This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Re: the end result of the SJW plague.  (Read 2697 times)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2021, 07:27:12 AM »
This talk about how the elite hold people as wage slaves and rising en masse to change things sounds to me a lot like a proletarian revolution.

My understanding is that you're very anti-communist, however. So what changes should the people implement if they were to rise up en masse against their elite employers?
People complained about, resisted, and revolted against financial abuse long, long, long before Marx. Why are you assuming all instances are based on his version of communism?

I'm not assuming - that's why I asked as a question what they were trying for. There were certainly worker revolutions prior to Marx, but those were usually rebelling against a hereditary aristocracy - and even so, had many similarities to post-Marx worker revolutions. Since Marx, all the worker revolutions that I'm familiar with have been communist or at least widely considered communist.

That doesn't mean any future revolutions have to be that, though - that's what I'm curious about. In a modern society - what would a non-Marxist revolution of workers against employers look like?
The Arab Spring was communist?

The Hong Kong protests were communist?

Nothing you wrote made any sense. Why are you assuming everything is Marxist?

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9173
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2021, 12:25:37 PM »
That doesn't mean any future revolutions have to be that, though - that's what I'm curious about. In a modern society - what would a non-Marxist revolution of workers against employers look like?
The Arab Spring was communist?

The Hong Kong protests were communist?

Nothing you wrote made any sense. Why are you assuming everything is Marxist?

Neither the Arab Spring nor the Hong Kong protests would be described as uprisings of workers against employers. The enemy was clearly the government in those cases. It was specifically oggsmash and moonsweeper's use of "wage slave" and "debt slave" to describe those failing to rise up that caused me to question what sort of revolution they were picturing -- given that the enemy implied were private corporations.

I get moonsweeper's point that there is a difference between the "crony capitalism" that has been practiced and true capitalism -- but especially, what I'm wondering is how a revolution would overthrow crony capitalism to institute true capitalism. If the revolution leaves the corporations with all their collected money and resources, wouldn't that leave their power and influence in place?

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2021, 01:03:40 PM »
That doesn't mean any future revolutions have to be that, though - that's what I'm curious about. In a modern society - what would a non-Marxist revolution of workers against employers look like?
The Arab Spring was communist?

The Hong Kong protests were communist?

Nothing you wrote made any sense. Why are you assuming everything is Marxist?

Neither the Arab Spring nor the Hong Kong protests would be described as uprisings of workers against employers. The enemy was clearly the government in those cases. It was specifically oggsmash and moonsweeper's use of "wage slave" and "debt slave" to describe those failing to rise up that caused me to question what sort of revolution they were picturing -- given that the enemy implied were private corporations.

I get moonsweeper's point that there is a difference between the "crony capitalism" that has been practiced and true capitalism -- but especially, what I'm wondering is how a revolution would overthrow crony capitalism to institute true capitalism. If the revolution leaves the corporations with all their collected money and resources, wouldn't that leave their power and influence in place?

'Debt slave' does not imply 'corporations' as such, it implies whoever 'owns' you...printing money nonstop thereby devaluing everyone's equity at the lower end of the spectrum...property tax...civil asset forfeiture...imminent domain for the benefit of a corporation 'for the greater economic good...printed money allowing financial entities buying up property because that is the only place left to go due to stock overvaluation...meanwhile the so-called rate of inflation keeps having things (like housing, energy, and other primary costs for everyone that is middle class or lower) so nobody realizes that it is effectively a 10-15% tax right now...there hasn't been a separation of corporation/government elites since the establishment of the Fed.

The only thing that happens is when someone develops something new, gets rich and then seems to have no trouble influencing the government to stifle innovation that doesn't come from them.

There is no effective difference anymore, which is probably why, unfortunately, it will probably end up violent.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2021, 02:32:01 PM »
That doesn't mean any future revolutions have to be that, though - that's what I'm curious about. In a modern society - what would a non-Marxist revolution of workers against employers look like?
The Arab Spring was communist?

The Hong Kong protests were communist?

Nothing you wrote made any sense. Why are you assuming everything is Marxist?

Neither the Arab Spring nor the Hong Kong protests would be described as uprisings of workers against employers. The enemy was clearly the government in those cases. It was specifically oggsmash and moonsweeper's use of "wage slave" and "debt slave" to describe those failing to rise up that caused me to question what sort of revolution they were picturing -- given that the enemy implied were private corporations.

