Portada » Foros » Internacional » Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido a Katrina)
Internacional
Estos foros están cerrados. Podéis debatir en Red Liberal.
Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido a Katrina)
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:21
A disturbing trend after Katrina was summed up in George Bush's promise to have the federal government completely rebuild the Gulf Coast better than before the storm, and do so with taxpayer money. Can we really expect government to create quality cities using redistribution, government programs, and regulations?
The Bay Area Center for Voting Research has published a list of America's Most Liberal Cities. By "liberal," the Bay Area Center for Voting Research means the contemporary, American political definition of the word, which involves a willingness to use the taxing, spending, and regulatory powers of government to redistribute wealth and to control behavior.
This is a much different thing than classical liberalism. Classical liberals, such as Ludwig von Mises, reject contemporary, American "liberalism." While I myself normally avoid words like "liberal" and "conservative," because they do not clearly identify whether someone is pro-government or pro-individual liberty, I will use these words in this essay because this is the terminology of the Bay Area Center for Voting Research.
At the top of the list of America's Most Liberal Cities is Detroit, Michigan. Detroit, with half the population it once had, and with a quarter of its land vacant or abandoned, is indeed a monument to liberalism. Although the city is financially bankrupt, it is able to find big bucks to subsidize marquee events and to underwrite billion dollar giveaways to professional sports teams. Its unemployment rate may be comparable to that of an east German lander, but its jet-setting, wheeler-dealer mayor has an unlimited expense account. And, whoever is the statewide Democratic candidate, he or she can count on Detroit, where election officials may be slow in tabulating the vote, but they are sure to come up with enough of a margin to make the difference.
Of course, just because America's Most Liberal City is a disastrous combination of stifling taxes, high crime, poor schools and bad roads doesn't necessarily mean that Liberal Cities tend to be that way. Detroit could be a fluke at the city level, the same way that North Korea and Zimbabwe supposedly are flukes at the national level. Just because people are reduced to eating grass in some places where totalitarian socialism rules, doesn't prove that totalitarian socialism tends to impoverish a nation. And, just because some cities that tend to vote liberal become dysfunctional, doesn't prove that liberalism tends to make cities dysfunctional. Examples are merely illustrative. Empirical proof requires the analysis of a statistically-valid sample, and theoretical proof requires a strong connection of cause and effect.
Liberalism and Unemployment
Being rather handy with statistics, I thought I would see if there is a correlation between the liberal voting tendency of cities and several measures of the well-being of cities, starting with the unemployment rate.
N
The Bay Area Center for Voting Research has published a list of America's Most Liberal Cities. By "liberal," the Bay Area Center for Voting Research means the contemporary, American political definition of the word, which involves a willingness to use the taxing, spending, and regulatory powers of government to redistribute wealth and to control behavior.
This is a much different thing than classical liberalism. Classical liberals, such as Ludwig von Mises, reject contemporary, American "liberalism." While I myself normally avoid words like "liberal" and "conservative," because they do not clearly identify whether someone is pro-government or pro-individual liberty, I will use these words in this essay because this is the terminology of the Bay Area Center for Voting Research.
At the top of the list of America's Most Liberal Cities is Detroit, Michigan. Detroit, with half the population it once had, and with a quarter of its land vacant or abandoned, is indeed a monument to liberalism. Although the city is financially bankrupt, it is able to find big bucks to subsidize marquee events and to underwrite billion dollar giveaways to professional sports teams. Its unemployment rate may be comparable to that of an east German lander, but its jet-setting, wheeler-dealer mayor has an unlimited expense account. And, whoever is the statewide Democratic candidate, he or she can count on Detroit, where election officials may be slow in tabulating the vote, but they are sure to come up with enough of a margin to make the difference.
Of course, just because America's Most Liberal City is a disastrous combination of stifling taxes, high crime, poor schools and bad roads doesn't necessarily mean that Liberal Cities tend to be that way. Detroit could be a fluke at the city level, the same way that North Korea and Zimbabwe supposedly are flukes at the national level. Just because people are reduced to eating grass in some places where totalitarian socialism rules, doesn't prove that totalitarian socialism tends to impoverish a nation. And, just because some cities that tend to vote liberal become dysfunctional, doesn't prove that liberalism tends to make cities dysfunctional. Examples are merely illustrative. Empirical proof requires the analysis of a statistically-valid sample, and theoretical proof requires a strong connection of cause and effect.
