Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 26
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, ProfitPage 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

A national sales tax is the worst thing that we could do. Its consequences have never been fully thought out by those who support it.

If you pay for your Big Mac with plastic now, how will you pay for it when it cost 15% to 20% more? Those who pay for Big Mac's with plastic now are not the ones who pay federal taxes to any extent anyway, so how would the all of a sudden have more spendable?

Surely, you jest.............

Paul K


a national sales tax COULD be a good thing IF it were matched by an equivalent CUT in income tax rates..

then people would keep more of their earnigns, to spend or not spend (invest) as they choose.

encouraging earning/work, and slightly discouraging massive consumption, (realtively) is not such a bad thing.

however, thsi is a DISNEYLAND fantasy..we are talking GOVERNMENT after all.

they would just introduce the National sales tax, AND keep income tax rates the same or higher..

or maybe deke us all out, drop the income tax rates for a year or so, then quickly hike them back up to the previous rates.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/12/2010 4:33:07 PM
First of all Paul, did you miss my point about income taxes being passed down?

Income taxes on business owners and corporations are accounted for in the prices of said business'and corporation's products and services. Taxes are direct costs - and prices must reflect 100% of all direct costs. Thus, outside of the world of theory, the "bottom 45%" end up forking over the money to pay these taxes.

Secondly, on what do you base the claim, "the bottom 45% or so of earners pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX".

I remember years ago, when I worked in retail, making $10.15 an hour, I filed a tax return and had Federal taxes deducted from each paycheck. And I cant imagine I was any higher than the bottom 30% at that wage.
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 28
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/12/2010 4:53:44 PM
Now you're starting to get the idea.
We are being scammed !
We are all a bunch of stupid rubes !

They didn't emancipate the slaves..... they gave the slaves credit cards !

People are scared of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax.
Yet, they will gladly pay for a fast food hamburger with a credit card and pay credit card interest rates for that hamburger !

How much did your father or grandfather pay for his house back in the 1960's ?
How much would a similar house cost today ?
How much did your father or grandfather earn back in the 1960's to afford that house ?
How much do you earn today ?

We are all a bunch of idiots and we have let them do it to us !


Yes what has happened is through fractional reserve banking is the currency has been devalued. This is why gold will continue to be a safe investment. Gold is not becoming more valuable, it is just the dollar is becoming more worthless. The same can be said for inflation. It should really be called the rate of devaluation, but that is even more depressing when wages are basically staying where they are or declining.BTW this is also basically a hidden tax that everyone tends to ignore.
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 29
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/12/2010 5:18:23 PM
The Fed is buying Treasuries on the open market today. This has been happening for a while but this is a little more in your face.When a central bank starts buying the debt of the nation it represents its called "Debt Monetization." When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running Ponzi scheme. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to either raise taxes , cut spending, monetize more debt or all the above .The U.S. dollar will fall from the global reserve currency in our lifetimes and could potentially go to zero in terms of purchasing power if hyperinflation kicks in.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/08/11/monetizing
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/12/2010 7:48:39 PM
Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax would be the smartest thing we've ever done.
I don't know why the Libertarians aren't pushing for it.

For one thing, the simplicity of it. No more reams and reams of indecipherable rules and regulations. Just a simple percentage of sales. The Government only cares about collecting it's percentage and nothing more. The retailers simply collect that percentage and pass it along. The IRS, as a bureaucracy would practically disappear.
No more loopholes, no more hiding money overseas.
The IRS is reduced to a few auditors who go around to businesses and confirm they are collecting the percentage and that's all they care about. It's all done on Excel spreadsheets.

The Government no longer cares how much money anyone makes or where that money comes from.
The Government only cares about the money people spend.
Since everybody rich and poor spends money, everybody would pay their fair share.