I get moonsweeper's point that there is a difference between the "crony capitalism" that has been practiced and true capitalism -- but especially, what I'm wondering is how a revolution would overthrow crony capitalism to institute true capitalism. If the revolution leaves the corporations with all their collected money and resources, wouldn't that leave their power and influence in place?
The Arab Spring was specifically a revolt against economic conditions that kept people desperately poor. It very much qualifies. You're drawing an artificial distinction between companies and the government, and assuming the companies had any power, both of which are laughable in those authoritarian states.

If you want a revolt against crony capitalism, look no further than the original Tea Party movement during the aughts, or even the Occupy protests, before they became completely co-opted by the hard left, who drove out the libertarians and those on the right. Except when it comes to crony capitalism, the biggest lie Satan ever told was "I'm from the government, and it's big business's fault". The government makes the laws, enforces them, and judges them. Their bureaucrats have wide latitude when it comes to setting and applying regulations. Power has also been radically centralizing. States are basically a team of tame horses kept in check by the reins of pass-through monies, that the federal government doles out only when they do exactly what they're told. Municipal government used to have power because the capitols were distant, but we live in an era with planes, phones, Zoom calls, and twitter outrage storms; when everything is local, local governments have little power. That rise in centralized power, and the broad discretion in making or interpreting the rules, means all the rent seekers flock to Washington. It becomes easier to ensure your company succeeds by petitioning the government for favors, than by competing on the free market.

This only happens because all that power and discretion is centralized in one place. If the government's power was decentralized to the states and municipalities, then the trade offs change. When you have to do it 50 or 90,000 times to get the same tax penalties inflicted on your rivals, it no longer makes sense to belly up to the trough at $10,000/seat galas and pony up another ten thousand or million for a politician's re-election fund or favorite corrupt charity. This forces companies to go out and make better or cheaper products, instead of spending zillions on lobbying and doing an endless and accumulative series of small favors for the evil overstate, like giving the government backdoor access to all their consumer data. The other leg of this solution is to make the rules simpler and enforce them consistently. The vast gray areas where a single person or cabal has to make an interpretation is a fertile ground for corruption, because it's no longer about whether you followed the rules or broke them, it's about whether the person making the call likes you, or wants to make an example of you. Byzantine complexity and ambiguity are the tools of power through fear and uncertainty. (Hello, IRS.)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 02:37:22 PM by Pat »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9173
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2021, 05:40:19 PM »
there hasn't been a separation of corporation/government elites since the establishment of the Fed.

The only thing that happens is when someone develops something new, gets rich and then seems to have no trouble influencing the government to stifle innovation that doesn't come from them.

OK, but the establishment of the Fed was in 1791. So essentially all of American history - including all of its successes - is under this mixing and stifling. Structurally, there hasn't been a major change over the last two decades - or do you think there has been? I think the biggest change is in the behavior of corporations, not in their power or relation to government.

I'm not taking the side of corporations. I'm from the generation who have opposed corporate power and dominance for decades, like protesting government bailouts and corporate influence on politics. To the extent that large corporations have taken up liberal causes recently, I think it is mostly token moves to protect their power structures. While some liberals have fallen for it, many are still on the side of opposing corporate corruption and influence.

To Pat:

If you want a revolt against crony capitalism, look no further than the original Tea Party movement during the aughts, or even the Occupy protests, before they became completely co-opted by the hard left, who drove out the libertarians and those on the right. Except when it comes to crony capitalism, the biggest lie Satan ever told was "I'm from the government, and it's big business's fault". The government makes the laws, enforces them, and judges them.

You're saying that for you, the enemy is the federal government. I understand that. What I was questioning was those who were implying that corporations were the enemy. I'll buy the libertarian wing of the Occupy Movement as an example of this - but the lines seem pretty blurry to me, and as you note, it came to be dominated by those on the left. As far as I saw, the Tea Party was focused on the federal government as the enemy, not employers.

This only happens because all that power and discretion is centralized in one place. If the government's power was decentralized to the states and municipalities, then the trade offs change. When you have to do it 50 or 90,000 times to get the same tax penalties inflicted on your rivals, it no longer makes sense to belly up to the trough at $10,000/seat galas and pony up another ten thousand or million for a politician's re-election fund or favorite corrupt charity. This forces companies to go out and make better or cheaper products, instead of spending zillions on lobbying and doing an endless and accumulative series of small favors for the evil overstate, like giving the government backdoor access to all their consumer data.

From my observation, it seems to me that huge corporations have been quite capable of dominating small countries and states. In balkanized regions of the world, corporations still seem to hold plenty of power. They don't have to micromanage every little state - just provide incentives for those states that play along, and disincentives for those that don't. I think the Amazon search for HQ2 was a perfect example of how state governments would jump through hoops for corporate masters. I'm not saying that federalism is a cure - just that it's mostly a wash. Federalism is high-risk, high-reward for corporations - while balkanized states are a game of statistical optimization.

The other leg of this solution is to make the rules simpler and enforce them consistently. The vast gray areas where a single person or cabal has to make an interpretation is a fertile ground for corruption, because it's no longer about whether you followed the rules or broke them, it's about whether the person making the call likes you, or wants to make an example of you. Byzantine complexity and ambiguity are the tools of power through fear and uncertainty. (Hello, IRS.)

Here I strongly agree. But from my view, both parties seem committed to making laws with Byzantine complexity rather than simplifying.

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2021, 06:46:56 PM »
there hasn't been a separation of corporation/government elites since the establishment of the Fed.

The only thing that happens is when someone develops something new, gets rich and then seems to have no trouble influencing the government to stifle innovation that doesn't come from them.

OK, but the establishment of the Fed was in 1791. So essentially all of American history - including all of its successes - is under this mixing and stifling. Structurally, there hasn't been a major change over the last two decades - or do you think there has been? I think the biggest change is in the behavior of corporations, not in their power or relation to government.

I'm not taking the side of corporations. I'm from the generation who have opposed corporate power and dominance for decades, like protesting government bailouts and corporate influence on politics. To the extent that large corporations have taken up liberal causes recently, I think it is mostly token moves to protect their power structures. While some liberals have fallen for it, many are still on the side of opposing corporate corruption and influence.

To Pat:

If you want a revolt against crony capitalism, look no further than the original Tea Party movement during the aughts, or even the Occupy protests, before they became completely co-opted by the hard left, who drove out the libertarians and those on the right. Except when it comes to crony capitalism, the biggest lie Satan ever told was "I'm from the government, and it's big business's fault". The government makes the laws, enforces them, and judges them.

You're saying that for you, the enemy is the federal government. I understand that. What I was questioning was those who were implying that corporations were the enemy. I'll buy the libertarian wing of the Occupy Movement as an example of this - but the lines seem pretty blurry to me, and as you note, it came to be dominated by those on the left. As far as I saw, the Tea Party was focused on the federal government as the enemy, not employers.

This only happens because all that power and discretion is centralized in one place. If the government's power was decentralized to the states and municipalities, then the trade offs change. When you have to do it 50 or 90,000 times to get the same tax penalties inflicted on your rivals, it no longer makes sense to belly up to the trough at $10,000/seat galas and pony up another ten thousand or million for a politician's re-election fund or favorite corrupt charity. This forces companies to go out and make better or cheaper products, instead of spending zillions on lobbying and doing an endless and accumulative series of small favors for the evil overstate, like giving the government backdoor access to all their consumer data.

From my observation, it seems to me that huge corporations have been quite capable of dominating small countries and states. In balkanized regions of the world, corporations still seem to hold plenty of power. They don't have to micromanage every little state - just provide incentives for those states that play along, and disincentives for those that don't. I think the Amazon search for HQ2 was a perfect example of how state governments would jump through hoops for corporate masters. I'm not saying that federalism is a cure - just that it's mostly a wash. Federalism is high-risk, high-reward for corporations - while balkanized states are a game of statistical optimization.

The other leg of this solution is to make the rules simpler and enforce them consistently. The vast gray areas where a single person or cabal has to make an interpretation is a fertile ground for corruption, because it's no longer about whether you followed the rules or broke them, it's about whether the person making the call likes you, or wants to make an example of you. Byzantine complexity and ambiguity are the tools of power through fear and uncertainty. (Hello, IRS.)

