/sci/ - Science & Math

You do realize that you're probably in the red portion of that graph, right?

>>3570676

Yep. What of it?

>>3570680
And by posting it, your point is what, exactly?

Or is this just a case of pic unrelated?

>>3570676

Pic sorta related. Perhaps this chart of falling american real wages would have been better.

I don't care about my duty to society, I don't want to pay taxes, slap them on the middle class and squeeze the poor till there purple, I live to accumulate wealth, greed is good.

>>3570711

Reagan? When did you come back to life?

>>3570652

If the third richest man in the world believes it, it must apply to everyone.

>>3570699
That still has pretty much nothing to do with the Buffet quote you posted. Also, your graphs are unsourced and have no description of how the data points were derived.

You might have well just have a pic displaying only the phrase " INSERT GENERIC CLASS WARFARE PROPAGANDA HERE "


You're wasting valuable bandwidth here.

>>3570723
I hope your trolling

Guys we're in an economic crisis we can have this argument all day however right now tax increases would slow the already meager growth we have. Thats not reaganomics or trickle down ideology it's just the shitty situation we're in.

Besides here is a fact you may find interesting. The top 1% pay more income tax than the bottom 95%. Most Americans pay 0% in income tax.

>>3570755
Even considering that 'most' just means more than 50%, do you have a source for this claim?

/also, this is why we don't have and /econ/ board. Y'all are ridiculous.

>>3570777
>refers to your 'most' don't pay income tax claim
also, check'em

>>3570777

47 percent of americans pay no income tax. That means 47 percent of americans put nothing in. No shared sacrifice at all.

Buffett's just trolling. That old fuck knows he's going to be dead by the time those taxes are ever applied.

>>3570785
hurrdurr
sales tax
cigarette taxes
lottery taxes
social security
indirect taxation through employers

>>3570785
It's funny how stupid you are.

>>3570785
FEDERAL income tax.

Besides, what's happening in the top 1% is far more bullshit than whether or not the federal government keeps a cut of the pittance the bottom half are making.

You know that bit about Warren Buffet's effective tax rate compared his secretary's, right? Namely, how his effective tax rate is so much lower?

>>3570802

Not to mention he has already pledged to give more than half away. He has 25 billion that he can write off.

>>3570805
>lottery taxes

Its really more sad than funny.

>kids these days.

>>3570805
>>3570806

40 percent of americans make a profit from income taxation.

>>3570807

His non-capital gains are taxed at the same rate, or higher rate depending on his salaried pay.

I dont understand.

It seems like the people who are most likely to think we shouldnt have an income tax, are also the first to complain when someone doesnt pay their income tax.

>>3570837

Makes nothing but sense.

>>3570837
It's because they are selfish pricks hanging from their luck at born. They don't want to pay what they inherited.

>>3570855

About 95 percent of millionaires did not inherit it.

>>3570873
Liberty, can I see these stats? They sound interesting.

>>3570885

Only because you have been brainwashed to believe that people don't often fall in and out of classes like everyone else on this board or ignorant intelligent people.

Just remember, according to the Tea Party and the Republicans, the reason America's economy is so bad today is because taxes are just too damn high.

>>3570961

You mean spending.

>>3570968
No, spending is the reason taxes are so high, and high taxes are the reasons businesses can't hire new people.

Demand? What's that?

>>3570968

no.. because if spending were bad, then Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II wouldn't have done it. You need to sort out the difference between your subjunctive contrafactuals and what as a matter of fact did happen.

>>3570985

> reagan, bush I, and bush II all did good things

Haha.

>>3570755
>rich people carrying the load

Total Bullshit.
The upper tiers are paying 18% when they pay taxes at all.

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-americans-pay-an-18-tax-rate/?partn
er=yahoofeed

>>3571003

Non-sequitur.

The entire tax system in america is completely fucked up

Taxes on small businesses, the people actually creating the jobs here, are like 30%
Taxes on passive incomes (capital gains) where people aren't creating any jobs at all, are only half that

What the fuck?

>>3571008

You should probably elaborate. First-years don't know what words like that mean.

>>3571012
This.

Also, Liberty is a troll, because he pretends this is OK.

>>3571012

Here I solved the problem. Corporate income tax 40%. Tax breaks for building factories(in US), hiring workers, moral conduct.

>>3571014

His response does not follow in any logical way.

>>3571016

I support zero taxation on small business.

>>3571021

> corporate rate is more than double the average industrial nation currently
> we should raise it
> why do all these companies keep moving out of the country?

Democrats actually believe this.

How Keynesian economics works (short version):

1. Government gives money to poor people. This can be done via any combination of: low income tax credits, welfare, unemployment insurance, and temporary government jobs (building/repairing infrastructure, etc.)

2. Poor people spend money. Because that's what they do. One thing that all poor people have in common is they have stuff they need or want, but can't afford. An 8 year old computer that needs to be replaced. A HDTV. A car that's been making weird noises but they can't afford to get it checked. Kids who want the cool, expensive clothes so they can be popular at school.

3. Millions of poor people, all across the country spending money helps businesses. Stores hire new people or give employee's more hours. Products move off the shelves, and they order more. Shipping increases, and the shipping companies hire more people. Manufacturing sees more demand, and more factories are built and more people are hired.

4. Those newly hired people also go out and spend money thanks to their new income sources, thus creating a self-sustaining cycle. Poor get richer, rich get richer, a rising tide lifts all boats.

5. When the temporary government jobs end, the private markets will be strong enough to maintain the cycle. Welfare and unemployment spending will reduce on their own as the need for them decreases. The programs should remain in place as insurance against future economic decline.

>>3571077

> hiring increases when spending by unemployed is less than what they would spend if employed

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571077
I've never understood why the 'stimulus' handouts weren't done in the form of a cheque to every adult in the country.

>>3571112

Bush did just that.

>>3571092
Actually democrats don't believe it. That's why a pathetically small stimulus, Obama has focused all his efforts on tax cuts for businesses and reducing government spending.

America doesn't have a liberal political party anymore. Just the center-right dems and crazy-right repubs.

>>3571123
>>That's why AFTER a pathetically small stimulus

Sorry.

>>3571123
>Just the center-right dems and crazy-right repubs.

It doesn't have a conservative political party either, just two fascist ones.

>>3571112
The stimulus needs to big enough and last long enough to actually get the private market going. Bush's tax cut which amounted to about $300 per year to everyone making less than $250,000 was nothing. Obama's $700 billion stimulus was also not enough, partly because $400 billion of it was also tax cuts just for businesses.

>>3571142

Prolonging a correction does not eliminate the correction.

>>3571142
You realize of course that any major stimulus is going to come at the cost of borrowing. Either from internal programs(SS, etc) or from other countries.

A big part of the reason we are in the mess we are today is because of massive borrowing in the last decade.

>>3571171
You aren't prolonging the correction, you're lessening it's impact and countering its effects. Under the Keynesian model (which America followed from the end of WWII until the 80s), you have slow, steady economic growth. The markets still go up and down, but it's stable and controlled.

