@Ogion

cable networks?

"forgetting for a second that the rich are much less likely to receive the benefits of gov't programs as compared to the poor.:

Oh, James, you do make me laugh. Some of the biggest subsidies go to the rich, such as the mortgage interest deduction, and corporate subsidies go entirely to the rich. Taken together, the rich get just about as much as the poor, and more by some measures (without considering the subsidy that applies to income from capital as opposed to income from wealth. And no, capital GAINS have never been taxed before, because they are, well, GAINS.)

The post office isn't a monopoly (see, Fed Ex, etc.) although it is the cheapest in many places and sometimes, because it is a public entity operates in places where private ones would refuse to because they'd lose money. And cable networks? How are those monopolies?

Why would a free market make any difference. Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing, even if there were, it wouldn't stay a free market for long. They're not sustainable.

@Matticus

well i actually think people below a certain income shouldn't have to pay taxes. of course, i also believe in a severe limiting of gov't programs (in future gov't land) so things truly are: you get out as much as you put in. it'd be a 0% tax for the first 20,000$ (or more, depending on gov't spending etc.) that everyone makes, then a 20% (or more or less) on the rest of their income.

that's how tax brackets actually worse, one you move into a higher bracket, (100,000+) then you only pay however much money that puts you over that top bracket, in the top bracket percentage.

that's why average tax rates are always lower than marginal tax rates

@Ogion, the post office is a monopoly because it sets the prices for mail. It does not have a monopoly on package delivery, and that's why you have more efficient package delivery. State monopoly = inefficiency.

@Ogion

"Why would a free market make any difference. Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing, even if there were, it wouldn't stay a free market for long. They're not sustainable."

not entirely free, but much less unduly regulated than the one we have now. also, socialism is if anything less sustainable than a free market (Assuming you give a shit about human rights)

I'm getting just a little bit tired of teaching Ogion about the basics. He should start paying me.

also Monopolies on liquor. liquor and cable.

plus, monopolies can be created through regulating entries into a marketplace. the government doesn't directly control them, but via subsidies and regulation monopolies form:

as a result of gov't

If anything you said were remotely accurate, Zmaj, I'd consider it

@Ogion, of course you wouldn't. You'd consider making the state pay me to teach you.

@james, Western Europe have a much stronger human rights record than the US so socialist countries fair rather considerably better in that regard. Socialism doesn contain dynamics that are self destroying. A "free market" will invariably lead to disparate market power as bigger companies get bigger with the inevitable consequence that they distort the market through their market and political power

"Sets prices for mail" has nothing to do with being a monopoly. Being the only alternative is. And Mail is a utility that operates because the free market can't or won't. In the case of a utility, a public monopoly or a tightly regulated private one is far more efficient than a free market, which with wastes resources on massive duplicative infrastructure costs or more likely gouges the shit out of the market when they're a monopoly. We have regulated monopolies precisely because the free market does such an incomparably crapoy job of providing services efficiently.

He just keeps ad-libbing...

As in "having facts and logic to bring to bear"? You still haven't identified an actually government created monopoly outside of the utility context

What a clown.

Actually, I take that back. You're not a clown. I just can't take you seriously.

Indeed, because you're steeped in ideology without knowledge. This is the phenomenon that leads the Us to follow one boneheaded policy after another and then sit around and scratch its collective butt while wondering where the middle class and worker productivity went.

@Ogion

you mean those countries which can prosecute people because there isn't a right to freedom of speech?

also, socialism does have a self destroying element, it removes incentives for the individual to work at optimal efficiency, whereas a competitive labor market makes sure you can't do a half-ass job. because ignoring basic human nature is generally a bad idea, socialist regimes became fairly bankrupt and collapsed then split apart throughout the 20th century.

furthermore here is THE NUMBER ONE MOMENT OF IDIOCY OF THE YEAR!!!!

"A "free market" will invariably lead to disparate market power as bigger companies get bigger with the inevitable consequence that they distort the market through their market and political power"

DID YOU ALL SEE IT???

"A "free market""

"distort the market through their market and political power"

"political power"

"free market"

"political power"

"free market"

"political power"

"free market"

WOW! IT'S ALMOST LIKE HE I DESCRIBING A...

not free market???

SOMEBODY GET THIS MAN A PRIZE

jk Ogion i love you you're so cute and try so hard never quit on your dreams maybe write a book but jsyk reality doesn't take kindly to idiocy love you tho

I love you James... I would multi account just to give you more +1's

Capt Brad's challenge to those who support modest "wealth redistribution" by suggesting that they should "sell everything they own and give it to the poor" is yet another classic "Capt Brad misrepresentation"
Firstly those who think the wealthy and big business should pay a "fair share" of taxes and not be given so much taxpayer funded welfare do NOT propose that they should be stripped of all their wealth, far from it. Just pay a fair share of taxes does not equal "give us all your wealth and be impoverished"... Duh

Secondly many of those who argue for a more equal distribution of wealth are ready giving a proportion of our modest wealth to charitable causes...Philanthropy is not an exclusive monopoly of the wealthy..Duh
So a lot of us are doing what we suggest others do, we pay a fair share of taxes based on our incomes and do not engage in complex tax avoidance schemes and then we donate money, time and expertise to charitable causes, community groups etc.

Typical Capt Brad misrepresentation and provocative posturing imho. And dismissed as such.

Getting back to Wyatt's proposition/ questions about inequality in wealth distribution.
I have no objections to people enjoying success, it is to be encouraged. However if people think there are no dangerous consequences to societies that allow extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth then they ignore one of the basic lessons of the French revolution.
The French revolution is a classic example of the dangers of extreme inequality in wealth distribution linked with extreme inequalities in political rights, denial of opportunities to better one's life and circumstances to a great majority, brutal repression etc.
The inevitable result..bloody revolution, anarchy and then a series of brutal dictatorships.

So I support a society that encourages individual and group achievement & success, where all pay a fair share of taxes, and where there are strong public education and health services, and a "social welfare net" that supports the most disadvantaged. ( as well as an elite, well resourced military, decent system of Justice etc )

@,Zmaj you do, imho, such an appalling job of "teaching Ogion the basics" of economics that your proposition that you should be paid for your efforts is laughable. If anyone should be paid, imho, it's the "long suffering of fools" Ogion who should be paid for his remarkable tolerance and perceptive insight which you, and others determinedly, stubbornly & obtusely ignore, imho.

Brad is physiologically incapable of engaging with an argument in good faith.

@Major, imho, you use imho too much.

muting condensation

This is really good food for thought. When the new forum system is up this should get its own section

I'm glad you like my thread

It's better than those chili and rice lies :P

Well Mitomon. I'll have you know that the threads tital even stated that "that was all" you should've just left my rice and chili alone!!