Here Come the Economic Populists

[ProSense]

New Rules

Here Come the Economic Populists

By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: November 26, 2006

Snip...

This approach coincided with a period of economic prosperity, low unemployment and falling deficits. Over time, this combination — called Rubinomics after the Clinton administration’s Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin — became the Democratic establishment’s accepted model for the future.

Not anymore. With the Democrats now a majority in Congress, and disquiet over globalization growing, a party faction that has been powerless — the economic populists — is emerging and strongly promoting an alternative to Rubinomics.

The populists argue that the national income has flowed disproportionately into corporate coffers and the nation’s wealthiest households, and that the imbalance has grown worse in recent years. They want to rethink America’s role in the global economy. They would intervene in markets and regulate them much more than the Rubinites would. For a start, they would declare a moratorium on new trade agreements until clauses were included that would, for example, restrict layoffs and protect incomes.

Snip...

The economic populists argue that the trade agreements themselves are the problem. They cite several studies showing that more jobs shifted to Mexico as a result of Nafta than were created in the United States to serve the Mexican market.

“I don’t see Congress passing any bilateral trade agreement that does not have strong labor and environmental standards written into it,” Representative Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a Democrat just elected to the Senate, said in an interview last week.

Economic populists in and out of Congress are organizing to push their proposals, coalescing around the Economic Policy Institute. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is a very visible member of this coalition. Unions have gained political influence because of their get-out-the vote role in battleground states like Ohio, where Democrats made substantial gains in the midterm election.

more...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's hope the new Congress listens to this philosophy n/t

[Union Thug]

2. And it's about damned time! n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

3. You Can't Argue With The L-Curve - Fat Cats Be Damned!

http://www.lcurve.org/index.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. If there was a verse in the Bible that explains the Trickle Down

effect it would go something like this: "The Lord taketh, and the Lord taketh away."

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Sen Brown is but among many ......

Two of our new ones have this as their hot buttons, too ... Tester and Webb.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Big Dawg's Legacy

NAFTA, "free" trade with China, and other crap that produced an immediate uptick in wealth for the Perdator Class, at the expense of good middle class jobs in the US.

Only an idiot or a liar would say that opening "free" trade to countries where workers get $2 a day would help the US middle Class.

[lcordero2]

10. can we change the term from

"predator class" to "parasite class"?

[OzarkDem]

18. Free trade has shrunk the middle class

Even those in favor of a global economy have to admit that adjustments need to be made to their theories.

[frebrd]

6. K & R nm

[Idioteque]

7. An "economic populist" is a liberal who has never read an economics book.

I'm sorry, I trust Robert Rubin and Brad DeLong over David Sirota and Lou Dobbs.

What this county needs isn't fewer trade agreements. We need more FREE trade agreements, ones without giveaways to the textile and sugar industries like CAFTA had. When we pay 80% more for sugar than the rest of the G8 countries, we aren't taking free trade seriously enough.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. where are they?

Where are they? Those good middle class jobs? Where'd they disappear to?

I wanna know, because I did everything I was supposed to do to get there.

:cry:

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I agree, but here's what I think we should do

You are correct that the sugar lobbies to keep their industry alive and that doesn't benefit the rest of Americans in terms of the prices that they pay. The problem is that despite the money they will save, people aren't willing to have their taxes raised so that we can really spend the money we need to re-train people. Re-training people is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying 80% more for sugar. The problem is that the GOP will never accept anything that requires raising taxes and the Democrats represent people who want to keep their jobs and not be re-trained to do something else.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Retrain people? For what jobs?

The jobs are gone and they're not coming back. Retraining can be done very quickly. Just memorize this: "Would you like fries with that?"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. With more and more white collar jobs being outsourced,

I'm puzzled about what "better" jobs Americans are supposed to do. We can't all be corporate executives, which is just about the only job that never seems to get outsourced or subjected to large-scale imports of foreign workers.

[HughBeaumont]

70. Don't you know?

We're all going to be genome scientists or quantum mathmeticians.

Studying for that would only require 8-10 years. That's not long for you to put your life and bills and practically everything else on hold for, is it?

:sarcasm:

[primative1]

31. Retrain is an Outdated Codeword

It has been overused for a long frigging time and basicaly means one thing. You will lose your career to some shamu in Pakistan or the like and in return you will be given the opportunity to join hundreds of millions of others squandering their life savings trying to become RE_EMPLOYED. Job security for educators, but using your globalization way of thinking shouldnt they also be expendable?
I have an idea. Stop lying! The rest will fix itself.

[DemBones DemBones]

101. Well said!!! Those in power are giving away

all the halfway decent jobs and telling people to get retrained. Lies, lies, lies.

[ProSense]

11. "Brad DeLong over David Sirota and Lou Dobbs"

Are they quoted in the article? Lou Dobbs is not a Democrat!

[Idioteque]

17. Sirota and Dobbs are economic nationalists.

Brad DeLong is a globalist. There is going to be a power struggle between globalists and nationalists in the party. In my opinion, which you may or may not agree with, I hope the globalists win. I think the nationalist view, however well meaning it is, is very short sited. Globalisation is coming and we can either

A. Hope it goes away and kill the economy in the process. (The Dobbs approach)

B. Ignore the negative effects it can have on many working and middle class people. (The GOP/corporatist approach)

OR

C. Encourage globalisation while at the same time retraining workers and expanding access to health care. (The Rubin approach)

In my opinion, C is the only viable option.

[Solon]

35. Uhm, what about labor rights, unionization, child labor etc.

The Rubin approach seems to NOT address these at all. No offense, but I think we need to finally wean ourselves off a slave-based economy once and for all.

Also, what the fuck are workers going to be retrained as? McDonald's fryers?

[Hippo_Tron]

96. We're not yet at the point where McDonalds is the only alternative

We outsource roughly 300,000 jobs per year, which 2% of the total 15 million jobs that we lose per year. We are outsourcing some good paying jobs but not all of them are gone. If re-training means that we have to send people back to school for a few years and pay their living expenses, I'm all for it because that cost is far less than the money we lose by having to buy American goods instead of imported ones.

The problem isn't just, re-training though. The other big problem is location. Trade destroys entire communities that were dependent on blue collar manufacturing jobs. Once those jobs are gone, the entire community suffers. You can re-train the workers, but if business don't move to those communities then the people have nowhere to apply for a job with their new skills and do end up working at McDonalds.

And I agree with you 100% about labor rights, unionization, and child labor. We need to use our influence to create and enforce labor and environmental standards in all of the countries that we trade with. I think that the Rubin approach addresses this but doesn't make it a high priority. We need to make it a top priority.

[Solon]

103. McDonald's is of course, an example only...

any "service" based job will do. These are, by and large, low paying, long work hour type of jobs, and advancement is nil, in addition to you being BARELY able to afford to buy the shit you are forced to sell.

I don't oppose trade altogether, that's the big lie that free traders always say, that we want to go back to protectionism, or isolationism, crap like that. I'm a globalist, I guess you could say, but one of a different sort. I believe in developing LOCAL economies, and TRADING FAIRLY on a global scale. I wouldn't even care if I had to pay a higher price when that happens.

Just as there is a World Trade Organization that represents the owners and investors in businesses world wide, there should be a World Labor Organization that is composed of members of Unions and allies, representing their country's working class that is a check on the WTO. A trade deal shouldn't be approved without the WLO's input and the WLO will have so called "veto" power over said trade deals if they are unfavorable. Actually, think of this as like how bills are passed between the House and Senate in the U.S. Congress, where it can't be passed unilaterally, but needs the approval of both(majority at least).

In addition to this, I say other international bodies need to be created, that have legal "teeth" so to speak, to regulate environmental, health, safety, and a variety of other factors when it comes to commerce.

And finally, finance and the Global Debt, I would say that we need to replace the IMF, which is famous for giving loans at high rates, and sending nations into bankruptcy or worst. I was thinking something more aligned with an International Grant Fund, the G8 will have to donate a certain amount of money, proportional to their respective GDPs. This money will then be used to relieve third world debt, granted to said nations with no strings attached.

[Debs]

52. I refuse to accept TINA

The GOP is always telling me there is no alternative. Thats what they told the people of Cochabamba when their water was privitized. They put a hundred thousand people in the streets and what a shock there WAS an alternative. This is what they told the people of Britian during Dickens time. Unrest came to the brink of revolution and what do you know an alternative arrived. I am not against Globalization per say. Howver there is will in the world to make it serve the people and not just corporations and investors as it does now. That is the bandwagon we should be on.

[Zhade]

84. You've been reading too much of that sunny optimist gasbag Friedman.

Take a look at what happened to Argentina, then tell me "free trade" works for anyone but corporations.

Jesus, learn some history.

[DaveinMD]

I've read plenty

and I'm sorry but this free trade at all costs dogma is complete bs. Its blind faith a religion without basis in fact. Free trade is great for the multi nationals, but is a disaster for the average American worker.

[Union Thug]

13. yeah, economics books written by and for those who benefit from this bullshit.

Sorry, but I've seen the result of these fantastic policies on my friends and family. I've watched their wages drop and benefits vaporize as management chased cheap labor half a world a way. Thanks for 'free' trade. What a boon it's been.

[lostinacause]

42. I hate to break it to you but economists (PhDs) don't make all that much money.

In fact it is practice to tell those considering graduate work in economic to do business if they want to make money. Also most of the trade economists have would have done better not getting their PhD and instead working in industry.

[MadHound]

108. Milton Friedman made plenty of money, and exerted even more power.

And, after all, he is the original one behind all of this "free" trade, and global economy nonsense. While I respect him for some of the nuts and bolts economics work that he did, quite frankly with the power and influence he wielded, we would be a much better world if the man had never existed.

[Debs]

53. Love your nick

I have seen it too. I have been ok in my union job and my friend in their union jobs have been ok but people have been losing those jobs that were supposed to be our future those hi tech knowlege based jobs. The future is bleak and the answer is more organization and action from the people who are WORKING. All wealth is created by workers and its time we stopped accepting that all benifits go to those who buy and sell.

[benny05]

19. I think what some would say

is more "fair" trade agreements.

[papau]

20. The latest econ papers out of Harvard/MIT say "free trade" is not a good idea

I believe my former teacher at Tech, mainstream economist Paul Samuelson of Nobel Prize in Economics in 1970 fame, and who had a few good papers in International economics, such as the ones on the Balassa-Samuelson effect, and the ones on the Heckscher-Ohlin model (with the Stolper-Samuelson theorem), has written some very clear articles on why free trade is "bad" for the US, and has been speaking out about why he no longer believes in totally free trade. http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/09/20040927_b_main.asp

When a Nobel Prize-winning economist like Paul Samuelson is challenging conventional "win-win" assumptions about free trade, saying the low-wage, high-innovation economies of China and India, are causing Americans to be losing big, perhaps it is time to listen - and perhaps time to drop any faith one had in Clinton's Wall Street boy, Mr. Rubin

Granted Rubin has both an undergrad degree in economics and a stint at the London School of Economics before he found his calling as a lawyer and got a degree from Yale. But legal work plus fame as a fellow that took profitable arbitrage bets that lead to his becoming after 26 years the Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs & Co. is just not the same as a Nobel in Economics.

[frankenforpres]

39. nobel in economics

doesnt mean much on this site. see the: we are thrilled milton friedman is dead threads

[lostinacause]

43. While Friedman was what could be considered a radical he made significant

contributions to economics. His applications of his ideas fit into better models. There is no question he deserved the prize.

[Jim Sagle]

21. DLC hogwash!

[benny05]

23. You mean DLC isn't populist?

Or is?

[Jim Sagle]

26. Is not.

[Trajan]

24. You have read enough Economics texts ....

To keep from getting any stars on your post ....

Perhaps it's a Liberal who knows the Middle Class is getting screwed again ?

[Zynx]

27. Anyone who studies economics carefully knows that a healthy middle

class is essential to a modern capitalist economy. Excessive concentrations of wealth are not helpful at all.

[Porcupine]

28. "Free Trade!?!" Leaving no health care, no benefits, no retirement, no security jobs here.

while all those good old fashioned union jobs that kept a family going on ONE FULL TIME JOB. People bought houses and sent two kids to college on one union supermarket job. Now two such jobs won't do it and WalMart is threatening to knock even those out.

Remember service? Remember when the phone company came to fix your phone the same day you called? Remember when you could talk to somebody in the same state as you when you had a problem with a product you bought? All of these things have been traded to people so wealthy that they have brought back slavery and our government pretends to ignore it.

The Saudi's keep slaves; it's well documented. We purchase products made by people earning $1.50 per DAY. How is that right? The same assholes who sell us these products fund crusades against birth control.

Economics is slavery painted with lies and sold as freedom.

:rant:

[nickshepDEM]

33. "I trust Robert Rubin and Brad DeLong over David Sirota and Lou Dobbs."

indeed.

[Solon]

36. LOL! Very funny!

Oh, damn, you're serious aren't you?

[Zhade]

86. Some people are clueless on the reality of "free trade", what can you say?

NT!

[madfloridian]

38. You used Sirota and Dobbs as synonymous.

You must not be very aware of their differences.

Rubin is a big business bully who threatened Dean in 03 to stop criticizing NAFTA or he would not get any money from the big guys.

And I don't have to be any of those terms to see our country is screwed because of the lack of oversight and regulations in trade agreements.

[CTLawGuy]

47. are you saying American workers should have to compete with people

who make less than $2 a day and who can be worked 16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week?

What about the middle-class life we built for ourselves?

[OzarkDem]

48. That's just silly

There are many liberals who are well versed on economic policy. All points of view need to be represented.

Name calling and trivializing won't help develop economic policy that will rescue the shrinking middle class.

[Debs]

50. This economic populist has

Read economic books.We need Free TRADE agreements not investors bills of rights that allow capital to go to whatever country will exploit their workers and environment the most. Without protections for labor, the environment and a way to allow protection for local industries just beggining (Like ALL industrial countries had when THEY were beggining) are just legalized exploitation.

[HughBeaumont]

67. Read my journal.

Read the author's book, The Great Risk Shift, Screwed and others.

Read something other than the authoritarian victimizer's point of view.

Take that freep-smelling "outsourcing is a GOOD thing" crapola elsewhere.

That is all.

[Zhade]

83. You're wrong - what we need are FAIR trade agreements.

Worker protections - like the kind Clinton campaigned on, then dropped once in office.

[AdHocSolver]

93. "Free trade" assumes "free markets" and currently none exist.

What we have are regulated global markets, i.e., world markets regulated by and for the benefit of the multinational corporations directly through collusion and indirectly through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Export-Import Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as international treaties such as NAFTA. And, don't forget our old friend OPEC.

Free markets in goods require no control by either buyers or sellers, either individually or in combination, of what is produced or how much, or what the price is. This also assumes alternative sources to deal with. Free markets in labor requires labor to be able to bargain for wages on an equal basis with employers and also have mobility in the job market. These conditions do not exist in China or most of Asia, except possibly Japan. For that matter they no longer exist in the U.S. since the gutting of the union movement, the massive outsourcing of jobs, the huge numbers of corporate mergers, the destruction of small businesses, and the large REAL unemployment in the U.S. which is masked by the fraudulent way that such data are produced in this country.

Since a corporation's main goal is to maximize profits, the public and the environment be damned, only a government looking out for the public interest can "level the playing field" through appropriate tax, labor, trade, and environmental laws. The government owes this to its citizens. Moreover, conservative economist and Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips writes in his book "Wealth and Democracy" how the wealthy rulers of Rome, Spain, Portugal, and Holland destroyed their empires by policies that gutted their middle classes and drained their treasuries in wars of conquest. The aim, of course, was to get sources of cheap raw materials, cheap labor, and open new markets. (Does this sound familiar?)

[rman]

104. We need Fair Trade - not the 3rd World debt traps

that the so-called free trade agreements are.

[MadHound]

107. LOL, way to broad brush there pal

For your information, I've read more than one economics book, and agree with economic populism. My wife is a dissertation short of a doctorates degree in economics, and she also agrees with economic populism.

There are ways to have both free and fair trade agreements, but our current method of going about this is not that way. Instead, it is penalizing workers world wide, either by taking jobs away, or by providing jobs that are very low paying and the work is in abysmal conditions. Rather than rushing for the lowest common denominator when it comes to labor, we should be striving to bring workers worldwide up to our (former) standard.

I suppose that you thought early twentieth century labor conditions were just fine also, free market and all:eyes:

[madfloridian]

14. The Rubin types will fight us every step of the way.

In his mind there is no room for the people to have a say.

Clinton did us no favors with NAFTA.

[Union Thug]

25. Working people were better off under 'populists'. Don't let the

'science' of capitalist 'economics' mislead people into believing the anti-worker hype. Economics is less a science than it is an officially sanctioned way of maintaining the status quo. The bottom line is that it is ours - the people's, economy and it works for us - and it is ours to do with what we see fit. We, the working people of this country are the rightful owners of the economy, not the tiny fraction of the population that have the unmitigated luxury of sitting around their mahogany desks fabricating ways to sell the labor hating economics of the elite.

[lostinacause]

44. In Denmark they allow companies to fire workers without reason

for a period after they acquire a job. In France it is very difficult to fire people. There are a number of other instances the mirror this situation. In fact when you look at just about every key economic indicator you find the Denmark does much better. Why? Good economic theory and a well educated population.

[Debs]

55. Denmark allow

Companies to fire people FOR A WHILE after they get a job without reason. Here in the US every worker NOT under a union contract is an at will worker. They can be fired for ANY reason no matter HOW long they have been working except for a few protected civli rights causes. They cant be fired for their skin color or their religion for instance. I know two workers who were fired after more than 15 years on a job, one because the boss wanted his nephew to have the job and the other to give the job to a nieghbors friend. Frances productivity per hour worked for instance seems higher than Denmarks and is in fact one of the worlds highest

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&product=STRIND_ECOBAC&language=en&root=STRIND_ECOBAC/ecobac/eb022

[lostinacause]

68. How is this relevent. We were discussing the benefit of good economic policy

not a specific instance. Good economic analysis allows better outcomes regardless of the chosen wealth distribution. People wrongly equate economic analysis to capitalist objectives. Good economic theory works to benefit any set of preferences you just have to realize what you are trying to do with the policies.

[Debs]

71. How could this NOT be relevant?

You posit that Denmark can fire workers easier than France then link that to what you claim as better economic productivity. Yet if it is the WORKERS that are the problem why is it that Franes per hour productivity higher. How could this NOT be relevant? As for my anecdotal stories they point to the abuses inherent in the fire workers whenever you want philosophy.I am denying that worker security is antithetical to good economic policy.

[Zodiak]

22. I'm glad they are here...the Populists

too long they have been left out in the cold while the corporate fatcats have robbed all of America blind. Their representatives in the Democratic party make us look fractured and without any clear message that is discernable from the Republican version...and they hog the microphone. The rise of populism in the party will be electorally successful in the South and the Midwest, as well. Populism strengthens the party.

They come with their liabilities, but the populists are far more aligned with liberals than the corporatists are....and they have hordes of followers instead of advisors.

[Peace Patriot]

29. People can have free trade. But corporations cannot--they insist on

MONOPOLIES, and megalopolies, and global corporate predation.

That is the problem. It is NOT A FREE MARKET! Not even close. It's rich bullies and thugs and pirates, looting everything in sight, muscling out or gobbling up small businesses, driving small farmers out of business everywhere on earth, amassing huge wealth, land, resources and unbelievable amounts of money, to push everyone around with, and avoid taxes and all social responsibility--and in the U.S. living forever! Permanent corporations, never contemplated by the Founders of our nation, who would be appalled at these giant leaches on the public. And in the military-industrial sphere, MANUFACTURING war to feed the beast.

Free trade failed because it was NEVER free trade.

The function of government in a democracy, with a SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, should be to protect us from these giant predators--to bust them, to pull their corporate charters when necessary, and seize their assets for the public good, and to PREVENT them from gaining monopolistic power. They should be forbidden to lobby. Their CEO salaries should be regulated. They should be kept on a short leash.

Then, and only then, will it be possible to create truly free trade with other nations, and engage in open, creative exchanges with other cultures and their products.

I am a believer in TRADE, as one of the most fundamental joys of being human. True trade is productive, creative, innovative and very progressive. Cultures with healthy trade always create upward mobility and a strong middle class, and consequently universal education, scientific advances and democracy.

What we have now is extremely unhealthy in every respect. It is stifling people. It is destroying democracy. Christ, we now have corporations "counting" all our votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! Can our democracy be any more degraded and insulted than this?

The worst of the bad actors--Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon-Mobile, Diebold/ES&S, et al, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies--need to be busted, busted, busted! Dismantle them! And the others need to be quaking in their boots for fear of the people of the United States and our just wrath. (And, indeed, they are already--why else would they have staged this coup over our election system? But we haven't fully realized our power yet, nor have we restored our right to vote. But I am convinced that we will do both.)

We can pay off the entire $10 TRILLION deficit these criminal corporations have inflicted on us just by selective busting of the worst of them. And we also absolutely need to bust the military budget down by about 90%, to a true defensive posture. (No more wars of choice!). That will be another huge liberation of resources. What is this huge war machine for, except to cause trouble around the world, and be a standing temptation to fascists, to use in corporate resource wars and for other ill purposes? No need for it. None! We do still need DEFENSE, but true defense is only about 10% of what the military does. This will be temporarily painful, since the military-industrial complex is like a lethal octopus, reaching into every sector of our economy--but cutting this beast our of our lives will ultimately be fantastically liberating.*

Then we start over with a whole new concept of economics that is people- and planet-friendly, in which everyone is able to obtain their basic needs, and we all have a lot of fun inventing and creating new widgets and delights of every kind to trade with around the world, in which food production is mostly local (and consequently highest quality), and in which our entire society is powered by the sun and planet-saving fuels.

These things ARE possible. They would be right around the corner, if it were not for the enormous drag that corporations place on natural human innovation. Corporations have become our nightmare, and we need to wake up from it.

-----

*(I remember all the talk of the "peace dividend" after the Soviet Union collapsed. Instead we had Reagan's "star wars"--and one corporate military boondoggle after another, and, ultimately, 9/11 and the heinous Iraq War. Don't think these things are accidents. The war profiteers, who never got demobilized after WW II, as they should have been, saw cutbacks in corporate military contracts coming, and started way back with Reagan and then Bush I, and the Afghan war (creating Al Qaeda!), the war on Nicaragua, the "invasion" of Grenada, the baiting of (and arming of!) Saddam Hussein to manufacture the first war there, and feeding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with huge arms aid to Israel, to create 9/11, directly or indirectly, and the conditions for this current war and the huge corporate pigsty that it immediately became. Notice how it is creating a hundred "terrorists" a day--which they will tell us require billions and billions of dollars in more "homeland security." It is a horrible merry-go-round. We never get the "peace dividend." We just get looted and exploited. The war profiteers are MANUFACTURING war. Of course we have to have adequate defense in this war profiteer-created world--until we can strengthen our skills at creating peace. And we need good policing and international cooperation to deal with any fanatics who would bomb innocent people. But do we need wars CREATING more "terrorists"? Do we truly need to steal other peoples' oil? What are we doing slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people--and torturing prisoners!? It's nuts. The "peace dividend" should be our goal. We deserve a break after all this thievery committed against us. Think of it: the PROSPERITY that peace can create!)

[porkrind]

34. Excellent comment! K&R!

[hyperium]

37. This is why I'm ambivalent on trade

Would free trade policies work if NAFTA and the rest of the agreements weren't written specifically for the benefit of corporations?
Or is it just a flawed idea to begin with, poor in practical application, only theoretically beneficial? I don't know.

[rman]

106. Nor should trade be literally free

because "no regulations" (it doesn't get more free than that) means the winner takes all.

Trade should be regulated so that it's fair to all parties - not just 'fair' to large corporations.

[Joanne98]

30. The medium income has gone down every year since 1973!

I'm tired of waiting for the economic populists to save us. I love Sherrod Brown but this is too big for him to do alone. We need to HELP IT ALONG! I suggest mass protests demanding independence for Taiwan. This is sure to UPSET the communists/fascists Chinese. After they are pissed off to the point of no return. I suggest more mass protests demanding FREEDOM for the Chinese people. This will probably start a war between the US and China. Then we can start charging multinational corps like WALMART with aiding the ENEMY! We can also demand the steel from the World Trade Towers back so we can run tests on the metal. If they have already melted it down, we can charge them with aiding the TERRA-ISTS (Bushco) and demand the UN pass economic sanctions. I feel that these extreme measures will at least send a message to the US elite that we are TIRED of getting screwed. Deal with the Chinese and globalization is a DEAD project. Let's do it.

[amandabeech]

32. I've been talking about this since the late 1970s,

when a member of a prominent Democratic family called me a "populist" with a real sneer on his lips. It was an ugly moment.

Back in the '90s, I nearly lost some dear friends when I simply would not agree with them that NAFTA was a good idea.

It's great to read that others who feel the same way are finally speaking up.

I'd like to help. Anybody know where I can sign up? I live in the D.C. are at the moment.

[political_outcast]

40. economic populism is about more than just free trade

economic populism is really more about raising taxes on the rich and using that money for welfare state stuff like universal healthcare.
Economic populism is also about stopping mass immigration that is driving down wages.

In fact, you could argue that free trade is OK, and that economic populism is more about raising taxes on the rich and upper class and instituting universal healthcare and stopping mass immigration that is causing the neoliberal rat race to the bottom.

In fact, I would say that the article cited in the original post for this thread is an attempt by the neoliberal "powers that be" to restrict the definition of economic populism. The democratic and GOP neoliberal cartel can make lots of money if free trade ic cut back, but progressive taxation, universal healthcare and immigration control really strikes right at the heart of neoliberalism.


All in all, that article is more or less typical neoliberal propaganda.

[Trillo]

41. "stopping mass immigration "

I'd like to know more about what true economic chairs say about the correlation of movement of money and goods across borders without allowing labor to freely move across borders.

It seems to me, as an economics idiot, that allowing one (free trade) without the other (freely mobile labor) is a major problem. I would presume, without actually knowing the academic facts, that the opposite, of restricting one without also restricting the other, is also a problem.

If true, "stopping mass immigration" should correlate to "stopping mass transference of capital" across borders.

Call me a cynic, but I rather doubt that any in Congress will have the guts to restrict mass capital flows across borders, and even if they do, the Executive in Chief will just issue a signing statement or executive order that says something else.

As a debtor nation, our leaders appear to need the capital support of richer nations, which implies capital flows across borders will not be restricted at all.

[OzarkDem]

49. Universal health care is not "welfare stuff"

any more than building a national system of highways or sanitary sewers is "welfare stuff".

Access to affordable health care for all Americans is essential for a productive society, both for social and economic reasons. Its hard to be leader of the free world when you population is plagued by disease and death because of an adequate system of health care.

[political_outcast]

51. hmmm. curious...

...curious that you should say so. Because I don't see that much concern here on "DU" for those sorts of welfare state issues, such as universal healthcare, progressive taxation, vacation time, unemployment benefits. Cuz when I read the headlines here, it seems to be mostly about partisan political gossip, and race and gender identity politics. Hmmm?

[OzarkDem]

58. Even more curious

That you attempt to perpetuate the MYTH that access to affordable health care for all in the US is a "welfare" program when it isn't.

Unless this issue is dealt with in the next few years, not only will millions more people lose health insurance, we may also see a collapes of our entire health care system. IOW, the system won't work for anyone any longer, not even those who have health insurance.

Fixing the problem is just "good business", not welfare.

And if you read DU a little more closely, you'll see that health care and lack of access to affordable care is a very common topic here on DU. Keep reading.

[political_outcast]

59. thank you for correcting me. However, please feel free to substitute any word for welfare that you..

....feel comfortable with.

you wrote:
"And if you read DU a little more closely, you'll see that health care and lack of access to affordable care is a very common topic here on DU. Keep reading."

Thank you, kind sire/madam. However, I would have to disagree with that statement. Perhaps a quantified sample would settle the matter? Perhaps a groups of "DUers" could analyse a random sample of DU stories and see what percentage of those stories are related to partisan political gossip, divisive and unsolveable social wedge issues like race and gender and religion and sexuality, and how many DU stories relate to economic populist issues like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, vacation time, ie., issues that unify working class Americans across race and gender lines. I mean, that IS a good thing,right? And if those issues were pushed to the forefront, ALL americans would benefit, except the upper class. And progressives ARE for the workers, not the upper class, right?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[political_outcast]

64. you want me to debate these issues on Free Republic, the GOP forum? Why?

you wrote:
"Perhaps you would feel more comfortable debating these issues on another forum more suited to your preconceived notions, say Free Republic?"

I thank you for your kind response, however why do you say that?

[Bridget Burke]

65. Perhaps OzarkDem is tired of those attempting to act like "Leftists".....

While pushing Right Wing Talking Points.

We do get bored by the Same Old Same Old.

[political_outcast]

66. hmm...curious

you wrote:
"Perhaps OzarkDem is tired of those attempting to act like "Leftists".....While pushing Right Wing Talking Points."


But what I wrote was this:
"Perhaps a groups of "DUers" could analyse a random sample of DU stories and see what percentage of those stories are related to partisan political gossip, divisive and unsolveable social wedge issues like race and gender and religion and sexuality, and how many DU stories relate to economic populist issues like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, vacation time, ie., issues that unify working class Americans across race and gender lines. I mean, that IS a good thing,right? And if those issues were pushed to the forefront, ALL americans would benefit, except the upper class. And progressives ARE for the workers, not the upper class, right?"


I thank you for your thoughtful post, but as you can see from my quote above, I was suggesting that "economic populist issues like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, vacation time, ie., issues that unify working class Americans across race and gender lines" get short shrift on DU and in the progressive platform in general. Yet you suggest I go say this on free republic. But it is my understanding that the GOP does not want "progressive taxation, universal healthcare, vacation time," etc.

Well, so what is the deal? Neither the Democrats nor the GOP want these things?

[Bridget Burke]

69. The deal is that the Democrats want the economic things....

But we won't turn a blind eye to racism, just because you think we should.

[OzarkDem]

73. Here's the deal

Try as you might to characterize progressives on DU otherwise, they support policies like access to affordable health care for all because they benefit everyone and because its essential to a productive society.

As much as you may want to think otherwise, we're a group of rational, intelligent, well educated adults who may have advanced degrees or high school diplomas, are raising families, own their own businesses, invest in the stock market, work for large corporations or even hold public office. Some are even health care professionals and doctors. We do our research and make up our own minds about what is best for the economy, our country and our future based on our own education and experience, not based on what Harvard Business School, Wall Street, the folks at the DLC or anyone else tells us.

Trying to characterize progressives as extremists who only want to help working class people at the expense of others will get you nowhere.

[political_outcast]

75. You guys are SWELL!

I reallly appreciate your helpful comments.

However, I must respectfully point out that neither you nor any other DUers have addressed my actual points.....

[OzarkDem]

82. We have, repeatedly

Your point was that Dems on DU would not support universal access to health care because it benefits everyone, including the upper class and that DU'ers do not support the upper class.

I rejected your premise that DU'ers don't support any policy that benefits everyone, including the upper class. DU'ers support universal access to affordable health care for everyone, regardless of income, because its the right thing to do.


You also made the point that universal access to affordable health care for all was "welfare" policy. Several of us pointed out to you that such policy is essential to a productive society and is beneficial to business, the health care system and the country as a whole.

Got anything else?

[political_outcast]

88. welfare state == good

is that plain enuf for you?

I highly value your considerate comments!

[Debs]

72. So not only health care but

unemployment benifits and VACATION TIME are welfare issues? Are you kidding or doing a satirical impression of a freeper?

[political_outcast]

76. I think welfare states like Denmark are the highest form of human order

but I just wonder how it is that the Democrats and the progressive agenda is ever going to get there, seeing as how the democrats and progressives like DUers give only lip service to these ideas and instead focus on divisive social wedge issues that only serve to further delay real change like they have in Denmark.

ANd thanks for your helpful comments. I really appreciate it!

[Debs]

78. I find you unconvincing

Why call them Welfare states instead of social democracies? Welfare is something you get because of need not because you worked for it. Vacation is far from the same thing. I may have no problem with welfare but in this context it is rhetorical incitement. Universal healthcare, and vacations are NOT welfare they are what a decent society does for its members. A vacation is earned.

[Debs]

56. I agree

Its time we made clear if we are to consider ourselves a decent society that universal healthcare is a RIGHT YOU HAVE not a COMMIDITY YOU BUY

[fuzzyball]

45. ALL corporate taxes must be abolished...for the benefit of many...

Before you flame me, read carefully my POV.

Corporations are owned in the end by individuals. The taxes
should be paid by those rich individuals who are big stock holders
in the corporation. By taxing the corporations all the Joe-6-pack
stockholders via their small 401-k's get punished. Also, every penny
of the corporate tax is paid by the consumer. Lots of small fry's there.

If there was no corporate tax, more funds would be available to
a) hire more people
b) invest in R&D
c) expand the productive infrastructure of the corporation.
d) THERE WILL BE LESS INCENTIVE TO AWARD HUGE STOCK OPTIONS OR
BONUSES since none of that is tax deductible, since there will
be no corporate tax to begin with.

Let those CEO's and big stock holders pay the taxes as personal income.
I am for increasing taxes on the REAL RICH people, not every consumer and
not every small fry stockholder.

[CTLawGuy]

46. no

more money for CEOs to pay themselves. and they do. When your bosses are a zillion mutual fund holders who barely know they own you and will just sell their interest if your stock goes down too much, you can pretty much pay yourself anything you want.

Thus any windfall will go right to CEO pay.

[fuzzyball]

60. Very good...then the CEO's will pay much HIGHER PERSONAL INC TAX

That way only the real robbers of corporation gets punished.

[CTLawGuy]

102. so what

still worth it. They still get money out of the deal.

How many people you see earning the absolute max you can earn without paying any tax?

[Greyhound]

54. How many ways can one post be wrong?

Corporations are not "owned by individuals" in any sense that this statement implies, the stocks are owned, by and large, in the form of institutional funds, which the individual investors have no say in. The number of individual investors that buy single company issues is insignificant, and common stock does not get to vote in the annual meeting, and therefore constitutes a silent money pool to be used in any way the officers see fit.

"If there was no corporate tax, more funds would be available..." true, but you make the leap in assuming that they would then take this money and;
a) hire more people
b) invest in R&D
c) expand the productive infrastructure of the corporation.
When recent history has demonstrated just the opposite, they are sending the money out of the country as fast as they can, billions every week.

I would like to know why you think they would do any of this, especially in light of the last 6 years while corporate profits have soared, setting record after record, and yet they have;
a) Dramatically increased the number of lay-offs
b) Frozen or reduced R & D across the board
c) Moved their manufacturing infrastructure off-shore at an ever increasing pace

All this in an environment that is literally awash in capital. VC's biggest problem for the last several years has been finding businesses to invest in. Just pickup any investment publication, on any given day it is almost certain you will find at least one article whining about this very problem.

And now that we have all but eliminated the capital gains tax (15% + loopholes that you can fly a 747 through) the money isn't coming in from them either. (Homework problem: Calculate the actual tax that Lee Raymond paid/will pay on his $400 million bonus)

Please don't think of this as a flame, it is not intended that way, but instead will hopefully point you to the truth of our "new economy", and help you find the truth behind the reich-wing fantasy they are trying to sell to the sheeple. Sheep only have one fate in this life, to be sheared for as long as they continue to produce quality wool and when they can't do that anymore, they are killed.

[fuzzyball]

61. What you are obviously overlooking is....

tha tevery fricking institutional hodings including
the Trillion dollar mutual funds are in the end owned
by INDIVIDUALS. Let those individuals be taxed in proportion
to their income. Not every consumer. Every penny of corporate tax
comes out of the hide of consumers.

[Greyhound]

79. Go back to your Heritage Foundation talking points manual.

You completely ignored the point of the one issue you chose to answer. Try this, go to the investment firm that manages your mutual fund and tell them that you and your 500 shares want them to divest from say, General Dynamics, because you don't like the way they make all their money from the war. See how long it takes them to laugh you out of the office, that is if they don't call security and have you arrested.

If you don't control it you don't own it.

Your proposal is just silly and it has been proved wrong consistently for the last 20+ years.

[fuzzyball]

89. All I can say is...whatever!

and thanks for the tip to look up Heritage foundation
but please supply a web address.

[senaca]

81. R & D development

It seems like we have had it bass ackwards in our expectations of R & D and companies. I've wondered why we have decreased funding to our Universities at a time when R & D is needed without the tint of corporate profit motive to get the results that a corporation might want. Meanwhile lobbyist's are trying to get products rushed to the market without proper checks on the product to make sure it is safe and perhaps even decrease liability for the corporation if the rushed product is found to be harmful. What major advances in R & D have we had in the corporate world during the past six years? Compare that to advances made by R & D at Universities, which in the end benefits corporations.

[fuzzyball]

90. My 23 years of experience working in a corporation agrees with your

POV. I am dismayed by how many American companies are
driven by profit for the current quarter and the current year.
In my outfit, the most important person was the controller or
the chief accountant. R&D is a long term ROI (return on investment)
and therefore not what the CEO's like for the bottom line NOW.

[Zhade]

87. It's called "wishful thinking".

Some here don't grasp that Rubinomics is killing the American working class.

Some just don't care.

[fuzzyball]

91. Do you know of any country where the working class is on the top rung?

The owners/managers/bosses have been always the best paid
as long as there have been corporations, in any couintry.
Wishful thinking is not going to change that suddenly.

If you look at who are the new or self made millionaires in
the US, they are either the CEO's of large companies, or
small business owners, or real-estate dabblers. In fact the
most new millionaires are made vis real-estate.

Even in workers paradise (?) such as the formar USSR, the
working class could barely afford a 1 room apartment and
had ate basic boring food and wore basic boring clothes.
Whereas the ruling class communist party memnbers lived in
relative luxury.

[Debs]

57. Except that would be

More jobs in Indonesia and more reasearch on which Senators to devolop to kick in the public cost that does a huge portion of the R&D for industry. A large portion of our economy is public cost turned into private profit. Corporate taxes give us just a small portion of that back. The main reason the Pentagon is so expensive is they do so much research and devolopment for high tech industries. Corporations should pay MORE taxes and shouldnt be able to consider the stock options and millions they pay their CEO as wages to take OFF their taxable income.

[fuzzyball]

62. Think deeper....you start out with the right premise but do not

go to the next step. Whoever profits IN THE END ARE INDIVIDUALS.
Let the taxes be paid at HIGH RATES by THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

Have you realized that every penny of corporate tax comes out of
the hide of consumers? Corporations survive because they make profit
or atleast break even. Whatever they have to pay in corporate taxes
gets passed on to the consumers...VERY REGRESSIVE.

If the CEO gets higher pay because his corporation no longer has to
pay corporate taxes, then HE/SHE PAYS MUCH HIGHER PERSOMAL INCOME TAX!!!
Is'nt that what we want? The rich to pay their fair share?

[Trillo]

74. Silly.

I thought corporations were considered as INDIVIDUALS under the law, i.e., corporate PERSONHOOD (some of us believe that they should not be considered thusly, but wanting something doesn't make it reality).

Therefore your argument that corporations pay no taxes is essentially a call for INDIVIDUALS to pay no taxes.

Right now, as I understand it, there are many differences in corporate versus personal income taxes (to the tune of thousands of pages of legal code), but IF corporations are considered persons under the law, then my point is that there should be no differentiation when it comes to taxes, unless of course the whole point of all that code is to create a great big sham where only little people such as laborers and workers pay taxes.

In my view, one of our biggest social problems is that great and massive legal complexity is being used to conceal the basic lies of the overall system.

In a system where individuals' work is to be truly rewarded, then why should labor be taxed at all?

[fuzzyball]

80. Which is why I like nationa;l sales tax, which no one can escape...

not even illicit drug dealers. All that needs to be added is
a tax rebate to low income individuals to take away the
regressiveness of a NST.

As for your hypothesis that corporations are same as personhood
does not make any sense to me. A corporation is formed for the
specific purpose of a commercial activity to produce profit.

If you are a small business owner, you can not spend the business/
corporation resources for personal use. That is illegal as heck.
For example you can't go on a vacation and charge it to your business.

[Trillo]

97. We have a problem with corporatism,

so much so that there's very little democracy or republic left in this so-called democratic republic, so eliminating corporate taxes is probably the wrong direction to take.

I'm not convinced that making a "profit" for "commercial" reasons should take precedence over humans' "living". Why should commercial activities be tax free, but activities that support the worker, such as being an employee, not be tax free? Why should a private person who mows lawns "for a living" pay any taxes if corporate doesn't need to pay them? The lawn mower is just making a subsistence "profit" so that he/she can put food on the table. How is that less worthy of zero taxes?

Perhaps the opposite should be tried. Perhaps the, what is it, 35% theoretical income tax should be increased. How does 80% sound? At 35%, with all the current deductions and corporate welfare granted, the biggest companies sometimes don't pay anything or even get a rebate, with 80% taxation they'd likely pay something like 45%. It might less with smaller corporations though, and could be unfair for those corporations not receiving welfare.

A simple corporate taxation system that is like an alternative minimum tax could also be considered. 35%, no loopholes, period. Maybe 45%, maybe temporarily higher until the war and rebuilding have been paid. People -- soldiers -- are losing their lives, why isn't corporate giving up its profit in a show of empathic sacrifice?

With regards to the NST, a rebate for the lowest income earners isn't enough for personal taxes. Here's why.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x4527
Near the bottom, look at "Average Pre-Tax inome by group - 2001 Including average income of top 400 from 2000" (it shows a similar income distribution as does the L-Curve which can be found using a search engine).

In case you don't see what I'm pointing out, look at the last column on the right. Granting a rebate check to the few, perhaps in the bottom quintile, while it certainly would help them, it does nothing about the obscenity or excess of the top 400.

There has been too much gaming of the economic system over too many years. The wage paid to high school graduates is one example that, compared to professionals and relative to hours each group respectively spent sitting in a classroom seat, should have been about $21 per hour in 1995. Education works wonders for a few lucky ones, but not for the vast majority who also 'worked hard' and suffered and sacrificed and were punished routinely, and who then are insulted by some claiming that going to compulsory high school and not being paid for the time isn't "national service."

Perhaps an income cap also provides a partial solution. If some top earners claim their 'incentive' is then gone, so be it, surely others will fill the vacuum their vacancy creates, if not, perhaps it wasn't that important to begin with.

As humans, we're more similar than we are different from each other. Our economic system certainly hasn't been good for those at the bottom or even the majority, but it has been excellent for those very few at the top of the top for all the years that I've been alive.

[fuzzyball]

98. For the very simple reason: All corporations are owned by INDIVIDUAL

PERSONS at the end of food chain. We should tax those individuals with
lion's share at the corporate trough higher than those with a few
shares owned directly or via a mutual fund.

It is really not that complicated. let INDIVIDUALS be taxed according to
how HIGH their PERSONAL income is. That concept catches all the highly paid
CEO types, large stockholders, profiteers, on and on. But it spares the
consumers and small stockholders.

Another benefit of eliminating corporate taxes on corporations based in
AMERICA will be that they will have a competitive advantage over foreign
based outfits subject to corporate taxes. Translation: More jobs in USA.

On edit, you are bringing up the "fairness" issue of worker treatment
which is whole another area of discussion.

[Trillo]

100. The Great Beast Is The Corporatist! Here's why--

It appears The Corporatist grows out of many smaller corporations that existed in prior times.

(BTW, You're one of the gentler debaters here. I just wanted to note that.)

>On edit, you are bringing up the "fairness" issue of worker treatment
>which is whole another area of discussion.

I disagree that it's another area of discussion (more on this below). Some of us see trees in a forest, and some of us see the forest of trees. Curiously, perhaps paradoxically, the whole forest's compositional nature can concealed simply by the deliberate concentration upon, or distraction of looking at, each tree.

>For the very simple reason: All corporations are owned by INDIVIDUAL

>PERSONS at the end of food chain. We should tax those individuals with
>lion's share at the corporate trough higher than those with a few
>shares owned directly or via a mutual fund.

I see we're still miscommunicating regarding terms for 'Individual Persons' versus humans versus CORPORATIONS. Perhaps when you write 'individual persons' in all capitals you mean humans and homo sapiens, yet you have never explicitly said that (unless that is what is meant by the capitalization), though that seems to be your intent. I will assume INDIVIDUAL PERSONS as you use it is equivalent to humans and or homo sapiens, please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

> All corporations are owned by INDIVIDUAL
>PERSONS at the end of food chain.

What food chain? Or which food chain? For example, the largest shareholders of corporations are other corporations: sometimes pension funds, but sometimes just other large corporations. This is the beginning of The Corporatist Beast.

These other corporations act as decision makers, yet you seem to believe that they should be allowed to shovel tax liability down for their decisions to (for example) the elderly person receiving a monthly check, or the worker receiving only a fraction of his/her value to the corporation, or those who by and large lack decision making capability or even full voting rights.

You're essentially calling for taxation of little people without their having elected representation (at the company) or any kind of decision responsibility for that taxation. I find that idea repugnant, that the corporate decision makers can dodge tax liability for what is defined as "their responsibility." The only decision employee made was perhaps taking a job with a pension plan or buying the stock though their private account, and in the current society that's reality, that really is no choice at all, it's more of an illusion of choice for all except the very few.

History in the last hundred and thirty some years has proved that this lack of representation eventually travels to the people's government itself as corporations buy each other up in mergers and devise partnership and alliance schemes, so in this sense, the corporation is the ultimate corrupter of democracy and representation.

>Another benefit of eliminating corporate taxes on corporations based in
>AMERICA will be that they will have a competitive advantage over foreign
>based outfits subject to corporate taxes. Translation: More jobs in USA.

We should not only allow the tyrant for the cake they give us, but also give them special status for doing so?

It must not be forgotten that The Worker made the cake, gave it to the employer, and the employer passed back to The Worker only a smaller piece of that cake that the employee made for the employer, and that 'theft mechanism' or 'parasitism' or 'predation' shouldn't be subject to taxation, according to you?

I understand your jobs argument, but it leads in the long term to abuses including the greater danger of undermining of democracy and republic representation. Therefore, I'm leaning towards concluding that the employer's/employees' piece of cake that is handed back to the employee is indeed poisoned.

However, with a very curious twist, I could perhaps be persuaded to your POV. Grant the employees 100%, and not the smallest fraction less than 100%, of the money the employees make for the employer, and I'll conclude that the corporation shouldn't pay any taxes. Implicit in this agreement must be a fair distribution between the highest and lowest paid including the executives. What defines fair can be a future subject of debate with the understanding that the current preponderant system is a prime example of what is unfair.

Short of that, the corporation IS profitable on the backs of employees, and that's where the fairness issue of worker treatment (relating to rate of pay) IS NOT unrelated to our discussion (see tree and or forest metaphor above). Rate of pay as wage is actually a misnomer, because profitability is rarely if ever precisely constant over time, yet wages are per-time-period-worked for all except salaried, this appears one obfuscatory mechanism of mis-allocation of compensation, leading to corporate theft of workers' total value.

Going back to a point you made in a prior post, you wrote something to the effect that since a corporation is a "commercial" endeavor solely "to profit", that corporations should be free of taxation. My point is that because corporations are "commercial" endeavors solely "to profit" that corporations specifically should be taxed.

They're the great money experts that built the corporatist palace they are sitting in and that has dictated to the rest of us the laws we're all subject to, and calls for them to have zero taxation is hypocrisy at its finest.

>It is really not that complicated. let INDIVIDUALS be taxed according to
>how HIGH their PERSONAL income is. That concept catches all the highly paid
>CEO types, large stockholders, profiteers, on and on. But it spares the
>consumers and small stockholders.

Silly: consumers and small stockholders are homo sapiens subject to your taxation, and you claim they'll "be spared". Silly.


*** SUMMARY***

By creating a tax-free entity, one channels greed and money to that entity. By making the corporation tax free, a guarantee is assured of its continuance and eventual domination because of its fundamental nature of greed above every other thing. Because of the entities desire to avoid taxes, it will refuse to share all its money with taxable entities, though it may share some, over the longer term this creates an exhaustion of money for the humans who must work to live and must do so through the only mechanism left standing, employment where only a small portion of value is paid back to the worker, and this eventually creates a lack of peace which leads ultimately to chaos, The Tower aflame as its foundation fails and falls.

Therefore, it appears the solution for the lack-of-money distribution problem so many poor and middle class folks perceive is to make them, i.e., the people, i.e., homo sapiens, the tax free entity. By so doing, one creates the long term incentive for nearly ALL MONEY to be attracted to humans instead of artificial entities.

However, there's still a problem, and that is the need to insure, for the greater good and greater peace and security and stability, that a few humans aren't allowed to get an obscene imbalance of funds, therefore there needs to be a mechanism that distributes the tax-free money to the homo sapiens. Enter the TAXED corporation whose primary charter is to fairly distribute funds among its workers.

The corporation has already set itself up to distribute funds through the mechanism of employment, withholding, etc.,, but some corporations, in their infinite greed, seek tax-free status, which is fundamentally at odds with their funds distribution mechanism back to the worker, and there enters the corporatist.

The Great Tyrant is the Corporatist and the raising of its own GREED above all other concerns.

[fuzzyball]

111. Holy toledo you wrote a long response....but I will be short...

Yes by "Individual" I meant individual homo sapiens.

Basically where we differ is that I do not see anything wrong
in "greed". That is what makes the free market system work. If Bill
Gates was not greedy, he would have never bothered perfecting the
Disk Operating System for PC's. He recognized the importance of that
system to future of personal computers and acquired the rights to
license it to IBM. Sure he made a lot lot lot more than so many others
who developed much more ingeniuos software, but so what. Millions of
people benefitted and Gates simply exploited the need.

My whole point in this discussion is....let the "greedy" as you call them,
make any amount of money they want, with the caveat that it is done in an
open and free market and free competition environment. We, the general
public will extract our dues from those individuals in the form of a fair
personal tax rate structure.

Trying to tax the corporation makes it unnecessarily complicated. Do you
realize how many corporate accountants are there trying to fudge the taxes?
How many at the IRS spend millions of man hours every year trying to
decipher the tax returns of General Electric & GM & Exxon? And these
corporations spend tons of money on such things as 3 martini lunches and
other dubious "tax deductible business expenses". I am speaking from
personal experience having spent 23 years in a corporation as a midlevel
manager. All that will be discouraged, if there is no tax to begin with.
And all this money from lack of corporate tax has to go somewhere. It will
either go to pay more to employees or buy more equipment. The additional
pay will be taxed at personal tax rates and the money spent on equipment
always spurs more business activity and more jobs.

[Trillo]

112. Sorry: 'greed as good' for the few = 'pursuit of fear' for the many

Sorry about length, I've found that brevity tends to breed ambiguity.
Thank you for clarifying that you did mean humans.

Greed has been taken to such an extreme in our current times that it appears it's undermined both our democracy and our republic (i.e., election fraud machines and the best government 'money' can buy). Perhaps you do not consider that a serious matter, but I do -- it means that violence will break out at some point in the future. Oh, wait, violence has broken out. We're at war, without a declaration of war. It can get worse, but I hope that it can be stopped before it does.

Insatiable greed seems one root cause that explains why war keeps happening.

Our government seems to think that watching its own citizens under a surveillance microscope is necessary, in spite of an apparent prohibition against such unreasonable activities in the U.S. Constitution. If we are to believe AG Gonzales, our government has been doing this since the beginning of the technology that allowed it. The Pentagon is spying upon peaceful war veterans because 'they want peace', and is putting them on watch lists where violent outcome is reportedly the predicted written creation.

The two ideas, surveillance and future insurrection, are inextricably intertwined. Similarly, Greed and Fear are inextricably related, like two two peas in a pod. When one grows larger, the other also tends to grow. It appears there is also a relationship between the two pairs (think about it, should be obvious).

Our Declaration of Independence is clear that we, citizens, humans, The People, have among other inalienable rights, the right to pursue happiness.

Fear has very little to do with happiness. They may not be precise opposites, but close to it. Greed, if sated, may be closer to happiness, but it's not happiness itself, and whether it can ever be sated is in some question. Conversely, the lack of money for so many versus the extreme excesses of a very few in a country that has raised MONEY to God like status ("In God we Trust", on our currency) states quite clearly that greed as an outlet of happiness for the many is in fact preempted by the few. This seems to be one lesson of the free market.

The corporation and free market enthusiast claims to love competition and the economic system that fosters it, but it appears the corporatist does everything it can possibly do to preempt competition in practice.

I'm ambivalent regarding Bill Gates. Whatever benefits his personal computer software revolution brought, the downsides of excess appear to either outweigh (for the masses) or at least to balance.

I also believe that had he not been the personality at the top of the computer greed pile, it would have been another such as the Macintosh founder or some UNIX devotees, or perhaps Linus (except for the fact he repudiated the 'greed as good' strategy and thereby found a great number of similarly-minded enthusiasts), but the point is that we likely would have had a very similar machine revolution regardless of Bill Gates. His competitors were there in the shadows all along, and those who worked at Microsoft contributed a great deal.

Somehow it seems wrong that he achieved so much more than they did, for they would have taken over had he failed in his 'greed is good' strategy. Did he preempt their success?

Our computers have been openly admitted as spying devices, but Bill Gates certainly can live the "American Dream" reserved for so few. Whatever other benefits have accrued as a result of the PC revolution would seem subservient to those two realities. This means that, to some degree, B Gates' greed satisfaction has transformed 'pursuit of happiness' into the 'pursuit of fear' for the masses.

That's quite a magic trick that only seems to occur for those at the top.

It's also a possibility that Bill Gates would have done the same thing had there been less of a greed motivator. It's possible the value of greed has been overstated for him personally, it's possible he would have created precisely the same thing as a less well paid executive instead of a success formed solely from 'self-interest'. It's possible that since greed as top motivator is such a common rationale in our economic system, it is assumed to be true without actual proof.

I stand by my belief that greed is on balance one of humans' lower motivators, and that as a society, going down the fear greed path leads to the Tower of Destruction. Another way must be found, and loosening the controls on The Corporatist (which includes the government, that's why it's singular, it includes many privatized elements, this latter appears one part of the subversion of our government) has shown itself to be a great big mistake for the masses.

The founding documents of the U.S. intended to create a public government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They DID NOT intend to create such powerful 'personhoods' as privatized corporations that could also act as, or subvert, government.

The SC supreme court decision granting personhood to corporations has been determined by some authors as a court clerk's so-called mistake. Ain't greed wonderful?

>Trying to tax the corporation makes it unnecessarily complicated. Do you
>realize how many corporate accountants are there trying to fudge the taxes?
>How many at the IRS spend millions of man hours every year trying to
>decipher the tax returns of General Electric & GM & Exxon? ...
> All that will be discouraged, if there is no tax to begin with.
>And all this money from lack of corporate tax has to go somewhere. It will
>either go to pay more to employees or buy more equipment.

No, others have responded your last point. Your conclusion here is not born out by the evidence of past performance. It will predominately go to excessive executive pay (which would be taxed at an individual level, if all executive pay, compensation, and benefits were taxable, which I understand they aren't, and which the NST fails to address either), and to other corporations that are shareholders.

> The additional
>pay will be taxed at personal tax rates and the money spent on equipment
>always spurs more business activity and more jobs.

This doesn't capture all the corporations' profit, such as one shareholder corporation profiting as a result of their investment portfolio in another company, so you are calling for taxation of only a small portion of profit, that which is paid back as expense to employees, and which according to the ultra-basic type of accounting I'm slightly familiar with, cash accounting, is already tax deductible.

I do not know GAAT, nor accrual accounting, so I do not wish to pretend that I do. But my short glances at it suggest it is the basic root of the accounting deceptions foisted upon citizens who in their own lives are predominately familiar with cash accounting such as balancing a checkbook: getting paid by their employer, and paying their bills.

Corporations should probably be required to use cash accounting, that system is much simpler, but it has the tendency to reflect reality instead of exaggerated expectations, so it doesn't cater to the greed impulse as strongly, and is therefore unlikely to be considered by the greed-as-good proponents such as yourself because it doesn't have equivalent "wow" factor in press releases that bump up stock sales.

Liars seem to be running nearly everything. Yet we teach our children in school to be honest. How does that prepare them to survive in a world of predators that considers lying inconsequential?

For example, the authoritarian police who seem to routinely lie when their ass is on the line because they either killed some innocent, or nearly did so as they planted a weapon or some drugs, or cleverly created a fiction on the paper record, that persists as deception against the civilian. Many of us have experienced similar situations and the police's lying personally, and most of us have read of those experiences if we are lucky enough for that experience to have passed us by.

