We should just default on our debt.

And higher taxes is not a good idea. Higher taxes affect the consumer with higher prices.

When virtual monopolies, oligopolies, and governments under the control of an transnational elite subject the majority (the poor and middle class) to indentured servitude in their own countries via a international fiat currency financial system, social systems, political systems, corporate systems, educational systems - civilization itself - designed to perpetuate debt ad nauseam onto the poor and middle class, all so that that same elite which controls monopolies, oligopolies, and governments can retain the profits on the interest 'earned' on that debt, you cannot say that it is a free market system.  Rather, you should say the system is enslaved destined to do nothing other than perpetuate misery on the majority for sake of the greed of the elite few.

What was the point of the revolutions past: the French Revolution, the American Revolution, what was the point in the Enlightenment, what is the point in overthrowing this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9qCUN1G_Cc/Tkv-C-RMIYI/AAAAAAAAK0U/lYeMLUoZYzE/s1600/draculas-castle-425.jpg

because of this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/THv6zR6TpqI/AAAAAAAAO7w/ysHEMpwOSkY/s1600/763px-Woman_and_child_standing_by_fence_of_farmyard,_Romania.jpg
(past)

If we were to get only this:

http://media6.onsugar.com/files/2011/05/20/4/1680/16809719/b4/Mukesh_Ambani_House_Antilla_Photos_1.jpg

overshadowing this:

http://onionlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mumbai1.jpg

V.Kemp: you misrepresent Xeno's thought process... it is Higher taxes = big business go bust = economy collapses = small business pick up the pieces (because there are no big businesses) = free market!

To be fair I am not 100% sure why a progressive tax on business profit is a bad thing; I mean we can have a progressive tax on individuals so we know that society doesn't implode under progressive tax systems. Whilst a progressive tax on business profit won't solve the world's ills it will put more money in the government coffers, helping to reduce public debt and provide public services. Whilst it may mean an increase in prices for some goods, surely the much vaulted free market will ensure that other options become available, ensuring that prices are still as low as possible. The increased tax revenue could also mean a reduction in personal income tax as well, thus giving people more spending money anyway.

It could be a fiscal neutral tax! Where is my local labour party branch, this is something they need to start trolling with....

transition = collapse Xeno. The only way to rebuild is to destroy everything, did Fight Club teach you nothing?

@Justinian

"The free-market will take care of most monopolies and oligopolies on its own."

There is no free market.  There never has been.

By this illustration, I show a 100% free market scenario, 100% pure competition, where there is no scarcity of any good or service.  Imagine a town where every single person is just as capable of providing any service imaginable as any other person.  Also, every person has the power to simply manifest any good they or their customer might want simply by visualizing it.  This is a scenario in which there is perfect competition, where the only commodity, ultimately, is the visualizer's time.  Now because everyone equally capable of the task, everyone's time would end up being equal in value. 

By contrast, another illustration shows a 100% free market scenario with less than 100% pure competition:  imagine another town in which, like previously, anyone could visualize any product, but not everyone is equally capable of providing services.  For instance, anyone could visualize a hammer and lo and behold in say 5 minutes of visualizing, but not everyone would be as skilled as everyone else in using said hammer.  In this scenario, then the ability to perform brain surgery might only be had by say 3 doctors in town.   Conversely, there are 2000 people who are capable of using a hammer well - doing  construction work or general labor.  As such, the construction worker's time would tend to be worth less than the brain surgeon's.  But it is not only because of the relative scarcity of their respective skill, but also because demand of the skill: for example, if the demand for new houses were high enough, the 2000 construction worker's time might be worth more than the doctor's time if demand for brain surgeries were low. The illustration, then, is to show how even in a society in which there were no scarcity of goods, but relative scarcity and demand of skills, the value of the laborer's time, be the laborer a doctor or a construction worker, is set according to supply of and demand for their respective skills.

Thus, putting aside the supply and demand for goods and considering only the supply and demand for services, what would happen if the 2000 construction workers or the 3 doctors were to form a union or association and set their wages regardless of supply and demand?  What if the 3 doctors were to form a single office and agree to charge the same fees regardless of demand. What if the construction workers demanded higher pay than the market value as set by supply and demand?  Would this be a "free market" system any longer?  What if every profession did such?  What if there was something called a "minimum wage" set regardless of supply and demand?  What if the value of people's labor was no longer determined by supply and demand? How would that world look like? 