Every state in the union has some sort of sales tax. Have you ever heard of a business going under because of the sales tax ? Have you ever heard a business man say he couldn't hire new employees because of the sales tax ?
Sure it raises prices, but don't all taxes raise prices ?
You're just paying at the front door instead of the back door.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 31
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/12/2010 8:04:49 PM

It is times like this that I really do like the computer and what it can do. According to the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, the lowest quintile, that would be the lowest 20% of earners actually pay a negative 2% in fed income tax, averaged for that quintile. That means that they RECEIVE money, not pay. The second quintile, or second 20% of earners pays 1% of federal income taxes. those two averaged out equal less than a positve number, and you have to get close to 45% off of the bottom to reach break even point.

You seem to do your homework very throughly, and I am surprised that you did not know this. THIS is why I say that I am surprised that so many people fell for howdy doody's claim that he gave a tax break to 95% of the tax payers, when only about half pay federal income taxes taxes to begin with.

I am surprised that you answer your own question and then basically pose the question again as if there is no good answer.

To elaborate on the principle you already introduced:

During the 2008 election campaign, President Obama proposed to create or expand a variety of refundable tax credits, most notably his Making Work Pay credit. Refundability was key for Obama - that's the only way to make credits available to people who pay little or no tax. Critics decried the proposals, asking how you can cut taxes for people who pay no tax. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimated that, under then current law, 38 percent of all nondependent tax units would pay no income tax in 2009.

Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. TPC estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of tax units will owe no income tax in 2009.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 12:29:23 PM
Paul, lol. No one is denying what you're saying. Or at least I'm not. I've always maintained what you are saying.

But it seems to me the arguments you have put forth in this thread have overlooked a central point: that determining a tax-structure is an optimization problem.

That is to say, a tax structure will encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior.

Switching from an income tax structure to a consumption tax structure would, encourage investment, would encourage savings, and would discourage spending and would discourage debt.

That sounds like a good trade-off to me.

Yes, a large number of businesses would suffer from this tax structure, most notably in the luxury category where these taxes would be highest (12% on a $100,000 purchase is greater than 12% on a $10 item). But many others would benefit (and come into existence in the first place) because of the dramatic increase in investment and savings that would result from this new tax structure.

So, we'd have fewer people buying yachts, expensive cars, and so on (hurting those industries). We'd have more capital available for more entrepreneurs to start businesses in the remaining (and new) industries that people find more value in.

And we'd shed the 1,000,000+ accountants we have (or more realistically, a very large portion of them) to be employed in productive sectors of the economy where they can actually start producing some value. We'd shed the beaurocracy of the IRS. And we'd remove a great portion of the incentives businesses have to move production and jobs overseas (where competing states offer low [or now] income taxes on them).


This is a more optimized utilization of our resources, in my opinion.

Of course I would rather have no consumption tax. All taxes are negative, in my opinion. The points you raise are correct. It's just that, in my opinion (and the opinions of many other people) the negatives of an income tax are greater than the negatives of a consumption tax.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 33
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 2:46:21 PM

I guess you diddn't scroll further down the page on the CBO report that projects that well less that 40% will owe federal income taxes in '10, and ALL taspayers will pay MORE.

I didn't cite a CBO report, and I don't know which post you may have cited it, so I don't know what you are referring to. You will have to cite your claim about the "well less than 40%" projected to pay more in 2010.

Again, what about the tax cuts for 95% of the federal tax payers? That has never been answered.

I thought I had answered that. In fact, as I said, it looked like you had answered that yourself without even recognizing it. I will try to restate: Obama cut taxes for 95% by increasing refundable credits, which raised the percentage of those who pay no income tax, AND it increased the threshold and amount of credit back that filers got-- which is counted as a tax cut (and rightly so, I would say). So, to sum up simply: many people who paid income taxes in 08 paid none (or even got a credit) in 09, and people who got a credit in 08 got a larger credit in 09.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 34
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 3:07:43 PM

Yeah, I guess one could somehow try to reason that giving someone money is the same as taking it from them.............

That's not what I was reasoning. Not sure what you are getting at at all.