Here I strongly agree. But from my view, both parties seem committed to making laws with Byzantine complexity rather than simplifying.

*bold and underline mine*

1791?!?! WTF  ???

The 'Fed' was established under the Federal Reserve Act in 1913...the same year as income tax, the 17th amendment, and a number of other garbage policies...Have you even read anything on economics?

Here is a little starting point for you...corporations don't actually 'pay' taxes, they just collect it for the government from consumers.  If the government raises taxes on Civics by $100 each, is Honda going to pay that or are they going to raise the price by a $100 to offset.
Check who is legally responsible for sales tax...if you were legally responsible for it why would Walmart bother to collect it from you.

The TEA Party was all for simplification of the tax code, which would significantly reduce both government and corporate power through the things Pat mentioned.  Where do you think the tax plan I alluded to came from?  I already said the government and corporations are basically the same entity at this point. (or at least joined at the hip)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 06:51:14 PM by moonsweeper »
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2021, 07:42:01 PM »
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton. However, its charter went unrenewed (it only had a 20 year lifespan).

The second iteration appeared in 1816, and again, ran for 20 years and then died. Andrew Jackson, then President, was vehemently opposed to it.

I suppose the 1913 Federal Reserve could be construed as a 'continuation' of the first two, but I find that specious.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2021, 07:44:24 PM »
  Government and huge corporations are not really different things at this point.  A wage slave is such because you can get cancelled from employment for wrong think, fast.  The government WANTS you to be a wage slave.  It is a fantastic tether for its people to not get too opinionated or take too many risks regarding challenging power.   

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2021, 07:55:10 PM »
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton. However, its charter went unrenewed (it only had a 20 year lifespan).

The second iteration appeared in 1816, and again, ran for 20 years and then died. Andrew Jackson, then President, was vehemently opposed to it.

I suppose the 1913 Federal Reserve could be construed as a 'continuation' of the first two, but I find that specious.

Yes there were 2 US Banks and the banking crises were enough to convince everyone not to try again for 80 years...until the 'progressive' age started.

I'm not even going to bother with how much more power the Fed has vs the original Bank of the US.

Having the authority to print the currency is one thing...having complete control over its valuation is something entirely different...just check the relative value of the dollar through US history...
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 07:59:52 PM by moonsweeper »
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2021, 08:13:13 PM »
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton. However, its charter went unrenewed (it only had a 20 year lifespan).

The second iteration appeared in 1816, and again, ran for 20 years and then died. Andrew Jackson, then President, was vehemently opposed to it.

I suppose the 1913 Federal Reserve could be construed as a 'continuation' of the first two, but I find that specious.
It is specious. While the Bank of North America and the Bank of the United States were legally distinct, they did share some of the same officers, so there was some degree of institutional continuity. The Fed shares no such connection with either.

Though Jackson was right in hating the old banks. They were pure cronyism for the favored elites, resulted in massive inflation, and set a horrible precedent in the scope of government power. Hamilton was knee-deep in it.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2021, 08:29:17 PM »
You're saying that for you, the enemy is the federal government.
I was very specific in what I was criticizing, and that's not it.

I understand that. What I was questioning was those who were implying that corporations were the enemy. I'll buy the libertarian wing of the Occupy Movement as an example of this - but the lines seem pretty blurry to me, and as you note, it came to be dominated by those on the left. As far as I saw, the Tea Party was focused on the federal government as the enemy, not employers.
And I'm saying those who are focused on corporations are missing the point. I always thought the Occupy Movement correctly highlighted real issues, but their solutions and almost all of their critiques were completely off-base, because they were attacking the wrong things. The problem with corporations isn't a few bad bankers or CEOs, or the lack of laws restricting their income. The problem is the structure in which they exist, and the perverse incentives under which they operate, which are entirely created by the government. Corporate power is contingent, and can be taken away at any time. To reform the system, you need to start at the political end first.

This only happens because all that power and discretion is centralized in one place. If the government's power was decentralized to the states and municipalities, then the trade offs change. When you have to do it 50 or 90,000 times to get the same tax penalties inflicted on your rivals, it no longer makes sense to belly up to the trough at $10,000/seat galas and pony up another ten thousand or million for a politician's re-election fund or favorite corrupt charity. This forces companies to go out and make better or cheaper products, instead of spending zillions on lobbying and doing an endless and accumulative series of small favors for the evil overstate, like giving the government backdoor access to all their consumer data.