Well, it is not a hypothetical world.  It is reality, and everybody know this, and yet so many claim there are free market principals at work?

And the fact is, that such wages and salaries are regulated, often inflated in one economy and / or undervalued in another, and the scarcity of skills is manipulated by conglomerates of governmental regulatory bodies, associations, unions, academic institutions, etc. - all manipulations conducted behind the scenes to suit, ultimately, the tax-advantaged ELITE. 

These wages and salaries are set regardless of demand, and because there is usually only one major association or union per profession, they hold virtual monopolies on the SKILLS of entire service-based industries, sabotaging any sort of 'free market' as determined by supply or demand. 

Next, consider how prices of goods are effected by the manipulated cost of services, AND how the price of goods themselves are ALSO manipulated.  Look at how it is many services which produce the goods for markets and thereby provide for an inflated or undervalued price; look at wheat boards, OPEC, corporate conglomerates; look at the regulatory bodies of various industries which manufacture goods, and the laws that prevent small businesses from being able to compete with larger ones; look at the costs of starting up manufacturing enterprises that might be even remotely competitive.  You'd need billions of investment to start one up.  You think somebody in his garage can start an assembly line that can produce a car that can compete with Toyota? 

It is a system designed to prevent innovation; designed to prevent competition.

Wake up.

There's no free market - never has been one.

You cannot expect free market processes to sort out the problems with virtual monopolies and oligopolies if those monopolies and oligopolies are subverting the "free market" processes you expect will sort out the problem!

I have solved your debt crisis, xeno syndicated. By following my instructions precisely, you can free yourself from debt and slavery to evil corporations!

My instructions:

Stop buying shit you cannot afford.

Problem solved.

"What was the point of the revolutions past: the French Revolution, the American Revolution, what was the point in the Enlightenment, what is the point in overthrowing this:"

And you show a picture of shit-hole Mumbai. Those things you mentioned didn't happen in Mumbai, jackass. Most poor people in America, thanks to its revolution and epic Constitution, have air conditioning, cell phones, and cable TV.

You_Fool, you're talking about more taxes as if they'll be used to pay down debt. Or reduce taxes elsewhere. You muse that prices "shouldn't" go up "that much." If you increase taxes, people pay more for things. It's as simple as that, and there's no way around it. You can't tax Microsoft for being evil and profitable without making my OS more expensive. You can't tax evil gasoline makers without making my tank cost more to fill. Punishing success is anti free-market. Punishing success is anti standard-of-living. Punishing success begets less success, begets less innovation, begets less production (higher prices).

And them some fitting fantasy-land speak which we're supposed to pretend supports the fantasy-land ideology of "say a bunch of vague, lofty nonsense!" Raging about the elite withholding alien robot technology, etc. Let's discuss when you come down off of LSD.

I'm pointing out that taxes are inherently harmful to the standard of living in a society. You're responding as if I made silly anarchist claims of no government and no taxes. Straw man defeated.

"My final answer is that as tax increases on business then tax decreases on people, thus the net effect is 0 or close too."

You're just guessing that maybe it's close. That's not exactly a strong argument. Higher taxes on businesses are still just taxes passed on to regular people. All people.

"In your example of Microsoft being taxed more, Windows price increases, now there is an opportunity for a smaller software company to plug their OS and advertise it, and being a smaller company will have less profit and thus less tax"

Because you can decide better than the market who should succeed and who should fail? That sounds a little arrogant and very harmful. That's anti-freedom.

The smaller company still has a disadvantage in regard to efficiency. And their continued operation is a matter of their margins.

You can pretend that a different tax rate for smaller business will help them enough. But why should government be influencing the market any more than it has to to provide basic functions? It shouldn't. Why should government pick winners and losers? It shouldn't. How is taxing the most successful companies (with the best products) more, reducing the revenue they have with which to develop and innovate, reducing their value to investors (reducing investor motivations to invest in the biggest and best) beneficial to society? It's not.

Okay.  Continue. 

*steps out of the fray*

"Virtual monopolies" --namely, their corrupt power-buying to prevent competition--can be prevented with common sense laws and actual, non-political law enforcement.

