Our Progressive Tax System

Warren Buffet is only taxed at 17.7%?:

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities, by Tomoeh Murakami Tse, Washington Post: Warren E. Buffett ... slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed...

Comments

[CALLAHAN]

Try to get that through DUMBYA's stupid head, and most other Republicans for that matter.

Never, ever, never, never raise taxes, no matter what the Fxck is going on.

[evagrius]

"Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life."

But they chose that ticket! Can't they just get back in line and get another draw?

[anne]

There is a reason I so admire Warren Buffett and Charles Munger, and notice the astonish strength of Berkshire Hathaway which quietly is among the very largest of world insurance companies before the rest of Berkshire is counted for. Notice too how well workers are treated through Berkshire, the comically low management expenses setting the company on line with Vanguard.

[James Kroeger]

Buffett said that he and other privileged Americans must do more to help the less fortunate.
Buffet might be able succeed in persuading some of his rich peers to embrace higher tax rates if he could learn how to use some of the arguments contained in The Progressive Income Tax: Theoretical Foundations. Cornell's Robert H. Frank liked them enough to describe them as "among the best he had seen."

Thanks to Republican misinformation, wealthy people in general do not realize that they have nothing to worry about in terms of lost purchasing power if they arrange to have themselves taxed in a way that preserves each rich person's 'bidding position' within the hierarchy of all earned incomes.

Market prices are guaranteed to drop to levels that the rich would be able to afford with their diminished disposable incomes. Smaller after-tax incomes would buy just as much as higher pre-tax incomes would have purchased if no tax at all had been paid.

Of course, the only way Buffet will ever come to understand those arguments is if a few more 'Democrat economists' were to add their voices to Dr. Frank's in endorsing them. What are the chances of that happening?

[save_the_rustbelt]

An objection:

Using anecdotes about "outliers" is really not a very good way to make policy. Warren is hardly typical of anything.

As I remember Buffett avoids ordinary income tax by taking a minimal salary and the rest in capital gains, a very nice tax avoidance method.

[anne]

Berkshire Hathaway has been the hedge fund of hedge funds, with a management fee under 0.5%, a company that specializes in catastrophe insurance while being superbly risk cushioned with no derivative positions other than straight futures trades for commodities and currency. Where commodities trades often involve actual purchase and storage rather than an options purchase.

[anne]

The objection is nonsense, since the point of Berkshire Hathaway management has always been been to take minimal salary and capital gains as warranted through investment gains. There has never been an options award, and never a dividend issued, and management has always been awarded the same no matter the tax code changes for income or capital gains.

The object of personal investment should always be to come to rely on capital gains. Warren Buffett and Charles Munger having been teaching us this as long as I can remember as my parents as well realized.

[anne]

The idea of Warren Buffett's teaching as an "outlier" is comically absurd, but self-defeating discrediting is always in order I suppose.

[evagrius]

"They don't need higher tax rates to help people, they can do it themselves without the requisite waste of pumping money through government bureaucracy."

Yes. They can build roads, schools, community centers, bridges, hospitals, establish food safety standards, public health, etc; all by themselves.

[evagrius]

Right. All by themselves. Those things are so cheap to do.

Say, why don't you do the same?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

Warren's economic status makes him an outlier, if you are going to snark try to get it right.

Good old Warren is however a good case of using capital gains to avoid ordinary income taxes, which makes him a strange spokesman for the cause of pregressivity.

[James Kroeger]

TB:They [the rich] don't need higher tax rates to help people, they can do it themselves without the requisite waste of pumping money through government bureaucracy.
From the article I cited above:
As things stand now, rich Americans who act on their generous instincts make a real sacrifice when they choose to give to charities or civic causes. Why? Because those rich people who choose not to give---or who give less---end up improving their purchasing power in real terms---relative to their more generous peers---for no reason other than because they choose not to be generous (or as generous). When you give money privately to others, it reduces the size of your disposable income relative to the disposable incomes of all other rich people.

The bottom line? Individual acts of charity can re-order the hierarchy of disposable-income distribution in favor of non-givers. This means that individuals face a market-based incentive to ignore the needs of others because they stand to gain a real purchasing power reward if they do so. Rich people who believe that economically privileged citizens ought to help finance the Common Good should be especially annoyed by this state-of-affairs. It's not that they aren't willing to make a personal sacrifice if it's needed. They obviously are. It's just that it is difficult to psychically tolerate the continued existence of perverse institutional incentives that reward indifference toward others when it is not necessary.

