"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:dd30023b-328d-404f-b8c8-dc45b17c10a6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 12, 3:10 pm, Osiris88 <inde...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:36 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 10:26 am, "Taylor" <tay...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >
>news:fffc99e7-b54f-4acc-945e-bcebd768ad6d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > Now that Generalissimo George Bush has pushed through his
"stimulus
> > > > package" -- basically, shuffling around 1% of our annual GDP from
> > > > the
> > > > government's coffers to the hot hands of tax-paying individuals --
> > > > we
> > > > must ask ourselves what effect, exactly, this is likely to have.
As
> > > > I
> > > > speak, the stock market is up 200 ooints on the cheering news that
> > > > Warren Buffet -- the richest professional investor in the world --
> > > > is,
> > > > not surprisingingly, willing to put up his substantial forturne to
> > > > try
> > > > to prevent the bond market from collapsing completely.
> > > > Simultaneously, major auto makers and Swiss banks are announcing
> > > > massive cor****ate losses.
>
> > > > Now, the problem with the world economy is, of course, that there
> > > > are
> > > > no markets left, there are no consumers left, because the wealth
has
> > > > become too concentrated in the hands of too few individuals,
largely
> > > > through the efforts of neoconservative loons like Generalissimo
> > > > Bush.
> > > > So, how likely is it that shuffling around 1% of our GDP is likely
> > > > to
> > > > significantly change this state of affairs? Not very, I would
> > > > submit. Nor can Warren Buffet, on his own, stem the tide for long.
> > > > Although, he may be Wall Street's greatest hero, and his efforts
may
> > > > cheer investors for a time.
>
> > > > I would suggest, however, another approach. There are 8 million
> > > > millionaires in the United States, currently. Eight million
> > > > millionaires, and 290 million poor people. Now, the total assets
of
> > > > all these millionaires would far surpass the TOTAL GDP of the
United
> > > > States. Wouldn't it make some sense to redistribute some, or all,
of
> > > > the ill gotten gains of these worthless parasites into the
deserving
> > > > hands of the worthy American people? Think of the wealth that
could
> > > > be generated by increasing the assets of the average Amercain
> > > > TENFOLD,
> > > > TWENTYFOLD, THIRTYFOLD!!! Education, research, new technologies,
> > > > jobs. The possibilities are endless.
>
> > > Your suggestion was tried by the Soviet Union, and we know how well
> > > that
> > > turned out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, actually, average life expectancy was higher in Russia under
> > Stalin than it is now, Gulags, purges and all. Capitalism kills
> > hundreds of millions through sheer neglect, you know. And, communism
> > has worked rather well in China -- yes, they're still communist, with
> > a highly regulated market sector, government still owns all the land
> > -- making that country the world's economic superpower. And,
> > actually, this is more or less the system that exists in Scandanavia,
> > the closest thing to paradise on this planet -- yes, I know, "why
> > don't you go there"!
>
> > It is possible to combine freedom with an equitable distribution of
> > wealth. You just have to be a bit careful about it. In any case,
> > we're hardly likely to make more of a mess of things than exists now!
>
> Our country is built on competition and free will, not on taking money
> from people who worked for it and giving it to people who didn't. We
> already pay taxes, for one thing, and secondly, the US donates more
> money to the world than anybody else.
> But let's try your experiment so you can see where you're mistaken.
> Let's say every person starts from scratch and is given $500k. The
> very nature of the free market dictates that some will be competitive
> and capitalize on it, making products and selling them. The
> competition from similar products will control the prices and the
> spending habits of the rest will determine whether or not they can
> afford the products. Some will afford them, and buy them. Others
> will not, so the ambitious members of society will make a cheaper
> version of Product X. Once again, people will be flocking to Walmart
> while a handful of people will be capitalizing on it...you're right
> back where you started.
> The US is not Norway or Iceland. I'm sure they are both excellent
> places, but...we are not Norway or Iceland. Not to sound like a jerk,
> because you mentioned it, but if that IS the system you want, then
> maybe try living there for a while. See how much they take in taxes.
> A friend of mine moved to Norway for the same reason and after a year
> he came back here. If Norwegians are happy with how things work then
> I'm happy for them. But this is the US, and we do things differently
> here.
> Our economy has ups and downs, to be sure. Do you know why the
> Soviet Union collapsed? Because of economics. They believed in the
> state more than they believed in individuals, which also goes a long
> way in explaining why all the former republics wanted to break away.
> It wasn't a pleasant place to be. In short, we outspent them, enabled
> by our free market economy versus their distribution of wealth for the
> sake of the state.
> Now, I'm in favor of paying teachers more and giving more funding to
> education, and making money available to students who might not
> otherwise get into college. However, simply redistributing wealth and
> throwing money at problems won't solve anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you're in favor of providing adequate money to allow anyone to go
to college who can't afford it, you're in favor of redistributing
wealth. You are talking about very big bucks here, if you want to
replace the existing student loan system with a system of straight
grants. Very big bucks. I suspect that taxes would have to be raised
to finance it.
Not necessarily. College graduates will make a whole lot more money, then
non college graduates during their lifetime. So, it is an "investment"
that
could pay big dividends in the long run. And NO, taxes do not HAVE TO BE
RAISED. You just have to readjust the spending priorities, so you spend
more in helping people go to college, and reduce spending somewhere else.
Well, actually that is not true either, you just have to make sure you
don't
spend a whole lot more in other areas.
|
