Socialism - Good on Paper, Not in Reality...

[theworm]

just one step away....  comrad.

[The True Adonis]

just one step away....  comrad.

Not even close.  Do you not know the difference?  Do you feel comfortable knowing that you are too ignorant to delineate either form of governance in its respective right?

[theworm]

socalsim just does not make any sense.  please help me try to understand it.

I bust my ass in school, then 8 years post grad work, etc etc.  get a great job that pays well.

Under your socialism, they just take my money and give it to someone who doesn't work...  so whats my motivation to keep working if I will get the same even if I didn;t work?  why would anyone strive to be a harder worker?  Just does not make any sense to me, so seriously, can someone explain how society would be better off if NOONE had ANY DRIVE to become better?  there would be no advances in technology and society would come to a stand still.

also, if people like me stopped working (after realizing i can just stay home and still get a check), where would the money come from to support other non-workers?  If you penalize the providers and they stop providing, where would the money come from?

[The True Adonis]

socalsim just does not make any sense.  please help me try to understand it.

I bust my ass in school, then 8 years post grad work, etc etc.  get a great job that pays well.

Under your socialism, they just take my money and give it to someone who doesn't work...  so whats my motivation to keep working if I will get the same even if I didn;t work?  why would anyone strive to be a harder worker?  Just does not make any sense to me, so seriously, can someone explain how society would be better off if NOONE had ANY DRIVE to become better?  there would be no advances in technology and society would come to a stand still.

also, if people like me stopped working (after realizing i can just stay home and still get a check), where would the money come from to support other non-workers?  If you penalize the providers and they stop providing, where would the money come from?

Try again. That is not what Socialism is at all.

[theworm]

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

[what:]

correct.

but we needed SOMETHING to stop the unemployment/lack of consumer spending spiral we were on.

the stimulus package did that.  it watered down money, but created 4 million jobs.  Plus it stabilized the banks, stopped the runs, and restored confidence.  Plus the dow has been up 4 weeks since the stim package was signed, now over 8000 points.

Europe is sitll 6 months behind us - meaning they'll feel the brunt shortly - but it looks like obama's plan may just work.  Yes, it watered down money by printing extra, but it stopped the freaking bleeding.  Should we do a stim package every year?  of course not.  Did we need one this time?  yeah, we did.


Besides - remember that Clinton inherited a big recession in 92 from Bush 1.  he did his own major spending/stim package.  And it worked.  A year later, employment was thru the roof.  Clinton (who I personally dislike, i admit) was able to grow the DOW from 3000 to 10,000 during his term.  Bush 2 took it from 10,000 back down to 8000 when he left.
So yeah, sometimes ya gotta spend a bit to restore confidence, get ppl working and spending again.

If memory serves, Clinton did no inherit a recession.  There was a recession during Bush 1 but I believe it ended prior to Clinton.

[theworm]

so TA, explain how socialism it not taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers?

That is the basis of your bullshit ideology, where "everyone would share the benefits of industrialization?"

[Tesla]

I don't buy into the argument that without these bailouts our economy would collapse.  Look at all the hardships we have endured as a nation:  Revolutionary War, Civil War (and entire generation of young men decimated), financial panics in the 1830's, 1870's, and 1900's, World Wars, stagflation of the 1970's...

And we were going to fall to pieces because big banks made stupid loans?  I'm not buying this at all.  Politicians indulged in panic-mongering with very little substance to their accusations.  Fuck these banks.  Let them die due to their own incompetence.  That's how capitalism works.  Sometimes it's unpleasant but in the long term the feedback that it provides keeps economies progressing.  

There were many banks that did not make irresponsible loans.  If the big banks failed these rational banks would be picking up the viable pieces of the failed banks.  That's what has happened every other time.  Instead we are endlessly bailing out zombie banks.  

My toddlers will be paying for this bullshit for their entire lives.  

