The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:27:00 -0000

Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?'

So, history has spoken.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:40:23 -0000

CS: Your 527 and drug comparisons are not even remotely tangential to the issue. Some great quotes, GD.

You still buy in implicitly to the fiction that corps are somehow the same as a person. They are not, and even run by a person, they have legal protections a person lacks.

GD: 'Corporate charter rescinded, all assets to be auctioned off by the govt. Now that would be a powerful incentive against corporate "persons" willfully doing harm to actual persons. In fact, if we start terminating corporate charters for corporate crimes, the shareholders will do the job for us. They'd flee at the thought that Ford could simply cease to be.'

Exactly. If they wanna leave the country? Great. Fuck'em, and ban their products as we shd all Chinese toys. Think another entrepreneur will fill the vacuum and play by the rules, even if it means making only a great, and not obscenely great, profit? Damned straight. CS simply does not get this. Corporations are expendable! People should not be.

'But having corporations have to bear responsibility for wrongdoing is different than trying to punish them through the tax code for not paying their workers enough- that's the sort of thing that just doesn't work (for the reasons I've already stated- all of the companies in the industry will face the same pressures, so if their product is inelastic enough they'll pass costs to consumers- and they'll find creative ways around paying anyway.)'

***High taxation is not a punishment, for that to be true one would have to grant that low taxation is a RIGHT! It is not. Again, the very basis of your assumption has no factual reality. A society can tax as much or as little as it wants, on whom it wants. But, as I demonstrated, that tax can be used as great incentives- pay your CEO 100 mill a year when the median worker makes 30k, but allow the corp to only write off ten times the median amount- 300K. The rest is counted as legit profit and taxed accordingly. wanna bet you'll see CEO salaries and bens plummet to realistic levels? They don't like it- get a real idea that innovates and own your own non-corp co. And, again, there will be plenty of folk willing to work under the terms outlined.

There's simply no evidence against this because it has never been tried, and your analogy of the tax rates, even if one bought your argument, is a no go since enforcement is all- w/o it great legislation can fail. We need more IRS auditors, not less.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:27:55 -0000

CS: ' Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare ex
pansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't claiming that creating new bureaucracies would be cheaper or better than expanding Medicare. On the contrary, that would obviously be even worse, but what I argue for is doing neither.'

***It was obvious you were arguing for doing neither, but you offered no alternatives.

'Irrelevant to my point, because I was specifically talking about the demonstrable effect when Reagan lowered the top marginal income tax rate. The tax increases you're talking about had nothing to do with that, and even when GHB knuckled under and raised the top marginal rate, it didn't go up to the absurdly high level that it had been at prior to Reagan (to reiterate my main point: that was the overly confiscatory policy that had led to most income of the high earners being sheltered via loopholes.)'

***But the irrelevant point is that the tax cuts were behind the increases, for when GHB raised taxes at the end of his term, the early 90s saw tax revenues grow, too. When JFK cut taxes before he dies, it raised revenues, but W's tax cuts have seen less revenue. The lesson? That the tax rate really makes little difference on revenue- that depends on other things in the economy. The recession that Ford and Carter dealt with came to an end before Reagan's tax cuts took effect, and new bizes were sprouting. More bizes, more tax revenue. When Bush raised taxes, by the time they took effect, the recession he got from Reagan's voodoo economics was ending, and bizes sprouted. More bizes, more revenue from taxes.
You make the chronology is causality fallacy. And history shows that throughout out nation's life, tax revenues have not been dependent on the tax levels of the time.
However. the healthiest economies have had a parallel with the highest tax rates over extended periods.

'Instead, in that analogy, what I'm suggesting is akin to a parent realizing that if he/she takes too much freedom from the child, the child will rebel- and it isn't possible or desirable for the parent to do the things that would be necessary to prevent that (locking the child in his/her room 24/7, or having surveillance cameras, inspections, and the like.)'

***No, because that analogy only goes so far. Children do not poison wells, cook books, nor steal from their employees and customers at every opportunity. Too stay with that analogy, the child, in this case, is a young Ted Bundy. You have to box in the range of damage that can be done. In short, corporations are the most powweful and largest form of organized criminal enterprise going. Are all corps crooked? No, but most are, in the banal ways of cooking the books or forging customer signatures on contracts to outright grand larceny and market manipulation like Enron. I worked at the pre-SBC takeover SBC, and they did as bad or worse than Worldcom. They just knew when not to push it too far. They were better crooks.

