although I like to respond personally whenever I can, just to keep the post short, and because I'm not as eloquent as some scholars, I'll refer you to this video where both Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman explains why forced egalitarianism fails.

I haven't argued for forced egalitarianism, though. I'm an Anarcho-Pacifist. I feel like we're talking at cross paths here.

As far as I can tell, a small limited government is most effective in that it doesn't eliminate government completely, but reduces it to a bare minimum which the different groups and trade-offs are listed above in the graph, but in my opinion, in order to have the smallest government possible (in order to protect from outside invaders) is to have a population that is moral, where there wouldn't be a need to have a government pass laws and regulations such as creating a drug war, or passing other laws that will eventually lead it to grow big enough where it becomes a threat to the population. Take this however you want from the quotes of the founding fathers, but in my opinion I agree with them that if it's not for morality and education (that will help the population parse between propaganda and true information), then a small government structure that is near anarchy could not be possible, as John Adams said

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I think that there ought to be a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies who decide upon matters through participatory democracy. I kind of started my own Leftist sect, though, so, I understand that my political stance may be somewhat difficult to parcel out.

Reagan at least doubled the national debt with his tax cuts, and the debt was virtually nonexistent until he came along. We have had supply side economics for the last 40 years. Low taxes do not lead to more revenue. They may create bubbles that for a short time increase revenues from corporate profits, but those bubbles always burst.

If we kept cutting taxes every time we wanted to “stimulate the economy” (a bubble), we’d eventually end up with no taxes. Then we’d end up with no government and anarchy.

The top tax bracket (yearly income over $1 million starting at the millionth and first dollar should be 60%. The working poor should have no taxes and a tax rebate, and the middle class (income from $100,000 - $200,000 per household) should be at 15%. The poor and middle classes stimulate the economy because they spend their money. The rich gamble on the stock market with their low taxes right now. Entrepreneurs should get tax incentives. Corporations should be taxed to kingdom come. That’s my view.

I apologize, I just realized that I have been getting into a side tangent and debating specifics when my main point is more general. But I'll continue this discussion out of interest. You're taking a very narrow view rather than a holistic approach, which the Keynesian approach led to same results with Clinton, which although he balanced his sheets, balancing them doesn't necessarily mean that the economy is and will do good, or the people. On the other hand besides looking at many important factors and variables (such as less taxes stimulates economic growth as private spending is more effective by the population rather than government spending for them and artificially controlling demand, which slows down innovation and and incentive for entrepreneurship), my main point was that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration, and it didn't come from as a result of working against the free market, but rather working with it, which is like a double bladed sword since it brings benefits more than one side and is dynamically effective because of that.

Both Clinton and Obama were supply siders, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Taxing corporations isn't quite incentive to entrepreneurs, although in my opinion as long as taxes never go over 30%, a government may be effective, but in my opinion a flat rate tax for everyone (except those who invest) would be the approach I would take, although exact percentages aren't my area of expertise, from knowing how technology, innovation grow, stimulating them as well as incentives for profit and more growth (as well as utilizing anti-trust acts effectively to prevent monopolies) will guarantee growth and a prosperous nation, I mean capitalism has been the most effective tool in liberating most of the world population from hunger (as well as the most important factor, which is the morality of the people that drive this economy)

I mean capitalism has been the most effective tool in liberating most of the world population from hunger — Shushi

I agree with this, but I disagree on tax policy.

Anyway, automation and AI are going to remove millions of jobs in the next ten years. Then big government in the form of handouts will sound pretty good for most.

relative to hardline supply siders like Ronald Reagan, they had and operated with keynesian elements in their administration, well more specifically Clinton, but in the sense that he didn't take a laissez-faire approach but rather his administration attempted to adopt a lot of keynesian approaches in order to stimulate the economy such as tax increases, welfare reform similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt, which he actually undid a lot of the things that Reagan built up, although technically his administration was not a keynesian administration. For a deeper examination of this point, I'll refer you to this article that outlines this pretty well,
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2000/11/how-bill-clinton-rode-the-reagan-supply-side-boom/

Keynesian economics worked to pull us out of a recession in 2009, and you’re probably not old enough to remember the 90s. The economy was doing great for almost everyone.

Capitalism magazine? And they’re not biased? They don’t have an axe to grind?

Anyway, automation and AI are going to remove millions of jobs in the next ten years. Then big government in the form of handouts will sound pretty good for most.

