The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Michael]

What country is that? I never heard of such a thing.

What are you talking about? You've never had to resolve a dispute in your entire life? When you did so, did you do so privately or resort to using a public court? I'm fairly certain most reasonable people are able to resolve their disputes privately.
- Private Mediation Services
- Arbitration & Mediation Center
- The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)
etc....

Most people find the Public Court system traumatizing. It's not fair and tends to be as corrupt and incompetent as the rest of our 'free' Governmental 'services'. For examples see: Government Schooling, CONgress, Federal Reserve Central Bank, Federal Police, The IRS, the US Military, and etc.... So, of course there's a plethora of PRIVATE mediation services that Private Parties can come to an agreement over in terms of dispute resolution. Not only are these fairer, many times their cheaper and people walk away feeling the best was made of a bad situation - as opposed to traumatized.

I'm not talking about attacking people, but using force as a last resort to bring people to justice who are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Then you're not talking about using the Government. The Government is used when you want to INITIATE violence against morally innocent humans. Like forcing people to obtain a licence to cut hair, prepare food or sell arranged flowers. Or determining who can marry whom. Or forcing laborer's to pay a tax PER hour on their labor. Or decide which drugs an adult can consume. Or starting phony wars - like the War on Drugs or the War on Terror.

It's not possible to be more fair than that. If you democratically (voluntarily) choose to do this "privately"; congratulations, you just created a quasi-governmental organization that differs in name only from government.

Think of it this way. What we're generally discussing is behavior. Imagine if you see two sets of people copulating. In the one instance, they're making love. In the other, the man is raping the woman. Other than knowing this, the behavior looks the same. Yet, the difference is ALL the difference in the world.

Government is resorting to violence against INNOCENT humans. While the behavior may ultimately be similar, the underlying morality is 180 degrees opposite.

It's called authority. What about a suspected rapist who refuses a trial? What should be done with him? Just shun him like the Amish? Refuse to sell him your goods until he moves away?

A suspected rapist has violated someone's property. That is, their body. I already said the Government has a limited role in protecting private property and I specifically stated: 'beginning with one's body / self ownership'.

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. You've been convinced against ALL reason and evidence into worshiping the State. It was LIMITED for a reason. The US Constitution was written to LIMIT it. The first 10 amendments were further added to PROTECT us FROM Government. Not from one another - that we do ourselves. But from It.


Anyway, you needn't worry about it. We're getting more governmental 'regulation' of our lives, less civil freedoms, we'll be spied on day in and day out, we'll be required to carry ID papers to travel (even within the US) and life will be poorer. Taxes will be higher, opportunity less. Over the last 10 years the Central Bank has paid for distortions - and it will continue to do so until it cannot.

 

[Michael]

Interesting analysis:

Real wages in July (the latest figures) were positive for the first time in more than two years – but only because “inflation”, one of the primary economic factors from Step 1 that is supposed to help transmit economic growth, has done the opposite as expected and intended. But that “inflation” calculation obscures somewhat the damage already done by QQE since June real wages were down 3% year-over-year despite the lower “inflation” number. June is the second most important month for Japanese as it represents one of the two “bonus months” for payouts, and to stumble that badly for June before figuring any price changes is pretty clear evidence of not only nothing beyond Step 1 for QQE, but that it may actually be harmful beside.

A small look into our future.

 

[pjdude1219]

What are you talking about? You've never had to resolve a dispute in your entire life? When you did so, did you do so privately or resort to using a public court? I'm fairly certain most reasonable people are able to resolve their disputes privately.
- Private Mediation Services
- Arbitration & Mediation Center
- The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)
etc....

Most people find the Public Court system traumatizing. It's not fair and tends to be as corrupt and incompetent as the rest of our 'free' Governmental 'services'. For examples see: Government Schooling, CONgress, Federal Reserve Central Bank, Federal Police, The IRS, the US Military, and etc.... So, of course there's a plethora of PRIVATE mediation services that Private Parties can come to an agreement over in terms of dispute resolution. Not only are these fairer, many times their cheaper and people walk away feeling the best was made of a bad situation - as opposed to traumatized.

arbitration benefits the powerful since they pick the arbitrator. that you support arbitration is part of your elitist ideology which seeks to strip the weak of any hope of defending them selves against the powerful.