'It's not that I think it's unfair for greedy economic behaviors to be controlled, I'm simply asserting that I don't believe they can be as controlled (or punished/incentivized to change) as you believe they can be. I think you'd agree with that argument for individual moral behaviors relating to sex or drug use.'

***The fundamental difference is that the state created corps, they have not created individuals, ad individuals have rights- civil and human, corps have no rights. Think of a corp as a moneymaking robot piloted by people. We have every right to disassemble a dysfunctional robot. And sex and drug bhavior are ethical choices that only become criminal due to others claims of morality. Accounting fraud and stock manipulation are clear crimes no one argues with, as well as affecting manifold more folk.

'When the govt regulates corporate behavior, it's still regulating individual behavior. The moral issues of liberty may be negated by having the corporate entity as the one that's subject to regulation- but the laws of human nature that lead individuals to find ways to do endruns around the rules still prevail.'

***Wrong, you do not grasp group psychology. I just read and will be sending Joe a review of The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo, who did the famed Stanford Prison Experiment, and it's a book where he dissects Abu Ghraib and shows it was not a few bad apples, but a rotten barrel that infected the guards. In short, all corps are rotten barrels and the fact that there are decent folk working there says alot. But the win at all costs attitude corrupts, and government can do something about it, if people like you actually did not take the copout so often.

'That's the meat of my argument- that when rules become too restrictive, people find a way to get what they want/need, and they rationalize the behavior instead of acting on more ethical principles.'

***And my point is that the rules are not restrictive enough, which is why deregulation has been a disaster. You claim they're tight. Sorry, you're crazy, and when was the last time you worked in a major corp? The gov't can make the rules and should, so that your and my money is not wasted bailing out the Chryslers or assorted pension plans that many Corps are legally required to fund, but did not.

BTW- forget SS or Medicare- the pension bailout that is not even spoken of dwarfs both as a problem- and all this while CEO salaries were obscenely increased.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:07:19 -0000

I think your last suggestion is more along the lines of something I could support, GD. And I'm also not opposed to truly significant fines for wrongdoing, as cosmo suggested in regard to Exxon Valdez. But having corporations have to bear responsibility for wrongdoing is different than trying to punish them through the tax code for not paying their workers enough- that's the sort of thing that just doesn't work (for the reasons I've already stated- all of the companies in the industry will face the same pressures, so if their product is inelastic enough they'll pass costs to consumers- and they'll find creative ways around paying anyway.)

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

GreenDreams — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:14:01 -0000

BTW, I read it all, and I'm impressed with both the tone and content of this thread. To cosmo's points about Exxon, the case is an emphatic proof that "the invisible hand" of the market does not correct for corporate misbehavior. Exxon fought for 25 years to avoid ANY consequence at all for its negligence. They did not suffer at the hands of consumers and their business has thrived while shirking their responsibility.

If they want the rights of persons, how about the responsibilities. Ford decided not to fix the exploding Pinto problem because it would cost more to fix than the wrongful death settlements that resulted from their reprehensible decision. That, for an actual person, is premeditated murder, and Ford should have been given the death sentence. Corporate charter rescinded, all assets to be auctioned off by the govt. Now that would be a powerful incentive against corporate "persons" willfully doing harm to actual persons. In fact, if we start terminating corporate charters for corporate crimes, the shareholders will do the job for us. They'd flee at the thought that Ford could simply cease to be.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

GreenDreams — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:04:18 -0000

I think we have already passed the point at which any politician will have the courage to take on these powerful pseudo-citizens. It is probably up to us. How?

Citizen's petition to amend the constitution of the state of ______________

"For all purposes under _state_ law, "person" shall be defined as a living human being."

It may need a clause to keep it from becoming a pro-life/pro-choice argument:

"Nothing in this amendment is intended to define the point at which human life begins."

CS, I think enough people are outraged by corporate malfeasance that enough signatures could be amassed to put this on the ballot of most states. I know, corporations may leave the state, but there aren't many headquartered here anyway. And besides, each would need to abide by local laws to do business in the state, just as all food companies have to label food in accordance with California's prop 65.

As to your first amendment issue, it's not an issue for non-persons. The Bill of Rights clearly was not written for companies, but for humans. All corporate speech is "commercial speech" not "free speech". They are not "individuals" entitled to speak their opinion, though all actual persons in the company are. Commercial speech, as opposed to free speech, must be "truthful and not misleading". Let's see them adhere to that standard for a change.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:37:44 -0000

The problem is that I don't really disagree with you about the problem of corporate money in politics, but I disagree (with you, I presume, and with the quote from Teddy) about our ability to control it by prohibiting it. McCain Feingold has made the problem worse instead of better, for example (though I realize it's not a ban on corporate money- but it attempted to put some restrictions); as a result, we now have 527s for which the candidates have plausible deniability, so the ads just skirt around the intent of the law and sling mud in the most scurilous manner (as if the stuff approved by the campaigns isn't bad enough.)

It's like you're arguing with a libertarian that drug use is bad and that's why we need to continue the war on drugs, and the libertarian is responding that he doesn't want drug use to increase but his position is based on the evidence that prohibition doesn't work and leads to negative unintended consequences. Continuing to argue with him about the evils of pharmaceutical recreation isn't going to convince him- so if you want to convince me on this issue, show me how it is that you believe that an abolition of the concept of corporate personhood with regard to First Amendment could possibly work.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

GreenDreams — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:17:34 -0000

Now to the issue at hand. I believe at the root of so much that is wrong with American politics is the pernicious influence of money on politics and corporate ownership of the media, that has homogenized coverage in most radio and TV markets. Corporate personhood is the fiction that has subverted the will of the people, and we have been warned time and again to guard against exactly the takeover that has occurred. Among them:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. " Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Lincoln was right. 20 years later the robber barons of the railroad monopoly had rewritten a Supreme Court decision to falsely portray the decision as coming from the Court. It did not. It came from the clerk of the Chief Justice after his death. The clerk had been on the railroad payroll for 30 years.

"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." -- James Madison

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions." -- Andrew Jackson

"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities." -- Martin Van Buren

"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." -- Grover Cleveland

"There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. …

"A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view." -- Secretary of State and 3-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan

"I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign expenses of any party.… Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Lots more, HERE

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:12:52 -0000

Great, thanks for the tip, GD.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

GreenDreams — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:53:42 -0000

CS, on a technical note, add the ScribeFire extension to Firefox and you can copy anything, bold it, italicize, underline and

blockquote

in the WYSIWYG editor, then click the code view and paste. Easy, Wonderful. And links? easy too.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:11:16 -0000

Oh, one more thing on the 'thieves will steal because they think it's unfair that they can't have what they want" meme. Of course. But....at some point, if goods are not available to the upstanding citizens, they too will steal. That's the meat of my argument- that when rules become too restrictive, people find a way to get what they want/need, and they rationalize the behavior instead of acting on more ethical principles.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:08:26 -0000

Thank you, GD. I know your opinions lean much closer to cosmo's than to mine so I'm appreciative for your respect for my arguments even if I haven't swayed you.

I'm short on time today so can't really continue going toe to toe, but will try to give some final thoughts before we leave it. Fortunately I see that I can now cut/paste in IE (I couldn't when using Firefox, for some reason, and it was maddeningly frustrating.)

Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare ex
pansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

'When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.'

Actually, revenues hit their high water mark in the 80s when Reagan reversed field and gave in to the then largest tax increase in history.

Irrelevant to my point, because I was specifically talking about the demonstrable effect when Reagan lowered the top marginal income tax rate. The tax increases you're talking about had nothing to do with that, and even when GHB knuckled under and raised the top marginal rate, it didn't go up to the absurdly high level that it had been at prior to Reagan (to reiterate my main point: that was the overly confiscatory policy that had led to most income of the high earners being sheltered via loopholes.)

Now to back up a bit to broad themes. My major premise is that all human behavior (economic as well as other behaviors that could be deemed moral/immoral) are difficult at best to control in a population. Even when most people agree that a particular behavior is immoral, unjust, or harmful to other individuals, we have to accept limits about how far govt can do to control that behavior. You say that this concept would be akin to letting a child dictate to a parent what the rules should be. Well- no, your mocking me by taking the point somewhere I didn't take it. Instead, in that analogy, what I'm suggesting is akin to a parent realizing that if he/she takes too much freedom from the child, the child will rebel- and it isn't possible or desirable for the parent to do the things that would be necessary to prevent that (locking the child in his/her room 24/7, or having surveillance cameras, inspections, and the like.)

