High Taxes on the Rich Hurt us all

[Capitalist Lawyer]

High corporate and income taxes hurt the economy! When will my friends on the left in this country understand this? When will they understand that in any society, the lifestyle of the poorest is directly tied to the success of the richest. Let's face it, it's not the person making minimum wage that drives the economy and the country forward. It is simple fact that those people are working for larger organizations....


Companies are not the enemy. Everyone of us buys some sort of product from a corporation, and most of us are employed by companies.



Furthermore, I beleive taxing the rich to redistribute to the poor does two things:



1) Fosters reliance of the poor on the governement, instead of on themeselves. This does next to nothing to actually helping the poor succeed in life. Instead, it makes many people slaves to the government.



2) Hinders economic growth.



Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues.



Taxing the rich gives them less capital to create ventures that will end up like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Google, innovaters that make the world better.... (hey, you are using a computer right now, aren't you?)



Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same.



Keeping more money in the hands of the productive creates more output in the long-run, more output means an increasing pie... an increasing pie means a better quality of life from the top on down...



In other terms, if you have a very productive fisherman in society, but tax 5 of his 10 fish for the government to redistrubute to others, you have one person with 5 fish, and five people dependent on the government for 1 fish each. The person who was exceling at fishing doesn't want to learn more or work harder, and the five others are indentured to governement. They are dependent on you for the next fish.



However, if you trust your citizens and allow the people to learn how to fish, all six people will likely be pulling in 10 or more fish. This is the expanding pie, and it happens because there is incentive for all people!



There a reason the USSR didn't make it, and the USA thrives.



Further more, the tax cuts of the Bush Adminstration have reduced the burden on the lower HALF (socio-economic status) of Americans.



Pre-tax cuts the lower fifty percent paid 4.1 percent of the taxes. Under the current system, they pay 3.6 percent of the taxes.



For example, in 1990, this bracket paid 5.8 percent! The Republican congresses of the past 14 years have reduced the tax burden on the poor, NOT increased it!



Do the math, and this means the top fifty percent used to pay 95.9 percent, now they pay 96.4 percent of all taxes. ( The below video says 96.03 percent, I am pretty sure my number ic correct though.)



P.S. Another reason not to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 drasticly is that these people will then utilize tax lawyers and accountants to protect themselves as much as possible.



Heck, the first American's even started this country largerly due to King George's high taxes. We were income tax free until 1902, when the burden was 1.3 percent of GDP. It has since risen more then 20-fold, to over 20 percent of GDP. (That means 20 percent of every good and service produced in the USA goes to Uncle Sam.)



Watch this movie: click here (http://69.57.156.11/~noblegraphics.com/taxessmall2.swf)



Data provided by U.S. Department of the Treasury.



The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.



* In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.

* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

* The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.

* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 04:27 AM
In other terms, if you have a very productive fisherman in society, but tax 5 of his 10 fish for the government to redistrubute to others, you have one person with 5 fish, and five people dependent on the government for 1 fish each. The person who was exceling at fishing doesn't want to learn more or work harder, and the five others are indentured to governement. They are dependent on you for the next fish.
In Capitalism there are 5 productive fisherman who each catch 10 fish then, becuase they were paid to do it by the owner of the fishing rods, they have to give him all their fish. Then the governemnt tax him 5 of his 50 fish and give one ot each of the people who actually caught them.

[RedAnarchist]

And under Communism they would get what they caught, without any greedy capitalist gaining anything for nothing.

See the difference?

[Hiero]

Well techincally thats wrong, the society gets what the caught they then have acces to this.

[redstar2000]

From a communist standpoint, arguments between liberals and conservatives over income tax rates are just so much noise. We propose a zero tax rate for the rich...since they will not exist in communist society at all.

But there are a few other odd remarks that deserve comment...


When will they understand that in any society, the lifestyle of the poorest is directly tied to the success of the richest. -- emphasis added

"Trickle-down" economics? The more the rich gorge themselves, the more left-overs for the servants to eat afterwards?

It's not working. The rich are getting richer at an accelerating rate; everyone else is trying to maintain some kind of decent standard-of-living based on their credit cards...or falling into destitution.