Under the economic system that America has been using for the last 30 years, call it supply-side, trickle down, reganomics, or whatever, money is consolidated at the top due to a tax system that favors rich people and large corporations. You wind up with a top-heavy economy and large economic bubbles and "corrections", which should more accurately be called crashes. The problem is when the crashes hit, people lose their fortunes and fall into the lower economic class, but the money stays on top, divided among fewer people. The rich get richer because there's less of them and the same amount of money, while the poor get poorer because there's more of them fighting for the scraps. The middle class shrinks, economic mobility becomes only downward, never upward, and you wind up with a plutocracy were the rich control everything.

>>3571297

You cannot create demand out of thin air, you can only pretend the demand exists. That money has to come from somewhere. Simply printing more of it or borrowing more of it does not help, it only makes the recessions longer, and prolongs the eventual huge depression.

>>3571172
America literally does have bottomless credit. It may take us 70, 80, 100 years to pay it all off, but it will be payed off. And if we get the economy going up, it will be payed off faster. The country has a permanent income source: taxpayers. It's not like a family with a credit card were someone can lose their job or die. America will never file bankruptcy, and we'll never default (unless we elect idiot politicians who decide to default on purpose).

That said, raising the top marginal tax rate, or better yet creating a new top marginal tax rate for people making 1 million, or even 10 million per year, would not be nearly as detrimental to the economy as conservatives want everyone to believe. That revenue increase could then counter the spending that's necessary to get the economy growing.

>>3571340

> we must take money out of the economy to help put money into the economy

Democrats actually believe this.

I feel like there is 5 ppl in this thread im not trying to affend, but how many ppl are on /sci/ and why dont we (or you guys) use any of the the markers like other boards e.g. /b/ro, /a/sshole, /k/omrad seems pretty easy to just have /sci/entist

>>3571321
America is not broke. We have plenty of money. It's just all consolidated in the pockets of a dangerously small number of people and money markets that produce nothing and contribute nothing to the country. That money can be extracted by raising capital gains taxes. And the demand exists, there are plenty of poor people out there who would gladly spend money if they had any. It's just a matter of getting it to them.

>>3571340
America literally does not have limitless credit. The recent S&P downgrade reflects that. Sure, the dollar is likely to the remain the world''s reserve currency for some time, but our fiscal mismanagement and political idiocy is doing everything possible to make the dollar unattractive.

>>3571371
/sci/ is a troll board.
yes, we do use /sci/entist or /sci/fag as an identifier
/sci/ is probably equivalent to /ck/ in population
discussions tend to be smaller on this board than most, increasing with the specialization of the topic.

>>3571348

>if we abolish taxes and downsize government and let everyone exercise the full of their liberties, the world will be a better place and people will be nice to each other
faggots actually believe this

>>3571348
>>money taken in taxes is removed from the economy

Morons actually believe this.

What do you think happens to money when the government spends it? It goes right back into the economy it was "taken out of". Then it cycles through and comes out again somewhere else. It's almost like there's some sort of "economic system" that moves the money around or something.

>>3571390
That's a fallacy. The amount of money the government spends has nothing to do with how much revenue it takes in.

>>3571390
I think what he meant was 'taxation income comes from the private sector and can only be redistributed by the government, not used to create more wealth'

But it's Liberty, so, he might have also meant HERPADERPDOO

>>3571398
I think you missed the part where he references the money taken in via taxes; not the money spent via credit.

>>3571398

the point is, that government doesn't 'hoard' any more than private entities do.

In fact, private entities ARE hoarding right now. Companies rather sit on piles of cash than invest... including banks. Banks are not entirely free to move their deposits around, they need to have some available in event of withdrawal...

"Karl Marx had it right," Roubini said in an interview with wsj.com. "At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself. That's because you can not keep on shifting income from labor to capital without not having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational...is a self-destructive process."

Roubini added absent organic, strong GDP growth -- which can increase wages and consumer spending -- what's needed is large fiscal stimulus, agreeing with another high-profile economist, Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman, that, in the case of the United States, the $786 billion fiscal stimulus approved by Congress in 2009 was too small to create the aggregate demand necessary to advance the U.S. economic recovery to a self-sustaining expansion.

Absent additional fiscal stimulus, or unexpected strong GDP growth, the only solution is a universal debt restructuring for banks, homes (essentially households/families), and governments, Roubini said. However, no such universal restructuring has occurred, Roubini said.

Without that additional fiscal stimulus, that lack of restructuring has led to "zombie houses, zombie banks, and zombie governments," he said. ~ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197468/20110813/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-financial-crisis-deb
t-crisis-europe.htm

The United States, Roubini said, can in theory: a) grow itself out of the current problem (but the economy is currently growing too slowly, hence the need for more fiscal stimulus); or b) save itself out of the problem (but if too many companies and citizens save, the flaw Marx identified is magnified); or c) inflate itself out of the problem (but that has extensive collateral damage, he said). [...]
In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, despite the fact that the first four years of massive New Deal fiscal stimulus had lowered U.S. unemployment from a staggering 20.6 percent during the Hoover Administration at the start ff the Great Depression, to 9.1 percent, felt pressure from Congressional Republicans, and he -- as current President Barack Obama did with the Tea Party-led House GOP in 2011 -- gave-in to conservatives and cut government spending in 1937. The result? U.S. unemployment started rising again, and hit 12.5% in 1938.

Cutting government spending prematurely hurt the U.S. economy in 1937 by reducing demand, and Roubini sees the same pattern playing out today, following austerity measures implemented by the U.S. debt deal act.

~ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197468/20110813/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-financial-crisis-deb
t-crisis-europe.htm

Buffett isn't making money anymore. He's just doing this to troll other billionaires/rich people.

"Mr Buffett, the founder and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, said that he paid a tax rate of 17.4pc on his income last year, which worked out at $6,938,744 (£4.2m). "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8702308/Buffett-lambasts-billionaire-friendly-Con
gress.html

>>3571436
He is notoriously thrifty. I would be most of his "income" was reinvested in BH in a more tax-evasive manner.

Ah economics, the old subject on /sci/ that the most number of people think they know anything about. Unfortunately its also subject that very few people actually understand.

>>3571443
Well he's losing money now, because the stockmarket has become skynet.

>>3571372

America does not own the money of the wealthy.

>>3571390

if we take money from person a, and give it to person b, the money b spends increases the economy

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571419

This will happen when they are awaiting more taxation and more regulation.

>>3571425

> a mixed economy (socialism and capitalism) welfare state is capitalism

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571445

interestingly, this is argumentation even educated, experienced economists hurl at each other. Because like trolling, economics is a art.

Money redistributed by the government does create wealth. Jobless guy gets an unemployment check. He spends the money on food, and the money is back in the economy, moving around, creating wealth until it's eventually collected as taxes again. Most economic studies show that unemployment insurance is in fact the most efficient way the government can spend money to generate wealth. Tax cuts are the least efficient thing the government can do.

