You mean...give deregulation a chance? Been there, it was a fucking disaster mate.

"That question takes your philosophy to the extreme to see if it holds water, and upon realizing that if everyone believed and lived by your philosophy, everyone would suffer and starve - thus demonstrating the failure of your philosophy - you essentially admit defeat, and demonstrate that you are wrong."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

No, I mean drop taxes beyond what is necessary to prevent the abuses we have seen in the past. Not deregulation, but corporate taxes only or corporate and minimal individual taxes. Let the individual keep his money and let the corporations foot the bill.

It's pretty simple to me: I want to work. Why? Not a clue. I can have all I want without any worries without working at all.

Should that be the case? I don't know... In today's wealth though, why not? If you want to get rich, be my guest. Sure, you pay more taxes then. Big deal. If you don't want that, stay 'poor' (that's a joke, right? 'Poor'... Geez... Even the poor are wealthy in the west).

The only real issue is that we somehow think someone born on one land-mass is entitled to be wealthy no matter what while they just leave the people on the next land-mass starving. I really don't get why people somehow think an American should get even just a buck more than Africans.

Bloody nationalism...

To clarify: if the 'poor' would actually be not wealthy but just above the minimum, I wouldn't mind either, although I prefer the current state of affairs. With the sole exception that my money should go to the real poor rather than the western 'poor'.

I know there are actual poor people here too, but maybe a couple of 1000 that sort of qualify on average per state?

Steephie - well done in hitting upon another lie of the left/liberalism and their bemoaning of the poor. There are truly damned few "poor" people in the US, even the oft-bemoaned "minimum wage" workers, who often look quite well fed, properly clothed, as the Tween on their iPhones from the protest marches...

Yes, our poor are truly wealthy compared to the real poor in the world, and the liberals who's compassion stops at the man-made borders (you needn't go to Africa to find poor...just outside the US borders...) are luaghable in their hypocricy.

Thucy is one of the only good Liberals around here whom I respect, because he seems to at least have some consistency in his thought, and has/is actually living a life that kind of matches his ideology (he spent time in Africa).

I commend you on this excellent point, Steephie.

It is indeed hilarity. I was going to post this earlier, but didn't and it seems really appropriate now. I am in many ways one of the "poor" of the west. While I'm not on unemployment or social assistance or what have you. I live on $12000 a year. I live in a lovely apartment in the extremely desirable downtown location with three roommates, have high speed internet, I have heat, electricity, a smart phone (no data though, bo ho ho) and warm clothes, I eat luxurious home cooked meals, with local organic produce 6-7 days a week, and occasionally go out with friends for a pint or a fancy meal. And I even have a little money left over for savings from year to year.

Frankly, I live a life of relative luxury, and I'm doing it for 3000$ less than the minimum wage in the US. Hell I've suffered a bit of lifestyle inflation this year, as a result of not tracking my spending as much. Last year I was saving 100$ a month, this year I haven't been able to save as much. But if I needed to I could cut my food budget in half, and stop going out with friends, or move to a cheaper place further from downtown. If I had to I could probably cut my expenses in half, and still have many of the luxuries I have today.

Those who feel a minimum wage job in America doesn't pay enough either need to find a cheaper place to live, or learn how to manage their personal finances better.

I'm a nationalist through and through, and I'll admit I'd rather help the people in my area than those in other countries. But I've got to say, the poor in the country certainly don't need to be poor.

No right is absolute (not even life - think of self defense), so each right comes with its own fine print. If you want anything from society, you should be required to contribute according to your abilities.

Damian - I want to thank you for that post - that was awesome on so many levels.

First: Minimum wage workers *can* survive. They do it by cooperating with other human beings - so the notion that minimum wage is not a livable wage is nonsense, unless you insist on living the liberal lie -- which is that you must rely on everyone for your life, but can't be expected to cooperate with others when taking assistance.

