Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2018, 01:17 PM   #31

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,166

Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post

The argument for a "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" is basically:

"If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this ("this" being the dynamic I described before), then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what is being promoted)
That is not at all the argument for a "free market" system. The argument is that a free market is best at providing the goods and services that people value at price they can afford to pay.

Who are you to question whether I would rather pay to look at paintings in a museum or Kim K's butt or a pro basketball game?
David Vagamundo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2018, 01:53 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post

You wanna change that by limiting the wage of sportsmen/musicians/actors? Well, they gonna get loads of endorsements. You forbid those. There will be others ways. Too much money in it. And this money does not fall from the sky, it comes from our pockets. If you don't like it, don't go to the movies/concerts. Don't go to sport events. Don't buy merchandise. And convince everybody you know to do the same. Only way this is gonna change.
I referred to this in my previous post but didn't get into how one would implement this in a "quasi-free" market that the OP seems to want. By quasi-free, it a appears the OP favors a system that evaluates the method of earning. Countries that use income taxes do usually consider the method of earning: salaries and wages, capital gains, fees and services, inheritance, gifts, wagering and other. The OP focuses on entertainment and sports which normally comes under fees, services and salaries. The US has lower rates for capital gains from the sale of assets (15%) to encourage investment and home ownership. Since "stars" might earn from salaries, fees, capital gains and possibly other categories, a different approach is necessary.

Sports and entertainment has already been identified as a target. Perhaps gambling profits should be taxed more. What about illegal activities? Since tax information is protected, one can presumably safely report illegal earnings to avoid being charged with a tax evasion (Al Capone). So lets have a tax schedule with much higher bracket rates for income from sports, gambling, entertainment and illegal income. Special bracket rates would only more heavily tax the higher incomes of successful earners, not the struggling would be actor or actress. Sounds good to me. We'll call it the Star Tax ( for illegal income, the Crook Tax.)

Last edited by stevev; January 2nd, 2018 at 02:15 PM.
stevev is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 02:15 PM   #33

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,246

The efficiency of the free market system is predicated on two things - perfect (or perhaps, equal) knowledge and rational decision making.

Neither of which, in the real world, are true.

Consumers never have perfect knowledge, since they invariably aren't given or lack the ability to fully understand the facts, or simply choose not to believe them if those facts conflict with their pre-existing ideology. For example, selective education is opposed by many teachers because it segregates children based on ability, which supposedly disadvantages less able children. But it is impossible to have any real study into whether it is beneficial because it is such an ideologically divisive topic.

And consumers do not make rational choices. A consumer does not necessarily pay $1000 for an iPhone vs half the price for an Android phone because the iPhone has twice the features or functionality. Many buy it simply out of brand loyalty. Or they don't buy one brand of food because it's not perceived as "ethical".

The entire marketing industry is about distorting the free market.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:17 PM   #34

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,430
Blog Entries: 19

Market economy is not based on "free market" but on competition.

Competition can be less or more fair, or even unfair. Marketing and advertising have reached the level of real scientific doctrines and they teach how to listen to the market and how to orient it.

Great corporations are usually "product oriented" [there are "customer oriented"; "market oriented" and "product oriented" firms]; that is to say they invented something and they create the market.

Think to the compact disc or to game consoles and similar. It happens they invent not so useful products by they are great in persuading the consumers that they need those products.

An example [quite known in Italy, I don't know abroad]: years ago an Italian corporation launched on the market a protection for the remote controls. Oh great! At least if one remote control falls down ... you know, with children ...

In my home there are 5 remote controls and they have fallen down as well ... but they don't fall down from a high tower ... and they fall on carpets ... never felt the need for a rubber protection. But in Italy they sold millions of those protections. My brother has got children in his house and ... the same, never used those protections on remote controls.

May be we should educate our children to take care of remote controls instead of buying rubber protections for them ...
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 11:02 PM   #35
Suspended until April 6th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 1,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
The efficiency of the free market system is predicated on two things - perfect (or perhaps, equal) knowledge and rational decision making.

Neither of which, in the real world, are true.

Consumers never have perfect knowledge, since they invariably aren't given or lack the ability to fully understand the facts, or simply choose not to believe them if those facts conflict with their pre-existing ideology. For example, selective education is opposed by many teachers because it segregates children based on ability, which supposedly disadvantages less able children. But it is impossible to have any real study into whether it is beneficial because it is such an ideologically divisive topic...
As someone who has studied Education, and been there... Streaming and selective education don't work until at least you have an entire selective school. Some schools are geared like that. Streaming creates issues on either end of the spectrum, you have classes supposedly full of good kids and then you have a class full of supposedly bad kids.

Your problem is that inherently some bad eggs end up in the good bunch you're trying to create, and you're stuck with them for an entire year, or some good eggs end up in the pile of bad eggs, and you create more behavioral problems while you've castigated some kids that might be good, and perhaps damaged their psyche and their opinion of education for the rest of their lives.