I am the one who cited a CBO report, and in that particular sentence was referring to another poster.

I'm just responding to what followed "hey flyguy."

The less than 40% figure is on the chart of the CBO report, not hard to find, and as I am not in the habit of doing other peoples homework, it should no problem for you to find, and if I am wrong, to refute what I stated.

If you already cited it here, it should not be difficult to re-refer someone to it, especially since you brought it up (for whatever point).

I don't even know if I need to refute what you are saying because I don't even know what you are trying to say. I am simply answering your question about how the president can lower income tax on 95% when around 40% already paid nothing.

You are welcome, by the way.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 35
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 3:49:24 PM
Ah, ok. In that case, you merely needed to rephrase your original question completely, rather than falsely accuse the president of lying on the matter. A rephrase like, "How does offering refundable tax credits constitute a tax cut?" But that is sort of a lame question so maybe just proclaiming, "I don't agree with refundable tax credits. I think they are synonomous with WELFARE."

Woulda saved us both the effort. Although the point still stands that Obama increased the number of filers who pay no income tax.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 4:01:21 PM
Paul


The "dramatic increase" savings that you refer never happened when the luxury tax was in effect, what makes you think that spreading the misery -meaning the luxury tax - to everybody would somehow spur on saving?????

Good god, Paul. This is a strawman, if I've ever seen one.

I'm saying replace the income tax with a consumption tax would spur investment. I'm not saying simply adding a consumption tax would increase investment. I'm not an idiot.




How can someone save who now has to pay 15% to 20% more for almost everything, when they couldn't save at all before the consumption tax.

1) Because prices would be lowered across the board since the income-tax component of prices through the economy would be eliminated. It seems to me you are not giving this point much credence. Almost every single product we consume undergos several levels of production. Along each level of production, income taxes are collected. For a stupid plastic fork you have: Oil drilling, shipping, petroleum refinement, shipping, pellet forming, shipping, injection molding, shipping, warehousing, and retailing. Along that entire production line are income taxes. The end consumer must pay for these taxes. By eliminating the income tax, this hidden passing-down effect would be eliminated, prices would more closely reflect their natural level, and the competition of the marketplace would drive prices down to roughly their current profit margin levels.

This is not just "theory" either. It's the reason why economic growth almost always increases as income taxes decrease.

2) Because everyone would have more money left over from each paycheck.






There is no basis in fact for saying that there would be more capital available, and as a matter of FACT, the exact opposite is what happened, in real like, not in theory. Remember, if you want to want to slow down a business, simply over-tax it, and then when it collapses, give it state aid........... Further, according to you, it is no big deal if many large business leave the country? Your theory of how those jobs would be replaced not only is wrong, it didn't happen, in fact, when the luxury/consumption tax was tried. Hell, even the left figured out it didn't accomplish what they wanted, which was the only reason they went along with getting rid of it.

You are attacking a strawman and comparing apples to oranges by looking at European and other examples where high VATs and sales taxes have caused economic hardship.

Why?

Because these European nations these consumption taxes in addition to thier income taxes. Of course throwing a new and additional tax onto the economy is going to cause economic hardship. I'm not a retard. That is not what I am proposing. I'm proposing a changing of an existing tax structure.



Yeah, it might work in theory, but there are times when it is best to defer to what really happened, and if it didn't work, don't repeat it... you are plain wrong, and in this case I believe it is a result of your relative youth, and inexperience in certain areas of life.
You are not addressing examples that fit my qualifications. Rather, you've resorted to the same old bigotry used Krebby, Thorb, mr.evil, and a score of other posters in these forums by utterly denouncing my points as "pure theory" without taking the time to actually consider them.

Look. It is an undeniable fact nations that have no income tax possess a disproportionately large amount of international business activity and investment. This is a fact. Examples that fit my qualifications must have no income tax, such as the Bahamas or United Arab Emirates. These places are considered tax havens and thereby international businesses flock to them in order to set up shop.

