The Cost To Enter The Market Is: TOO DAMN HIGH

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Every right wing pundit on the planet keeps hammering home the tax cuts on the rich. The rich create the jobs, don't tax the people who create the jobs.

No shit the rich create the jobs. The cost to enter the market is.... TO DAMN HIGH. That is why they are rich because they have been so damn good at lobbying the state to stifle competition this past century. Tax the shit out the rich and legalize the free market. Tax the shit out of the rich and restore the unfair market advantage the rich have benefited from by using government to stifle competition.

I do not want to defend the rich who have lobbied to increase the size and scope of government at every opportunity to stifle competition. This is the class that has been screwing me more effectively than any other class. This is the class that thinks up all of the crap to expand the size and scope of government then calculates six ways from Sunday to sell it to voting Sheeple. Tax the lobbying class into oblivion and right out of the country for all of the government privilege they have benefited from.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Amen. The privileged caste needs to be dismantled, and the market reign supreme. There should be no State-licensing. There should be no State-subsidies. Large firms and Corporations constantly lobby government to externalize their costs. Enough of the theft and rampant collusion. The Classical Liberals won huge in the 18th and 19th Century because they saw the system for what it was. Artificial privilege, with those with the money and influence of the politicians and State, to use as their puppets to steal from the people and create an environment where only they were able to peddle their wares. We can win huge if enough libertarians realize this and become the voice of the people once again. The Market is the only just arbiter.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Ever notice the increasing amounts of information you have to provide on a job application?

[erowe1]

That is why they are rich because they have been so damn good at lobbying the state to stifle competition this past century.
Generally speaking, no that's not why. Generally speaking, they're rich because they provide something other people are willing to pay for better than the next guy does, and they do this by hard work and talent.


Tax the shit out the rich and legalize the free market.
Doing that would be the exact opposite of a free market.


Tax the shit out the rich and legalize the free Tax the shit out of the rich and restore the unfair market advantage the rich have benefited from by using government to stifle competition.
Why does it seem like every time a law is born out of that kind of egalitarian mindset, it's an enemy of freedom, and of economic growth?

If corporate welfare is the problem, then attack corporate welfare. Don't offer new interventionist solutions to an interventionist problem.


I do not want to defend the rich who have lobbied to increase the size and scope of government at every opportunity to stifle competition. This is the class that has been screwing me more effectively than any other class. This is the class that thinks up all of the crap to expand the size and scope of government then calculates six ways from Sunday to sell it to voting Sheeple. Tax the lobbying class into oblivion and right out of the country for all of the government privilege they have benefited from.
Most of those rich people you hate didn't start out rich. They started out like you, except they took responsibility for their own success and failure instead of blaming other people.

[Koz]

Generally speaking, no that's not why. Generally speaking, they're rich because they provide something other people are willing to pay for better than the next guy does, and they do this by hard work and talent.


Doing that would be the exact opposite of a free market.


Why does it seem like every time a law born out of that kind of egalitarian mindset, it's an enemy of freedom, and of economic growth?

If corporate welfare is the problem, then attack corporate welfare. Don't offer new interventionist solutions to an interventionist problem.


Most of those rich people you hate didn't start out rich. They started out like you, except they took responsibility for their own success and failure instead of blaming other people.

+1

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I would add the cost of college tuition to the discussion too. The investment required to have a shot at competing in the job market for decent jobs is way too damn high.

[erowe1]

I would add the cost of college tuition to the discussion too. The investment required to have a shot at competing in the job market for decent jobs is way too damn high.

That might mean that it's actually not a good investment.

[BFranklin]

ever notice the increasing amounts of information you have to provide on a job application?


yes im sick of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JamesButabi]

I agree with the title of the thread. However, removing the barriers of entry seems like a much more logical solution than punishing the successful.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Generally speaking, no that's not why. Generally speaking, they're rich because they provide something other people are willing to pay for better than the next guy does, and they do this by hard work and talent.

Doing that would be the exact opposite of a free market.

Why does it seem like every time a law is born out of that kind of egalitarian mindset, it's an enemy of freedom, and of economic growth?

If corporate welfare is the problem, then attack corporate welfare. Don't offer new interventionist solutions to an interventionist problem.

Most of those rich people you hate didn't start out rich. They started out like you, except they took responsibility for their own success and failure instead of blaming other people.


I agree with the title of the thread. However, removing the barriers of entry seems like a much more logical solution than punishing the successful.

I have a couple petition for redress of grievances threads floating around. No one posts in them. There is no interest to do that. Unfortunately petitioning government for non-interventionist solutions is not on the table because it has zero support. What is on the table is extending the Bush tax cuts and I am not defending the rich. Do not confuse my position on getting screwed with hate.

