quite annoying. But that's less so unfair taxation, but more so an unfair system of government which still assumes we have a monarchy and doesn't give people's votes the worth they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 unfair tax ? That requires an explanation if one attempts to justify the point made. The uncapped employers NIC is an unfair tax, plain and simple. Please explain why you think that employers NIC is unfair and why you think it is specifically unfair to private sector workers. Why should successful businesses that generate wealth by way of the tax that their employees pay and the corporation tax that they pay have to then pay NIC on their entire wage bill? Because that is the method of taxation. Is it marginally more unfair, the more successful one becomes? The only real objection that I have about the tax I pay is that it is completely wasted by the incompetents who receive it. But then if I let that drive me crazy I'll be crazy for a long time :winkold: So you don't actually have a problem with the amount of taxation raised or, it appears, the method of raising that - only how it is spent? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NulliSecundus Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 1, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted October 1, 2009 What Snowy said, basically. If we are to use wikipedia as an analogy of the market, and I suppose that makes sense, you have just made an excellent argument in favour of market regulation. The wikipedia editors are not external to the market (nor are they particularly scient). They have been elevated by its participants to police things, most generally by locking articles or requiring edits be made by logged-in users: it is voluntary self-regulation, not external regulation. Though they are specifically external to each transaction within the market upon which they exercise their power of regulation, aren't they? Their externality is decided on these terms not their past involvement with a marketplace. It's no different from the stock exchanges exercising their regulatory powers (or are you going to argue that stock exchanges aren't part of the securities market). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Me apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 1, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted October 1, 2009 Commie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I know, ironic really that I'd consider myself centre right. Maybe more of a chip off my old man's block than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomb2233 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Knowledge, as in a certain degree of certainty, isn't required: every participant is gambling. However, the more participants that join a given market, the more information that each knows/believes to be true (which is where we get into epistemology... there really isn't much of a practical difference between what we know and we believe to be true) is transmitted into the market and the prices within that market incorporate and weigh that information. Since market regulation by and large tends to result in mutually beneficial transactions not being undertaken (and thus their effects on price discovery never occurring). I have to admit that was hard to make sense of. Economics is the study of one particular social interection. It's something that goes on between human beings. Human beings are by and large quite rational, but some times we aren't. Sometimes, in social interections, we behave irrationally. We can be shortsighted, greedy and vengeful after all. Gut feeling makes us do things we don't know the consequences of. If social interaction isn't regulated, we tend to do more harmful things to ourselves and eachother. Why is economics any different from other social interactions? It isn't, really. Thus, irrationality would destroy, and does indeed destroy, unregulated markets. Therefore, neoliberal theorists have to make the assumption that economic agents are act rationally with full information within pareto optimal frames. And they do - and that's how they are able to ramble about perfect markets - because if their assumption was right, the unregulated market would indeed be perfect. The current crisis is the direct result of regulations combined with greed. The fundamental problem was out and out fraud by Wall Street actors (most notably the credit-rating agencies who have an effective oligopoly due to regulation). Since greed cannot be taken out of the picture (ignoring the issue of whether Gordon Gekko was right or not... that's another issue entirely), then the fix lies in removing regulation. That's a very weak logic, I have to say. That the very little regulation of financial markets in America may have been bad, does not mean that all regulation is bad. That would be using the same logic as the witch hunters of Monty Python's Holy Grail. The lack of regulations on bank equity, bonus incentives and so on and so forth is so obviously part of the reason for the current crisis, you are one of the very, very few who would claim otherwise. Even Greenspan has admitted he was wrong. Markets are fundamentally wealth-levelling, a comparison of wealth (not income) distributions between the Scandinavian countries and the USA makes this clear (e.g. the richest 1% of Swedes owns over 40% of the wealth, while the richest 1% of Americans owns under 