Liberalism and Unemployment
Being rather handy with statistics, I thought I would see if there is a correlation between the liberal voting tendency of cities and several measures of the well-being of cities, starting with the unemployment rate.
N
Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido a Katrina)
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:26
Nowadays, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates local unemployment rates regularly for the fifty largest cities (in addition to doing the same for the nation as a whole, for each state, and for the larger metropolitan areas). In 2004, Detroit—America's Most Liberal City—was also the country's #1 large city for unemployment. While the unemployment rate in the fifty largest cities averaged 6.5%, it was 14.1% in Detroit.
The chart below juxtaposes unemployment against liberal voting tendency in the country's largest cities. On the vertical axis, I have plotted the unemployment rate for 2004, and on the horizontal axis, I have plotted an index of the rankings for liberal voting tendency published by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research. In this index, 100 represents Detroit, and lower numbers represent decreasingly liberal cities.
In this chart, notice that in 2004 the unemployment rate fluctuated about 5% for America's Most Conservative Cities, and tended to fluctuate about 7.5% for America's Most Liberal Cities. To be sure, some of America's Most Liberal Cities had relatively low unemployment rates, but the tendency was for the unemployment rate to rise with the tendency to vote liberal.
In the next chart, I present a correlation of unemployment rates with liberal voting tendency using data from the 2000 census. By using the 2000 census, I am able to include all the cities in my sample, including the mid-sized cities (from 100,000 to something like 250,000) as well as the large cities (above something like 250,000
Back in 2000, prior to the bursting of the dot-com bubble and prior to the 9/11 attack on our country, the unemployment rate was quite low. In the cities in my sample, it averaged 4.2%. In some cities, the unemployment rate was even lower than 2%. Conversely, in some cities, the unemployment rate was higher than 8%. To my eye, it looks as though, in 2000, the unemployment rate ranged from 2–6% in America's Most Conservative Cities, and ranged from 2–10% in America's Most Liberal Cities.
With as much variation as there is in the above chart, I thought I should conduct a formal analysis. Based on some regressions I report in the appendix to this essay, it can indeed be said that unemployment tends to rise with liberal voting tendency. This tendency is demonstrated in both a simple regression of the unemployment rate against the index of liberal voting tendency, and a multivariate regression in which the independent variables include the size of the population and a variable that indicates suburban cities (as opposed to central cities) in metropolitan areas, in addition to the index of liberal voting tendency.
Liberalism and Crime
The second measure I looked at was the FBI's crime index.
The chart below juxtaposes unemployment against liberal voting tendency in the country's largest cities. On the vertical axis, I have plotted the unemployment rate for 2004, and on the horizontal axis, I have plotted an index of the rankings for liberal voting tendency published by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research. In this index, 100 represents Detroit, and lower numbers represent decreasingly liberal cities.
In this chart, notice that in 2004 the unemployment rate fluctuated about 5% for America's Most Conservative Cities, and tended to fluctuate about 7.5% for America's Most Liberal Cities. To be sure, some of America's Most Liberal Cities had relatively low unemployment rates, but the tendency was for the unemployment rate to rise with the tendency to vote liberal.
In the next chart, I present a correlation of unemployment rates with liberal voting tendency using data from the 2000 census. By using the 2000 census, I am able to include all the cities in my sample, including the mid-sized cities (from 100,000 to something like 250,000) as well as the large cities (above something like 250,000
Back in 2000, prior to the bursting of the dot-com bubble and prior to the 9/11 attack on our country, the unemployment rate was quite low. In the cities in my sample, it averaged 4.2%. In some cities, the unemployment rate was even lower than 2%. Conversely, in some cities, the unemployment rate was higher than 8%. To my eye, it looks as though, in 2000, the unemployment rate ranged from 2–6% in America's Most Conservative Cities, and ranged from 2–10% in America's Most Liberal Cities.