Money moves through the system on it's own. The role of government is to look for bottlenecks, places where the money is "stuck" not doing the overall economy good. The government then extracts that money via taxes (consequently discouraging whatever created the bottleneck), and then injecting the money into a part of the economy that needs it.

And there's nothing wrong with the government using credit to inject more money than it actually has when we need it to. If it's done correctly, the economy will thrive and we can pay off the debt when times are good.

>>3571481

The money is already in the economy. Moving it from point a to b creates NOTHING.

>>3571489
There is a difference between moving it from savings account to savings account, and it moving from buyer to seller.

>>3571481
For a normal economy, your last part is correct.
However, the US does not have a normal economy. A large part of our wealth comes from the fact that the dollar is the de facto world reserve currency. It is the de facto world reserve currency because it is seen as the most stable currency on the planet. Factors that give the impression of instability(such as massive debt and political unrest) make the dollar less appealing. The instant that another currency surpasses the dollar in apparent trustworthiness, all nations will dump their greenbacks in favor of the new currency, causing massive devaluation and economic collapse in america.

>>3571481

This is economy 101. Everyone knows this, although some of them will say it's better if Rockefeller builds another fountain in his parking lot instead or so, but in any case everyone is familiar with how this works. Even libertyfaggot who will say how wonderfull it would be if there was no government will know this, although he (or she) will never admit it so as not to ruin his (hers) troll image. You wasted your time repeating this, but on behalf of lurkers I thank you for your vain effort.

>>3571489
The finance industry would like to have a word with you, fuckwit.

>>3571499

> person spends 10,000 a year with job.
> they are fired.
> they now spend 5,000 a year with no job
> hhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurdeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp this creates wealth

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571506
>The instant that another currency surpasses the dollar in apparent trustworthiness, all nations will dump their greenbacks in favor of the new currency, causing massive devaluation and economic collapse in america.
And the US voids all dollars and creates a new currency.

It's not really that bad.

>>3571475
>>America does not own the money of the wealthy.
All American citizens, wealthy or otherwise, owe it to do their part to maintain the society that supports them. Don't like it? Leave. "Go Galt" as Ayn Rand would say. Please. We'd all greatly appreciate it.

>>if we take money from person a, and give it to person b, the money b spends increases the economy

I do believe that, because it's true. But I'm not a democrat. Just a liberal socialist. Like I said earlier, the dems are too conservative for my tastes.

And the other stuff you responded to wasn't me, so I'll leave it to the people who did write it.

>>3571512
>implying that was implied
Taxes are not a disincentive.

>>3571521

Taxes only hinder.

>>3571506

nations would have no excuse to dump their reserve dollars if certain motley band of fundamentalists decided to subvert their own government and pursue deep cuts in the period of time that is as unfavorable to such a step as it gets... even going as far as to incur a voluntary political default, with some of the aforementioned fundamentalists having publicly claimed to have "seen no problem with it".

>>3571514
ohai that's a good idea. why didn't Germany just do that during its Great Depression?

>>3571529
Society isn't free (as in beer or otherwise).

>>3571520

> you are contractually obligated to a land mass by sliding out of a vagina

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571532
Because they didn't have the military to back up their political action. The US does.

>>3571534

Choosing society is not the same as sliding out of a vagina into the society.

>>3571538
ok........
You're suggesting that the US should issue an ultimatum of 'hold our currency or else'?

Were you born with flippers or something?

>>3571542
You don't really have a choice. (Thanks UN!)

>>3571550
>You're suggesting that the US should issue an ultimatum of 'hold our currency or else'?
No. That's just silly. However, if all countries which hold US bonds suddenly asked for their value, we have the military strength to tell them to go fuck themselves. It's what makes the dollar strong.

>>3571556
No. It isn't.
If the US completely defaulted it nobody would ever loan to it again. Plus they would likely face economic sanctions and end up as Africa II

>>3571536
>>3571542
You're obligated to pay for the public roads you've used, the public education you've received, the stability you've enjoyed thanks to police and military, the health you've maintained with clean air and water and non-diseased food.

Yet you still have the option to renounce your citizenship and go somewhere else to try to be 100% self-sufficient. And I for one sincerely wish you would go do it. Really. Right now. Please?

>>3571570
>Need loans when you have the most capable military ever to grace the face of the Earth.
I don't think you understand. The world economy works because of US military strength.

>>3571570

that's not really true. The investors would start to accept debt in new currency readily, it would just be much more expensive for a while.

>>3571542
>>Democrats actually believe this
You keep saying this as if everyone you encounter with an opposing opinion/viewpoint is a democrat. Your head is full of imaginary fuck.

>>3570807
You know how he's full of shit, right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/15/warren-buffetts-very-strange-tax-argument/

>>3571582
>>3571584
Holy god, you two are fucking morons. You should seriously start thinking about starting careers in politics. The tea party loves folks like you.

>>3571600
Buddy, you are failing to see the big picture: the US taxpayer subsidises the world's security. Why else does the US need military bases in >100 countries?

>>3571603
Short answer: it doesn't.

>>3571612
But what happens when they are gone?

>>3571600

I'd sooner join a gay parade as a catholic than tea party, thank you very much... but still, if there was any chance for profit, I'm confident that investor adventurous enough would come in and take it. Consider russia, it doesn't have trouble getting finances in spite of all the faggotry in the past. Political default would probably not deter investors for long, especially if the culprits were sho- I mean stripped of their rank and privileges.

>>3571572
>clean air and water and non-diseased food

yeah right! the clean air act was suspended a few years back, our waters (fresh and salty) are polluted with industrial runoff, and our food is made of crap ingredients (high fructose corn syrup, sodium benzoate, hydrogenated oils, etc) that make us sick. they make our kids obese and diabetic, they give the US highest per-capita incidence of many cancers and heart disease. hormones in our meats, poultry, eggs and dairy destroy our natural defenses against cancer, and make American girls hit puberty way earlier than they did 50 or 100 years ago. GMO produce (Google "Monsanto") puts farmers out of work, destroys local economies. our health has not been maintained by an insurance industry run amok also.

regarding the police, i guess you've never heard of the LAPD.

>>3571572

If I give you a sandwich are you obligated to pay me for it? You asking for it is irrelevant, right?

Where does a state not own the land?

>>3571595

This board is full of people that vote for democrats, and/or vote labor/lib dems.

>>3571623
>If I give you a sandwich are you obligated to pay me for it?
Give or sell?

>>3571623
>This board is full of people that vote for democrats, and/or vote labor/lib dems.
Unfortunately for all of us...

>>3571615
I guess we'll have to see. Not all the spending cuts are going to come from Medicare and pony-parades.

At any rate, I seriously doubt that closing Rammstein is going to result in the Wehrmacht reconstituting itself.

>>3571627

Give, that is how roads work.

>>3571623

>if you give me blood, am I obligated to repay you?

pic related, it's what you are

>>3571633
Tolls, taxes, and fees. Or are you too young to have a car?

