There's working poor, like your comment may reflect upon and then there is also the real poor, who are homeless and jobless.  To which that comment is very insensitive. 

Granted he is not of the scale and gross malfeasance of a robber baron,  but I would call him "robber baron lite".

I do for one agree with you just said about cronyism and regulations. 

Based on? Don't get me wrong I'm not American and I don't like the man, mostly because he changes his position on issues every 5 minutes, but what I have read from neutral sources reveals that to be baseless slander. Seriously do you even have any real knowledge of his work history? 

When you're a socialist, it's exploitation to make money by investing in others.  You're supposed to just give them the capital they need out of the goodness of your heart, or by way of force.

Education, on how powerful environmental conditioning is in defining individuals, and in turn, how much of an impact one individual can have on the group; through intelligently designed games.  Just keep doing what you're doing. [e digicons]'[/e]

I do agree if conditions end up laissez-faire crony capitalism, that is precisely what will happen.  We have a battle right now between large corporations and large governments to see who will dominate the 21st century.

That's the role of government.   And this has to be done, or else you may not like the alternatives- which is a group of people who will have no respect for  society, for valid and justified reasons.

Even the poor understand economic interest- and when they have no reason to invest or believe in the system, they will work to destroy it.   This is what caused the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt.  (unsure about Libya)

I'm not saying we're going to have that in the US anytime soon, but we did have Occupy protests last year, those were economic.

The thing that makes it worse, is that we've got a bit of a global race to the bottom, due to billionaires being able to shop between countries for the "best deals" on their wealth.

When I say I worry about these things- that does not mean that I oppose all capitalism, or even multinational capitalism.  It means that I oppose the ability of power of large multinational corps to influence the government.   Governments are at least in theory responsible to the people, corporations are only responsible to the shareholders, and are incapable of acting in any way other than short-term self-interest.   This is why you need governments to keep businesses in line.

(Note: Companies like yours are not included in this large category, folks like you are the folks we should be encouraging over the large multinationals)

Sorry for not replying earlier, haven't been checking the forums much. But I've got to say I disagree with your statement. Taxes are not a typical increase in a company's running costs and it would be rare for taxes to endanger a moderate sized company's survivability. To reiterate, if a company's survival is in danger then pretty much by definition it is NOT making a profit therefore it is irrelevant whether taxes are high or low. Sure there are cases where this is not true (eg small companies where the proprietor needs after tax profits to live and seasonal companies who are operating on dangerously low equity) but neither applies in the case of Siegel's company.

As for the suggestion that Siegel will fire people if taxes go up, that is unlikely to help him make more money, quite the opposite. Unless his organisation is either badly run or has shrunk recently and has staff who aren't really doing much he probably can't increase his profits by firing people. It might work in the very short term but in the medium term having less staff is likely to instead reduce profits by reducing turnover one way or another. To put another way, if Siegel could reliably increase his profits by firing some employees he didn't really need, don't you think he would have already done so?

So in Siegel's case it is quite literally as I said that he wants X million profit per year rather than X-20% million profit. That is entirely what this is about and the arguments in Siegel's letter which suggest it goes much deeper than that are pure scare tactics to try to persuade his employees to vote a certain way.

This is all basic mathematics and basic understanding of how taxes work. I'm surprised there is so much debate and confusion!

Well said. Capitalism works well for me, I run a software business and (apart from being way too much work at times!), it makes money and I'm happy doing it. But capitalism being a good economic system doesn't make it a good system of government! Having a government controlled by capitalism would be an unmitigated disaster over the medium and long term for the reason you stated.

Unless of course I'm misunderstanding how the proposed company taxes will work and they are a tax on turnover or something? If so then please let me know!

You said this before and I asked: how.  What can government do?

The increasing gap between rich and poor has very little to do with government and a lot more to do with automation and globalization.

In 1950, if I wanted to run a business, everything had to be done by humans and local humans at that.