We have two options. The first one is to set up our tax code so that all rich people are required to be equally generous in contributing to the Common Good. If this option is pursued, no rich person ends up having to make any material sacrifice. The other option is to continue to allow some rich people to contribute to the common good if that is their desire. This option forces those who are conscientious to pay a material penalty for having done The Right Thing. Forcing others to contribute---who might rather prefer to enrich themselves at your expense---may not sound like such a bad idea, when you think about it.

[evagrius]

TB- I wrote, " Why don't you do the same?". I'm not interested in Buffet.

[James Kroeger]

And this is the ONLY fair option, each chooses for themselves. If they are materially hurt by giving that is by their choice.
There is nothing fair about a tax system that forces an unnecessary material sacrifice on those who would like to be especially generous. You might be able to advance your argument if you could demonstrate that rich people who are forced to be "equally generous" are actually forced to endure a loss of purchasing power; but they aren't, so where is the 'unfair' punishment that they imagine themselves to be saddled with?

[anne]

"Warren is hardly typical of anything."

Imagine, all these years and the family never even suspected. Thanks for saving us from, well, success.

Warren, my pal Warren, my buddy Warren. Nice touch that.

[Outside the Box]

His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent...And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed...

I think this is a very important point that Warren is trying to make. Taxes on the middle class are way too high. It is just as important to lower the taxes on the middle class as it is to raise the taxes on the very rich.

[spencer]

James Kroeger says... "There is nothing fair about a tax system that forces an unnecessary material sacrifice on those who would like to be especially generous.

James don't you know that those who are especially generous are able to deduct their charity from their income. So by being especially generous the wealthy actually reduce their income tax payments.

Now, Kroeger, would you care to explain how the tax system that allows individuals to deduct charity giving actually works to generate the outcome you imply.

[reason]

STR, OTB etc,
I think what the "Oracle from Omaha" is saying is being misinterpreted. Where does the 17% and the 30% come from exactly. Is it average income tax, marginal income tax or all federal taxes including social security? We need to be careful here. Maybe removing the upper limit on social security would do the trick! Or see the previous post on using progressive spending and taxing consumption.

OTB ... your statement It is just as important to lower the taxes on the middle class as it is to raise the taxes on the very rich. Can only be realised if both are done together.

[reason]

Spencer...
to butt in here ... the government only sponsors PART of charity financed from income. The lower the tax rate the lower the government subsidy.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Reason:

I pulled up my software and tried some simulated numbers, I think it has to be a combination of income and SS taxes, unless Warren's secretary is REALLY well paid.

Just an educated guess however.

[Holly W.]

Granted that I agree with STR that Warren Buffett's comments look just a bit self-serving, but Buffett does bring up a good question about how we tax different "classes" of income.

I thought the basic principle of progressive taxation is that a person's "first" dollar of income is assumed to be the one they need most, and is taxed at a very low rate or not at all, while their "last" dollar of income is assumed to be the least necessary to day-to-day existence and can be taxed at a higher rate. I also thought it used to be considered that "earned" income, made from working, represented those first dollars, while "unearned" income, such as capital gains, were a person's last dollars. Currently, however, that's all been turned on its head -- capital gains are taxed at the lowest rate, while money made by working is taxed at higher rates, and subjected to payroll taxes to boot. To my mind, this is tantamount to rewarding people who can make enough money from not working, while punishing people who do work for a living. This encourages the American work ethic -- how?

Please note that I'm not making these comments from any kind of sour grapes position -- investment returns made up about 15% of my taxable income for 2006. Do I love paying a measly 5% tax on my long-term capital gains/qualified dividends? Of course! But do I think it makes sense as policy? Definitely not.

[Turbo]

The problem with the taxation debate is that it generally focuses on income taxation, which, even after the Bush cuts, is actually still reasonably progressive. If you live in NYC and earn $150,000 or more in salary, your top marginal tax rate is still around 43%, so I get rather annoyed when the arguement that income taxes for the "wealthy" are too low is made with this focus. The discrepency between this and a flat tax of 15% on long-term capital gains is really the core reason for the truly wealthy being able to pay relatively little in tax. Generating capital gains involves risking one's capital, so a lower rate of taxation is appropriate to some degree, but it really should have some kind of progressive scale attached, with a one-time, reasonable exemption for selling a long-term interest in a business. Of course, if you watch the CNBC-type "War on the Rich" stories that have been getting considerable, naseating air-time of late, clearly the very wealthy are starting their influence war to make sure this never happens, and the focus stays on targeting the professional class for future tax hikes.