The economic environment is like the wildlife environment, when something major happens, or a drastic change occurs (think of the meteor that essentially killed off the dinosaurs) the environment will change, and all factors that are conducive to life will change a long with it (whether it's natural selection, or whatever adaptive tool is most effective, perhaps the creative minds of individuals collaborating together to reason through it?), the different circumstances will present new opportunities, and we'll find new ways to encourage innovation and economic growth/work, like people will have more free time to become philosophers and economic value will find ways to incentive that, like in that past, most people were farmers, but since the economy grew from innovation and technology from some smart thinkers, it allowed most people to have office jobs which to farmers doesn't seem productive, but in a way they are impacting the real world and their work and innovation is creating new opportunities from which the economy grow. Btw, don't forget to remember what money is, which is just the value we ascribe to certain things, which depending on how much of it there is and how others value your things and how you value their things, both come to a mutual agreement on the agreed end value, and this value is essentially the value of how much someone likes, wants or desires those things, which can be transmitted and be applied to different economic structures or environments.(A sort of universal bare basic of what economics and value are)

Bill Clinton missed things up, I mean the dotcom bubble, and the later 2006 recession were a result of the policies that went back to Bill Clinton (which george w bush did a poor job as well). I mean Bill Clinton inherited a good economy when he started office and he didn't really need to do much to keep it that way, but increasing taxes and passing bad policies (which I have other reasons to dislike them, besides economics such as his policies that led to the high incarceration of the black community and over policing, but that's besides the point). But of course, the left magazines aren't necessarily going to post an article like that, it really doesn't matter what article posts what information, as long as the information has merit and is able to be tested and verified, which really is all that matters (which of course, it's important to note possible biases as they may be indicators of where more frequent bad information will be, but not always which depends on examining all those points and disproving them)

). I mean Bill Clinton inherited a good economy when he started office and he didn't really need to do much to keep it that way — Shushi

Not true. He got elected because there was a recession. The deregulation of the banking sector in 2000 was the Republican Congress’s legislation that Clinton signed into law. Clinton was all about triangulation, something I disagree with.

Keynesian economics worked to pull us out of a recession in 2009, and you’re probably not old enough to remember the 90s. The economy was doing great for almost everyone.

Here's this article that goes more in depth and explains why those keynesian approaches actually prevented the recession to end quicker than it actually did since it contributed to its prolonged effects.(which was the same with the Great New Deal in the 30's from that recession)

With an estimated New Keynesian model, this paper compares the "Great Recession" of 2007-09 to its two immediate predecessors in 1990-91 and 2001. The model attributes all three downturns to a similar mix of aggregate demand and supply disturbances. The most recent series of adverse shocks lasted longer and became more severe, however, prolonging and deepening the Great Recession. In addition, the zero lower bound on the nominal interest rate prevented monetary policy from stabilizing the US economy as it had previously; counterfactual simulations suggest that without this constraint, output would have recovered sooner and more quickly in 2009.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w16420

The most recent series of adverse shocks lasted longer and became more severe, however, prolonging and deepening the Great Recession.

This is unverifiable, and you cannot compare the collapse of 08-09 to 91-92 or 2001.

it often creates monopolies — Shushi

As a matter of fact, Capitalism creates oligopolies. Market concentration has increased rapidly over the last 30 years as corporate lobbyists pushed for relaxed anti-trust laws. Oligopolies follow the twisted logic of Capitalism. On one hand they scale production nationally and internationally leading to more product turnover and lower unit cost, faster distribution, a larger labor force to control, and therefore increase capital flow. On the other hand, it is dangerous for a company to actually be a monopoly because it puts them a severe risk should there be a change in demand, an act of God, etc.. If several large companies produce the same type of good, and there is a sudden decrease in demand for that good, then they all bear the burden, and it would be easier to lower prices to remain competitive against the other firms, thereby mitigating loss.

Anyway, Libertarianism is bad political philosophy. Just garbage. Do yourself a favor and start with Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom and then move on to Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom to rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap.

Anyway, since we’re not going to agree on basic matters of fact, I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion.

I wish you well in the coming years when there’s no more jobs.

The deregulation of the banking sector in 2000 was the Republican Congress’s legislation that Clinton signed into law. Clinton was all about triangulation, something I disagree with.

I agree that the Republican Congress missed up by signing that bill that led to that recession, but I don't see how that really changes the main point, about supply side economics (when taken and practiced consistently) would not be beneficial when compared to all the other policies.

This is unverifiable, and you cannot compare the collapse of 08-09 to 91-92 or 2001.

One can make the case of the different nuances, of the different cases, but this is from the National Bureau of Economic Research and they don't publish just any papers, it is worth examining as to the reasoning why they believe it to be the case. But I guess the main point about how the keynesian approach or any other approach that raises taxes actually stagnates growth, I mean almost all economic policies create debt, but some have returns, while other prologue the debt or recessions even further, which may be why those recession were similar (although may be not entirely, although I reading this article right now to see what their reasoning is)

rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap — Maw

I was just thinking of mentioning how incredibly anemic this kind of libertarian political ontology is: the only actors that exist are 'free individuals' and 'governments'. That it. It's such a pale caricature of society. It'd be laughed off in any other setting except apparently, the actual world we live in.

