Obama's income inequality scam

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Apr 25, 2014.

  1. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    It is having government treat some potential labor as different than other potential labor sources. You wouldn't think for a second that imposing a tariff on a good is an anti-capitalist maneuver. But the second that tariff is placed on a provider of labor, you suddenly can't see how that is also anti-capitalist. From the Libertarian think tank The Future of Freedom Foundation:

    http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/immigration-socialism-freedom-free-market/

    I can't even imagine what your reaction would be to state planning in other areas. But in the labor market, as it is part of conservative orthodoxy, you turn a very big blind eye to the existence of state control that you supposedly don't like.


    And thus why the giant blind spot exists. Because free markets in this case might help Democrats. And you can't have that.
  2. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,560
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    You linked an article written by a bona fide idiot, right there. Scrutinizing in any way who does or doesn't enter your country, is entitled to its civil institutions or the benefit of its laws, is socialism. Literally one of the most gobsmackingly silly things I have ever read in my entire life, and I never would have found it on my own, so thank you.

    Let me see if I have this straight -- unless our "immigration" "system" treats the entire world population as de facto citizens with all the attendant rights and benefits thereto so long as they happen to set foot here, we are placing anti-capitalist restraints on the free market? How does that foundation expect to be taken seriously?
  3. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453

    It is basic economics. Sorry that you don't like basic economics or free market theory here. Can you please explain to me the difference, from a government economic control perspective, of saying we will only allow you to import 1000 cars from a specific country and we will only allow you to send 1000 laborers from a specific country? Or do you think product quotas are perfectly free market?
  4. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,560
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    My copy of "The Wealth of Nations" must have to left out the bit about the existence of the sovereign state at all is destructive to a free market. Didn't spot it in "The Communist Manifesto", either, for that matter. Good God, man.

    Now, though, it awfully revealing that you are drawing an analogy that manifestly equates the beloved Dreamers with a chattel, cars, while I am discussing immigration an an entirely human issue -- the rights and privileges of citizenship, legal and moral accountability for violations of the law. It has never been too much of a secret to me that a perpetual cycle of illegal immigration/amnesty/dependency is the modern day workaround to the 13th amendment, but damn.

    *the fact of the sovereign state alone mandates the legitimate power to determine who is and isn't subject to that state's laws, through identifiable territory and identifiable citizenship. So you basically are arguing that the existence of sovereignty from the conceptual level is anti-capitalist. I lol'd :)
  5. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Ahh so now you are attempting appeals to authority (like somehow Wealth of Nations, a book written during a time of far less severe immigration state planning is the entirety of capitalist theory) and ridiculous attempts to twist arguments into something they aren't (I am not saying anything about slavery but only that human beings are economic actors which is so non-controversial that very few people even consider the alternative). That is how we know you don't have any actual argument.

    BTW, since you bring up Adam Smith, lets see what the Adam Smith Institute has to say on the subject:

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/inter...-corn-laws-why-dont-more-free-marketeers-care


    So even your appeal to authority is a pretty awful failure.

    I ask again, do you think a quota system for capital is fundamentally against the notion of free markets? I wonder if you will actually answer the question this time.
  6. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,560
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    Not appealing to authority; demonstrating by absurdity that no serious intellect could actually embrace the premise that the respective existence of the state and of national sovereignty, in and of themselves, are anti-capitalist. That is a Homer Simpson-with-cornflakes-on-fire caliber fail.

    You think your bolder passage somehow presupposes that it is destructive to the free market to scrutinize or exclude any particular party interested in citizenship? Ludicrous. Want an appeal to authority from Smith? Let's start with the title. Wealth of "Nations". Not only one sovereignty, but many! Probably with finite and ascertainable boundaries to their territory, citizenship, and jurisdiction? zOMG socialism! Smith hates the free market! Heh. But that is basically what you bring.

    Immigrants to this country, legal or not, are people, moral agents. Not the chattels and commodities that this clownish article must presuppose them as in order to make this demagogic bootstrap that blanket amnesty is a mandate of capitalism. Any legislation dealing with our immigration system cannot devolve into what amounts to a debate over whether or not to tariff the modern day slave trade with conservatives being told they are bad capitalists if they take a "protectionist" mindset. People not cars.

    Illegal immigrants are exploited by the progressive left -- lured to this country to do low-wage, unskilled labor on the promise that they can be eligible for just enough in government subsidy to keep them happy and stable picking our citrus and cleaning our floors* to, a permanent menial labor underclass. Let them flock in, give them immunity for doing it, and state dependency to perpetuate it. The only thing the progressive left has failed to obtain is granting them the power to vote for Democrats and thereby render the cycle unbreakable.

    *Alex Sink almost said it in as many freakin' words.
  7. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    The existence of the state is not anti-capitalist. The lack of extensive immigration controls in no way prevents the formation of a legal authority to mediate disputes and prevent coercion, or what free market theorists supposedly see as the legitimate role of government.

    Yes the book was written about nations. However, he certainly did not define nations from the perspective of government control of the migration of labor. So what does one of the world leading experts on Adam Smith, James Otteson, think about Smith's motivation for writing his books:

    http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-motivated-adam-smith/

    So while his book deals specifically with the idea of nations, it is not based at all on the idea that nations should have extensive controls as to what labor is allowed to migrate between those nations.

    The funny part of all of this is that in a way you are treating the free movement of cars as more important than the free movement of people in capitalism. So you want cars to be more economically free than people with your position. See how this works?

    The interesting part of this is how quickly you turned into a socialist when the topic was immigration. Now suddenly, you are so concerned about low wages. If you talk about wages in any other context, you would go to the premise of "well then get more skills to be more valuable" or "nobody forces them to work for company xyz." Those are legitimate free market arguments. Now suddenly it is about wage slavery and exploitation. If any exploitation occurs, it is because state planning has allowed it, as pointed out by the author from the Adam Smith Institute.
  8. RealGatorFan
    Offline

    RealGatorFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,028
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +433
    Maybe there will be people who want to do nothing but complain they have nothing. Do we change our culture for these few and throw the many under the bus?

    My wife and I have done well and did the best under Bush. If we had started out under Obama, we'd be poor. My wife decided back in 2006 to leave her $120K job to start a small business using our home equity to fund it. Fast forward 7 years and I've come to the conclusion that to start a business today requires a lobotomy. So much red tape that this country sucks for it. My wife spends 80% of her time managing the government red tape than actually spending on her business. Really, if you want sage advice, if you intend to start a small business, make absolutely sure it's just yourself. Once you hire your first employee, life sucks from then on.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,502
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +622
    Yeah, us EVIL small business owners are paying more in taxes.

    He did let the SS tax break expire... which doesn't help the working man.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2014
  10. mauijab
    Offline

    mauijab VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Maui Hawaii
    Ratings Received:
    +22
  11. harwil
    Offline

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +124
    Large wealth makes public schools, welfare, subsidized housing,public transportation,food stamps and social security unnecessary for that indivdual ,if that person is a hedge fund titan (e.g. Steyer).As to the Kochs, who have 60,000 employees,these services (excluding welfare and food food stamps) are vital for their employees and families.

    We get rid of capital gains taxes?
  12. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Edit: Sorry I misread the post. Hedge fund managers get something out of public services as well, as the firms they invest in get benefits from those services.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
  13. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +986
    You might want to re-read that post.
  14. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,289
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Thanks, I did misread it.

Share This Page