[Isabel]

I'll pull an Anne:

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to be charitable.

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to go without food.

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to go without housing.

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to go without medical care.

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to go without education.

It is an abomination to anyone who believes in the principles of freedom and equality. Nobody should be FORCED to go without legal defense.

It is an abomination...

[anne]

Nicely done, Isabel. I enjoyed that.

[Turbo]

As I said, risking one's capital should be encouraged, but a system in which the extremely wealthy can structure a marginal tax rate of 15%, while the mid-level professionals working for them face something closer to 40%, is in need of some rebalancing. I don't think anyone would stop investing if a two-tiered capital gains tax were introduced, where the rate on the first $325,000 in capital gains each year is 15%, then taxed at 25% on the rest, with some sort of one-time exemption for selling a legitimate long-term business interest? That still yields a 10 tax point advantage over the 35% top federal rate income tax rate that kicks in at that level. It's one thing to encourage investment, it's entirely another to defend a tax system that has become egrariously unfair.

[Isabel]

You must live in a strange world, TB (I like your handle, by the way)

[Cyrille]

I know around a few billion people who are forced to go with at least one of food, housing, health care, and often all three.
Care to meet some of them?

[Turbo]

Top federal rate = 35%, but add state, county and city income taxes to that where they apply. Those are deducted from income before federal tax is applied, but you still end up with a top marginal tax rate of 45% in NYC, 43% in NJ and California. 35% is only the top if you live in Nevada or other jurisdiction with no additional income taxes. Of course, if you're Kirk Kerkorian, taking over companies from your Las Vegas penthouse, you still only pay 15%.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"...Nobody IS “forced” to go without food, housing, medical care, education, legal defense. Their OWN actions, or lack of actions creates their circumstances...."

That is a bit of a stretch TB.

Even most conservatives agree that some people have needs best met by government. The libertarians lost the argument about 200 years ago.

[evagrius]

It's very refreshing to see how views from 1896 on taxes, income, and social obligations can still have a relevance today.

[kthomas]

TB-

Since you know everything, could you recommend a good mole removing product?

[worker]

"I know around a few billion people who are forced to go with at least one of food, housing, health care, and often all three. Care to meet some of them?"

Actually, no. But I'd like to meet the person who is "forcing" them.

Quite twisted logic that I am forcing someone to go without housing by not paying for his house.

[evagrius]

I know around a few billion people who are forced to go with at least one of food, housing, health care, and often all three. Care to meet some of them?"

Actually, no. But I'd like to meet the person who is "forcing" them.

Quite twisted logic that I am forcing someone to go without housing by not paying for his house.

Why don't you want to meet them? I'll bet there's a few near your neighborhood if you care to look.

The "force" is simple to recognize. It's known as "the market".

So yes. You do "force" others to do without when you support, through purchases, corporations that pay a pittance. Sometimes those corporations use forms of slave labor.

Bought any clothes "Made in the U.S.A." from the Mariana Islands lately?

[robertdfeinman]

When a firm is as profitable as Berkshire Hathaway it means that more is involved than just keeping expenses low. It means that they have a monopoly or shared monopoly position in their market, otherwise they would be forced to lower their prices to meet the competition.

A firm can make a lot of money for a short period of time because of some unique characteristic (like Apple with the Ipod), but if the market is truly competitive this can't last. If a firm continues to make out sized profits then there has to be some "market failure" that allows them to maintain their position.

So, while Buffet may be a personally "aw shucks" kind of guy, his business practices indicate otherwise.

[save_the_rustbelt]

"...I have never met any...."

TB, if you credibility with this fairly astute group you should be wary of gross overstatements.

Unless you live in a cave with extreme libertarians and anarchists you certainly have met conservatives who believe the government should meet some needs for some people.

[Cyrille]

Save The Rustbelt, I think that there are quite a few statements to correct before he can aspire to credibility. For instance:
"Not in this country. They live in countries where goverrnment is what Progressives want for this country."

Well of course, progressives long for the government of, say, Zimbabwe. Or Darfur. Or Tadjikistan. Or Iraq.

