PDA

View Full Version : 0bama: If You've Got a Business, You Didn't Build That ...



Janice
07-16-2012, 09:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8XhQfvpW8

0bama: 'If You've Got a Business, You Didn't Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen'

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama, borrowing a line of thought from liberal Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren, says "wealthy, successful Americans" owe their success to others.

"If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen," Obama said Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia.

His comments echo those made last year by Warren, who is challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) for his U.S. Senate seat.

Warren told supporters last September, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

"You built a factory out there -- good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. Your hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

"You didnít have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great ideaóGod bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

CNSNews (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-build-somebody-else-made-happen)

------------------------------

0bama probably thinks $5 trillion in new debt helps businesses. Ok, open wide Barry.... thats it. Now, lets see if we can get that foot in there again ...

Hubie
07-16-2012, 10:13 AM
"maurauding bands"??? Does he think we live in the 13th Century's Mongol Empire?

"But part of the underlying social contract"

Everyone who throws around the word "social" like that betrays their true beliefs.

Janice
07-16-2012, 11:15 AM
http://i.imgur.com/paxT9.jpg

ABC in Georgia
07-16-2012, 02:11 PM
Ooh! This infuriates me to no end!

This is pure bovine excrement! (need a "looking daggers" smiley here.)

Just got home from being away, and wasn't going to log in yet ... but must.


Dear POS bastard Obama, let me give you an earful.

My son and his wife, starting from the ground up, with the money my husband and I lent him to get started about 20 years ago, with *only* him and his wife working their buns off together to begin with, have a very successful small business that now provides jobs for 11 other people.

Don't tell me, that they didn't build that on their own!!! They didn't take a salary other than enough to live on, didn't take vacations of any kind, splurged on nothing ... poured every cent they made back into the business.

Today, they are quite comfortably off thanks to their *own* hard work and the fact that they had the "smarts" to go into a business that caters to high end clients.

None of this is thanks to any of the garbage that came out of your lying mouth!

No! It was thanks to their good old American ingenuity, hard work, and the chance to prosper under a "free enterprise" economic system.

The very thing you have no respect for and are bent on destroying in this country!

If curious btw ... to see just what business our son and his wife started and a pic of the 2 of them, it is here: http://www.h-t-d.com/about_us.php

(SR ... the above link is in NO WAY to solicit business for him, he is afterall in the Dallas area and I don't think anyone in CU is from anywhere near there. Will however take it off if I have broken any rules in here!)

~ ABC

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2012, 03:32 PM
Even the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism and capitalism recognized this basic fact. Read my signature quote.

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2012, 03:34 PM
No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

There is absolutely nothing radical about this.

Bailey
07-16-2012, 04:05 PM
No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

There is absolutely nothing radical about this.

HEY DIPSHIT, THEY PAY TAXES FOR ALL THOSE SERVICES ALREADY THEY DONT NEED TO PAY MORE OR GIVE A CHUNK OF THEIR BUSINESSES TO WORTHLESS LAYABOUTS. You and your boy obama make it sound like if not for the govt they wouldn't be able to get their idea off the ground WRONG.

Bailey
07-16-2012, 04:10 PM
Even the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism and capitalism recognized this basic fact. Read my signature quote.

Read between the lines dummy, he is just laying the ground work for more taxes more govt and more socialism. Any 10 year old knows without roads,police/firemen etc there would be no society, so why is he saying all this now?

FlaGator
07-16-2012, 04:14 PM
No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

There is absolutely nothing radical about this.

And if God hadn't created the heavens and earth...

Bailey
07-16-2012, 04:29 PM
This sums up obama and his worthless party


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/16/barack_obama_hates_this_country

Janice
07-16-2012, 04:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/di6cS.jpg


HEY DIPSHIT, THEY PAY TAXES FOR ALL THOSE SERVICES ALREADY THEY DONT NEED TO PAY MORE OR GIVE A CHUNK OF THEIR BUSINESSES TO WORTHLESS LAYABOUTS. You and your boy obama make it sound like if not for the govt they wouldn't be able to get their idea off the ground WRONG.

Yes. I mean, just where do they suppose govt got the money for all these things? Also, I own a small business and all things being equal, I can unequivocally say I got ahead in-spite of my teachers, not because of them.

Or perhaps Adolf Maobama thinks some business fairy built everything and some white guy just found it laying on the ground. 'Oh look dude. A box of business, letís take it.'

Bailey
07-16-2012, 06:10 PM
What the magic negro doesn't understand is that it isn't the govt that made the business possible, its the business that made the govt possible i.e. Tax money


Its just another bullshit attempt to instill the notion of socialism plain and simple...

JB
07-16-2012, 07:49 PM
meh. Just more of the same from this Communist butthole.

He doesn't think America is exceptional, she has never been proud of her country and they both hung out with radicals that wish to destroy the country. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!

Odysseus
07-16-2012, 08:12 PM
Even the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism and capitalism recognized this basic fact. Read my signature quote.


No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

There is absolutely nothing radical about this.

No, stupidity and ignorance is no longer radical, but mainstream, at least on the left. But it is insanely stupid and ignorant, not to mention a complete misstatement of classical liberal capitalism (aside from a few spot quotes, have you actually read Adam Smith?). It's almost impossible to know where to begin to refute such overarching imbecility, but I must make the attempt.

Let us begin with the most basic understanding of economics, which is that wealth must be created. Agricultural products must be grown, mechanical products must be made. Government cannot do this, because it lacks the capacity to create wealth. Without the private sector, there would be no public sector to provide the services that you cite. Successful economic activities are a precondition for government, not the other way around. For example, look at the earliest colonies in British North America, which had to organize industry before they had the means to fund government beyond the most basic functions of self-defense and conflict resolution. Government cannot exist without surplus goods to consume, otherwise its cost bankrupts its constituents. This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy. The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs. Finally, the supporting infrastructure that you cite, such as the internet, began with private economic activities. The first computers weren't government constructs, and the network systems that the government produced to allow them to communicate would not have advanced to its current structure without massive private sector investment and innovation. Google, Netscape, Microsoft... Each of them took the embryonic technology and expanded it exponentially. The federal highway program followed the better part of a century of automotive innovation. The current structure of federal aviation came after decades of private aviators did everything to make it viable.

You keep pretending that government can mandate prosperity, but it cannot. Like Obama, you believe in a Marxist fantasy construct, the figment of the imagination of an embittered, angry man whose life was spent evading creditors and railing against the injustice of having to earn a living. Get over it.

Hubie
07-16-2012, 08:56 PM
Without starting capital from the owner, nobody's building anything, so Obama can go soak his head.

ABC in Georgia
07-16-2012, 09:29 PM
Ody ...

Am too pooped out to stay, but just had to come back in and highlight what you wrote to our very own lefty prof, Wei. (at least I think that is what he is, anyway!)

I doubt that he will pay much attention to it, but "hope springs eternal." Ha! ha!




>snip<

This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy. The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs.

You keep pretending that government can mandate prosperity, but it cannot.

>snip< Get over it.

~ ABC

Odysseus
07-16-2012, 09:41 PM
Ody ...

Am too pooped out to stay, but just had to come back in and highlight what you wrote to our very own lefty prof, Wei. (at least I think that is what he is, anyway!)

I doubt that he will pay much attention to it, but "hope springs eternal." Ha! ha!



~ ABC

Oh, I have no doubt that he will abandon the thread, now that his argument has been demolished, but that's how Marxists are. They flit from failure to failure, whether it's a series of totalitarian cesspools, or a string of ill-thought out posts, never right, but seldom in doubt.

Chuck58
07-16-2012, 10:07 PM
The Romney people ought to take that speech and run with it. obama just outed himself. He's a statist, along with every other negative ideology he has.

If they don't use it against him, they're blowing a golden opportunity.

AmPat
07-17-2012, 01:14 AM
No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

This is entirely obvious and a throwback to the basic ideas of classical liberal capitalism from hundreds of years ago.

There is absolutely nothing radical about this.You have it backwards Commie. The infrastructure was expanded DUE TO increased commerce. That commerce lead to wealth which paid for the infrastructure. You and your filthy kind need to stop with this crap. Only you and your empty headed leftist drones are susceptible to it. As for the rules etc, blather, blah, blah. Excessive regulation is the number one problem for business now. We could not build a Hoover dam or Golden Gate bridge today because of excess liberal boondoggle.

Wei Wu Wei
07-17-2012, 04:57 AM
Let us begin with the most basic understanding of economics, which is that wealth must be created. Agricultural products must be grown, mechanical products must be made. Government cannot do this, because it lacks the capacity to create wealth.

That's not entirely true. It's just a blanket statement. Governments can and have engaged in productive projects.

However, let's just go with this assumption for the sake of argument.



Without the private sector, there would be no public sector to provide the services that you cite. Successful economic activities are a precondition for government, not the other way around.

For example, look at the earliest colonies in British North America, which had to organize industry before they had the means to fund government beyond the most basic functions of self-defense and conflict resolution. Government cannot exist without surplus goods to consume, otherwise its cost bankrupts its constituents.

It's not one or the other. This is immature binary thinking.

The private sector and the government are co-dependant. It's not about which creates the other. In our society, neither the private sector nor the government can exist and function without the other.


This leads to my second point, which is that you are citing legitimate functions of government in terms of transparent courts and law enforcement, but the federal leviathan spends very little on these functions. It spends a tremendous amount of money on wealth transfers, which actually undermine economic activity, regulation of activities that are none of its business, and attempts to take over productive sectors of the economy.

You say "wealth transfers" undermine economic activity. Where is your evidence? Not just some right-wing rhetoric article, but data.


The more that it involves itself in these areas, the less effective it is at doing its legitimate functions, and the less effective the economic sectors that it usurps are at doing theirs. Finally, the supporting infrastructure that you cite, such as the internet, began with private economic activities. The first computers weren't government constructs, and the network systems that the government produced to allow them to communicate would not have advanced to its current structure without massive private sector investment and innovation. Google, Netscape, Microsoft... Each of them took the embryonic technology and expanded it exponentially. The federal highway program followed the better part of a century of automotive innovation. The current structure of federal aviation came after decades of private aviators did everything to make it viable.

You're saying these government projects could not have been as successful as they are without the innovations from the private sector. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying it works both ways. Private sector innovations and business success are also not possible without the government projects.

Just like the internet wouldn't be what it is today without companies like microsoft and google, companies like microsoft and google wouldn't be what they are today without the government research that led to the internet infrastructure.

Bailey
07-17-2012, 05:17 AM
That's not entirely true. It's just a blanket statement. Governments can and have engaged in productive projects.

However, let's just go with this assumption for the sake of argument.




It's not one or the other. This is immature binary thinking.

The private sector and the government are co-dependant. It's not about which creates the other. In our society, neither the private sector nor the government can exist and function without the other.



You say "wealth transfers" undermine economic activity. Where is your evidence? Not just some right-wing rhetoric article, but data.



You're saying these government projects could not have been as successful as they are without the innovations from the private sector. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying it works both ways. Private sector innovations and business success are also not possible without the government projects.

Just like the internet wouldn't be what it is today without companies like microsoft and google, companies like microsoft and google wouldn't be what they are today without the government research that led to the internet infrastructure.

Wow, you are a Teacher? I feel sorry for your students and their parents who dish out money to pay your salary.

Wei Wu Wei
07-17-2012, 05:29 AM
Wow, you are a Teacher? I feel sorry for your students and their parents who dish out money to pay your salary.

Compelling argument. I'll respond in full once I go through all the data you provided.

Bailey
07-17-2012, 06:09 AM
Compelling argument. I'll respond in full once I go through all the data you provided.

I wasn't making an argument, more of a strong statement of fact by reviewing your posts.

Gina
07-17-2012, 12:14 PM
Skipping happily along ignoring 3wees. :biggrin-new:

AmPat
07-17-2012, 01:03 PM
OBAMA: Somebody else made that happen. At what point does that "somebody" get to claim they are the ones that made it??????:rolleyes:

Bailey
07-17-2012, 01:15 PM
At what point does that "somebody" get to claim they are the ones that made it??????:rolleyes:

I cant believe the balls on this guy, its just another step in creeping socialism. We should be able to run a turnip against obama and still win.

ABC in Georgia
07-17-2012, 02:23 PM
Skipping happily along ignoring 3wees. :biggrin-new:

Hi Gina ...

Ignoring three "wees" was a good move on your part.

If his user ID "Wei Wu Wei" is of any significance to him ... we are being treated to rantings based on the delusional mind of one Terence James Stannus Gray.

Better known by the pen name Wei Wu Wei, an Irish-born 20th. century Taoist philosopher and twit ... er ... writer.

A small sampling of his many "writings" for you to see and enjoy: ... :evil-grin:


“Pack your bags, ... Go to the station without them, ... Catch the train, ,,, And leave your self behind.”

“Why are you unhappy? because 99.9 percent of everything you do is for yourself—and there isn’t one.”

“Will is an imaginary function of an imaginary entity.”

