sagemon

1

sagemon wrote

The power of the state at least in the U.S. is given to it by consent of the people. Unless enough people decide they do not consent the state will remain.

As for revolution, that is something I can't understand about Antifa etc. The very people they need to actually pull off a revolution are the very people they will demonize the most.. Specifically the now millions of Americans spread out across the country that have stockpiled masses of weapons, ammunition, food, medical supplies etc. and built bunkers and become as self sufficient as possible for just such an occasion.

I figure if things get bad enough that the leftists like Antifa and the preppers etc. all decide the government is a bigger enemy than each other and join forces is when we'll see a revolution and not until.

1

sagemon wrote

Worst experiences? Having friends die from overdoses.. Followed closely by having to stick my finger down friends throats to keep them from choking on their own tongues, holding them in cold showers, and watching them spiral down into insanity, depravity and homelessness over time.

Keep in mind this is over a 40 year time span from the 70's to today.. Bad trips are bad, some people just should never do psychedelic drugs period but there are far worse things you can run into playing with drugs, including death and mental destruction.

2

sagemon wrote

I'm no pacifist. I do tend to look for the root of problems and not the symptoms though. Almost all racism and racial superiority is driven by fear. Fear of the "other"..

Committing violence against them only increases that fear and validates it. The only answer is to eliminate their fear. Eliminate that fear of the "other" and you eliminate the resentfulness anger and hate right along with it.

Which leaves the question, how do you eliminate their fear? This black man has done it, and he personally reformed about 200 klan members so far, and has a huge collection of KKK robes to prove it. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

2

sagemon wrote

This article is a very poorly written and researched screed.

Of course tobacco companies are are going to want to cash in, so are alcohol companies and pharma companies, and if they don't cash in pot will become as a big a business as they are all by itself through organic market growth.,

The main problem for them is pot is ridiculously easy to grow yourself, and ridiculously easy to cure and store it. Far easier than brewing your own alcohol, or making your own chemical drugs or curing and processing tobacco.

So as long as legalization always allows for individuals to grow 3-4 plants at home, as almost all states who have legalized have done, big business won't have any leverage and won't be able to monopolize the market.

3

sagemon wrote (edited )

Yes, that's why I favor using trickle down to target specific industries like say no capital gains tax if you invest proceeds of sale of an asset into a renewable energy startup, or no capital gains tax if you invest in say a manufacturing startup in a deprived inner city that has 50% employment. Rather than just a general across the board tax cut.

A general across the board tax cut does stimulate the economy by freeing up capital, but it also allows people to shift that capital around in other ways that don't benefit the economy to an even larger degree and pay less taxes doing it.

As well, the more you keep cutting the tax, the less effect each cut has in spurring growth. Diminishing returns.

What people miss when using the simplistic analogy of the rich guy at the table and the poor guy waiting for crumbs is that there is a big third party involved, namely the government.

So it is a triangle situation, with the government swooping in to snatch at the food on the rich guy's plate, and even worse, the government swooping in to snatch those crumbs as they leave the rich guys plate in mid air before they even get to the poor person, which makes it less likely the rich guy is going to toss any more crumbs down at all.

4

sagemon wrote

Hitler described his own fascism as "Socialism without the Marxism".. as opposed to the soviet style communism that directly competed with his national socialist party for who would replace their weak social democracy that was failing the people at the time and growing ever more unpopular. Seems a reasonable if simple description.

How did Mussolini describe his own fascism?

Basically it seems to me the original fascists of that day were aligned with socialist principles, but openly believed a totalitarian state was required to impose the system and maintain it.

And they didn't necessarily believe the state should seize and own all the means of production, that it would be counter productive, but that the totalitarian state should have full control over the private owners of those means of production.

The only historical difference in practice from nations who have tried the systems is that fascists don't seize all the private property and means of production, while socialists/communist seize and nationalize private property and means of production. Both have always been inevitably totalitarian with no tolerance for dissent, as all those ideologies inevitably require totalitarian means to ever be realized and achieved.

11

sagemon wrote

Trickle down economics is basically lowering the barriers for wealthy people who hold capital from investing it in start up companies etc.

It's about capital gains taxes mostly. Anyone with wealth keeps it in assets like stocks/bonds/real estate etc. It stays parked there tax free as it grows, with taxes paid in the form of capital gains taxes only when the person decides to cash out and sell that asset.

So say I invested 20mil in McDonald's stock ten years ago and now it's worth 30 million.. A gain of ten million.

Say you have an awesome idea for the next big social media site, or the next awesome whiz bang gizmo.. But you need 10mil invested in your new startup to get things moving, rent office, hire employees, buy equipment etc..

So you come to rich man me, give me your pitch and sell me on the idea of investing 10mil into your extremely risky startup, knowing I'll likely lose my ten mil, but if it works I could end up making 100mil.. I'm on board, I believe in you and your idea.

Now we get to the issue. Say capital gains tax rate is 50%.. That means I have to cash out 15mil of my 30mil in mcdonalds stock to get the 10mil to hand over to you. Meaning it now cost me 15mil to invest 10mil in your risky startup venture. You have to now convince me it's worth 15 mil to invest 10mil into you..

Now say capital gains tax rate is 0%.. I can then cash out exactly the 10mil you need and invest it in your startup without it costing me 5mil extra cost to do so. That 5mil cost barrier is no longer in the way.

Now think of what a barrier it would be if capital gains tax was say 80%.. I would have to sell 18mil in stocks, just to invest ten in your company and hand 8mil to the govt.

That is the basics, lower the cost and barriers to rich people selling assets to raise cash to invest in new business, instead of keeping all that wealth permanently locked up in assets .. I prefer a more targeted policy like the one I benefited from, say aimed at renewable energy startups for example..

When I was starting up a tech company in the 1990's there was a tax code that allowed investors to defer all capital gains taxes on any asset they sold off as long as they invested the proceeds into a high tech startup within 90 days. Basically zero capital gains taxes if they cashed out stocks to invest in my new company. That made it FAR easier to get investment from wealthy investors, and far easier for me to create 50 new jobs and spread millions around into my local community through my new business.

It's a bit more complex than, and there are drawbacks, but that but that is the basic premise of what people call trickle down economics. The whole crumbs from the table analogy is simply childishly ignorant and simplistic..