From my observation, it seems to me that huge corporations have been quite capable of dominating small countries and states. In balkanized regions of the world, corporations still seem to hold plenty of power. They don't have to micromanage every little state - just provide incentives for those states that play along, and disincentives for those that don't. I think the Amazon search for HQ2 was a perfect example of how state governments would jump through hoops for corporate masters. I'm not saying that federalism is a cure - just that it's mostly a wash. Federalism is high-risk, high-reward for corporations - while balkanized states are a game of statistical optimization.
True, but that power exists because of their host government. And while they may exert great power within smaller nations, it's still a voluntary arrangement. If Fuckwhoknowsitstan doesn't like Exxtreme Oil, they can throw them out and make a deal with EP instead. If they're given all kinds of legal exemptions and other favors, that's cronyism at play again, and demands the same solution.

In many case, many the powerful corporate entities are functionally governmentalities, anyway. This is true with essentially all the big Chinese and Russian corporations, and almost all the big state companies around the world that control natural resources like oil. And it's becoming more and more true even for companies like Facebook and Amazon.

Here I strongly agree. But from my view, both parties seem committed to making laws with Byzantine complexity rather than simplifying.
Nothing I suggested is supported by either major party in the US.

That statement is almost 100% true about everything I've ever said.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 08:30:57 PM by Pat »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9173
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2021, 10:06:29 PM »
OK, I'll accept that the 1913 fed is not connected to the 1791 bank and 1816, so my bad in stating 1791 instead of 1913.

On the other hand, I completely disagree about the following point:

Here is a little starting point for you...corporations don't actually 'pay' taxes, they just collect it for the government from consumers.  If the government raises taxes on Civics by $100 each, is Honda going to pay that or are they going to raise the price by a $100 to offset.
Check who is legally responsible for sales tax...if you were legally responsible for it why would Walmart bother to collect it from you.

I've heard this before, but it doesn't make sense. If Honda could just raise their prices by $100 and make $100 more on every Civic, then they would do so regardless of taxes. That's basic supply and demand. They set their price based on the most that the market can bear. If they arbitrarily raise their prices $100 higher, they will most likely make *less* money, because their prices are set based on the optimal market price.

If Honda has greater costs, which could be from taxes or could be from natural disaster or could be from anything else -- they can't just arbitrarily make more money by raising prices. They have to live with the cost and keep trying different ongoing strategies to make more money.

The TEA Party was all for simplification of the tax code, which would significantly reduce both government and corporate power through the things Pat mentioned.  Where do you think the tax plan I alluded to came from?  I already said the government and corporations are basically the same entity at this point. (or at least joined at the hip)
Quote from: moonsweeper
It also means I have no problem with an open border (as soon as you end the federal level means tested programs, return my SS investment value over time adjusted by (10%+actual inflation), and remove all of the federal tax structure to be replaced by a 22% purchase tax on all 'new' items/services/etc.*)

*in case you are worried, poor people actually won't have to pay the tax.  Everyone in the US gets a monthly check equivalent to 22% of the poverty level monthly income to cover that tax.  Effectively you are only paying if you are spending above the poverty level.

Sorry I didn't follow up on the tax plan in detail. I approve of simplification, but I am against radical changes until they have been tested and proven at least at a smaller scale. Is there a name for this tax plan, to see some economist analysis, and examples of such structures in practice? It seems to me that a high purely sales tax would encourage hoarding rather than spending, and would further encourage under-the-table payments.

I approve of a negative tax at the bottom, which is equivalent to a universal basic income.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2021, 10:22:23 PM »
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton. However, its charter went unrenewed (it only had a 20 year lifespan).

The second iteration appeared in 1816, and again, ran for 20 years and then died. Andrew Jackson, then President, was vehemently opposed to it.

I suppose the 1913 Federal Reserve could be construed as a 'continuation' of the first two, but I find that specious.
It is specious. While the Bank of North America and the Bank of the United States were legally distinct, they did share some of the same officers, so there was some degree of institutional continuity. The Fed shares no such connection with either.