15% of the wealth). Lies, damned lies and statistics. It is true that Sweden has a high wealth distribution gini coefficient, but you would do well to look at the reasons for it. A lack of need for saving is one, and there are more if you are interested. Google it, and you'll find some decent papers on Sweden and wealth inequality. You stat also overlooks specific lower quartile to second lowest quartile differences - there is almost no poverty in Sweden. The povrty rates in America are frightening. I should add that Sweden's disposable income gini coefficient is a record low for OECD countries. The USA is on the other side of the scale. As for Keynesianism, it sounds great in theory, but it is akin to a dictatorship in a state of emergency: it may be needed while the emergency is there, but turning it off when the emergency has passed is easier said than done. There is no need to turn off Keynesianism after the emergency has passed. It should be applied at all times. Keynesianism isn't inflexible - it's just the basic idea of keeping demand sufficiantly high at all times. A factor neoliberalists inexlicably overlooks. The wikipedia editors are not external to the market (nor are they particularly scient). They have been elevated by its participants to police things, most generally by locking articles or requiring edits be made by logged-in users: it is voluntary self-regulation, not external regulation. Again, basically what Snowy said. I mean the first as an example of spontaneous self-ordering. Norms and institutions are generally required for the market to function. However, those norms and institutions should not be externally imposed: externally imposed norms and institutions, specifically those imposed by governments, generally do a very poor job of adapting to new realities. External norms and institutions are part of all social interactions, and they seem to work well enough. Again, why is economics any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 2, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted October 2, 2009 Human beings are by and large quite rational, but some times we aren't. Sometimes, in social interections, we behave irrationally. We can be shortsighted, greedy and vengeful after all. Gut feeling makes us do things we don't know the consequences of. If social interaction isn't regulated, we tend to do more harmful things to ourselves and eachother. Why is economics any different from other social interactions? It isn't, really. Thus, irrationality would destroy, and does indeed destroy, unregulated markets. Irrationality is fairly easily recognizable (except in cases where every participant is irrational, which are rare) and results in price distortion (and that's the main reason that the efficient market hypothesis is bunk... people do irrationally drop $20 bills on the sidewalk). However, price distortions can and do get corrected by arbitrageurs, who effectively serve the role of moderating irrationality that regulators in your vision serve. The advantage of using arbitrageurs to serve that role is that the regulators are not 100% rational either and will enact irrational regulations from time to time. With arbitrageurs, those who are less rational in spotting others irrationality eventually get wiped out, and the diversity of arbitrageurs means that there is likely to always be one who is rational in a given respect at a given time. That's a very weak logic, I have to say. That the very little regulation of financial markets in America may have been bad, does not mean that all regulation is bad. That would be using the same logic as the witch hunters of Monty Python's Holy Grail. The lack of regulations on bank equity, bonus incentives and so on and so forth is so obviously part of the reason for the current crisis, you are one of the very, very few who would claim otherwise. Even Greenspan has admitted he was wrong. And Greenspan essentially became a Keynesian during his tenure at the Fed, most notably with his decision to open the spigot after the dot-com crash to get demand going. The action may not have been textbook Keynesian, but the rationale and the effect were Keynesian and resulted in the predictable. I should add that Sweden's disposable income gini coefficient is a record low for OECD countries. The USA is on the other side of the scale. Income is meaningless to the question of whether one is rich or not. There is no need to turn off Keynesianism after the emergency has passed. It should be applied at all times. Keynesianism isn't inflexible - it's just the basic idea of keeping demand sufficiantly high at all times. A factor neoliberalists inexlicably overlooks. Keynesianism is fundamentally the idea that the state embarks on massive spending (typically deficit spending) when private sector demand is reduced. The issue is that there is almost never political will to reduce the spending when private sector demand recovers. The few exceptions are cases where the spending run-up was due to a war (WWII being the only real example), and even then, the fact that the USA's military spending stayed at an historically high (though lower than WWII) level somewhat proves the point. Those who benefit from the state's demand will vote to keep it long after its need has passed. As long as supply and demand are in equilibrium, the level of demand is unimportant. Prices, as set by free markets, tend to result in equilibrium between supply and demand. Low prices (an excess of supply relative to demand) increase demand. Further, there is empirical evidence that the "multiplier" for state spending's effect on aggregate demand is less than 1 (meaning that state spending reduced full-cycle demand by removing more demand from periods of high demand than it added to periods of low demand). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 With arbitrageurs, those who are less rational in spotting others irrationality eventually get wiped out Thanks for the phrase that reassures me that my choice regarding neoliberalism is the right one (for me, obviously), Levi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 As soon as you put a cap on wages you will see a flood of people moving to places without a cap on wages. Living in London it is crazy how few people born in London you meet. Everyone is from somewhere else and a lot of people have moved here chasing the money in the financial sector. If you cap pay they will just move to Zurich or Frankfurt or New York and the UK economy as a whole will take a massive hit. On a semi related note, I was reading an article about a Russian oligarch who had bought an old mansion on hamstead heath and was applying for planning permission to do £50m worth of renovations under the building to install underground cinemas/games rooms and whatever else. The reactions from the newspapers comments section were, to a man, saying that these people should go back to Russia, the money is disgusting, the council should reject the application etc etc but that seems crazy. If some rich Russian guy wants to bring £50m over from Russia and spend it on builders and contractors in the UK than that sounds like a really good thing, not something to be hated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 And Greenspan essentially became a Keynesian during his tenure at the Fed A very, very bad one then, I have to say Income is meaningless to the question of whether one is rich or not. It can be argued that it is impossible to quanitfy "richness". Spendig power, on the other hand, is easily quanitfiable and disposable income is essential to spending power. Of course, to and in a supply and demand economy, spedning power is more important than "richness". The value of your assets, and by the way in Sweden I believe they do not mark to market value assets, is for most people an insurance policy in essence. Spending power has a much greater effect on the actual standard of living. Keynesianism is fundamentally the idea that the state embarks on massive spending (typically deficit spending) when private sector demand is reduced. The issue is that there is almost never political will to reduce the spending when private sector demand recovers. And yet, model Keynesian economies don't seem to have had too much trouble finding that balance? Strange. As long as supply and demand are in equilibrium Very often, they are not. Demand is typically a lot more elastic than supply. Unregulated markets would therefore have to rely on rational supply production - but in many cases individual agents make irrational supply production decisions. Unregulated markets will naturally boom, and bust. Further, there is empirical evidence that the "multiplier" for state spending's effect on aggregate demand is less than 1 (meaning that state spending reduced full-cycle demand by removing more demand from periods of high demand than it added to periods of low demand). I could just as easily say it is empirically proven that public spending can and does in many cases lead to economic growth. And I wouldn't be lying. Norway's pre oil-era economic growth would not have happened if it wasn't for public spending generating demand, as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 As soon as you put a cap on wages you will see a flood of people moving to places without a cap on wages. That is only true in a globalized economy. So effectively, it is true for the economy of today. And I'm not against a globlized economy as such - quite on the contrary - but I am against the unregulated globalized economy. To prevent that what you are describing we need global regulation. The global economy of today is a perverted market, and essentially a race to the botton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 i'm surprised by my result on the political compass. i voted 'Centre Right' in the poll..... but i came in at -2.12 placing me Centre Left. and i got -4.67 making me quite a libertarian, which also surprised me. i'm very close to the Dalai Lama on the graph! :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 i'm very close to the Dalai Lama on the graph! :? It seems that most people are close to the Dalai Lama on the graph. I have my suspicions that the political compass was devised by Tibettan Buddhists. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Economic Left/Right: -5.68 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05 I'm Ghandi in disguise. Up the left! I seem to have hardened in the past 4 years! Economic Left/Right: -6.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44 Edited March 7, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51 Edited March 7, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 I wish the two far-right voters were more open about their views on here. Surely the VT family wouldn't run them off this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts