3 ms·

What, are you some kind of socialist that doesn't believe in the free market?

by isolate 11y ago

jacobolus 11y ago
Exactly right. :) More concretely, I think the market mechanism has its place, but I think states need a diversity of economic power & political representation, a reasonable level of wealth/income equality (far more than the current USA at any rate), enough enforced transparency to catch fraud and corruption, and widespread civic engagement at every level from neighborhoods on up, so that political discourse stays informed and productive and the interests of the few aren’t able to trample on the basic rights and needs of the many. State supported markets and money and property rights are tools, not ends in themselves. Their purpose is to efficiently allocate resources and encourage innovations, so that the economy continues to produce the infrastructure and goods we need to support human flourishing, not to build feudal empires for wannabe aristocrats. At the point they stop serving their proper purpose, they should be guided back by additional institutional structure.
- isolate 11y ago
  Sounds reasonable, how much tax do I have to pay?
  - ricksplat 11y ago
    I dunno, how much tax did you have to pay to bail out AIG & the motor industry? Start there, and work your way down.
    - cheald 11y ago
      TARP made money for the Treasury (and thus the taxpayers) - $441b in for $426b out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
      - ricksplat 11y ago
        Maybe it did, but it's still state aid to business. It bailed out otherwise nonviable businesses at your expense, while simultaneously devaluing your currency (any profit therefore notional and even then poor value when compared to the bond markets). The benefits as presented are little more than a smokescreen, and the story is not played out yet.
        cheald 11y ago
        Sure, it was state aid to business, but it wasn't free money - the treasury received assets and equity in return for the purchase, which it turned a profit on. If you're going to put the cost of TARP up as a case for tax-and-redistribution schemes, you can't neglect to account for the returns. There was no currency printed for TARP (the Treasury can't print money; that's the Federal Reserve's domain) - it was financed via the sale of T-notes/bills/bonds. The government issued debt to raise the TARP money, and the rate of return on the assets purchased with that debt has exceeded the yield on Treasury securities, resulting in a net real profit. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-20/bailout-of-wall-street-returns-8-2-profit-to-taxpayers-beating-treasuries http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-20/bailout-of...

What, are you some kind of socialist that doesn't believe in the free market?

by isolate 11y ago

What, are you some kind of socialist that doesn't believe in the free market?

Exactly right. :) More concretely, I think the market mechanism has its place, but I think states need a diversity of economic power & political representation, a reasonable level of wealth/income equality (far more than the current USA at any rate), enough enforced transparency to catch fraud and corruption, and widespread civic engagement at every level from neighborhoods on up, so that political discourse stays informed and productive and the interests of the few aren’t able to trample on the basic rights and needs of the many. State supported markets and money and property rights are tools, not ends in themselves. Their purpose is to efficiently allocate resources and encourage innovations, so that the economy continues to produce the infrastructure and goods we need to support human flourishing, not to build feudal empires for wannabe aristocrats. At the point they stop serving their proper purpose, they should be guided back by additional institutional structure.

isolate 11y ago
Sounds reasonable, how much tax do I have to pay?
- ricksplat 11y ago
  I dunno, how much tax did you have to pay to bail out AIG & the motor industry? Start there, and work your way down.
  - cheald 11y ago
    TARP made money for the Treasury (and thus the taxpayers) - $441b in for $426b out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
    - ricksplat 11y ago
      Maybe it did, but it's still state aid to business. It bailed out otherwise nonviable businesses at your expense, while simultaneously devaluing your currency (any profit therefore notional and even then poor value when compared to the bond markets). The benefits as presented are little more than a smokescreen, and the story is not played out yet.
      - cheald 11y ago
        Sure, it was state aid to business, but it wasn't free money - the treasury received assets and equity in return for the purchase, which it turned a profit on. If you're going to put the cost of TARP up as a case for tax-and-redistribution schemes, you can't neglect to account for the returns. There was no currency printed for TARP (the Treasury can't print money; that's the Federal Reserve's domain) - it was financed via the sale of T-notes/bills/bonds. The government issued debt to raise the TARP money, and the rate of return on the assets purchased with that debt has exceeded the yield on Treasury securities, resulting in a net real profit. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-20/bailout-of-wall-street-returns-8-2-profit-to-taxpayers-beating-treasuries http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-20/bailout-of...