Simple solution to deficits and budgets that only a Leftist could think of

[L.A.P.]

Have problems with:

-School budget? Cut the pay of superintendents and other high position officials and distribute it through the school budget.

-Government debt? Double-wait no-triple-oh fuck it-quadruple the taxes on CEO's.

-Owe to much money to China? How about forbidding those private companies to outsource to places like China or at least making them pay a fee for it.

Everyone is panicking about these issues and it seems like we are the only ones with these less than common sense solutions, Don't you think that if we just simply stated these solutions that people would be more likely to join our side? That the masses might catch along and start campaigning for legislation that relates to these simple solutions? I'm well aware of the fact that it's a pain in the ass to even try but I just don't understand why? Despite all the propaganda and preconceived notions you think people would be able to comprehend something as simple as that and agree.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Communists are the not economic advisers of the boss class.

Nic.

[RadioRaheem84]

The scaremongering with the deficits is nothing but propaganda to cut social programs.

Nationalize some oil companies, defense companies, a couple of big banks and watch revenue come back in.

End the wars and severely diminish the military budget.

Raise taxes on CEOs and the top one percent.

It's not hard. I wish the people would realize that and stop playing into the fear game of rising deficits.

Also, start a massive public works campaign to fix the infrastructure in this country. Have the wages be high and that would increase spending in the economy.

[KC]

-School budget? Cut the pay of superintendents and other high position officials and distribute it through the school budget.

-Government debt? Double-wait no-triple-oh fuck it-quadruple the taxes on CEO's.

Why would you increase taxes on CEO's? That seems like a somewhat irrelevant thing to bring up.


-Owe to much money to China? How about forbidding those private companies to outsource to places like China or at least making them pay a fee for it.

This is already starting to happen across the globe, which implies a trade war in the not too distant future.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why would you increase taxes on CEO's? That seems like a somewhat irrelevant thing to bring up.


are you talking about what a socialist would do or what a liberal would do to solve the crisis?

I listed things that even a liberal could think of doing.

[KC]

are you talking about what a socialist would do or what a liberal would do to solve the crisis?

I listed things that even a liberal could think of doing.

No I just mean that going after CEO's is kind of silly. Sure, they generally make a lot of money, but they're single individuals at companies. Many times they make considerably less than others in the company. So it seems silly to me to go after CEO's like that.

It would make much more sense to increase the capital gains tax, but they won't do that for the same reason that they are against raising taxes on the wealthy or on corporations: by doing so it would hinder economic growth, which is what they are in dire need of right now. That is why the Bush tax cuts are being extended.

But the funny thing is that the democrats have been attempting to push through a Keynesian recovery package with deficit spending.

[RadioRaheem84]

It would make much more sense to increase the capital gains tax, but they won't do that for the same reason that they are against raising taxes on the wealthy or on corporations: by doing so it would hinder economic growth, which is what they are in dire need of right now. That is why the Bush tax cuts are being extended.


Hinder economic growth? They're sitting on two trillion dollars. What more of an incentive do they need? The money is there and most of it is going overseas. Lack of economic growth is due to them hoarding large sums and deeming the US unfit for investment.

[KC]

Hinder economic growth? They're sitting on two trillion dollars. What more of an incentive do they need? The money is there and most of it is going overseas. Lack of economic growth is due to them hoarding large sums and deeming the US unfit for investment.

Obviously domestic investment is affected by many things, but increasing taxes in the United States would increase the cost of investment in the US and therefore be a further incentive to invest abroad.

However, that's pretty irrelevant today because the devaluing of the US dollar is causing that to happen on a much larger scale. In other words, there is a direct incentive to invest abroad because of the devaluing of the dollar; a taxation here would cause a discincentive to invest in the US, which would further promote the flow of "hot money" abroad, destabilizing the global economy.

As for "deeming them unfit for investment," that really depends on what you mean by "US". US Treasury Bonds are still heavily invested and relied upon as one of the most, if not the most, secure assets in the world. The reasons for economic growth, or lack thereof, in the US, are many.