Or forcing laborer's to pay a tax PER hour on their labor.

this is your last warning for this bullshit. you've been asked to defend your labor tax lie repesatedly you refuse and misrepresent the facts as always. from here on out every time you repeat you will be reported for intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Michael]

arbitration benefits the powerful since they pick the arbitrator. that you support arbitration is part of your elitist ideology which seeks to strip the weak of any hope of defending them selves against the powerful.

Firstly, you can agree to an arbiter prior to engaging in trade. If you don't like the arbitration - don't trade. It's really that simple.
Secondly, most companies settle with (and side with) the customer. As a matter of fact, for most people, they walk up to this magical thing called "Customer Service", whine a little bit and are 'ruled' in favor of for their small rant.
Thirdly, powerful people don't become powerful screwing over their customers. This is what you don't seem to get. Why you don't get it? I can only suppose it may be due to years and years and years of being told you're powerless and you need the State to stick up for you against *GAAAASP* Apple Inc and Toyota et.al.
Fourthly, not all poor are so quick to roll over. Many poor would love a chance at free-markets because they know they'd out compete and beat the rich (or at least the middle class) at their own game. It's the principle reason why we have 'regulations' - to keep the poor from competing in the markets (see: Florist Licence).
Fifthly, it's too bad we didn't live in a free society. Who knows what sort of Private industries would have developed to ensure the poor were treated fairly. Oh well, I suppose the poor can try their luck with the State-run Public Courts -TO- Prison Industrial Complex pipleline. The Gawds only know that the State and it's Court system is a fair arbiter of justice for the POOR.

What planet do you live on? Not earth.
LOL

this is your last warning for this bullshit. you've been asked to defend your labor tax lie repesatedly you refuse and misrepresent the facts as always. from here on out every time you repeat you will be reported for intellectual dishonesty.

LOL
One more time in case you missed it:
FACT 1: LABOR IS TAXED PER HOUR.
FACT 2: T-Bonds are repaid in part on said taxable income.

Yes, business owners and bankers and lenders and other's may pay an 'income tax' as well. So what? That's not my point and I never said they didn't. My claim is that Laborer's are forced to pay a tax ON their labor TO the State. This is immoral and it's a form of Slavery IMO as its stealing labor. When the Income Tax was originally agreed to - labor was NOT taxed! They had to change the Gawd Damn US Constitution to make it legal to Tax Labor. THAT is how far removed it was from the ideals of this country's founding. Income Tax allows the State to manipulate the behavior of Laborers (by offering tax 'incentives' - which is the primary reason the State likes to tax The Worker) as well as sell T-Bonds on future labor of The Worker's children.

These are simple facts you can look up in a book if you're still confused.

 

[Michael]

Gallup Poll: Half in U.S. Continue to Say Federal Government Is an Immediate Threat
September 21, 2015

What I found interesting was this commentary:

The vast majority of these issues happen under the mis-leadership of both parties, progressing without fail through the years.

It is time that Americans embrace their anger at government, and focus their attention past the politicians to the real problem.

Start with the bankers, follow the money, and see where it goes...

(commentary was from ZeroHedge not Gallup)

Yup, IMO it's only a matter of time before a demagogue is elected and ushers in "THE" Great Redistribution. Thanks to the NSA and IRS - its probably pretty easy to data-mine the identity of which SlumLords are also ex-Bankers. Then it's a simple matter of the hangman's noose. You know, for the Good of the You Use the Roads.
LOL

Sadly, Bankers used to serve their community. Back when we had sound money, they were tasked with ensuring it was properly invested and this helped ensure continued prosperity for everyone in society. Yes, including the poor. But, ever so slowly, with the replacement of sound money with fiat currency, bankers morphed from conservative investors to become greedy rent-seekers, vulture capitalists and the wallstreet parasites we see today, including even SlumLording, thus sucking the life out of the very poor we had hoped to help.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. You've been convinced against ALL reason and evidence into worshiping the State. It was LIMITED for a reason. The US Constitution was written to LIMIT it. The first 10 amendments were further added to PROTECT us FROM Government. Not from one another - that we do ourselves. But from It.

But what was the problem with limited government? Robber Barons used their wealth to buy power over the people. They literally bought towns and used violence to get their way. They hired private police forces to kill people that objected. (Read about the labor movement). We needed the government to regulate business, because business can be just as terrible as governments. I think we could both agree that government should be limited to some degree.

Private mediation services are a good idea, but they require a court system as a last resort.

