Would you like me to critique the video, or would you like to discuss anything in particular?RuffDraft wrote:Lee Doren comments on recent news.
Fuck those teachers, fuck their unions, fuck NPR, fuck Arthur the Aardvark...
This whole thing pisses me off. Mr. Doren is spot on.
Lolwhat? Only like every budget ever had been used as a political tool. How would you propose NOT having the budget be a political tool, since resource allocation is a major point of politics.RuffDraft wrote:The President should not be making the budget a political tool...
Huuuge strawman there. Since there are more "lower upper to upper middle" than "rich" people, each lower-income person need not hire as many people as each rich person to result in lower-income employers employing more people. Seriously though, both "rich" and "lower upper to middle" people create jobs. Which group creates more depends on how you define the categories.RuffDraft wrote:That's utterly ridiculous! When was the last time you heard about someone who makes $50k or even $80k per year hiring a few thousand people and being able to pay them?DaCrum wrote:Rich people don't create jobs. Lower upper to upper middle does. 80% income tax on individuals, not corporations. So your point is moot for now. You asked me to fix the budget. I gave you a solution.
Incorrect, actually. A debt can grow arbitrarily and be sustainable indefinitely, so long as its nominal growth is no more than the rate of inflation. in real terms, such a debt would at worst remain the same over time. If the real value of the economy is growing, the sustainable limit is higher. As a more concrete example, consider how long the United States could sustain an annual deficit of $1. The problem with the current debt/deficit is that it is surpassing the limits described above.RuffDraft wrote:If we're going to spend money, we should have the funds available. We can't keep spending more than we take in...
This seems rather relevant. This as well. DaCrum was pointing out something to the extent that each criticism you made there of Obama applies much more to Bush.RuffDraft wrote:You're deflecting. Why did we elect Obama in the first place if all he's doing is making it worse? If I'm wrong about Obama, that means the economy should be getting betterDaCrum wrote:Better than Bush. Why? Because Bush's fiscal policy is what got us into this mess.RuffDraft wrote:Obama is waging a dangerous gamble on the economy. And if it goes bust, then we are stuck paying the bill. Obama's rich, he doesn't have a damn thing to worry about, and his administration is just doing whatever it wants. He's violating the constitution and he doesn't care. To him, it's nothing more than toilet paper.
Semantics. The Federal Reserve banks are not owned by the federal government, but the federal government does use them to implement policy.RuffDraft wrote:Like the Federal Reserve Bank (not actually a federal bank),
That's pretty impressive, considering that the bailouts totaled much less than that. Perhaps you were thinking of something a few orders of magnitude smaller? A citation would be nice in any case.RuffDraft wrote:which "lost track of" something like nine trillion dollars of the bank bailout money late 2009?
Bush signed the bailout. The President does not personally carry out every function of the government. If your complaint is with the bailout itself, look to Bush. If your complaint is with implementation, look to the agencies that actually carry it out, and identify what caused the problem.RuffDraft wrote:And that's after Bush was out of office. You want to blame Bush for that? You can't have it both ways, dude.
Republicans and Democrats propose policies, some of which are implemented. Those policies and the actions of the parties themselves have effects, some of which can be evaluated as good/bad, tallied up, and used to compare the good/bad done by each party.BeeAre wrote:...i'm just like, popping in to say that it's hugely irresponsible for anyone to identify with republicans or democrats as the party that "is doing more good/less harm for the country" because the parties as labels and groups are fucking terrible things.
And yet parties are a dominant emergent property of political systems like ours. Any ideas for what it would take to not have parties?DaCrum wrote:Parties are stupid...
I'd say NOTHING LESS. Because the money that goes to pay employees is not profit. A 100% tax on profit would not reduce a profitable business's ability to meet operational expenses at all.RuffDraft wrote:If businesses now have to pay 80% of their profits to the government, how much less does that give them as a budget to hire new employees, or even pay their current ones?
Charitable donations are typically tax deductible anyway, so again, it wouldn't change things.RuffDraft wrote:And how much less does that give them to donate to charities?
Though the Laffer curve has some conceptual validity, historical data implies that a top marginal rate of 80% is not on the far side, or at least not much below the peak. During the growth of the halcyon 1950s, the top rate was over 90%. EagleMan mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating. To illustrate why this is so, consider Soros's short selling of the Pound. Suppose his billion dollar profit were subject to a 90% tax. That's still a hundred million in profit for a few days of work, well worth it in my estimation, even for a billionaire.RuffDraft wrote:As I said, with an 80% tax rate, we'd be getting less revenue.
While Reagan reduced income tax rates, he increased the number of things that were subject to tax and increased payroll taxes. Overall, the increases largely offset the cuts. Unsurprisingly, similar overall rates applied to a growing economy led to increased revenue. Compare this to revenue after the Bush tax cuts, which were not offset by large tax increases elsewhere. Compare both to the Clinton years, which had more revenue (as a percent of GDP and relative to expenses), better growth, and lower unemployment.RuffDraft wrote:Regardless of what you think of Reagan, he proved that higher taxes do not equate to higher revenues. He cut taxes, and revenues increased.
Last year, ExxonMobil had an income of $383 billion, with $31 billion in profit. Taxable income was about $53 billion. Since that tax doesn't affect the oil market fundamentals (and thus the maximally profitable production amount and price), with an 80% tax rate, ExxonMobil would still have $383 billion in income, $53 billion of which would be taxable. So an 80% tax would bring in around $20 billion more in taxes now. The effect of reduced profit would be to reduce long-term investment, as other investments became better in comparison. However, the $10 billion or so profit ExxonMobil would have with the 80% tax rate still represents a decent return on investment, with better long-term prospects since oil prices will likely rise in the future.RuffDraft wrote:If Exxon Mobil makes $1 billion a year with an 80% tax rate, they pay $800,000,000. If they make $40 billion with a 28% tax rate, they pay $11,200,000,000. We don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem!
Walmart is larger and less profitable than ExxonMobil, but the situation is similar to the above. The optimally profitable number of employees does not depend on the corporate tax rate. Income that goes to cover business expenses like employees is not taxed. As above, the systemic concern is not what you described, but decreasing investment over the long term as capital is diverted from retail to more profitable investments. Walmart would probably fare worse than ExxonMobil in this because of its slimmer profit margin. The end result would probably be a slightly higher retail markup to make that segment of the economy worthwhile to invest in again. And since Walmart is winning the price competition already, it may actually see increased business as people shift from other retailers under increased economization pressure.RuffDraft wrote:And going back to unemployment, let's say Wal-Mart currently employs 2 million employees. Let's say that with an 80% tax rate they can only afford to pay half a million. That's 1.5 million people that now have to collect Unemployment from the government. And let's say that Unemployment is roughly $800 per month. Do the math there. Now imagine that, all across America, with every business that currently employs more than a handful of people. We'd have mass layoffs, but instead of happening in just one company or factory, they'd be nationwide. All of those people would now have to be on Unemployment, which would dramatically increase the amount we have to spend.
Do you understand my concern here?
The Bush tax cuts, by design, were to expire at the end of last year. As it was supposed to be a discrete reduction in taxes over a set period of time, it's appropriate to call it a tax cut at any particular time. Since the status quo was that rates would increase in 2011, continuing the Bush tax cuts for a few more years is itself another tax cut. If the Bush tax cuts had been legislated as indefinite, it would be proper to speak of the cuts as an event rather than a state, but that's not the way it happened.RuffDraft wrote:What tax cuts are you referring to? The Bush tax cuts? Over ten years ago? That means that for ten years, those have been the rates people have been paying. So at what point do you stop calling them "tax cuts?"How about we stop the tax cuts and reduce spending?
A Ponzi scheme is an unsustainable scam. Social Security can be made stable indefinitely with pretty minor changes. Even if nothing is done, it could continue indefinitely with benefits reduced by less than a quarter starting a generation or two from now. Meanwhile, Social Security payouts go right back into the economy as people use them to pay for things.RuffDraft wrote:Interesting. You say you want to cut spending, but you're not willing to cut this. And you tell me that we need to do things no one likes. So much for that argument.Tell that to the thousands of Baby Boomers collecting right now, you pompous ass.We can cut Social Security since it's basically a Ponzi scheme anyway.
