4 ms·

How so? Capital flight is a form of class warfare. Controls against it are the majority, workers who don’t own capital, enforcing a social contract against tho

How so? Capital flight is a form of class warfare. Controls against it are the majority, workers who don’t own capital, enforcing a social contract against those who do. Of course, that will only happen in states where workers are in power. In most countries that isn’t the case and, unsurprisingly, there are weak capital flight controls.

prottog 3y ago
Almost every country with significant capital controls are ones you likely wouldn't want to voluntarily move to.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  You’re assuming I own capital. I don’t. Maybe you wouldn’t want to move to a country where the working class is in charge, as opposed to your own class. I don’t dispute that.
  - prottog 3y ago
    I did not make that assumption, with the idea that in countries with free (or freer, at any rate) market-based economies with little to no capital controls, the rising tide lifts all boats, including those of the proletariat without capital, to a standard of living higher than countries with unfree economies and significant capital controls. In fact, in two of the countries that presently have significant capital controls (China and Russia), even your human capital is controlled with internal passports that limit where in your own country you can move to. Of course, I likewise don't dispute that I don't know what your preferences are. My original statement ("you likely wouldn't want to") was intended to be a general statement, not for you in particular as an individual.
    - zozskuh 3y ago
      [dead]
      - prottog 3y ago
        According to your first source, "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth" but it does not lead to economic stagnation or shrinkage either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth" but does not lead to income decrease either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth" but does not lead to wage decrease either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation" but does not lead to job destruction either. That is to say, cutting the top tax rate has no correlation with any of those four items. So if taking more or less taxes from the rich results in no meaningful difference in ordinary American lives, shouldn't the government then default to taking less? The other way would be just wasteful. And if your argument is that no, in fact the additional tax revenue from the rich is helpful because it funds various redistributive social programs, then my counterargument is that what those programs seem to be most effective at is incentivizing creating an unemployable underclass at the taxpayer's expense[0] while enriching politically connected players. [0]: See Thomas Sowell's extensive body of research on the general welfare of black Americans before and after the Great Society programs of the 60s.
        zozskuh 3y ago
        So clearly you don't see the usefulness of government being able to spend money on programs that do make a difference, even going as far as to label it wasteful. I'd argue that letting people keep money that makes no significant difference in their life, other than sitting as a number on a bank account, is wasteful. If people can use money to better society, so can government, difference being government can spend money selflessly. Government spending, in certain cases, can and is wasteful. To claim that all is, is clearly false. I'd be wary of quoting Thomas Sowell, he's basically the guy to victim blame minorities into saying that being poor is their fault.
        prottog 3y ago
        > government can spend money selflessly "Selflessly" insofar as everyone involved has no incentives, internal or external, that direct their behavior one way or another; which is to say, not selflessly at all. The government isn't a machine that takes action for the good of the citizens with no feeling. It's a messy organization composed of people who are all looking out for their salaries, what makes their boss look good or their rivals look bad, whether they win the next election, and maybe sometimes the stated mission of the organization or the good of the citizens. And moreover, it does all that with the might of the law, the monopoly on violence. If it's a similar amount of money for a similar level of outcome, I'd much rather the people use the money to better society and not government, for those reasons. > Thomas Sowell, he's basically the guy to victim blame minorities into saying that being poor is their fault What a demeaning way to describe a human being with an incredible personal story and his life's work. And it's wrong, too: if you simplify into a sentence or two what he says about minorities (and his body of work extends far beyond that), it's that well-meaning government policies often incentivize minorities into entering cycles of poverty, and that minorities should depend on themselves first and foremost and not the government to improve their lot.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I guess I don't see the relevance. Are you saying any tactic or action is fair game in class warfare? Voluntary association and participation of individuals should be a baseline understanding.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  I’m saying that if one class is already engaging in warfare, it’s not unreasonable for the opposed class to attempt to respond. Of course that is only possible with state power, which in most countries is now in the hands of the owners of capitals. That’s their main tool for engaging in class warfare in the first place. Individuals associating voluntarily is a liberal fiction. Such freedom only exists if you are already wealthy. Otherwise you have to work for an owner of capital or starve.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It sounds like we are coming from very different axioms. I don't think being hungry negates voluntary association. Being hungry should not compel another to association any more than being horny should.
    - dontlaugh 3y ago
      Currently, the owners of capital further increase their capital by employing workers. The labour of those workers creates value, a part of which the owner of capital keeps despite having not laboured for it. Violence is used to keep workers from the entirety of the value their labour creates. Is that voluntary association? Seems to me like the owners of capital exploit the labour of workers, because they have the ability to compel it.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        What violence is used to keep workers laboring in their factories? Your position seems to hang on that point. I don't think refusing to intervene and letting someone starve to death is a violent act. To claim otherwise redefines violence as any actor action which does not meet your personal wants.