Companies are not the enemy. Everyone of us buys some sort of product from a corporation, and most of us are employed by companies.

Yes...we buy over-priced shoddy crap and we work at shitty underpaid jobs.

If companies are not responsible for this, who is?


Fosters reliance of the poor on the government, instead of on themselves.

No sensible poor person "relies" on the government...you can't live on what the government gives you. What you do is get the government money and then develop some sort of "gray market" or "black market" hustle on the side. Put the two together, and you can at least survive.

Poor people who actually "rely" on government payments will quickly end up homeless.


Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues.

Employ? Yes.

Enrich? :lol:

And why choose Microsoft as an example? You should have mentioned Wal-Mart...which has created around two million jobs -- every last one of them pure shit!


...innovaters that make the world better....(hey, you are using a computer right now, aren't you?)

Yeah, it was built in 1998 (the monitor in 1996). And I'm using Windows98SE...which is a daily thrill, to be sure.

Not to mention the intoxicating pleasure I derive from my 46.7kbs dial-up connection.

Why don't I have "the good stuff" instead of all this old crap?

I can't afford "the good stuff".

And there are millions who can't even afford "the old crap" that I have.


Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same.

Keeping more money in the hands of the productive [sic] creates more output in the long-run, more output means an increasing pie... an increasing pie means a better quality of life from the top on down...

Keeping the pie the same size and redividing it fairly would also result in a better quality of life for most people.


There [is] a reason the USSR didn't make it, and the USA thrives.

There are a whole bunch of reasons that the USSR didn't "make it", but the USA is not "thriving".


We were income tax free until 1902...

No, the U.S. had an income tax during the civil war. And the modern income tax dates from, I believe, 1913.

Most workers paid no income tax at all until World War II, by the way.

And if you include all forms of taxation and government fees, poor and working people actually pay a larger percentage of their income to the government than the rich.

This has been a long-term trend and is expected to continue; most capitalist ideologues favor increasing taxes on consumption (which ordinary people cannot avoid) while reducing taxes on earned income and eliminating entirely taxes on corporate profits and unearned income (dividends, interest, capital gains).


The individual income tax is highly progressive -- a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.

Makes you wonder what they'd pay if their returns were filled out truthfully. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

I think you're somewhat missing the point:


High corporate and income taxes hurt the economy! When will my friends on the left in this country understand this?

The 'left' as a rule consider the strength of the economy to be tertiary to the conditions under which we live; to the liberties that we hold. Hell, most of us wouldn't even keep your 'economy'


When will they understand that in any society, the lifestyle of the poorest is directly tied to the success of the richest.

It most certainly is! The rich live off the backs of the poor. Without the unfortunate to exploit there would be no success within the price-system.


Companies are not the enemy. Everyone of us buys some sort of product from a corporation, and most of us are employed by companies.

Indeed - our enemy is capital, exploitation and injustice. It just so happens that many companies harbour our enemies. Collatoral damage as they say.


[Taxing the rich] Fosters reliance of the poor on the governement, instead of on themeselves. This does next to nothing to actually helping the poor succeed in life. Instead, it makes many people slaves to the government

Noone (sensible) disputes that welfare is a fundamentally flawed concept. As to your comment of slavery, I wholeheartedly agree. However, where is the difference in receiving capital from a company or a government - either way 'choice' is moot - you must work for one company or another.

You can't not work, so I fail to see your point. Perhaps you intend to speak of societal loafers?

If so, it's capitalism that gives them the easy ride: Communism requires that everyone give as much as they can back into society, and hence loafing is practically a hanging offense.


Hinders economic growth

We don't care!


Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues.

Yet they continue to exploit, and our welfare state continues to fail. I see a trend...


Taxing the rich gives them less capital to create ventures that will end up like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Google, innovaters that make the world better.... (hey, you are using a computer right now, aren't you?)


Well this is where you become a liar: Capital and innovation are not synonymous - simply because you fail to grasp that renumeration is not the only incentive does not make it so.


Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same

Again: we don't care!


Keeping more money in the hands of the productive creates more output in the long-run, more output means an increasing pie... an increasing pie means a better quality of life from the top on down...