It's not that I think it's unfair for greedy economic behaviors to be controlled, I'm simply asserting that I don't believe they can be as controlled (or punished/incentivized to change) as you believe they can be. I think you'd agree with that argument for individual moral behaviors relating to sex or drug use. I surmise that you see it differently on economics because you see the corporate structure interposed between the govt and the individual actors, but I say that's irrelevant. When the govt regulates corporate behavior, it's still regulating individual behavior. The moral issues of liberty may be negated by having the corporate entity as the one that's subject to regulation- but the laws of human nature that lead individuals to find ways to do endruns around the rules still prevail.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

GreenDreams — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:42:29 -0000

Wow. This thread has taken on a life of its own. I love it. Cosmo and CS, you are both articulate and passionate purveyors of your viewpoints. I have not had time to read every word, but I will; every scintillating word.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:14:37 -0000

'In some paragraphs, you talk about the effects of market forces and then later deny that there's any such thing.'

***I've talked of controlling the market, not denying the market. A free market I deny, but not a market. That's not an insignificant difference. BTW- this thread: http://themoderatevoice.com...
has a link by a poster named GereenDreams on Corporate personhood. Your link was a banal abstract that gave no real rationale, save for your pessimistic 'it can't be done' stance.

'You talk about using tax code to incentivize lower CEO compensation, but you ignore the evidence I gave that this hasn't worked, and now you're falling back on the part of your argument that really says the market will respond to the bloated salaries as consumers will choose to support companies that treat their employees better (when did I ever argue against that?) In that first paragraph that you quoted from me above, obviously I was talking about your proposed govt punishments on business, not what the market would do.'

***There has never been any plan to reduce CEO compensation via a method I outlined, and your link provides none. In short, you say the 'weak' efforts of the past show that a real effort is doomed to fail. I disagree. But you are not willing to try because you feel this is government interference. It is not. It is the gov't exercising its very raison d'etre- protect and provide for the citizenry that empowers it.

'That's the whole point- generally (not in all cases, but as the default position) remedies are more effective when they work with the market forces'

***Which describes my remedy to a T. Make the market react to the forces that impel change for the better, rather than play to the mere greed of the few. You seem to trust in the ability of money and power to not corrupt. History and I know better. Again, this is why gov't exists.

'When I oppose regulation, it's not just because regulation and govt interventions are repugnant as an assault on freedom.'

Deregulation has been an attack on the safety and well-being of consumers since the 80s. And corporations are not real things, so they have no freedoms to lose. They are paper-based money machines that the rich hide behind to avoid personal responsibility. Bill gates cannot be sued if Microsoft uses some toxic substance in its PCs' His fortune is safe even if the co. he founded tanks.

'I certainly have a preference for as much liberty as possible, but quite often in the case of corporate regulation, my disdain is due to the fact that the regulations don't work.'

But the airlines were safer w regulation, service in telecoms were better w regulation. There was more transparency w regulation in the food and drug industries. Media conglomeration has stifled varied voices, politically and artistically. I could go on and on, but the point that deregulation has failed is MANIFEST, whereas regulation worked. You may not want a big game hunter with you in the corporate jungle. Bye-bye tiger food to you. But I'll take Teddy Roosevelt any day!

'Why do we have all the tax loopholes that we have? Because people will find a way to beat a system that attempts to regulate or tax them above what they think is fair.'

Why do we have security systems. Because thieves think that their not owning what they want is unfair. This is your silliest argument yet, save for claiming the Constitution is a Conservative document. One does not let the child dictate to the parent what it deems its punition should be nor what the rules of the game are. The parent (i,e,- society at large, tells the individual what behaviors are tolerable or not. If the individual does not like it, they are free to move to another country, or work to change it legally. But if they break the law (even by tax cheating) they need to be disciplined. You do realize your analogy is the same as many of the excuses Left wackos made for welfare cheats? Choose you enemies well, and all that....

'When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.'

Actually, revenues hit their high water mark in the 80s when Reagan reversed field and gave in to the then largest tax increase in history.

'Can't even believe you'd make the argument that Medicare could be expanded easily and cheaply- even the existing system is a mess and costs are already almost unmanageable, and set to rise exponentially with the boomers aging.'

Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare expansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:36:10 -0000

Just wanted to note that I am signing off for the evening. Will check back tomorrow if I get a chance, but if you respond, don't assume that my lack of response means anything other than lack of time.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:31:53 -0000

Since your reality is whatever you choose to make it in order to declare yourself the winner of the argument, it's really impossible for me to debate that moving target. In some paragraphs, you talk about the effects of market forces and then later deny that there's any such thing. You talk about using tax code to incentivize lower CEO compensation, but you ignore the evidence I gave that this hasn't worked, and now you're falling back on the part of your argument that really says the market will respond to the bloated salaries as consumers will choose to support companies that treat their employees better (when did I ever argue against that?) In that first paragraph that you quoted from me above, obviously I was talking about your proposed govt punishments on business, not what the market would do.

That's the whole point- generally (not in all cases, but as the default position) remedies are more effective when they work with the market forces instead of against them (not sure if at this moment you're accepting that there is such a thing as market forces, but I'll throw it out there and see which way the winds are blowing in your mind at the moment.) Increasing public awareness always adds a layer of transparency so that consumers can decide if they want to use a moral compass in regard to their purchasing; sometimes this works, as in recent trends for consumers paying upcharges for green products. It's not perfect, but instead of comparing it to the utopian ideal you have to compare it to the actual effects that regulation would have- which are often pretty lousy.

When I oppose regulation, it's not just because regulation and govt interventions are repugnant as an assault on freedom. I certainly have a preference for as much liberty as possible, but quite often in the case of corporate regulation, my disdain is due to the fact that the regulations don't work. Why do we have all the tax loopholes that we have? Because people will find a way to beat a system that attempts to regulate or tax them above what they think is fair. When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.

Sorry to have bored you with realities about why things can't be done. I'm equally bored by the notion that things can be done so easily (when anyone that takes the time to study an issue sees that that's not the case at all.) Can't even believe you'd make the argument that Medicare could be expanded easily and cheaply- even the existing system is a mess and costs are already almost unmanageable, and set to rise exponentially with the boomers aging.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:53:33 -0000

CS: 'Well, I'd hate to be your kid, I guess- all stick, no carrot, and no recognition that the kid has value above being a plaything of the parents. Obviously I'm being facetious'

And not reading. I explicitly described a system wherein good and responsible corp behavior is rewarded by the market and the bad punished. This is the thing that is really aggravating w most online threads. You can say A in neon lights and someone argues as if you said B because they are not intent on real dialectic, merely ruminating to themselves.

'but you never acknowledge that it can't possibly be committing infractions (certainly not treason- if it doesn't exist and doesn't have rights, then it doesn't have responsibilities either) if it doesn't actually exist.'

It is a LEGAL fiction. Did you not read that adjective. The argument you pose has no heft unless you elide that word. You did. I didn't. No weight to your claim.

'But your rationale is completely punitive- tax the hell out of them, dare them to pass it along to consumers (the ability to do that or not do that depends on whether or not their competitors are similarly taxed, and the ability of the market to put the restraints on depends on the elasticity of demand for the particular product or service.) If they decide to close shop, you'll want the govt to use tariffs to remove the advantage of going overseas- but what good does that do when an entire industry goes overseas and there's no domestic competition left?'

Reality check. Again, it is NOT punitive, but it levels the playing field. Again, that you see taking away the gamed advantages that corps use and leverage says much of where your midfield in an argument starts. Those that play by the rules will thrive, and be incentivized vis taxes to do well, and those that do not will be fined and taxed more heavily. They can certainly pass on their 'burden,' but wise consumers will reject their product, and force them to get in competitive line, or face extinction. And if you think there are not willing entrepreneurs to fill the consumer hole, you are delusional. Like nature, economies abhor a vacuum. If GE doesn't wanna make product A specify to safety norms you can be damn sure there's a startup waiting to takeover their market. Fact- we are not Ghana. We are the largest most powerful market in the history of our species. No one is willingly going to abandon that.

'On the fairness bit, who is 'we'? You already demonstrated that sometimes the collective 'we' is wrong and isn't advocating for the just solution, so then who gets to step in and declare a foul? That's what I mean about allowing the adversarial system to work as much as possible- because the least worst way to determine fairness is to let both sides fight it out and see where you end up.'

We is the citizenry, and of course errors will be made- but HONEST errors. The gaming that goes on now is willful criminality. There is a bog difference. You may still be dead if I accidentally pick up a gun and it misfires and if I deliberately assassinate you. But in the former I'm exonerated and in the latter incarcerated. Motives do matter.

