Strengthen governments? Corporations have been specifically sowing distrust in government so that they can convince voters to weaken regulations and vote against their own interests. How are corporations strengthening governments when they benefit from weak government?
Corporations benefit from Capitalist governments. Larger Capitalists benefit when it is more difficult to compete, such as with strong IP laws or high startup costs, giving them free reign for monopoly.
They also love large militaries, as the MIC makes a ton of money off the suffering of people worldwide.
Perhaps if we invent some sort of system where a temporary voice-person or policy-person, with a career in legal matters who are chosen by asking each individual of a fairly defined district until a consensus is formed, gets sent to a meeting hall for other district's persons to meet and discuss broad policies. Then, if that that person fails to meet expectations of constituents they don't get their contract renewed and somebody else gets sent.
We could call it a "Vote-archy." Idk, just spit-balling here.
People would be immediately disillusioned when they didn't immediately get their need met and corporations would swoop in and capture regulatory bodies.
Regulations help to protect large corporations from competition, and then the larger the government is the more contracts it gives out. Are you saying we need a bigger stronger government?
Regulations help protect people from corporations. This libertarian take is total nonsense. What makes competition difficult for new entrants is the overwhelming size of modern day multinational corporations and the capital investment required to wage any sort of real competition which is something that is only going to be fronted by other extremely wealthy interests. So, yes, we do need bigger, stronger governments in relation to those very powerful corporations, specifically strong enough to break them up. Or ideally nationalize them entirely.
People who say stuff like this have never tried. You'll never hear a person who actually starts a business say anything of the sort. Usually insane tax rates is their gripe.
That is kind of true but it also protects corporations from small businesses. For example min wage harms small businesses much more than large corporations. You can like the "protection" but then you will get what you get with corporations and costs. If you opt for the bigger government then you will get things like unaffordable houses and inflation, so dont complain when you get what you asked for.
In fact, minimum wage earners tend to put a greater portion of their earnings back into the local economy vs. savings and increases help or at least don't impact particularly negatively small business. Neoclassical economics is a joke.
Our current economic situation is the product of decades of regulation cutting supply side (aka neoclassical) economics championed by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, which still dominates today. You know where housing is not unaffordable? Vienna, Austria. A place where better than half the residents live in social housing. The product of a strong government and regulation.
So your theory is that housing is so expensive because of less regulation? And if we had more regulations in how houses are built housing would be cheaper?
Ok but without regulation you get poverty wages, 12 hour shifts, 6 day work weeks, and food with no nutrition unless you think lead is a vital mineral.
Just among so many other things, like the lead poisoned baby food from March this year, you clown, the FDA was established in 1906, and Republicans are, right now, trying to abolish child labor laws and hiring 12 year olds in meat packing plants.
The west, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power. Slogans such as "governments have limited power by design" come from well-paid researchers, think tanks funded by big businesses. It's privately funded propaganda, like the Trilateral Commision in United States, for instance.
This meme's text has figures about "now" but doesn't note that it is mostly a paraphrased quote from Deus Ex, a video game set in a fictional dystopian version of America in 2052. The speaker is not in fact talking about 2024 America. But even for the past figures, I would want citations.
The first part seems to be talking about tax sources as a portion of total taxes raised, which isn't easy to search for. I did find a table that cited whitehouse.gov and recorded income collections compared to total GDP at least. It did peak in 1945, but only at 7.1%.
The US Bureau of Labor doesn't seem to have records on self-employment before 1948. The only thing I could find talking about self-employment in 1900 was a blog post that said it was 50%. 90% self-employment sounds like a lot of subsistence farming and odd-jobs work, which isn't exactly the ideal economic model.
The Deus Ex part is part of a longer conversation, but here is the relevant section:
JC Denton: Just answer the question.
Leo Gold: Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people.
JC Denton: Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Leo Gold: Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent.
JC Denton: So?
Leo Gold: It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.
1945 is a really weird data point, because yk, WW2 was still going on, so at least for Americans, most of them were probably employed by the state or by the various enterprises that produced the weapons needed for the war effort
The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is... Fascinating in a dark way.
Similar to feudal peasants that used to pay up in the form of free labor and produce, while their noble overlords enjoyed massive privileges and zero taxes.