Everywhere? Blatantly not true. Keep in mind that, WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM, the US government spends a larger percentage of its budget on health care than nations with universal health care.RuffDraft wrote:Like what? Make it government-run? Everywhere that it's tried, it ends up bankrupting the economy. Exactly what makes that good?Or we could fix health care permanently. Ya know, do the things that all the other countries are doing.Let's eliminate Medicare and Medicaid since most doctors won't accept it without more money from the government to cover the cost of treatments.
Ahem.RuffDraft wrote:That's so backwards I don't even feel like arguing it.No, this is based on the demographics of typical Republicans. Many, many, MANY rich folk are fans of the Republican party. Typically, the Democrats demographics are urbanites, minorities, and the poor. So they don't represent the rich.So your argument here is that even though the Democrats are rich and were in power during the first two years of Obama's term, when they racked up three trillion dollars or so of debt, the Republicans are somehow representative of the entire rich body and deserve an equal share of the blame?
You had identified certain things as indicating economic trouble, when, as pointed out by DaCrum, they are lagging economic factors that represent past, not future economic trouble. For example, unemployment is fairly high right now despite the resumption in GDP growth. This means that the growing economy has not yet offset the job loss from the recession, not that the economy will get worse in the future.RuffDraft wrote:Who was talking about lagging and leading, and what does it have to do with this discussion?I'm beginning to think you don't understand the basic concepts of lagging and leading factors.
Not really. If the government spends too much on health care, its (and the general population's) ability to perform other functions may be hindered, resulting in greater harm than the benefit provided by health care. Do you think it would be worth it to spend a trillion dollars to extend a single person's life by a year?DaCrum wrote:Human life > Any amount of government debt.
The problem is large deficit (by definition a cash flow issue) and debt (the integral of deficit with respect to time). As such, both income and spending are important. The current deficit is exceptionally large because tax income dropped sharply (keeping income constant through a recession requires increased tax rates) while expenses increased sharply (bailouts, stimulus, entitlement growth, etc.). It is reasonable to expect that the optimal fix for a deficit is to both increase revenue and decrease expenses. If the cost of raising taxes is so great that no amount of cuts would harm the economy more than any tax increase however small, taxes probably should have been lower in the first place. And history shows that the US economy works just fine with considerably higher tax rates than at present.RuffDraft wrote:No, it's called excessive spending. Let's say that our income is constant, and our expenditures are variable; X and Y. If X > Y then we have no problem. If X < Y, you'd say we have to increase X, which we cannot do (easily). Why can't we simply decrease Y? You're effectively saying we need to work harder so the government can have more money.we do have a taxation problem. It's called insufficient taxes.
I would propose that superachromatic lenses are preferable, perhaps with swappable spectral filters.RuffDraft wrote:Better than the rose-tinted ones you wear.Like I said, piss-tinted lenses.
There has indeed been a debt from the beginning. The US borrowed heavily to finance the Revolutionary War. The US has a high credit rating because it has paid back its past debts.DaCrum wrote:We've been in debt since... Probably the beginning of our nation. But! If you'd like...
A large fraction of US oil is domestic though, and a lot of that comes from offshore drilling. So a long-term ban would have some effect.DaCrum wrote:Well, considering most of our oil isn't even domestic(I wish I could say the same about our beer), banning off-shore drilling does nothing to us.If he wants to push this "Green" agenda of his, he can figure out how we're all going to fuel our cars if gas stops existing first, and then ban off-shore drilling.
US domestic production peaked decades ago, and world production may have peaked recently. And because oil is fairly cheap to ship around the world, global supply and demand matter a lot.DaCrum wrote:We're still 50, 60 years from peak oil. By then we have... Hydroelectric, solar, nuclear, possibly fusion and fission, geothermal... We'll be fine. Also, before you say it, ~60% of our gas comes from NAFTA partners.