'On the specific issue of universal healthcare, we could all say that it's fair for everyone to have it but that doesn't mean it's possible for unlimited access to healthcare services to be available at a rate that we can afford either as individuals or a society. I'll wrap with a reference again to that Buckley quote about costs being prohibitive.'

Appeals to authority are a sign of a weak argument. Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups. If the whole of the nation is the base pool, and used to collectively bargain rates down, healthcare becomes much simpler, more cost effective (4% overhead vs. 30%+ for HMOs), and everyone is happy, w/o resorting to the so-called punitive measures we, as the gov't, have every right to impose on the gouging drug corps.
Like many, you like to create problems where there are none, then use these problems as reasons for inaction. This is why Hillary is sinking, BTW.

'It's quite obviously not- it's an artificially imposed floor that is above what the market cost of the labor would be in a totally free market.'

There is no such thing as the free market. And just as corps and big players game the system so does the gov't have every right to impose a minimum wage. Since the market is not a natural phenomenon, but a manmade one created by consent of individuals, companies, LLCs, corps, and the gov't, the players can all determine the rules, and the realities- such as minimum wages. A truly free market would have great incentives to reinstitute slavery, but the modern market shuns that, child labor, and other forms of exploitation. You are confusing reality with your theoretical construct of an Adam(ic) Smith non-reality.

And yet another argument of why something cannot be done. Yawn.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:37:14 -0000

And here's something about how little effect previous attempts to manipulate exec pay via the tax structure have had:
http://papers.nber.org/pape...

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:10:48 -0000

Oh, and I missed covering one point....minimum wage is a market reality? It's quite obviously not- it's an artificially imposed floor that is above what the market cost of the labor would be in a totally free market. I'm not arguing against it, just correcting you in that this is external to the market reality (and yes, there are legal punishments for corps that don't play by the rules and pay the minimum wage, so where am I wrong on that??)

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:56:23 -0000

Well, I'd hate to be your kid, I guess- all stick, no carrot, and no recognition that the kid has value above being a plaything of the parents. Obviously I'm being facetious, I imagine you don't or wouldn't treat actual offspring that way- but it's where your analogy breaks down. You treat the corp as a fictional creation when you want it to have no rights, and then you punish it when it doesn't behave the way you want it to, but you never acknowledge that it can't possibly be committing infractions (certainly not treason- if it doesn't exist and doesn't have rights, then it doesn't have responsibilities either) if it doesn't actually exist.

Look, I don't disagree with you as much as you probably think I do. I agree that citizens can construct corporations as they wish and use govt regulation to impose behavior that benefits the individuals- because the corporate structure really does exist to serve all of the individuals not just the top execs of the corps. But your rationale is completely punitive- tax the hell out of them, dare them to pass it along to consumers (the ability to do that or not do that depends on whether or not their competitors are similarly taxed, and the ability of the market to put the restraints on depends on the elasticity of demand for the particular product or service.) If they decide to close shop, you'll want the govt to use tariffs to remove the advantage of going overseas- but what good does that do when an entire industry goes overseas and there's no domestic competition left?

On the fairness bit, who is 'we'? You already demonstrated that sometimes the collective 'we' is wrong and isn't advocating for the just solution, so then who gets to step in and declare a foul? That's what I mean about allowing the adversarial system to work as much as possible- because the least worst way to determine fairness is to let both sides fight it out and see where you end up.

On the specific issue of universal healthcare, we could all say that it's fair for everyone to have it but that doesn't mean it's possible for unlimited access to healthcare services to be available at a rate that we can afford either as individuals or a society. I'll wrap with a reference again to that Buckley quote about costs being prohibitive.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:33:45 -0000

'Your same argument about corporations being fictional entities actually proves my point- because they only exist on paper, which is why they never actually pay the taxes that you want to impose on them- the consumers do. That's why those taxes are actually regressive.'

Virtually all forms of taxation tried out are regressive, but arguing that because Corps dodge their fair share we shd go easy on them is absurd. As I said in the Exxon Example- fine their asses off, and let them dare to pass on the fruits of their wrongdoing, then let their competitors destroy them!

'What I'm saying is that it's a fiction to think that higher taxes will constrain them from doing harm to the consumers- that remedy actually causes more harm than good.'