[The True Adonis]

Research Cleveland Public Power.  Dennis Kucinich, mayor at the time, enabled the people to take total control of the Privately held Cleveland Power company that was running rampant with high charges to its citizens in a monopolistic fashion.

Kucinich was able to turn the Power company to the trust and complete control of the Citizens which resulted in millions and millions and millions of savings for the city as well as providing all citizens with  almost non-cost power.  

There were even mafia hitmen sent to kill Dennis Kucinich because of vested corporate and government interest was being taken away and the power spread to nothing but the people.  

The entire entity is now citizen controlled with democratically controlled decision making processes amongst the citizens.  That my friend, is Socialism, when the control is relegated to the citizens and no one else. Not the government, special interests, monopolistic corporations, but solely to the people.

[theworm]

answer this TA:

if Obama was to take 80 % of your paycheck and give it to lazy ass people, would you be ok with it?  seriously?

dems would all become rebulican if they had to spend their OWN money.

[theworm]

Research Cleveland Public Power.  Dennis Kucinich, mayor at the time, enabled the people to take total control of the Privately held Cleveland Power company that was running rampant with high charges to its citizens in a monopolistic fashion.

Kucinich was able to turn the Power company to the trust and complete control of the Citizens which resulted in millions and millions and millions of savings for the city as well as providing all citizens with  almost non-cost power.  

There were even mafia hitmen sent to kill Dennis Kucinich because of vested corporate and government interest was being taken away and the power spread to nothing but the people.  

The entire entity is now citizen controlled with democratically controlled decision making processes amongst the citizens.  That my friend, is Socialism, when the control is relegated to the citizens and no one else. Not the government, special interests, monopolistic corporations, but solely to the people.

but the problem is that the majority of american people are stupid... shit, look, they elected Obama!    (seriously some of these stats are staggering, like 50% don;t know how many states their own, 70% don;t know how many planets their are, etc...)

[The True Adonis]

answer this TA:

if Obama was to take 80 % of your paycheck and give it to lazy ass people, would you be ok with it?  seriously?

dems would all become rebulican if they had to spend their OWN money.

That is not Socialism. That is a broken tax system.  Furthermore, all Obama is doing is moving the tax level up 3 percent on the top 4 percent of Americans, which you are not a part of.

Also, under Eisenhower, Taxes for the highest earners were giving 91 percent of income.  This also happens to be the biggest peace time growth in history.

My own feeling of taxes are more of a Scandinavian model where a National Sales tax on all new goods is implemented.  Used goods, food and shelter being free from tax.  23 percent on all items.  That is true Socialist tax plan in my opinion.

[The True Adonis]

but the problem is that the majority of american people are stupid... shit, look, they elected Obama!    (seriously some of these stats are staggering, like 50% don;t know how many states their own, 70% don;t know how many planets their are, etc...)

The majority of those stats make up Mccain/Palin voters as well.  Americans are a stupid people which is why they have an all or nothing mentality.  Americans are easily the dumbest in the first world.

[ASJChaotic]

Obama is doing great IMO, he inherited a mess 

[The True Adonis]

That is not Socialism. That is a broken tax system.  Furthermore, all Obama is doing is moving the tax level up 3 percent on the top 4 percent of Americans, which you are not a part of.

Also, under Eisenhower, Taxes for the highest earners were giving 91 percent of income.  This also happens to be the biggest peace time growth in history.

My own feeling of taxes are more of a Scandinavian model where a National Sales tax on all new goods is implemented.  Used goods, food and shelter being free from tax.  23 percent on all items.  That is true Socialist tax plan in my opinion.

I meant to affix this historical tax chart.  As you can see, Obama is not much different than Bush.  Only 3 percent difference when it comes to taxes. 

[The True Adonis]

I meant to affix this historical tax chart.  As you can see, Obama is not much different than Bush.  Only 3 percent difference when it comes to taxes. 

Note that the previous lowest tax rates occurred under Harding and Hoover, also the worst economic disaster in modern History with some economists attributing to the low tax rates.

