Draginol Draginol

On behalf of evil capitalistic bastards everywhere

▼

On behalf of evil capitalistic bastards everywhere

from JoeUser Forums

Since no one will stand up for greedy evil capitalists these days, I'll take a stab at it.

[more]

I support outsourcing.  That's right. I love it.  I would have its babies if I could.  I love a globalized economy. The more globalized the better. The more free trade there is, the better. I feel sorry for countries that don't have the amount of free trade we have here in the United States. Even with the dollar at an all time low, products and services here are incredibly cheap. I love working with people from around the world. I don't care where you're from.

So why do I love globalization and outsourcing? Because it's the only check against federal government power.  For the first 150 years of the republic, the federal government stayed largely out of the economics of the country. Instead, the states competed vigorously with one another for the best, brightest, and most productive Americans.  But over the last 50 years (and in particular the last 20 years) the federal government has greatly reduced the differences between doing business in one state versus another.

Now, the federal government is the driving force on minimum wage. States can still have their own but it's only if they want to make them higher than the federal minimum wage.  If you're making a widget trying to compete on the global market costs matter. And Americans are incredibly neutral about buying things made wherever.  So Americans push for minimum wage but buy goods made in countries without them. Result, companies ship jobs to those countries.

Similarly, there's an ever increasing effort to have the top 1% pay more and more of the taxes than ever before. Even today, the top 1% pay 20% of the taxes.  And in a democracy, who is to argue what is "fair"?  If 51% think it's "fair" that 1% pay 20% or 30% or 50% of the taxes, the 1% are basically screwed right? Not so in a globalized economy.

Who are "the rich"?  80% of them are small business owners. Most people don't realize that. But that's how you get rich. You start a successful business. And in a globalized economy, they can take their skills anywhere they want.

I've seen politicians argue that outsourcing is unpatriotic. That's a ridiculous argument since outsourcing is just another way of saying "shopping based on price". If Americans buy things based on price, why shouldn't employers hire based on price? It's the same thing. An employer is no more unpatriotic for outsourcing jobs than the consumer who buys something made in China. They are, in effect, both doing the same thing.

If Americans want to vote in politicians who think it's okay to steal from the most productive to give to the least productive with nothing in return, then those people, thanks to outsourcing and globalization, have the freedom to distribute the burden imposed on them as well.

In the long run, it's a good thing for our society as it will require the citizens of the country to take more seriously the consequences of the policies of panderers. If a vote for Obama or Hillary Clinton is likely to result in the loss of your job or that of your spouse, you might rethink whether "change" is always good.

Now, if you don't mind, I have some baby's blood to drink.

 

Further reading: Who pays taxes

15,830 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because of that, it’s more difficult for US companies to compete globally – thus the need to outsource jobs.
End of quote

The problem is they weren't competing globally - they were sitting fat & sassy with no incentive to operate leanly, thanks to protectionist policies (tariffs) that artificially inflated the cost of their competition. Once those protectionist barriers came down, everyone was suddenly surprised the emperor had no clothes. We had been conducting business in Wonderland for too long.
Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

<I>The stat you researched says 83% of people make income from businesses they own.</i>

I believe that a similar study classifying the top 1% as "farmers" if they "make income from farms they own" would show an inflated percentage as well -- it would include <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19174311/">Scottie Pippen</a>, as well as a bunch of Washington lobbyists and oil billionaires.  Rich people have much more diversified sources of income than us job-and-index-fund types.  Also, that statistic just reeks of propaganda.  I'm surprised you can't smell it now after I've turned it up with my shovel.

 <i>I'm curious, how do you think the top 1% make their money?</i>

I'm sorry, I wish I had a better answer for you.  I don't think anybody in America really knows.  It's certainly not something you can just Google up.  We're talking about 1.5 million people here.  So you can look at very small niches, like the Forbes 400, The Millionaire Next Door, and Russ Prince's book surveying people who own private jets.  But it's not representative.  You can imagine different types of people in the 1%, but I did that in my post above and "Washington lobbyist" never even crossed my mind, for example.  I tried reading the book "The Clustered World" but it didn't help.

Piketty and Saez use IRS data.  But that's all anonymized, deferred, sheltered, and hacked.  For example, the Reagan tax cuts made the "top 1%" look a lot richer as they took all their money out of tax shelters and just took it as income with the new low rates.  Rich people really don't want their income known, because of privacy and because it would build resentment, and because it would get taxed.  One of the ways to control politics without having to win elections is to make sure that people are counting only the things you want them to pay attention to.  That's why it's easy to look up the date Social Security goes insolvent, and hard to look up the date that, say, government employee pension plans go insolvent. 