The fact is that there really is nothing they can do within a capitalist framework to better improve the situation of the economy besides austerity measures and attacking workers' gains. This is all explained through Marx's theory of crisis.

[L.A.P.]

Why would you increase taxes on CEO's? That seems like a somewhat irrelevant thing to bring up.
.

I'm trying to be realistic, I'm not going to say start a revolution to overthrow them even though that's what I would like the most but I'm trying to be practical.

[GPDP]

Obviously domestic investment is affected by many things, but increasing taxes in the United States would increase the cost of investment in the US and therefore be a further incentive to invest abroad.

However, that's pretty irrelevant today because the devaluing of the US dollar is causing that to happen on a much larger scale. In other words, there is a direct incentive to invest abroad because of the devaluing of the dollar; a taxation here would cause a discincentive to invest in the US, which would further promote the flow of "hot money" abroad, destabilizing the global economy.

As for "deeming them unfit for investment," that really depends on what you mean by "US". US Treasury Bonds are still heavily invested and relied upon as one of the most, if not the most, secure assets in the world. The reasons for economic growth, or lack thereof, in the US, are many.

The fact is that there really is nothing they can do within a capitalist framework to better improve the situation of the economy besides austerity measures and attacking workers' gains. This is all explained through Marx's theory of crisis.

So basically, what you're saying is either we overthrow capitalism, or we're all fucked. There's no more room for reform.

[Tablo]

So basically, what you're saying is either we overthrow capitalism, or we're all fucked. There's no more room for reform.
Sounds good to me! :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

Under the current framework, there is no room for reform. They will not raise taxes on rich for fear of capital flight. What we think of as mere reform would be thinking way outside the framework. Nationalizing banks or othe key industries is not even an afterthought in planners minds.

[Robocommie]

Under the current framework, there is no room for reform. They will not raise taxes on rich for fear of capital flight. What we think of as mere reform would be thinking way outside the framework. Nationalizing banks or othe key industries is not even an afterthought in planners minds.

I would argue that they won't do it because elected officials are all bought and paid for by the big money lobbies. It's essentially the same result though. Under the present political climate, there's very little reason to expect large scale social reform.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly. Not only is nationalizing key industries to bring in money not even an afterthought to politicians, they're also bought and paid for by those same interests that would against such a thought.

We cannot expect a huge recovery from this nor expect any real social gains for the working class.

The time really has come for either socialism or barbarism.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

-Government debt? Double-wait no-triple-oh fuck it-quadruple the taxes on CEO's.


Okay so whenever i suggest this or something of the sort to a Capitalist they always respond with something like, "why should they have to pay for the wasteful spending of the government?." How would one respond to that?

[Q]

I'm trying to be realistic, I'm not going to say start a revolution to overthrow them even though that's what I would like the most but I'm trying to be practical.

"Be realistic, demand the impossible!" - Che Guevara

Niccolò Rossi already hit the nail on the head: we're not the leftist advisors of the bourgeoisie, suggesting that maybe we could attack living standards of working class people a little less.

Your approach has two problems:

1. The state is not a neutral apparatus serving "the people", but an apparatus existing in the context of capitalist class society. An apparatus that is naturally biased towards the ruling class. From this flows that we, the working class, have to build an alternative structure in opposition to the bosses and their state. Kindly asking to tax the riches isn't going to built these alternative structures.

2. The crisis of capitalism is a structural one and has already been raging since the 1970's, although it has been covered up by several bubbles during the last 30 or so years. But when the latest major bubble collapsed, the "credit crisis", we not only saw the effects of this bubble, but also the underlying weaknesses of the whole global system. There is no real way out of this mess within the bourgeois frame of thinking, not even quadrupling taxes on CEO's or other such measures.

[L.A.P.]

Okay so whenever i suggest this or something of the sort to a Capitalist they always respond with something like, "why should they have to pay for the wasteful spending of the government?." How would one respond to that?

