The Obama Tax cuts for the rich

[j_b]

ALright, it didn't work THIS time and it's all the fault of mathematical models, but just trust the hand waving.

[billcoe]

Let me illustrate this by a brief sketch of what I regard as the chief actual cause of extensive unemployment - an account which will also explain why such unemployment cannot be lastingly cured by the inflationary policies recommended by the now fashionable theory.

 

If you didn't know that this was 1974 you'd think someone was talking about the Fed's last couple of press releases regarding quantitative easing and letting inflation drift up....heh heh.

[prole]

Ironically, the only reason why free market ideology hasn't been swept out of the "marketplace of ideas" in the wake of the global crisis it spawned is that its think tanks are subsidized by Big Capital! LOLZ!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I wonder if it concerns Jay that the only people that give him the time of day around here are Billcoe, Fairweather, and Kojak.

 

Who takes *you* seriously around here, prole?

[Jim]

If the government offers rents, organized interests will seek them.

 

Farmers will continue to use bogus pretexts for agricultural subsidies, the real-estate folks will do the same with the Mortgage Interest Deduction, uncompetitive industries will secure tarriffs to rip off consumers and insulate themselves from competition, etc, etc, etc. Same-o, same-o.

 

If you're for tariffs, subsidies, etc then you really can't make a principled objection to bailouts for the financial sector. They're just playing the same game as the Corn Ethanol lobby, public sector unions, etc - but with way less effective PR.

 

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here - and I've made clear before the need to deal with unsustainable policies on the local government scale. The difference, however, is that the local governments are beginning to make some steps towards structural change - while the party continues in the financial gaming system - including a lack of transparency, any meaningful oversight, or God forbid - actual penalties for those at the head of the fraud - rating agencies, AIG, and the NINJA loan backers. As usual no pain in the upper brackets, no lessons to be learned. Steady as she goes mate.

[JayB]

ALright, it didn't work THIS time and it's all the fault of mathematical models, but just trust the hand waving.

 

Quoting a thought bubble of yours from 1989?

[j_b]

If you're for tariffs, subsidies, etc then you really can't make a principled objection to bailouts for the financial sector.

 

Non-sequitur. There is no need for a principled objection to bailouts or subsidies as long as the interest of AMericans are taken into account. People will always need a developmental policy out of the hands of crooks despite your gobbledygook about free markets emerging if left un-tampered.

[j_b]

ALright, it didn't work THIS time and it's all the fault of mathematical models, but just trust the hand waving.

 

Quoting a thought bubble of yours from 1989?

 

Once more JayB showing the limits of his Manichean mind.

[j_b]

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here

 

I am for tariffs, subsidies and taxation as determined by developmental policies. A carbon tax and subsidy to alternative energies look really good right now.

[j_b]

Ironically, the only reason why free market ideology hasn't been swept out of the "marketplace of ideas" in the wake of the global crisis it spawned is that its think tanks are subsidized by Big Capital! LOLZ!

 

if you believe that free market ideology has any other function than providing cover for consolidation into oligopolies. It takes a child to realize that a winner takes all rule leads to anything but "free markets".

[JayB]

If the government offers rents, organized interests will seek them.

 

Farmers will continue to use bogus pretexts for agricultural subsidies, the real-estate folks will do the same with the Mortgage Interest Deduction, uncompetitive industries will secure tarriffs to rip off consumers and insulate themselves from competition, etc, etc, etc. Same-o, same-o.

 

If you're for tariffs, subsidies, etc then you really can't make a principled objection to bailouts for the financial sector. They're just playing the same game as the Corn Ethanol lobby, public sector unions, etc - but with way less effective PR.

 

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here - and I've made clear before the need to deal with unsustainable policies on the local government scale. The difference, however, is that the local governments are beginning to make some steps towards structural change - while the party continues in the financial gaming system - including a lack of transparency, any meaningful oversight, or God forbid - actual penalties for those at the head of the fraud - rating agencies, AIG, and the NINJA loan backers. As usual no pain in the upper brackets, no lessons to be learned. Steady as she goes mate.

 

As long as there's a government willing to give public money to private interests under some pretext or another - there will be people that figure out how to get their hands on it. Some will be more successful than others. Like, say, FNMA.

 

As long as there's a central bank, there will be bailouts. As long as it's possible for legislative bodies to grant public windfalls to private economic interests via tariffs, subsidies, or other mechanisms intended to exclude the said interests from competition - they'll seek and secure them.

 

 

[JayB]

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here

 

I am for tariffs, subsidies and taxation as determined by developmental policies - and thereby providing cover for consolidation into oligopolies.....

