Republi...er...I mean Tea Party in Richmond, VA

[fahayek]

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2010/oct/09/teap09-ar-551788/

"Another keynote speaker, Fox News commentator Dick Morris, predicted that Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 2 elections." What does that have to do with the Tea Party?

"Morris said Republicans could have a net gain of as many as 100 House seats Nov. 2 because Republican voters are more enthusiastic than Democratic voters. Republicans need to gain 39 House seats and 10 Senate seats to take control of Congress." Again, Is this a Republican Convention?



Hopefully Ron Paul will knock some sense into these folks!

 

[RedStripe]

Most of their policy initiatives seem pretty decent, though cutting corporate income tax probably does as much harm as good (especially at the state level).

 

[Mini-Me]

RedStripe, what downsides do you see to cutting corporate income tax? On the whole, it seems to me to be almost entirely a sales tax on consumers, because corporations will naturally pass their costs on all the way down to the end user. The biggest downside I see is that not every business is a corporation, and so cutting corporate income tax gives corporations more of an edge over partnerships and sole proprietorships. Still, even a lot of very small upstart businesses are set up as corporations nowadays, so I'm not sure if that downside is especially significant.

 

[RedStripe]

RedStripe, what downsides do you see to cutting corporate income tax? On the whole, it seems to me to be almost entirely a sales tax on consumers, because corporations will naturally pass their costs on all the way down to the end user. The biggest downside I see is that not every business is a corporation, and so cutting corporate income tax gives corporations more of an edge over partnerships and sole proprietorships. Still, even a lot of very small upstart businesses are set up as corporations nowadays, so I'm not sure if that downside is especially significant.

This mainly. Most people know how to work, but they don't know how to set up their own (essentially shell) corporation for tax/liability purposes. This is just another advantage for the formal economy, when what we really want is for people to begin transitioning to a more informal, underground economy. No books, no audits, no wasted bullshit corporate fictions.

 

[Stary Hickory]

I might go down to see Ron Paul speak. 10:00 now maybe I can make it.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Man I am really liking the Gov from Virginia in that clip.

 

[Mini-Me]

This mainly. Most people know how to work, but they don't know how to set up their own (essentially shell) corporation for tax/liability purposes. This is just another advantage for the formal economy, when what we really want is for people to begin transitioning to a more informal, underground economy. No books, no audits, no wasted bullshit corporate fictions.

True, but I have mixed feelings about an informal economy as well: On one hand, operating under the radar makes the "exchange" part of the economy far more free than it is under our particular formal economy. On the other hand, the actual production of many manufactured goods is extremely difficult to do under the radar or even informally in broad daylight, and it can only really thrive in a more formal economy, complete with investment and full accounting. According to Hernando De Soto, this is a huge reason why impoverished countries with hard workers and informal property have such a hard time industrializing and overcoming widespread poverty. (He's not exactly aligned with us politically of course, and he tends to ignore the impact of imperialist intervention, but I still think he has a crucial point here.)

 

[Bruno]

I might go down to see Ron Paul speak. 10:00 now maybe I can make it.

Might?

 

[RedStripe]

True, but I have mixed feelings about an informal economy as well: On one hand, operating under the radar makes the "exchange" part of the economy far more free than it is under our particular formal economy. On the other hand, the actual production of many manufactured goods is extremely difficult to do under the radar or even informally in broad daylight, and it can only really thrive in a more formal economy, complete with investment and full accounting. According to Hernando De Soto, this is a huge reason why impoverished countries with hard workers and informal property have such a hard time industrializing and overcoming widespread poverty. (He's not exactly aligned with us politically of course, and he tends to ignore the impact of imperialist intervention, but I still think he has a crucial point here.)

The only real difference between the informal and formal economies, per se, is whether they are sanctioned and regulated by the state legal system.

There are two objections/barriers to informal modes of production. The first, and most significant, is the vast array of state impediments both direct (licensing laws, etc) and indirect (competitive advantage given to formal modes of production). The second is the fact that, for probably 100 years, most production methods and technologies have been developed within the framework of a society dominated by large, hierarchical institutions. Other production methods and technologies, more suited to small-scale, localized production, have generally been squeezed out of the market by this indirect consequence of government intervention.

So, for example, when production was based around the use of steam power, production had to be concentrated around the power source. The use of concentrated production facilities, such as factories, remains partially as a byproduct of that era despite the fact that electrical power, to a large extent, removes the need for such concentration.

