Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Grade A Anti-Randian Rant


Recommended Posts

IIRC the maximum income rate in the US is something of the order of 36%. Also remember that we are talking about increasing tax on income over 250k. Personally I think if people feel paying 40% odd on earnings over 250k is somehow incredibly objectionable, then frankly that country is definitely better off if they do one.

I'd just like to say I agree with everything you have written in this thread and it is not often I get to say that.

LOL....I love your posts beleive it or not...agree with you or not..

I dont think much I have posted here that is at odds with Austrian economics....the bad players get their just desserts, the good ones are elevated....but in the World we live in, its not what you know, its who you know that gets you places...enhanced by that little leverage you use on the ones you know to....see the child abuse thread for more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The problems are all in the mind.

Just about every job efficiency person yuo would talk to will tell you the pay is not the main reason people work...its job satisfaction, its helping people, its being part of something bigger than they are.

The pay bit comes in with the 7 deadly sins...Hear these sins every day from trade unions....Greed, Covetness, jealousy, pride....they are all the reasons people are ENTITLED to more than the next person.

You may not beleive in God, but the Bible has it all in there....nothing has changed with people in 5000 years....nothing at all.

I don't believe in the easter bunny or spiderman either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in the easter bunny or spiderman either.

you were doing so well up to here....what about the sins part of ENTITLEMENT pay issues...do you have a view on this?

for example, why is the farmer bankrupted when the banker takes the bonus from the loan he made the farmer? Where is the natural law in this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a while since I read Atlas Shrugged, but IIRC, the 'little people' were not criticised. It was the parasitical class in society (politicians, trade union leaders etc) that was attacked. The leaders who 'shrugged' to set up their own communities under the gold standard still had people working for them in a paternalistic relationship, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you were doing so well up to here....what about the sins part of ENTITLEMENT pay issues...do you have a view on this?

for example, why is the farmer bankrupted when the banker takes the bonus from the loan he made the farmer? Where is the natural law in this scenario?

I will say it again I DO NOT DEFEND THE CURRENT SYSTEM. I think it is a disgrace that we have to pay such a high cost to rent are means of exchange. I would scrap the bank of england tomorrow. What I believe in is that the more economic value someone provides the higher rewards they should recieve.

You cannot pay everyone the same and expect society to function. The same as you cannot reward failure and expect society to function.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the maximum income rate in the US is something of the order of 36%. Also remember that we are talking about increasing tax on income over 250k. Personally I think if people feel paying 40% odd on earnings over 250k is somehow incredibly objectionable, then frankly that country is definitely better off if they do one.

I'd just like to say I agree with everything you have written in this thread and it is not often I get to say that.

There is clearly no problem for anyone to pay 60% tax if he is granted a monopoly to supply water at prices he like. The same applies to a license to print money. The thing is income of £250k does not just turn up when one wakes up. It is true that 36% tax is not going to make people shut their businesses, but may discourage one or two to bother risking their home/well paid job to start one. Every percentage point is going to have some effect, it is hard to know what is the rate that will break the camel's back, but pretty sure Dennis's 98% will definitely do it (or Hollande 75%). Also, there are state taxes, 36% + X + X will go over 50% in some sunny state like California.

The bold part - I must disagree - one empoyer is better than one less, even if he just want to pay 25%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another pathetic, pointless discussion.

Socialism and its many illegitimate offspring were tested to destruction in the 20th Century.

The defining aspect of this period was the hundreds of millions of people murdered by these utopian states and the millions who were prepared to risk death escaping from them.

How many millions fled the United States??????????

:blink:

edited to substitute illegitimate for b*****d

what a weird profanity filter

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again I DO NOT DEFEND THE CURRENT SYSTEM. I think it is a disgrace that we have to pay such a high cost to rent are means of exchange. I would scrap the bank of england tomorrow. What I believe in is that the more economic value someone provides the higher rewards they should recieve.

You cannot pay everyone the same and expect society to function. The same as you cannot reward failure and expect society to function.

you said:

"What the guy can't understand is the people at the top get paid more because they are harder to replace. The man that pumps your gas or works the mines are 10 a penny. It all comes down to supply and demand. Everybody is not equall economicly. "

I said, the guys at the top are as ten a penny as those at the bottom.