'Nuff said!

~ ABC

Ps ... Heaven help his students if he is passing along any of this twaddle to them!

AmPat
07-17-2012, 02:31 PM
I cant believe the balls on this guy, its just another step in creeping socialism. We should be able to run a turnip against obama and still win.
23% of the voting public is hopelessly liberal against all logic and reason.
Another 25% are completely stupid or shamefully ignorant of politics and civics. These make up the majority that vote for the Anti-American party, aka, DIMoRAT Party.

Voting GOP means one must have and exercise logic and reason, have a working knowledge of civics and economics, and a love of country based upon real history and unbiased observation of results. That means effort, something DIM voters shun.

Janice
07-17-2012, 03:56 PM
... We should be able to run a turnip against obama and still win.

True. But we have Romney instead who seems to be running a campaign in a style reminiscent of the one McCain ran. No wonder I suppose with all the McCain and Bush advisers hes using. Hopefully things will change but atm all Romney’s campaign can seem to muster are responses to 0bama’s fraudulent attacks. 0bama attacks, and Romney responds after the damage is done. That’s all Romney’s got. He is unable to get in front of the message and drive the debate. His strategy and delivery are weak and he is not setting the context of political discourse. 0bama is blathering, Romney is responding, and the cycle continues. Romney is unable or unwilling to break out of this downward spiral and set the tone and topics of discussion.

As Chuck58 stated in another thread and I agree:


I went down the list, starting with Bachmann, to Cain, to Perry, to Newt and they all flopped.

I knew and mentioned here, as did others, that we were being force fed Romney. I didn't and don't think he's the best out there, but he's what we've got and I will vote for him because the alternative is 4 more years of the Fraud in Chief and I think 4 more years of him will finish this country, no matter if we hold the house and pick up the senate.

Im voting Romney no matter what. And encouraging as many others to do the same that I can. But Romney needs new campaign leadership and a new campaign strategy. 0bama is a sitting duck crying to be defeated, but Romney is not capitalizing. Romney is not acting tough enough to take the fight to Obama, and seems to be living in a fantasy world of political civility. Romney needs to get tough, reset the political discourse on the issues that matter. Lead on these issues with a convincing narrative about how he will be different and more effective than 0bama. Make 0bama look small and unworthy of the Presidency. Otherwise, he can start writing the concession speech.

Imagine if Maobama actually faced some real push back. That would be something to see.

I have an idea. Lets start calling 0bama... Gingrich or Santorum. That oughtta get Romney riled up enough to get out the long knives. :cool:

Odysseus
07-17-2012, 05:03 PM
That's not entirely true. It's just a blanket statement. Governments can and have engaged in productive projects.

However, let's just go with this assumption for the sake of argument.

No, you can feel free to rebut it. In fact, I insist on it. I didn't say that government couldn't be involved in productive projects, I said that it cannot create wealth. There is a difference. Government has no money, unless it extracts in in the form of taxes. In order to do that, someone must have created goods or services that create enough of a surplus to survive taxation. Even if something that the government builds does generate economic activity, the initial cost must have come from the private sector. However, you seem to disagree, so let's have an example of government creating wealth.


It's not one or the other. This is immature binary thinking.
This isn't an argument, but a dismissal of an argument without evidence to the contrary.


The private sector and the government are co-dependant. It's not about which creates the other. In our society, neither the private sector nor the government can exist and function without the other.

I never said that they could. However, you keep acting as if I have. Go back and reread my comment. What I said is that before you can have a public sector, you must have a viable private sector. The purpose of the public sector is to protect the private sector, not to control or regulate it.


You say "wealth transfers" undermine economic activity. Where is your evidence? Not just some right-wing rhetoric article, but data.

Quite a few caveats there. Since any source that disagrees with you would be, by definition, rightwing, it raises the bar significantly. However, even with a higher bar, facts are stubborn things. Let's look at one of the most basic income transfers, rent control. Under rent control, the state mandates that the landlord provide goods and services for an artificially lowered price, thus transferring wealth from the landlord to the tenant. Every study on the subject demonstrates, not just a corelation, but a causal relationship between the transfer of wealth from landlord to tenant, and the decline in the volume and quality of rental housing in the market. For example, this study, http://www.gis.net/~spoa/pages/rcstudy/RC_Introduction.pdf. shows how rent control stifles new construction of rental properties and perpetuates habitation in existing ones, thus suppressing the economic activities associated with housing, such as construction, renovation and turnover of apartments. Rent controlled municipalities report higher average rents and lower vacancy rates, each of which is an indicator of suppressed market responses to price changes. This, of course, is not going to convince you, but you asked for it.


You're saying these government projects could not have been as successful as they are without the innovations from the private sector. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying it works both ways. Private sector innovations and business success are also not possible without the government projects.

No, I'm saying that those government projects couldn't have existed at all without the innovations of the private sector. The internet was an outgrowth of the computer, which was entirely driven by private sector requirements. The national road network wouldn't have existed without automobiles, which were entirely produced by private efforts. The construction of airports started out as a private enterprise, but was taken over by municipalities as they saw the opportunities for revenues. Even the mass transit systems of most major cities started out as private bus lines.


Just like the internet wouldn't be what it is today without companies like microsoft and google, companies like microsoft and google wouldn't be what they are today without the government research that led to the internet infrastructure.

But before the internet, there was IBM, Intel, Hewlett Packard... The internet wouldn't have existed without them. Obama's argument is that the entrepreneurs who came up with the idea for an operating system (Microsoft) and personal computer (Apple) or a processor (Intel) owed their success to the state, which is utter BS. The state owes its existence to the entrepreneurs whose willingness to risk their lives and fortunes preceded the state's interest in their activities.

Bailey
07-17-2012, 05:18 PM
No, you can feel free to rebut it. In fact, I insist on it. I didn't say that government couldn't be involved in productive projects, I said that it cannot create wealth. There is a difference. Government has no money, unless it extracts in in the form of taxes. In order to do that, someone must have created goods or services that create enough of a surplus to survive taxation. Even if something that the government builds does generate economic activity, the initial cost must have come from the private sector. However, you seem to disagree, so let's have an example of government creating wealth.


This isn't an argument, but a dismissal of an argument without evidence to the contrary.



I never said that they could. However, you keep acting as if I have. Go back and reread my comment. What I said is that before you can have a public sector, you must have a viable private sector. The purpose of the public sector is to protect the private sector, not to control or regulate it.



Quite a few caveats there. Since any source that disagrees with you would be, by definition, rightwing, it raises the bar significantly. However, even with a higher bar, facts are stubborn things. Let's look at one of the most basic income transfers, rent control. Under rent control, the state mandates that the landlord provide goods and services for an artificially lowered price, thus transferring wealth from the landlord to the tenant. Every study on the subject demonstrates, not just a corelation, but a causal relationship between the transfer of wealth from landlord to tenant, and the decline in the volume and quality of rental housing in the market. For example, this study, http://www.gis.net/~spoa/pages/rcstudy/RC_Introduction.pdf. shows how rent control stifles new construction of rental properties and perpetuates habitation in existing ones, thus suppressing the economic activities associated with housing, such as construction, renovation and turnover of apartments. Rent controlled municipalities report higher average rents and lower vacancy rates, each of which is an indicator of suppressed market responses to price changes. This, of course, is not going to convince you, but you asked for it.



No, I'm saying that those government projects couldn't have existed at all without the innovations of the private sector. The internet was an outgrowth of the computer, which was entirely driven by private sector requirements. The national road network wouldn't have existed without automobiles, which were entirely produced by private efforts. The construction of airports started out as a private enterprise, but was taken over by municipalities as they saw the opportunities for revenues. Even the mass transit systems of most major cities started out as private bus lines.



But before the internet, there was IBM, Intel, Hewlett Packard... The internet wouldn't have existed without them. Obama's argument is that the entrepreneurs who came up with the idea for an operating system (Microsoft) and personal computer (Apple) or a processor (Intel) owed their success to the state, which is utter BS. The state owes its existence to the entrepreneurs whose willingness to risk their lives and fortunes preceded the state's interest in their activities.


Why do you bother? he will just throw some Marxist tripe at you and vanish.

AmPat
07-17-2012, 05:29 PM
Why do you bother? he will just throw some Marxist tripe at you and vanish.
I believe he is baiting ODY into his classroom preparation. He's too stupid to reason on his own.

Wei Wu Wei
07-17-2012, 06:51 PM
No, you can feel free to rebut it. In fact, I insist on it. I didn't say that government couldn't be involved in productive projects, I said that it cannot create wealth. There is a difference. Government has no money, unless it extracts in in the form of taxes. In order to do that, someone must have created goods or services that create enough of a surplus to survive taxation. Even if something that the government builds does generate economic activity, the initial cost must have come from the private sector. However, you seem to disagree, so let's have an example of government creating wealth.

You're saying a government project that generates economic activity doesn't count because the cost came from somewhere else?

It always comes from somewhere else, in every and all cases. Unless a person can shit gold, all of the money they use to start a business is transferred money. It comes from somewhere else.

Explain something to me, where does wealth come from? You make a distinction between transferring wealth, and creating wealth. So when and how does wealth get created? In the process of exchange, money is moved back and forth in exchange for goods. Sometimes different amounts of money is traded for different goods. This is all wealth transfer. Where does wealth arise where there was none before?





This isn't an argument, but a dismissal of an argument without evidence to the contrary.



I never said that they could. However, you keep acting as if I have. Go back and reread my comment. What I said is that before you can have a public sector, you must have a viable private sector. The purpose of the public sector is to protect the private sector, not to control or regulate it.

You are suggesting that the relationship between business and government only goes one way. That's not true, they are co-dependent.

To have a viable private sector, you need a public sector as well. Without a system of universal education, business owners wouldn't have a basically educated workforce. Without sewage systems, city centers where commerce thrives would not be possible. Without postal services, roads, and bridges, large companies are impossible. Automobile companies couldn't exist without roads. All companies that use the internet couldn't function without the government research. Countless commercial products use innovations developed from NASA. The list goes on and on, and none of these are police or military functions (although, NASA and internet did have military implications)




Quite a few caveats there. Since any source that disagrees with you would be, by definition, rightwing, it raises the bar significantly. However, even with a higher bar, facts are stubborn things. Let's look at one of the most basic income transfers, rent control. Under rent control, the state mandates that the landlord provide goods and services for an artificially lowered price, thus transferring wealth from the landlord to the tenant. Every study on the subject demonstrates, not just a corelation, but a causal relationship between the transfer of wealth from landlord to tenant, and the decline in the volume and quality of rental housing in the market. For example, this study, http://www.gis.net/~spoa/pages/rcstudy/RC_Introduction.pdf. shows how rent control stifles new construction of rental properties and perpetuates habitation in existing ones, thus suppressing the economic activities associated with housing, such as construction, renovation and turnover of apartments. Rent controlled municipalities report higher average rents and lower vacancy rates, each of which is an indicator of suppressed market responses to price changes. This, of course, is not going to convince you, but you asked for it.

You are calling rent control a transfer of wealth. How is that a transfer of wealth? Wealth is owned. What does a tenant come to own through rent control that they did not own before?






No, I'm saying that those government projects couldn't have existed at all without the innovations of the private sector.

and I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying the private and public spheres are co-dependent.


The internet was an outgrowth of the computer, which was entirely driven by private sector requirements. The national road network wouldn't have existed without automobiles, which were entirely produced by private efforts. The construction of airports started out as a private enterprise, but was taken over by municipalities as they saw the opportunities for revenues. Even the mass transit systems of most major cities started out as private bus lines.

Again...co-dependent.




But before the internet, there was IBM, Intel, Hewlett Packard... The internet wouldn't have existed without them. Obama's argument is that the entrepreneurs who came up with the idea for an operating system (Microsoft) and personal computer (Apple) or a processor (Intel) owed their success to the state, which is utter BS. The state owes its existence to the entrepreneurs whose willingness to risk their lives and fortunes preceded the state's interest in their activities.

Obama didn't say they "owe their success to the state". He said they did not do it alone, that their success was possible because of the state. In a system where the private and public spheres are co-dependent, this is an entirely true statement.

His argument seems more similar to that of Adam Smith. Government projects including infrastructure are necessary for commerce and the growth of business. Taxation is necessary to support this government. People should pay taxes to support the government and they should pay in proportion to how much money they are able to make within the system that the government supports.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." - Adam Smith

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith

Gina
07-17-2012, 07:49 PM
Hi Gina ...

Ignoring three "wees" was a good move on your part.

If his user ID "Wei Wu Wei" is of any significance to him ... we are being treated to rantings based on the delusional mind of one Terence James Stannus Gray.

Better known by the pen name Wei Wu Wei, an Irish-born 20th. century Taoist philosopher and twit ... er ... writer.

A small sampling of his many "writings" for you to see and enjoy: ... :evil-grin:



'Nuff said!

~ ABC

Ps ... Heaven help his students if he is passing along any of this twaddle to them!