>>3571620
Well, I was speaking in general terms, but yes, sadly for the last few decades there have been a few too many people who seem to think like Liberty given power in this country, and now we're suffering the consequences.

>>3571640
Hey, that's not fair. A tic will repay you with lyme disease.
He's more like a leech.

>>3571642
it makes sense since these internet 'liberterians' tend to be 15 year olds

>>3571642

> everyone that uses the roads pays for them

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3571652

> the state is the solution

Tea Party faggots actually believe this.

>>3571676
> everyone that uses the roads pays for them
Show me a car registered for use on the highway which has not remitted a fee to the state for the privilege to do so. Alternatively, show me a car which has not remitted a tax to the state when it is refuelled.

>>3570828
>do not pay
>make a profit
you're bad at using english

get out of /sci/

>>3571681

Show me everyone on the road pays for them.

>>3571690
Apparently you lack the mental facilities.

nigger you're on sci, arguing about taxes and income?

get the fuck out

the only position that /sci/ holds is that money needs to be put into scientific research and technological development, and the vast majority of this must be done from the public sector because basic research is not something that is financially advantageous for corporations, and fundamentally corporations put profits above all else while science puts knowledge above all else.

someone needs to make an econ boards to get you faggots out

>>3571705
tl;dr capitalism is inherently anti-science

and ironically pro-engineering because you can patent engineering and thus hold back human progress for about 20 years

>>3571705
Without a healthy economy there is no science, faggot. Pure sci is at the top of Maslow's Nationstate Needs Pyramid.

>>3571711
Too bad capitalism is anti-patents. Patents are a regulation by the government. Laissez faire capitalism wouldn't have them.

>>3571596
assuming the largest corporate entities in the US pay anything close to 35%, which they don't.

>>3571721
But with free market capitalism you don't have a healthy economy, quite opposite.

>>3571721
bullshit the amount of money going into science in america is pitiful compared to what goes into killing arabs, social welfare and other wasteful programs and we are (well, were) the top in the world for a long ass time.

>>3571702

> show me everyone that pays for use of roads does not pay for them

Show me that everyone who uses the roads, pays for them.

>>3571735
How, exactly does your point refute mine?

>>3571728
Good thing our economy isn't actually free market capitalism but actually insane state supported corporatism

the problem is you libertarian fags are completely tranpsarent, you give NOTHING but lip service to "huh oh yeah civil rights, freedom from religion, anti-patents, anti-copyrights" but you ALWAYS vote republican BECAUSE TAXES MONEY MONEY MONEY GIMME GIMME GIMME

you're almost entirely fucking frauds

i guarantee you voted straight ticket republican

>>3571711
that sounds very Marxist son!
>>3571721
Maslow's pyramid of needs is psycological and pretty sketchy at best
>>3571728
Then where is the incentive for inovation without the promise of profits?
You cant argue for the 'purity' of capitalism since; a) it relies on the nation state for its development b) it isn't a predefined term; infact the first person to define so was a critic of it

>>3571731
Name a major US corp that generally pays less than 35%. Many corps have had a year or two recently of losses, but when they make a profit in the US, that's what they pay on it.

>>3571721
>on /sci/
>arguing in favour of psychology/sociology

>>3571745
I didn't say I supported no patents, or anything. Relax, bro. I'm not a Republican or a libertarian. I was just correcting him, by saying that free market capitalism would not have patents

>>3571735
I think you might be confusing 'free-market' and 'laissez-faire'. Either that or you're stunningly historically ignorant.

>>3571743
The biggest users of roads pay the most for fuel, thus road taxes. If anything, regular Americans are subsidizing the trucking industry.

>>3571753
>>exxon

>>3571751
The incentive for innovation is to make the money. You can make money by inventing things without patents, you've just gotta keep it secret and not share how you did it. What patents did was give inventors a trade-off: you tell society how you did it, and we protect your monopoly for a while.

>>3571711
Patents are what enable progress. Without patents corps would not be able to invest large sums of money into research, because the research wouldn't be monetizable. The end result would be that the only research done would be that that could be funded by the independently wealthy or the government.

>>3571751
if you wanted to anthromorphize science it would be marxist/socialist

anyone can do it
the process itself is free
any theory can be elminated by anyone else
scientific work is by it's very definition, published and testable

and so on

what companies do is the opposite of science, they lock up knowledge so they can profit from it.

pure science is saying "hey, if we combine these four medical breakthroughs and genetically engineer this virus we can eliminate HIV in 80% of cases with side effects in only 3% of patients! Let's get this finished and publish it"

corporations say "let's patent this medical breakthrtough so anyone else that wants to use it has to pay us!"

the good news is, that china, india and the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck about your patents and society will progress on a global scale

>>3571744
I tought you were saying we actually have a healthy economy, or in the way to it.

>>3571771
Scientists are not motivated by money you faggot

The field pays disprortionatly little for what people of such intellect are capable of.

You libertarian faggots are the scum of the earth.

>>3571753

GE.

The subsidies for "green" energy made GE a profit from u.s. taxpayers.

>>3571753
walmart
berkshire - 29% still lower than 35%
GE
many, many more.

Since the military largely serves the interest of American Business, the entirety of military costs should, one would expect, come from the businesses themselves.

>>3571791
>oh no socialism we will starve and mad-max everywhere
>suddenly, europe.

>>3571773
21 years in technology times in the 21st century is 1 year in the 20th century.

It is absolutely insane that patents last so long when technology is advancing at such a fucking insane rate

good thing your shit doesn't apply globally.

>>3571751
>Maslow's pyramid of needs is psycological and pretty sketchy at best

What I stated was an analogy to a metaphor for a model, you pedantic autist.
But, since you obviously didn't grasp the point, you're not going to be able to support a burgeoning biotechnology research program when your populace is starving and mad-max-style marauders are terrorizing your countryside.

This blows my mind that Warren Buffett said that. I respect him so much more than your average bleeding heart liberal from academia. I hope he isn't just speaking out of guilt. I really don't know what to do with myself. I feel like it is my purpose to protect rich people like Warren from the masses of ignorant niggers that want his money. Now I guess I'll just stop voting and let him get robbed.

>>3571770
>exxon

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual

Operating Income 53,218,000,000
Income Tax Expense 21,561,000,000

effective tax rate = 40.5%

>>3571787
I'M NOT SUPPORTING THE SYSTEM, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT IT IS.

Under a purely laissez faire system, the incentive to innovate would be profit. I'm glad it's not like that. That's all I'm saying.

>>3571787

Supply and demand is a bitch, huh?

>>3571800
Yes, because some things that will benefit mankind are not immediately profitable.

>>3571779
We're in at the bottom of an economic cycle. 30 years from now, all this will seem like silly histrionics.

>>3571773
basically the point is business taxes and personal income taxes should be different since businesses are people now.

>>3571776
my point on Marxism was that Marx argued the historical process moves along when the ruling class begin to impede technological development (since the pre-existing conditions and technology enabled them to have power, e.g Fuedal lord and the water mill)
then a revolution replaces the ruling class to progress the means of production and technology, until it stagnates again and is replaced again.
I tend to agree with historical materialism to an extent since im beginning to think capitalism is impeding us from moving on with technology (that isn't superficial)

>>3571807
I hope 30 years from now we already have a socialist unified humankind.

>>3571800
The vast majority of scientific, medical and technological progress comes not from inferior men with eyes full of green but men who look at the universe and ask "why, and how?"

or alternatively "how?"

>>3571802
>>let buffett get robbed
>>the people who robbed him were the last administration who started needless wars then used debt to finance large contracts with friends of the Vice president.

>>3571797
huh?

either you really aren't understanding me or I'm really not understanding you.

>>3571800
its precious you econ fags think you have something remotely comparable to a physical law on your hands

but go on pretending that emergent phenomena of human socities that cannot be modeled with any accuracy is a science or in any way comparable with science.

>>3571776
information should be free.

Those who keep information from themselves are the robber barons of our day. CIA, corporate bastards with military ties, etc.

Information should be free to anyone who asks. There should be no secrets.

>>3571800
what the fuck are you even saying here

are you saying people go into science because of supply and demand?

>>3571828
i sort of agree but the phrase "information should be free" has been used by far too many various groups with the only common link being leftism

a better phrase would be "scientific knowledge needs to be freely and widely accessible"

>>3571789
>GE
Yes, GE does gets gvt credits, which is bullshit. This was Obama's plan to spur the economy, lol.

>>3571792
>walmart
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual
Income Before Tax 23,538,000
Income Tax Expense 7,579,000
31% close enough

>>3571831
not that guy, but yeah, pretty much.

if there weren't a demand for scientists, there wouldn't BE scientists. (luckily, in our country science has always in demand.) Go to some place where science isn't in demand(The Congo might be a good example here) and let them know you're a astronomic physicist. Good luck getting a grant/not starving to death.

>>3571792
>Since the military largely serves the interest of American Business
How do you figure? I figure it serves mostly the interests of businesses in South Korea and Taiwan and the like, and so they should be paying for it. Truth be told, by stabilizing the region it benefits Chinese exporters as well.

>>3571831
he's being condescending, for once.
>>3571816
Liberty without socialism is priviledge and injustice, socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.

Unifying humanity under socialism would be good for science but not for the human spirit; a superstate would be brutal, i would argue for regional socialism.

Listen up science faggots. If you destroy intellectual property you destroy the incentive to create it. That's fine when we are talking about math but when we are talking about investing billions of dollars to cure a disease these companies have to have a way making money

The scientist gains knowledge
The engineer applies knowledge to technology
The buisnessman applies technology to society.

>>3571835
I can agree with that.

>>3571841
No, scientists exists because they are lots of people who loves science. Check the ancient scientist who discover fundamental things, they weren't paid at all and lots of them starve.
Profit motivation is a stupid motivation.

>>3571841
There's never a business demand for pure science. Rather pure science is something that we value, and so we subsidize it.

>>3571843
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

>>3571853
>Profit motivation is a stupid motivation.

For most things, it isnt stupid. Are you trying to say that if scientist suddenly got a huge pay boost, there wouldnt be more people trying to into science? Profit motivation is what leads the majority (note: not all) people into the job they have.

>>3571858
We subsidize it. Because. It. Is. In. Demand.

If we didn't, as a people want (that is, Demand) science, we wouldn't subsidize it.

Holy fuck, you cannot be this ignorant.

>>3571853
Yeah, god bless jesus and all the other social scientists out there expounding upon the rules of the universe.

>>3571846
tons of medical treatments are worked on without patents and fully documented in scientific medical journals

doctors are second only to scientists in people who go into their profession for non-greedy profit reasons

[yes there are a good amount of people who do go into it for money but there's still a significant portion who do it because they ernestly want to improve the lives of others and/or learn more and discover more about the human body which is a fucking complex and amazing thing.]

the only other jobs that people go into to "help others" are jobs that ... help individual people, which is great, but doesn't compare to science and medicine's ability to help EVERYONE EVERYWHERE WHO WILL EVER LIVE by you know DISCOVERING NEW THINGS

>>3571845
collective anarchy?

>>3571872
basically every scientist would make more money in a different field

mostly because they're smarter then the people in them

but they had an inherent draw to science which put it above those jobs

also

>implying money is the sole motivator for occupation

>>3571874
We don't subsidize it as a people, the government subsidizes it. I know plenty of people who regrettably couldn't care less about the subsidization of science.

>>3571874
You don't know what basic research is.

>>3571859
"But best of all, I wrote this book, which was a bestseller and brought me lots of money. Just by telling the left exactly what they want to hear."

>>3571846
so if someone invents a cure for AIDs they should be allowed to monopolize it?
Then that would go against the market and supply and demand, since the supply would be finite (your the only supply) and the demand is vast.
How doe sit negate incentive anyway to abolish intellectual property? There was no patent on penicilin!
Any GOOD economist knows incentive is three fold; economic, moral and social.

>>3571896
you forget almost all economists and libertarians have no concept of morality or society apart from money.

>>3571891
The government. The democratic government. Elected by the people.

i wanted to post here a link to all scientist and mathmaticians and greentext
>thank god patents and intelltectual property weren't around 4000 years ago

but as it turns out there were so many people i can't find a list anywhere

cool beans

>>3571880
I've heard plenty of doctors say that if you try to get through medical school for the "wrong reasons" you won't make it. The money incentive, they imply, is not great enough to get you through it. That said, they go into a great deal of debt to become doctors and spend decades paying it off. There isn't much money in it anymore. Which is fucking sad because they work hella hard.

>>3571903
It's not a democracy, it's a republic. If it was truly reflecting the will of the people, I'm sure science would see less subsidies.

>>3571895
[citation needed]
also, no, it wasn't from a book. It was from a magazine article.

>>3571904
I have a sneaking suspsion the number of people who abuse adderall on a regular basis in medschool/pre-med are by and large the people who do it for money.

the other 5-10% being people who actually are so motivated they want to push their body to the extreme, like pic related.

>>3571906
History would be very different. Just imagine Fermat

>it is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, too bad it's copyright and I'm not sharing

>>3571894
Yes, yes, much of the university research funding comes from liberal arts undergrads. But still, a fair amount comes from government grants.

>>3571917
i mean there is no economic/business incentive to put money into basic research because it helps everyone and can't really be patented

but still has to be done for progress

qed public funding

i think we agree

>>3571914
like I said, there isn't much money for doctors anymore. Spend eight years in school going into debt, spend next 15 paying it off. They really get a late start.

>>3571883
i was thinking collective democracy, to me capitalism seems a thoroughly undemocratic system.

anyone know how much money science actually gets compared to say, military, social security, welfare, etc?