 

[Michael]

Here's a word cloud of Janet Yellen's (Central Regulator in Chief) speech yesterday.

 

[Michael]

But what was the problem with limited government? Robber Barons used their wealth to buy power over the people.

I think we need to be clear on exactly WHO and what a "Robber Baron" is.

You can read the entire article from here:
The Truth About the "Robber Barons"

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the "robber barons."

It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth.

As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.

In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors', or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.

The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.

In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,[1] and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.

 

[Michael]

But what was the problem with limited government? Robber Barons used their wealth to buy power over the people. They literally bought towns and used violence to get their way. They hired private police forces to kill people that objected. (Read about the labor movement). We needed the government to regulate business, because business can be just as terrible as governments. I think we could both agree that government should be limited to some degree.

A few comments:
1) It's not legal to hire private police forces and kill, harass or harm people (private property damage). Both the private police forces as well as their employer would be prosecuted in courts of law for these behaviors (these may be public or private).
2) Private workers can legally unionize. That's certainly legal.

So, we agree that no it's not legal to kill/harm people and no it's not against the law to unionize. All of this all falls under the jurisdiction of a Limited Government. One that protects private property rights. There is no need for any additional regulation.

That said, there are other free-market non-initiation of violence solutions:
- factory workers can sign work contracts (via their union or otherwise) that stipulate payment and damages in cases where the use of violence was employed against them (say, during strikes or unsafe work conditions).
- factory workers can refuse to work in factories that do not provide safe environments and instead sell their labor to factory owners who do, thus, factory workers can take jobs in factories with better working conditions.
- factory workers can open their own factories and compete. Or other businesses. Or move away.
- factory works can buy stocks and shares in factories (and most do own these because they're given them as part of their pay package - and to garnish some level of corporate loyalty).
- factory workers can shame factory owners by showing the horrible work conditions.
- factory workers can buy work-insurance and large insurance companies (much larger and more powerful than small factory owners) can put pressure on factories to provide safe environments (because they'd have to pay out).
- customers of the factory can choose to buy from factories that support safe working conditions.

Again, there's no need for a large government. All of these problems can be solved via the free-market, and solved much better. AND, one may want to ask: Why are these governmental agencies still around? Let's suppose they were needed 100 years ago. OK, so unlimited government was a stopgap 100 years ago. It's been 100 years, where are the free-market solutions? Where are they? Or is this a case of "Mission Complete"?

Hell, we hardly have any factories now. Not to mention, strong Unionization, over-regulation and customers unwilling to pay $120,000 for a $8000 car have forced most factories overseas. This is a great example of how the Government 'help' actually stunts social development. Again, where are the private free-market solutions? They're not here. It's just too easy to wipe your hands off when Government comes along and say "Mission Complete" (see: Government schools for an example of 50 years of overpriced government-led pedagogical stagnation). But, it's not complete. It's the opposite of complete. Only now there's no incentives to fix the underlying problems. All that happens is the factory owners (and today's factories are owned by workers for the most part) shut down and leave - talk about the irony!

If we want to live in a free society, we have to get up off our arses and help to build it.
It's really that simple.
If you don't care - then it cannot BE built. Reaching for the gun to shoot innocent people in the face (yes, even the one's we don't like very much) is not the path towards building a freer prosperous society. In a free civil society, customers can refuse to buy products made in factories where factory workers are pressured to not form unions. BUT, so long as violence is not being employed against innocent people (workers or otherwise), then it's up to free people to 'vote' through their actions and support the types of businesses that create the products AND the sort of society they want to live in.

That's the thing about society - it's made out of people. Free societies are free people. You may not like it, but that's too bad. I personally think the vast majority of people are selfish. Small and selfish. Not 'evil'. But selfish. They think about themselves first and foremost. Very few people think about others first. It's probably genetic. But I arrive at the conclusion via Ethics we need to ensure we have MORE morality in society - not less! This is WHY we need a small government and free markers.

We need to regain the freedom to OPEN businesses again, so that these businesses can pull in labor off the market, reducing the labor supply and driving up the cost of labor-hours. We need LESS regulations. Most regulations are barriers to entry. They have no other function at all other than that. To stop competition. I've worked at restaurants when I was young - if you think FDA inspectors give two shits about food safety, you're simply living in a fantasy land. They call up days or weeks ahead of their 'surprise' inspection. AND everyone cleans up for the morning of the inspection. Meanwhile, they harass farmers that sell raw milk from a dairy? As if adults are so pathetic they can't figure out if milk has spoilt or not!?
Jesus.