Thanks! And hello (my computer is having a bad hair week. I think it's ok but if I disappear for a little while that's why! :biggrin-new:


There is a difference. Government has no money, unless it extracts in in the form of taxes.

I can't believe an adult has to be told this. Anyone who puts Government on par with a corporation is not only misinformed but doomed to be laughed at in public.

Janice
07-17-2012, 10:21 PM
... To have a viable private sector, you need a public sector as well. Without a system of universal education, business owners wouldn't have a basically educated workforce. Without sewage systems, city centers where commerce thrives would not be possible. Without postal services, roads, and bridges, large companies are impossible. Automobile companies couldn't exist without roads. All companies that use the internet couldn't function without the government research. Countless commercial products use innovations developed from NASA...


So where do you suppose govt (public sector) got the funding for anything that they do ... or have done? Anything....?? Is there a 'wealth fairy' or some kind of money tree the govt grows in the back yard of the White House? And if we paid for all these services and the infrastructure how many times are we supposed to do obeisance ... as if we still owe something?

When you go to a store and purchase something are you indebted to that store for the rest of your life? For using YOUR hard earned money to engage in commerce? Somehow your indebted to that store? Really??

Wei Wu Wei
07-17-2012, 10:52 PM
So where do you suppose govt (public sector) got the funding for anything that they do ... or have done? Anything....?? Is there a 'wealth fairy' or some kind of money tree the govt grows in the back yard of the White House?

Wow way to repeat the same argument that has been made a few hundred thousand times since yesterday.

The government gets funding to operate through taxation. The vast majority of this taxation comes from the private sector. Therefore the government depends on the private sector to operate. I have never denied this. No one has ever denied this.

The point is that the public and private sectors are mutually dependent on each other. The private sector relies on the government and the system the government keeps in place to operate, and the government relies on the private sector to fund all of these activities.


They are co-dependent. They are co-dependent. I'm not saying it's entirely one-sided. I'm not saying it's entirely one-sided. They are co-dependent. The private sphere and the public sphere both rely on each other to function. They are co-dependent. They are co-dependent. Neither works without the other. No government worker or government institution can function without tax money from the private sector, no business can become successful without innovations, institutions, and infrastructure provided by the government. It goes both ways. They are co-dependent.



And if we paid for all these services and the infrastructure how many times are we supposed to do obeisance ... as if we still owe something?

These services require continued funding. New roads must be built as cities expand, old roads and bridges must be maintained, police and firefighters and teachers must be paid, etc. etc. etc.


When you go to a store and purchase something are you indebted to that store for the rest of your life? For using YOUR hard earned money to engage in commerce? Somehow your indebted to that store? Really??

If it's a continued service, then yes. I pay for my cable service and I must keep paying for it because they keep providing the service. Companies continuously use roads, rely on police, hire educated workers, have access to emergency services, and so on.

AmPat
07-18-2012, 12:05 AM
There goes Weitard again, blaming people for using logic as a defense and claiming that same logic is discredited because it has been used too many times. :rolleyes:

That probably works for your stupid students, it doesn't work on thinking adults. Now go back to your hive and dig up some new material.

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2012, 01:10 AM
There goes Weitard again, blaming people for using logic as a defense and claiming that same logic is discredited because it has been used too many times. :rolleyes:

That probably works for your stupid students, it doesn't work on thinking adults. Now go back to your hive and dig up some new material.

That "logic" isn't discredited because it's been used too many times. It's discredited because it's a strawman. No one (except the conservatives here) are suggestion the relationship between the private and public sector is a one-sided purely dependent relationship.




Please, master of logic, explain this to me:

A) The private sphere and the government are co-dependent, because the private sphere relies the innovations, institutions, infrastructure, and protection of the government to grow, and because the government relies on taxing the private sphere to fund all of those functions. Neither the public nor private sphere can function without the other.


B) The government needs to tax the private sphere to function.

How does statement B refute statement A?

Janice
07-18-2012, 06:10 AM
Amazing. How do you not get it? Is it hereditary? What??

Bailey
07-18-2012, 07:22 AM
That "logic" isn't discredited because it's been used too many times. It's discredited because it's a strawman. No one (except the conservatives here) are suggestion the relationship between the private and public sector is a one-sided purely dependent relationship.




Please, master of logic, explain this to me:

A) The private sphere and the government are co-dependent, because the private sphere relies the innovations, institutions, infrastructure, and protection of the government to grow, and because the government relies on taxing the private sphere to fund all of those functions. Neither the public nor private sphere can function without the other.


B) The government needs to tax the private sphere to function.

How does statement B refute statement A?



Why do you not get it? its not a symbiotic relationship, I pay taxes for services that enables the govt to survive, its more of a parasitic relationship. If i started a business i pay others to do what i cannot and in no way do they "help" me. I PAYED for them get it? no favors no handouts (unlike most of your ilk)

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2012, 07:40 AM
Amazing. How do you not get it? Is it hereditary? What??

Use your logic to explain it.

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2012, 07:48 AM
Why do you not get it? its not a symbiotic relationship,

Ok this is an argument. You are saying that the government and private sphere are not-codependent, but that the relationship goes one way. As you say, more of a parasitic relationship. In a one-way parasitic relationship, the host gets no benefit from the relationship, and only the parasite does.

In order to claim that this is the sort of relationship that exists, it would have to be true that businesses pay taxes to the government and get nothing in return.

That simply isn't true. A business could not thrive without educated workers, without a functioning sewage system, without a postal service, without roads and bridges, without police and firefighters to protect your property, without a court system to defend yourself when in sticky situations, and almost all businesses today rely heavily on technologies that were developed in part or in whole by government research.

Do you disagree? Can you make a successful business without these? Can you name a successful business that didn't use these services?


I pay taxes for services that enables the govt to survive, its more of a parasitic relationship. If i started a business i pay others to do what i cannot and in no way do they "help" me. I PAYED for them get it? no favors no handouts (unlike most of your ilk)

You are arguing that you pay taxes to support the benefits you receive from the government. I'm not arguing that point. I'm not saying you are depending on "handouts". Don't use strawmen, if you are trying to form an argument, you should address the points being made.

Bailey
07-18-2012, 08:27 AM
Ok this is an argument. You are saying that the government and private sphere are not-codependent, but that the relationship goes one way. As you say, more of a parasitic relationship. In a one-way parasitic relationship, the host gets no benefit from the relationship, and only the parasite does.

In order to claim that this is the sort of relationship that exists, it would have to be true that businesses pay taxes to the government and get nothing in return.

That simply isn't true. A business could not thrive without educated workers, without a functioning sewage system, without a postal service, without roads and bridges, without police and firefighters to protect your property, without a court system to defend yourself when in sticky situations, and almost all businesses today rely heavily on technologies that were developed in part or in whole by government research.

Do you disagree? Can you make a successful business without these? Can you name a successful business that didn't use these services?



You are arguing that you pay taxes to support the benefits you receive from the government. I'm not arguing that point. I'm not saying you are depending on "handouts". Don't use strawmen, if you are trying to form an argument, you should address the points being made.


You make it sound like the govt uses the money wisely, I postulate they take in more then they need to provide those services thus go from a benign relationship to a parasitic one. I am sure whatever service the govt can provide the private sector can do better,cheaper.

AmPat
07-18-2012, 09:44 AM
You make it sound like the govt uses the money wisely, I postulate they take in more then they need to provide those services thus go from a benign relationship to a parasitic one. I am sure whatever service the govt can provide the private sector can do better,cheaper.
Every single time.

Every time I drive past gov't housing, I can tell immediately. They are the ugliest of ugly and I'm talking from the start. Of course after occupancy of more than two months, they all look 30 years old also.

Odysseus
07-18-2012, 11:20 AM
Why do you bother? he will just throw some Marxist tripe at you and vanish.

For the same reason that the Romney campaign counters Obama's ads. Disinformation cannot be allowed to stand.


You're saying a government project that generates economic activity doesn't count because the cost came from somewhere else?

It always comes from somewhere else, in every and all cases. Unless a person can shit gold, all of the money they use to start a business is transferred money. It comes from somewhere else.

By that logic, if a gang robs a bank and then spends the money, it's still generating economic activity. What you fail to understand is tht the economic activity that the money would have gone to has now been suppressed Government activity doesn't generate economic activity, it simply moves it. If the government builds a bridge, then it must extract the taxes to pay for it. The taxes that are extracted are no longer available to the businesses that paid them for their own capital investment. Perhaps the bridge is an improvement that they can use to expand their business, perhaps not (government builds a lot of bridges to nowhere), but if the locals had voluntarily pooled their resources to build a bridge, as they used to do before the feds decided that states, counties and private organizations couldn't be trusted to do it, then the result is the same, but at least then the investors are making a voluntary transaction, and they will receive a return on their investment, whereas the government bridge may or may not solve the problem that the locals identified (assuming that there was a problem in the first place).


Explain something to me, where does wealth come from? You make a distinction between transferring wealth, and creating wealth. So when and how does wealth get created? In the process of exchange, money is moved back and forth in exchange for goods. Sometimes different amounts of money is traded for different goods. This is all wealth transfer. Where does wealth arise where there was none before?

This is basic economics. Do you really not know where wealth comes from? What exactly do you teach?

Wealth comes from the application of human intelligence to a problem. It comes from the voluntary exchange of goods and services, in which both sides of a transaction are getting what they seek. It comes from a someone seeing an opportunity in a piece of land, figuring out how to make it work, investing his time, money and labor, and then selling the products that he produces.

There's an old joke about a farmer and a minister. The farmer bought a plot of fallow land and began to work it. Over the years, he cleared fields, planted crops and harvested them, built a house and a barn and raised livestock. One day, the minister came out, looking for a contribution for the church. He looked at the now-prosperous farm and said to the farmer, "You and the lord have really made this into a prosperous farm." The farmer replied, "Yeah, but you should have seen the mess the lord made of it when he was working it himself."


You are suggesting that the relationship between business and government only goes one way. That's not true, they are co-dependent.

To have a viable private sector, you need a public sector as well. Without a system of universal education, business owners wouldn't have a basically educated workforce. Without sewage systems, city centers where commerce thrives would not be possible. Without postal services, roads, and bridges, large companies are impossible. Automobile companies couldn't exist without roads. All companies that use the internet couldn't function without the government research. Countless commercial products use innovations developed from NASA. The list goes on and on, and none of these are police or military functions (although, NASA and internet did have military implications)

You are assuming that the things that you claim businesses need are public sector functions. Education in the US wasn't a public function until the mid-20th century (the advent of mass immigration spurred nativists to develop a public school system in order to counteract what they saw as indoctrination by private religious schools). Prior to that, almost all education in the US was private, and we still managed to industrialize faster than any other country in the world. Sewage systems are public in urban areas, but outside of major cities, industrial waste disposal is the responsibility of the business, not the state. Postal services started as private messenger services, and the only real justification for keeping them public is that stamps are a form of currency which must be regulated by the Dept. of the Treasury, but the private sector and e-mail have made almost all regular mail obsolete. Roads predated cars, but they didn't predate horses, carts and feet, and even so, those are functions of local government, not the federal government. It's not until the 1950s that the feds took responsibility for the creation and maintenance of an interstate highway system, and at that point, the US had seen literally hundreds of automobile manufacturers come and go. NASA and the military certainly did drive innovation, but defense is a unique situation (and NASA was primarily a defense function in the era of Sputnik), because unlike the rest of the government, there is competition there, and the functions of creative destruction that come from war and the preparation for war mimic the creative destruction that we see in business. In short, you are wrong again. A private sector can exist without a public sector, but a public sector cannot exist without a private sector.


You are calling rent control a transfer of wealth. How is that a transfer of wealth? Wealth is owned. What does a tenant come to own through rent control that they did not own before?

Wealth is not just property. Receipt of services constitutes a form of wealth, and the transfer of services constitutes a wealth transfer. Also, by forcing the landlord to subsidize the renter through an artificially low rent, the renter is receiving the difference between the market rent and the mandated rent, which he is free to spend on other things. Thus, wealth is transferred from the landlord to the tenant.


and I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying the private and public spheres are co-dependent.

But not equally so. As demonstrated above, the private sector can exist independently of the public sector.


Again...co-dependent.

Again, wrong. The public sector piggybacked on the private sector, and as I stated above, defense functions are unique in government. But even this understates it. DARPAnet, the original internet, was an extremely clunky system. It wasn't until the advent of HTML and web browsers that the internet became a viable commercial tool, and those were private sector developments.


Obama didn't say they "owe their success to the state". He said they did not do it alone, that their success was possible because of the state. In a system where the private and public spheres are co-dependent, this is an entirely true statement.

No, that is exactly what he said. It's hard to miss it, since his exact statement was, and I quote, "If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen," He explicitly said that the business owner didn't do it. Not that he did it in partnership with the state, but that "somebody else made that happen." It would take a certain kind of mindset to read that and conclude that he meant something other than what he said.


His argument seems more similar to that of Adam Smith. Government projects including infrastructure are necessary for commerce and the growth of business. Taxation is necessary to support this government. People should pay taxes to support the government and they should pay in proportion to how much money they are able to make within the system that the government supports.

Adam Smith never said that government projects were preferable to private ventures. In fact, that is the exact opposite of his basic premise.


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." - Adam Smith

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith

We've read your signature quote before. It appears to be the only Adam Smith statement with which you are familiar. But the whole passage is instructive, as he was speaking of one type of tax, on housing, especially on rental properties:

The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents, would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses, would arise, not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expense of house-rent to the whole expense of living, is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is, perhaps, highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.



This is far from a call for universal progressive taxation. Smith is calling for a graduated tax in one limited area, where he recognizes that a flat tax would, in fact, be regressive in nature. Once again, you are cherry picking a "gotcha!" quote out of context in order to make your case.

Odysseus
07-18-2012, 11:21 AM
Wow way to repeat the same argument that has been made a few hundred thousand times since yesterday.

The government gets funding to operate through taxation. The vast majority of this taxation comes from the private sector. Therefore the government depends on the private sector to operate. I have never denied this. No one has ever denied this.

The point is that the public and private sectors are mutually dependent on each other. The private sector relies on the government and the system the government keeps in place to operate, and the government relies on the private sector to fund all of these activities.


They are co-dependent. They are co-dependent. I'm not saying it's entirely one-sided. I'm not saying it's entirely one-sided. They are co-dependent. The private sphere and the public sphere both rely on each other to function. They are co-dependent. They are co-dependent. Neither works without the other. No government worker or government institution can function without tax money from the private sector, no business can become successful without innovations, institutions, and infrastructure provided by the government. It goes both ways. They are co-dependent.

So, your response to a repeated argument is to repeat your soundbite, rather than rebut the argument. Got it. But, since I've demonstrated that they are not co-dependent to the degree that you claim, you can stop repeating yourself.


These services require continued funding. New roads must be built as cities expand, old roads and bridges must be maintained, police and firefighters and teachers must be paid, etc. etc. etc.

These are almost all local responsibilities. Why should the federal government be undertaking them?


If it's a continued service, then yes. I pay for my cable service and I must keep paying for it because they keep providing the service. Companies continuously use roads, rely on police, hire educated workers, have access to emergency services, and so on.

Again,, why should the feds be diverting tax dollars to local governments? Why is it the responsibility of the federal government to supervise local roads in NYC, police and fire department manning and equipping in Philadelphia, teacher pay in Los Angeles or any of the hundreds of thousands of smaller localities which are presumable capable of governing themselves?


That "logic" isn't discredited because it's been used too many times. It's discredited because it's a strawman. No one (except the conservatives here) are suggestion the relationship between the private and public sector is a one-sided purely dependent relationship.

Please, master of logic, explain this to me:

A) The private sphere and the government are co-dependent, because the private sphere relies the innovations, institutions, infrastructure, and protection of the government to grow, and because the government relies on taxing the private sphere to fund all of those functions. Neither the public nor private sphere can function without the other.

B) The government needs to tax the private sphere to function.

How does statement B refute statement A?

Well, it would help if statement A were true, which it is not. Government does not innovate, and the insfrastructure that it builds is done at the expense of the private sector, which is denied those funds for its own use. The one legitimate area where government is indispensible is as an honest broker in the area of law and contract enforcement between private interests, but it cannot fulfill that function if it sets itself up as a competitor to those interests. Again, what is it that you teach?


Ok this is an argument. You are saying that the government and private sphere are not-codependent, but that the relationship goes one way. As you say, more of a parasitic relationship. In a one-way parasitic relationship, the host gets no benefit from the relationship, and only the parasite does.

In order to claim that this is the sort of relationship that exists, it would have to be true that businesses pay taxes to the government and get nothing in return.

That simply isn't true. A business could not thrive without educated workers, without a functioning sewage system, without a postal service, without roads and bridges, without police and firefighters to protect your property, without a court system to defend yourself when in sticky situations, and almost all businesses today rely heavily on technologies that were developed in part or in whole by government research.

Do you disagree? Can you make a successful business without these? Can you name a successful business that didn't use these services?

Sure. Construction in the US thrives on cheap, semi-literate labor of illegals. Every business founded in America before the advent of municipal services puts the lie to your second claim. Police and courts are critical, but when government involves itself in private interests as a competitor, their neutrality becomes suspect. As for government research, you are referring to government funded research, in which government extracts funds from the private sector and presents them to another private agency in order to achieve a publicly mandate result. This is not the same as government pushing innovation, so much as government stifling innovation in one area in order to bestow its largess on another.


You are arguing that you pay taxes to support the benefits you receive from the government. I'm not arguing that point. I'm not saying you are depending on "handouts". Don't use strawmen, if you are trying to form an argument, you should address the points being made.

No, we pay taxes to support the legitimate functions of government. We do not seek handouts, nor do we want them, and those who do get them become dependent on them and eventually drop out of the workforce, or tailor their businesses to the requirements of lobbying, rather than productivity. The government becomes their primary customer, just before they fail.

Bailey
07-18-2012, 11:29 AM
For the same reason that the Romney campaign counters Obama's ads. Disinformation cannot be allowed to stand.



By that logic, if a gang robs a bank and then spends the money, it's still generating economic activity. What you fail to understand is tht the economic activity that the money would have gone to has now been suppressed Government activity doesn't generate economic activity, it simply moves it. If the government builds a bridge, then it must extract the taxes to pay for it. The taxes that are extracted are no longer available to the businesses that paid them for their own capital investment. Perhaps the bridge is an improvement that they can use to expand their business, perhaps not (government builds a lot of bridges to nowhere), but if the locals had voluntarily pooled their resources to build a bridge, as they used to do before the feds decided that states, counties and private organizations couldn't be trusted to do it, then the result is the same, but at least then the investors are making a voluntary transaction, and they will receive a return on their investment, whereas the government bridge may or may not solve the problem that the locals identified (assuming that there was a problem in the first place).



This is basic economics. Do you really not know where wealth comes from? What exactly do you teach?

Wealth comes from the application of human intelligence to a problem. It comes from the voluntary exchange of goods and services, in which both sides of a transaction are getting what they seek. It comes from a someone seeing an opportunity in a piece of land, figuring out how to make it work, investing his time, money and labor, and then selling the products that he produces.

There's an old joke about a farmer and a minister. The farmer bought a plot of fallow land and began to work it. Over the years, he cleared fields, planted crops and harvested them, built a house and a barn and raised livestock. One day, the minister came out, looking for a contribution for the church. He looked at the now-prosperous farm and said to the farmer, "You and the lord have really made this into a prosperous farm." The farmer replied, "Yeah, but you should have seen the mess the lord made of it when he was working it himself."



You are assuming that the things that you claim businesses need are public sector functions. Education in the US wasn't a public function until the mid-20th century (the advent of mass immigration spurred nativists to develop a public school system in order to counteract what they saw as indoctrination by private religious schools). Prior to that, almost all education in the US was private, and we still managed to industrialize faster than any other country in the world. Sewage systems are public in urban areas, but outside of major cities, industrial waste disposal is the responsibility of the business, not the state. Postal services started as private messenger services, and the only real justification for keeping them public is that stamps are a form of currency which must be regulated by the Dept. of the Treasury, but the private sector and e-mail have made almost all regular mail obsolete. Roads predated cars, but they didn't predate horses, carts and feet, and even so, those are functions of local government, not the federal government. It's not until the 1950s that the feds took responsibility for the creation and maintenance of an interstate highway system, and at that point, the US had seen literally hundreds of automobile manufacturers come and go. NASA and the military certainly did drive innovation, but defense is a unique situation (and NASA was primarily a defense function in the era of Sputnik), because unlike the rest of the government, there is competition there, and the functions of creative destruction that come from war and the preparation for war mimic the creative destruction that we see in business. In short, you are wrong again. A private sector can exist without a public sector, but a public sector cannot exist without a private sector.



Wealth is not just property. Receipt of services constitutes a form of wealth, and the transfer of services constitutes a wealth transfer. Also, by forcing the landlord to subsidize the renter through an artificially low rent, the renter is receiving the difference between the market rent and the mandated rent, which he is free to spend on other things. Thus, wealth is transferred from the landlord to the tenant.



But not equally so. As demonstrated above, the private sector can exist independently of the public sector.



Again, wrong. The public sector piggybacked on the private sector, and as I stated above, defense functions are unique in government. But even this understates it. DARPAnet, the original internet, was an extremely clunky system. It wasn't until the advent of HTML and web browsers that the internet became a viable commercial tool, and those were private sector developments.



No, that is exactly what he said. It's hard to miss it, since his exact statement was, and I quote, "If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen," He explicitly said that the business owner didn't do it. Not that he did it in partnership with the state, but that "somebody else made that happen." It would take a certain kind of mindset to read that and conclude that he meant something other than what he said.



Adam Smith never said that government projects were preferable to private ventures. In fact, that is the exact opposite of his basic premise.



We've read your signature quote before. It appears to be the only Adam Smith statement with which you are familiar. But the whole passage is instructive, as he was speaking of one type of tax, on housing, especially on rental properties:

The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents, would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses, would arise, not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expense of house-rent to the whole expense of living, is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is, perhaps, highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.



This is far from a call for universal progressive taxation. Smith is calling for a graduated tax in one limited area, where he recognizes that a flat tax would, in fact, be regressive in nature. Once again, you are cherry picking a "gotcha!" quote out of context in order to make your case.


I love to watch a good beating :)

Bailey
07-18-2012, 11:31 AM
I hope you don't teach economics to anyone Wewe, you should be jailed if you do.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-18-2012, 11:40 AM
Even the foundational thinkers of classical liberalism and capitalism recognized this basic fact. Read my signature quote.

Yes, read your signature line and note the word "should". Not 'shall'. Should.

Under laissez faire capitalism the business owner will contribute if he has a vested interest. And this will be his choice.

Under 0blowme's tyranny the business owner will surrender a disproportinate share of his profit to .gov at gunpoint.

But just for fun, let's consider this: if 0vomit is right that ďif youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happenĒ, then why let the business owner keep any profit at all? In addition, why should individuals be allowed to own businesses or any private property?

FlaGator
07-18-2012, 11:44 AM
Use your logic to explain it.

Ok... I took money from you and then used the money to build a sidewalk in front of your house. Who paid for that sidewalk?

Gina
07-18-2012, 01:03 PM
Ok... I took money from you and then used the money to build a sidewalk in front of your house. Who paid for that sidewalk?

Oh bama! Oh bama! Oh bama!

Odysseus
07-18-2012, 01:06 PM
I hope you don't teach economics to anyone Wewe, you should be jailed if you do.

He's never responded to the question of what he teaches. It coiuld be anything from Special Education in Pre-K to Graduate-level economics, although given his understanding of the latter subject, I'm more inclined to think that it's the former. OTOH, higher academia is full of fraudulent hacks (Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren come to mind), so he may be a tenured tool.


Ok... I took money from you and then used the money to build a sidewalk in front of your house. Who paid for that sidewalk?

More like, the government told you that you had to have a sidewalk, dictated its size, shape and composition, and then took the money from you and built it, with markups for the bureaucracy that handled the contracting. You couldn't do it yourself, you know, since you're not a licensed contractor, and you aren't smart enough to hire one, like the government is. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
07-18-2012, 01:10 PM
I like sidewalks. Safer for kids than walking in the streets.

FlaGator
07-18-2012, 01:13 PM
He's never responded to the question of what he teaches. It coiuld be anything from Special Education in Pre-K to Graduate-level economics, although given his understanding of the latter subject, I'm more inclined to think that it's the former. OTOH, higher academia is full of fraudulent hacks (Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren come to mind), so he may be a tenured tool.



More like, the government told you that you had to have a sidewalk, dictated its size, shape and composition, and then took the money from you and built it, with markups for the bureaucracy that handled the contracting. You couldn't do it yourself, you know, since you're not a licensed contractor, and you aren't smart enough to hire one, like the government is. :rolleyes:

Just trying to keep things simple... but you are right.

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2012, 01:29 PM
For the same reason that the Romney campaign counters Obama's ads. Disinformation cannot be allowed to stand.



By that logic, if a gang robs a bank and then spends the money, it's still generating economic activity.

That does generate economic activity. It's illegitimate and illegal, but it's still economic activity.


What you fail to understand is tht the economic activity that the money would have gone to has now been suppressed Government activity doesn't generate economic activity, it simply moves it.

There is an assumption embedded in this statement. You assume that any money that is taxed and spent is money that would otherwise have been used for economically generative activity.

Allow me to use conservative logic to show how this isn't true: Even though Obama has kept the Bush tax cuts in place since he's been president, and lowered additional taxes in the stimulus plan, right-wingers constantly claim that Obama's policies are hurting job growth. How is this happening" One major reason, they claim, is that Obama is creating "uncertainty" in the marketplace, and this uncertainty is making so-called "job creators" hesitant to put their money to good use. So instead of investing and hiring people, they are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens.