>>3571896

Yes. it does go against supply and demand. In not a laissez faire guy. I am just saying that most people, especially investors, are motivated by profit. We need to create a system in which the greedy work for the good of everyone instead of against everyone. You are ignoring human nature if you think the the profit motive doesn't drive the motor of the world.

>>3571923
Yeah, we're gonna call that amphetamine addiction. Still the motherfucker lived to be like 100.

>>3571926
Only if there in unequal wealth.

What should we call a system that is based entirely on markets, but restricts income to a fixed universal salary?

I admit there's the issue of administrators cheating with business account expenses for personal use.

>>3571929
Believe it or not, but lots of that military funding goes to research projects. The internet sprouted from one. Not so much anymore, though. The military is more like a bad government employment program. That should be reformed.

>>3571933
doesn't deserve the connotation addiction

also, he quit for a month because someone bet him he couldn't. during that time he said he looked at a piece of paper and saw nothing, when he was taking amphetamines he would be full of ideas

>>3571942
Sounds like withdrawal to me

>>3571941
most of the military research is bad research though

that's like

"how can we mass produce antimatter... and then put it on a missle and blow the fuck out of muslims"

>>3571945
addiction implies it hurts the person when it clearely let him do the mathmatics that made him famous

>>3571926
It'd be more democratic if it wasn't prone to generational inheritance.

Ultimately, the idea of democracy is that laws and rules can only exist if a plurality of people support them, thus adhering to them.

A law which none abide to is no law at all.

The point at which capitalism comes in is that those that own the resources or capital will have greater force and momentum in society, and thus can dictate many of the terms of their share in society.

Where it breaks down is when inheritances of wealth disconnects the wealthy from the society from which that wealth was borne, which disconnects that wealthy person from the culture.

Thus, the wealthy begin to swim in their own cloistered reality and begin to develop thoughts and opinions outside the larger construct.

This makes them inevitably narrow minded when they're asked for an opinion on the laws of the land. Their weight in the system is not equal to their social immersion.

As such, capitalism, over generation, appears to deviate and become at odds with democracy, when the initial stages seem to suggest they're one and the same.

>>3571728
Please do not conflate capitalism and laissez-faire. They are not the same thing.

>>3571930
that is what i am saying; the market encourages economic imperatives, it has allowed for investors to 'free' themselves from moral and social incentives.
If you had to buy your shoes directly from the child who stitched them for a few cents would you not feel guilty?
The same probably applies to investors/businessmen. The middleman diminishes this, aswell as the death of community.
But we are all still motivated in these ways; the way you have your haircut, the clothes you wear, how you wear them, how you talk (i bet you talk differently to your parents and grandparents than your to your friends) etc
If economic production was democratic it would work for the majority, this top down system clearly doesn't, but even now people will invent things for fun or simply for the benefit of people.

>>3571941
DARPA kind of ran out of low hanging fruit, along with experimental physics.

>>3571954
No, addiction doesn't imply it's harmful. Addiction implies that not taking it is harmful.

>the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Not being able to do math sounds like severe trauma.

>>3571967
his level of math is like einsteins level of physics

it's the literal top end of the entire field

are you claiming him using amphetamines was bad?

>>3571977
I don't make value judgments, all I'm saying is he was addicted. I can't determine whether something is objectively "good" or "bad"

>>3571977
he was doing math before using amphets

>>3571960

I just tgink that is a fruity and unrealistic idea.

>it would give people what they say want, not what they would choose when confronted with the scarcity of their own resources, the market couldn't function democratically

>>3571989
he used them as he got older and his brain slowed down

sounds like a perfectly legit use of medication to me

>>3571996
But is that the way it is? Or did he just begin using them, and then became addicted? We can never really know

The word 'Addiction' (as guy was using it) is completely morally neutral. Any negative connotation exists only in you own head.

Now, please, quit trying to bring /sci/ into this economics thread.

>>3572002
yes we can, correct use of stimulants improves mental cognition and memory in many people regardless of adhd symptoms which is why they are insanely in demand in college

>>3572007
you don't live in a vacuum bro, 99% of society and people alive consider addiction to have a very negative connotation

>>3571994
my point is to eliminate the market, not markets totally, that is to say economic production should be undertaken as a collective action for a benefit.
My point is our production is now so efficient that the markets are no longer necessary; we overproduce everything! and communication technology allows for greater distribution of goods too, even within a centreally planned economy (although that isn't strictly what i am preaching)
Imagine if we could direct the majority of our economic activity toward, say, colonizing mars?

>>3572021
See, this is why we don't let high school kids run the country.

>>3572021

I dont think its appropriate to equate market efficiency with mechanical efficiency.

>>3572021
Such an idiot. Centrally planned economies fail due to the freerider problem, aka tragedy of the commons, aka externalities, the collective action problem.

Also, we do not have such excess of production. You're fooling yourself.

>>3572041
Yes. Market efficiency is arbitrary. Mechanical efficiency is discrete.

>>3572054

What do you mean arbitrary? How is it arbitrary?

>>3572013
Okay, fine. I understand.

Let us define a new word. I will call it "Morally neutral addiction", or "monaddiction", for short. Monaddiction is defined as "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma," which happens to be the same as the dictionary.com definition of addiction, but without any of the social connotations of addiction. In that case, it is okay to say that he was monaddicted to amphetamines, right?

>>3572064
I am naming my kitten monnaddicted.

Thank you, anon.

>>3572021

The profit motive is what makes us put resources into the areas of the economy that will provide the greatest return on investment.

>in 100 years your planned economy will be the same size and still chilling away at getting to mars

>my unplanned economy will be way bigger and so just a small percentage of resources can accomplish what all of yours takes

>>3572058
Because there are multiple and equal solutions to any market problem.

Thus, the choice is arbitrary.

>>3572086

Whats an example of a "market problem"?

>>3572047
>>3572047


this is foolish. the "free-rider" fallacy you refer to is something observed in welfare states typical of the neo liberal west-- not in the 100% employment models pushed forward by what few socialist alternatives have existed both in russia and the global south.

Furthermore, it would appear you fail to grasp exactly what the tragedy of the commons is-- being almost exclusively a situation that arises when private firms, unaccountable to the people (or commons) ravage eco systems and hide under the defense of "market externalities", another term you used as a buzz word in an incorrect context.

>>3572104
I was going to type out a well reasoned and cogent response to your argument.

Then I saw your pic. Later.

Good bye friends. I need to go.

>>3572104
Look dude. Without incentive to work, the economy fails. You need that incentive. I prefer a positive incentive, aka wages which can purchase goods.

Also, your understanding of economics is laughable. I will bring up only one example. You will either admit it is a legitimate example, and I will ignore you because you do not know what you are talking about, or I will ignore you being a troll.

Vaccines.

That is an example of externalities, closely related to both ideas of tragedy of the commons and the free-rider problem.

>>3572104
sauce?

>>3572087
How do get Supply B to demand A. How to get the cost of A to meet demand B.