With as much variation as there is in the above chart, I thought I should conduct a formal analysis. Based on some regressions I report in the appendix to this essay, it can indeed be said that unemployment tends to rise with liberal voting tendency. This tendency is demonstrated in both a simple regression of the unemployment rate against the index of liberal voting tendency, and a multivariate regression in which the independent variables include the size of the population and a variable that indicates suburban cities (as opposed to central cities) in metropolitan areas, in addition to the index of liberal voting tendency.
Liberalism and Crime
The second measure I looked at was the FBI's crime index.
Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido a Katri
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:28
In 2002, Detroit had a crime rate of 0.0884 per capita. While this is higher than the average crime rate in the cities in the sample (0.0597), it is not in the top ten percent of the sample. St. Louis, Missouri, with a crime rate of 0.1429 per capita is America's worst city when it comes to crime, and it's only at the 20th Most Liberal City in terms of voting tendency.
Below, I present the FBI crime index for the cities in the sample, for 2002, per capita, graphed against liberal voting tendency. With all the variation in the data, I'm not sure that Lee Majors—The Six Million Dollar Man—could tell if there is a correlation between the crime rate and liberal voting tendency using the eye-ball method of statistical analysis. The multivariate regression reported in the appendix indicates that liberal voting tendency is modestly correlated with the crime rate. (The more significant correlation exhibited in the simple regression must be disregarded, since it is apparently due to "excluded variable bias.")
As I mentioned above, the FBI crime index is thought to be effected by nonreporting. It is possible that the crime rate in Detroit and other liberal cities is understated because people often do not report crimes against property, thinking that little will come of the report. Perhaps the police tend to be under-staffed in liberal cities, or the people do not cooperate with the police in these cities, in the apprehension and conviction of criminals. An alternate explanation for the "low" crime rate in Detroit and other liberal cities is that, as after the third revolution in Liberia, there's nothing left to steal.
To see if, possibly, the crime rate of Detroit and other cities is understated because of the nonreporting of property crimes, I thought to focus on murder and non-negligent manslaughter. I figure that even if the police are not very effective in the pursuit of justice when it comes to property crimes, people will still report murder and manslaughter—how else would they get rid of the dead bodies?
Gary, Indiana, the 2nd Most Liberal City in America, turns out to be our murder capital, with a murder rate of 58 per 100,000 people. The second highest murder rate, and highest among large cities, 53 per 100,000 people, belongs to New Orleans, Louisiana, the 26th Most Liberal City. Number three is Washington, D.C., the 4th Most Liberal City, with 47. And, number four is . . . my, my . . . Detroit, with 41. It turns out that Detroit is very much like Washington, D.C., where former Mayor Barry once said, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very, very low crime rate.
In the regressions reported in the appendix, liberal voting tendency is shown to have a very strong correlation with the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters.
Below, I present the FBI crime index for the cities in the sample, for 2002, per capita, graphed against liberal voting tendency. With all the variation in the data, I'm not sure that Lee Majors—The Six Million Dollar Man—could tell if there is a correlation between the crime rate and liberal voting tendency using the eye-ball method of statistical analysis. The multivariate regression reported in the appendix indicates that liberal voting tendency is modestly correlated with the crime rate. (The more significant correlation exhibited in the simple regression must be disregarded, since it is apparently due to "excluded variable bias.")
As I mentioned above, the FBI crime index is thought to be effected by nonreporting. It is possible that the crime rate in Detroit and other liberal cities is understated because people often do not report crimes against property, thinking that little will come of the report. Perhaps the police tend to be under-staffed in liberal cities, or the people do not cooperate with the police in these cities, in the apprehension and conviction of criminals. An alternate explanation for the "low" crime rate in Detroit and other liberal cities is that, as after the third revolution in Liberia, there's nothing left to steal.
To see if, possibly, the crime rate of Detroit and other cities is understated because of the nonreporting of property crimes, I thought to focus on murder and non-negligent manslaughter. I figure that even if the police are not very effective in the pursuit of justice when it comes to property crimes, people will still report murder and manslaughter—how else would they get rid of the dead bodies?