The benefits of abolishing income taxes are enormous. It's why nations with relatively low income taxes "do better" in general than nations with higher income taxes. Income taxes are devastating to investment, capital accumulation, and savings -- all essential ingredients of economic development.

The downsides of sales taxes are not to be ignored. Sales taxes, like all taxes, are bad. No tax creates economic prosperity. But it is better, in my mind, to discourage consumption than it is to discourage investment.

Switching from an income tax to a consumption tax wouldn't "create" economic prosperity. It would result in a net reduction of an economic damper.



Now, I'm done exploring this debate with you. I have no taste for entertaining bigots' questions.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/13/2010 6:31:55 PM
No, I'm calling you a bigot because instead of addressing my points, you've made it clear that you believe I hold my position not because of its merit, but because of my age and the ignorance of my so-called "inexperience". You did this, then proceeded to attack strawmen: gross distortions that have nothing to do with my position.

I have more self-esteem than to toy with ageists.

You're now claiming that I have not thought out my position. Why? Well, as far as I can see, the mere fact that I hold my position is reason enough for you to believe I have not carefully analyzed my position. You have not stated any reason why you believe I have not thought out my position.

I have thought it out. I have looked at the evidence. I know the damages caused by income taxes and I know the pain inflicted by consumption taxes. And after looking at it all, I only feel stronger that when given the choice between the two, taxing production over consumption results in greater economic harm.

...and I would go into detail why... I would show you where nations that have significantly reduced income taxes and replaced the lost revenue with a consumption tax experienced immediate economic growth and reached a higher level of growth equilibrium... if you had demonstrated to be interested in a productive conversation with me. But you've made it clear that you're not. That you're just another ageist in these forums. So I'm done having this conversation with you.

Thing is, even if you agreed with me while maintaining your ageist posturing, I would still choose not to engage you. I have more integrity than that.
 DartmouthRunner
Joined: 3/5/2009
Msg: 38
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/14/2010 8:21:46 AM
@Ubiquitous

As an economist who finds this interesting and just catching up on this thread and trying to understand your posistion better. Are you implying that income taxes trickles down into the price of goods and services? If so, that is probably incorrect, depending on the country you are talking about.

Corporate taxes would trickle down most of the way, if not completely (I'm not saying I support corporate tax cuts :P ). Income tax not so much because businesses do not have to devote a lot of resources into applying the tax rates and shaving it off, etc, etc. However, that statement really only holds for more developed nations that have computerized that process. In less affluent countries who do not have that process computerized then your assumption will hold because they will need to hire and devote more resources to do these calculations manually.

I do agree that cuts in income tax would have a larger impact on the economy in a postitive way than consumption taxes. The main reason why really boils down to a psychological one more than anything else. A person will more likely go out and purcase goods and services when they look into thier wallet or bank account and see that there is more money there for them to spend. People don't generally go to the stores and try to calculate what product X will cost after taxes, except for big ticket items like houses and cars. So with more disposeable income available through income tax cuts, they may buy product X and Y.

Income tax will only work to a degree. For each percetage point drop in the income tax rate, the economic return will decrease. Mainly because people will increase consumption up to a point and start to save more. Though, one could argue that increased savings is not a bad thing either.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 39
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/14/2010 9:17:02 AM

Look. It is an undeniable fact nations that have no income tax possess a disproportionately large amount of international business activity and investment. This is a fact. Examples that fit my qualifications must have no income tax, such as the Bahamas or United Arab Emirates. These places are considered tax havens and thereby international businesses flock to them in order to set up shop.

The benefits of abolishing income taxes are enormous. It's why nations with relatively low income taxes "do better" in general than nations with higher income taxes. Income taxes are devastating to investment, capital accumulation, and savings -- all essential ingredients of economic development.

