GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
And what of mutually beneficial exchange?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
GDP versus net GDP
- Thread starter Dr.Who
- Start date
And what of mutually beneficial exchange?
Werbung:
The problem with your argument is as follows:
Every dollar that the government spent on these projects was first either taxed or borrowed from the economy.
If government takes $100 dollars from the economy and uses it then come back an generate $105, you can point to this as a success since government expanded the value of that money.
However, that also means that the private sector has $100 less to work with. The private sector is often more efficient than government, so it is likely the private sector could easily turn that $100 into $110 (as an example), making us all better off.
No one disputes that government spending can have a good impact, but to argue that it is such a great thing assumes that the government is better able to spend than the private sector...something that is rarely the case.
The right to have decent highways, police and fire protection, a strong military to keep the violent nutters at bay, a social safety net, water that is cholera free and relatively safe to drink, meat and vegetables that are unlikely to contain e coli, quite a few things actually.
Having lived for a time in a nation that had none of those things, I've learned to appreciate living in one of the world's fatlands, even if it is the one with the lowest standard of living among modern nations. It's still infinitely better here than it is in a country that is basically an anarchy. That is an opinion based on personal experience.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Surely your private roads are in horrible disrepair... After all, PLC says that such things are not practical.
I'd be interested to see a picture of where your private road ends and the public road begins.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The last time I checked anyone who does not pay their taxes has their paychecks garnished, or a lein put on their homes, or the sheriff comes and arrests them. If that is not unwilling I don't know what is.
Now if the gov said: "Send us whatever you want to send in" like my church does, then that would be voluntary.
Now I admit that my use of the word "stolen" is hyperbole but the unwilling confiscation of wealth at gunpoint committed by a mugger is not all that different from the unwilling confiscation of wealth at gunpoint committed by the gov. I also admit that taxes need to happen. We just have to start with the understanding that many of our founders started with that taxes are inherently immoral and the least taxation is best.
Why, the tea tax in the 1700's was more voluntary than taxes today since one could choose to drink coffee. It was also only 3 cents on the pound, a small amount even then. And while we would love to think that the Sons of Liberty were a wholly honorable bunch (they never tarred and feathered anyone, or threw rocks at soldiers, or dumped tea) and they only objected for the most noble reasons it would also be true that just about any tax would have been rejected even with representation. America had simply gone 150 years with no taxes paid to the king then suddenly go a heap lumped on them.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The gov can indeed have a good impact. And it has a role to play. But there are limits and it must stay within its limits. Even if at times it is more efficient if the activity is outside of what the legitimate role of gov is (like running church services) then the gov should not do it. On the other hand, even if it does things less efficiently if it is the rightful role of gov (like waging a war) then it is better that the gov do it. And again since money the gov uses must first be taken from the economy by coercion the the gov that governs the least governs the best. Where have I heard that before?
Is the money we pay for water and power also "unwilling confiscation of wealth"?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Exactly!
If a gun man steal my money, he probably is not going to serve me dinner that night, or mow my lawn, or assure that, when I call the police, someone will answer!
However, when I send my tax contribution (I just thought of that. . .in Belgium, taxes are actually called "Contributions!") I do expect that if it snows the next day, the street will be cleared, the bridge I have to cross won't fall down (okay, that doesn't always work. . .and it will get worse if we stop spending on infrastructure!), and that my kids have a school to go to where I don't have to pay huge tuitions (unless I want to send them to private school!).
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Was it unwilling?
Was it confiscation?
Was it wealth?
In my situation I get a water bill every month. I do not have a choice to not use the service, I do not get a choice to not pay, and it is money that I have to send in.
So the answer is yes, yes, yes.
If the kind folks at Wal-mart filled a cart for you, brought it to your house, and made you pay for it would that be unwilling confiscation of wealth?
I believe that I can choose not to by electricity from Comed and get a generator if I choose so it would not be unwilling confiscation of wealth.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If a gunman did give you something in exchange for your money it would make it no less of a crime.
I am glad that you are getting a service for the fees you are paying bu that does not make the exchange any more voluntary for anyone who would rather not make that particular exchange. Did you voluntarily contribute toward every expense the gov had? If I remember correctly I have heard you complain about some defense spending. Clearly if you had a choice you would have earmarked your taxes for something else.
According to that, then, the private sector also confiscates wealth.
RoccoR
Well-Known Member
PLC1, et al,
This is an interesting conversation. I think it needs to be revived.