I was just thinking of mentioning how incredibly anemic this kind of libertarian political ontology is — StreetlightX

Easily one of the worst things I've read from any political book was the very first sentence of Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, which starts off with this pathetically facile and impoverished line: "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else." Just so absurd it's kind of hilarious.

rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap

I was just thinking of mentioning how incredibly anemic this kind of libertarian political ontology is: the only actors that exist are 'free individuals' and 'governments'. That it. It's such a pale caricature of society. It'd be laughed off in any other setting except apparently, the actual world we live in.

That's explains why the United States is the most and has been the most prosperous nation in all history, which american exceptionalism is almost an objective fact by almost all standards (that really matter). I mean I'm a first generation american (who was a socialist leaning liberal at first), and me and my parents agree that the rest of the countries are garbage, which is why everyone wants to come over here, which I mean no offense to people of other countries, but when you examine the political frame works of other countries comparatively, it's no contest. No need to over complicate things, and the Founding Fathers were right about making liberty vs government distinction, which was unique compared to all other countries in history (where true liberty and freedom is virtually non-existent).

Capitalism creates oligopolies — Maw

Show me one example where this is the case? Quite the contrary, whenever government get involved and passes laws that supposedly regulates competitions, it usually favors bigger businesses as they are far more better with coping with those regulations. for the most part government does not need to intervene in a free market as the self correcting mechanisms in the free market will allow consumers to make businesses conduct their business in such a more effective way that governments cannot, which will pass policies with loophole, which suffers the death a million stipulations/qualifications.

Creating more government regulations only favors a few companies and creates monopolies. So in my view, I'm not an anarchist as my view is a minimal as possible government rather than no government which is effective in only those areas that our founding fathers recognized as important to safegaurd (which is why they emphasized the checks and balances system).

Now as for how more government and regulations creates monopolies, it is important that I explain these issues; trickle down objection, predatory pricing, Antitrust law, and Regulatory Capture

The main premise of the trickle-down objection is that wealth would be stored and hoarded by the rich, and that it won’t circulate in the economy, so the government needs to pass policies so that wealth will be redistributed into the economy. The issue with this claim is that redistribution of wealth is not the key factor to economic growth, but rather what spurs the economy is the creation of new products and services. Expendable capital is key which allows resources to be used to generate products and services that create demand.

Banks for example store the income of the wealthy or anyone else, and they in turn use those funds to invest and loan that money to projects that will allow that investment to grow, so wealth that is stored in banks is not lost or does it ever stop circulating. About the “predatory pricing objection”, this assumes that Supply Side economics (as well as Free Market Capitalism) creates monopolies and then those monopolies in turn create predatory pricing that would destroy the competition and allow a monopoly to issue customers any price they want since customers will no longer have any other business options.

In a Supply Side economics approach, if all five innovations (Entrepreneurship, The Rule of Law, Property Rights, Free Trade, and Globalization) are intact, then consumer choice is the main aspect of a Supply Side economic model that would minimize almost completely or if not completely any cartels or monopolies from forming. Historically, the term monopoly is derived from the 16th and 17th century era of a Mercantilistic society where Dukes and Kings would accept bribes from business partners that would in turn allow them to be grant with exclusive rights to sell goods in certain areas.

Although the socio-political land scape has changed, a Mercantilistic economic system would be incompatible with our society today. Although monopolies may form in a Supply Side system like a new exclusive technology is introduced into the market, or a new medicine that is patented and is legally bound for some duration of time by brand named pharmaceutical company, they are almost never left unchallenged for too long because many aftermarket companies or other competition will begin to try to offer the same or a similar service at a discount.

What if the company engages in predatory pricing, and causes the competition to be outcompeted through this practice? In a Supply Side system many things can occur that may back fire on that firm. First, if that firm is able to do predatory pricing every time there is competition, that competition will come back once they are able to compete at competitive pricing, which that firm will be losing revenue by selling its products cheaply.

Some companies that have done predatory pricing in the free market had their competition buy out their products at a discount, where they would resell their products for a profit, which the firms doing predatory pricing will eventually give up due to the inefficiency of such practices.
Another possibility in a Supply Side system is that the shareholders who become aware of such practices can decide to discontinue their business with said firm and pull out their stocks causing the stock value of that firm to plummet, until new stockholders take control of that firm and change it.