Anyways, what you call market efficiency is just a strange attractor in chaos theory. Your market efficiency is merely a solution to an equation that is self sustaining. Since there are multiple solutions that are self sustaining, market efficiency is arbitrary in its outcomes.

>>3572047
was gonna say but this guy summed it up>>3572104
We certainly do oveproduce food for example; so much so infact that we subsidize farmers and the EU dumps fruit into the ocean to prevent deflation due to the vast overproduction of foods in the west since WW2.
>>3572083
And that's the issue i propose to bridge, like i said i am not totally against markets they tend to emerge naturally in societies anyway. Nor am i for a centrally planned economy, per sé.
I am for the democratizing of economic production either through state replacing capitalists as the investor (although that isn't wholly satisfactory) or collective ownership. Frankly i am too tired to articulate my pie in the sky economic model anyway

>>3572126
>>3572126
>>3572126


Interesting that you pride yourself on being someone considering themselves to be connected with the scientific community in some way while simultaneously substituting a single word as your "argument".

never-the-less, to refute your attempt at a counter point-- myself, and presumably many others, seem convinced that the democratization of societies productive powers, increases in real wages and socially beneficial growth decided upon by all and for all is more than enough of an incentive to wake up and go to work every day. not, as you suggest, a minimum wage pay check that fails to cover the cost of living in modern society. And were not even getting into the constant punishment members of the lower classes must suffer because of their secondary status.

if this is your idea of positive incentive, i hate to imagine you're more authoritarian position. however I'm not naive-- I'd imagine it's not far off from that of Hitler forcing the Jews to create lamps and wallets from the skin of their children.

What part of the graph are you in if your parents make a combined 300k a year? We have 1.5m in stocks, right after the craziness that has been going on. I'm in college so I guess I'm technically at the bottom.

>>3572143
>We certainly do oveproduce food for example; so much so infact that we subsidize farmers and the EU dumps fruit into the ocean to prevent deflation due to the vast overproduction of foods in the west since WW2.

There are more kinds of production than food. Resources are still scarce.

Also, the only reason we can overproduce so much is the modern agriculture revolution with high energy fertilizers, phosphorus.

>>3572153
>>3572143
>democratizing of economic production
>democratization of societies productive powers

Im not sure i understand what you mean here. Do you mean we vote for what is produced in the economy?

>>3572160
>>3572160


i don't believe the reasons behind the over-production of agriculture are relevant here. The fact remains that there truly is an over production of food stuffs and other goods in the market that go to waste while more than a third of the world sufferers horrifically each day.

i'm aware of your choice without asking the following, however i'll do so anyway: if asked 20 years ago, would you have preferred almost every 17 year old in the united states to have access to an ipod? or for a substantial population of the third world to be clothed and fed, given access to educational resources, ect.? these are the types of questions that can be asked of a society empowered by the democratization of productive powers.

not the guy who wrote that.

But yes, we already do it. A dollar is akin to a vote. You can remove that vote or you can give it to whomever you choose.

>>3572178
>>3572178
>>3572178


productive powers is an enlightenment term for aggregate "means of production" in a society. simply, the method of producing commodities and the direction of productive "power". in modern terminology, society deciding upon the direction of the work force.

ITT: people argue about class inequality, root causes, possible solutions. Idiots take it as an affront to modern economics (it's not) and pretend nothing is ever accomplished without the profit motive.

Hint: The entire internet boom started with government grants to research things that no company would have ever thought was profitable.

>>3572194
>>3572194
>>3572194


this is absolute nonsense. we live in a rent based society in which multinationals own portions of the market and we have no competitive alternatives. apple or mac? nike or rebok? CNN or fox? hey wait a minuet. i'm buying the same shit!

>>3572191
You cannot just fiat a utopia. You must be practicable policy that one could implement to accomplish desired goals. I need the specifics.

>>3572205
>>3572205
>>3572205

***apple or microsoft

>>3572202

> government grants
> taxes from private industry
> for profit

I think we are done here.

>>3572191
You cannot just fiat a utopia. You must *give me* practicable policy that one could implement to accomplish desired goals. I need the specifics.

>>3572208
except you don't have to buy any of that shit.

Linux - free
plenty of alternative news sources on the internet
shoes? There are plenty of brands. I haven't bought nike or reebok in decades.

>>3572206
>>3572206
>>3572206

the utopia is the false ideology that our current economic model is sustainable, not the desire to reign it in though democratic means.

>>3572219
Again, I am asking for actionable policies, not fiat. Otherwise I am writing you off as a loon or dreamer.

>>3572217
>>3572217
>>3572217


yeah. the average consumers are just jumping over themselves to program thier idiosyncratic version of linux in order to use thier home printers. arent they? not a competative alternative and you know it. FYI its freeware and does not apply to an economic argument as a matter of fact.

derivatives are safe and always displace risk efficiently, they are transparent and had nothing to do with the financial crisis which was solely caused by poor black people taking out loans they couldn't afford.

the market is always right and only efficient when deregulated, austrian economics works perfectly because markets are benevolant things that care about economic growth and stability as long as the profit motive is satisfied.

this is what /sci/ and foxnews actually believes

>>3572210
>>implying you didn't just derp.

>>3572224
>>3572224
>>3572224

write me off however you like. my only request is that you stop misusing words (such as fiat). also, ask me a coherent question; such as, give me a specific situation in which we should "democratize" the economy, how could this be accomplished??"

how the fuck am i supposed to fucking answer that on 4chan? are you 5? how many fucking revolutions have been fought, won and lost, decayed and cannibalized themselves over this question in the last 100 years? i mean really. how? read a fucking book for fucks sake.


look. 2008. the banks were failing. we could have nationalized them and had full fucking controll of investment.

no, a better situation. in the last few weeks with this "debt crisis". obama invokes the 14th amendment and issues in "new deal" legislation aimed at 100 [ercent employment to rebuild the nations infastructure and set the stage for economic advancement for the next generations.

ITT: Faggots think egalitarianism can lead to anything but dystopyian shit hole

>>3572227
Ubuntu. Will find most drivers for you and install them. It is an alternative, and in fact works much better than your costly alternatives.

>>3572260
>we could have nationalized them and had full fucking controll of investment.

Please tell me don't actually think this is a good idea.

>>3572276
>>3572276


again. this is not an alternative because it is not an economic product. my origional statment was in poiting out his "vote with your dollar" fallacy.

>>3572260
I can describe my basic economic ideas in a single 4chan post, the basic requisites of a functioning moral-good economy. I'm merely asking for the same.

Also, I'm not misusing the word fiat. You are fiating that the world should be nice and sparkly and fair and no one should be hungry. I agree. I'm asking how you /can/ go about that, not if we /should/.

>>3572283
>>3572283
>>3572283

you mean the community could own contorll of investment and not a limited liability multinational bank/credit organization??

YES ITS A FUCKING GOOD IDEA WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. WE GAVE THEM ALL THIS FUCKING TAX MONEY AND THEY ARE JUST FUCKING SITTING ON IT. THREE FUCKING TRILLION. JUST BUY THEM OUTRIGHT AND FORCE THE FUCKING INVESTMENTS

>>3572283
>>Please tell me don't actually think this is a good idea.