The downsides of sales taxes are not to be ignored. Sales taxes, like all taxes, are bad. No tax creates economic prosperity. But it is better, in my mind, to discourage consumption than it is to discourage investment


so if your theory worked "in fact".. in REAL LIFE..

the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, etc. shouldl all have much higher per capita GDP than the USA?

it doesn't look that way to me..

why are so many on thos e islands still dirt-poor then?

also most have crippling sales & import taxes..try buying a new car in the Bahamas, it will cost you about 2 X what it does in the USA. -probably why so few are sold & so many peopele drive 30 + year old cars a lot there?

also it is much easier to try this with a population of 200,000 than 330 million or so.

most of these countries have very little infrastructure, no military forces to speak of, etc.

Do you propose that the USA disband its military as well?

not sure how THAT would work out..
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 40
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/14/2010 9:34:52 AM
Of course income tax trickles down into the price of goods and services. The income tax was created in 1913, the same year that the FED was created,Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. This is a slight of hand trick. Income tax dollars go to service the public debt. Forget social programs and infrastructure , that is a myth.We are debt slaves plain and simple. The government has the authority to coin and print its own currency but instead borrows it from the fed.

Many have difficulty understanding or believing the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt,"(they just started doing this again the other day) which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1,ooo,ooo the government does borrow every dollar it spends ,they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars. The FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes BTW The FED takes in roughly one trillion dollars per year tax free! Not bad for a private business. The Treasury charges the FED around 2.5 cents for each note, for a total of $250 for 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest.More insulting is, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. In reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in the accounting system.

Today's commercial banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. They, operate on the same fractional reserve rules . Out of all the Money deposited in their banks on ly a tiny amount is withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 3 or 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest is just accrual accounting computer entry.

Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to buy a car. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your spot in the bank, right? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt, which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

This should change how you view your friendly bank. How about those loan officers that scrutinize before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a joke! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to control when you are ignorant.

The currency is being devalued that is a hidden form of taxation that has a huge impact on money's purchasing power. This is the big issue. Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. It is BS. If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." (I have not seen this myself as I'm a Canadian ). Every dollar you pay in income taxes is goes to the private banking families, known as the FED, tax free. This is not a mystery, statesmen like Ron Paul have been trying to share this message to everyone.

We are tax slaves in more than one way.Once through income tax and again through the hidden tax of currency devaluation. There should be no FED there should be no income tax. If fractional reserve banking were abolished we would all be free and have a lot more money in our pockets to buy boats cheeseburgers whatever..The problem is growth would not be as brisk , easy credit would disapear. That is what our economy is based on. Well simple application of the exponential function illustrates it is clearly not sustainable. There will be pain which ever route is taken.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/14/2010 10:03:32 AM
sarniafairyboy
GDP is affected by, literally, millions of variables. The mere fact of being on a tiny island with almost no high-end industrial capacity and having to import from hundreds of miles away nearly every consumer product are profound limitations on a nation's economy.

You can't just point to a nation's GDPPC and infer that if it is lower than another nation then it's governmental policies are less conducive to economic prosperity.

The price of automobiles in the Bahamas is so expensive for basic supply/demand reasons. There are no auto plants in the Bahamas. Every single car must be imported. And because the market is so small large manufacturing and shipping interests have little to gain from entering the market, and thus the people of the Bahamas do not benefit from economies of scale.

These are very negative for GDP. And they have absolutely nothing to do with tax policy.


Considering GDP can be helpful when comparing specific nuances of nations. But in order to do so, you have to take into account the other -- often far more impacting -- variables that affect GDP.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/15/2010 3:37:09 AM
RE Msg: 1 by Ubiquitous.:
I believe economics is a subset of philosophy.
So glad to see that you realise that.

First of all, we need to understand that "value" is completely subjective.
Glad to see that you realise that as well.


Money is a funny little thing in an economy -- one that is so often and deeply misunderstood. First of all, there is nothing magical about "money". Money is just a commodity. . . like corn, beef, or concrete.