Also, the customer is an important factor in the Supply Side system, where customers who experience predatory pricing through a business will be left unsatisfied, which will cause those customers to discontinue their business relationship with that firm since under this system, customers have freedom to do consensual business.

The only other times when monopolies and predator pricing occur is almost always traced back to when a government gets involved in a market and introduces a policy that sometimes leads to those consequences. For example, in a Keynesian system, a government may want to stop monopolies by passing an Antitrust law or policy, but inadvertently bigger businesses benefit from many of these penalties and policies compared to their competition since they can afford those heavy regulations that usually smaller competition can’t compete with.

Lobbyists from the larger firms also help manipulate those rules in their favor. Taylor, J. B. (2011) in his paper “Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment” goes more in depth and shows the possible consequences that inadequate policies which are difficult to avoid from a Keynesian approach, and how that may negatively impact an economy by creating unwanted monopolies.

Since reducing taxes helps people have more disposable income, the private market will have more wealth flowing through it, and more innovation can take place that drives demand and incentives competitive pricing. Although I appreciate government assisted programs, I find that the competitive nature of the market without interference from the government will help drive prices down more efficiently since those who are able to provide services to more people are more likely to succeed.

With more people with more income they may have more disposable income to be able to afford these services. As Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010) points out "Efforts to redistribute wealth may undercut the incentives that people have to engage in productive economic activity, thereby lessening the sum total of wealth in a community", meaning that this system encourages everyone to be productive unless someone isn’t physically able to like a physical disability or similar complications.

Refernce
Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010). Budgeting for public managers. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
(pp. 59-74, 90-91, 199, 210)

On the other hand, it is dangerous for a company to actually be a monopoly because it puts them a severe risk should there be a change in demand, an act of God, etc.. If several large companies produce the same type of good, and there is a sudden decrease in demand for that good, then they all bear the burden, and it would be easier to lower prices to remain competitive against the other firms, thereby mitigating loss.

although this may be a concern, when you compare the benefits with the possible risks and costs as to being the only competition that usually results from Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment (which I explain in a bit why most fortune 500 companies donate to the hard left), it's no comparison, there will be costs like these, but they wont break the monopolies

in this Forbes Article,
https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-biggest-political-donors-on-the-fortune-500


when it comes where they donate, it's pretty obvious that most of them tend to vote and finance for the left. Not by a small amout but by a substantial amount, $54.9708 Billion as opposed to those who donated about $38.3338 Billion for the right. This does not account for Factors such as how platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google (as well as traditional new media) controlling the flow of information to a left leaning bias, and these corporations as well as Apple and Microsoft employ lobbyists to pass laws and regulations that favor them and influences the population to vote left, which are factors that are significant, but difficult to quantify.


Most business owners are more likely to lean right,
https://www.infogroup.com/todays-key-voter-profile


but most of these business tend to be small to mid-size. (According to the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, there are approx. 5.6 million firms in the US and 99.7% of them have less than 500 workers
.

start with Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom and then move on to Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom to rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap.

Never heard of Rob Larson, and Sen I believe is a liberal that's socialist leaning, which if I'm wrong please correct me, but I totally disagree with socialists positions, which I'll look at their work when I have time, but I don't believe it'll really change my perspective, although I'm not a hard libertarian, I usually go between libertarianism, conservatism, and liberalism perspectives since all those have strengths and weaknesses.(which were close to the positions of the Founding Fathers originally)

My friend, you need to read some economic anthropology, and see how all these priciples play out in real life. The attempt to measure policy and societal well-being along a single, thinly drawn axis - government vs. Individual - should alone be a red flag for any serious student of politics and society (regardless, even, of what that axis is). Good luck in your studies.

me and my parents agree that the rest of the countries are garbage, which is why everyone wants to come over here — Shushi

No need to over complicate things, and the Founding Fathers were right about making liberty vs government distinction, which was unique compared to all other countries in history (where true liberty and freedom is virtually non-existent). — Shushi

the self correcting mechanisms in the free market will allow consumers to make businesses conduct their business in such a more effective way — Shushi

Expendable capital is key which allows resources to be used to generate products and services that create demand. — Shushi

I explained why most fortune 500 companies donate to the hard left — Shushi

Oh wow you actually believe all this, incredible.

Thanks for wishing me luck, but just because there is a single line, says nothing about the effectiveness of said ideas (I mean the general theory of relativity has no more than 3 characters). I've demonstrated many instances which shows why a government vs individual paradigm is really the only factor that matters when it comes to policy (which may come in many different forms, but still wouldn't change the main idea). I would wish you the same, and let's just keep on examining whether or not these ideas which are practiced mainly in the United States as opposed to other countries continues to prove this point (That the founding fathers had originally conceived of).