From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:56:57 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Aug26.021347.4879@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
writes:
>
>2% of American workers earn $100,000 a year or more. The majority, 57%, 
>earn between $24,000 and $45,000, with the poor worker, $8,000 and under, 
>making up 7%, and the rest earning between $45,000 and $100,000 or between
>$8,000 and $24,000.  Now it's unlikely that the rich buy 10 Chevys a year. 
>Instead they buy about the same number of cars and TVs and other consumer 
>goods as other people, they just buy more expensive models. They don't
>account for the output of the majority of workers, or even a sizable
>minority of the output of other workers. The bulk of the money earned
>by the rich is not spent on consumer goods. Instead it is *invested*
>in stocks and bonds that finance the creation of jobs for other workers.
>
assuming these figures are correct: of that majority 57%, most people earn
near the lower end of that range -- the modal income is in the lower $20s.
an income of $30,000 is barely enough to afford a home, transportation to
work (usually, and necessarily, a car), food, taxes, insurance, and so forth.
of that 'rest' you mention, most are in the lower half -- $8000 to $24,000.
and let's not forget that somewhere near the very tip of our iceberg there
are those who earn a million and more -- few, yes, but remember that a
million is 40 times $25,000.  i don't have exact figures at hand, just wanted
to point out some likely distortions here.

and so, possible injustice set aside for a moment, the wealthy reinvest their
capital into production.  they are not simply joining in the play of a free
market.  they help _shape_ that market by creating demand, for instance
through the medium of advertisement.  they _direct_ the market by assessing
not what people need or want, but what people _could be coerced_ into
wanting.  thus, for example, most people might not really _want_ or _need_
another slew of nuclear missiles, but the directors of capital excersize their
economic authority to insure that we get them anyway.

>>administration and previously the Reagan administration had put through at
>The farm program is a corrupt mess indeed. The government pays farmers
>to grow grain that is allowed to rot on the ground, or is sold to one
>of the big three grain exporters at a deep discount. They pay farmers to
>produce milk that is poured down the sewer. They erect tariffs protecting
>inefficient sugar and peanut operators from foreign competition. The only
>farm program that is run right is the tobacco program. The government sets
>poundage allocations for each farm and won't let more than that amount of
>tobacco be marketed. The government doesn't pay tobacco farmers a dime.
>Instead it regulates production so that demand forces the prices to near
>parity levels, the only crop that does approach parity levels. About half
>the nation's small farmers would be bankrupt without the tobacco program.
>
and if 'parity' prices were achieved in all farm markets?  who would be able
to afford a decent meal?  so we'd have to raise low-end wages to compensate.
and what about the huge multinationals who farm in third-world nations?
they'd end up lowering their workers' wages to compete -- ever been to
a south american plantation?  ever seen how those people are forced to live?

>>categories of regulations were created to deal with problems that resulted
>>from an absence of there being rules-- people were being taken advantage of
>>by profit-minded capitalists in every imagineable way and rules were created
>>to protect the consumer and the worker. Nowadays, many of the rules have
>>become very twisted, some to the point that they no longer server their
>>purpose or are counterproductive, but to do away with them altogether would
>>bring back the original problem. Instead, they need to be reworked.
>
>Regulation has gotten totally out of hand. Each year Congress passes 
>between two and three hundred new laws. Meanwhile the Federal bureaucracy
>implements between 15 and 20 thousand new regulations. The regulations, if
>placed in a single stack, would be taller than the Washington monument.
>No business without a full time legal staff in Washington can hope to
>keep track of all the regulations that apply to it's operations. So many
>of the regulations conflict that no business can hope to operate without
>violating one or more regulations. Everyone has been made a criminal, and
>it is only on the whim of some faceless bureaucrat whether he will be
>prosecuted or not. It's too late for reform. Every President since
>Hoover has tried to reform the bureaucracy. None have succeeded. It's
>time for revolutionary change. It must all be torn down and started
>over with ironclad rules limiting the numbers and kinds of regulation
>that can be done. Congress itself is in serious need of change. I'd
>propose as a starting point a constitutional amendment that would
>require Comgress to repeal three old laws for every new law it passes.
>I'd also make it clear that just incorporating the old laws in the
>new bill won't cut it. I'd also limit the size of permanent staff
>available to Congress and limit Congressmen to one term. They're 
>supposed to be citizen-legislators, not professional politicians
>dependent on unelected permanent staff to handle their jobs. It's
>time they returned to the real world and tried to live under the
>system they've created.
>
ever wonder _why_ regulation becomes so complex?  seeing as how congress
is mightily concerned with protecting big business (both to stabilize the
economy and to stabilize their offices), and noting that the liberal
'special interests' that bush and his cronies decry have far less clout
than big business, it's difficult to believe that congress would do anything
to regulate business unless: (1) it was outrageously necessary to prevent
big business from royally screwing someone or something else; or (2) some
other big business asked them to.  why are the pages of regulatory laws so
many?  loopholes take up a lot of space.

>"Progressive" taxation is a misnomer if I ever heard one. Every time a
>person tries to make progress, he gets taxed more heavily. According to
>the Constitution and tradition, we are supposed to be equal under the
>law, but the tax code is anything but equal. A person's tax bill should
>reflect the level of service he demands from the government, nothing less,
>nothing more. An income tax has no place in a system that proclaims equality
>under the law. It should be replaced with a system of user fees that place
>the burden of taxation squarely on the people who benefit from the taxes.
>
oh jeez.  you do realize, of course, that the people who need services from
the government are the people who can't afford to buy them elsewhere.
so what you're saying is, Screw the poor, Let them fend for themselves.
why don't you just come out and say that?

oh, and once you cut off that sort of support, the majority of people in
this country won't be benefiting from their government at all.  so they,
naturally, won't be asked to pay for, say, the military which supports
that government?

dave
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc