July 23, 2024

Rationalizing is omission of information needed for accountability. It is sticking superficial labels on corrupt schemes.

Trump is of course the most extreme example of how corruption works; so the significance of rationalizing can be shown in his examples. He used one sentence slogans to chart the course of government; and then conservatives tried to institutionalize the result (which they fed him to start with), while Trump spent his time posting his degradations.

It's important to notice that if schemes were not destructive, the more information the better. The need to omit information is as significant as the harmfulness being concealed.

Trump claims that 60% tariffs on Chinese imports will eliminate the need for taxes, as if a tariff were not a tax. The U.S. consumers pay for import tariffs making such tariffs the equivalent of a federal sales tax.

Omitting information is the primary element of rationalizing. It's how conservatives promote burning tax dollars on corporations which don't have the slightest use for the money, so the money cannot be spent on social programs.

Conservatives claim reduction of taxes will cause corporations to produce more in the U.S. instead of moving out. What they miss is that manufacturing moved out due to globalization requirements independent of taxation.

In rationalizing taxation, conservatives pretend that constructive results will correlate with absence of taxation. There is no such relationship between taxation and results. Getting results involves spending however much money is needed to produce practicality.

The best way to collect taxes is through corporations, because that is where the decisions over money are made. For that reason, a business expense tax should have replaced the fake income tax long ago, because expenses are definable in proportion with production activities.

The Europeans created the equivalent of an expense tax, which they call a value added tax. It only differs from an expense tax in complex calculating attempting to make it look like social justice instead of a necessary routine.

When conservatives argue taxes—a central concern of theirs—they pick isolated points out of the process and ignore most of the subject. The points have no meaning in isolation of the entire subject. In fact, most of the claims are non sequiturs in sticking good or bad labels on concerns with no relationship to consequences.

Superficiality has that problem in that a definable meaning requires more basic realities. Yet society is stuck with superficialities, because the abstract elements of a subject are not understood by a lot of persons.

Only the most basic realities, which are totally abstract, define a subject including the cause-and-effect relationships. Taking up those subject is the essence of philosophy. You can guess how much philosophy enters media and politics. So the arguments go in circles, as every different interest sees something different in superficialities.

In summary, corrupters stick a few labels on their destructive schemes to sell them as something of value. The claims are total fraud. It takes description of claims showing enough details to define results to properly represent a subject.