[Saxon]

with some economists attributing to the low tax rates.

Names or it didn't happen...

[The True Adonis]

Names or it didn't happen...

Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction".

[The True Adonis]

Names or it didn't happen...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=33320
The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction

William D. Lastrapes
University of Georgia - Department of Economics

George Selgin
University of Georgia



The Journal of Economic History (1997)

Abstract:     
Although its role has been overlooked by monetary historians, a two-cent tax on bank checks effective from June 1932 through December 1934 appears to have been an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction. According to our estimates, the currency-demand deposit ratio was about 15 percent larger, and the M1 money stock about 12 percent smaller, ceteris paribus, than each would have been in the absence of the tax. The contractionary consequences of the check tax had in fact been anticipated by many legislators who were, nevertheless, unable to prevent the measure from being included in the Revenue Act of 1932.

JEL Classifications: E31, E51, N12

Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 19, 1997 ; Last revised: January 31, 1998
Suggested Citation
Lastrapes, William D. and Selgin, George,The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction. The Journal of Economic History (1997). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=33320 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.33320

Export to:  Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
William D. Lastrapes (Contact Author)
University of Georgia - Department of Economics ( email )
Athens, GA 30602-6254
United States
706-542-3569 (Phone)
706-542-3376 (Fax)
George Selgin
University of Georgia ( email )
Athens , GA 30602
United States
706-542-2734 (Phone)

[The Coach]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=33320
The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction

William D. Lastrapes
University of Georgia - Department of Economics

George Selgin
University of Georgia



The Journal of Economic History (1997)

Abstract:     
Although its role has been overlooked by monetary historians, a two-cent tax on bank checks effective from June 1932 through December 1934 appears to have been an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction. According to our estimates, the currency-demand deposit ratio was about 15 percent larger, and the M1 money stock about 12 percent smaller, ceteris paribus, than each would have been in the absence of the tax. The contractionary consequences of the check tax had in fact been anticipated by many legislators who were, nevertheless, unable to prevent the measure from being included in the Revenue Act of 1932.

JEL Classifications: E31, E51, N12

Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 19, 1997 ; Last revised: January 31, 1998
Suggested Citation
Lastrapes, William D. and Selgin, George,The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction. The Journal of Economic History (1997). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=33320 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.33320

Export to:  Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
William D. Lastrapes (Contact Author)
University of Georgia - Department of Economics ( email )
Athens, GA 30602-6254
United States
706-542-3569 (Phone)
706-542-3376 (Fax)
George Selgin
University of Georgia ( email )
Athens , GA 30602
United States
706-542-2734 (Phone)

Props to you TA for trying to build up a system thats failed time and time again. keep trying tho.

[The True Adonis]

Props to you TA for trying to build up a system thats failed time and time again. keep trying tho.

Democratic Socialism is killing the United States in all of the Scandinavian countries at the moment.  Also, note that Business and Corporate tax are and have always been HIGHER than in any Democratic Socialist country.  Compare the systems and you will see that the United States is not at the top of any statistic.

 Democratic Socialism has never failed.

[The True Adonis]

Selgin and Lastrapes have a lot of other papers noting the failures of Hoover, Harding and Coolidge`s tax proposals. 

[Saxon]

Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction".

Huh?  How do you go from two economists saying that a tax on bank cheques (I think it was 2 or 3 percent) contributed to a monetary contraction to saying that these economist claim that low taxes contributed to the Great Depression?

[The True Adonis]

Huh?  How do you go from two economists saying that a tax on bank cheques (I think it was 2 or 3 percent) contributed to a monetary contraction to saying that these economist claim that low taxes contributed to the Great Depression?

Check out some of their other papers.

[Saxon]

Check out some of their other papers.

Explain to me how you believe that this paper, which suggests that a rise in taxes contributed to the Great Depression equals "the worst economic disaster in modern History with some economists attributing to the low tax rates."