Though Jackson was right in hating the old banks. They were pure cronyism for the favored elites, resulted in massive inflation, and set a horrible precedent in the scope of government power. Hamilton was knee-deep in it.
Although the Reserve doesn't strike me as any better, considering money machine go brrrr.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2021, 10:27:22 PM »
OK, I'll accept that the 1913 fed is not connected to the 1791 bank and 1816, so my bad in stating 1791 instead of 1913.

On the other hand, I completely disagree about the following point:

Here is a little starting point for you...corporations don't actually 'pay' taxes, they just collect it for the government from consumers.  If the government raises taxes on Civics by $100 each, is Honda going to pay that or are they going to raise the price by a $100 to offset.
Check who is legally responsible for sales tax...if you were legally responsible for it why would Walmart bother to collect it from you.

I've heard this before, but it doesn't make sense. If Honda could just raise their prices by $100 and make $100 more on every Civic, then they would do so regardless of taxes. That's basic supply and demand. They set their price based on the most that the market can bear. If they arbitrarily raise their prices $100 higher, they will most likely make *less* money, because their prices are set based on the optimal market price.

If Honda has greater costs, which could be from taxes or could be from natural disaster or could be from anything else -- they can't just arbitrarily make more money by raising prices. They have to live with the cost and keep trying different ongoing strategies to make more money.
That's incomplete. When considering the true economic effects of anything, you have to account for not just for the seen, but also the unseen.

Prices aren't fixed, and supply and demand is a curve. When the prices of something rise, sales don't abruptly end. Instead, sales gradually decline. The goal of Honda isn't to raise prices as high as possible, but to maximize their revenue, by picking the point on the curve where they make the optimum number of dollars. If the price is too low, they're leaving money on the table. If the price is below costs, they're hemorrhaging money. If the price is too high, too few people will buy it so their overall income will decline. The sweet spot is the point where sales x unit price is highest.

Similarly, when costs increase, companies aren't forced to keep the price the same. They probably want to, because they presumably decided the current price is their optimal one from a revenue standpoint. But they can raise the prices, if they need to. And if costs have increased, one way or the other, they have to, because profit margins in established industries tend to be fairly slim. And taxes are costs.

The result is less sales, and less overall income. The money they can make from that particular market shrinks. All other things being equal, the company will become smaller. Lower revenue means they have to cut things. Fewer factories, fewer employees. The effect on the overall economy is similar, but more distributed. Less money, fewer jobs. It also becomes harder to run a business. More failures, fewer successes. Less incentive to try speculative things. The effect may be tiny, for any particular change. But it's a ratchet. Overtime, all the small restrictions add up.

This can be disguised for a while, by a company tapping into capital reserves, taking money from development, or other short-term accounting tricks. But that's only a temporary solution. There isn't a magical pool of continually replenishing money they can dip into, to make up the difference. Long term, costs are always passed on to the consumers. Any time it appears otherwise, they're just juggling a few factors to hide it for a little bit. This is great for politicians who have something concrete to point to, but it's always a net loss because those temporary distortions have a cost. This also apples to the economy as a whole, but it's even easier to disguise, because negative effects spread over a huge mass of people making voluntary exchanges is very chaotic and hard to measure.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2021, 10:37:21 PM by Pat »

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3278
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: the end result of the SJW plague.
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2021, 10:33:38 PM »
The first bank of the United States was established in 1791, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton. However, its charter went unrenewed (it only had a 20 year lifespan).

The second iteration appeared in 1816, and again, ran for 20 years and then died. Andrew Jackson, then President, was vehemently opposed to it.

I suppose the 1913 Federal Reserve could be construed as a 'continuation' of the first two, but I find that specious.
It is specious. While the Bank of North America and the Bank of the United States were legally distinct, they did share some of the same officers, so there was some degree of institutional continuity. The Fed shares no such connection with either.

Though Jackson was right in hating the old banks. They were pure cronyism for the favored elites, resulted in massive inflation, and set a horrible precedent in the scope of government power. Hamilton was knee-deep in it.
Although the Reserve doesn't strike me as any better, considering money machine go brrrr.
The Federal Reserve is much worse. Particularly since the 1970s.