SECOND: Poverty in the US can be down-right luxurious - depending on your definition of luxury - and you dispel the lie of what poor mean in the US for those who are reasonable and sensible with what they are given/earn.

Awesome post.

@Alex - you allude to the aforementioned *responsibilities*...something the left-wing in America does not believe in. Given that the nature of most of their redistribution arguments are heavily weighted in by their unspoken racial bigotry, and most of them still are taught to suffer the guilt of slavery, they are incapable of openly stating that those they believe *need* their help should also work for it.

Liberal White Guilt is a bitch...

I think we all agree (besides maybe krellin) that the current state of inequality is a problem (going back to the "lazy rich shouldn't stay rich and ambitious poor shouldn't stay poor" line).

I think the fundamental difference is that Draug and krellin believe that the free market will rectify this, while SYnapse and myself think that the market inherently favors those with market power - ie. the rich.

And Draug, no offense meant, but you're not "rich" in the sense that you're the person the pundits are talking about. They're talking about people who make over $1 million a year in annual income, the top 1% or .1%. Those are the rich whom this conversation is about. Those people have the power to pass any tax on from themselves onto their workers or consumers. Its very, very hard to directly tax them.

goldie - these even, inequitable rich you speak of - do you actually think their "wealth" is a pile of gold sitting in a vault ala Scrooge McDuck.

Before I enlighten you with the answer...why don't you tell us what you think this wealth is, because your (obvious) misconception about all this is part of the problem.

OK...GO:

"Its very, very hard to directly tax them."

Isn't the obvious thing to do then to not tax them?

Also, if you tax their workers and customers for working and consuming at their companies, the net result is that you practically taxed them. Supply and demand. The taxes can be seen as a tariff, lowering demand, reducing price...
Lowering supply too. That's no inherently good thing I suppose... Less production=less wealth in this context. I'm talking about the Harberger-triangle now.

The goal is not to make the rich poor after all, but to make the poor rich. Not sure if you achieve that with these 'indirect' taxes. I think everyone will lose and the rich will be isolated (since spending money means it gets taxed). If it's indeed very hard to directly tax them, I wouldn't put too much effort into it, since wealth is bound to disappear.

krellin: isn't it obvious that goldfinger thinks those rich invest in their companies with their money?

I don't see where you're going with this.

krellin - I think that they have it in a variety of funds, and partial ownership of companies and such. But most of them either have private money managers or have someone from Blackrock or Lazard managing it. Please back it up with facts if you think I'm wrong....especially since I'm fairly well acquainted with the banking sector.

steephie - you're getting into a problem of tax incidence. Obviously the world is best when there is no tax - but we need governments, so there must be some sort of tax. There also must be a way to decrease inequality. What's the use in economic growth if its being only captured by the top 1% of people (ie. this past decade).

Going to the harberger triangle though (since this is a good vehicle to mention it). Imagine that the demand curve was much, much steeper. Move the line left to show the deadweight loss and you see much of the triangle is above the old equilibrium point. This shows that consumers are dealing with most of the deadweight loss. Switch it around with the supply curve and producers deal with most of the deadweight loss. This is tax incidence - ie. who "really" pays taxes. Too often, its the consumers, which leads to the inequality that we see now.

when I read the way you had framed the debate Krellin,
I had to say "Love your work"
Demonise the Liberals & misrepresent their philosophy,
Glorify the Conservatives & "Gild the Lilly" when describing their philosophy
( you can sprinkle gold dust on a turd, but it's still a turd underneath the glittering window dressing )

Misrepresenting the other chaps philosophies in order to criticise them is the LAZIEST and most SELF DECEPTIVE of intellectual pursuits.
It's far tougher to "generously" & accurately describe your opponents philosophies and then criticise them in a fair and balanced way.
That's why extremist views always appeal to the "lowest common demoninator" types and the dumbest amongst us.

Glad to see you still embrace the fantasy that a "true free market" can actually exist in reality. You DILLS, its an abstract economic concept,
maybe the example of "imaginary numbers" such as the square root of negative one
might help your tiny clockwork brains grasp this ( dare I say, inconvenient ) truth.