So because someone is poor, they cannot be productive? Albert Einstein was a lowly office clerk, yet he produced the foundation of modern physics. Again, you're talking rot.


In other terms, if you have a very productive fisherman in society, but tax 5 of his 10 fish for the government to redistrubute to others, you have one person with 5 fish, and five people dependent on the government for 1 fish each. The person who was exceling at fishing doesn't want to learn more or work harder, and the five others are indentured to governement. They are dependent on you for the next fish.

You catch ten, but you only need one. Why not simply share? I agree it's 'wrong' for someone to force you to surrender them, but it's equally 'wrong' for you to deny the needs of others.


However, if you trust your citizens and allow the people to learn how to fish, all six people will likely be pulling in 10 or more fish. This is the expanding pie, and it happens because there is incentive for all people!

You'll notice of course that in your example, capital has no place ;)

The rest of your post is statistical nonsense in defense of the current US adminstration. Can you guess what my response would be?

[commiecrusader]

Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same.

whilst not taking the money may allow the pie to grow, all the growing pie will do is give more and more to the rich money grubber whose finger is stuck in the middle of it. the poor won't receive a bigger share, but will end up with a small proportion of the pie. why do you think the gap between rich and poor is still growing at an increasing rate?

[percept¡on]

Doesn't look like there's been much 'trickle down' over the last 35 years, despite decreasing taxes for the rich consistently. Of course, that's if you believe the census.

[New Tolerance]

High corporate and income taxes hurt the economy! When will my friends on the left in this country understand this? When will they understand that in any society, the lifestyle of the poorest is directly tied to the success of the richest. Let's face it, it's not the person making minimum wage that drives the economy and the country forward. It is simple fact that those people are working for larger organizations....

Reference to the graph given above by percept¡on, it doesn't look like that there is too much of a tie between the rich and the poor.


Companies are not the enemy. Everyone of us buys some sort of product from a corporation, and most of us are employed by companies.

You could make the same arguement for SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) if you lived in the USSR.


1) Fosters reliance of the poor on the governement, instead of on themeselves. This does next to nothing to actually helping the poor succeed in life. Instead, it makes many people slaves to the government.


If simply being dependent on government for survival makes you the slave of the government, then how does being dependent on private companies for survival not make you the slave of the company? Especially if the government is democratic, the people dependent can control what happens in the government, but they will not be able to control what happens in the administration of a private company.


2) Hinders economic growth.

Taxes were cut by Bush, but the economy doesn't look exceptionally strong anyways.


Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues.

Again, the same arguement could be made for SOEs in the USSR.


Taxing the rich gives them less capital to create ventures that will end up like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Google, innovaters that make the world better.... (hey, you are using a computer right now, aren't you?)

It doesn't take a corporation to invent new products, the idea of the internet is invented by the US Department of Defense, not some corporation.


Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same.



Keeping more money in the hands of the productive creates more output in the long-run, more output means an increasing pie... an increasing pie means a better quality of life from the top on down...


Once again, refer to the graph given above, the pie is not exactly reaching the bottom. Further more, giving more money to the poor increases demand, and that will create economic growth.


In other terms, if you have a very productive fisherman in society, but tax 5 of his 10 fish for the government to redistrubute to others, you have one person with 5 fish, and five people dependent on the government for 1 fish each. The person who was exceling at fishing doesn't want to learn more or work harder, and the five others are indentured to governement. They are dependent on you for the next fish.

However, if you trust your citizens and allow the people to learn how to fish, all six people will likely be pulling in 10 or more fish. This is the expanding pie, and it happens because there is incentive for all people!

that's a very abstract example, how is it that the 5 people don't work? Is it because the government is already giving them food? Then let's back track and see why did the government start to give them food in the first place - isn't because they don't work and can't get food? and why didn't they work in the first place? Because the government is already giving them food!...??? Wait a minute, we are in a loop here, that's not very logical is it? Could you use a more historical or practical example?


There a reason the USSR didn't make it, and the USA thrives.