But you can even take a look at Australia or the US, especially if you are an aborigine or a native American. Or one of the millions of children without healthcare...

And finally, what if someone is born with a debilitating condition preventing any paid employment? We let them die of starvation?

[Cyrille]

I can see how the Iraqi government controls all markets, and that it is the cause of any plight in Iraq. Indeed...

[Isabel]

Cyrille, everybody knows that Sweden is just one step away from Mozambique.

But don't worry, TB: when you grow up and be able to travel on your own, you can always move to paradise on earth, Somalia. What better than a failed State to put in practice your Ayn Rand readings?

[worker]

I still don't understand how I/we can be forcing someone to go without something that wouldn't exist if I/we didn't provide it in the first place.

Maybe you just used the wrong choice of rhetoric, or if the right choice of words, a good explanation of why leftism strikes people as fundamentally wrong.

[evagrius]

"I have, I have lived in those countries."

Could you care to elucidate? You actually met these people? Did you share their housing and food, ( most would insist- hospitality is a virtue among them- imagine receiving without being charged)?

"No, the market does not force it, quite the opposite, the market ALLOWS people to get food, housing, health care, legal aid."

If they can afford it.

"Wrong again, that "pittance" you claim they pay is a good income to those who recieve it, it allows them to buy the food and housing and health care you claim they are being denied.

Without the corporations paying them that wage, they would go without food, shelter and health care."

Yes. Those CEO's would have a tough time without their "pittance". I'm not so sure that those getting paid 500 times less than the CEO's would complain receiving that pittance though.

"Views on equality and freedom are timeless."

Yes. One can read the Prophets of the Old Testament, Plato, Aristotle and the other Greek and Latin writers, Jesus in the New Testament, Confucius,the Church Fathers and the Scholastics and find timeless views on equality, freedom and the dignity of the human person but I don't think you'll find any that would agree with the views of 1896.

[evagrius]

"Lets see, I have lived in Greece 4.5 yrs, Egypt 1 year, Iran 1 year, Bahrain 1 year, Singapore twice each time for 1 year.

I have travled in Japan, Malaysia, Israel, USSR, Italy, German, France, England."

Did you meet people, go to their houses, see the way they lived, ( I mean all types of people not just "certain" types).

Or did you just stay in hotels and eat hotel food?

Generally speaking, people who travel usually develop an appreciattion for all types of cultures and views of life,
even admitting that differences in economics and politics are wholesome.

The only ones who don't seem to have that development seem to be individuals of a rigid nature such as is found in military or quasi-military cultures.

Were you in the armed forces? That would explain a lot.

If not, then it's quite intriguing.

[James Killus]

The argument that Buffet is making is not pro- or anti-tax as such; it is asking the question of who should bear the burden. Buffet is noting how very easy it is for the current U.S. tax system to become regressive in nature.

Those who worship power and wealth (at the upper levels of society there is very little difference between the two), want regressive taxation. They always argue for reducing taxes on the rich and powerful and seldom even acknowledge the taxes paid by those who are not rich and powerful.

Some might wonder whether this preferential blindness and willingness to genuflect before power represents identification with the aggressor or a belief that the proper degree of sniveling and tugging of the forelock will suffice to visit upon them a few crumbs from the tables of the gentry. I no longer find that question to be interesting.

[ken]

I like what James Kroeger had to say about progressive income taxes. I have been thinking about it and he seems to have hit on something true regarding the advantage of truly progressive income taxation over other forms of taxation.

As I see it now progressive taxation is a win/win for both those individuals taxed and for society as a whole.

No wonder the best minds in America settled on the progressive tax structure when they could have chosen anything at all. And no wonder that it was under a progressive tax structure that America grew into the mightiest economy the world has ever seen.

Let's not let the hasty and shortsighted greed of conservatives today replace the wisdom and foresight found in the progressive tax structure designed by the noble and towering intellects who saved our nation in time of its greatest peril.

[Robinia]

The assumption that capital invested always produces jobs (justifying favorable tax treatment) is outdated. There are endless examples of how profitability can be enhanced via increased automation and decreased jobs. Profitability is the goal of the investor, the growth of value, not more jobs. They, like pollution, are just an indirect effect that may or may not accompany capital growth.