Gary, Indiana, the 2nd Most Liberal City in America, turns out to be our murder capital, with a murder rate of 58 per 100,000 people. The second highest murder rate, and highest among large cities, 53 per 100,000 people, belongs to New Orleans, Louisiana, the 26th Most Liberal City. Number three is Washington, D.C., the 4th Most Liberal City, with 47. And, number four is . . . my, my . . . Detroit, with 41. It turns out that Detroit is very much like Washington, D.C., where former Mayor Barry once said, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very, very low crime rate.
In the regressions reported in the appendix, liberal voting tendency is shown to have a very strong correlation with the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters.
Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido a K
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:39
The strong correlation between liberal voting tendency and the murder rate and only weak correlation between liberal voting tendency and overall crime rate warrant further discussion. While my first inclination is to attribute the difference to the under-reporting of property crime in liberal cities, it must be considered that the difference has some validity. As to why the murder rate would tend to be higher in liberal cities, perhaps it is that liberal cities have stricter gun control laws, denying their residents' right of self-defense, and perhaps it is due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty in conservative cities. It might be worth investigating some of these possibilities.
Thus far, we have found that cities with more liberal voting tendencies tend to have higher unemployment rates and higher murder rates, and weakly tend to have higher overall crime rates. For a measure of the bottom-line, total impact of liberalism on cities, I thought I would look at the correlation between liberal voting tendency and population changes. Cities that are growing faster than the average are places that people feel improve their happiness by more than the cost of relocation. Considering that it is, by far, our country's largest city, the growth of New York City, from 1990 to 2000, by 9.4%, or almost one million people, is truly phenomenal. Detroit, the poster child of liberalism, lost 7.5% of its population during the 1990s.
It was not so long ago that New York City was falling into the liberal sink hole of deficit spending, increasing taxes, middle-class flight, rising crime, demoralized police, and collapsing infrastructure. Then came Rudy Guiliani, and, with him, a degree of spending restraint and some tax reductions (both of which remain very high), and a return to law and order. For most Americans, Mayor Guiliani is one of the real heroes of 9-11, but for New Yorkers, he is also responsible for rescuing the city from liberalism. In fact, New York City tends very strongly to vote liberal, being the 21st Most Liberal City. There is, therefore, no guarantee that this city will not return to its former ways when New Yorkers feel that it is OK to be liberal again.
Looking at the chart below, of population change and liberal voting tendency, the scatter of points appears to telescope down. On the conservative side of the graph, some cities are shown to have hardly grown at all, while others are shown to be growing very fast (if I hadn't cut-off the vertical scale at 120%, the range of variation would appear to be even greater). On the liberal side of the graph, the range of variation collapses, and most cities are shown to be shrinking. The regressions reported in the appendix confirm what is apparent to the eye; namely, that liberal cities tend to be shrinking cities.
Thus far, we have found that cities with more liberal voting tendencies tend to have higher unemployment rates and higher murder rates, and weakly tend to have higher overall crime rates. For a measure of the bottom-line, total impact of liberalism on cities, I thought I would look at the correlation between liberal voting tendency and population changes. Cities that are growing faster than the average are places that people feel improve their happiness by more than the cost of relocation. Considering that it is, by far, our country's largest city, the growth of New York City, from 1990 to 2000, by 9.4%, or almost one million people, is truly phenomenal. Detroit, the poster child of liberalism, lost 7.5% of its population during the 1990s.
It was not so long ago that New York City was falling into the liberal sink hole of deficit spending, increasing taxes, middle-class flight, rising crime, demoralized police, and collapsing infrastructure. Then came Rudy Guiliani, and, with him, a degree of spending restraint and some tax reductions (both of which remain very high), and a return to law and order. For most Americans, Mayor Guiliani is one of the real heroes of 9-11, but for New Yorkers, he is also responsible for rescuing the city from liberalism. In fact, New York City tends very strongly to vote liberal, being the 21st Most Liberal City. There is, therefore, no guarantee that this city will not return to its former ways when New Yorkers feel that it is OK to be liberal again.