The govt is our enemy when they hold the interests of corporations over the interests of the individual.
It shouldn't be the individuals job to pay the majority tax rate when they're struggling to survive. The people who have so much excess they can pay up to 50% tax aren't struggling in the slightest and can pay their fair share.
My favorite example of this is The Beatles. They were being taxed at a 90%+ rate and didn't even know. When they found out and took it to court, the judge basically told them they were being taxed at that rate and made so much money they didn't even notice so they just kept the rate the same and told them to fuck off.
I'm not speaking in favor for the UK specifically because they're basically still a monarchy with a parliament that doesn't represent people proportionally, but the government is the enemy of non-government powerful entities and organizations as you illustrated with the Beatles example.
By having a democracy where people vote on issues, you're participating in government for your own interests. If everyone did that properly, the government would never hold the interest of corporations over the interests of individuals. The problem arises when not enough people vote or are educated on policies, so then corporations and vocal ideological minorities can simply use money or coercion to convince people. And in doing so they directly oppose democracy, and therefor government.
Strengthen governments? Corporations have been specifically sowing distrust in government so that they can convince voters to weaken regulations and vote against their own interests. How are corporations strengthening governments when they benefit from weak government?
Corporations benefit from Capitalist governments. Larger Capitalists benefit when it is more difficult to compete, such as with strong IP laws or high startup costs, giving them free reign for monopoly.
They also love large militaries, as the MIC makes a ton of money off the suffering of people worldwide.
A strong government could take down corporations, but it has to want to do it first.
Perhaps if we invent some sort of system where a temporary voice-person or policy-person, with a career in legal matters who are chosen by asking each individual of a fairly defined district until a consensus is formed, gets sent to a meeting hall for other district's persons to meet and discuss broad policies. Then, if that that person fails to meet expectations of constituents they don't get their contract renewed and somebody else gets sent.
We could call it a "Vote-archy." Idk, just spit-balling here.
Nah. That would never work.
People would be immediately disillusioned when they didn't immediately get their need met and corporations would swoop in and capture regulatory bodies.
They’re not weaker they’re captured. It’s a concept called inverted totalitarianism and it’s terrible.
Controlled opposition.
yeah, the corporations have been doing that, not the shitty behavior of the governments.
Regulations help to protect large corporations from competition, and then the larger the government is the more contracts it gives out. Are you saying we need a bigger stronger government?
Regulations help protect people from corporations. This libertarian take is total nonsense. What makes competition difficult for new entrants is the overwhelming size of modern day multinational corporations and the capital investment required to wage any sort of real competition which is something that is only going to be fronted by other extremely wealthy interests. So, yes, we do need bigger, stronger governments in relation to those very powerful corporations, specifically strong enough to break them up. Or ideally nationalize them entirely.
People who say stuff like this have never tried. You'll never hear a person who actually starts a business say anything of the sort. Usually insane tax rates is their gripe.
taxes and the immense burden of regulatory compliance
That is kind of true but it also protects corporations from small businesses. For example min wage harms small businesses much more than large corporations. You can like the "protection" but then you will get what you get with corporations and costs. If you opt for the bigger government then you will get things like unaffordable houses and inflation, so dont complain when you get what you asked for.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/14/even-in-small-businesses-minimum-wage-hikes-dont-cause-job-losses-study-finds
In fact, minimum wage earners tend to put a greater portion of their earnings back into the local economy vs. savings and increases help or at least don't impact particularly negatively small business. Neoclassical economics is a joke.
It was a populous example and if you want to get into the weeds on it we could, but it wasnt the important part of the comment.
I love how you guys claim that sort of economics is dumb as you cant afford a house and to feed yourselves. Modern monetary policy is working great!!
Our current economic situation is the product of decades of regulation cutting supply side (aka neoclassical) economics championed by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, which still dominates today. You know where housing is not unaffordable? Vienna, Austria. A place where better than half the residents live in social housing. The product of a strong government and regulation.
So your theory is that housing is so expensive because of less regulation? And if we had more regulations in how houses are built housing would be cheaper?
Ok but without regulation you get poverty wages, 12 hour shifts, 6 day work weeks, and food with no nutrition unless you think lead is a vital mineral.