As far as I can figure it, if the gap between the rich and everyone else continues to grow, there will be an inexorable pressure to use technology (including, perhaps, genetically-enhanced animals able to "work" but lacking human rights) to increase profitability and decrease dependence on costly human workers. Wise tax policy might better recognize that the preservation of human dignity is more important than the maximization of capital accumulation. Operationally, that would happen through tweaking the balance toward a more progressive approach to the taxing of earned and unearned income.

[Isabel]

Maybe this will explain why I think leftism is fundamentally right:

Let's assume we all uphold in the principles of freedom and equality. As far as I'm concerned, although I'll defend my freedom (and maybe even yours, in a good day), I accept that my freedom stops where yours starts and vice-versa. It's part of the deal of living in society. As for equality, we might have equal rights, but we don't have equal conditions, do we? That is why you are usually taught in kindergarten that it's not a good idea to grab the next kid peanut butter and jelly sandwich even if you have only a jelly sandwich and the next kid is much smaller than you. One can, of course, question the wisdom of this teachings, and I'm pretty sure that every now and then there is a human society that does the experiment: kid, grab what you want and you can get; if a bigger kid grabs your lunch, tough luck for you.

Now... In spite of TB's unshakeable faith in fredom of choice, some of us are cleverer than others, and some of us are really, really dumb. Or born totally bent out of shape. Or born normal to totally disfunctional parents, etc, etc. As the Mogambo Guru puts it, some of us deserve to be eaten. Maybe we do?

The point is that most parents will try to raise their children, even the very, very dumb. Most humans will try to save other humans, at least those that are close to them, even those that would probably deserve to be eaten. There are two ways of doing it, as I see it: either you leave families fend for themselves (tough luck, kid!), rely on solidarity/charity, etc, or you take the approach that, with a bit of help from everybody (taxes), nobody needs to be eaten. That is, not my children, that I try to raise, but then, neither yours.

I happen to think the second approach is a lot more efficient (leftist, I know). The graph of Mark Thoma's last post seems to prove that. Somalia seems to be another proof.

Now, where is the FORCED part? If I think that there is a set of basic rights to meet some basic needs of human beings (which I do), denying to share the resources to meet those needs, so that those that are really, really dumb, or bent out of shape or whatever, have a chance to live and prosper enough to maybe participate in the production of resources that go into the pool we call society, denying that, is what I call FORCING them to go without.

Rethorics? Maybe. I'm going to bed now. Anyway, the notion that the poor are poor because of the exercise of their own free will, while this evil society of descendants of FDR impose on poor Warren Buffet abominable constraints on his freedom is... well, too funny. If it wasn't too egregious.

[evagrius]

"Generally speaking, people who travel usually develop an appreciattion for all types of cultures and views of life,
even admitting that differences in economics and politics are wholesome.

The only ones who don't seem to have that development seem to be individuals of a rigid nature such as is found in military or quasi-military cultures.

Were you in the armed forces? That would explain a lot."
My original question above.

As I said I LIVED there, part of the time when I was in the Air Force, and part when living with my step-father who worked on oil fields.

A great dedeuction on my part, I must say. The Air Force is quite military and oil companies almost as much.
I believe that members are not encouraged much to fraternize with the "natives".

So....you really know how those people live?

In my opinion, you don't.

And...it's quite interesting that your step-father worked in the oil fields. Was he a worker or executive?

I'm fascinated because earlier you described a rather different, I take it, period in your life when you were a child, (?), ( in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana).

Your "libertarian" views are really intriguing. By chance, I found a fascinating essay which explains much of what bothers me about libertarians;

Libertarianism, free trade, call it what you will, is the reanimated corpse of 19th Century Whig liberalism. The latter, far from being of the “right” or conservative, is antithetical to it. Whig liberalism, what we now call libertarianism, is the doctrinal manifestation of the Industrial Revolution. Its antecedents can be traced back to the Cromwellian Revolution of the 17th Century, a revolt by a newly emerging merchant class against the authority of the monarchy and gentry....

Against these early manifestations of libertarianism stood the partisans of tradition. Conservatism stood for the estate and the rural community against the city, the machine, and the power of money. Conservatism upheld the moral authority of religion against humanism and the relegation of the human being to nothing but “matter in motion”. It defended the monarchy as a unifying focus against the destructiveness of class war. The ideals of noblesse oblige, of duty, of the chivalric concept of protection and obedience, were its basis of social relations rather than dog-eat-dog economics. Work as an ethic and a cultural manifestation, rather than as a mechanical function, was reflected in the old guild concepts.