Canada would like to have a word with you

>>3572305
>>3572305
>>3572305

>implying the development of an all emcompasing, coherent and easy to understand alternative model of economics can be described in "basics" on an image board.

i fiat nothing. i INSIST that the production of a society should be decided upon in a communal manner by the society and for the benefit of the society. production should NOT be decided upon by limited liability multinational firms for the sake of furthering profit and to that aim alone.

>>3572299
except you haven't. Linux is an economic product, you dipshit. It exists in a gift economy where people make edits for free. You know how much shit you can get on linux that you can't get in windows or mac for free? Because people keep making stuff for it, keep updating it, for free. It's all there. Music mixers/ video editors, fucking everything. You don't have to give microsoft or apple any of your money. What's wrong with people these days? You don't have to shop at walmart, you don't have to buy food from wendy's, mcdonalds, or any fast food joint. Adapt.

>>3572325
I agree hidden in there is some laudable goals. I ask again for more specific policies.

>>3572311
>>3572308

So... the government now owns these banks and manage them with all the experience politicians have in managing financial institutions. They use their incomparable wealth of financial knowlge and the magic powers of democracy to decide where the savings of people should be invested to gain the biggest return to society. Awesome, good idea.

>>3572331
>>3572331

you're leaving out the part where people DO have to do those things. and the reasons are variable.

>>3572325

So... you want the community to be like: 'hey microsoft, were cool with windows 7. how about you use your money and power to fund what we want. If you dsagree, we'll sue the shit out of you.'

>>3572332
>>3572332

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Virus-Permanent-Americanization-World/dp/1583671072

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Critique-Political-Economy-Vol/dp/1453716548/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie
=UTF8&qid=1313470215&sr=1-1

here. fucking cunt.

>>3572339
doesn't matter why they do it. It matters only that you can use a linux computer as opposed to giving MS or Apple your money. You DONT have to play their stupid game. There are always alternatives to everything.

>>3572347
If you're looking for actionable policy, Marx is one of the godamned worst choices ever. The Communist Manifesto suggests there can exist a future devoid of government, thus immediately retarded.

I do want to carefully note that I'm not falling prey to the fallacy fallacy, but you have to do better than to cite Marx in a discussion of actionable policy.

>>3572372
>implying that the dissolution of the state isn't the goal of neoliberals

I live in a world where rich people start wars are baseless accusations and don't expect to pay for them.

>>3572372
>>3572372
>>3572372

i dont have to do anything. and if you are evaluating the competence of a counter argument on 4chan based on the application of anothers specific policy measures, you're doing it wrong.

specifically i think large multinationals should be acocuntable for thier actions. i think new legislation should be passed stipping corperations of thier citizen status. i think when large, "important ones" like fanny mae default, they should be bought out by the people instead of handed a blank check. Thus society will be actively involved in the process of investment needed to create economic growth. either that, or obama or whoever issues in new deal legisltion vastly expanding the role of goverment in the market-- activley creating jobs based on energy independence and the rebuilding of infastructure. sure, its cyclical growth--- but we'll be ushering in a new "golden age" akin to the 50's because of it. i believe this to be a start.

>>3572411
No need to do the cite number 3 times dude.

>specifically i think large multinationals should be acocuntable for thier actions.
Agreed.

>i think new legislation should be passed stipping corperations of thier citizen status.
What are examples of "citizen status"?

>i think when large, "important ones" like fanny mae default, they should be bought out by the people instead of handed a blank check.
Agreed. I'd prefer if they were broken up or nationalized before they became such a threat though.

>Thus society will be actively involved in the process of investment needed to create economic growth.
I never denied that. I am not a laissez faire retard.

>either that, or obama or whoever issues in new deal legisltion vastly expanding the role of goverment in the market-- activley creating jobs based on energy independence and the rebuilding of infastructure.
Sure. Good example of the commons.

>>3572411

Im pretty sure Fannie Mae was partly run by the government for much of its history, which should give you an idea of how well government run organisations are. Also, for a fucking long time any organisation that was originally run by governments (anywhere in the world) have been progressivley privatised. You seem to think the government running things is great, so why do think they are privatised? In your mind, this must be a bit paradoxical...

>>3572372
>>3572372

asking for my specific measures is like asking me to write you a book and complete all the reasearch nessasary to go along with it. its like asking a random black guy how to solve racism. cant you understand how unrealistic it is to ask something like that? i get the impression you feel you're sitting on your couch watching bill o'riely waiting for him to tell you exactly what to think about something you were previously unaware of. sorry, i dont have a phd in economics bro-- i'm not even being paid to convince you of something false like a racist ultra-nationalistic conservative "news" caster. please, please rethink your approach to learning.

>>3572439
Look. We can all agree racism is bad, and world hunger is bad.

You are conflating capitalism and markets with the problem of world hunger. That is my problem. Markets are not an moral-evil end. Markets may lead to evil ends, but they are not an evil end.

Thus, when you attack markets, this suggests to me that you seem to think that you have a better alternative. My answer is that markets (with some proper regulation when markets suck), is the best known solution. If you disagree, I need enough details of your proposed system in order to analyze.

>>3572438
>>3572438

fanny mae is actually a federal institution. i never insisted goverments cant make mistakes..... i also never insisted that the united states was a democracy-- its not.

>>3572456
>>3572456
>>3572456


the evidence of the global markets tyranny over the global poor is insurmountable. i'm not going to fucking index this for you-- the information is everywhere. i do not support any moral argument against capitalism (as every such argument is misguided and foolish) but to insist that the boom and bust neo-liberal model has not created abject poverty in most of the world and compounded global starvation is just flat out ignorant of the facts. the free trade agreements and world bank have a long history of creating the situations nesseary for mass starvation and lack of sanitation inthe third world since thier conception-- research them.

>>3572473
All true. This is not evidence that centrally planned economies would be better.

>>3572475
>>3572475
>>3572475

when the FTO forced cheap subsidized rice into hati to bump up profits for american rice firms, it was fully aware of the fact that flooding the market with a cheap alternative would put hatis farming population out of buisness--- which in turn forced workers into urban enviroment's and created an IDEAL atmosphere of unimagianably cheap, unskilled labor for outsourced american jobs. this was the plan. years later clinton had to publicly appologise for leading the administration responcible for such a huge death toll in port au prince. this is one example of countless, countless others.

do you believe the american factory workers who lost those jobs all over the country would have supported that outsource? would have supported thier hard earned tax money going to those subsidies? private news firms and the private founding behind presidential campaigns reassured them that they made the right choice with thier election.

yes. communal controll of the econnomy is better.

Back

>>3572500

Are you citing government misuse of taxpayer money as evidence of the superiority
of a government controlled economy?

>>3572510
>>3572510

corperate founding is responcible.

>>3572518

What am I reading.