This is a major, constantly parroted argument from right-wing sources, that states that it's entirely possible (and actually occurring) for money in private sector to be unproductive and not contributing to economic activity. The only way this "uncertainty" argument has any legs whatsoever, is if the private sector is able to hold money without using it for economically productive purposes.


This means that your assumption doesn't hold. You assume that any and all money being taxed is necessarily being subtracted from economic activities, but that can't be true if the right-wing arguments about Obama creating "uncertainty" are also true.


Now, let's say accept that "job creators" can feel "uncertain" about government policies and not use their money (Bill O'Reilly says this all the time, that if taxes increase, he will not use his own money in productive ways because he doesn't feel he'd get enough out of it). Now the government is able to engage in productive projects. Suppose tax money was spent on hiring thousands of new firefighters, police officers, and teachers. These are thousands of jobs being created, and these people now have money to spend. Spending money is economic activity which helps business growth.


If the government builds a bridge, then it must extract the taxes to pay for it. The taxes that are extracted are no longer available to the businesses that paid them for their own capital investment. Perhaps the bridge is an improvement that they can use to expand their business, perhaps not (government builds a lot of bridges to nowhere), but if the locals had voluntarily pooled their resources to build a bridge, as they used to do before the feds decided that states, counties and private organizations couldn't be trusted to do it, then the result is the same, but at least then the investors are making a voluntary transaction, and they will receive a return on their investment, whereas the government bridge may or may not solve the problem that the locals identified (assuming that there was a problem in the first place).

There's no guarantee that businesses would use that money for capital investment, and building a bridge creates jobs and puts money back into the economy to be spent.



This is basic economics. Do you really not know where wealth comes from? What exactly do you teach?

Wealth comes from the application of human intelligence to a problem. It comes from the voluntary exchange of goods and services, in which both sides of a transaction are getting what they seek. It comes from a someone seeing an opportunity in a piece of land, figuring out how to make it work, investing his time, money and labor, and then selling the products that he produces.

There's an old joke about a farmer and a minister. The farmer bought a plot of fallow land and began to work it. Over the years, he cleared fields, planted crops and harvested them, built a house and a barn and raised livestock. One day, the minister came out, looking for a contribution for the church. He looked at the now-prosperous farm and said to the farmer, "You and the lord have really made this into a prosperous farm." The farmer replied, "Yeah, but you should have seen the mess the lord made of it when he was working it himself."


This is nothing but platitudes. "wealth comes from an individual having a good idea and working hard and growing that idea" "wealth comes from dedication and drive of hard working people with a dream" "wealth comes from a good idea, plus a little innovation, mix in some sweat and throw in some risk, let it cook for a few years of patience and boom wealth is created".

You aren't saying anything to explain how actual monetary wealth comes to exist when it didn't exist before. You mention the process of market exchange, but that process is simply moving already-existing money from one party to another.

Say I make shirts, and sell those shirts to you for money, and I take that money to buy more cotton to make more shirts, and you take those shirts and sell them in a larger grocery store and you use the money you make to buy more food and more shirts and you sell them to people who get their money from making sewing machines which I use to make shirts and so on. In this entire process of exchange, the amount that the goods are sold for changes from hand to hand, but all that is happening is the exchange of goods and money, but as far as we can see right now, it's a zero-sum game. I may sell shirts for more than the cost of the cotton but I also must pay for dyes and sewing machines and fuel to take my shirts to your store and so on.

Even if every person is selling their goods for more than it cost to make them, that implies that somewhere else wealth is being created. The only way for it not to be a zero-sum game is for wealth to be created at some point in this chain. You are assuming that there exists additional wealth, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to sell it for more. In every single step, it's just money being transferred from person to person and goods being transferred from person to person. So where does new, previously non-existing wealth come into existence? At what part of this process of exchange does wealth get created?

And don't just say something trite like "it is created when a talented man with initiative dares to dream"





You are assuming that the things that you claim businesses need are public sector functions. Education in the US wasn't a public function until the mid-20th century (the advent of mass immigration spurred nativists to develop a public school system in order to counteract what they saw as indoctrination by private religious schools). Prior to that, almost all education in the US was private, and we still managed to industrialize faster than any other country in the world. Sewage systems are public in urban areas, but outside of major cities, industrial waste disposal is the responsibility of the business, not the state. Postal services started as private messenger services, and the only real justification for keeping them public is that stamps are a form of currency which must be regulated by the Dept. of the Treasury, but the private sector and e-mail have made almost all regular mail obsolete. Roads predated cars, but they didn't predate horses, carts and feet, and even so, those are functions of local government, not the federal government. It's not until the 1950s that the feds took responsibility for the creation and maintenance of an interstate highway system, and at that point, the US had seen literally hundreds of automobile manufacturers come and go. NASA and the military certainly did drive innovation, but defense is a unique situation (and NASA was primarily a defense function in the era of Sputnik), because unlike the rest of the government, there is competition there, and the functions of creative destruction that come from war and the preparation for war mimic the creative destruction that we see in business. In short, you are wrong again. A private sector can exist without a public sector, but a public sector cannot exist without a private sector.

Your argument is all over the place. You dismiss education because there was a time hundreds of years ago when it wasn't public, and dismiss the postal service because 21st century email has made letters obsolete. None of this, however, addresses the reliance that businesses have on infrastructure and institutions.

Roads are mostly local functions except for the highway system. Okay, what's your point here? Businesses today use the highway system all the time. Even tiny small local businesses rely on suppliers that transport their goods on highways.

Education wasn't always public. Okay...again what is your point here? Do you believe the economy can function without an educated workforce? How is universal education possible without public education? Even a private system with vouchers relies on the government for vouchers.

I'm not sure that I get what you are saying about defense spending. Why is defense-related spending a different case in terms of economic growth? Why is government spending on defense a valid form of economic growth?






Wealth is not just property. Receipt of services constitutes a form of wealth, and the transfer of services constitutes a wealth transfer. Also, by forcing the landlord to subsidize the renter through an artificially low rent, the renter is receiving the difference between the market rent and the mandated rent, which he is free to spend on other things. Thus, wealth is transferred from the landlord to the tenant.

Good point. If we put it in those terms, this makes sense. It does not follow though, that all wealth transfers are detrimental to the economy.




But not equally so. As demonstrated above, the private sector can exist independently of the public sector.

You listed a bunch of fragments, parts of many different pictures put together into a sloppy collage.




Again, wrong. The public sector piggybacked on the private sector, and as I stated above, defense functions are unique in government. But even this understates it. DARPAnet, the original internet, was an extremely clunky system. It wasn't until the advent of HTML and web browsers that the internet became a viable commercial tool, and those were private sector developments.

There would be no HTML or web browsers without the original internet. in fact, all modern advanced communication systems would not be possible without the government research that led to satellites. Today's "information economy" would not be possible without an advanced satellite communication system, which is only possible because of the advancements of the German, Soviet, and American governments.

You're just trying too hard here to not give credit where credit is due. I'll happily give credit to private capitalist businesses and industries that developed many innovations and technologies. Your extreme partisanship and diehard devotion to conservative talking points are blinding you to the obvious here.

It's not a radical point, not an anti-capitalist point, not even a particularly leftist point to state the the public and private sectors support each other. The only reason conservatives are arguing this is because Obama the boogyman said it.




No, that is exactly what he said. It's hard to miss it, since his exact statement was, and I quote, "If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen," He explicitly said that the business owner didn't do it. Not that he did it in partnership with the state, but that "somebody else made that happen." It would take a certain kind of mindset to read that and conclude that he meant something other than what he said.

It takes a certain kind of mindset to look only at a single sentence without identifying the direct object pronoun. That sentence was part of a larger speech.

The pronoun "that" refers to the infrastructure that was the subject of the previous few sentences.

Let me give an example:

I say: "There is a new flu going around that everyone should be wary of. This flu is spread by bedbugs that live in large beds. If you have a large bed, it's possible that you may have already caught it."

A million conservatives say "Of course I won't catch my bed dumbass, it's not like someone threw it!"

I say "I heard McDonalds came out with a new Giant BBQ burger. I went to the nearest McDonalds and gave it a try, but I could only eat half of it"

Fox News prints: "Man eats half of local McDonalds restaurant, experts say concrete cannot be digested!"

This is a joke.

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2012, 01:31 PM
Have you read Adam Smith?



Adam Smith never said that government projects were preferable to private ventures. In fact, that is the exact opposite of his basic premise.

He stated the importance of government projects beyond the basics of defense and justice.


THE THIRD AND LAST DUTY of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society. After the public institutions and public works necessary for the defence of the society, and for the administration of justice, both of which have already been mentioned, the other works and institutions of this kind are chiefly for facilitating the commerce of the society, and those for promoting the instruction of the people.








We've read your signature quote before. It appears to be the only Adam Smith statement with which you are familiar. But the whole passage is instructive, as he was speaking of one type of tax, on housing, especially on rental properties:

The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents, would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses, would arise, not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expense of house-rent to the whole expense of living, is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is, perhaps, highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.



This is far from a call for universal progressive taxation. Smith is calling for a graduated tax in one limited area, where he recognizes that a flat tax would, in fact, be regressive in nature. Once again, you are cherry picking a "gotcha!" quote out of context in order to make your case.

Actually he does call for universal progressive taxation.


Of Taxes
THE PRIVATE REVENUE OF INDIVIDUALS, it has been shown in the first book of this Inquiry, arises, ultimately from three different sources; rent, profit, and wages.



He goes on to discuss these different taxes in depth, but first, he discusses four Maxims that apply to all of these, to taxes in general. Can you guess what the first maxim is?



Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes,it is necessary to premise the four following maximis with regard to taxes in general.


1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.


Smith's first Maxim in regards to taxation in general is that people who make more money under the protection of the state should pay more in taxes to support that state.

m00
07-18-2012, 01:37 PM
You make it sound like the govt uses the money wisely, I postulate they take in more then they need to provide those services thus go from a benign relationship to a parasitic one. I am sure whatever service the govt can provide the private sector can do better,cheaper.


Trade agreements (allows for a market for our exports & keeps import costs of raw materials low)
Security / Stability (counter terrorism + protecting overseas interests)
Sound(ish) Money. We're starting to lose this one, but historically a strong dollar made for cheap imports which benefits businesses who are further along on the supply chain.
Federal Highway System. Debatable, but I believe if it were privately organized it would be as big a mess as the pre-monopoly railroad system.


My point though is that the first three things are explicitly authorized by the US Constitution.

txradioguy
07-18-2012, 01:54 PM
No business in the US could become successful without an infrastructure system, an educated workforce, laws to protect them and enforcers of those laws, market rules that allow them to become successful and so on.

WeeWee name one business owner that sets out with the mindset of "I'm going to start this company to create jobs"?

txradioguy
07-18-2012, 01:58 PM
In order to claim that this is the sort of relationship that exists, it would have to be true that businesses pay taxes to the government and get nothing in return.

That simply isn't true. A business could not thrive without educated workers, without a functioning sewage system, without a postal service, without roads and bridges, without police and firefighters to protect your property, without a court system to defend yourself when in sticky situations, and almost all businesses today rely heavily on technologies that were developed in part or in whole by government research.

All of this could be done without government interference. The people don't need the kind of Government you and the rest of the Communist masterminds want to foist on us...but the Government needs us to make it function in the all intrusive completely dependent way that you and others want it to.

TVDOC
07-18-2012, 02:38 PM
here would be no HTML or web browsers without the original internet. in fact, all modern advanced communication systems would not be possible without the government research that led to satellites. Today's "information economy" would not be possible without an advanced satellite communication system, which is only possible because of the advancements of the German, Soviet, and American governments.

You're just trying too hard here to not give credit where credit is due. I'll happily give credit to private capitalist businesses and industries that developed many innovations and technologies. Your extreme partisanship and diehard devotion to conservative talking points are blinding you to the obvious here.



Not going to quote the entire silly post, but the above bolded comment is bullshit........

91% of the US communications satellites that have ever been launched have been developed and built with private capital.......how do I know? I spent a little time working with JPL and Hughes Communications to actually design them......

The "TelStar" which was the first communications satellite was built by Bell Labs without a dime of government funds.

NASA provided the initial launch vehicles during the early years, but the corporations that built the birds actually PAID the government for the ride into orbit. Pretty much everything later than 1989 has been launched on boosters built by General Dynamics......a private company.......its a common misconception that the shuttle program was the basis for launching communications satellites, when, in fact, the backbone of our "modern communications society" are geosyncronous units that remain in a stationary orbit over 25,000 miles above the surface.....far higher than the shuttle's capabilities.

Pick another example.......that one simply won't fly.....

doc

Chuck58
07-18-2012, 02:47 PM
Getting down to the nitty gritty, obama's entire point was wrong.

People can exist without that monolith in Washington. If the Federal govt were turned back to what it was in 1800, we could still manage.

Government cannot exist without the people. We finance it; I just wished we'd do some serious arm twisting to make them listen.