With the rise of the city, the machine, the bank, and the expansion of the merchant class arose also the proletariat – dispossessed artisans and yeomen. The traditionalist forces represented by conservatism stood pressed between the workers’ movement from below and the plutocracy from above. The workers’ movement was a necessary response to the very real grievances of the uprooted urban proletariat under the libertarian regime of the workhouse, child labour, slum dwellings and cholera. Some traditionally minded individuals and institutions championed the workers’ cause...

Marxism was very much a product of English economics; the mirror image of the free trade school. It arose with the rise of Darwinism, which was taken from the strictly biological field and applied to economics by both the Marxists and the libertarians. Hence, this economic Darwinism posited history as nothing more than economic development along lineal-progressive (i.e. “evolutionary” ) lines. Both doctrines were based upon economic determinism, upon the materialistic conception of history and human social relations. The materialistic conception is antithetical to such organic bonds as family, nation, and culture. To the Marxist these are “bourgeois” concepts. To the libertarian they are expressions of “collectivism,” and stand in the way of the individual who is complete and sovereign unto himself. While today’s libertarians see themselves and are seen by their foes as the antithesis of socialism, they have this materialistic pedigree in common with the Left.
Marx looked favourably upon free trade capitalism, because it did indeed disrupt those organic bonds that had to be buried before Marxism could triumph. Thus Marx saw the subversive potential of libertarianism. The Marxist historical outlook is dialectical. It sees history in terms of a continuing dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The basis of Marxist dialectics is class struggle. Hence the thesis was the old order of ‘feudalism”; the antithesis was capitalism, and from the clash of these opposites would arise the new synthesis of communism.

This is why orthodox Marxist theorists hold that socialism can only arise from an industrialised capitalist country with a large proletariat. Hence the first stage in the dialectical march to communism is capitalism, which prepares the ground for communism. (The mainly agrarian nature of the communist revolutions in China and Cuba caused theoretical problems for communists).

Free trade is the crucial element of the Marxist dialectic, without which there can be no clash of opposites, and therefore no communism arising from the “class struggle”. Few Marxists are open about this seemingly paradoxical support for the subversive nature of libertarianism. Trotskyite publications can, however, be seen adhering to this line when they attack trade protectionism as preserving “national capitalism” and therefore delaying the dialectic that will lead to Communist revolution...

We see Marx’s prophecy being fulfilled increasingly in our own time. “Globalism” and a “new world order” is being heralded by the USA and its allies as the hope of mankind, and is being overtly propagated as the “natural development of capitalism” by books written by corporate advisers. People of differing national, cultural and ethnic backgrounds are becoming interchangeable economic units, an undifferentiated mass of producers and consumers. Banking and industrial corporations spanning the world transcend all such differences. The result is the emergence of an international economic system that can bypass national governments. A global consumer culture emerges from the boardrooms of advertising agencies transcending ethnic and national cultures that are hindrances to international mass marketing. What will arise is a new form of internationalised, rootless humanity: we might call Homo Economicus.

From;

http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-karl-marx-supported-libertarianism.html

[robertdfeinman]

Blog dynamics:
There is a certain personality type that hangs out in many blogs - what psychologist Robert Altemeyer calls the "right wing authoritarian" type.

Without going into all the details of his findings there is one characteristic which is relevant to what has been happening to this site over the past few days.

This is their complete and unwavering belief system. Altemeyer details several consequences of this and inflexibility is the most important. Neither new data, nor showing logical fallacies has any affect on their opinions. As a consequence one can never "win" an argument with such a person, nor change their mind.

So to all of you who are debating (again) libertarianism just remember you are doing it for your own amusement, you won't influence anyone.

There is a negative side effect. The discussions get swamped with these side debates, the level of insult increases and the amount of useful information transmitted declines. So if you want this site to continue to be a source of useful information and varied opinions I suggest thinking twice before engaging in such hopeless debates.

[evagrius]

robertdfeinman;

I agree.I found the essay showing the common origin of libertarianism and doctrinaire Marxism illuminating.
Both are very rigid in their views and both quite reductionist, ( both place primary importance on materialism as their logical ground).
And you're quite correct- facts are denied, other viewpoints ridiculed, there's no attempt ata common understanding, and there's little empathy shown for those who just "don't understand reality".

[anne]

Thank you, Isabel and Robert.

Robert, please set down an Internet link to Altemeyer's thought if possible.

[evagrius]

anne;

It's a PDF. I found the book quite interesting but take it with a grain of salt, ( as Altemeyer urges). Look at it as a political Meyers-Briggs.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[James Killus]

robertdfeinman,

I would say that we're all on the same page at this point, with the proviso that some of us are reading and some are being read about.

The authoritarian personality type was studied quite extensively by such folks as Maslow, Fromm, Adorno, etc. at about the time of the Second World War (gee, I wonder why?). More recently there have been some studies linking the "double high" authoritarians to narcissistic personality disorder, also for all the obvious reasons.

[evagrius]

And the problem is that one can neither ignore nor indulge such personalities.

[evagrius]

"In both cases I/we lived on the economy, lived in the same apartments, shopped in the same stores, at at the same places."

Apartments? On U.S. income?

The life of Riley.

"Yes, ages 1 - 10.

The other live was 11 through 28."

So...two different lives. Bifurcated self. Interesting.

I lived in France until I was 10. Stepfather also in the Air Force. Lived in the U.S. for years. But I don't think I have attained bifurcation. I don't think it would help.

As for your take on libertarianism, the essay is quite accurate as far as I can see. You've reduced everything to a form of materialism.

[evagrius]

"The materialistic conception is antithetical to such organic bonds as family, nation, and culture. To the Marxist these are “bourgeois” concepts. To the libertarian they are expressions of “collectivism,” and stand in the way of the individual who is complete and sovereign unto himself. While today’s libertarians see themselves and are seen by their foes as the antithesis of socialism, they have this materialistic pedigree in common with the Left."

[evagrius]

TB;

If what you argue is your viewpoint, then what moral imperative guides what you argue is liberalism?

You seem to reject any "organic" bonds such as family,nation ( or society), and culture.
You seem to deny the moral foundation of culture which is the recognition that one is obligated to others. You seem to reject that there are human needs which can only be fulfilled within a society, that cannot be merely purchased, that require social structures, "institutions", organizations, in a word government.
You seem to reject any moral, social or cultural imperative that would impede your own "freedom" to do as you wish. However, you seem to have no qualms as to denying another the same "freedom" you enjoy if they threaten it by "demanding" or "taking" what is "yours", ( although what is "yours" isn't clearly stated).

I think you have a classic case of compartmentalization.

As for the posters on this blog- you'll find a wide variety of opinions and voices. There's quite a bit of debate by some quite learned folks on the validity of data and its correct interpretation. There's also a wide variety of opinion on what application, poltically, economically and socially, one should do with the data.
The only unanimity I find is an agreement not to allow ideological argumentation any sway, from whatever political source, even if one could be sympathetic to the ideology because it would then change the nature of the blog to a comfortable echo chamber.

[foo]

Wow. This thread was hijacked by a single troll. If a buffoon has nothing better to do than rebut every post, best to ignore it. They've "earned" their place and know better than all of us anyway.

says...

so foo buddy - presumably it is okay when the troll is Anne and her mindless NY Times cut and paste

[Lafayette]

rdf: So, while Buffet may be a personally "aw shucks" kind of guy, his business practices indicate otherwise.

I would ordinarily want to agree.

But, Buffet has had an extraordinary even uncanny ability -- a sort of third eye -- for spotting potentially lucrative investments. And, that potential has been realized time and time again.

I can't imagine what "business practices" he may be up to, but then, I wouldn't put anything past any businessman of his achievement.

I've just not ever heard of any wrongdoing. And, having chosen Gates to oversee his philanthropy was also a wise decision ... like so many others he has made.

[Lafayette]

TB: No, you have all, except for rust belt, voiced the same opinions over and over in a celebration of your collectively held view.

And TB hasn't?

TB's celebration is that of the supremacy of the individual and individual initiative as well as return on individual risk taking. For all this individualism, TB deserves to live individually alone on another planet. TB might then realize that, all alone, incarcerated in individualism, its celebration loses all significance.

A fitting justice, that, whereupon TB might reflect upon the fact that an individual without his/her place in a society is devoid of significance. They are an iota.

And, for the significance that the individual obtains from their place in society, they are obliged to return in kind by supporting the collective destiny that defines a community, a state, a nation.

The twaddle of TB's posts merits being placed on the SOB list. Which means, of course, individual posters that we ... Scroll On By.

[kthomas]

TB....is that short for "True Believer"?