What makes money a bit different is that it is, by definition, the most demanded (valued) commodity in a "market". This doesn't mean that "money" is the most important thing in everyone's lives; it just means that when you add up everyone's value systems together, the most valued specific physical asset is "money". That is to say, most of us would rather be paid in terms of money than anything else.
Yes. But why should anyone want money, unless it's worth something? If so, what is its subjective value? Can we eat money? Can we wear money? We can burn it. But it's a lot less costly to burn logs of wood. What is money's value?

As a friend told me, money is a means for an exchange of goods and services. It's an arbitrary value, that is not intrinsic to the goods themselves, for anyone. That arbitrary value is agreed upon, by the society we live in, that those objects will serve as such a medium.

As such, it's only valuable in terms of what it represents, its value.

But value itself is subjective. So money itself is subjective.

However, money is exchanged for other things, like work. So, while one man might consider $10 to be more valuable to him than 8 hours of labour, others will not. But money has become so prevalent, that you cannot buy without money. Hence, you might consider your 8 hours of labour to be more valuable than $10, but you have to get that $10 to eat. So, you are forced to accept exchanging something of higher value, for something of lower value. Hence, money often makes people poorer.
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 43
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/15/2010 7:56:26 AM
Thats great but who controls the money?

"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”
Baron M.A. Rothschild

Epictetus
"Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man’s task."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auQEXTWomA&feature=player_embedded#!
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 44
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/15/2010 9:25:53 PM
Speaking of who controls the money, just read this article interesting...

Will Quantitative Easing By The Federal Reserve Unleash Economic Hell?


For those not familiar with quantitative easing, Wikipedia has a pretty good definition....

The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.[citation needed] A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations.

But is it really a good idea for a privately-owned central bank to have the power to create money out of nothing and to do whatever it wants with it outside of U.S. government control?


source - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/will-quantitative-easing-by-the-federal-reserve-unleash-economic-hell
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 45
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/16/2010 12:08:16 AM
Who really governs America? The United States government or the banks? Most believe the government but some say all you have to do is follow the money and you will see that Wall Street is behind it all.

Wall Street rules the American people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1DchGc07TY&feature=player_embedded#!
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 46
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/16/2010 12:47:00 PM
The fact that you think fact it is wacky says a lot about your current world view. There is no conspiracy theory here...just fact.It's sad but true that most people don't like inconvenient realities to upset their pleasant illusions and prejudices.It seems once someone reaches a point in his or her life when they feel they "understand" the world, they spend the better of their life filling in the blanks of what they think they already know. It's a tendency that usually becomes more extreme over time. Ideas and worldviews seem to harden along with the arteries. Know what I mean Paul? The info you call conspiracy is accepted fact by many non conspiracy theory types. I have no credibility in your eyes and I could care less. It makes the argument easy for people to dismiss others by simply calling them conspiracy theorists.

"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." - William Blake
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/16/2010 2:14:05 PM
Coming soon:

The Dark Side of Applying the Value System
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 48
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/16/2010 3:06:48 PM
Paul there is a more proof in what I say compared to your from the hip ramblings that make up the better part of this thread. You and your percentages and stats that your pull from the same place our currency comes from lol . Where is your proof? what a joke...further ...the sliver of truth the mainstream feeds those drooling in there living rooms applies to the same measure. Disinformation exist in your world of truth...more so but you would never admit it.
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 49
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/16/2010 4:51:37 PM
Yes in typical coward fashion you are once again attacking me personally. And once again bringing the jews into this discussion. By all appearances you have also missed your appointment with your medication. Does it make you feel better and more secure to belong . You don't address any particular part of my posts you just continue to spew your venom. Why is that? In fact that is your style..you like to ambush other peoples statements with your idiotic remarks. Does that make you feel like a big man? Thanks for your contribution SFB keep up the good work!
 DartmouthRunner
Joined: 3/5/2009
Msg: 50
Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit
Posted: 8/17/2010 12:42:02 PM
Despite his attacks, he does have a valid point...no proof.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Economics & Philosophy: The Value System - Wealth, Money, Profit