I assume there was but I haven't seen much proof other than he copied the gesture.

amazon wasn't paying taxes b/c it was in a growth phase, non profitable. Now that it's profitaable it will have to pay taxes.

Plus amazon's outside network of sellers is about 1 million, in addition to all the extra jobs they'll create, that should be more than combined of what there was previously.

Again, they should be taxed, but not to the point they just move overseas. The argument that if amazon didn't exist other companies would pay taxes just doesn't hold up as the markets are non-static. Amazon's office employees probably pay more in taxes than those other companies it replaced, which is hard to quantify as amazon is in like 50 different industries. The point again being the have CREATED value where there wasn't before, so a lot of those are new positions with higher salaries thanks to the new value they've built.

Hey OP, you walk and talk like a free market capitalist, but you consume pornography like a socialist. Care to explain?

Can we please not lose sight of this stunning bit of logic by OP, given his ongoing thesis that Hilter/Nazism was "heavily influenced" by Marxism.

The idea that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue (relative to no tax cuts) is absolute bollocks. Not even Reagan's administration at the time claimed that (although a few people outside it may have done) as they projected revenue decreases from income tax of more than $200 billion in the 6 years following the cuts. In reality the Reagan administration saw a significant decrease in tax revenue and the largest increase in government debt in the entire period between WWII and the Great Recession (both as proportions of GDP) .

esspoker's argument has been around for years. Here is an article written in 2018 by a professor at Case Western Reserve rebutting exactly the same points:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...about-fascism/

You know as much about Social Security as you do about Nazism.

Bezos doesnt pay taxes. in fact he gets massive subsidies.

and yes, he is stealing. he is stealing by not paying taxes. he is stealing by not paying his workers enough. he is stealing by destroying the small businesses that you claim to love.

Amazon, and most other recognizable companies in this era are monopolies and you most definitely do not want them. in fact, even first level econ 101 point of view understands that monopolies are bad for capitalism.

Nazism was de facto socialism, not de jure socialism. De facto socialism because while the regime didn't take legal ownership of the means of production, it exercised all the typical powers associated with private ownership of the means like what and how much was produced, how it was produced and by whom, who got what on the distribution side, prices charged, wages paid, permitted profit margins, etc.

Teaming up to try to take over the world--just a slight influence lol Easily hand-waved away.

national debt absolutely exploded during Reagan years. and that happened in conjunction with crushing the social benefits of the citizens, slashing wages, destroying pensions.

all of that money went to the few at the time and to the military. and you know who owns the national debt? you and I do. not the multinational cartels that receive those sweet govt subsidies.

things have only gotten worse since then.

As far as I am aware, all totalitarian regimes have that in common. We then use terms like "communism" and "fascism" to refer to their distinguishing features.

Amazon was created by internet , it end up amazon won vs all the thousand other Dotcom company .
If amazon wouldn’t of been there, there was thousands other that would of end up number 1.
Amazon isn’t something special that no one could of created you know, it just sale on internet ,not much magic there.....

Wait, there’s porn on the internet?

+1

A lot of right wing economic think that because a tax cut is good in certain economic situation, they think it’s an absolute and it’s good 100% , at any level in any time period...

And again it goes right in their definition: populism economic 101 and any other populism shortcut to promote an idea without nuances or context.

As I allude to earlier this was also not a trait that occurred solely due to Nazism, it was sort of a Frankenstein version of the Prussian model of "nationalist capitalism" (pretty much how the Germanic states were industrialized). The Nazis (as most nationalists) of course revered this period with rosy-hued affections.

Somewhat interestingly (for true political nerds I guess), the Prussians also relied extensively on cartels, which even in those those days were regarded as illegal in English and American jurisdictions (at least I think it was in the latter). It was even formalized and called "konzerne", which translates to "group" in English. The Nazis re-animated this tradition in the early 30s and made the cartel membership compulsory for businesses.

I think one would be hard pressed to call cartels a "socialist" phenomena, and it's not really a capitalist thing either.

Mussolini of Italy, Hitler of Germany, Tojo if Japan? Maybe Franco of Spain and Chiang Kai-Shek of China’s too.

Xi Jinping, Hussein, MBS/Saudi predecessors, Khamenei and predecessors, all played heavily into right-wing-like nationalism to keep major industries in service of their power while keeping much of the industry in nominally private control.

It's also a factual mistake. It wasn't nationalized, in fact the Nazi party privatized a lot of public enterprise and large state companies.

Then it was organized into gigantic cartels, and the entire thing funded with a gigantic deficit mostly spent on military armament. It is one of the most economically incompetent governments (if not the most) of the 20th century.

The net outcome would be an economy already in ruins before a catastrophic war and a subsequent Germany so broken and destitute that more people would die from 1945 to 1950 in Germany than they lost during the war. Reality 1 - Fascism 0.

Shhhh. Don't insult Bezos or he'll leave and then we'll all die.

Who cares if Hitler was a socialist.

You meed to separate out economic systems from government systems.

Democracy is a great government system.

Socialism is a great economic system IF the underlying governmental system is good.

Example in a good Democracy, people elect their representatives who work for their interests. This means the means of production are working for the people instead of wealthy capitalists or hitler.

This is not true.

I have another question for OP. If we assumed that your statement that Hitler was a socialist was true, what conclusions would follow from that statement?

I would say Socialism and Social Darwinism are irreconcilable ideas to hold simultaneously and the premise of this thread is rather silly.

+1

Just get the lobby out of politics and an immense change would happen for sure !
Anyway , when you give the same power of citizen to corporation with free speech , obviously it won’t go well for tax payers .

And corporations are “so good for the economy “ that the debt of the United States as becomes a behemoth for them !