You can't compare the USSR to the USA on economic terms, in 1917 when the Czar was overthrown, Imperial Russia was a third world country, the US was already a first world country. To compare their economical developments would be like comparing a grade1 kid to a university graduate, and then calling the grade1 kid a failure because he can't understand quantum physics. To make a more accurate comparsion between the two systems, you compare the USSR to another third world country that was capitalist -> Brazil for example, and if you look at the history, the people of the USSR in general were actually much better off.


Heck, the first American's even started this country largerly due to King George's high taxes. We were income tax free until 1902, when the burden was 1.3 percent of GDP. It has since risen more then 20-fold, to over 20 percent of GDP. (That means 20 percent of every good and service produced in the USA goes to Uncle Sam.)

They were being taxed without their consent, they revolted due to the lack of democracy on that part, not necassarily due to the high taxes.


Data provided by U.S. Department of the Treasury.



The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.



* In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.

* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

* The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.

* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.


So, are you making the arguement here that rich people do pay high taxes?

Didn't you make the arguement in an earily thread about how the economy is doing well?

But didn't you also make the arguement that high taxes for the rich hinders the economy?

Don't these arguements kind of a contradict each other? if the Rich are paying higher taxes the economy shouldn't be doing well, but you said that it was. What's going on here?

[New Tolerance]

why aren't my quote brackets working?

[commiecrusader]

dunno i had to try twice to get mine too lol your arguments are good though

[New Tolerance]

Fixed, but I thought that these kinds of problems were only localized in the string of characters that has the wrong command around them. Now one well affect the entire post?

[Osman Ghazi]

How odd. The other day on CNN I saw that fully one-third of Bush's tax cuts went to the richest 1% of the population. And you're still complaining?

[Guerrilla22]

High corporate and income taxes hurt the economy!

No, running huge deficits, without collecting enough capital to cover what you've spent hurts the economy.


Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues.


:lol: Yeah, unfortunately over 3 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office, the creation of 100,000 jobs doesn't mean shit to the economy because of this.


Taxing the rich gives them less capital to create ventures that will end up like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Google, innovaters that make the world better.... (hey, you are using a computer right now, aren't you?)


No, taxing huge corporations would give them less money to take their operations and jobs overseas, to increase their already enormous profit margins, you are very disillusioned.

[refuse_resist]

Capitalist Lawyer, if all you say is true that the poor are having the amount they pay for taxes is being lowered and is going lower, answer me this...

Why have so many people lost their jobs? And the only jobs that were available were the shitty minimum wage jobs that are always understaffed and treat their employees like absolute crap.

Why has defense spending increased drastically, while funding for public education, healthcare, etc. been cut? Now they're privatizing it all, which of course will make it more expensive.



:hammer: :cuba:

[h&s]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 04:27 AM
Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around. Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have created way over 100,000 jobs, and HUGE tax revenues......





Taking that money and giving it the poor helps them in the short run, but the size of the pie stays the same.......



Keeping more money in the hands of the productive creates more output in the long-run, more output means an increasing pie... an increasing pie means a better quality of life from the top on down...




You are completely ignoring the fact that a true left-wing country is not based on capital, infact capital will not exist at all

[DaCuBaN]

I dunno, I think I made the point quite clear....

CapitalistLawyer: WE DON'T CARE! Capital is always secondary to justice.

[h&s]

Yeah, when will capitalists learn; WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE ECONOMY!

[Pale Rider]

From a communist standpoint, arguments between liberals and conservatives over income tax rates are just so much noise. We propose a zero tax rate for the rich...since they will not exist in communist society at all.

This is why communism will never actually happen. How many "revolutions" have you attempted since the turn of the century? In every case, millions who didn't agree with the "new boss" were slaughtered and then the whole experiment decended into totalitarianism...

It is insanity to believe that you can do the same thing again and produce a different result...

[Osman Ghazi]

We don't want to do the same thing. In case you haven't noticed, most of us aren't Leninists but Anarcho-Communists. Thus, using those same methods would be impossible unless we decided to completely contradict ourselves.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 16 2004, 02:52 PM
Yeah, when will capitalists learn; WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE ECONOMY!
This sums it all up.

[DaCuBaN]

This sums it all up.