prottog 3y ago

Almost every country with significant capital controls are ones you likely wouldn't want to voluntarily move to.

dontlaugh 3y ago
You’re assuming I own capital. I don’t. Maybe you wouldn’t want to move to a country where the working class is in charge, as opposed to your own class. I don’t dispute that.
- prottog 3y ago
  I did not make that assumption, with the idea that in countries with free (or freer, at any rate) market-based economies with little to no capital controls, the rising tide lifts all boats, including those of the proletariat without capital, to a standard of living higher than countries with unfree economies and significant capital controls. In fact, in two of the countries that presently have significant capital controls (China and Russia), even your human capital is controlled with internal passports that limit where in your own country you can move to. Of course, I likewise don't dispute that I don't know what your preferences are. My original statement ("you likely wouldn't want to") was intended to be a general statement, not for you in particular as an individual.
  - zozskuh 3y ago
    [dead]
    - prottog 3y ago
      According to your first source, "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth" but it does not lead to economic stagnation or shrinkage either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth" but does not lead to income decrease either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth" but does not lead to wage decrease either; "cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation" but does not lead to job destruction either. That is to say, cutting the top tax rate has no correlation with any of those four items. So if taking more or less taxes from the rich results in no meaningful difference in ordinary American lives, shouldn't the government then default to taking less? The other way would be just wasteful. And if your argument is that no, in fact the additional tax revenue from the rich is helpful because it funds various redistributive social programs, then my counterargument is that what those programs seem to be most effective at is incentivizing creating an unemployable underclass at the taxpayer's expense[0] while enriching politically connected players. [0]: See Thomas Sowell's extensive body of research on the general welfare of black Americans before and after the Great Society programs of the 60s.
      - zozskuh 3y ago
        So clearly you don't see the usefulness of government being able to spend money on programs that do make a difference, even going as far as to label it wasteful. I'd argue that letting people keep money that makes no significant difference in their life, other than sitting as a number on a bank account, is wasteful. If people can use money to better society, so can government, difference being government can spend money selflessly. Government spending, in certain cases, can and is wasteful. To claim that all is, is clearly false. I'd be wary of quoting Thomas Sowell, he's basically the guy to victim blame minorities into saying that being poor is their fault.
        prottog 3y ago
        > government can spend money selflessly "Selflessly" insofar as everyone involved has no incentives, internal or external, that direct their behavior one way or another; which is to say, not selflessly at all. The government isn't a machine that takes action for the good of the citizens with no feeling. It's a messy organization composed of people who are all looking out for their salaries, what makes their boss look good or their rivals look bad, whether they win the next election, and maybe sometimes the stated mission of the organization or the good of the citizens. And moreover, it does all that with the might of the law, the monopoly on violence. If it's a similar amount of money for a similar level of outcome, I'd much rather the people use the money to better society and not government, for those reasons. > Thomas Sowell, he's basically the guy to victim blame minorities into saying that being poor is their fault What a demeaning way to describe a human being with an incredible personal story and his life's work. And it's wrong, too: if you simplify into a sentence or two what he says about minorities (and his body of work extends far beyond that), it's that well-meaning government policies often incentivize minorities into entering cycles of poverty, and that minorities should depend on themselves first and foremost and not the government to improve their lot.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I guess I don't see the relevance. Are you saying any tactic or action is fair game in class warfare? Voluntary association and participation of individuals should be a baseline understanding.

dontlaugh 3y ago
I’m saying that if one class is already engaging in warfare, it’s not unreasonable for the opposed class to attempt to respond. Of course that is only possible with state power, which in most countries is now in the hands of the owners of capitals. That’s their main tool for engaging in class warfare in the first place. Individuals associating voluntarily is a liberal fiction. Such freedom only exists if you are already wealthy. Otherwise you have to work for an owner of capital or starve.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  It sounds like we are coming from very different axioms. I don't think being hungry negates voluntary association. Being hungry should not compel another to association any more than being horny should.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    Currently, the owners of capital further increase their capital by employing workers. The labour of those workers creates value, a part of which the owner of capital keeps despite having not laboured for it. Violence is used to keep workers from the entirety of the value their labour creates. Is that voluntary association? Seems to me like the owners of capital exploit the labour of workers, because they have the ability to compel it.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      What violence is used to keep workers laboring in their factories? Your position seems to hang on that point. I don't think refusing to intervene and letting someone starve to death is a violent act. To claim otherwise redefines violence as any actor action which does not meet your personal wants.