All markets that exist in the reality of our breathing, mortal, temporal world are distorted.
By Geography & innumerable other factors.

That may give you a hint as to why you need to have a somewhat more intellectually sophisticated approach to this stuff Krellin

What happens as automation makes more and more people's work less than worthless, you heartless fucking animals? Already cashiers are pointless, it is way faster at the self scanner machine. Lawyers and radiologists will be necessary in far fewer numbers as well, as machine learning algorithms do the majority of tasks faster and better. The reality is the best contribution to productivity a lot of people can make is just to stay out of the way, and the number of people this is true for will only go up. should they starve?

"
Those who feel a minimum wage job in America doesn't pay enough either need to find a cheaper place to live, or learn how to manage their personal finances better.
"

Really and how much do you pay for perscriptions in Canada?

You can act as if the working poor in America should just be more frugal but the fact is your generous social safety net, which you ironically oppose, makes the cost of living when it comes to basic things like healthcare much cheaper than in the USA.

Conservatives allergy to macro-economic thinking is self-destructive. You can rail against the poor and blame for everything all you want, but the fact is so long as the rich pauperize the middle class you're not going to have a growing economy. So groveling to the rich isn't going to get anybody anywhere.

@MajorMitch - Perhaps you need to take Intro to Business 105 and learn what the "free market" is. It means a market unfettered by government. Localities and environments outside government control do not alter the free market status. Quite the opposite. One can gain a competitive or monopolistic advantage thanks to environmental factors and it still be a free market. Free market does not equal fair market. Please tale a could business courses then return with you hopefully better informed opinion. Until them, let the adults who have taken at least a little bit of business and economic theory tall.

How come the anti-free market libs always complain about things like monopolies...and then they shout and scream and jump for joy when a labor union secures a monopoly on labor?

"Really and how much do you pay for perscriptions in Canada? "

I don't. I'm young and health, the extent of my medical bills this year, was a single appointment when I acquired a case of shin splits. Though this is kind of a stupid argument as prescription drugs aren't covered under the health act in my province, ie. we pay for them ourselves.

I'll grant you that if I did have any complications I would benefit a great deal from Canada's social security net. However as I said, I presently live on 3000$ less than the minimum wage, and in the last three months have still managed to stash away a surplus of 400$ dollars. Suggesting that if I had to live on minimum wage on America, with my lifestyle I would have 4200$ a year available for health spending.

Furthermore, as I said, I could cut my spending in half by decreasing my luxurious living conditions which would allow me to save an additional 375$ per month, or 4500$ a year. Effectively doubling my savings, if I were to enter into a situation where I needed the cash.

Of the social security net, free health care is the only thing which I benefit from that I would also receive in America. Furthermore, since I am not collecting from various social programs which I could collect in my income range the average american with my income actually receives more benefits than I do. They also get medicare.

I actually agree that a more balanced distribution of wealth is required for a healthy economy, however I see the imbalance as being generated by the selective treatment of corporations by government rather than allowing competition to arise they provide a monopoly over various industries.

Furthermore I'm not opposed to the existence of the governmental medical system in Canada, I am opposed to preventing private competition.

Krell you are a rich persons dream because you're a poor guy at the bottom willing to slug it out with another poor guy because you perceive him as in opposition to you, but to the rich guy looking down you are all just the same ..... poor insignificant people, if you choose to fight each other over political philosophy it probably means you're not troubling the rich guys ..... it's like a take on that old racist joke. Two rich guys watching a boxing match between a Liberal and a Conservative
1st Rich Guy: Who do you think will win?
2nd Rich Guy: Who cares?
1st Rich Guy: I'm willing to bet a dollar on the outcome
2nd Rich Guy: Now I'm interested

Well, krellin labor unions are actually a monopsony rather than a monopoly, with slightly different consquences. And I'm no fan of unions either, but right now workers don't have the organization needed in order to collectively bargain for better wages. I am completely against mandatory union membership, but I believe organized labor needs to have some sort of presence in the system.