I really don't think it's possible for anyone to find out how the top 1% make their income.  I've been keeping an eye out for clues for a long time.  My general sense from all of that is that you get there by owning and managing large income-producing properties, because the large ones are where the money is.  You can also get close by joining one of the professional cartels like doctors and lawyers, that set their own rules to keep competition away.  Or you can take the entrepreneur path, which is fraught with difficulties and obstacles and probably the toughest way to do it, since you have to fight the status quo all the way up.  Unless you're the kind of entrepreneur who specializes in getting government contracts from your buddies, which is a pretty big slice of entrepreneurs with the government the size it is.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

Forgot to mention in my list of things I'm keeping an eye on: the Wall Street Journal's Wealth Report blog.  You'll probably find him objectionable at times, but there's a lot of good stuff there and hey, it's all about you (or at least your companions in the top 1%).

Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm curious, how do you think the top 1% make their money? I'm sorry, I wish I had a better answer for you. I don't think anybody in America really knows. It's certainly not something you can just Google up. We're talking about 1.5 million people here. So you can look at very small niches, like the Forbes 400, The Millionaire Next Door, and Russ Prince's book surveying people who own private jets. But it's not representative. You can imagine different types of people in the 1%, but I did that in my post above and "Washington lobbyist" never even crossed my mind, for example. I tried reading the book "The Clustered World" but it didn't help.
End of quote

The Millionaire Next Door, for example, does indeed go along with the consensus that the vast majority of the top 1% are employers -- business owners.

Probably not surprisingly, I know quite a few people in that top 1% and they too tend to be business owners. 

Anyway, the reality is, whether people want to accept it or not, is that when you raise taxes on "the rich" you're basically just eliminating American jobs.  I wouldn't think twice about outsourcing American jobs overseas if my taxes went up.  If the American people are so greedy as to demand I pay ever increasing amounts to the government to be redistributed to them, then I owe them no employment allegience.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe in the free market. Outsourcing makes sense in many ways. Minimum wage is wrong. Sure, a family can not subsist on a minimum wage job but those jobs are not meant for adults. Mature adults aren't meant to be serving burgers at a drive thru restaurant. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it, but that doesn't mean that you should get paid more than the labor is worth.

I do find it kinda funny how it's mostly the liberals who are against outsourcing. I mean, aren't they the ones that claim to be so concerned about the plight of starving people in 3rd world countries? Their against the free market taking these jobs overseas. They say we're exploiting those people, yet in reality it is the exact opposite. This is even evidenced by the fact that China is beginning to do outsourcing now that they've gotten themselves a middle class. I guess there is something to be said for trickle down economics afterall, eh?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Probably not surprisingly, I know quite a few people in that top 1% and they too tend to be business owners.
End of quote

Well, that's a "Nixon can't have won - no one I know voted for him!" thing.  Networking and having things in common bring you together, in Hollywood it probably seems the top 1% is mostly actors and directors.

Anyway, the reality is, whether people want to accept it or not, is that when you raise taxes on "the rich" you're basically just eliminating American jobs.  I wouldn't think twice about outsourcing American jobs overseas if my taxes went up.  If the American people are so greedy as to demand I pay ever increasing amounts to the government to be redistributed to them, then I owe them no employment allegience.
End of quote

I love when you bring something up and I'm like "Why is he talking about that?" and then I realize it's the topic of the post that you wrote and I've been discussing way far afield. 

What you're saying would apply even if you and the rest of the top 1% were just shareholders -- if the U.S. taxes you, you'll move the jobs elsewhere.  Actually, shareholders would have the easiest time moving the jobs, as all they have to do to move the factory is shuffle money around.  Small business owners, by contrast, depend on smaller local networks and markets and may not be able to move -- they're easier to squeeze.  Large business owners may not be mobile either, but they're big enough to just change the system so it doesn't squeeze them. 

That's why it matters who makes up the top 1%.  If it's made up of small-scale individuals like yourself, then it's plausible that the system is weighing heavily down on them.  If it's made up of the people who own and manage our largest and best-politically-connected institutions, then that's not very likely.  If we had a better breakdown, maybe you'd make common cause with the smaller group of entrepreneurs like yourself instead of identifying with the top 1% as a whole.