Your proposals are bizarre and do not achieve your stated goals. You make a few vague statements of actions you want to see and just pretend they achieve what you claim to want to achieve. Absent is any way in which your proposals would achieve your stated goals. Absent is acknowledgement of the real costs of what you propose.

I'm not slandering you. You literally sound like you're hallucinating. I would ask you to stop making bizarre, awkward, and jumbled statements. You lack a coherent point. You constantly fail how to explain how your onslaught of vague proposals would achieve your stated goals and always fail to acknowledge complications which your proposals would result in. When confronted with questions of your proposals being ineffective/counter productive, you completely ignore the topic. Your vague unexplained proposals remain vague and unexplained because you refuse to actually discuss your own positions.

If you're afraid to talk about them/explain them/defend them, maybe they're not very strong positions. I'm just saying.

"What you and others don't recognize is that this is not a "free" market system because the interplay of both supply and demand of goods and services is manipulated by the a system influenced primarily by the elite and for the purposes of primarily benefiting the elite...."

Vague statement lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

"for the purposes of growing wealth and maintaining political power of the elite AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MAJORITY...."

Again lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

"and what you fail to recognize is that both political power and influence of supply and demand SHOULD rest with the MAJORITY and NOT the elite if there is ever to be anything even remotely similar to your "free market" system."

Again lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

Here we have your typical rhetoric: a series of very vague generalizations without any real value. You didn't commit to anything. At all. Just vague condemnations of current society without stating absolutely anything about where the problem lies. Something about the elite have power. That's all you gave us.

No mention of how the elite unjustly "manipulate" the system (and they certainly do). No mention of how they do this at the expense of the majority (and they certainly do).

Political power does rest with the majority. I did the math, and, as it turns out, the majority has the most votes. At least, that's how it's supposed to work anyway.

There's no "should" about supply and demand. Free markets are free markets. Introducing government controls to regulate prices or whatever you think it would take to manipulate "influence of supply and demand" would result in something other than free markets. I really, really like the standard of living afforded me by a relatively free market. I think I'd prefer a free market to whatever alternative you're suggesting vaguely but not identifying.

Do you have a problem with corruption in politics? Why not argue that? Your vague condemnations of success are just bizarre; and you're not even condemning anything specific, just leveling broad accusations without any backing. "the MAJORITY" "SHOULD" blah blah blah and "NOT the elite" blah blah blah. Corruption in politics resulting in crony capitalism hurting a society isn't a matter of THE MAJORITY and THE ELITE, it's a matter of crappy laws and law enforcement. Ignorant and apathetic people vote for crappy candidates.

Vague accusations won't result in reform. People promise reform all the time and then continue the status quo, because ignorant and apathetic voters just don't care very much. THE MAJORITY can't win some sort of vague battle with THE ELITE. Whoever won would just enrich themselves and whoever bought them off. Swapping the players doesn't change the game.

Arguing for reform requires naming and attacking actual problems. Vague class warfare is just handing more power to control and regulate to the elite. They're who will make those decisions if you give them the power. The elite who I think we mostly agree are the problem are leading the charge of "THE MAJORITY' vs "THE ELITE," because what they want is more power. Dumb enough people will give the elite even MORE power if they ask for it in the name of "THE MAJORITY."

The problem is consolidation of power in DC. Corruption will always happen. And it will always happen more and worse where more power is consolidated. No increase in power to regulate incomes or redistribute wealth will decrease corruption. That'll make the situation worse.

Unless, of course, you won't referring to corrupt politicians and the big-money organizations which order them around. It's hard to tell, seeing as you don't really refer to anything specific or state any specific positions on anything.

"Free markets are free markets. Introducing government controls to regulate prices or whatever you think it would take to manipulate "influence of supply and demand" would result in something other than free markets."

You are in error if you think the current situation is a "relatively" free market.  It is not.  And it is becoming LESS a "free market" the more specialized and more regulated labor becomes, the less competition, less influence of the unfettered interplay of supply and demand there is to manifest the market price of labor.  It has gotten to a point where any tenable "free market" equilibrium between supply and demand in the labor force is IMPOSSIBLE.  We are WHOLLY dependent on the regulation of labor, because EVERYTHING else is regulated.