In 2020, if I want to run a business, I can automate significant parts of it and contract labor intensive parts to the lowest bidder on earth.

Let me use a common example: Your local grocery store.  

Even in 2012, you are seeing more and more self-checkout lines.  The goods on the shelves are increasingly being made overseas.

If I own that grocery store, with a modest capital investment, I can have extremely high margins.  But what happens to all those people who used to make the goods and used to work there?  By 2020, most of the cleaning will be done by bots of various kinds. I'd be surprised if shelving wasn't increasingly handled by bots (RFID would make placement relatively easy and inexpensive).

What can the government do about that? Tax people higher? Ok. Then what? When we talk about rich and poor we don't factor in government hand outs. We always compare pre-tax earnings of the rich and poor and that will continue to rise. And even if we raised taxes, how does that help the poor? Give them more hand outs? That won't solve anything. In fact, it'll be businesses lobbying for that kind of thing (of course, done selectively) to get more buyers for their wares (while lobbying to keep their special tax breaks in place).

What, exactly, are they going to destroy? The problem isn't that they're being cheated or screwed, it's that there is simply - at this time in history - the ability for some people to make a lot of money through capital investment that does not directly benefit other people.  We haven't seen anything like it since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

That is true. But they're definitely not your avatars for the poor. Those were people looking for hand outs.  They can only exist in a society in which the majority is highly...highly tolerant. Their complaint was that banks got bailouts -- where was their bail out?   

And not just billionaires. Everytime you or I buy something made in China, we've outsourced.  But you hit the nail on the head: We're in a global race to the bottom. That is the problem. And there's nothing we can do about it.

It's not government influence that causes our issues. It's way..way worse than that. If it were government influence, we could fix it by some sort of political reform.  But there's no reform to fix what is occurring and, I might add, accelerating.

In 50 years, we'll look back at this time as a historic moment when you the haves -- the people with capital -- could essentially make their wealth while bypassing the have-nots.  It's a serious problem, one in which the government is not equipped to handle unless we roll back globalization and automation.

It's not a liberal or conservative issue. The gap is widening because of unprecedented changes in our society. There is nothing a Democrat or Republican can do about it. 

Before the obama depression, the only way to be homeless in america is to have serious mental issue and not WANT help.

Its not a matter of scale its a matter of actions. Romney is not a robber baron because he is not a government crony.

Cronies get massive funding from the government which they burn away but a good amount is funneled back to the politician as campaign donations. Wealth "redistribution" (the theft and awarding it to your supporters) is bad regardless of whether the target is a few rich men or a million of poor ones.

Government cronies are the only people who actually fit the description of robber barons without having to lie to yourself about the state of reality

The fact technology displaces people means that people are available to do other jobs. If we ever reach infrastructure that is so cheap then necessities would be free (like tap water is today).

Not to mention more and more people will be pushed towards education based jobs.

The socialist movement is about giving people EXPENSIVE things. Things that require significant human investment.

Socialism is also about making things "fair" by making it too expensive to employ humans via a variety of "fairness" laws.

The luddites opposed new and more advanced tech because they said it is putting people out of work... It does. But historically that has been a good thing and everyone benefitted in the long term; as humans were able to invest less and less time in the necessities and more time in advancing society.

The theory that one day we would have no more need for human workers is absurd, it would require true AI and can easily be prevented by granting true AI rights and preventing their enslavement. So building a million dollar THINKING android and then paying it the same as a human is not economical.

I'm taking Brad's assumption that we are in a global race to the bottom, and there's nothing the market can do about it.   Governments can redistribute wealth.  Flat out , handouts and redistribution is what is needed to compensate for this race to the bottom.   You may be philosophically opposed to this, I'm not really super in favor of this, but I'm thinking it might be necessary given the alternatives.   We are heading to a society where fewer people need to be employed.   People do need to consume/be happy, and they need to feel invested in society, otherwise they will act in their economic interests and act outside of society.