This is why you structure tax rates with incentives to do good, as well as heavy fines. Corps are like children, you have to use positive and neg reinforcements. You can structure taxes in a way like this: wanna pay your CEO 1000 times the median worker's pay, great, but you can only write off ten times the rate. All the rest comes out of your profits. Companies that comply would get tax breaks, and those that don't will have to pay their fair share. The co's that play by the rules then have greater access to capital and workers because their reputation proceeds them, and the greedy bastards end up strung by their own balls. Again, the gov't can and shd set rules that provide for the best outcome for the commonweal. Wanna pass on your higher tax burden cuz you overpay yr board- go ahead, but the company that plays by the rules will be able to undercut you, and the market will force you to be less greedy.

And no, there is no market method to do this. There is no Smithian Invisible Hand- if the Great Depression did not show the utter naive-te of such claims, nothing will.

'But when you're taxing all of the industries at a high rate, the cost does get paid by you and me. Or, the company moves offshore- which is why McCain's proposal to cut the top corporate rate makes more sense to help workers affected by jobs going overseas than does the Dem proposal for protectionism.'

Which is why you set up a taxation system that forces co's to play by the rules and do good. Those that do will via the market succeed. Corps are the citizen's playthings, and we have every right to discipline and design their playpen as we see fit. And wanna go offseas? Great. Tariffs go up, and we strip you of your rights to incorporate stateside, which opens the investors and mgmt up to personal litigation, as they wd now lack the legal buffers corps provide.

That's not protectionism, that's punishing economic treason.

'You mentioned punishments to corps who don't pay their employees enough or don't give benefits- but we already have those mechanisms in place (minimum wage law) and unions organize to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits.'

Talk about moving midfield- so minimum wages and unions are punishments. Well, no, they are not. Again, they are market realities imposed from without in the former and within in the latter.

'The govt can't get involved more than it already does in that because you can set a minimum wage but you can't control wages any more than that (for the obvious reason, that when productivity costs rise, consumer prices rise accordingly and the net effect for the wage earner is at best a wash.)'

You cannot micromanage wages, but as I've shown, you can incentivize good wages and benefits so that you go one up on your competitor. damn straight it can be done!

This is reality, but one never tried because of lobbyists and special interests that keep the corps in charge of politics.

'You argue for fairness, which is certainly an elusive target. Who decides what's fair?'

We do. If we decide it's fair for universal healthcare, it's fair, just as we decided it's fair not to enslave others. Again, we are theoretically in control, but most people abdicate their national and local responsibilities on a civic level.

'But here too, the solution is to get govt out of the process- stop the subsidies and corporate favoritism- without the govt finger on the scales, it can balance more correctly.'

Except that corporations are almost infinitely more powerful than unions, much less individuals. For every whistleblower like Erin Brockovich there are 999 who get crushed totally. Only the government which sanctions these golems can get them in line. To not do so is not only NOT fair, but an abdication of one of gov't's essential duties- to provide for the citizenry that which they cannot do for themselves- i.e.- protection against corporate bullies who pollute, abuse, and game the economy and ecology.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:48:57 -0000

You mentioned punishments to corps who don't pay their employees enough or don't give benefits- but we already have those mechanisms in place (minimum wage law) and unions organize to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits.

The govt can't get involved more than it already does in that because you can set a minimum wage but you can't control wages any more than that (for the obvious reason, that when productivity costs rise, consumer prices rise accordingly and the net effect for the wage earner is at best a wash.)

So I don't know if you're just arguing for the status quo or asserting that more should be done, but I'll accuse you of ignoring reality again if it's the latter.

You argue for fairness, which is certainly an elusive target. Who decides what's fair? Our system of govt and basic system of economics both use adversarialism to come to the closest point to fairness possible. You're right to criticize when govt sides with management, because that doesn't allow labor an even chance to negotiate for a fair compromise between needs of the corp to keep productivity costs low and needs of workers to earn a living wage. But here too, the solution is to get govt out of the process- stop the subsidies and corporate favoritism- without the govt finger on the scales, it can balance more correctly.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

CStanley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:18:11 -0000

Subsidies and preferential tax policies like loopholes aren't conservative even though they are associated more with our right wing politicians (not even exclusively so though.) So when I argue for conservative policy, I'm not defending what I would consider corporate welfare- I'm talking about the situation which WOULD exist if there were no positive interjections on the market system toward the managerial side.

