The closing rant has some serious flaws. “I don’t know why it’s so freaking difficult… the people on the right aren’t those at the top .01. I’m just telling you right now. The right wing is so cucked… ‘we can’t have any tax increase because why that’s not capitalism’, well it’s not capitalism right now, it’s corporatism. And it’s owned hook line is sinker by these top few, and they’re not contributing to Donald Trump‘s campaign. They’re just not.” First, it may be difficult for Josh to understand why people on the Right don’t particularly like AMT and other tax schemes that target the highest income earners, but most folks won’t have a problem understanding that many people on the Right, regardless of whether they are in the top .01%, 1%, 5%, or wherever, might just have a core principled stance that ‘people respond to incentives, and unfairly targeting those with the highest incomes or net worths present a system that introduces a disincentive for those people to continue to provide the economic value to the masses that put them in the .01% in the first place.” Overwhelmingly, Those in the top .01% did so through providing goods and services at scale that either increased the quality of the current availability or lowered it cost to the consumer, or innovated to present the consumer with goods and services that were not previously available. This .01% have been the most efficient individuals on the planet on taking capital and turning it into value for the masses, and in doing so, their share of the proceeds should be are disproportionate (after all, they are the ones that took on the risk). If you present disincentives for the most efficient to continue that trend, then you reduce the value they are willing to bring to the world for a given amount of risk. Next, Josh claims that the .01 percenters are not made up of people on the Right. However over the last couple decades, the data suggests that the number of people in the top .01% that donate exclusively to Republicans or Democrats has fluctuated back and forth rather regularly, suggesting that the people in top .01% are actually quite divided politically, AND that the people in the top .01% changes rather regularly. This is independent of the fact that anecdotally, Musk (who may not be socially conservative, but is certainly economically on the Right in today's political landscape) put massive capital and effort into the Trump campaign and a multitude of other .01 percenters have openly endorsed and promoted Trump throughout the recent election campaign. Josh has a point that corporatism is a threat (there’s a “but” coming). If we look at ares like banking, the regulatory atmosphere has crippled the ability for innovation and challenge to the big banks. This is a product of government and corporate collusions (Regulatory Capture). The answer is to move more and more of the economy away from where it can be subject to regulatory capture. So, there is little point is Josh “bashing” people on the right for saying “it’s not capitalism” because once again, those people (or at least many of them) are merely presenting a position in line with their principled stance that they do not want tax schemes that disproportionately target the individuals at the top. They can both support this principled stance on the treatment of income to individuals whole also wanting reduce the ability for corporations to use government regulation to undermine the competitive nature of capitalism. Sorry for any typo's...
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Here in Connecticut, we have six billionaires. Everybody else is a mere millionaire!
The closing rant has some serious flaws.
“I don’t know why it’s so freaking difficult… the people on the right aren’t those at the top .01. I’m just telling you right now. The right wing is so cucked… ‘we can’t have any tax increase because why that’s not capitalism’, well it’s not capitalism right now, it’s corporatism. And it’s owned hook line is sinker by these top few, and they’re not contributing to Donald Trump‘s campaign. They’re just not.”
First, it may be difficult for Josh to understand why people on the Right don’t particularly like AMT and other tax schemes that target the highest income earners, but most folks won’t have a problem understanding that many people on the Right, regardless of whether they are in the top .01%, 1%, 5%, or wherever, might just have a core principled stance that ‘people respond to incentives, and unfairly targeting those with the highest incomes or net worths present a system that introduces a disincentive for those people to continue to provide the economic value to the masses that put them in the .01% in the first place.” Overwhelmingly, Those in the top .01% did so through providing goods and services at scale that either increased the quality of the current availability or lowered it cost to the consumer, or innovated to present the consumer with goods and services that were not previously available. This .01% have been the most efficient individuals on the planet on taking capital and turning it into value for the masses, and in doing so, their share of the proceeds should be are disproportionate (after all, they are the ones that took on the risk). If you present disincentives for the most efficient to continue that trend, then you reduce the value they are willing to bring to the world for a given amount of risk.
Next, Josh claims that the .01 percenters are not made up of people on the Right. However over the last couple decades, the data suggests that the number of people in the top .01% that donate exclusively to Republicans or Democrats has fluctuated back and forth rather regularly, suggesting that the people in top .01% are actually quite divided politically, AND that the people in the top .01% changes rather regularly. This is independent of the fact that anecdotally, Musk (who may not be socially conservative, but is certainly economically on the Right in today's political landscape) put massive capital and effort into the Trump campaign and a multitude of other .01 percenters have openly endorsed and promoted Trump throughout the recent election campaign.
Josh has a point that corporatism is a threat (there’s a “but” coming). If we look at ares like banking, the regulatory atmosphere has crippled the ability for innovation and challenge to the big banks. This is a product of government and corporate collusions (Regulatory Capture). The answer is to move more and more of the economy away from where it can be subject to regulatory capture. So, there is little point is Josh “bashing” people on the right for saying “it’s not capitalism” because once again, those people (or at least many of them) are merely presenting a position in line with their principled stance that they do not want tax schemes that disproportionately target the individuals at the top. They can both support this principled stance on the treatment of income to individuals whole also wanting reduce the ability for corporations to use government regulation to undermine the competitive nature of capitalism.
Sorry for any typo's...