Odysseus
07-18-2012, 05:35 PM
That does generate economic activity. It's illegitimate and illegal, but it's still economic activity.

No, it doesn't generate economic activity. It transfers it. This is like the argument that a broken window generates economic activity, because the owner has to pay to have it repaired. This is a logical fallacy, because the cost of the repair must be deducted from the revenues available to the owner for other activities. As a result of this expense, he may not be able to upgrade the insulation around the window, or the locks on it, or some other activity.


There is an assumption embedded in this statement. You assume that any money that is taxed and spent is money that would otherwise have been used for economically generative activity.

Allow me to use conservative logic to show how this isn't true: Even though Obama has kept the Bush tax cuts in place since he's been president, and lowered additional taxes in the stimulus plan, right-wingers constantly claim that Obama's policies are hurting job growth. How is this happening" One major reason, they claim, is that Obama is creating "uncertainty" in the marketplace, and this uncertainty is making so-called "job creators" hesitant to put their money to good use. So instead of investing and hiring people, they are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens.

This is a major, constantly parroted argument from right-wing sources, that states that it's entirely possible (and actually occurring) for money in private sector to be unproductive and not contributing to economic activity. The only way this "uncertainty" argument has any legs whatsoever, is if the private sector is able to hold money without using it for economically productive purposes.

This means that your assumption doesn't hold. You assume that any and all money being taxed is necessarily being subtracted from economic activities, but that can't be true if the right-wing arguments about Obama creating "uncertainty" are also true.

Your "conservative logic" contains quite a few liberal talking points. For example, Obama did not lower taxes in the stimulus. His policies have hurt job growth, but in order to understand this, you have to understand how jobs are created, which you don't. And you don't refute my argument that the money would be spent on economically generative activities, you simply assume that because marginal tax rates didn't rise (while spending did), that jobs should have been created. This fails to take the rest of Obama's policies into account. His increased debt and use of the Federal Reserve to enact "quantitative easing" has weakened the dollar. The Fed has maintained a low prime interest rate, but the risks incurred for lenders have increased, so credit, while appearing cheap on paper, is now no longer available to anyone without the highest of credit ratings. This is strangling job


Now, let's say accept that "job creators" can feel "uncertain" about government policies and not use their money (Bill O'Reilly says this all the time, that if taxes increase, he will not use his own money in productive ways because he doesn't feel he'd get enough out of it). Now the government is able to engage in productive projects. Suppose tax money was spent on hiring thousands of new firefighters, police officers, and teachers. These are thousands of jobs being created, and these people now have money to spend. Spending money is economic activity which helps business growth.

If the money extracted from the private sector is spent on firefighters, police officers and teachers, the money cannot be spent on new products, goods and services. The tax base will eventually implode and those jobs will disappear as revenues to sustain them dry up. We see this constantly in public sector hiring. Government cannot simply create jobs by fiat and then expect to pay for them unless the private sector can support them, just as a parasite cannot expand to the point where it completely drains its host and expect to continue feeding.


There's no guarantee that businesses would use that money for capital investment, and building a bridge creates jobs and puts money back into the economy to be spent.

There is no guarantee that the bridge will be used. Government projects often lapse into disuse due to obsolescence, poor planning or failure to respond to demand signals. OTOH, a business that fails to reinvest will soon find itself unable to compete with those businesses that do invest in improvements. And, because the business' transactions are voluntary, its failure will not necessarily cause hardship throughout the industry, while government spending on a poorly conceived project will not only result in a bridge to nowhere, but will starve productive enterprises.


This is nothing but platitudes. "wealth comes from an individual having a good idea and working hard and growing that idea" "wealth comes from dedication and drive of hard working people with a dream" "wealth comes from a good idea, plus a little innovation, mix in some sweat and throw in some risk, let it cook for a few years of patience and boom wealth is created".

You aren't saying anything to explain how actual monetary wealth comes to exist when it didn't exist before. You mention the process of market exchange, but that process is simply moving already-existing money from one party to another.

First, they aren't platitudes. I specifically mentioned how a farmer takes unused land and develops it, producing crops from seeds and dirt. In every successful industry, someone had to assume risk, create a product or service and find a way to sell it. The fact that you don't understand the concepts doesn't render them invalid.


Say I make shirts, and sell those shirts to you for money, and I take that money to buy more cotton to make more shirts, and you take those shirts and sell them in a larger grocery store and you use the money you make to buy more food and more shirts and you sell them to people who get their money from making sewing machines which I use to make shirts and so on. In this entire process of exchange, the amount that the goods are sold for changes from hand to hand, but all that is happening is the exchange of goods and money, but as far as we can see right now, it's a zero-sum game. I may sell shirts for more than the cost of the cotton but I also must pay for dyes and sewing machines and fuel to take my shirts to your store and so on.

Wow. You really don't get it. First off, in order to make shirts, I have to invest in a physical plant, hire workers, purchase raw materials and retool and reinvest whenever styles change or new techniques for production become available. I am literally starting from nothing and building a business which will employ others through investment. A few years down the line, that manufacturing plant, which started out as a vacant lot, will be generating an income for me, my employees and my distributors and retail sales outlets. That's not a zero-sum game. I am taking an investment and multiplying it, and then reinvesting the profits in order to expand and retool as needed.


Even if every person is selling their goods for more than it cost to make them, that implies that somewhere else wealth is being created. The only way for it not to be a zero-sum game is for wealth to be created at some point in this chain. You are assuming that there exists additional wealth, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to sell it for more. In every single step, it's just money being transferred from person to person and goods being transferred from person to person. So where does new, previously non-existing wealth come into existence? At what part of this process of exchange does wealth get created?

And don't just say something trite like "it is created when a talented man with initiative dares to dream"

Wealth is created at every point in the chain. The factory that produces the shirts started out as a vacant field. The distributor had to invest in trucks, or trains or some other means of transport. He had to hire drivers, dispatchers and a host of others to track and ship products. The retail stores had to open sites to sell the shirts, as well as other goods. Every link in the chain is a company that was a small startup at one time, but grew as demand for their product or service grew. How can you not understand this?


Your argument is all over the place. You dismiss education because there was a time hundreds of years ago when it wasn't public, and dismiss the postal service because 21st century email has made letters obsolete. None of this, however, addresses the reliance that businesses have on infrastructure and institutions.

I don't dismiss education, I simply point out that it doesn't have to be monopolized by government. I also don't dismiss postal services, I simply pointed out that they started out as private endeavors, and that they are no longer critical to business the way that they once were.


Roads are mostly local functions except for the highway system. Okay, what's your point here? Businesses today use the highway system all the time. Even tiny small local businesses rely on suppliers that transport their goods on highways.

You keep cherry picking the points of my arguments. You stated that businesses could not exist without government roads. I pointed out that prior to the government's assumption of transportation duties, businesses thrived quite well. You look at a snapshot of today's business environment and assume that because something exists in a certain form now, it must always have been that way and must always be that way. But, once again, you miss the point, which is that government spending is not a necessary precondition of successful business. If a given area has either markets or resources, businesses will find a way to get there.


Education wasn't always public. Okay...again what is your point here? Do you believe the economy can function without an educated workforce? How is universal education possible without public education? Even a private system with vouchers relies on the government for vouchers.

No, once again, I point out that government is not the necessary precondition for an educated workforce. The current voucher argument is a reaction to a government monopoly on education, not an argument for more government spendng on it. And while universal education may require some government spending (although you have as yet to make the case for this), it certainly does not require the massive expenditures at the federal level that we see today.

Odysseus
07-18-2012, 05:35 PM
I'm not sure that I get what you are saying about defense spending. Why is defense-related spending a different case in terms of economic growth? Why is government spending on defense a valid form of economic growth?

It's not so much a valid form of growth as a valid expenditure of government. Collective defense is one of the few Constitutionally mandated duties of the federal government. As for the other discussion, about competition, allow me to try to explain, since this is an area of economics that I've never seen anyone else address, and I may end up writing a thesis on it. Innovation is driven by competition. Competitors seek an advantage in a market, whether in terms of price, quality or some other tangible means of outperforming their rivals. Government services do not compete, and are notoriously poor for that reason. A government clerk gets paid whether you are happy or not, because his paycheck is taken out of your taxes. The government doesn't have to compete for tax dollars, and so there is little incentive to improve. OTOH, there is one area in government where there is competition, and that is the military. Militaries compete, not with the private sector, but with other militaries. We call this competition "war." Failure in business is called bankruptcy, while failure in war is called defeat. The demands placed on the military, to meet and defeat the nation's enemies, require constant adjustment to the actions of competitors. This becomes readily apparent in the procurement of equipment. During peacetime, military procurement resembles GM in the sixties, relatively fat and unconcerned with changes to the market. However, in wartime, the reaction to market signals, in the form of battlefield defeats or victories, forces rapid changes in the fielding of equipment. For example, the HMMWV took the better part of a decade from initial concept to prototype, with full fielding taking many more years after that. OTOH, the Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, were fielded within a couple of years of the beginning of the Iraq War. That is a response to changes in the market.


Good point. If we put it in those terms, this makes sense. It does not follow though, that all wealth transfers are detrimental to the economy.

Sure it does. Look at the effects of rent control on housing markets. Then extrapolate that to every other politically motivated transfer of wealth. The whole purpose of prices is to direct resources towards their most valuable use. The distortion of prices through controls, subsidies or outright confiscation results in the misdirection of resources.


You listed a bunch of fragments, parts of many different pictures put together into a sloppy collage.

That's Wei-ish for, "I don't have an answer, so I'm going to punt."


There would be no HTML or web browsers without the original internet. in fact, all modern advanced communication systems would not be possible without the government research that led to satellites. Today's "information economy" would not be possible without an advanced satellite communication system, which is only possible because of the advancements of the German, Soviet, and American governments.

Really? Who subsidized Morse's experiments with the telegraph, or Alexander Graham Bell's prototype telephone? The research that led to satellites was, as I stated previous, a defense expenditure, and was the result of military competition between nations. Do try to keep up.


You're just trying too hard here to not give credit where credit is due. I'll happily give credit to private capitalist businesses and industries that developed many innovations and technologies. Your extreme partisanship and diehard devotion to conservative talking points are blinding you to the obvious here.

Hardly. Your lack of understanding of how capitalism works is blinding you to the obvious. You believe that voluntary exchanges of goods and services are a zero-sum game, rather than a dynamic process that constantly forces innovation and advancement, but you believe that government wealth confiscation and transfers are not a zero-sum game. Who's the blind partisan?


It's not a radical point, not an anti-capitalist point, not even a particularly leftist point to state the the public and private sectors support each other. The only reason conservatives are arguing this is because Obama the boogyman said it.

No, we're objecting to it because it is ignorant. It betrays a serious lack of understanding of how markets work, what businesses do and why, and what the legitimate functions of government are. Obama doesn't understand that because he's never run a business, or worked for one. His entire adult life has been spent in academia and government, where the rules of markets not only do not apply, they are disdained.


It takes a certain kind of mindset to look only at a single sentence without identifying the direct object pronoun. That sentence was part of a larger speech.

The pronoun "that" refers to the infrastructure that was the subject of the previous few sentences.

Let me give an example:

I say: "There is a new flu going around that everyone should be wary of. This flu is spread by bedbugs that live in large beds. If you have a large bed, it's possible that you may have already caught it."

A million conservatives say "Of course I won't catch my bed dumbass, it's not like someone threw it!"

I say "I heard McDonalds came out with a new Giant BBQ burger. I went to the nearest McDonalds and gave it a try, but I could only eat half of it"

Fox News prints: "Man eats half of local McDonalds restaurant, experts say concrete cannot be digested!"

This is a joke.

Yes, but so was the rest of your comment. Obama said what he said. You are trying to parse it into something less idiotic, but you are failing.


Have you read Adam Smith?

Yep. More importantly, I understand him.


He stated the importance of government projects beyond the basics of defense and justice.
THE THIRD AND LAST DUTY of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society. After the public institutions and public works necessary for the defence of the society, and for the administration of justice, both of which have already been mentioned, the other works and institutions of this kind are chiefly for facilitating the commerce of the society, and those for promoting the instruction of the people.

But, as you always do, you cherry pick your quotes. Read the rest of the passage:

It does not seem necessary that the expense of those public works should be defrayed from that public revenue, as it is commonly called, of which the collection and application are in most countries, assigned to the executive power. The greater part of such public works may easily be so managed, as to afford a particular revenue, sufficient for defraying their own expense without bringing any burden upon the general revenue of the society.

A highway, a bridge, a navigable canal, for example, may, in most cases, be both made add maintained by a small toll upon the carriages which make use of them; a harbour, by a moderate port-duty upon the tonnage of the shipping which load or unload in it. The coinage, another institution for facilitating commerce, in many countries, not only defrays its own expense, but affords a small revenue or a seignorage to the sovereign. The post-office, another institution for the same purpose, over and above defraying its own expense, affords, in almost all countries, a very considerable revenue to the sovereign.