I have laid out my case. as have others.

I beleive ENTITLEMENT is rife in all levels of society.....its not about S+D, its about people measuring themselves against another measurer measuring themself against you. People try very hard to ensure there are differentials in pay according to the work...it follows that once you have reached a certain level, you are naturally better than the person who isnt.

Id like like to read your views on why people HATE their work, and Entitlement, and reward for failure.

I agree the whole thing is wrong, but there we have it....perhaps we can slowly change the hearts and minds of men....I doubt it...5000 years of biblical knowledge of the spirit of men and nothing has changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another pathetic, pointless discussion.

Socialism and its many ******* offspring were tested to destruction in the 20th Century.

The defining aspect of this period was the hundreds of millions of people murdered by these utopian states and the millions who were prepared to risk death escaping from them.

How many millions fled the United States??????????

:blink:

what ...next year?

murdering governments have nothing to do with socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you said:

"What the guy can't understand is the people at the top get paid more because they are harder to replace. The man that pumps your gas or works the mines are 10 a penny. It all comes down to supply and demand. Everybody is not equall economicly. "

I said, the guys at the top are as ten a penny as those at the bottom.

I have laid out my case. as have others.

I beleive ENTITLEMENT is rife in all levels of society.....its not about S+D, its about people measuring themselves against another measurer measuring themself against you. People try very hard to ensure there are differentials in pay according to the work...it follows that once you have reached a certain level, you are naturally better than the person who isnt.

Id like like to read your views on why people HATE their work, and Entitlement, and reward for failure.

I agree the whole thing is wrong, but there we have it....perhaps we can slowly change the hearts and minds of men....I doubt it...5000 years of biblical knowledge of the spirit of men and nothing has changed.

You are missing the point entirely.

It is about hard work and innovation, not wealth

People work hard and innovate because they want to be wealthy

If the state then takes all their income they simply don't bother, unless you hold a gun to their heads.

This is why all states where income is claimed by the state, are police states which always end in murder by the state and total economic failure.

I won't bother to list any of the numerous examples of this in the 20th Century and it is still happening now in countries like North Korean and Zimbabwe.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point entirely.

It is about hard work and innovation, not wealth

People work hard and innovate because they want to be wealthy

If the state then takes all their income they simply don't bother, unless you hold a gun to their heads.

This is why all states where income is claimed by the state, are police states which always end in murder by the state and total economic failure.

I won't bother to list any of the numerous examples of this in the 20th Century and it is still happening now in countries like North Korean and Zimbabwe.

:)

I wasnt talking about taxation...I was talking about Entitlement.

Even if everyone was paid the same, taxing the frack out of anyone would of course, make it all pointless...we are not all drones....but some are natural Doctors, bidge designers, till operators...Mrs Loo is a Holidaygoer.

Horses for courses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do - because people don't like having everything they own stolen by the state.

:)

Sure, but thats a murdering state...not socialism...although I would agree that due to the 7 deadly biblical sins, 5000 years of age, thats where it ends up...as I said...nothing about man has changed...he has a mobile phone instead of leprosy...but thats about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The immaturity, selfishness and anger in Rand's whole ethos are incrdibly depressing. Still, she was a drug addicted socio / psychopath.

The little peoples small acts of decency and kindness which hold together our race are spat upon by these people. I'd say they'd burn in hell, but they can't believe in god because that would mean someone knew better than them.

wtf

so explain why the lefties keep going on strike when their pay and pensions and threatened, if it's all about personal charity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't she spend the last years of her life dependant on welfare handouts?

Yes.

Even before this, there was that lack of conviction in her eyes which indicated she knew she was maybe wrong, and/or despaired about how her ideas were interpreted.

Edited by PopGun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Even before this, there was that lack of conviction in her eyes which indicated she knew she was maybe wrong, and/or despaired about how her ideas were interpreted.

it's grey areas - it is hard to justify 100% her POV given history, nevertheless, it has a place - she was the only polemical right wing writer, as against dozens of such left wing writers

Greenspan was a Randian. Nobody did more to wreck civilisation in the last 50 years than Greenie and his 'free market' Wall Street chums.

b*ll*cks, big hairy ones - did you not notice the Soviet Union, N Korea, Cuba?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All terrible but mainly localized.