[prole]

ALright, it didn't work THIS time and it's all the fault of mathematical models, but just trust the hand waving.

 

Quoting a thought bubble of yours from 1989?

 

Exactly. Slovoj Zizek recounts how uncannily the "we didn't go far enough" narrative that free-marketeers employ today mirrors that of the Stalinists of old. Hilarious.

[j_b]

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here

 

I am for tariffs, subsidies and taxation as determined by developmental policies - and thereby providing cover for consolidation into oligopolies.....

 

cheap stunt, and JayB forgot about antitrust laws, whiich is to be expected since the free market zealots haven't had any use for antitrust laws over the last 30+ years. It's convenient that JayB is also against anti-trust laws so that he can speak from both corners of his mouth.

Edited December 21, 2010 by j_b

[j_b]

ALright, it didn't work THIS time and it's all the fault of mathematical models, but just trust the hand waving.

 

Quoting a thought bubble of yours from 1989?

 

Exactly. Slovoj Zizek recounts how uncannily the "we didn't go far enough" narrative that free-marketeers employ today mirrors that of the Stalinists of old. Hilarious.

 

Indeed, but with a small correction: I have never supported the eastern block so I certainly didn't think or say any such thing in 1989 or ever. Good example of how red-baiting works btw.

[JayB]

No one is defending subsidies and tarriffs here

 

I am for tariffs, subsidies and taxation as determined by developmental policies - and thereby providing cover for consolidation into oligopolies.....

 

cheap stunt, and JayB forgot about antitrust laws, whiich is to be expected since the free market zealots haven't had any use for antitrust laws over the last 30+ years. It's convenient that JayB is also against anti-trust laws so that he can speak from both corners of his mouth.

 

Pretty much the only way that a commercial monopoly can endure indefinitely in the face of global competition, technological change, changing consumer preferences, etc is with the government's help.

 

The only anti-trust laws we need are those that would prohibit the government from granting any subsidies or special exemptions from competition to any commercial enterprise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[prole]

More pious orthodoxy. In practice, capitalist competition trends naturally towards monopoly. Allowing monopolies to develop, deregulating, etc. in the real world firm in the notion that things will simply shake out in theory smacks of a kind of messianic faith.

[j_b]

Messianic faith indeed, for there is no evidence that monopolies cannot endure indefinitely, especially once they are powerful enough to capture government (like today).

 

Anyway, even if giving JayB's self-regulating wet dream the benefit of the doubt, what good would it do us that monopolies eventually perish down the road once they have destroyed all small and mid size competition. It's total nonsense, any which way you want to look at it.

[JayB]

More pious orthodoxy. In practice, capitalist competition trends naturally towards monopoly. Allowing monopolies to develop, deregulating, etc. in the real world firm in the notion that things will simply shake out in theory smacks of a kind of messianic faith.

 

How about you identify commercial monopolies that have persisted for 20 years or more. Add the number of anti-trust cases brought by the government if you like.

 

After which point - we can divide that number by the number of active business licenses in the US and empirically test your claim that all commercial activity would have a monopoly as its endpoint despite changing technology, competition, changes in tastes, preferences, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wastral]

Wow a subject I actually agree with Prole about. A first. Though not totally. Like anything else, politics and economics meet and one truly has to stay away from the extreme ends of the spectrum, anarchy compared to servitude. In this instance you can't really state that they are "right" or "left".

 

I would like to point out that to maintain a self sufficient country there are certain industries that must be protected. Via Tarriffs, taxes, regulations, etc. Not into monopolies, but protected from outside ecopolitical interests that will influence your politics and decision making. Like say the steel industry. A basic need of any 1st class nation. Just because China chooses to dump all its waste from said industry right back into the rivers while our industry actually practices clean production practices shouldn't enable said Chineese industry from becoming a monopoly and destroying said core industry here in the USA. IF there ever was a real war, not the joke in Afganistan or Iraq, this is a paramount industry to have.

 

Industries that shouldn't have subsidies are farming. All this does is help out the giant farmers so they can buy out the little farmers becoming even bigger. Now maybe if they passed a law topping how big farms can be...

 

In short such discussion always come down to "how free is your freedom". IE how close to anarchy do you want to go?

 

Anarchy is not freedom. Just the largest bully on the block. The opposite is true as well. How close to slave hood are you willing to go for "fairness" where there is no reward for initiative and nothing to gain from hard work.

[prole]

No successfully industrialized nation-state in the history of global capitalism has achieved its status without industrial policies that include elements of protectionism. None.