You start with a Government 'helping' The Factory Worker and you end with the Government telling you who you can marry, taxing you by the hour for the privilege of telling you who you can marry (oh, and the State will also require you to buy a State licence to marry), spying on your every private communication, creating never-ending-war AND the largest prison industrial complex in human history. ALL THE WHILE never addressing the original concerns! Hell, no one can even remember what the original concerns were, because those factories are LONG gone from over 100 years ago!


Anyway, there's no turning the ship around now. The only solution is it has to sink under the weight of it's own oxymoronic nonsensical arguments. Or so history suggests.

 

[Michael]

I hate to keep beating this drum, but just look at Government schools. We had a big problem with racism 100 years ago. Yet, with no governmental "solution" Blacks in Chicago (one burrow) had an 85% literacy rate. In a short amount of time, with some help and PRIVATE free-market education, Blacks had that level of literacy.
Not too bad.
They were on their way to being 100% literate.
Then, along comes "Government" and what do we see in that SAME burrow 100 years later? A 50% literacy rate.

Where are the private voluntary free-market solutions to literacy? Oh, that's right, they don't exist. Why would they exist? They wouldn't! There's magical "Government" to provide it all for 'free'.
Government-led market/social stagnation.

It's so bad now that 1 in 5 Americans that graduate from HIGH school are functionally illiterate! That is just insane. It's insanity to think that Government-caused problems are going to be fixed by Government. It's literally magic thinking. A superstitious-like belief akin to the most base religion. Why would people rely on the most immoral institution in society, Government, to nurture and teach children?!?
Are you kidding me???
Why not ask Lucifer to babysit while you're at it!

Government-run Schools are horribly unsound in terms of pedagogy. They mass-produce education, which is NOT how children learn. Which is WHY most children don't learn much in school. Government Schools have become huge babysitter Worker-cog factories. Learning is fun. Children naturally ask why. They LOVE learning. Leave it to Government to grind that love of learning into dust so that many children just can't wait to get the hell out of school.

Further, factory-produced worker cogs who cannot read or write competently cannot find any decent jobs because Governmental regulations have made regulatory capture and rent-seeking a way of life in the so-called Home of the Free.

Anyway, as I said, there's no turning back now.
Just let it metaphorically sink.

 

[Michael]

The only reason home ownership doesn't look worse, is because >65 still own their homes. Cut them out of the pie and it's looking like a good day to be a SlumLord in the USA. And why does it look like this? Because Government wanted to 'help' the poor own homes. Now most poor, and middle class, and anyone under 35, can't afford a home.

 

[Michael]

 

[iceaura]

Thirdly, powerful people don't become powerful screwing over their customers.
- -
Sadly, Bankers used to serve their community.
- -
I think we need to be clear on exactly WHO and what a "Robber Baron" is
- - -
Strong Unionization, over-regulation and customers unwilling to pay 120,000fora8000 car have forced most factories overseas. This is a great example of who Government stunts social development.
- - - - -
In a free civil society, customers can refuse to buy products made in factories where factory workers are pressured to not form unions.

So it's been long enough since the last time you tried to sell the image of a golden age in America's history

when powerful people did not become powerful screwing over their customers and clients and suppliers, people benefitted from the absence of unions by having more jobs at better pay , bankers universally served their communities well without predation, companies that fouled their local environments and abused their employees suffered from rejection by distant customers, and the lack of government interference or regulation resulted in burgeoning freedom and prosperity for all,

that you can assume everyone has forgotten what happened when you tried to specify exactly when and where that time was supposed to have been. I believe you ended up with a ten year span just before WWI, or maybe just after, in the US - it was a bit vague - and when the historical events and economic circumstances (and banker's behavior etc) of that last window of validity were presented you dropped the matter.

But it's back, this fantasy world.

So is your wingnut terminology - "labor tax" when you refer to payroll taxes, that kind of thing. Misleading at best, just flatly wrong in that case, this terminology has affected your thinking. "The first thing is the rectification of names" Confucious.

 

[pjdude1219]

Firstly, you can agree to an arbiter prior to engaging in trade. If you don't like the arbitration - don't trade. It's really that simple.

so in your fucked up delusional mind if i don't want to be screwed over i'm not allowed to buy things? thats by far the stupidest thing you've ever said. and that's saying alot.