Indeed - it sums up the utter naivity of most capital supporters, in that they completely fail to understand that we would abandon the premise of capital.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:34 PM

Indeed - it sums up the utter naivity of most capital supporters, in that they completely fail to understand that we would abandon the premise of capital.
No, it is more a statement that you haven't got a clue about economics and therefor it's easier to believe in a society where manna falls from heaven.

[Guerrilla22]

We know economics very well, and it is because we know economics, that we know that not collecting taxes, but spending like crazy kills the economy. Something capitalist have yet to figure out.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 16 2004, 04:17 PM
We don't want to do the same thing. In case you haven't noticed, most of us aren't Leninists but Anarcho-Communists. Thus, using those same methods would be impossible unless we decided to completely contradict ourselves.
Can you describe the "new" methods to me?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Pale [email protected] 16 2004, 09:10 PM
Can you describe the "new" methods to me?
http://www.anarchyfaq.org

[Osman Ghazi]

Can you describe the "new" methods to me?

"The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself". - Karl Marx.

It's an oldie, but a goodie.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:54 PM
We know economics very well, and it is because we know economics, that we know that not collecting taxes, but spending like crazy kills the economy. Something capitalist have yet to figure out.
With dumb statements like this you prove my point again.

[Guerrilla22]

Dumb how? Are you saying that running deficits doesn't hurt the economy?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:35 AM
Dumb how? Are you saying that running deficits doesn't hurt the economy?
Deficits are bad, but so are taxes, even if the budget is balanced.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 16 2004, 09:38 PM

"The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself". - Karl Marx.

It's an oldie, but a goodie.
maybe fine as a chiche'...but it doesn't answer the question.

[Osman Ghazi]

Sure it does. All the 'communist' revolutions of this century have been done by a bunch of 'hardened revolutionaries' who were trying to 'free the people'. But it doesn't work like that. The people can't be led to freedom, they must go there themselves. Rather than trying to create a 'revolutionary army', where the people at the top order around the people at the bottom (which you'll have to agree is not very free), our goal must be to show the people that freedom exists and that they can get there if they want to.

[The Sloth]

When will they understand that in any society, the lifestyle of the poorest is directly tied to the success of the richest.

I agree.

This "direct relationship" is called an inverse proportion.

:lol:


Let's face it, it's not the person making minimum wage that drives the economy and the country forward. It is simple fact that those people are working for larger organizations....

And the larger corporations make a profit ten times as much as the wage they pay. Of course, depending on the size of the corporations, it may be much more than "ten times."


Companies are not the enemy. Everyone of us buys some sort of product from a corporation, and most of us are employed by companies.

I don't like your logic, to be honest. What would you want communists to do? Simply "refuse" to work since "companies" still exist?

Hmmmm...

And yes, we all do buy items from companies. Such as diamonds from DeBeers.

The same diamonds that are mined in Sierra-Leone.

By the same African hands that are later cut off.

Same bodies that are malnutritioned.

And finally, killed.


Again, let's be honest, it is the rich people in society that own and run the institutions that can help employ and enrich people, not the other way around.

Oh, so now thes rich folks invest in products that are beneficial to the poor rather than to themselves?

How is investment in gold, diamonds, etc. going to help the poor?

And if Bill Gates invests in some kind of new super-technology for computers, it will, of course, not benefit John Doe in Harlem, but rather the corporations that will be able to buy such a product, creating a profit from its use, and also creating a profit for Bill Gates.

[Hoppe]

Oh, so now thes rich folks invest in products that are beneficial to the poor rather than to themselves?


Investing your money in something with the prospect of a large consumer market is very interesting from a "greed" point of view. More profit opportunities. Of course poor people benefit as well.


And if Bill Gates invests in some kind of new super-technology for computers, it will, of course, not benefit John Doe in Harlem, but rather the corporations that will be able to buy such a product, creating a profit from its use, and also creating a profit for Bill Gates.

If there is one thing that has gotten cheaper over the years it's computers.......

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:18 PM
Investing your money in something with the prospect of a large consumer market is very interesting from a "greed" point of view. More profit opportunities. Of course poor people benefit as well.