When the carriages which pass over a highway or a bridge, and the lighters which sail upon a navigable canal, pay toll in proportion to their weight or their tonnage, they pay for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them. It seems scarce possible to invent a more equitable way of maintaining such works. This tax or toll, too, though it is advanced by the carrier, is finally paid by the consumer, to whom it must always be charged in the price of the goods. As the expense of carriage, however, is very much reduced by means of such public works, the goods, notwithstanding the toll, come cheaper to the consumer than they could otherwise have done, their price not being so much raised by the toll, as it is lowered by the cheapness of the carriage. The person who finally pays this tax, therefore, gains by the application more than he loses by the payment of it. His payment is exactly in proportion to his gain. It is, in reality, no more than a part of that gain which he is obliged to give up, in order to get the rest. It seems impossible to imagine a more equitable method of raising a tax. When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, etc. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, etc. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute, in a very easy manner, to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.

When high-roads, bridges, canals, etc. are in this manner made and supported by the commerce which is carried on by means of them, they can be made only where that commerce requires them, and, consequently, where it is proper to make them. Their expense, too, their grandeur and magnificence, must be suited to what that commerce can afford to pay. They must be made, consequently, as it is proper to make them. A magnificent high-road cannot be made through a desert country, where there is little or no commerce, or merely because it happens to lead to the country villa of the intendant of the province, or to that of some great lord, to whom the intendant finds it convenient to make his court. A great bridge cannot be thrown over a river at a place where nobody passes, or merely to embellish the view from the windows of a neighbouring palace; things which sometimes happen in countries, where works of this kind are carried on by any other revenue than that which they themselves are capable of affording.

In several different parts of Europe, the toll or lock-duty upon a canal is the property of private persons, whose private interest obliges them to keep up the canal. If it is not kept in tolerable order, the navigation necessarily ceases altogether, and, along with it, the whole profit which they can make by the tolls. If those tolls were put under the management of commissioners, who had themselves no interest in them, they might be less attentive to the maintenance of the works which produced them. The canal of Languedoc cost the king of France and the province upwards of thirteen millions of livres, which (at twenty-eight livres the mark of silver, the value of French money in the end of the last century) amounted to upwards of nine hundred thousand pounds sterling. When that great work was finished, the most likely method, it was found, of keeping it in constant repair, was to make a present of the tolls to Riquet, the engineer who planned and conducted the work. Those tolls constitute, at present, a very large estate to the different branches of the family of that gentleman, who have, therefore, a great interest to keep the work in constant repair. But had those tolls been put under the management of commissioners, who had no such interest, they might perhaps, have been dissipated in ornamental and unnecessary expenses, while the most essential parts of the works were allowed to go to ruin.




Actually he does call for universal progressive taxation.
Of Taxes
THE PRIVATE REVENUE OF INDIVIDUALS, it has been shown in the first book of this Inquiry, arises, ultimately from three different sources; rent, profit, and wages.

He goes on to discuss these different taxes in depth, but first, he discusses four Maxims that apply to all of these, to taxes in general. Can you guess what the first maxim is?

Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes,it is necessary to premise the four following maximis with regard to taxes in general.


1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.


Smith's first Maxim in regards to taxation in general is that people who make more money under the protection of the state should pay more in taxes to support that state.

Once again, you misread. Note the red text: "The subjects of every state ought to contributetowards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state," Smith is arguing for proportional taxation, i.e., a flat tax rate, universally applied, to all incomes. The only area where he argued otherwise was, as previously cited, in rental taxes, for the reasons previously addressed.

Bailey
07-18-2012, 05:50 PM
Wewe you should go to the University of Odysseus, your students will thank you for it.

Madisonian
07-18-2012, 05:53 PM
But just for fun, let's consider this: if 0vomit is right that ďif youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happenĒ, then why let the business owner keep any profit at all? In addition, why should individuals be allowed to own businesses or any private property?

Careful there Reb. If you read the history of Wei's posts on economic theory, he does not believe that individuals should be allowed to own any business, but under the dubious "Labor Value Theory" and believes that all businesses should be owned, or at a minimum all profits go to, the workers.

Don't put the carrot before the dead horse by posing this question. Think of the children, man!

NJCardFan
07-18-2012, 11:38 PM
OTOH, a business that fails to reinvest will soon find itself unable to compete with those businesses that do invest in improvements.

2 words come to mind on this: Stanley Steamer. There was a concept that could have shaped the auto industry into something more interesting than it ended up being. Imagine a green car a century before being green was a cause celebre. Imagine choosing a car that, at the time, not only was cleaner than the gas engine but it was more proficient. However, the Stanley Brothers didn't try to improve on their design and before they knew it, the internal combustion engine had surpassed them.

Rockntractor
07-18-2012, 11:48 PM
2 words come to mind on this: Stanley Steamer. There was a concept that could have shaped the auto industry into something more interesting than it ended up being. Imagine a green car a century before being green was a cause celebre. Imagine choosing a car that, at the time, not only was cleaner than the gas engine but it was more proficient. However, the Stanley Brothers didn't try to improve on their design and before they knew it, the internal combustion engine had surpassed them.

They had a rather inconvenient habit of blowing up now and then, but when they did it wasn't all that bad, I'll put a story in the history forum for you.

Odysseus
07-19-2012, 08:41 AM
2 words come to mind on this: Stanley Steamer. There was a concept that could have shaped the auto industry into something more interesting than it ended up being. Imagine a green car a century before being green was a cause celebre. Imagine choosing a car that, at the time, not only was cleaner than the gas engine but it was more proficient. However, the Stanley Brothers didn't try to improve on their design and before they knew it, the internal combustion engine had surpassed them.


They had a rather inconvenient habit of blowing up now and then, but when they did it wasn't all that bad, I'll put a story in the history forum for you.

They weren't all that green. Steam power had to be generated by heat, which meant constant combustion of fuel, as opposed to the intermittent controlled explosions of fuel in the internal combustion engine.

AmPat
07-19-2012, 10:39 AM
I like sidewalks. Safer for kids than walking in the streets.
I like,,,lamp.
http://i46.tinypic.com/294iicm.jpg

NJCardFan
07-19-2012, 11:05 AM
They weren't all that green. Steam power had to be generated by heat, which meant constant combustion of fuel, as opposed to the intermittent controlled explosions of fuel in the internal combustion engine.

Couple of things. First, that was my point that the Stanley Brothers were slow to improve on their design. Also, yes it used fuel but in comparison you'd use very little and fuels like kerosene or other low grade fuels could be used for the burner. IIRC there were ideas floating around that would have been able to reuse steam by recycling water vapor so you wouldn't use as much water. Regardless, it still would have been better environmentally to have a steamer but as Rock said, people weren't all that comfortable driving something that could blow up. The point is, competition brought about the Stanley Steamer and competition ultimately led to it's demise.

txradioguy
07-19-2012, 11:50 AM
OTOH, a business that fails to reinvest will soon find itself unable to compete with those businesses that do invest in improvements.

And it should be allowed to go under..not propped up or the successful business penalized to make things fair.



Evolution...it's not just for animals.

Odysseus
07-19-2012, 12:09 PM
Couple of things. First, that was my point that the Stanley Brothers were slow to improve on their design. Also, yes it used fuel but in comparison you'd use very little and fuels like kerosene or other low grade fuels could be used for the burner. IIRC there were ideas floating around that would have been able to reuse steam by recycling water vapor so you wouldn't use as much water. Regardless, it still would have been better environmentally to have a steamer but as Rock said, people weren't all that comfortable driving something that could blow up. The point is, competition brought about the Stanley Steamer and competition ultimately led to it's demise.

I'm not sure that you can get the same amount of power out of a steam engine with the same amount of fuel as from an internal combustion engine, but your point about the failure to innovate is absolutely correct.


And it should be allowed to go under..not propped up or the successful business penalized to make things fair.



Evolution...it's not just for animals.

It's interesting that liberals believe that the universe could come into being spontaneously, without divine guidance or intervention, but an economy can't.

txradioguy
07-19-2012, 12:27 PM
It's interesting that liberals believe that the universe could come into being spontaneously, without divine guidance or intervention, but an economy can't.

LOL! Yup that's what I was thinking when I posted that.

Gina
07-19-2012, 02:02 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/251963_265580243548766_770941137_n.jpg

MountainMan
07-19-2012, 02:05 PM
What this boils down to is liberals/leftists think that wealth and prosperity come from the government. Without government granting you their permission, you have nothing. Of course that's bullshit.

Wealth is created by the individual for the individual. The individual creates government to protect that individuals right to life, liberty and property. Nothing more, nothing less.

AmPat
07-20-2012, 01:38 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/251963_265580243548766_770941137_n.jpg
Ha! I just posted that same photo to my FB.

Retread
07-20-2012, 11:43 PM
IMHO steam energy generation did proceed to it's logical and best solution. That of a stationary power plant exporting energy (electricity) from the source. It was never efficient as a mobile source and, again IMO, never could be. Too many energy transitions and loss.

=====================


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Gross%20Domestic%20Produc t%20GDP%20History&year=1950_2010&sname=US&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=293.7_339.3_358.3_379.3_380.4_414.7_437. 4_461.1_467.2_506.6_526.4_544.8_585.7_617.8_663.6_ 719.1_787.7_832.4_909.8_984.4_1038.3_1126.8_1237.9 _1382.3_1499.5_1637.7_1824.6_2030.1_2293.8_2562.2_ 2788.1_3126.8_3253.2_3534.6_3930.9_4217.5_4460.1_4 736.4_5100.4_5482.1_5800.5_5992.1_6342.3_6667.4_70 85.2_7414.7_7838.5_8332.4_8793.5_9353.5_9951.5_102 86.2_10642.3_11142.2_11853.3_12623_13377.2_14028.7 _14369.1_13939_14526.5


weewee - if you truly believe it's a zero sum game then where in hell did all of this extra money come from?

Unreconstructed Reb
07-21-2012, 10:32 AM
Careful there Reb. If you read the history of Wei's posts on economic theory, he does not believe that individuals should be allowed to own any business, but under the dubious "Labor Value Theory" and believes that all businesses should be owned, or at a minimum all profits go to, the workers.

Don't put the carrot before the dead horse by posing this question. Think of the children, man!

So, Mr. WeWe is a bona fide Marxist and a public screwl teacher? Well, he must be real happy at having a fellow Marxist in the White House.

Odysseus
07-21-2012, 01:14 PM
So, Mr. WeWe is a bona fide Marxist and a public screwl teacher? Well, he must be real happy at having a fellow Marxist in the White House.

We don't actually know what he teaches. He implies that he teaches at the college level, but whenever he's asked, he ignores the question. My guess is that he teaches remedial Marxism to special ed kids.

Bailey
07-21-2012, 01:18 PM
We don't actually know what he teaches. He implies that he teaches at the college level, but whenever he's asked, he ignores the question. My guess is that he teaches remedial Marxism to special ed kids.

Isn't redundant call Marxism students special ed?

Rockntractor
07-21-2012, 01:20 PM
We don't actually know what he teaches. He implies that he teaches at the college level, but whenever he's asked, he ignores the question. My guess is that he teaches remedial Marxism to special ed kids.

Groundskeeper Wei Wei.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/imagesqtbnANd9GcSrdOpnLl9UbMktN5bJ8.jpg

txradioguy
07-21-2012, 01:30 PM
So, Mr. WeWe is a bona fide Marxist and a public screwl teacher? Well, he must be real happy at having a fellow Marxist in the White House.

No he's actually upset that Obama isn't leftist enough. He often refers to this administration as "the third Bush term".

Gina
07-21-2012, 11:06 PM
No he's actually upset that Obama isn't leftist enough. He often refers to this administration as "the third Bush term".

Which just goes to show what a nut job 3wees is.

Rockntractor
07-21-2012, 11:10 PM
No he's actually upset that Obama isn't leftist enough. He often refers to this administration as "the third Bush term".

Don't believe him he's a liar, that is just part of the game he plays, he carries Obama's water on everything and will be voting for him this fall just like he did last time.

txradioguy
07-22-2012, 05:40 AM
Don't believe him he's a liar, that is just part of the game he plays, he carries Obama's water on everything and will be voting for him this fall just like he did last time.

Don't believe him for a second. What's amusing is that he and A-D/Bok have said the same thing.

Yet only one denies being a Liberal.

Odysseus
07-22-2012, 11:47 AM
Don't believe him he's a liar, that is just part of the game he plays, he carries Obama's water on everything and will be voting for him this fall just like he did last time.

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. I wished that W. was more conservative, but voted for him. The hard left doesn't get that Obama can't simply impose socialism by fiat, and they are impatient with his incrementalism. But, like the CPUSA, they Wei will end up toeing the line and voting for the most socialist candidate.

Janice
07-22-2012, 01:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXEoQJ7ZMZs

Its a miracle!

Hubie
07-22-2012, 02:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXEoQJ7ZMZs

Its a miracle!



