Ah Pete, If I were gay I'd ask you for a date you big strong thinker you. But I have a question. Kramer, I can't remember his first name, of the money show Kudlow and Kramer claims that the odds for American Casinos are much more stable and better than the odds on Wall Street. He listed them and they were surprisingly high. Also there are now "wave cycles." A few years ago we had a man on this list who was complaining that his son was making a living at gambling and blaming the Indians for running casinos but the point was that he WAS making a good living as a professional gambler. So my question is this.
Did all of those little individual investors who have lost their entire retirements "betting" on World.com, Enron, and others do anything wrong? The second question is this: Is the falling market the "fault" of theft on the part of the market itself through lying about profits? Would this have happened anyway? Has it happened before? Are all the "reasons" for "Panics", severe recessions, depressions, etc. due to some one doing something "wrong" or are they a part of the system like weather is a part of agriculture? I remember what the Los Alamos scientist said about Nuclear Energy. He said that they could build the "perfectly safe" Nuclear power plant but they couldn't build the "perfectly safe" individual to run one and that was the problem. So finally does it come down to this. Only the one's who "strike it rich" on the market can truly afford to be in the market? That the market is not a place for small investors or large group accounts because what is a small loss to a group can translate into a life threatening situation for individual older members of a fund? Go for it! I find big strong economic types SO appealing. Cousin REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:34 PM Subject: Re: FWk: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Plutocracy and Politics > > I reordered this a bit so it is easier to follow... > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [That's actually July 16th Harry - you're living in some other timeline] > > >Pete, > > > >I've been away. Sorry to be tardy with my reply. > > I wondered what became of this... > > >pete wrote: > > > >>I checked my mail last night to find Harry's comments on taxation, > >>and only Ray challenging the collection of facile nonsense, so > >>I'll attempt to put in my two bits worth... > >> > >>On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Harry Pollard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> > >>>Two directions for taxation: "Taxation according to benefits received." > >>>Perhaps a garbage collection tax - any time there is a connection > >>>between the tax you pay and the government service you get. > >> > >>In my community, municipal services are charged this way, as a separate > >>item from the general municipal tax which covers things of general > >>rather than individual household benefit. That way the household > >>services can be adjusted according to usage, ie. sewer and garbage > >>rates according to house size and number of occupants. > > > >Well, you're the one who priced your comments at 25 cents - about right, > >I'd say. > > > >We agree on the "benefits received" tax. In fact, you gave an example of > >a tax adjusted to the benefit received. > > > >Also you appear to agree there is another category of taxation - the > >"ability to pay". > > > >>>Then there is: "Taxation according to the ability to pay." If you've > >>>got it, give it to us. > >> > >>As opposed to "you haven't got it, so we're going to indenture you > >>or kick you out", I suppose? > >> > >>>This is the usual basis of the taxation we've come to know and love. > >> > >>Because it makes a lot more sense to tax those with assets than those > >>without. How good are you at getting blood from stones? > > > >So, what's the problem? Well, you say "Because it makes a lot more sense > >to tax those with assets than those without. How good are you at getting > >blood from stones?" > > > >Don't demean politicians, Pete. They can do it. When Johnson fought the > >War on Poverty with the Office of Economic Opportunity, Newsweek noted > >that the budget of the OEO was less than the income tax collected from > >those below the poverty line. > > > >You have to watch those politicians - they'll get blood from a stone > >every time. > > So government services are paid for by taxing people who have no money > to pay any tax. Makes lots of sense to me. I'm glad I'm able to learn > from your deep wisdom, I would have thought it was impossible. > > >>>With "ability" taxes, there is no connection between what you pay and > >>>what you get. It is certainly an expedient way to tax, but it isn't > >>>fair, it isn't just, it isn't even moral - for people are coerced into > >>>paying for something they aren't getting. > >> > >>I see. The rich travel by helicopter from point to point, so they > >>don't use the roads. They vacation in foreign resorts, so they never > >>use the parks. They live behind electrified fences so they never > >>need the police. They send all their children to private schools so > >>they never use the schools. How immoral, having to be extorted to > >>pay tax, just to keep the great unwashed sufficiently contented that > >>they don't storm the walls and stave their heads in as they sleep > >>soundly on the mountains of cash they've saved. > > >I said of ability taxes that: "It is certainly an expedient way to tax, > >but it isn't fair, it isn't just, it isn't even moral - for people are > >coerced into paying for something they aren't getting." > > > >That got you going. It's true, but you went into a thing about > >helicopters and electric fences and suchlike. Then: "You know Harry, > >those guys who set up the one dollar one vote system so they can adjust > >all the legislation to enhance the privilege of the hereditary rich. You > >remember privilege, don't you?" > > > >Of course I remember privilege. I brought it up in the first place and > >defined what it meant. > > Good to see you have a firm grasp of the meaning of "irony": a handy > adjective frequently used at an ironmongers. > > >So, you are