It especially benifits the poor when they form monopolies and over charge for their products.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:24 PM
It especially benifits the poor when they form monopolies and over charge for their products.
If they achieve a monopoly they clearly benefit the poor, since the poor value the products over those of the competition. When, for some reason the company would be in such position, others will enter. Possibly they can outprice the new entrants, but this is certainly in no way harmfull for the poor.

Monopoly pricing theory is hugely flawed, just as socialist conspiracy theories that capitalism will eventually lead to monopolies.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Woah!

I didn't realise you were that stupid.

[commiecrusader]

whilst the product may initially be advantageous, probably due to good value for money, once the monopoly is achieved then it is bad news since the lack of opposition means the company can raise the price as much as they want.

look at oil. all the oil producers clubbed together, essentially creating a monopoly, and now they can raise the price as high as they want since they have all agreed to have the same prices. contrast this with wood, where producers are separate and constantly undercut each other, hence wood is relatively cheap.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:25 PM
Woah!

I didn't realise you were that stupid.
I am hardly impressed when someone calls me stupid. If that your way of hiding your lack of knowledge of the real world, feel free. It would be fun to see you argue why a monopoly in the free market would hurt the poor.


look at oil. all the oil producers clubbed together, essentially creating a monopoly, and now they can raise the price as high as they want since they have all agreed to have the same prices. contrast this with wood, where producers are separate and constantly undercut each other, hence wood is relatively cheap.

Well commiecrusader, I see you have managed to discover the formula to derive a fair price for a product? Well done.

Actually, research had showed that competition increased over the last 50 yrs in the oil business. Furthermore, the last "monopoly" Standard Oil, was lowering its prices until the Feds eventually splithe company up. Why would they do that if they could so easily extort the poor? (and no, not because they wanted to look nice).

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:45 PM
I am hardly impressed when someone calls me stupid.
I'm sorry Mr Hoppe. :(


If that your way of hiding your lack of knowledge of the real world, feel free. It would be fun to see you argue why a monopoly in the free market would hurt the poor.

A monopoly is able to rise the pice a commodities considerably above their value before it becomes possible for other companies to break their monopoly by undercutting them, this generaly isn't great for the poor since they have to pay more for the commoditiy and any other commodities who's production is dependant on it.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The oil companies are using the war to say that our oil is threatened, and therefore is more valuable than it was before. By doing this they are extorting the poor in America so that the heads of the oil companies can get richer.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:13 PM
A monopoly is able to rise the pice a commodities considerably above their value before it becomes possible for other companies to break their monopoly by undercutting them, this generaly isn't great for the poor since they have to pay more for the commoditiy and any other commodities who's production is dependant on it.
Why do you call me stupid and then come with the above statement?

Pls explain to me how one can achieve a "monopoly" in say, the market for bicycles? I repeat a previous statement. Let's assume that company X has a monopoly and raises its price. Company Y sees the enormous profit opportunities and enters the markets.

Since X doesn't have the government to bail them out (which is what happens in the not-so-free-market), they can only lower their prices and maybe even sell below the costprice. In what way does lower prices hurt the poor?


The oil companies are using the war to say that our oil is threatened, and therefore is more valuable than it was before. By doing this they are extorting the poor in America so that the heads of the oil companies can get richer.

Be glad. Less people driving means less polution.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:58 AM
Deficits are bad, but so are taxes, even if the budget is balanced.
Way to back up your statement. <_< Taxing multi-billion dollar corporations, in order to help bail the nation out of debt, only helps the working class and the entire nation as a whole. If the country weren&#39;t in so much debt, the value of the dollar wouldn&#39;t be falling so drastically, when the budget was balanced, for a brief time during the Clinton era, the value of the dollar was at a an all-time high, and the economy had never been better.

[Guest1]

Which isn&#39;t always great, but you guys import a shitload of your goods. So while Canada may try to lower its dollar because it&#39;s an exporter, what the US wants is a high dollar.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 07:00 AM
Way to back up your statement. <_< Taxing multi-billion dollar corporations, in order to help bail the nation out of debt, only helps the working class and the entire nation as a whole. If the country weren&#39;t in so much debt, the value of the dollar wouldn&#39;t be falling so drastically, when the budget was balanced, for a brief time during the Clinton era, the value of the dollar was at a an all-time high, and the economy had never been better.
Why? It&#39;s easy to balance the budget, just cut expenditures. How come no one ever thinks about that?

