Independence from the Corporate Global Economy »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 22

• 

  grenwichComment has been removed: User banned.
• 
  Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)

  woodenleg

  Jan. 12, 2007, 1:52 p.m.

  I have to wonder if the liberal/left actually have some form of mental illness. I get the impression that they actually believe that if they good thoughts tinkerbell will live, the human race will love them and it won't rain on their birthday. All it takes is being nice.
• 
  Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)

  rrrtx

  Jan. 12, 2007, 3:22 p.m.

  This article is delusional. When are people going to stop chasing after utopian social models like this guy is?

  We have a time proven system for bettering the human condition - free market driven capitalist democracies. Let's go with what we know works and do the best we can with it.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  twincats

  Jan. 12, 2007, 3:55 p.m.

  Thanks, Neophile! Great article, I enjoyed it.

  I personally find this to be a very appealing idea because I don't think that our current economic model is realistically sustainable in the long run. Unless we can start colonizing and exploiting other planets relatively soon, that is!

  We can see the cracks all around us with rising debt driven by the excessive consumption which our economy depends on for the growth it so desparately needs.

  And now that China has started to imitate us, we will now also have to compete with them for fossil fuels (India, too.) I think this is a fight we stand a good chance of losing, unfortunately, and if we do, the economy will really crumble.

  7 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    rrrtx

    Jan. 12, 2007, 5:22 p.m.

    What do you beleive is unsustainable about our economic model?

    6 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

      misanoel

      Jan. 12, 2007, 8:16 p.m.

      Infinite growth.

      5 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        m-simon

        Jan. 12, 2007, 10:29 p.m.

        The universe is a big place.

        1 Reply

        • 
          Avg rating: (+58/-1 57)

          misanoel

          Jan. 12, 2007, 10:37 p.m.

          We'll put colonizing the universe right below Iraq, Iran, and Syria (and maybe Pakistan?) on our list of things to do.
      • 
        Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

        rrrtx

        Jan. 13, 2007, 12:11 p.m.

        What is unsustainable about it? Why can't growth continue? Out of space? Out of air? Water? What?

        2 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

          misanoel

          Jan. 13, 2007, 3:51 p.m.

          Finite resources are certainly a factor. But beyond that, can you think of any examples of natural systems that exemplify infinite expansion?

          In most instances, homeostasis is achieved at some point, and/or systems follow cycles of increase and decrease, birth and death, expansion and contraction.

          IMHO, we'll see backlashes proportional to the gains we've enjoyed. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

          1 Reply

          • 
            Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

            rrrtx

            Jan. 14, 2007, 8:05 a.m.

            Over the really really really long term there might be a problem. We are pretty good at adapting to resource constraints.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  misanoel

  Jan. 12, 2007, 8:02 p.m.

  I applaud the article, but the way I interpret the tax code, the value of goods/services acquired through barter is considered taxable income. I don't understand why, since the bartering parties presumably agree that the trade is even. Anybody care to explain this?

  7 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

    rrrtx

    Jan. 12, 2007, 9 p.m.

    It's still a transaction - an exchange of value. When you exchange money for a good or service it's the same thing. You exchange the value of the cash for the value of the good or service.

    The cash is a stored value substitute for a good/service. Why would you tax the cash but not a good/service if it's offered instead?

    I'm not saying I like it but I think it's logical.

    In practice it's obviously hard to enforce collecting the tax as well.

    6 Replies

    • 
      Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)

      misanoel

      Jan. 12, 2007, 10:17 p.m.

      But there is no net profit (or at least none that is conveniently quantifiable in cash terms), so it seems to me there's no "income" to tax.

      In your example, in which one pays cash for a product (ie., goods/services), the seller of the product pays income tax on the profit, but the buyer of the product doesn't pay income tax (directly, at least) on the value of the product received.

      In the barter scenario, on the other hand, both parties (as I understand it) are responsible for paying income tax on the goods/services recieved in the exchange, even though there is no profit per se.

      I have no idea how, or to what extent, this is enforced.

      5 Replies

      • 
        Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

        rrrtx

        Jan. 13, 2007, 12:25 p.m.

        When a sale is taxed it is as a % of the sales price on the item. So a $100 sale taxed at 5% is $5. You may have sold that item at cost, at a profit, or at a loss. It doesn't matter on sales tax.

        Income tax is a little different. Let's say it costs you $90 to make a widget you sell for $100. You make $10 which is taxable. The person you are bartering with is exchanging his goods for the perceived value of your goods, not your actual cost. His percieved value of your goods is going to be $100. The exchange should net you a $10 gain if you are recieving equivalent goods. And a gain is taxable.

        In a barter each side will still expect a gain over and above their cost. Otherwise it's not a smart trade for either party.

        I hope that helps.

        4 Replies

        • 
          Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

          misanoel

          Jan. 13, 2007, 2:21 p.m.

          Not really--what is his gain? Is it assumed to be the same as mine? He may not be trading me a widget that has a concrete produciton cost associated with it.

          I understand the distiction between sales tax and income tax, but (not to belabor the point) it's the income tax that seems too subjective to quantify in a barter situation, as implied by your expression "percieved value". Something that's worth only $50 to you might be worth $500 to me.

          Understand, it isn't that I'm necessarily opposed to paying income tax on bartered items as long as there's some fair, logical way to evaluate what that income is.

          3 Replies

          • 
            Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)

            rrrtx

            Jan. 13, 2007, 2:56 p.m.

            His gain would be the difference between his cost and his percieved value of your goods.

            This is all theoretical. From a practical standpoint people aren't going to report the transaction anyway, much like they don't now for small cash transactions.

            2 Replies

            • 
              Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)

              misanoel

              Jan. 13, 2007, 3:54 p.m.

              Thanks for trying! Maybe the gift exemption could be used for bartered items valued at less than $11k. I don't see anybody paying income tax on the expensive gifts exchanged at Xmas!

              1 Reply

              • 
                Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

                rrrtx

                Jan. 13, 2007, 8:31 p.m.

                It's not hard to see why I favor consumption taxes over income taxes.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Amazing1

  Jan. 12, 2007, 8:38 p.m.

  I won't explain it. And I won't tell anyone if you trade your tomatoes for my cabbage either.

  2 Replies

  • 
    Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

    misanoel

    Jan. 12, 2007, 10:28 p.m.

    No, Amazing1, let's switch. Your Texas tomatoes probably beat mine hands down, but I'll bet my Missouri cabbages kick your cabbages' butts!

    And I don't want yer chickens peckin' at my 'maters, got it?

    1 Reply

    • 
      Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

      Amazing1

      Jan. 15, 2007, 9:34 a.m.

      Sounds like a deal to me.

All 22 comments are shown.