[robertdfeinman]

The sign of a troll is a) posts too much, b) speaks about himself and other personally and c) continues to push his point even after it has been made already.

The old maxim still applies: Do not feed the trolls.

You are not "forced" to respond. Ignoring such a person works quite well, without the attention they crave they soon go away. (We have already seen several examples right here on this site.)

[Lafayette]

rdf: You are not "forced" to respond. Ignoring such a person works quite well

Amen to that.

Feed the trolls and they always come back hungry for more.

[kthomas]

TB, I like you.

You annoy, but you're ok in my book.

[evagrius]

TB;

" an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,"

This is the major point of diffeence. I don't see how this assumption can have any validity whatsoever.

One is not born by themselves, one does not grow up by themselves, obtain an education, etc;etc;

An individual's rights are only possible within a community that itself has rights. The community makes possible the expression and protection of those rights you advocate but also demand reciprocity, that is, that the rights of the community are also upheld.

The notion of the individual as "right-bearer" is really just the Cartesian ego. It is as sollipsistic as Cartesianism with the same problems. It has no real connection to actual human existence. We are not lone egos, lone monads, that coalesce into groups. Such notions are antithetical to real human existence.

What has happened since the Industrial Revolution is a diminution of both community and individual rights. When a single individual can, by fiat, destroy entire communities through economic pressure, the rights of all are affected.
( Think of the Land Clearances of Scotland, the Potato Famine in Ireland,the desruction of native cultures through colonialization etc;).

The above notion about individual rights is a pure abstraction, as abstract as notions in Marxism or any other ideology.

Your constant emphasis on individualism, ( whether you like the label or not is immaterial- it is individualism), overlooks the complexity of living. For instance- why didn't you ask your wife to just give birth in the backyard? The answer is obvious, ( I hope). You love your wife and your future child. If that is so, then why can't you extend that to others who are W

I don't think that everyone on this blog agrees on anything in unison.

It's just that they do agree that things are more complex than just a simple ideology would have everyone believe.

I notice that you didn't remark on the great traditions, ( which don't agree with the above in its essence), perhaps because you find them "Progressive". Ironic considering that they are quite conservative in their outlook.

You may not think yourself a libertarian, giving yourself an identitity as a "classical liberal" but I don't see any interest on your part in what happens to those least able to exercise their rights.

[evagrius]

TB- You've contradicted yourself. Examine what you've written and find out where. The key term is "community
rights" which you agree with in one place and deny elsewhere.

I can't see how upholding "individual rights" as primary over everything else is not "individualism".

Please explain that.

[evagrius]

Define what a "community" is.

Define what are "community rights".

Define "society".

It's important. Unless the terms are commonly agreed to there can be no discussion or debate.

[evagrius]

Read this;

http://www.scn.org/cmp//whatcom.htm

[evagrius]

You obviously don't understand what a community is.

Suppose someone decides to build a polluting factory that will poison the ground water and pollute the air of the community that is next to it.

Do you think that person has a right to do so?

[evagrius]

I didn't expect such naivety.

[evagrius]

Are you suggesting that laws could be set up in the first place without some deep pockets opposing such laws and making them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce even if passed?

[evagrius]

The fact that they HAVE been proves that they can.

And the fact that they've been gutted proves my point.

[evagrius]

There hasn't been any gutting.

O.K. O.K. No gutting. Just no enforcing. Same difference. A law not enforced is a law gutted.

[evagrius]

Enforcement of Environmental Laws Lagging Under Bush ...Enforcement of Environmental Laws Lagging Under Bush Administration ... of the Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy, told the Inquirer. ...
www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1953/1/110?TopicID=1 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Recent Studies Show Lack of Enforcement of Environmental Laws ...Enforcement of federal environmental law has declined significantly during ... tracks enforcement of wildlife protection laws under the Bush administration. ...
www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2467/1/219?TopicID=1 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.ombwatch.org ]

Far Fewer Polluters Punished Under Bush Administration, Records ShowOf the 17 enforcement categories examined, the first Bush administration had the highest ... When citations are broken down by the specific law violated, ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1209-02.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Environment Worsened Under Bush in Many Key Areas, Data Show... areas of national forests, environmental law enforcement and agricultural run-off. Two major Bush administration proposals still languish in Congress. ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1013-12.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

[evagrius]

"Don't bother me with the facts. My mind's already made up".

"We have met the enemy and the enemy is us".

[evagrius]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html