The good news is that an informal, house-hold and community-based economy is much more efficient than the bumbling bureaucracy that is corporate America. In order to maintain large-scale, high-overhead/capital production conducted by large industrial corporations, the level of state inputs and interventions into the economy has had to increase every since the late 1800s, especially with each accompanying crisis of state-capitalism. The "invention" of propaganda, aka modern advertising, the rise of high-tech computer components, airlines, car manufacturing, big agribusiness, use of fossil fuels - many of these developments can be traced directly to government funded research and spending which was generally designed, in part, to subsidize what was otherwise a fairly inefficient production model. You needed to advertise because large factories were producing more than even a national market (created largely by government railroad subsidies/cartel) could handle. Why? Because the machines, which required massive capital investment, wouldn't pay themselves back without maintaining production 24/7. It's an inflexible business model, and luckily propaganda - a tool used by the government partners of the business titans - came to the rescue and established the modern consumerist culture we know today.

 

[Mini-Me]

The only real difference between the informal and formal economies, per se, is whether they are sanctioned and regulated by the state legal system.

There are two objections/barriers to informal modes of production. The first, and most significant, is the vast array of state impediments both direct (licensing laws, etc) and indirect (competitive advantage given to formal modes of production). The second is the fact that, for probably 100 years, most production methods and technologies have been developed within the framework of a society dominated by large, hierarchical institutions. Other production methods and technologies, more suited to small-scale, localized production, have generally been squeezed out of the market by this indirect consequence of government intervention.

So, for example, when production was based around the use of steam power, production had to be concentrated around the power source. The use of concentrated production facilities, such as factories, remains partially as a byproduct of that era despite the fact that electrical power, to a large extent, removes the need for such concentration.

The good news is that an informal, house-hold and community-based economy is much more efficient than the bumbling bureaucracy that is corporate America. In order to maintain large-scale, high-overhead/capital production conducted by large industrial corporations, the level of state inputs and interventions into the economy has had to increase every since the late 1800s, especially with each accompanying crisis of state-capitalism. The "invention" of propaganda, aka modern advertising, the rise of high-tech computer components, airlines, car manufacturing, big agribusiness, use of fossil fuels - many of these developments can be traced directly to government funded research and spending which was generally designed, in part, to subsidize what was otherwise a fairly inefficient production model. You needed to advertise because large factories were producing more than even a national market (created largely by government railroad subsidies/cartel) could handle. Why? Because the machines, which required massive capital investment, wouldn't pay themselves back without maintaining production 24/7. It's an inflexible business model, and luckily propaganda - a tool used by the government partners of the business titans - came to the rescue and established the modern consumerist culture we know today.

That's an interesting perspective, and I think it's true to a large degree. We don't really need a lot of the things we consume, and we wouldn't even want many of them if propaganda didn't tell us we should.

Still, I definitely don't think advertising is the primary cause of demand for most mass-produced modern conveniences: I wouldn't want to give up cheap toilet paper, hand soap, or toothpaste, for instance. I also wouldn't want to give up high-tech computer components, since they're so useful for both information processing and entertainment (I'm a gamer ). I also like cheap books and movies, and although those may become increasingly digital, you need mass-produced computers to take advantage of that. Moreover, I definitely wouldn't want to forego all non-local foods! People can easily survive by eating the same thing every day, but what's the fun in that? For instance, If I ate 100% locally, I'd be giving up on seafood and a large variety of fruits and vegetables.

I may think people buy WAY too many clothes, but 24/7 textile mills definitely beat what came before them. The capital goods might be expensive and require a lot of sales to pay off, but they're still way more efficient over a long enough timeline than what came before them. If this were not the case, and if all of the productivity were lost to the burdensome influence of state intervention, then there would be no way to explain why industrialized society is just so much more abundant in material goods per capita than medieval society, when people worked just as hard (and many died of hunger, cold, etc.). Even if people started tempering their insane consumption of clothes, we wouldn't do away with factories; we'd just have fewer of them.

All of those things improve our standard of living, and they rest upon industry and heavy-duty transportation infrastructure. Even running water is made much easier by mass-produced pipes. For that matter, the very existence of urban environments with heavy-duty high-capacity buildings relies on that same infrastructure, plus steel factories, etc. The same applies to cheap art materials, musical instruments, and everything else that fuels a culture where the production of art and expression of creativity is accessible to everyone, not just a few who capture the notice and funding of the wealthy. Even if I agree that we can and should forego senseless consumerism and live more simply, I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say we'd be better off (or even close) without mass production.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Might?

The Straw Poll makes want to be there. I am in DC and I don't even know where this thing is or how the parking situation is