Assuming by "Capitalist" you mean the actual Capitalist class I would say; "It's wasteful because they spent it on you".

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would argue that they won't do it because elected officials are all bought and paid for by the big money lobbies. It's essentially the same result though. Under the present political climate, there's very little reason to expect large scale social reform.

There's a real danger with that kind of thinking.


"Be realistic, demand the impossible!" - Che Guevara

I thought that was a May 1968 slogan. :tt2:

I was hoping, btw, that you would address the "kind of thinking" of comrades Robocommie and RadioRaheem. ;)

Basically, what it boils down to is yelling and screaming the word "transitional" while offering up a whole bunch of reforms, no matter how radical, no matter how structural. Even I in my suggestion of things like a Post-Keynesian structural reform on the threshold never present something (all structural, btw) as *directional* unless the most left-leaning, most social-democratic, etc. incarnation of bourgeois rule really cannot accommodate it.

That's why I'm struggling right now to pinpoint the character of the planned Meidner plan in 1970s-80s Sweden, but also why I can declare comrade Cockshott's labour litigation rights measure to be a directional one.

Err on the side of Ferdinand Lassalle and Jules "I am a Marxist" Guesde, not on the side of Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky.

[Robocommie]

There's a real danger with that kind of thinking.

I don't disagree (assuming I get your meaning), I don't mean to advocate fatalism or ultra-leftism, but mainly that we have to be aware of who owns the government. We get spoon-fed from the cradle the idea that our government is elected by the people, of the people, and for the people. Even now I find it difficult to stay out of that conditioned mindset.

[KC]

So basically, what you're saying is either we overthrow capitalism, or we're all fucked. There's no more room for reform.

I am saying that this is further proof of the validity of Marx's theory of crisis (not that we needed any more), and that the only way to even out the economy is through an attack on workers domestically and a "rebalancing" of the global economy between import and export nations.

As for "overthrow capitalism," that's not going to happen in the US any time soon, which means that we have to prepare for the cuts that are coming.

[GPDP]

I am saying that this is further proof of the validity of Marx's theory of crisis (not that we needed any more), and that the only way to even out the economy is through an attack on workers domestically and a "rebalancing" of the global economy between import and export nations.

As for "overthrow capitalism," that's not going to happen in the US any time soon, which means that we have to prepare for the cuts that are coming.

That's basically what I was getting at. Short of a revolution, there is literally nothing we can do to stop the coming austerity measures, because even if we took to the streets and made the bourgeois tremble in their $1000 boots, and even if they wanted to stop the cuts, they couldn't, because the crisis runs too deep to allow it.

In other words, until we overthrow capitalism, the working class is going to see a new age of suffering not seen since the early part of the 20th century. There's no putting it off anymore. Like RadioRaheem said, it really will be barbarism from here on out until we achieve socialism.

Dark times are coming, for sure.

[KC]

In other words, until we overthrow capitalism, the working class is going to see a new age of suffering not seen since the early part of the 20th century. There's no putting it off anymore. Like RadioRaheem said, it really will be barbarism from here on out until we achieve socialism.

I highly doubt it will get that bad.

[GPDP]

I hope you're right.

[Sir Comradical]

These solutions aren't uniquely leftist at all, it's just a bit of Keynesian restructuring to get capitalism back on track. Nevertheless I agree with you.

[Adil3tr]

Hey! I had a great idea to fix the economy! It's called a communist revolution! Screw liberals!

[KC]

Hey! I had a great idea to fix the economy! It's called a communist revolution! Screw liberals!

Cool story bro

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't disagree (assuming I get your meaning), I don't mean to advocate fatalism or ultra-leftism, but mainly that we have to be aware of who owns the government. We get spoon-fed from the cradle the idea that our government is elected by the people, of the people, and for the people. Even now I find it difficult to stay out of that conditioned mindset.

