It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Abandonment Of Free Markets By The Right

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I thought that 40% was supposed to be the top earned income rate.


OK, I get where you are coming from. But earned income is not the same as a capital gain. Different animals, and color of money.




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Free markets, Laissez-faire, was founded as a liberal—that is, left wing—principle. But the free market has been advocated for by anyone from anarchists to socialists, right and left. There is no point in assigning it to any one side or the other.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I thought that 40% was supposed to be the top earned income rate.


OK, I get where you are coming from. But earned income is not the same as a capital gain. Different animals, and color of money.


I know. It's hard to follow when you haven't seen the Tucker Carlson segment. The OP's link didn't work and he never provided another one.




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54
Thanks. I will look at this. Some times Tucker is hard to follow because he jumps around a bit. I don't always track to his logic, and rather than assume I know what he meant, I end up unsure as to his point.





posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
Free markets, Laissez-faire, was founded as a liberal—that is, left wing—principle. But the free market has been advocated for by anyone from anarchists to socialists, right and left. There is no point in assigning it to any one side or the other.


Great post. Yes freedom and free narkets are liberal ideas.

Don't try and tell a modern conservative that though night make their delicate heads explode



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Except free market originally meant the opposite of what it does now. It originally meant free from interest, monopolists and exploitation. Now it means free from govt protecting from those things. Also, I’m all for capital gains, or UNEARNED INCOME being taxed to the hilt. Yes, retirement funds would take a hit, but retirement should not be in the stock market anyway. It’s disengenuous and unfair to workers and retirees. Especially considering the retirement funds are most often signed up for the crap funds like mortgage backed securities and such, hence they take the biggest hits during busts.

Further, one of the main proponents of letting the banks fail was Trotsky’s godson, Michael hudson, who also served as economist for the us and Canadian governments and was one of the 6 who predicted the 08 crash. A strong socialist. Except he espouses a socialism most here wouldn’t recognize, and would probably like if they heard it. It’s original socialism, before the bankers and media hit it with the propaganda brush.
edit on 7-1-2019 by pexx421 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

I found a Michael Hudson Wikipedia that fits your description. Looks very interesting.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
That’s him. Here ya go.



He lays out clearly the junk economics the us economy is now based upon, that caters to the banking cartels. One of his books is called j is for junk economics.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

scary good video



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

That was part 1. Here’s part 2.




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Payday loans are just a sign that the Capitalist infra structure is failing fast, the whole system is geared so that a few at the top benefit. Its slowly been rolling on like this for a couple of decades, The system in the western world is being cobbled together by personal debt, and when the credit runs out the higher interest rates come in to play. So what happens when these loans become unpayable ? Mass social unrest?



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity
Did you watch the above video? Sounds like a lot of what’s in there.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


I haven't got around to it yet. But its a non brainer to think that the wealth of the upper class can be sustained by indebting the lower classes, with higher and higher interest rates, the simple fact is they will just go broke and take the uppers down with them.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


I haven't got around to it yet. But its a non brainer to think that the wealth of the upper class can be sustained by indebting the lower classes, with higher and higher interest rates, the simple fact is they will just go broke and take the uppers down with them.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


I haven't got around to it yet. But its a non brainer to think that the wealth of the upper class can be sustained by indebting the lower classes, with higher and higher interest rates, the simple fact is they will just go broke and take the uppers down with them.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

I feel bad for the two people who starred your post. Capital gains. Think about that for a minute. That means any money you earn off of the money you already have. So real estate, bonds, loans, etc. they're all capital gains. So what are you going to put your money in for retirement? Afterall, you can't try to grow your money or, as you said, it will be taxed to the hilt.

It's ignoramuses like you that cause problems in this country. You're so obsessed with stopping others from achieving success due to your own lack of it, that you are willing to harm others.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:06 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   
What makes a market?
Who are the players in the market?

If the market consists of government influence or forced labor then it is not a free market.
When we trade with China, they become part of the market and China has forced slave labor and their government has a heavy influence on the markets.

We should not be trading at all with China if we want to stand by free markets.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: pexx421

I feel bad for the two people who starred your post. Capital gains. Think about that for a minute. That means any money you earn off of the money you already have. So real estate, bonds, loans, etc. they're all capital gains. So what are you going to put your money in for retirement? Afterall, you can't try to grow your money or, as you said, it will be taxed to the hilt.

It's ignoramuses like you that cause problems in this country. You're so obsessed with stopping others from achieving success due to your own lack of it, that you are willing to harm others.



The stock market is a rigged casino game.
We should do it the old way by saving money.
As it is now, savers are getting punished.

50 years ago, that is how everyone retired or started a business.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
First, how is marriage expensive? In my state a marriage license is $30. In the modern age of working wives, it's all the more affordable. Your two incomes combine for a much better lifestyle. How in the world does he come to the conclusion that only the affluent can afford to be married? I got married making 15k a year, 13 years ago (my wife worked too). It is a huge tax advantage to be married, so how is it too expensive for the non-affluent????

Now, there is a social decay around marriage but it's not based on economic status. It's based on lack of morality. It's directly correlated to the decline of religion.


Marriage can only be afforded by the wealthy because if even one partner can't work, and the other doesn't make enough, then getting married means the non-working partner loses any needed benefits like medicaid because the income necessary to gain such benefits is so abysmally low while married. This is true if both work but can't work enough hours or gain enough pay. When barely scraping by to cover expenses and getting married means you lose all the benefits helping you barely keep afloat, you have to choose not to get married.

That's the situation my girlfriend and I are in. We're working hard to try and solve the problems which make it so she can't work, and I'm working over 60 hours a week to help get her back to health after being starved by a christian cult she was stuck in for two years. All because she kept daring to question things and the family she was stuck with, the wife hated her. So my girlfriend is severely under muscled and suffers extreme anxiety and PTSD. Most people who are poor have reasons they can't just magically make more. So we have to wait, because she can't afford to lose the help she's getting, and were we to get married she'd lose the benefits and we'd be in dire straights just trying to afford her help.

Point is getting married punishes the poor while benefiting the rich. Getting married causes the loss of benefits the poor need that they would have had if staying single, while getting married increases the amount people can earn before increased taxes. If as a married couple you aren't making enough to increase taxes if you were single, you quite possible are still making too much for needed benefits.

Taking two people that need benefits, or one person that needs benefits and one person that barely does not, and having them work together does not make the need for those benefits to suddenly go away, and married or not, they gain no tax benefits from marriage to offset that loss.

Almost every social program penalizes marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join