Clinton&#39;s surpluses were phony btw, government debt continued to soar. See this pdf of the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/GFSR/2004/01/pdf/chp2.pdf)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:49 PM
Pls explain to me how one can achieve a "monopoly" in say, the market for bicycles? I repeat a previous statement. Let&#39;s assume that company X has a monopoly and raises its price. Company Y sees the enormous profit opportunities and enters the markets.

Since X doesn&#39;t have the government to bail them out (which is what happens in the not-so-free-market), they can only lower their prices and maybe even sell below the costprice. In what way does lower prices hurt the poor?
But if X has a monopoly the they&#39;re much bigger than Y and can manufacture bicycles at a lower cost so there is a degree by which they can raise prices before the competition are capable of undercutting them.

As we all know monopolies also have many dirty tricks which they use to hold onto their monopoly status.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 11:45 AM
But if X has a monopoly the they&#39;re much bigger than Y and can manufacture bicycles at a lower cost so there is a degree by which they can raise prices before the competition are capable of undercutting them.


It isn&#39;t necessarily so that the largest company automatically has the largest economies of scale. So again an assumption which fits your theory well but is hardly a fact.


As we all know monopolies also have many dirty tricks which they use to hold onto their monopoly status.

Oh, you mean deathsquads, private armies and stuff like that?

Show me one monopoly and I will show you the govenrment behind it. I thought we were talking about unregulated capitalism instead of granting privileges to the largest campaign contributers.

[eyedrop]

Show me one monopoly and I will show you the govenrment behind it. I thought we were talking about unregulated capitalism instead of granting privileges to the largest campaign contributers.

The monopoly of razorblades (those you shave with) in Norway, every store I have seen only has gillette blades. (except a few years ago when Ruud and Rye tried for a few months)

It&#39;s a little unfair too expect you too find for little contry like Norway, but there are no other brands of razors here.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:40 PM
Oh, you mean deathsquads, private armies and stuff like that?

Show me one monopoly and I will show you the govenrment behind it. I thought we were talking about unregulated capitalism instead of granting privileges to the largest campaign contributers.
Actually that&#39;s not what i was refering to.

The most obvious example is the way microsoft maintains a monopoly over the operating system market becuase all software is made for windows.

Not exactly a "dirty trick" but you get what I mean.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:51 PM
Actually that&#39;s not what i was refering to.

The most obvious example is the way microsoft maintains a monopoly over the operating system market becuase all software is made for windows.

Not exactly a "dirty trick" but you get what I mean.
Well, not really. There are other operating systems, even free ones.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Yes there are, it speaks volumes of microsoft&#39;s monopoly that they "can&#39;t give &#39;em away."

I&#39;m not sure of the exact figure but microsoft have a monopoly share of the operating system market.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:48 PM
Yes there are, it speaks volumes of microsoft&#39;s monopoly that they "can&#39;t give &#39;em away."

I&#39;m not sure of the exact figure but microsoft have a monopoly share of the operating system market.
As far as I am aware Microsoft only has a huge marketshare in a specific market, operating systems for personal users. Hardly what I call a monopoly, taking into account that there are many more segments. A monopoly would mean that they are the sole provider of operating systems, which is evidently not the case.

Why should they give them away for free? That would be a stupid policy. So long as people value MS products more (which many clearly do) there is no real issue. People are free to use linux or something else, MS won&#39;t give you "an offer you can&#39;t refuse".

[Guest1]

Actually, yes they will. Any computer manufacturer who sells a computer pre-pavkaged with an operating system other than Windows loses their license to sell anything with windows on it.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 18 2004, 04:05 PM
Actually, yes they will. Any computer manufacturer who sells a computer pre-pavkaged with an operating system other than Windows loses their license to sell anything with windows on it.
So what&#39;s the problem? Are they scared that consumers won&#39;t buy their pc&#39;s anymore because they haven&#39;t got an operating system which these consumers value?