So, I'll throw my two cents in and stir the pot; although, I think that both of you (as well as other contributors) know a lot more on the subject than I.
(COMMENT 1)
I don't believe that the Private Sector "confiscates" wealth. But it does have an impact on the work force, which generates wealth. If the Private Sector no longer supports employment (outsources) then there is less money on the economy to circulate.
(COMMENT 2)
Capitalism counts on no government intervention. The Private Sector is in business to make money (gain wealth). It has little or no interest in the economic health of the nation. It will outsource any job, move any industry, and service any emerging market (not necessarily the US market) that can afford to pay. The entire maxim and mantra behind business is to maximize the wealth of the shareholder. If the country loses its industrial capacity, is beseeched by both unemployment but under-emeployment, the Private Sector does not care. It has no patriotism, it will just move-on to the next emerging market.
(OBSERVATION)
When a country is economically strong, and has the capacity to generate disposable income, the other programs (defense, health, educational, social, foreign, etc) become affordable.
The industrial and production capacity drives many engines in America. The fact that America sees no national security interest in rebuilding America is the first set to the decline in the GNP. With the decline of the GNP, America inches it way to a third world country.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is an interesting conversation. I think it needs to be revived.
So, I'll throw my two cents in and stir the pot; although, I think that both of you (as well as other contributors) know a lot more on the subject than I.
(COMMENT 1)
I don't believe that the Private Sector "confiscates" wealth. But it does have an impact on the work force, which generates wealth. If the Private Sector no longer supports employment (outsources) then there is less money on the economy to circulate.
(COMMENT 2)
Capitalism counts on no government intervention. The Private Sector is in business to make money (gain wealth). It has little or no interest in the economic health of the nation. It will outsource any job, move any industry, and service any emerging market (not necessarily the US market) that can afford to pay. The entire maxim and mantra behind business is to maximize the wealth of the shareholder. If the country loses its industrial capacity, is beseeched by both unemployment but under-emeployment, the Private Sector does not care. It has no patriotism, it will just move-on to the next emerging market.
(OBSERVATION)
When a country is economically strong, and has the capacity to generate disposable income, the other programs (defense, health, educational, social, foreign, etc) become affordable.
The industrial and production capacity drives many engines in America. The fact that America sees no national security interest in rebuilding America is the first set to the decline in the GNP. With the decline of the GNP, America inches it way to a third world country.
Most Respectfully,
R
I don't either, but, if we apply the reasoning above to the private sector, then both government and the private sector "confiscates wealth."
Or, neither do.
Exactly right, which is why we need government controls on capitalism. Capitalism remains, with all of the above noted, the primary engine of creating wealth.
If there is no national security interest in rebuilding America, then we're not all that far from third world status. I'm hoping at least that the premise of no interest in rebuilding is incorrect.
The primary interest in government just now seems to be to make one's own party look good by making the opposition appear as bad as possible. That's the mentality that has to change, IMO, in order to ward off that third world nation status that seems to be coming.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I haven't listed any private sector companies that confiscate wealth. I imagined that Wal mart did. I think I was not clear enough in describing the water company. The water company is not the one taking my money it is the city I live in and they do not allow me to choose another company or to choose to not have water service. And as for comed I have the right not to pay them.
If anyone can name a private sector company that has the right to confiscate wealth without gov backing then let us know. And if the gov backs them then they are not really a private company are they?
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your input and would just like to correct a few details.
The definition of capitalism implies that there may or may not be any gov intervention. However in practice there is always a gov intervention and if there were not one then one would arise. The purpose of gov is to stop people from harming each other. In any capitalism the people who live there would establish a gov to make sure that commerce occurs with a rule of law.
The private sector is made up of millions of individuals each with morals and a conscience - and often patriotism. In the US there are literally hundreds of thousands of corporations that exist solely to do good. Additionally there are millions more that have mission statements which include the idea that the company exist in part to do good. Furthermore, companies that do not exist at least in part to do good suffer a disadvantage in a capitalism and might just go out of business. This is why so many of your cereal boxes have little "box tops for education" cutouts on them that are collected by schools and turned in for cash.
The majority of companies in the us do not have shareholders. The majority are small businesses owned by individuals and families who share with the local boy scouts and the local little league teams and the...
If you owned a business would that statement be true of yours? Would you not care? Do you have a job or have you ever or do you intend to ever have a job? If yes then in a sense you are a business owner. And the purpose of your business is to trade your labor for cash. Did your or would you trade your labor without any care? Or did you, would you, perform your job with morals and as a productive member of society?