Looking at the chart below, of population change and liberal voting tendency, the scatter of points appears to telescope down. On the conservative side of the graph, some cities are shown to have hardly grown at all, while others are shown to be growing very fast (if I hadn't cut-off the vertical scale at 120%, the range of variation would appear to be even greater). On the liberal side of the graph, the range of variation collapses, and most cities are shown to be shrinking. The regressions reported in the appendix confirm what is apparent to the eye; namely, that liberal cities tend to be shrinking cities.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(referido
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:41
But, this supposition does not apply to modern American cities. Today, dysfunctional cities can rely on transfer payments from other jurisdictions to sustain them. Their governments receive much of their funds from state and federal government through intergovernmental transfers, and many of their people, likewise, directly receive money and in-kind transfers from government authorities that can tax people outside their city's jurisdictional borders. Indeed, politicians within dysfunctional cities learn to cultivate dependency and class envy among the population that remains.
Before Adam Smith: $25
As a result, the democratic process in these cities becomes part of the problem instead of a solution to the problem.
If these dysfunctional cities were independent countries, like North Korea or Zimbabwe, they would proceed rapidly to hyperinflation, anarchy or dictatorship. But, because they are sustained by transfers from healthy economies outside their jurisdictional borders, they can continue in disarray. Eventually, the state and federal governments that sustain these cities have to weigh the rights of the people within these cities, and especially the children who are wards of their "village," against the exercise of self-government.
As of today, we have only seen a handful of cities lose, or partially lose their power of self-government, through state and federal government takeover of their schools and through financial control boards. As voting becomes more and more polarized, and liberal places becoming increasingly committed to redistributing wealth instead of to the creation of wealth, the suspension or partial suspension of self-government in dysfunctional cities will likely develop into a trend.
-------
CLIFFORD F. THIES is the Eldon R. Lindsay Professor of Economics and Finance at Shenandoah University. cthies@su.edu. For data, see this technical note. Comment on the blog
Before Adam Smith: $25
As a result, the democratic process in these cities becomes part of the problem instead of a solution to the problem.
If these dysfunctional cities were independent countries, like North Korea or Zimbabwe, they would proceed rapidly to hyperinflation, anarchy or dictatorship. But, because they are sustained by transfers from healthy economies outside their jurisdictional borders, they can continue in disarray. Eventually, the state and federal governments that sustain these cities have to weigh the rights of the people within these cities, and especially the children who are wards of their "village," against the exercise of self-government.
As of today, we have only seen a handful of cities lose, or partially lose their power of self-government, through state and federal government takeover of their schools and through financial control boards. As voting becomes more and more polarized, and liberal places becoming increasingly committed to redistributing wealth instead of to the creation of wealth, the suspension or partial suspension of self-government in dysfunctional cities will likely develop into a trend.
-------
CLIFFORD F. THIES is the Eldon R. Lindsay Professor of Economics and Finance at Shenandoah University. cthies@su.edu. For data, see this technical note. Comment on the blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(refe
Enviado por el día 20 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 13:45
Estimado Academico, George puede prometer y decir lo que quiera, total el no va a estar el tiempo suficiente para reconstruir la ciudad de New Orleans.
En lo personal no creo que el dinero para reparar la ciudad salga de los impuestos, al contrario, creo que recurriran a la patetica emision de dinero para solventar el gasto publico que generaria dicha reconstrucción, hay que ver que es lo que hace holliburton.:).
En lo personal no creo que el dinero para reparar la ciudad salga de los impuestos, al contrario, creo que recurriran a la patetica emision de dinero para solventar el gasto publico que generaria dicha reconstrucción, hay que ver que es lo que hace holliburton.:).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciudades(
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:31
La emisiòn de dinero o los impuestos tienen el mismo origen, la coerciòn o como dirìa Bastiat '' el robo legalizado''.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir ciuda
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:44
It is natural to believe that the Goverment can re-build destroyed cities as New Orleans. But, How much would it cost to an average person?
This is so because we imagine that if the Goverment is so powerful to spend more than 2 billion dollars a day in Iraq, it should be easy for it to spend money enough in giving a new life to a devastated city.
The problem is, as usual, the business-like mind of USA´s chairmen. For them, to rebuild New Orleans means to cut budget in important social expenses. Not even a dollar from military budget, but from social budget...
