Dependance Economics (long)

[airdvr 210]

Part of a much larger read I found this very interesting. Welcome to the future.

Quote

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices -- even to buy in the first place -- modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency's value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don't have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing "alternative energy," our ruling class created arguably the world's biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a "green agenda," because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in "climate change." At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any "green jobs" thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies -- that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on "global warming" is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people's energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith's characterization of America as "private wealth amidst public squalor" (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest's complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class's economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its "system." But then all the boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and "best practices" that constitute "the system" become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what "the system" offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost ofcare. Similarly, in 2008 the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run "guaranteed retirement accounts." If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wayneflorida 0]

Government book "To serve humankind".
Getting close to the last chapter.

[Lucky... 0]

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

I realize that your comprehension level drops off significantly after the first couple of sentences so I'll go easy on you...this time. That's why I put (long) in the thread title.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Bolas 5]

Quote

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

This article is about using regulations, grants, and specific taxes (not just income) to unevenly dictate supply and demand inconsistently.

It also mentions that both parties are doing this and this is why bills and regulations are so much longer now.

You should read it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[beowulf 1]

It's an interesting read. I think it leans just a little too much towards conspiricy theory.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

This article is about using regulations, grants, and specific taxes (not just income) to unevenly dictate supply and demand inconsistently.

It also mentions that both parties are doing this and this is why bills and regulations are so much longer now.

You should read it.

AS IF . . . you can't put that much factual information into a left wing extremist and expect it to actually ake a difference.

Randy - you have been here long enough to get that, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

I realize that your comprehension level drops off significantly after the first couple of sentences so I'll go easy on you...this time. That's why I put (long) in the thread title.

And your ability to address issues is zero. Come on, hero, show us a major fed tax cut that has saved teh day.....oh, there isn't one so you're espousing your ideological ideas to us.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has.

Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

This article is about using regulations, grants, and specific taxes (not just income) to unevenly dictate supply and demand inconsistently.

It also mentions that both parties are doing this and this is why bills and regulations are so much longer now.

You should read it.

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty.

Taxes are virtually at an all-time low since WWI and still they're too high. Deregulation has consistently led to disaster; the same drones loving this read will blame Graham, Leech, Bliley's deregulation as for the recent mess, then go back to wanting deregulation - this is the same drivel the same people have been uttering forever.

By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices -- even to buy in the first place -- modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are.

That's chicken or the egg; THE VERY WEALTHY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT AND SET THE CONTROLS, so this is just corp-fascism at its finest. If the gov doeesn't intervien, the rich will takeover, yet the rich control some aspects of the gov via special interests, so there we have it, classic chicken or the egg.

For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others..

There was resistance so deals had to be made to get it to pass. Taht sucks, but ins cos denying preexisting conds sucks more. SO you see, when your party is willing to exclude millions from HC, my party is willing to make deals to get it to pass. I see no worries about the uninsured; WE GET YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support.

Gee then Obama must be panering to the wrong people, all the geniuses saying he is pandering for popularity by giving away billions to the poor, yet his ranking are slipping. COuld it be that Obama is genuinely trying to help people in spite of it costing him popularity?

Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices.

Yet it wasn't a problem with interest at 7%, it kept house prices appreciating at 4% per year, throw in the Bush tax cuts, economy stumbles, need to lower int rates and now we have runaway false appreciation. That was the real problem, lending money for hiuses to people who can't results in foreclosures where most/all of the principle is recovered, hammering int rates is what creates the deficit in recovered amounts.

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class's economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care.

Oh, so the few dollars teh fine amounts to is enough to even buy part of a CURRENT medical policy? Dream on.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/whats-the-penalty-for-not-having-insurance/

The penalty that you plan to refuse to pay is the one that — with a few exceptions, mostly for financial hardship — will be levied on people who don’t have health insurance starting in 2014.

In 2016, when the penalty is fully phased in, it will be $695 for an individual (up to $2,085 per family) or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will increase annually based on the cost of living.

Ordinarily, the penalty would be treated as a tax, and you could be prosecuted for income tax evasion if you didn’t pay it. But the new health law explicitly says that there will be no criminal sanctions for failing to pay the penalty, and no liens or levies on your property, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The government could come after your tax refund to pay the penalty, but since you say you don’t get a refund, that won’t be an option.

In Massachusetts, the only state where residents are currently required to have coverage, only about 3 percent of those who are subject to the mandate don’t buy insurance, Mr. Jost said. He expects a similar response at the national level. “Most people would probably like to have health insurance,” he said.

$695 a year, hell, Blue Cross' website shows that I would have to pay $600 month for a good deductable, so the fine covers 1 month's premium.

Furthermore, if you underwithold your taxes and pay the balance out of pocket at the end of the year, the gov won't come after you for any HC fine anyway. Not to mention that this fine probably won't pass SCOTUS muster anyway. Besides, with preexisters deemed legit claims, I think most people would enjoy having HC ins.

So as I said, this article is a fear-mongering, the gov is out to get us. Ask yourselves this: Who got us into the Great Depression and who got us out? Who got us into the Great Recession and who got us out? Yea, private corporations/the rich got us in, the gov got us out. Yep, the gov sure is horrible.