People run with crowds for various reasons, a student with social anxiety might actually act out in a way that you perceive is bad by acting up in class. In reality that student is just trying to get the anxiety out of their system. Meanwhile all the antisocial kids think he's funny and you've created yourself a situation where an otherwise good kid gets stuck with bad apples when the kid at age 13 doesn't really understand what they've done to themselves other than brought a few laughs and got good attention (to their thoughts). Of course the school district psychologist is too busy to evaluate the situation and the school kid has created a social situation where they have to act out to fit in.

In the mean time your attempt to select the good from the bad has been a complete failure because one kid that was good got thrown in with the troublemakers, and its also failed because you've created an entire cohort of even worse behavior among those students that do get thrown in with the bad bunch. Or you create the opposite end of the spectrum, just because a student has good grades does not mean they are a well behaved person. I've seen a number of kids who you would think are social miscreants at face value but still manage to get As. These types of people are generally the narcissistic sociopaths that will end up being your boss one day.

But most parents aren't interested. They would rather not have good behaving Glen sitting next to sadistic Sam, or brutal Brian.

Last edited by orestes; January 2nd, 2018 at 11:10 PM.
orestes is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:19 AM   #36

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevev View Post
I referred to this in my previous post but didn't get into how one would implement this in a "quasi-free" market that the OP seems to want. By quasi-free, it a appears the OP favors a system that evaluates the method of earning. Countries that use income taxes do usually consider the method of earning: salaries and wages, capital gains, fees and services, inheritance, gifts, wagering and other. The OP focuses on entertainment and sports which normally comes under fees, services and salaries. The US has lower rates for capital gains from the sale of assets (15%) to encourage investment and home ownership. Since "stars" might earn from salaries, fees, capital gains and possibly other categories, a different approach is necessary.

Sports and entertainment has already been identified as a target. Perhaps gambling profits should be taxed more. What about illegal activities? Since tax information is protected, one can presumably safely report illegal earnings to avoid being charged with a tax evasion (Al Capone). So lets have a tax schedule with much higher bracket rates for income from sports, gambling, entertainment and illegal income. Special bracket rates would only more heavily tax the higher incomes of successful earners, not the struggling would be actor or actress. Sounds good to me. We'll call it the Star Tax ( for illegal income, the Crook Tax.)
But why? Why would some people for their work be taxed higher just because it is different? I get a progressive tax rate because the higher the income, the more power one has and thus the more responsibility for society one has. I also get why there is a difference between income from wages and capital gains but higher taxes because you work in a different field? Based on what? Benefit for society? Who decides what is beneficial? This can be turned upside down. Very dangerous.
bodhi is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 02:21 AM   #37

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 759

double post. Please delete.
bodhi is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 10:17 AM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
But why? Why would some people for their work be taxed higher just because it is different? I get a progressive tax rate because the higher the income, the more power one has and thus the more responsibility for society one has. I also get why there is a difference between income from wages and capital gains but higher taxes because you work in a different field? Based on what? Benefit for society? Who decides what is beneficial? This can be turned upside down. Very dangerous.
I agree. I was just showing what needed to be done to address the OP's specific complaint: the wrong people are getting too rich. Answer: take the money away from the wrong people (by taxation) and give it to the right people. The OP has already told us who these people are. I have to admit, the Star Tax and the Crook Tax have a certain quasi "je ne sais quoi" about them.

Last edited by stevev; January 3rd, 2018 at 10:28 AM.
stevev is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:58 PM   #39
Suspended until April 6th, 2018
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 1,075

No government that truly believes in capitalism (those to our right) will ever redress tax inequality (the 1% who pay no tax). It gets to the point that those to our left get into power to try to redress the problems of those to our right, which works for a while and then those to our right return to power. We end up swapping parties in power with no one ever redressing the main reason why governments in the Western world keep losing money. Big business has the government in cahoots with them and its never going to change now that the taxation system is so far in their favor.
orestes is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 09:11 PM   #40

Bishop's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: City of Angels
Posts: 1,521

Quote:
Originally Posted by orestes View Post
No government that truly believes in capitalism (those to our right) will ever redress tax inequality (the 1% who pay no tax).
Not sure about Australia but in the U.S the top 1% of earners pay roughly 50% of the nationís income tax
Bishop is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
free market



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Market Garden, 1944, was it really "90% successful"? JohnnyH War and Military History 63 October 24th, 2015 04:10 AM
"Free Range parenting" VS "Helicopter parents".. Is it child neglect? Sharks And L0ve Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 33 June 19th, 2015 09:35 AM
"battle-market" magazine... glynsparkes War and Military History 0 July 7th, 2007 12:04 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.