Do you got it, Academico25?
This is so because we imagine that if the Goverment is so powerful to spend more than 2 billion dollars a day in Iraq, it should be easy for it to spend money enough in giving a new life to a devastated city.
The problem is, as usual, the business-like mind of USA´s chairmen. For them, to rebuild New Orleans means to cut budget in important social expenses. Not even a dollar from military budget, but from social budget...
Do you got it, Academico25?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno construir c
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 14:19
Contra:
Escribi en castellano que Academico25 es Argentino.
Con respecto a tu respuesta te digo simplemente que EEUU es una democracia que aprueba o no sus presupuestos anualmente en el congreso ergo no es culpa de la administracion central sino de la legislatura decidir en que se gasta la plata.
Como es en Venezuela??
Los 500 millones de dolares que puso chavez para comprar bonos de la deuda renegociada argentina estaban en el presupuesto??.
Saludos.
Escribi en castellano que Academico25 es Argentino.
Con respecto a tu respuesta te digo simplemente que EEUU es una democracia que aprueba o no sus presupuestos anualmente en el congreso ergo no es culpa de la administracion central sino de la legislatura decidir en que se gasta la plata.
Como es en Venezuela??
Los 500 millones de dolares que puso chavez para comprar bonos de la deuda renegociada argentina estaban en el presupuesto??.
Saludos.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno constru
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 17:02
I don´t think you get it, either...
When I say "Government",I mean all of the organizational decision-making structure, including the Congress.
So, you said no big deal. Anyway, I emphasized that the USA´s Government has no orientation to people, but to big business companies. In fact, all of the Government CEOs come from there.
Do you get it, now?
When I say "Government",I mean all of the organizational decision-making structure, including the Congress.
So, you said no big deal. Anyway, I emphasized that the USA´s Government has no orientation to people, but to big business companies. In fact, all of the Government CEOs come from there.
Do you get it, now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno con
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 17:20
Where does such an amount of money comes from?
From Finances Ministry´s National Budget assignations for foreign public investments.
I want you to know that Venezuela is getting a 15 million US$ profit in that investment tool. And it is more secure for us to invest in Argentina debt market than in the USA, for obvius reasons you should know.
From Finances Ministry´s National Budget assignations for foreign public investments.
I want you to know that Venezuela is getting a 15 million US$ profit in that investment tool. And it is more secure for us to invest in Argentina debt market than in the USA, for obvius reasons you should know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobierno
Enviado por el día 21 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 17:24
Oh, another typing failure of mine.
Where it is written:
"Where does such an amount of money comes from?"
It should say: "Where does such an amount of money come from?"
Sorry.
Where it is written:
"Where does such an amount of money comes from?"
It should say: "Where does such an amount of money come from?"
Sorry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el gobi
Enviado por el día 25 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 15:11
Quando arribo a casa mi prendo un capuccino.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede el
Enviado por el día 27 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:13
Lo que entiendo es que no entendes de donde proviene la riqueza, se dijo mil veces en la pagina y lo dije tambien yo, por lo cual no me voy a molestar en explicarlo por millonesima vez.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? Puede
Enviado por el día 27 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:32
Pujj.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Cities? P
Enviado por el día 27 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:41
El dia que entiendas de donde surje la riqueza y que no es algo espontaneo, quizas entiendas y te convenzas que la falsa generosidad, o sea sacar el producto de lo que otros produjeron no solo no es la soluciòn sino la causa de lo que vos misma queres subsanar, el tema no es el fin, sino el medio por el cual quieras conseguir ese fin, si lo haces juntando personas que lo hagan libre y voluntariamente no hay ningun problema, ahora si lo quieres hacer saqueando legalmente solo puedo decir que no concuerdo con el robo dizfrazado.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Citie
Enviado por el día 27 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:50
igual, sigue siendo mucho mejor ser pobre en EEUU que en Venezuela, eso seguro...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build Citie
Enviado por el día 27 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 03:36
No, la riqueza que paga impuestos al menos se redistribuye.
La riqueza que se acumula a expensas de otros...está destruyendo el mundo.