There is a lot of outrage over the bank bailouts, they are the one bailout I opposed, as I think banks in this country (and worldwide it's worse than the US) are too big.  I'd actually go back to the old days and ban interstate banking if I could.

As for the statement on what they would do: mass protests, and then when that fails, terrorism.  There are a lot of guns in the US, lots of explosives, and lots of folks who have military training.  It just takes a few nutjobs to do a lot of damage.  It's not like CEOs are hard targets.  Sure, the folks will get caught and sent to prison/killed, but when your life is that miserable, you have less to fear.

What good is technology if the impact makes people's lives worse instead of better?

Yes. That is all true and is also what leads to the gap. There are significant segments of our society that will not be able to adapt to that kind of job.

That is a strawman. No one is suggesting we won't need human workers. You will always need human workers.  But it doesn't change the reality that those who cannot adapt to the information economy are going to be left further and further behind.

Moreover, let's not forget that with globalization we increasingly can outsource those lower layers out of American society out to other countries.

Using the grocery store example (and feel free to poke holes in it)

With a decent amount of capital investment, I can, today, start grocery store in which most of the check out counters are self-check out and nearly all the goods on the shelves have been outsourced. I still need workers at the store but I don't need to buy my goods from American labor.  This is a bad thing if you're looking to have less wealth inequality.

IF wealth inequality is a bad thing, then we're going to be seeing a lot more of that bad thing. If, however, you consider quality of life to be better, then it's irrelevant.  The American "poor" of 2012 are far far better off than the American poor of 1972.  But the gap between them and the richest is much greater.

Why? Why are hand outs a good thing? Are you suggesting that simply being born in the United States entitles you to the earnings of your fellow citizen?

People need a purpose. Someone without a job getting hand outs won't stop the revolution or whatever it is you are trying to prevent.  

I'm not sure if people need to "consume" to be happy. In fact, studies indicate that's not the case at all.  What people need is a purpose. And if they don't have a purpose (like a job) they will find something else, something more violent possibly, to be their purpose.  

Giving people cash won't make them feel invested in society.

 

You'll get no argument from me on that.  
 

Absolutely. But giving them cash won't solve it. People need to have a purpose. To feel like they're part of something. Checks in the mail won't make them feel like they're part of it.
 

I agree - consumption (getting gadgets and such) won't make your life "Better". It'll increase your standard of living but it won't bring happiness or purpose to someone.  And if they don't feel like they have a vested interest in society, they'll destroy it eventually (which is what I think you're suggesting).

The problem is, you can't just give people money and expect that will satisfy them. People will still feel powerless and purposeless and that is what will lead to the downfall of a society if we don't address it.

We aren't in a race for the bottom. Humanity as a whole is improved via automation.

And in a hypothetical race to the bottom flat out handouts and redistribution causes producers to RELOCATE to other countries. you CANNOT have a sustainable welfare state that isn't also a prison state. (see iron curtain)

Only in a local scale. In global terms you are reducing wealth inequality via outsourcing.

Those nations it is outsourced to are the poorest in the world and their poor are much poorer than our poor. And via outsourcing we finance their industrialization. Eventually they become industrialized and it no longer makes sense to outsource to them.

You didn't suggest it but others DO suggest it.

And its not a strawman because if we do not have laws requiring that AI be treated as people WE WILL have AI slavery and very soon (displacing people from jobs)

And that is the crux of the matter. The ever increasing gap is in the number of dollars the richest has to the number of dollars the poorest has. But what of the quality of life? No matter how rich you are quality of life caps out at a certain wealth level. Capitalism, technology, and automation means that ALL PEOPLE have a better quality of life. The choice is between:

1. Huge gaps in dollar amounts between richest and poorest but higher quality of life for all.

2. Shorter, less fulfilling, harshes life for all... but no large gaps between rich and poor.

This is why people say that communism brings equality by making everyone poor. Its not the dollar amounts they are looking at but overall quality of life