Secondly, most companies settle with (and side with) the customer. As a matter of fact, for most people, they walk up to this magical thing called "Customer Service", whine a little bit and are 'ruled' in favor of for their small rant.

customer service and arbitration are 2 completely different things. so no surprise your relying on intellectual dishonesty.

Thirdly, powerful people don't become powerful screwing over their customers. This is what you don't seem to get. Why you don't get it? I can only suppose it may be due to years and years and years of being told you're powerless and you need the State to stick up for you against *GAAAASP* Apple Inc and Toyota et.al.

sure they do. companies have lawyers and accountants to find out just how many people they can kill and still have it be economically feasible.

Fourthly, not all poor are so quick to roll over. Many poor would love a chance at free-markets because they know they'd out compete and beat the rich (or at least the middle class) at their own game. It's the principle reason why we have 'regulations' - to keep the poor from competing in the markets (see: Florist Licence).

wrong the poor want regulated markets because those allow them to do so. the free markets you invision allow the rich to cheat.

Fifthly, it's too bad we didn't live in a free society. Who knows what sort of Private industries would have developed to ensure the poor were treated fairly. Oh well, I suppose the poor can try their luck with the State-run Public Courts -TO- Prison Industrial Complex pipleline. The Gawds only know that the State and it's Court system is a fair arbiter of justice for the POOR.

we do live in a free society. its dying because of selfish entitled asshats like you.

What planet do you live on? Not earth.

earth not lie land like you

One more time in case you missed it:
FACT 1: LABOR IS TAXED PER HOUR.

no it is not. only a complete ignoranumus would actually believe that. I have tolerated your lies and intellectual dishonesty for as long as I intend to. promise made promise kept.

Yes, business owners and bankers and lenders and other's may pay an 'income tax' as well. So what? That's not my point and I never said they didn't. My claim is that Laborer's are forced to pay a tax ON their labor TO the State. This is immoral and it's a form of Slavery IMO as its stealing labor. When the Income Tax was originally agreed to - labor was NOT taxed! They had to change the Gawd Damn US Constitution to make it legal to Tax Labor. THAT is how far removed it was from the ideals of this country's founding. Income Tax allows the State to manipulate the behavior of Laborers (by offering tax 'incentives' - which is the primary reason the State likes to tax The Worker) as well as sell T-Bonds on future labor of The Worker's children.

These are simple facts you can look up in a book if you're still confused.

and your claim as it has been repeatedly shown is a flat out lie because your to delusional to live in the real world. you have been reported for your intellectual dishonesty. you have never shown a tax on labor. which is what you call the income tax. I AM DONE WITH YOUR LIES. it is high time you grew up and dealt with reality.

 

[pjdude1219]

Since micheal is either to uneducated or to dishonest to actual use words according to there meaning lets do some econ 101 shall we. lets define what labor is; labor is defined as the productive force utilized by people and the people them selves. in other words people and the work they do. whether it building cars, designing apps, or building a house for habitat for humanity. therefore, logically speaking, a labor tax is a tax on everything you do that produces anything whether you are paid for it or not as well as a tax on you for existing as an entity capable of production. last i checked there is not a tax like in the entire world in any country.

 

[Michael]

So it's been long enough since the last time you tried to sell the image of a golden age in America's history

Do you have a quote of me using the phrase "America's Golden Age"?

I don't recall suggesting America had a Golden Age. But, if I were to pick a time period, it would be from the end of the Civil War when Black humans were freed from State enforced slavery - which is to say, their labor was stolen by a particular group of humans (private property rights violation) up until the 16th Amendment was passed and the Stateists (again) began stealing the labor of some humans.

This period of freedom in the USA ushered in the Second Industrial revolution and the post-modern age.

when powerful people did not become powerful screwing over their customers and clients and suppliers, people benefitted from the absence of unions by having more jobs at better pay , bankers universally served their communities well without predation, companies that fouled their local environments and abused their employees suffered from rejection by distant customers, and the lack of government interference or regulation resulted in burgeoning freedom and prosperity for all,

You want to compare evils?
Okay, let's make a comparison between the evils of Statism vs Freedom (Free-Markets)

Finance:
Let's see here, yes, in a free-market there were a few banks that acted unscrupulously and screwed over some people. But, for most people, banks served their community - which is WHY so many people kept their money in banks. If ALL banks were unscrupulous, there'd been none. But, in reality there were many banks - and many that even offered their own currencies. People were free to use this, or gold, or silver. So? How did/is Banking fairing under Statism? Oh, yes, that's right. It wasn't long after the State took control of the money supply before it ushered in the Great Depression. Oh, and rampant State regulated Banking scams are still happening to this very day - 100 years later! If anything, it's worse than ever!

Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life:
Yes, it is true that in a FREE society, factory owners did indeed offer people the choice to work in factories with less than ideal working conditions. Of course, no one was FORCED to work in these factories and each and every person who did so - freely chose to do so. Why? Because it was much BETTER than the alternative.

So? How about Statism? Let's see, there's World War I where the State murdered 10s of millions of humans. The Great Depression the State ushered in - and in so doing starved 10s of millions of people to death. World War II where the State roasted 10s of millions in hellfire, chemical bomb attacks, State-run human furnaces, State-run death camps, all culminating in the USA dropping not, one, but TWO nuclear bombs on cities filled with women and children. Then there's the Korean War. Then there's 100s of millions of humans State-run Communism murdered and/or starved to death. Then there's the first truly State-run phony war scam, the Vietnam War were the State dropped everything from Agent Orange (which is still, to this very day, causing generational cancers) and the State's favorite: liquid fire / Napalm on f*cking WOMEN and CHILDREN who lived in villages. Oh, and then there's our recent Wars in the Middle East which began with us selling weapons to BOTH Iraq and Iran as well as providing Saddam with satellite photographs of where to drop mustard gas bombs on the Iranians (we sold weapons to both sides) again culminating in a million woman and children having died since we pretended that Saddam Hussein (a one time FRIEND OF THE US GOVERNMENT) had WMD and ushered in the War on Terror.

Should I go on to talk about Statism and it's War on Terror here at home? How about the State MIC or the fact the State imprisons more non-violent humans than at ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY. Or the fact of the State being the largest polluter IN HISTORY. Or that the State wastes the most limited resources than any other institution. Or how about the State-run Government Schools and the 1 in 5 functional illiteracy rate? Or the State-run Welfare Ghettos. Or how f*cked State-given monopoly has destroyed healthcare. Or the State run spying. How about the Police State we now live in where you need permission to cut hair, fix a computer, drive a taxi, arrange followers for sale. Where the State mafia certifies boiled in ammonia bone meal and wood pulp dyed pink as 'food' and raw milk will get you shot in the head. How about the T-Bonds the State sells on the labor of children unborn? How about the mess the State has made out of any and everything is touches.

But, yes, a few people probably worked in a shitty rundown factory 100 years ago, so we need a State that's murdered BILLIONS of humans to run things for us.



The fact that you can sit there with a straight face and pretend a few crooked bankers and shady factory owners (both of whom COULD BE taken to court then and now) are anywhere the evil of the State says something.

It's like comparing a firecracker to a Nuke.

But it's back, this fantasy world.

The only ones living in a fantasy World are you Statists. The State is running up trillion dollar debts bailing out the Rich Oligarchs (see above post vis-a-vie Bloomberg) and yet there you are waving our gawd damn stupid flag for the State.

So is your wingnut terminology - "labor tax" when you refer to payroll taxes, that kind of thing. Misleading at best, just flatly wrong in that case, this terminology has affected your thinking. "The first thing is the rectification of names" Confucious.

Yes or No:

Is it possible that a US Citizen who sells 40 hours of labor in a week at a rate of $50 per labor hour digging ditches (and she does so for 1 year) may have to pay a tax on the labor she performed? You can suppose she has no other assets and lives out of her car.

What happens to her if she performs this labor, but she refuses to pay the State a tax on the labor she performed? Can the State put her in a cage? You know, for the Good of the Roads. Can the State murder her if she refuses to be put in a cage? You know, for the Good of the Roads. Kiss the f*cking ring bitch, your Regulators have important work to do.

 

[iceaura]

Is it possible that a US Citizen who sells 40 hours of labor in a week at a rate of $50 per labor hour digging ditches (and she does so for 1 year) may have to pay a tax on the labor she performed?

No. There is no tax levied on the labor performed, anywhere in the US. She may have to pay taxes on the wages earned, or the money spent to purchase goods and services, etc.