La riqueza que se acumula a expensas de otros...está destruyendo el mundo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build C
Enviado por el día 28 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:27
Pensaste alguna vez que quiere decir impuestos? Lo dice la palabra IMPUESTO, algo que se hace por la fuerza, o sea contra mi propia voluntad, si no entiendes que es la voluntad y lo que es el poder de la fuerza muy dificilmentemente puedas defender la libertad.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Build C
Enviado por el día 28 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 01:45
Estimado recontra.
Realmente es mucho mejor ser un trocito de excremento en EE UU que ciudadano de Venezuela,tal es la rechupada de huevos de algunos latinoamericanos.El diario Clarin en sus "Cartas de lectores" del domingo próximo pasado publico las cartas de dos argentinos radicados en EEUU poniendonos en caja por la falta de solidaridad de esta republiqueta de damier(la Argentina)) para con nuestros hermanos del norte.
Bueno,nada más.
Realmente es mucho mejor ser un trocito de excremento en EE UU que ciudadano de Venezuela,tal es la rechupada de huevos de algunos latinoamericanos.El diario Clarin en sus "Cartas de lectores" del domingo próximo pasado publico las cartas de dos argentinos radicados en EEUU poniendonos en caja por la falta de solidaridad de esta republiqueta de damier(la Argentina)) para con nuestros hermanos del norte.
Bueno,nada más.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government Bui
Enviado por el día 28 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:46
El detestable negocio del estado: los impuestos
Jorge Valín*
Ya ha empezado la recaudación de los impuestos de la renta en la mayoría de países occidentales. El estado anuncia por prensa, televisión y radio la obligación de todos los ciudadanos a pagar su deuda con la sociedad (el estado mismo). Es la obligación de todo buen ciudadano, y si no lo haces serás castigado. Las acciones humanas son insatisfactorias para hacer una buena redistribución de rentas, sólo el estado puede repartir el dinero de forma eficaz y justa, ellos son Dios, y como tal no han de dar explicaciones de sus actos. Mediante su pseudo-economía keynesiana estatista reparten el supuesto pastel de la economía.
La recaudación de los impuestos directos, como el de la renta, y los indirectos, los que se asignan a los productos y servicios, no son más que un robo injustificado a la propiedad privada. Nadie sabe donde irá el dinero pagado al estado, ni siquiera como lo gestionará. En este sentido, la transparencia es nula. La condena por no hacer esta “contribución voluntaria” y solidaria está castigada con duras penas, pero, ¿la solidaridad no es un acto voluntario e individual?, cuando se refiere a impuestos está claro que no.
La imposición obligatoria de pagos al estado mediante impuestos es, pura y simplemente un robo. Es una expropiación forzosa a la propiedad privada tal como puede serlo un atraco a mano armada en la calle. Imagínese que cada año, por estas fechas, viene a su casa una persona y sin explicación alguna, ni posibilidad de diálogo o negociación, le ordena que le pague una cantidad de dinero determinada antes de un periodo de tiempo que él establece. Si usted se niega a pagar, entonces, será castigado.
El dinero pagado en impuestos es dinero perdido, pasa de ser un factor productivo a ser un factor inerte, muerto, estéril. Bajo ningún precepto se puede aceptar, moral ni económicamente, esta expropiación indiscriminada al individuo. Las transferencias obligatorias, y sin contrapartida directa, de la economía privada al sector público son un abuso de poder donde se castiga a la persona trabajadora arrebatándole la riqueza que se ha ganado con su esfuerzo y trabajo.
Pero más detestable resulta pensar que todo este montante se destina al engorde del estado y a los beneficios particulares de los funcionarios y burócratas. No satisfechos con esta recaudación puntual sobre las rentas obtenidas anualmente el estado quiere más aún. Para aumentar su recaudación usa dos sistemas adicionales. 1) gravando los productos y servicios a los que tiene acceso el consumidor mediante los impuestos indirectos penalizando los esfuerzos de las empresas y ralentizando el ciclo productivo. 2) entrando en continuos déficits y duras deudas estatales hipotecando, en consecuencia, las decisiones económicas de sus ciudadanos.
