Even Americas richest men admit tax cut is for rich only

[curling]

curling, please don't dumb down this thread with posts like this. thank you.

Why do you say that because it makes so much sense what I said it scares liberal people to thinking they might actually have to work to be wealthy instead sponging off the rich.

 

[the nature boy]

Why do you say that because it makes so much sense what I said it scares liberal people to thinking they might actually have to work to be wealthy instead sponging off the rich.

seriously, read your post, then read what biolab and matt and even SV2 have been posting on page 4 and tell me what post doesn't belong.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

LOL... we are so far away from 2-3 large companies running everything... that's almost a joke Matt... Wait.. It is a joke. Take one or two even three very large companies like GE, Ford and Walmart.. together they dont even employ 1% of the population of the US...

The oligarchy argument is total crap... talk about theoretical???

Lets talk real world bud.

You;re agreeing with me 100%. woo hoo...thanks dude for seeing it my way.

The current situation (your "real world") is one of highly regulated activities which stave off the oligarchic conclusions of captialism. Lose the regulation and you lose the restraint, thereby rushing headlong to oligarchy.

thanks for proving my point.

 

[ariolanine]

Talk about putting words in my mouth. All I said was trhat poverty was not invented in 1933 or 1964. The life cycles of poor people may have been different, but they still existed.

You went off on a tangent. Take your issues elsewhere.

I never said poverty was invented in 1933 or 1964. I was trying to make you understand my point. Don't get so carried away.

 

[atlantabiolab]

You;re agreeing with me 100%. woo hoo...thanks dude for seeing it my way.

The current situation (your "real world") is one of highly regulated activities which stave off the oligarchic conclusions of captialism. Lose the regulation and you lose the restraint, thereby rushing headlong to oligarchy.

thanks for proving my point.

I hate to keep beating this point, MATT, but historical evidence does not support your idea. When the US was less regulating, we still did not have this oligarchical trend. Standard Oil is a great example of the government interfering with the market to stiffle competition for the special interests of other companies. The monopoly charge was fraudulent since there were over 100 oil companies in existence, many as large as SO. Look at Microsoft, is it a monopoly or simply successful? Government, with the pressure from competitors, is attacking a successful business simply for its success, not for unethical, illegal practices.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I hate to keep beating this point, MATT, but historical evidence does not support your idea. When the US was less regulating, we still did not have this oligarchical trend. Standard Oil is a great example of the government interfering with the market to stiffle competition for the special interests of other companies. The monopoly charge was fraudulent since there were over 100 oil companies in existence, many as large as SO. Look at Microsoft, is it a monopoly or simply successful? Government, with the pressure from competitors, is attacking a successful business simply for its success, not for unethical, illegal practices.

the best I can agree to is that there is insufficient data.

Government and indiustrial economy have been inextricably linked since at least the railroads, which signaled our departure from a largely agrarian economy.

Microsoft is a little different:

It is well known among tech entrepreneurs that when a good idea leaked out into the marketplace, the following could happen:

Microsoft would make an announcement that they were working on a similar product. This was called a "FUD campaign"; FUD is fear uncertainty and doubt.

This would have one of two outcomes: it would either scare the entrepreneur out of business, as Microsoft was known to be a ruthless (unfair?) competitor.

The seocnd outcome is a tremendous devaluation of the company, at which point Microsoft would buy it for well under market value.

Is it ethical? I don't know. Is it healthy? Hard to say. but this is what would happen across the board with zero regulation.

It is an interesting fact that despite tems of billions of dollars in venture capital invested in IT startups, despite Microsoft being the hated target of thousands of well-funded entrepreneurs, and despite the promise of great financial rewards for sucess (in other words, three things that attract the best and brightest entrepreneurs) Microsoft's market share is largely unchanged today.

This is what happens in a close to free market - the government didn't know enough about technology to regulate it.

Oligarchy? Just business? Or both? You tell me.

 

[SV2]

Agree with you I dont... I purpose that our economy is too complex to be run by only by a few... even WITHOUT strict gov't regulation. The evidence supporting that notion is that even since the 80's, most companies have given up vertical integration because it is not as effecient for the reasons I stated before (division of labor) and let me introduce a new one here, economies of SCOPE. The concept of oligarchy is almost as dead as live art... sorry thats just old tech bro.. I figured an IT guy like you would understand the difference.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Agree with you I dont... I purpose that our economy is too complex to be run by only by a few... even WITHOUT strict gov't regulation. The evidence supporting that notion is that even since the 80's, most companies have given up vertical integration because it is not as effecient for the reasons I stated before (division of labor) and let me introduce a new one here, economies of SCOPE. The concept of oligarchy is almost as dead as live art... sorry thats just old tech bro.. I figured an IT guy like you would understand the difference.

I can only shudder to think that business school students are really taught what you just posted. Are they still doing case studies of Nucor Steel too? How about Walgreens?

LOL. I don't expect much of someone studying "advanced rat racing." You're delivering right on cue.

Everything you are posting takes place within today's economic framework of invasive government. This post has largely been about economic philosophy, which has a different context.

You proved me right and don't even understand why. And you just did it again with your points in this post.

 

[SV2]

I can only shudder to think that business school students are really taught what you just posted. Are they still doing case studies of Nucor Steel too? How about Walgreens?

LOL. I don't expect much of someone studying "advanced rat racing." You're delivering right on cue.

Everything you are posting takes place within today's economic framework of invasive government. This post has largely been about economic philosophy, which has a different context.

You proved me right and don't even understand why. And you just did it again with your points in this post.

whatever... we dont live in the 1800's anymore..

go get your shine box matt...

 

[manny78]

what do you think the 'rich' will do with the money they get back? stuff it under their matress?

actually, when you're rich, you reach a point where all your needs are fullfilled and you just end up buying luxury goods with the effects Matt described.

I make 75k a year and let's say I spend half of it, then if I was making 70 millions a year, doesn't mean I would be spending 35. Most of it, would actually be sleeping in banks.