"I don't. I'm young and health, the extent of my medical bills this year, was a single appointment when I acquired a case of shin splits. "

Then you're lucky. Why you're rubbing your luck in the face of the working poor of America I have no idea.

"Though this is kind of a stupid argument as prescription drugs aren't covered under the health act in my province, ie. we pay for them ourselves."

You still get cheaper perscriptions in Canada (plenty of American health tourists go to Canada to get drugs) because of actions taken by your supposedly incompetent government, namely that they bargain for drug prices in bulk.

"However as I said, I presently live on 3000$ less than the minimum wage, and in the last three months have still managed to stash away a surplus of 400$ dollars. Suggesting that if I had to live on minimum wage on America, with my lifestyle I would have 4200$ a year available for health spending.
"

Which would easily get blown by a single uninsured ERl visit in the USA. My kidney stone I just had to get taken resulted in a bill of well over $4200.

"Of the social security net, free health care is the only thing which I benefit from that I would also receive in America. "

That's a big "only thing". But it's probably not even true. As far as I know, there is extensive rent control in Canada. Rent control only exists in the most expensive cities in America. Furthermore, AFAIK, Canada has good public transit in most of its cities. It barely exists in the USA except, again, in the most expensive cities.

"They also get medicare. "

The average American does not get Medicare. It's a program for the elderly.

"Furthermore, since I am not collecting from various social programs which I could collect in my income range the average american with my income actually receives more benefits than I do"

Again, I doubt that highly.

But once again it seems like conservatives love to base their entire worldview on their own personal circumstances, ignoring the experience of legions of other people who don't have your fortune.

"I see the imbalance as being generated by the selective treatment of corporations by government rather than allowing competition to arise they provide a monopoly over various industries. "

Naturally. Every solution is to the market's credit. Every problem to the government's blame.

"I am opposed to preventing private competition."

Deregulation of services in the USA has been a total disaster. See: Airlines; See: Cable; See: Utilities.

What is weird is how conservatives supposedly are 'realists' when it comes to concentrations of political power, but nonetheless wax poetic about the moral perfection of the rich as they get richer. No concentration of wealth makes anybody immoral, but if anything remotely has any political power they're self-evidently evil.

"How come the anti-free market libs always complain about things like monopolies...and then they shout and scream and jump for joy when a labor union secures a monopoly on labor?"

How come conservatives have no problem with corporations getting all the rights and protections of 'personhood' but can't stomach workers collectively organizing for greater bargaining power against the divide & rule tactics of your beloved bosses?

Also I'm not against monopoly, I'm against the entire for-profit economy. Monopoly is just fine if operated according to public interest principles.

"You still get cheaper perscriptions in Canada (plenty of American health tourists go to Canada to get drugs) because of actions taken by your supposedly incompetent government, namely that they bargain for drug prices in bulk. "

Only on brand name drugs. The majority of generic drugs are actually cheaper in the states. And since generic drugs make up about half of prescriptions it's comes out as a bit of a wash. http://phys.org/news141924328.html . Though I will grant you the collective bartering for drugs is a good thing. It's one of the few admirable actions taken by the AHS. I'm certainly not arguing that everything they do is bad. Just that the bad they are doing outweighs the good at the moment.

"Which would easily get blown by a single uninsured ERl visit in the USA. My kidney stone I just had to get taken resulted in a bill of well over $4200. "
They key word here is uninsured. I'm not particularly big on risk taking, I'd probably grab a medical plan. Admittedly rates have gone up with the advent of Obamacare but you can get a decent high deductible plan for 436 dollars a month. (for a family of three) Which would would requires some scrounging to acquire, if it weren't for the fact the I would qualify for government subsidized healthcare under the new plan. (as an FYI the plan was 237$ prior to obamacare because of various required changes)

"That's a big "only thing". But it's probably not even true. As far as I know, there is extensive rent control in Canada. Rent control only exists in the most expensive cities in America. Furthermore, AFAIK, Canada has good public transit in most of its cities. It barely exists in the USA except, again, in the most expensive cities. "
Funnily enough, were I live, there is no rent control either. Its got a good public transit system though, which I will grant is a definite boon, though being downtown I choose to walk and cycle everywhere.