Generally speaking what you describe occurs in a free market. We do not have a free market. We have a market of license and privilege. You pay millions of dollars to the federal political subdivision to get a license to broadcast on a frequency and send thugs to unlicensed competitors. You apply for a taxi operator license and are informed by the city they are not accepting new applications for taxi operators only driver applications. You apply for a real estate broker license and the state informs you will need to be a licensed Realtor first for several years. If you practice the occupation of law without being a member of the private lawyer union the lawyer union will criminally prosecute you. If you commit fraud writing a bad check you go to jail. If a company commits fraud grossly misrepresenting return policy it's business. Ya... it's generally poor people funding campaigns and the k-streets. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that the lobbying and campaign funding class, which is rich, has been very successful stifling competition raising the barriers of entry to the market and tax cuts could be effective at stifling the lobbying class. Since government theft and intervention is the only option on the table I want the lobbying and campaign funding class stifled. I say if the government is going to steal from someone, steal from the lobbying and campaign funding class that has benefited from stifling competition.

Regarding your personal comment... just because I might make a moral choice not to be stolen from or not to bow down and worship the State as my God which will provide for me from cradle to grave does not mean I am unsuccessful or unhappy. I do not measure happiness or success with money.

[Travlyr]

The OP nails it. Access to the market is key. People who have used the power of government regulation to limit competition and gain market share did not earn their wealth legitimately.


Generally speaking, no that's not why. Generally speaking, they're rich because they provide something other people are willing to pay for better than the next guy does, and they do this by hard work and talent.


Doing that would be the exact opposite of a free market.


Why does it seem like every time a law is born out of that kind of egalitarian mindset, it's an enemy of freedom, and of economic growth?

If corporate welfare is the problem, then attack corporate welfare. Don't offer new interventionist solutions to an interventionist problem.


Most of those rich people you hate didn't start out rich. They started out like you, except they took responsibility for their own success and failure instead of blaming other people.
You would be right in a laissez-faire free-market scenario, but that is not the way it works, today. Government protections distort the competitive process and limit who gets to play.

[Tal]

2 wrongs dont make a right, the progressive income tax is immoral and evil.

The general population is also very much to blame for all these ridicilous laws because its the general population that kept voting the anti-free market politicians into office year after year, its no wonder then that the free market is abandoned.

[Travlyr]

2 wrongs dont make a right, the progressive income tax is immoral and evil.

The general population is also very much to blame for all these ridicilous laws because its the general population that kept voting the anti-free market politicians into office year after year, its no wonder then that the free market is abandoned.
The general population was so busy working last century that they trusted their leaders to do the right thing. Plus, they did not have easy access to the truth until about ~ 5 to 10 years ago. Walter Cronkite, and the nightly news teams, seemed trustworthy.

The culprit is the central banks and their fiat money system. They own the global currency, the military, the educational system, and the media. Prior to the Internet, libraries was a main source for truth, yet many books were kept off the shelves.

No doubt the general population is to blame, but they were out-smarted by the owners of the printing press.

[raistlinkishtar]

This is the paradox of the free market. The successful throw up barriers for entry as part of their strategy. The closer you approach TOTAL market freedom the easier the upper class can consolidate their power over the middle and lower classes. The feudal system in Europe is a perfect example.

It seems that total market freedom is as impossible to maintain as total state control (i.e. communism). Having the government and huge private conglomerates locked in a struggle for dominance is probably the best happy medium for "the people".

[Travlyr]

This is the paradox of the free market. The successful throw up barriers for entry as part of their strategy. The closer you approach TOTAL market freedom the easier the upper class can consolidate their power over the middle and lower classes. The feudal system in Europe is a perfect example.

It seems that total market freedom is as impossible to maintain as total state control (i.e. communism). Having the government and huge private conglomerates locked in a struggle for dominance is probably the best happy medium for "the people".
So, do you see the Internet as a failure in the free-market of ideas?

[raistlinkishtar]

So, do you see the Internet as a failure in the free-market of ideas?

The Internet is no failure. Unfortunately, its free market attributes are being chipped away as companies consolidate their power. The record industry locking down the free flow of information peer-to-peer for exapmle.

It's following the same pattern as radio.

[AlexMerced]

Not all people are rich cause they provided value, cause many of the best investments don't provide value, but are good investments cause of tax favors.

Get rid of the tax code, the only way you could make money is from real true investment.

Fro example, in the 60's and 70's people where essentially paid for through tax breaks to invest in exploratory oil programs that mostly likely would fail... you'd actually lose money if they succeeded cause of the tax burden.

Ridiculous...

[Travlyr]

This is the paradox of the free market. The successful throw up barriers for entry as part of their strategy. The closer you approach TOTAL market freedom the easier the upper class can consolidate their power over the middle and lower classes. The feudal system in Europe is a perfect example.

It seems that total market freedom is as impossible to maintain as total state control (i.e. communism). Having the government and huge private conglomerates locked in a struggle for dominance is probably the best happy medium for "the people".
I am not convinced that there would be "classes" in a laissez-faire free-market economy. Sure, some people would be richer than others, but the poor would have an equal opportunity to prosper and the rich would not have the protection of government to keep them rich.

It is my opinion that laissez-faire free-market capitalism tends toward a classless society.