Where as Greenie's policies had a tad more reach...

more reach but less overall magnitude- and didn't tend to go for forced labour camps or quite so many political assassinations either AFAIK

Edited by Si1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is clearly no problem for anyone to pay 60% tax if he is granted a monopoly to supply water at prices he like. The same applies to a license to print money. The thing is income of £250k does not just turn up when one wakes up. It is true that 36% tax is not going to make people shut their businesses, but may discourage one or two to bother risking their home/well paid job to start one. Every percentage point is going to have some effect, it is hard to know what is the rate that will break the camel's back, but pretty sure Dennis's 98% will definitely do it (or Hollande 75%). Also, there are state taxes, 36% + X + X will go over 50% in some sunny state like California.

The bold part - I must disagree - one empoyer is better than one less, even if he just want to pay 25%.

While the above is all well and good, the debate about 'how much' tax is too small a frame of debate.

Any organisation which takes the results of labour from another, without their permission, is doing wrong. It doesn't matter whether it is the state, the Mafia or Tesco. It doesn't matter whether it is 10%, 50% or 95%. It is still a form of enslavement, a form of rent seeking, a form of theft.

Whether people carry on regardless, even if their masters take most of their stuff, is pretty much beside the point, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call nuts on this theory.

You have a few stars in any industry, but the thousands of board members are ten a penny....usually got their place through nepotism, fraud or leverage.

TBH, I dont know how to work a till.

There is no reason on earth why everyone shouldnt receive the same...other than one of the deadly sins, each of which is used to justify one persons worth over another.

It appears that it's the scarcity of the position rather than the scarcity of potential applicants that dictates the pay rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People misunderstand Rand. I also think very few people have actually read Atlas Shrugged. When I have tried to discuss it with people, it becomes clear they only have third hand knowledge of its contents, which are usually wrong.

What becomes clear in Atlas Shrugged is that Rand loathes corporatism, not community. In fact, it was Rand that really helped me to understand the processes of state capture and how corporatism can destroy an economy and a country, and how easy it is for collectivist modes of thought to allow this to happen.

Rand guns for the parasitical elite: those that inherit wealth without earning it through their own labour or skills, or use political power to boost their own failing businesses or sponsor their pet projects to the detriment of those that create the wealth through their labour. I dread to think what Rand would say about today's financiers and Wall Street. No doubt she would point to the Solyndra fiasco and say "I told you."

Rand's heroes and heroines are those tycoons who actually spend time chipping metals out of rock down a mine, casting steel on the furnace floor, or operating a signal box on a railway line -- half of them are from working class origins. Indeed, her heroes are those engaged in industries that create and spread wealth; it is not accidental that a large part of AS is about the efforts to build a railway bridge to open out parts of America to trade and commerce and create the ability for factories to operate in other regions, all juxtaposed against the blighted areas where factories have died and people are starving because of the idiotic ideas of owners that use the value of the labour of their workers to fund personal and unsuccessful social hobby horses.

Indeed, the motivation for Rand's heroes in AS is altruistic, but it's big picture, long term altruism -- the altruism that understands building an aqueduct to bring water to a village square is better than someone fetching a pail of water from the hillside for the old lady next door.

Again, her heroes in AS do not do what they do for avaricious reasons. In fact, neither Dagny Taggart nor Hank Reardon seem to give much of a shit about money apart from its ability to help create, build and employ. In fact, they seem to actively loathe luxury.

Rand's parasites are the figures she calls "looters" -- from the tycoon who does political deals to steal successful well-run lines through government legislation to boost their own personal profit right down to the lazy, greedy wife of a tycoon who loathes her husband because his business is "dirty" and he is from a working class family, but constantly demands he pays for new jewels and "artistic" parties for her.

The interesting thing about Rand is how "Soviet" her mentality actually is. She lauds the worker and despises the bourgeois and aristocratic. She is, in some ways, a fascinating example of a strand of Marxist-inspired Russian revolutionary thinking that did not go down the totalitarian pseudo-collectivist path where the Tsar is simply replaced by a Comrade Number One.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.