Good luck getting an attorney to sue them when it happens, that "civil" protection is typically reserved for the few wealthy elites and the tip of the iceberg that hits the corporate news media because it is exceedingly outrageous. Most of us just try to get on with our lives, whatever is left of them. And trust me, for many of us, there is little happiness left.

Going back to the idea of pursuit of happiness, life, liberty, etc. means as a society that further empowering the top liars with 'greed as good' is precisely the wrong approach, and what your 'greed as good' motivator has brought to the preponderance of us as one people is 'pursuit of fear'. Both fear and greed create the incentive or provide the motive to lie, and the greater the fear or greed gets, the stronger that deceptive motive becomes.

Some of the top private corporations have already reportedly received 'rebates' or 'negative income taxes' in some years. That means there's a de facto tax-free status already created for some corporate 'personhoods', and this has reportedly been in existence for some period of time.

Therefore, the accounting deceptions that you write of can be fixed over the longer term by regulating corporations much more closely, yanking their "corporate personhood", limiting their charters, and requiring them to pay taxes on the benefits they have extracted from the labor of many humans. That may only be a beginning of what is needed.

Yet, you call for tax-free status transcription into official legal code for them as a means of perpetuity. I claim that the tyranny we, the mass of citizens, have now with corporate will not, indeed cannot persist indefinitely.

This is near the end of my debate with you. It's been fun, but our two respective POVs are mutually exclusive. Your side has been winning for quite a long period of time. It is time for a change.

If a major course correction is not implemented, then it is my prediction that most all, if not all of our lives (on a global scale), are soon to be extinguished forever. For clarity, this is not my fear, it is the historical record of our 6K-15K year long experiment with civilization and our human tendency toward warfare, the new twist is that mass murder can now be accomplished on a globally grand scale by nations, and quite quickly if need be. The technological writing is on the wall, so to say.

The writing is also on the wall regarding the inability of our planet to support as many humans as we have now. It is a short period of time that we have left before nature herself decides in Darwinian fashion that the human experiment was a great big mistake by creating an increasingly hostile biosphere, with less food, water, and other natural resources. Humanity has been cannibalistic in the past.

So ... Begin to think of the greater good. That is the only strategy whereby survival might be allowed by our communally lower, instinctive, and animalistic drives and impulses on such an overpopulated planet. Begin to think of creating happiness for the many.

Your 'greed as good' strategy merely creates 'the pursuit of fear' for the masses. Therefore, the greater good IS NOT achieved by the 'greed is good' strategy, and it has made a mockery of our founding documents.

I bid you farewell.

One parting thought. I have never in my personal life objected to paying my taxes owed, however in my debate with you I have used the anti-tax view for humans as a rhetorical construct to illustrate the discrepancy in your views. I just want any readers who may happen across this posting to be made explicitly aware of that in the event it wasn't obvious.

:hi:

[Debs]

77. Its not necessarily true that

Every penny spent by corporations comes out of the pocket of consumers. That would assume that A) companies dont ALREADY price their goods at whatever they can GET. Corporate profits are at an all time high and I dont see them lowering prices. Also it assumes that corporations base their product cost on what it costs to make them instead of what they can get. Since I remember when the Philedephia Phillies simultaneously had the third LOWEST payroll in the NFL and the second highest ticket prices I would say that is assuming EXACTLY what the powerful interests WANT you to assume. By this logic we need to give corporations EVERYTHING we can for the promise of a indirect benefit, lower prices and more money to stockholders, which is questionable, since they could just as easily put it into higher salaries and bonuses for their upper management, and forgo DIRECT benifits of the taxes these corporations ought to pay. It doesnt work for me.

[fuzzyball]

92. Debs, we need to clear up a few points..

First of all, it is the consumers/Phillies ticket holders pay for
what the corporation gets. So why are you saying consumers don't
pay all revenues of the corporation?

Second, the corporation does not "force" you to buy anything. If
you don't like their prices, you have the option of not buying.

Third and the most important point I am trying to make here is that
if the corporation makes huge profits, that profit is being channelled
to some individuals. The large stockholders/owners/CEO's will get huge
amounts of money...and that is exactly how we get them to pay their
share of taxes....in THEIR HIGH PERSONAL INCOME TAX BRACKETS.

Some people here do not seem to fathom the indisputable fact that every
corporation is owned and ruled by individuals. Larger stockholders get
more than the small stockholders. CEO's get more than the bottom rung
workers. When we tax the corporation as a whole, every small fry worker,
joe-6-pack stockholder and every consumer loses due to the corporate tax.

My POV is that by setting up a progressive tax on INDIVIDUALS, we get
a fair share from every individual who will benefit most at the trough of
corporate profits.

[AdHocSolver]

94. Not taxing corporations is no solution.

Before responding to specific points, I have to relate that the state of Wisconsin has sort of tried out this idea of socking it to individuals rather than corporations. Under the several-term governorship of Republican Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin became one of the top states in taxing individual income, and at the same time, one of the lowest corporate tax states. The result was fiscal disaster. Thompson's successor, Republican Scott McCallum (sp?), not only couldn't fix the problems, he made matters even worse. Current governor, Democrat Jim Doyle, newly reelected to a second term, has managed to stave off a fiscal collapse.

Eliminating corporate taxes and passing the cost to individuals, even wealthy ones, won't work. The reason it didn't work in Wisconsin is because Wisconsin has very few billionaires, but a lot of billionaire corporations doing business in the state. Moreover, many of the "owners" - the wealthy shareholders - live in other states. Wisconsin would never see any of that money anyway.

As to the fact that consumers pay more for a product because corporations pay tax, so what? If the corporation pays more for gas to move their products, the consumer pays more. Same goes for higher material costs, higher wages, and higher executive pay. It is a cost of doing business.

As per items a, b, and c on the list, when corporations received huge tax breaks in the 1980's, they did invest in new hiring, new R & D, and new infrastructure - mostly in China and Mexico. In other words, the U.S. tax payer footed the bill for massive outsourcing of jobs.

Finally, the last point "d" is truly astonishing. It says that since stock options and bonuses to executives aren't currently taxed, not taxing corporations will be an incentive to not give them out. My logic would say the opposite, taxing them would be a disincentive.

[fuzzyball]

99. You have a point, for this to work it has to be NATIONAL tax policy

and not limited to individual states.

[rman]

105. your POV is old,

it's called trickle-down aka supply side economics aka Reaganomics.

People now see the results of 30 years of that, and they don't like what they see.

[fuzzyball]

114. You completely mis-understood my POV...

I am for RAISING personal income tax rates.
I am for eliminating corporate taxes.

Every dime of corporate profits ends up in some
individual human being's pocket, as:

a) higher pay to CEO's and others
b) higher dividends paid to individuals and other institutions
c) more investment in infrastructure for the corporation

Every penny lost in corporate taxes will be collected at higher
rates from those individuals who benefit the most from corporate
handouts.

SOme of the dividends are not paid directly to individuals, rather
they are paid to mutual fund companies or other institutional owners.
But from there they eventually end up in some indivduals pocket.

Individual taxes are much easier to scrutinize for the IRS than tax
filed by a corporation. Makes IRS more productive, makes the government
smaller.

[NashVegas]

110. Bullshit - "Voodoo Economics"

Reducing taxes on corps will not result in higher pay for the labor that creates that wealth. Whatever windfalls there are will go straight to the stockholders, boards, and corporate officers.

[fuzzyball]

113. Exactly...and then those stockholders, boards and corporate officers

will be tagged with a higher personal income tax. It is a much
simpler way to tax. Eliminates millions of people working in
corporations how to avoid corporate tax and those working in IRA
trying to decipher those very complicated returns.

Have you ever given thought as to how large is a tax return filed
by General Electric or Exxon-Mobil?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

85. We'll see.

[Pushed To The Left]

95. Sounds good to me!

I found it interesting how well the minimum wage increase ballot measures did in very red states! I think economic populism could be a great way to make the red states go blue!

[NashVegas]

109. If All These Fantastic Jobs Are Moving to Mexico ...

Then why are so many Mexicans moving, illegally, into the US?

Kind of a paradox, ain't it?

[fuzzyball]

115. Higher paying/skilled/good jobs moving to Mehico, unskilled &

uneducated people moving to the US.