"But it's the death agony of capitalism, damn it!" :D

[Robocommie]

"But it's the death agony of capitalism, damn it!" :D

I swear to God DNZ, I generally enjoy your posts and all, but sometimes you are so fucking arcane with your meaning. ;)

[Salyut]

There's a real danger with that kind of thinking.

How so?

[RadioRaheem84]

I highly doubt it will get that bad.

Why? I never thought of it as being doomsday bad, but I did always think of things getting worse in the sense that living paycheck to paycheck, lower wages and poorer social services will be the norm for a larger swathe of people. We would have our goods but things would just get crappier.

I've never thought capitalists would make the States into a Guatemala but I have no doubt they would love to turn us into a Chile, a Poland or perhaps a post-crisis Russia.

[L.A.P.]

These solutions aren't uniquely leftist at all, it's just a bit of Keynesian restructuring to get capitalism back on track. Nevertheless I agree with you.

That was the point.

[durhamleft]

- scrap nuclear deterrents
- pull out afghanistan
- increase income tax to 98% again
- introduce a wealth tax of 10% a year for anyone with assets worth over £1m.
- increase inheritence tax to 90% for assets above £300,000

[Rafiq]

And while we're at it, let's organize the proletarian Americans, start the Revolution, crush every bit of Capitalism, and create a Leftist Society!

Seriously, this is old.

[RED DAVE]

The whole thing explained.

PTUY16CkS-k

:D

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I swear to God DNZ, I generally enjoy your posts and all, but sometimes you are so fucking arcane with your meaning. ;)

I had to make a jab at Trotsky's expense. :D


How so?

Did you read the paragraph further down in that same post, which explains it all? :confused:

[S.Artesian]

No I just mean that going after CEO's is kind of silly. Sure, they generally make a lot of money, but they're single individuals at companies. Many times they make considerably less than others in the company. So it seems silly to me to go after CEO's like that.

It would make much more sense to increase the capital gains tax, but they won't do that for the same reason that they are against raising taxes on the wealthy or on corporations: by doing so it would hinder economic growth, which is what they are in dire need of right now. That is why the Bush tax cuts are being extended.

But the funny thing is that the democrats have been attempting to push through a Keynesian recovery package with deficit spending.

Except raising taxes doesn't reduce economic growth, no more than lowering taxes stimulates economic growth. If the latter were the case, Pakistan would be growing like gangbusters. Honduras would be competing with Brazil for hegemony in Latin America.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993-- coincided with the strongest period of growth since the rate of profit peaked in the US in about 1969.

Corporate taxes are pass-throughs for capitalism, they get sloughed off onto consumers. All these tax breaks for businesses that states and municipalities have been practicing for a decade or two simply put money into the pockets, directly of the corporations who use those funds for stock buy-backs, bonuses, pension benefits-- all the usual logrolling that makes capitalism so lucrative for some lucky few.

The Bush tax cuts are, in the main, personal tax cuts, not corporate tax. Rates were lowered across the board on income, dividends, and capital gains. But no big investment boom followed. As a matter of fact the replacement ratio for fixed assets in the US [amount spent on new fixed assets relative to depreciation] was below 1 for several years.

The tax cuts effectively lowered the marginal tax rates for most Americans, and provided a tax rebate of up to $300 for all taxpayers that filed a return in the year 2000.

The acts also created major changes to retirement plans by raising pre-tax contribution limits for certain retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts, raising benefit compensation limits, and making non-qualified retirement plans easier to work with.

Estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax were also modified. The estate tax unified credit exclusion was significantly raised. The maximum estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax rate was lowered from 55% to 50% with an addition 1% reduction each year until 2007.

[The Grey Blur]

i think the keynesian argument is there to be made, to rebutt the most reactionary arguments and logic but with those on the liberal-left the marxist argument that austerity is really the only way possible for capitalism to rebuilt itself should be made. the material conditions of austerity will push people further to the left and make them open to those arguments. it's like there are two different battlefields, but maybe this tactical analysis is wrong.