in favor of taking back some of the swag by taxation. > > I think society benefits from taxation, and it is sophistry to suggest > otherwise. It is further sophistry to to suggest the rich are exempt > from the benefits of taxation. And "money's worth" in that context > is not something that in any enlightened society could ever safely > be left to be evaluated by economists who think like you are pretending > to. Don't worry, Harry, I'll do what I can to decode the irony in > the rest of the post for you. > > >The privileges enjoyed by the rich and powerful drain wealth from the > >economy making life harder for all of us, but never fear. We are going to > >take some of it back. > > > >Maybe some of the privileged might even pay something. > > > >Of course the very productive people in our economy will pay. They'll be > >creamed by ability taxes. > > > >We want them to work - to give us their experience, knowledge, and > >skills. Then we'll penalize them for helping us. Somehow, that sounds a > >trifle sad. > > Well Harry, I am a very productive eperson, who has lots of experience, > knowledge, and skills. And I am more than happy to pay my share of > taxes, because I have a very clear idea of what I'm getting for > them. I get a civil society, Harry. One in which I don't have to > live behind electric fences and travel by helicopter, because my > tax dollars encourage a civil and compassionate culture. How much > would that be worth to you? > > >>>Hence: "There is no doubt that the estate tax is bad - along with all > >>>the other taxes." > >> > >>Good god yes, we can't have anything get in the way of the cementing > >>of the hegemony of the oligarchy. You know Harry, those guys who > >>set up the one dollar one vote system so they can adjust all the > >>legislation to enhance the privilege of the hereditary rich. You > >>remember privilege, don't you? > >> > What's the matter here, Harry? No comment? Do you want the oligarchy > entrenched by the avoidance of estate tax? More money, more power, > more certainty that privilege will be maintained. Gee, I thought you > were against privilege. I'm pretty sure, in fact I believe you > mention it in a couple of places in this very post. You do understand > the association between inherited wealth and privilege don't you? > > >>>Even benefit taxation is a bit dubious, for if the government is taxing > >>>you for something you want, why not let you buy it for yourself. You > >>>could probably get a better deal. > >> > >>Of course, there's this wonderful process whereby the better deal > >>is achieved, while still generating healthy investment profits for > >>the shareholders. Take health insurance for example: the best way > >>to keep a healthy bottom line is to make sure you only insure > >>those who are guaranteed not to need your services. If your > >>mandatory checkup reveals a potential for expensive repairs, > >>why, all of a sudden you aren't eligible any more. Where did that > >>better deal go? Tough luck, that's the way the market crumbles. > >>Got to keep it free market and cheap so the deserving healthy > >>aren't subsidizing those incompetent enough to grow old and > >>sickly. > > >Anyway, you veer off into a critique of health services. Apparently you > >don't know that every health service from American HMO's to the UK NHS > >use a rationing system with patients. They have to. > > > >I have had some recent exposure to American Health care, so I can comment > >on it from personal experience. To me, it seemed very good. > > > >But, that must wait until another post. > > Very artfully ignoring the main point. You really need to take a > close look at your statement that "people are coerced into paying for > something they aren't getting". If all those people had to live in > the world where they didn't pay those onerous taxes for services > that don't seem to apply to them: school taxes during all those years > they don't have kids, road taxes when they don't have their car, > police taxes when no one is robbing them,...and all those services > weren't there anymore, they would soon realize there is a lot of > lattitude in the meaning of "paying for something they aren't getting". > And that just because they aren't direct beneficiaries doesn't mean > that their whole quality of life is not informed by the environment > those taxes create. This is trivially obvious, Harry. I know you > know this, cuz nobody's that stupid. > > >>>I have defined "privilege" often. A privilege is a private law > >>>(privi-lege) designed to benefit one at the expense of another. Someone > >>>suggested "at the expense of a group". Quite so, but a group is just a > >>>bunch of "anothers". > >>> > >>>Of course it's always better to under-privilege a lot of people. It > >>>raises the value of the privilege. > >> > >>I know you're just trolling Harry, though for the life of me I don't > >>know why. For some reason you seem to think it's more effective, > >>using a Socratic technique in an economic/political context, rather > >>than just coming out with what you really think. So I've risen to your > >>bait. Now what? > > >Now what? > > > >Perhaps you'll see the futility of allowing privilege to extract > >ill-gotten gains from the poor so they can be taxed and given back in > >part to the poor. > > > >You can't achieve justice with unjust taxation. > > > >That is - if you want justice. > > I want a civil society. And that requires taxes; or an equivalent > mechanism in some other economic system. I don't really care, but > we're stuck with the system we have, so taxes will have to do. > > And about justice: in a truly just society, human worth would not be > determined by something as mundane as ability to act in the economy. > We are all of equal value, because apparently we've been deemed worthy > of the privilege of drawing breath. There is nothing particularly > inalienable about the wealth accrued by beavering in the economy. > It's just the way our world happens to be currently configured. > So don't talk to me about justice in an economic context. This > world doesn't contain anyone with the vision to begin to grasp the > term. > > -Pete Vincent > >
