Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting arguments... However, I am of the opinion that government jobs, supported by a tax base, TAKE from the private economy that would exist in an environment with less regulation and taxes. You can only TAX So much, before people exercise their freedom of choice and move. Generally a Country cannot tax more than 20-30% of GDP and we are around that % now.
With the % of GDP , I am talking total tax burden, effective income tax/ss/property/sales/ etc.
Our problem as a country is not due to rich not creating jobs. The problem is that our structure and the globalism structure favors countries where it is "cheap" to produce goods.
It is expensive to manufacture goods here and consumers demand a low price/best value for their $$$. So operations get sent overseas and then shipped back with alittle american assembly, then to the shelves. If we don't want this, we need some tariff's.
Did you know it is getting more expensive to make stuff in China? Foxconn corporation, the company that makes Apple's products laid off 1.2million Chinese and moved operations to a cheaper country.
For a long time this country had a large lower unskilled working class doing manufacturing jobs... Now these folks are on government benefits and in limbo as we no longer do those types of jobs here.
Interesting arguments... However, I am of the opinion that government jobs, supported by a tax base, TAKE from the private economy that would exist in an environment with less regulation and taxes. You can only TAX So much, before people exercise their freedom of choice and move. Generally a Country cannot tax more than 20-30% of GDP and we are around that % now.
The only thing that should be taxed is monopoly rents IMHO. In some cases natural monopolies should be publicly run where applicable.
Quote:
With the % of GDP , I am talking total tax burden, effective income tax/ss/property/sales/ etc.
Our problem as a country is not due to rich not creating jobs. The problem is that our structure and the globalism structure favors countries where it is "cheap" to produce goods.
If I didn't have a mortgages, income taxes or excise taxes, I'd be able to work cheap.
Quote:
It is expensive to manufacture goods here and consumers demand a low price/best value for their $$$. So operations get sent overseas and then shipped back with alittle american assembly, then to the shelves. If we don't want this, we need some tariff's.
Did you know it is getting more expensive to make stuff in China? Foxconn corporation, the company that makes Apple's products laid off 1.2million Chinese and moved operations to a cheaper country.
For a long time this country had a large lower unskilled working class doing manufacturing jobs... Now these folks are on government benefits and in limbo as we no longer do those types of jobs here.
So who should we be mad at?
They are running into the same problem. The result always ends with feudalism where capital and labor mobility is frozen, all economic surplus goes to the non productive owners and the rest operates at subsistence. Once a stress comes along, the society in some way is destroyed. Rome was unlucky with its barbarians, but we may end up with a plague or a blight. This always makes land worthless due to stubborn high access charges that lag the crumbling production around it. Thus a rent of 500 bushel equivalence is a void if it can only produce 400 bushels. A collapsing economy always has land that is worse then a worthless desert. I'd rather have worthless land then a land rent above its ability to produce. Once it bottoms out cheap resources accessible to labor and capital build it all over again.
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the oldest civilization in the world, China is now the cheap country? It will become the rich country, and we will become the cheap country.
You make solid arguments, albeit from a different perspective of thinking. Based on your hypothesis, we are heading for a collapse and then renewal cycle, as has been witnessed with past civilizations.
You make solid arguments, albeit from a different perspective of thinking. Based on your hypothesis, we are heading for a collapse and then renewal cycle, as has been witnessed with past civilizations.
Pretty much and it why the ancients created jubilees to reset this. Its a function of a monetary, capitalist system and basically human psychology. I find it interesting that the Soviet economist studied this and he was basically shot for saying it would rebuild itself.
Land becomes the best store of wealth, but has no real productive value in its assignment. All the money in the world cannot create a teaspoon of it.
More than eighty years ago, prominent Russian economist, Prof. Nikolai D. Kondratiev described and theoretically substantiated the existence of grand (45-60 years) cycles of economic development, in which framework the global "reserve of major material values" are being replenished, i.e. the aggregate productive forces of the world community transcending to a higher level each cycle.
According to Kondratiev, every cycle has a rising and declining phase. The internal dynamic of the cycles (named K-cycles after him) and the principle of fluctuations is based on the mechanism of accumulation, concentration, dispersion, and devaluation of capital as a key factor of the development of the market (capitalist) economy.
I would view this a a land based result rather than labor theory capital.
However what is most interesting is the 45-60 year long wave.The jubilee was every 50 years to actually dismantle it in an orderly fashion. I imagine loans were kept to a minimum years before.
23 ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me. 24 And in all the land of your possession you shall grant redemption of the land.
25 ‘If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if his redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. 26 Or if the man has no one to redeem it, but he himself becomes able to redeem it, 27 then let him count the years since its sale, and restore the remainder to the man to whom he sold it, that he may return to his possession. 28 But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.
29 ‘If a man sells a house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year he may redeem it. 30 But if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to him who bought it, throughout his generations. It shall not be released in the Jubilee. 31 However the houses of villages which have no wall around them shall be counted as the fields of the country. They may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the Jubilee. 32 Nevertheless the cities of the Lemvites, and the houses in the cities of their possession, the Lemvites may redeem at any time. 33 And if a man purchases a house from the Lemvites, then the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall be released in the Jubilee; for the houses in the cities of the Lemvites are their possession among the children of Israel. 34 But the field of the common-land of their cities may not be sold, for it is their perpetual possession.
Leviticus 25
Note the walled city house being treated as capital and not land.Its not returned because it has human labor as a large proportion of its worth.
The Babylonians did the same. If the wealthy take their money and pour it into assets, it will just accelerate the decline.
Roger Sandilands / Review of: The Losses of Nations, Fred Harrison, editor (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sandilands_harrison_losses_reviewed.html - broken link)
One of the contributors to this volume, Professor Mason Gaffney of the University of California, recently gave us a brilliant expose, in The Corruption of Economics (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1994), of the way in which the neo-classical revolution fused land with capital. This conveniently (for the propertied classes) diverted attention from the distinctive treatment of land, in the classical economics of Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Henry George, as a separate factor of production and the natural and prospectively buoyant source of public finance.
The highlighted portion is what ruined us. We have basically conflated together the most productive members of society like an industrialist with the most worthless, lazy and destructive of them like fat, inbred royals. Now we can't seem to tax one without the other because of this absurdity. And the Marxist reactionary elements smothers the real solution, and it seems to leave us with crony-ism instead of capital and welfare instead of labor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