Your same argument about corporations being fictional entities actually proves my point- because they only exist on paper, which is why they never actually pay the taxes that you want to impose on them- the consumers do. That's why those taxes are actually regressive.

I'm not arguing, as you say, "for a liberty for legal fictions to do what they do because they always have". What I'm saying is that it's a fiction to think that higher taxes will constrain them from doing harm to the consumers- that remedy actually causes more harm than good.

And I'm not even opposed to all negative interventions to constrain corporations- I simply want people to consider whether the policies do what they're intended to do and ask first whether there isn't a market based method to constrain rather than a govt intervention to constrain.

On your Big Oil example, stiffer fines make more sense than the general argument for high taxation, because the fines affect the one offender who then has to compete with the rest of the industry. But when you're taxing all of the industries at a high rate, the cost does get paid by you and me. Or, the company moves offshore- which is why McCain's proposal to cut the top corporate rate makes more sense to help workers affected by jobs going overseas than does the Dem proposal for protectionism.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:29:08 -0000

Look at the Exxon Valdez mess. Now they have to pa 2.5 bill in damages- or 3 weeks of profit for an inc. 2 decades ago. Hardly a disincentive. But make that a 100 bill fine, or 2 years worth of profits, and they'll be disinclined. Wanna pass it along to your consumers? Great, I'm sure BP, Chevron, and all the other co's wd love that. You see, the market can be used to punish wrongdoers. All it takes is spine, and stiff enough resolve.

That's what is lacking, not any ideological stance, just doing what is fair.

Re: Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

cosmoetica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:58:05 -0000

CS: 'I can't agree with your 'giving back to the rich via tax cuts' because that presumes some level of taxation which truly represents the need for common good, into which everyone has to pay a progressively determined share.'

***So, to be fair, you must agree that all corporate welfare and subsidy must end, since they are legal fictions and not people, and that such subsidies make the free market gamed. Right? Same with the many loopholes the rich can exploit to pay lower rates of taxes than a working man like me makes.

CS: 'And that level of the federal budget status quo is not something I can agree with- as though this is a given and thus any reduction in taxes (giving back to those who payed a higher proportion to begin with) is some sort of redistribution

***It's the right that uses the 'redistribution' Cold War era terminology. This is a new century yet Cons are stuck 3 or 4 wars in the past. But, when the public subsidizes tax breaks for corps, surely you realize that is initial distribution or wealth from the working class to the rich, right?

CS: 'I'd disagree that tax cuts must be 'paid for' or that they represent govt GIVING something to anyone. It's a refund, not a gift.'

A refund to those who need it least, and whose wealth is largely attributable to the sytem that the commonweal of the people sets up. To say that the gov't is not gibing them a tax break is semantic nonsense. The gov't already GAVE them a leg up to get rich, often on the public dole. So, yes, the tax cuts are a refund, but all the initial tax breaks and subsidies to start business are a gift.

'above and beyond what is already a progressive tax that reflects their greater ability to pay.'

Even warren Buffet remarked that via assorted loopholes his tax advisors find, he pays a lower % of taxes than most working class Americans, and says that's wrong. Again, the progressive taxes are in theory. In reality, most rich folk skirt them w ease.

CS: 'You say that corps should be taxed higher and regulated more so that they won't pass costs along to you and I.'

I never said that. There's no way to do that save outright confiscation, but one can make it onerous on corps via many ways- if they underpay employees, refuse to give benefits, etc. There is no RIGHT for a corp to exist. They exist at the leisure of the state. One can impose fines and penalties for actions which pass on certain costs, but that has never happened because there is no will nor spine.

What you are agruing is for a liberty for legal fictions to do what they will because they always have. That;s hardly good sense.

'Their costs go up and they raise the rates for their service. They can't itemize it on our bill as a fee, so the basic price of the service goes up by the exact amount that they'd have billed us for as a fee.'

Then, when all do that, in concert, you have the basis for collusive and monopolistic practices. Indict one or more, and you can be sure that one of the competitors will swallow the costs that will be counterbalanced by picking up the lost business of the violators. That's reality.

The gov't has every right to say that this is the ceiling. Too often corps claim losses when they really make profits. Co X makes 10 mill inm profit one year, but they give out million dollar bomuses to the dozen board members and claim a two mill operating loss. Happens every year in 99% of corps.

Only by regulating against such will we get the public golems know as corps to pay their fair share. If you do not realize these things go on you simply are not inhabiting the real world.