Jorge Valín*
Ya ha empezado la recaudación de los impuestos de la renta en la mayoría de países occidentales. El estado anuncia por prensa, televisión y radio la obligación de todos los ciudadanos a pagar su deuda con la sociedad (el estado mismo). Es la obligación de todo buen ciudadano, y si no lo haces serás castigado. Las acciones humanas son insatisfactorias para hacer una buena redistribución de rentas, sólo el estado puede repartir el dinero de forma eficaz y justa, ellos son Dios, y como tal no han de dar explicaciones de sus actos. Mediante su pseudo-economía keynesiana estatista reparten el supuesto pastel de la economía.
La recaudación de los impuestos directos, como el de la renta, y los indirectos, los que se asignan a los productos y servicios, no son más que un robo injustificado a la propiedad privada. Nadie sabe donde irá el dinero pagado al estado, ni siquiera como lo gestionará. En este sentido, la transparencia es nula. La condena por no hacer esta “contribución voluntaria” y solidaria está castigada con duras penas, pero, ¿la solidaridad no es un acto voluntario e individual?, cuando se refiere a impuestos está claro que no.
La imposición obligatoria de pagos al estado mediante impuestos es, pura y simplemente un robo. Es una expropiación forzosa a la propiedad privada tal como puede serlo un atraco a mano armada en la calle. Imagínese que cada año, por estas fechas, viene a su casa una persona y sin explicación alguna, ni posibilidad de diálogo o negociación, le ordena que le pague una cantidad de dinero determinada antes de un periodo de tiempo que él establece. Si usted se niega a pagar, entonces, será castigado.
El dinero pagado en impuestos es dinero perdido, pasa de ser un factor productivo a ser un factor inerte, muerto, estéril. Bajo ningún precepto se puede aceptar, moral ni económicamente, esta expropiación indiscriminada al individuo. Las transferencias obligatorias, y sin contrapartida directa, de la economía privada al sector público son un abuso de poder donde se castiga a la persona trabajadora arrebatándole la riqueza que se ha ganado con su esfuerzo y trabajo.
Pero más detestable resulta pensar que todo este montante se destina al engorde del estado y a los beneficios particulares de los funcionarios y burócratas. No satisfechos con esta recaudación puntual sobre las rentas obtenidas anualmente el estado quiere más aún. Para aumentar su recaudación usa dos sistemas adicionales. 1) gravando los productos y servicios a los que tiene acceso el consumidor mediante los impuestos indirectos penalizando los esfuerzos de las empresas y ralentizando el ciclo productivo. 2) entrando en continuos déficits y duras deudas estatales hipotecando, en consecuencia, las decisiones económicas de sus ciudadanos.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Government
Enviado por el día 28 de Septiembre de 2005 a las 02:47
Con los déficits y deudas estatales se mal gestiona la economía haciéndola entrar en periodos de fuertes “booms”y largas crisis. Este tipo de ciclo económico que dirige el estado y sus allegados (como bancos centrales, organizaciones financieras internacionales…) condicionan el ahorro, la inversión y gasto del consumidor impidiéndole disponer del dinero que legítimamente es suyo.
Cualquier robo a la propiedad privada e individual es injusto e inadmisible, y más aún si este se hace por la fuerza, amenaza o coacción. Cualquier método que pueda usar una persona, o la sociedad entera, contra este abuso es totalmente lícito: evasión fiscal, economía sumergida, o la pura defensa personal. El estado, y sus burócratas son unos ladrones, y ante tal acto de injusta usurpación cualquier individuo ha de poder defenderse mediante las herramientas que mejor considere, sean éstas legales o no.
Cualquier robo a la propiedad privada e individual es injusto e inadmisible, y más aún si este se hace por la fuerza, amenaza o coacción. Cualquier método que pueda usar una persona, o la sociedad entera, contra este abuso es totalmente lícito: evasión fiscal, economía sumergida, o la pura defensa personal. El estado, y sus burócratas son unos ladrones, y ante tal acto de injusta usurpación cualquier individuo ha de poder defenderse mediante las herramientas que mejor considere, sean éstas legales o no.