This is not 1812 anymore. If it were like that why wouldnt you just work for yourself or an employer that treats you well?
Lmao
Just among so many other things, like the lead poisoned baby food from March this year, you clown, the FDA was established in 1906, and Republicans are, right now, trying to abolish child labor laws and hiring 12 year olds in meat packing plants.
Sure thing bro!
Human beings may not be perfect but a computer program with language synthesis is hardly the answer to the world's problems.
The west, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power. Slogans such as "governments have limited power by design" come from well-paid researchers, think tanks funded by big businesses. It's privately funded propaganda, like the Trilateral Commision in United States, for instance.
This meme's text has figures about "now" but doesn't note that it is mostly a paraphrased quote from Deus Ex, a video game set in a fictional dystopian version of America in 2052. The speaker is not in fact talking about 2024 America. But even for the past figures, I would want citations.
The first part seems to be talking about tax sources as a portion of total taxes raised, which isn't easy to search for. I did find a table that cited whitehouse.gov and recorded income collections compared to total GDP at least. It did peak in 1945, but only at 7.1%.
The US Bureau of Labor doesn't seem to have records on self-employment before 1948. The only thing I could find talking about self-employment in 1900 was a blog post that said it was 50%. 90% self-employment sounds like a lot of subsistence farming and odd-jobs work, which isn't exactly the ideal economic model.
The Deus Ex part is part of a longer conversation, but here is the relevant section:
That game gave growing up me an unrealistic expectation that ventilation systems went everywhere.
Picture is wrong, my panties would be on the floor (I'm a dude)
The remaining question is whether you have the rest of the outfit
It’s going up to 15% in January according to Biden’s new tax proposal.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-cuts-taxes-for-working-families-and-makes-big-corporations-and-the-wealthy-pay-their-fair-share/
Republican House:
LoL
Blue Dog Dems Everywhere:
LOL
Give me the GEP gun.
The GEP gun is the most silent way to eliminate Manderley
Get PILLS against my orders! Get moving!
1945 is a really weird data point, because yk, WW2 was still going on, so at least for Americans, most of them were probably employed by the state or by the various enterprises that produced the weapons needed for the war effort
If we didn't pay for our forever wars with credit, I'd agree.
The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is... Fascinating in a dark way.
Similar to feudal peasants that used to pay up in the form of free labor and produce, while their noble overlords enjoyed massive privileges and zero taxes.
That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.
He is speaking in percentages not absolute funds. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/amazon-had-to-pay-federal-income-taxes-for-the-first-time-since-2016.html
It is wrong because it should say 'more than 10-20 times..'. 10-20 times 0 would still be 0.
I got a coworker that does this without drinking 😆 Most of us kinda check out until he picks up that we’re not engaging
I do this too, thankfully I work from home. No has to listen to me but my cat.
That person is me. Asperger's is a hell of a drug.
Am I the only one here bothered by that weird improper hyphenation?
Switch to linux /s
This may be a joke but i think linux and foss had a severe impact on my political/economical opinions
I sure as hell didn't.
Really conflicting statements that taxing corporations is good but also the government is our enemy, innit?
The govt is our enemy when they hold the interests of corporations over the interests of the individual.
It shouldn't be the individuals job to pay the majority tax rate when they're struggling to survive. The people who have so much excess they can pay up to 50% tax aren't struggling in the slightest and can pay their fair share.
My favorite example of this is The Beatles. They were being taxed at a 90%+ rate and didn't even know. When they found out and took it to court, the judge basically told them they were being taxed at that rate and made so much money they didn't even notice so they just kept the rate the same and told them to fuck off.
I'm not speaking in favor for the UK specifically because they're basically still a monarchy with a parliament that doesn't represent people proportionally, but the government is the enemy of non-government powerful entities and organizations as you illustrated with the Beatles example.
By having a democracy where people vote on issues, you're participating in government for your own interests. If everyone did that properly, the government would never hold the interest of corporations over the interests of individuals. The problem arises when not enough people vote or are educated on policies, so then corporations and vocal ideological minorities can simply use money or coercion to convince people. And in doing so they directly oppose democracy, and therefor government.