I don't recall suggesting America had a Golden Age. But, if I were to pick a time period, it would be from the end of the Civil War when Black humans were freed from State enforced slavery - which is to say, their labor was stolen by a particular group of humans (private property rights violation) up until the 16th Amendment was passed and the Stateists (again) began stealing the labor of some humans.

You tried that already. And once again you need to be reminded of the predominance of the US Federal and State governments in people's lives during that time - the freeing of the slaves by Federal intervention in that capitalist market, the carpet bagger occupation of the Confederacy, the handouts of government expropriated land and property (mules, etc), the collusion of the Federal government with railroad and other barons, the imposition of Jim Crow laws, the high tariffs and other measures that protected domestic manufacturing (which faced high labor costs) from lower cost imports (and thus drove innovation in machinery, among other benefits), the imposition of national banks, uniform currency, and coercive taxation to establish them (forerunner of the eventual true central banking system), and so forth and so on.

The time of greatest expansion and imposition of the Federal Government, in other words. The time in American history when the Federal government was engaged in the largest expropriation and redistribution of wealth the world had ever seen until then, and in percentage terms maybe ever. That's your time.

 

[Michael]

No. There is no tax levied on the labor performed, anywhere in the US. She may have to pay taxes on the wages earned, or the money spent to purchase goods and services, etc.

She didn't 'earn wages' she was paid for her labor, which she sold.
She sold labor.
She paid tax on that sale.
It's that simple.
Try not to get confused.

Prior to amending the US Constitution, this type of 'tax' was illegal.

 

[Michael]

You tried that already. And once again you need to be reminded of the predominance of the US Federal and State governments in people's lives during that time - the freeing of the slaves by Federal intervention in that capitalist market, the carpet bagger occupation of the Confederacy, the handouts of government expropriated land and property (mules, etc), the collusion of the Federal government with railroad and other barons, the imposition of Jim Crow laws, the high tariffs and other measures that protected domestic manufacturing (which faced high labor costs) from lower cost imports (and thus drove innovation in machinery, among other benefits), the imposition of national banks, uniform currency, and coercive taxation to establish them (forerunner of the eventual true central banking system), and so forth and so on.

The time of greatest expansion and imposition of the Federal Government, in other words. The time in American history when the Federal government was engaged in the largest expropriation and redistribution of wealth the world had ever seen until then, and in percentage terms maybe ever. That's your time.

Before I waste any more of my time, again, let's be sure of your argument. You're arguing in favor of Protectionism. Is this correct?

Your argument is that poor Americans are BETTER off when they're forced into buying domestic made goods and services. You know, because that protects 'jerbs'. Which is why you also think the Tractor was a horrid invention as it destroyed 85% of the jerbs in the USA. Chinese made pocket sized supercomputers for 250 are just HORRIBLE for the poor who would be much better off buying $6000 Made In Murka not-so-supercomputers that fit in your car (if you're lucky).

I can just imagine what your idea of 3D printers that allows the poor to produce all consumer goods in their own home. Gawd - think of ALL those factory Jerbs we'll lose! Self driving trucks and robots that can do dangerous manufacturing - my GAWD think of the Jerbs that will be lost!!!

Yes, we need to Regulate IBM's Watson now! It's already demonstrated it can learn more in 12 weeks than most Medical Doctors will - EVER. It can also make much more accurate diagnosis and prescribe medical advise much more effectively and cheaply - THE HORROR!!! Think of all the lost high paying medical Jerbs! No no no... we need Protectionism! That way the poor can pay more - protecting all those high paying Jerbs. Sure, many will die - but that's Good for Society. Because, Jerbs.


Sorry, but an analysis of the 1800s has shown protectionism DOES NOT WORK. Which is why we don't do it. It favors a few key Owners who get to charge much more than they otherwise could for their goods or services. The consumer on the other hand is screwed by paying much more. During periods in the 1800s when the US raised tariffs, most people suffered economically.

 

[Michael]

Again, I find it (your cognitive dissonance) quite amazing. The Religion of Statism has murdered and/or staved to death 100s of millions of humans across the last century, and you have the audacity to compare these unprecedented evils to a handful of crooked banksters and opportunistic factory owners from 100 years ago as if they were equivalent?

Give me a break.

There will come a day when people look back on these times as a Dark Age. A time when this insanity called Statism infected most people on Earth.