I like Whittle. I like when he gets really angry. He's the nicest-sounding angry person I think I've ever seen.

Odysseus
07-22-2012, 11:39 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qcWVe_elh58/UAMA3EjAOUI/AAAAAAAAFZ0/yfwg4WNFTPU/s1600/Giving%2BThem%2BThe%2BBusiness.gif

Janice
07-24-2012, 08:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8

Tough Scott Brown ad hits Warren on Obama's 'you didn't build that' remark

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) launched a tough, two-minute Web ad on Monday that ties his Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren to President Obama's controversial comment, "you didn't build that."

The ad features some unlikely voices in support of Brown's argument — former Democratic Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton.

It contrasts pro-business statements from the former presidents with recent comments by Obama and Warren about the importance of government and infrastructure to growing business.

The ad specifically highlights the president's "you didn't build that" comment — >>>

The ad opens with onscreen text reading, "How did we go from this ..." and cuts to instances of Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy praising enterprise. The ad also includes speech excerpts from former Republican Presidents Reagan and Ford.

Text then reads, "To this ..." contrasting excerpts of campaign appearances by both Obama and Warren where they argue the importance of government infrastructure and investment in building and growing companies.

“Let’s remember what America is supposed to be about," the ad concludes, cutting to Brown speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce.

“When you do well, everyone else does well," Brown said. "And I promise you this, I will never demonize you as business leaders and business owners for the work you do or the opportunities you create, because I think we should not be blaming you — we should be thanking you.”

The ad will be a high-profile litmus test for whether congressional Republicans will be able to use the president's remark effectively against other Democratic candidates in the fall.

TheHill (http://thehill.com/video/campaign/239433-brown-ad-hits-obama-warren-on-you-didnt-build-that-remark)

A good ad.

Gina
07-24-2012, 01:19 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/309444_446319878733689_58165307_n.jpg

m00
07-24-2012, 04:22 PM
weewee - if you truly believe it's a zero sum game then where in hell did all of this extra money come from?

A printing press. :cool:

But seriously, I don't think this is an either/or thing. Really, I am not convinced the concept of a GDP and what it means is properly understood in casual debate. Because ultimately what is wealth? Well, wealth is the ability to obtain goods and services. For example, if I lived on a desert island by myself and completely cut off from civilization it doesn't matter how much gold I have. I have no one to trade it with, therefore I am not wealthy. If there is a neighbouring desert island and the natives have an ample supply of gold, I am still not wealthy.

So, for wealth to work, the goods and services have to come from somewhere else that actually needs the wealth. In some cases this is functionally infinite (technology/ideas) in other cases this is finite and zero-sum. The Product of a country is sometimes representative of the wealth, because that Product can be used as wealth (to trade for other goods and services). Other times, it's a meaningless statistic because the Product is constrained by market forces in a way where the true value is obscured. The problem with fiat money in general is that it's another layer of separation from true wealth, which is why the people who create the money are the ones who benefit the most from it. In order to maximize this effect, it is necessary to deprive others of wealth because it is relative... if everyone is wealthy and well fed with a high standard of living, then labor and resources are really expensive. So in this way, wealth can be seen as the difference between the two ends of the spectrum. For many, "lowering everyone else" is a valid way of enriching oneself. Which is why, for example, the ruling classes in tyrannical states are far more wealthy in their own country than you would know by looking at bank accounts.

Retread
07-24-2012, 08:05 PM
.........................

Whiz!!!!!!1111111

Buzz cut.

m00
07-25-2012, 11:25 AM
Whiz!!!!!!1111111

Buzz cut.

I don't know what this means.

Retread
07-25-2012, 05:29 PM
I don't know what this means.

I figured as much.

Janice
07-26-2012, 08:49 AM
http://i.imgur.com/PHt72.jpg

You Didn't Build It...because I Didn't Earn It

It isn't socialism that explains Obama's dismissive "you didn't build that" remark toward people of talent and individual initiative; it's the culture of affirmative action. As I listened to Obama's silly, if not pathetic, comments, I was reminded of nothing so much as the comments and attitudes of people like him: the so-called "multicultural" affirmative-action students one encounters in colleges and universities.

These are people who, like Obama, earned little except a greased skid because of the color of their skin. They knew that by any competitive standard of merit, they were undeserving. The faculty and other students knew it. And the affirmative action students knew that everyone knew it.

Obama knows he didn't have what it took to get into Columbia, and he didn't have what it took to get into Harvard Law. Let's face an inescapable reality. If Obama had great grades, his transcripts would be in a full-page ad in the New York Times.

Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever having an article published in it, a status that separated him from every other HLR president who preceded him. >>> Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR, let alone to be the review's president.

What Obama had was an ascriptive characteristic, slightly black skin, at a time when there were racial divisions -- some real, some manipulated -- that were fracturing the Harvard law student body. Obama was chosen to ameliorate political tensions, not because of his brilliance. >>>

When faculty make affirmative-action hires, each of those hires knows that there were people passed over who were eminently more qualified for the position -- people who worked harder and published more in better places. In an environment that truly valued achievement over ascription, they, not you, would have been hired. Your very presence is a testimonial that the system is corrupt.

So, the inner voice says, I didn't build it; I know that, but neither did they. I assuage my guilt by making my reality their reality. I am redefining success and all that goes into it to conform to my own reality.

For Obama, the psychological dissonance was made even greater when he was granted a Nobel Peace Prize not for what he accomplished, but for what he was supposed to accomplish and obviously hasn't.

There have been calls in colleges and universities to exempt black students from all examinations -- not just standardized tests -- because such examinations are culturally biased. There has been a heated discussion over the elimination of the AP (advanced placement) and honors programs at elite public high schools because few minorities qualify for the classes. And hardly a semester goes by without someone calling for grading black students on Ebonics rather than on the criteria of standard college English, the English which, allegedly, everyone is supposed to master in college.

This mindset proposes that whites made it only because the culture itself is their affirmative action. They didn't build it; the culture enabled them to build it. No one builds anything; every creation is a product of cultural accommodation, an accommodation that minorities do not receive.

This is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of civilization emanates. The economic base -- the system of production -- determines everything else. That everything else, Marxists call the superstructure. Consequently, art, history, literature, drama, even science are all determined by the economic base and designed to legitimize it.

Racial nationalists have simply supplanted economics with race. With race as the base, the superstructure -- the culture of society -- is simply the legitimizing instrument of race. According to this mindset, blacks and other minorities can't succeed because the system is designed intrinsically to cause them to fail.

With Obama, we have entered a new cultural era, one where the very foundations of individual initiative, creativity, and achievement are called into question. Obama didn't build it -- and it only appears that others did, because their skin color enabled them to achieve.

Welcome to the new post-racial society, where there is no such thing as individual achievement.

Americanthinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/you_didnt_build_itbecause_i_didnt_earn_it.html)

Good article. The ultimate marxist affirmative action 0bamboozler wants to make successful people look like affirmative action hires too.

NJCardFan
07-26-2012, 12:05 PM
^^^
You can add the fact that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for no apparent reason either. The man has been handed everything and yet rails about wealth and privilege.

m00
07-26-2012, 02:59 PM
^^^
You can add the fact that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for no apparent reason either. The man has been handed everything and yet rails about wealth and privilege.

I thought that was the point. He was handed everything, so he assumes everyone else was too. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard for Romney to draw a stark contrast on this issue.

Retread
07-26-2012, 05:16 PM
........................, it's kind of hard for Romney to draw a stark contrast on this issue.

Maybe not a stark contrast but certainly a real one.

"I didn't inherit money from my parents." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/)

Politifact says half true. In reading their own interpretations of the facts, I'd give it much more credence.

<snip>

"I could have stayed in Detroit like him and gotten pulled up in a car company," Romney said at the debate. "I went off on my own. I didn't inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned. I worked hard, the American way."

<snip>

in Romney's own words, he did "inherit some funds" from his dad. But he gave them away.
"In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And thatís where his inheritance ended up."

<snip>

At BYU, he graduated with highest honors and gave a speech at graduation. He got accepted to a recently created dual-degree program in law and business at Harvard.

<snip>

Of hundreds of Romney's law and business school classmates at Harvard, just 15 earned the dual degree ó which packed courses required for the two degrees into less time than earning them separately. Romney didn't just earn the degree. He graduated with honors from the law school and in the top 5 percent of his class in the business school, according to The Real Romney.

<snip>

Indeed, he was already a wealthy man by the time his father, George, died in 1995. He did receive an inheritance but says he gave it away. We don't have independent confirmation of that. But a family-funded endowment at BYU started in 1998 to support the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management, bolstering Romney's claim.

Gina
07-27-2012, 12:24 PM
^^^
You can add the fact that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for no apparent reason either. The man has been handed everything and yet rails about wealth and privilege.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/531251_449592808397106_94591022_n.jpg

txradioguy
07-27-2012, 01:10 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/OBAMABUILTTHAT_20120727_103004.jpg

Zeus
07-27-2012, 01:28 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/OBAMABUILTTHAT_20120727_103004.jpg

So stolen....:woot:

m00
07-27-2012, 01:54 PM
Indeed, he was already a wealthy man by the time his father, George, died in 1995. He did receive an inheritance but says he gave it away. We don't have independent confirmation of that. But a family-funded endowment at BYU started in 1998 to support the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management, bolstering Romney's claim.

Yeah, but the reason I say it's hard to draw a stark contrast is that Romney grew up in wealth and privilege. This is so much more than inheritance. This is being in the "boy's club" social networks, access to family friends who can invest in your business because they are billionaires, name recognition, and all the connections you get. This isn't exactly bootstraps here. I think Romney had to work (and from what I hear, pretty hard) where Obama didn't, and that's the key difference. But the best VP pick for Romney would be a real rags-to-riches story... not a riches-to-more-riches story.

Unfortunately what Romney and Obama really have in common is that they both greatly benefited from too much government. The LBOs that Bain used as its cash cow only work by manipulating tax law on debt and arbitrage. In a truly free market, Bain wouldn't have been able to exist at all. That's really my biggest complaint about Romney, his wealth is a direct outcome of gaming very specific government "regulation" in the financial sector.

Again, it just means the VP pick really ought to be someone who started from nothing and built a successful business that makes a tangible product or delivers a tangible service.

Gina
07-28-2012, 10:30 AM
That's really my biggest complaint about Romney, his wealth is a direct outcome of gaming very specific government "regulation" in the financial sector.
If that's true, then democrats should love him, as they love government.

As far as Romney living a life of privilege, which can be viewed in many ways by different people, so what? Just because someone is jealous of his 'life of privilege'.. well they need to get over it and be grateful for what they have.

Janice
07-28-2012, 11:28 AM
All this class envy is really something to behold. Esp as its primarily facilitated via base desires and ignorance. This is or was America. Where anybody can and oftentimes does strike it rich, or lose it all... then strike it rich again. Then lose it again... and on and on. In one way it reminds me of racism. Pure ignorance! But that is what todays democrat party 'hangs its hat' on. Base desires (lust, greed, envy, sloth) and ignorance. The once great democrat party has been completely overtaken by radical leftists at the top. While many dem voters are still quite unaware of the transition as they watch tv news that has been usurped by the same crowd.

Meanwhile Oprah is worth something like $2-1/2B. 0bamma about $11M. Romney $250M. Seven of the top ten (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/15/seven-of-the-top-ten-wealthiest-members-of-congress-are-democrats/) wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats.

What really irks me is how the repuke leadership wants to play in the same sand box. We must get rid of the "leadership" of both partys. The DC kool aid has done irreparable damage to the lot of them. Even Romneys tax policy... you'll notice is pandering to the left (no taxes for those who earn less than $250/yr). The country is standing on the precipice. And the leadership of both partys seems to care less. Tough choices must be made .. starting with the entitlements ... and both partys leadership is standing there like a 'deer in the headlights'. Well, led by the Dems and enabled by the Rino repukes. If stupid was fruit, Washington D.C. would be a friggin orchard.

AmPat
07-28-2012, 11:52 AM
The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. I wished that W. was more conservative, but voted for him. The hard left doesn't get that Obama can't simply impose socialism by fiat, and they are impatient with his incrementalism. But, like the CPUSA, they Wei will end up toeing the line and voting for the most socialist candidate.
Don't be too sure. He has selectively issued edicts against established law and made one without any laws. He has bypassed Congress and ignored judicial subpoenas.

I believe he is testing the waters to see how far the limp penises in Congress will let him go. We know Harry is already given to fellate him daily.

Retread
07-28-2012, 12:30 PM
If that's true, then democrats should love him, as they love government.

As far as Romney living a life of privilege, which can be viewed in many ways by different people, so what? Just because someone is jealous of his 'life of privilege'.. well they need to get over it and be grateful for what they have.

Which is specifically what moo-moo's comments are all about. jealousy. Romney made millions on his own and refused any inheritance. The little o never 'earned' a dollar or created a job (including all of his stimulation).

Any similarities between the two ends with the fact they are human. And I have to take that on faith in the case of the little o.