An End Of Hubris-Kissinger

The Economist had an article way back in 2008 by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, where he commented on the conflict between global financial goals and global political goals.
An end of hubrisKissinger says: He further goes on to say: With the recent news from Europe about Greece...and eventually perhaps Portugal and Italy dragging down the banks of Northern Europe...I again fret and worry over the future of the US economy as it seeks to pacify global investors and maintain a sound footing and hopeful economic recovery domestically.I fully agree with these "Occupy:_____" rallies going on throughout the country and hope that the wealthy people will be put in check by a unified electorate...but I wonder if people in general understand the extent and detail of the problem at hand.I'm willing to tighten my belt and pay higher taxes if the money gets used appropriately, but I don't trust the politicians nor do I trust the speculators who always seem to abuse money to line their own pockets. When will the power become that of the people again rather than the special interests?

When we have a political system that can accurately balance preference intensity.

Put in check for doing what? Paying the lion's share of income tax to support the poor who pay none, yet drive the roads, eat the free food, get employed, and all the other perks, etc?Put in check for investing in businesses which produce the food, clothes and goods we all use?Put in check for all of the benevolent free will support?Put in check for purchasing large amounts of goods to insure a robust economy?Put in check for all of the research development of techy goodies we all benefit from?Phat, that mentality is why so many businesses and factories are moving out of New York state and going to places like Tennessee, NC, etc; to escape what the sheeple like you are imposing upon them.

Says the guy on the public dole.

There is a conflict of interest between profit and society. Of course there are times when their interests coincide too as you point out, but to ignore the conflicts would be dangerous.It might be profitable to pollute the air of a certain community, but this can have negative health impacts on the people of that community. So, companies should be checked on the amount of pollutants they put into the air.Likewise, it may be profitable to speculate in ways which cause negative impacts to the people. Such as ways which leave society with a choice: Economic chaos of a failing bank, or billions upon billions of the people's hard earned taxes. Checks should be in place to prevent this, no matter how profitable it is for those at the top.It may be profitable to corrupt politicians, but since this can lead to the subversion of the people's will and the undermining of democracy, again checks should be placed to prevent this.It may be profitable to open gigantic supermarkets and use tremendous buying power to acquire goods cheaply and thus sell them at low prices, with a relatively small amount of staff per sale to pay. But on the other hand, this means smaller businesses that hire more staff per product sold cannot afford to compete and they go under.It may be profitable to continue growing, buying out competition, or driving them out of business with the power that comes with large sizes until one acquire monopoly status. But that has obvious downsides to society too.The profit incentive has obvious benefits to society at large, but it should be equally obvious that unchecked it has obvious drawbacks to society too.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Paying the lion's share of income tax to support the poor who pay none

---

As if income tax were the only taxes anybody paid.There are these things called "payroll taxes" and the poor pay a significantly larger percentage of their income into them than the rich. In fact, payroll taxes are regressive: The more money you earn, the less of it is paid in taxes until you stop paying them at all. Payment into Social Security, for example, ends once you hit $106K. Someone who earns a million dollars a year pays less than 1% of his income into Social Security. A person earning 25K pays more than 6%.Then there are sales taxes, business taxes, property taxes, etc., all of which poor people pay.

quote:

---

yet drive the roads

---

Paid for by gasoline taxes which affect the poor more than the wealthy.

quote:

---

eat the free food

---

"Free food"? Since when was food ever given away for free? Or are you claiming sales tax doesn't exist?

quote:

---

get employed

---

And are subject to regressive payroll taxes.

quote:

---

and all the other perks, etc?

---

Ah, yes...the "Lucky Ducky." It's so much better to be poor because you don't have to pay as much income tax. As if eating cat food so you don't starve to death were a good thing.Exactly what are these "perks" you seem to think poor people have?

quote:

---

Phat, that mentality is why so many businesses and factories are moving out of New York state and going to places like Tennessee, NC, etc

---

Except they're not.Remember, Buzsaw, Fox News Lies. New York is still one of the biggest economies in the country.What we need to do is reinstate the New Deal regulations that were dismantled from the Reagan administration, through Bush and Clinton, and completely dismantled under Bush II. Strange how nobody noticed that before regulations like Glass-Steagall, the US had a long history of economic bubbles that burst and nearly wiped us out every 20 years. But after the New Deal, it didn't happen anymore. That isn't to say that things were perfect. The oil crisis of the early 70s under Nixon was hardly of no concern, but that was a world-wide crisis. But when Reagan came into power and started dismantling the financial regulations, we had the Savings and Loan collapse, the housing bubble, the tech bubble, until finally it all came crashing down under Bush II.We need to learn from our mistakes and re-instate the New Deal. Repeal the Bush tax cuts. In fact, repeat the Clinton cuts and even repeal the Reagan cuts. If that's too much for your mind to accept, I point out that taxes are at their lowest since just before the Great Depression...and look at how that turned out. If raising the tax rates back to Clinton-era levels is "Socialism" then Reagan was a Socialist, Nixon with his 70% top tax rate was French, and Eisenhower with his 90% top tax rate was a god damned Commie.The old joke has come true: IBM, UBM, we all BM for IBM. The corporations have taken over and this is what fascism looks like.

What would Jesus do, Buz?Quite likely, He would render unto Caesar that which is Caesars...thus would have no problem with higher taxes. Am I right?

Jesus would say "Shazam!" ...and all of our tax problems would disappear.