"But once again it seems like conservatives love to base their entire worldview on their own personal circumstances, ignoring the experience of legions of other people who don't have your fortune. "
Choosing to spend less than you earn isn't fortune. It's good planning. Sometimes bad things happen to people that do cause financial burdens which are hard to escape on a minimum wage. But for the average individual, who isn't spending a fortune on cars, oversized houses, TV and smart phones a stable living is definitely possible on minimum wage.

"Naturally. Every solution is to the market's credit. Every problem to the government's blame."
Naturally. I'm glad we're getting through to you. :-P

"Deregulation of services in the USA has been a total disaster. See: Airlines; See: Cable; See: Utilities. "
The problem I have with regulation is not that is forces industry oversight, but that it often locks out competition from entering the market. Deregulation of electricity in Alberta has been a disaster, though the deregulated system is arcane, all the energy companies bid to a not for profit to provide for the estimated energy use each hour and the company takes the highest bids. Which has driven prices skywards and is the strangest system I could possibly imagine. Sometimes regulation can be appropriate, however the vast majority of the time it serves infuriating purposes, like preventing people from selling their crops, or mandating minimum prices, preventing the companies from bidding against each other causing the consumer to get a better deal. Regulation is a wash with some perks and downsides. On the net I'm in favour of deregulation though I probably wouldn't completely deregulated, just reduce regulation.

Thus, opposed to preventing private competition from entering the marketplace.

"How come conservatives have no problem with corporations getting all the rights and protections of 'personhood' but can't stomach workers collectively organizing for greater bargaining power against the divide & rule tactics of your beloved bosses?"
Hilariously, I agree with you on both of these. Collective bargaining in both important and necessary. Though I feel the government should not mandate union membership to partake in a particular trade.

And corporate personhood is one of the worst evils inflicting on the world by the combined action of corporate lobbying and a pliant government.

"Also I'm not against monopoly, I'm against the entire for-profit economy. Monopoly is just fine if operated according to public interest principles"
Ah, back to completely disagreeing with you. Good good. Monopolies have no reason to be efficient. Since nobody will ever undercut them. Even a monopoly that tries to function for the public good will slowly acquire unnecessary layers of workers, and slowly have to raise prices.

Of course part of the problem with Alberta Electrical costs has been, that the government has passed a number of bills mandating that the public pay for transmission lines required by the companies, so that they could sell excess power to the states, which would decrease supply and increase the cost in alberta. This occurred largely due to the efforts of member of government who were also members of the largest electricity company at the time.

So that coupled with taking the highest bid, its basically a deregulated system steeped in a stew of government corruption that takes the highest bid and purposely encourages the rate to go higher by shipping power out of the province.

So I guess what I'm saying is, that example of deregulation is more just a cautionary tale about corrupt governments.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/02/08/AlbertaElectricity/

Damian - while I applaud your thrift, you simply cannot get by in a major US city on that income. I live ~2-3 miles outside of downtown DC and split an apartment with two others and it still costs $800 a month - which alone would eat straight through most of that income level. The only grocery store within a half hours walk is a f***ing Whole Foods, so I do all my shopping on the weekends when I have 3 hours of my day to go to a Shoppers. Public transportation quickly racks up as well. I don't use it often since I'm a student, but if I were working I'd easily pay $20 a week on transportation. That's about $11,000 just there in transportation and shelter. I understand DC is a higher priced city, but its more or less the same story in Boston, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, etc. You need at least $30,000 to survive comfortably.