Which is... irrelevant. The point is that, legally and operationally, the employees of a corporation work for the corporation, not any particular people in it. They are paid from accounts maintained by the corporation itself, not the personal accounts of the owners. As such, the (perhaps rich) people who own a corporation do not themselves hire the workers. Do you know of any private individual who employs thousands of people? Such people exist, but can you make the case that they are representative of rich people in the US?RuffDraft wrote:You're partially right; they pay taxes differently from other kinds of businesses. But they still pay taxes. The owner of a corporation pays a different income tax rate solely on the income from their corporation.DaCrum wrote:Well corporations legally act like a single entity rather than a business, thus law is significantly different between a corporation and private business.RuffDraft wrote:What are corporations if not large businesses? And who runs large businesses if not people?
Do you think that small property owners don't pay property tax? Because property tax is flat relative to the value of property. Your statements here don't address the question of whether the rich pay enough. But what do you think is "enough"? And why?RuffDraft wrote:They also pay more property tax because of the land they own, and because they (probably) own a lot of real estate, they pay property taxes on all of that... there are dozens of taxes that rich businessmen pay. Some millionaires and billionaires pay between 50% and 60% of their overall income (corporate or otherwise) as taxes. Meanwhile people who make 50k or less get a lot of their taxes back come April 16. Don't tell me that the rich don't pay enough.
There's also something to be said for "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."RuffDraft wrote:Patriotism denotes holding your country in high regard and striving to make it a better place. It does not mean that when the government decides that it needs more of your money (to pay for things you don't approve of) that you are supposed to be happy about it without good reason. What you're describing is Serfdom; Taxation without representation; in other words, what we left England to get away from.
Which is not, of course, what DaCrum was saying. Notably absent in his statements were questions of representation, activities beyond "services," and value judgments about dissent. And such policies do exist, which are funded with taxes.RuffDraft wrote:Let's say that the government, even operating on a properly balanced budget, wanted to enforce a curfew of 10PM for anyone 20 and under, and they decided that to fund and enforce this idea, they needed to raise taxes. According to this idea you have of "patriotism," no one need complain because the only way you will disagree with this plan of theirs is if you are unpatriotic, regardless of what your reason is. That makes no sense.
That article contains a number of rather specious arguments. i think that the conclusion, "From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription." is representative. Regarding telecommunications, the massive economies of scale and barriers to entry are textbook conditions for natural monopolies, which are prevented only by regulation. In such cases, regulation is required for market competition to function. And the main failing of the US health system is its cost. The US system provides pretty good care... for those who can afford it, at high cost due in part to market-driven waste. Single payer systems are good at providing care to the poor and providing incentives for preventative care, while being susceptible to lower incentives for innovation and shortages due to the price ceiling. Mixed systems can have the advantages of both, like the growing private care supplementing the Canadian system mentioned in the article, or the public option dropped from the US reforms (as a compromise, though the public option was itself a compromise with single payer).RuffDraft wrote:What does that even mean? That doesn't stop their health care from actually being worse than America's. People are not better off simply because the government runs something.I would definitely consider Canada a winner because people aren't being bankrupt by ineffective health care options.
Is DaCrum correct though? If so, such statements do not imply a personal bias, and do not themselves serve to indicate DaCrum's opinion of Obama. Conversely, your accusing Obama of various things does not say much about you opinion of him... if you are correct.RuffDraft wrote:I'm just going off of how you seem to defend him, or try to shift the blame away from him, regardless of what I say.Like you even know my opinion of Obama. Or maybe you think you know it, but you certainly don't understand it.
A political promise is something like "I will do X." "X will eventually result in Y," is a prediction, not a promise. As such, if Y does not come to pass despite X, the politician has made an incorrect prediction, not reneged on the promise. If the politician had said something like, "I will accomplish Y, damn the torpedos," then Y not coming about would represent a broken promise.RuffDraft wrote:No, a promise is "This stimulus package will create three or four million jobs," a promise which I notice the link you provided me does not touch on.That's pretty much what a political promise is.You serious? Some of these promises are things that Obama simply made speeches about.
The link there does actually talk about it, and Obama's prediction was actually that it would "create or save" those jobs. That was an uncharacteristically savvy (for Democrats) wording, as while it sounds good, and may be based on some economic rationale, it's pretty much impossible to check against reality. That makes a claim about net jobs, which can't be known for sure since we can't compare against the situation without the stimulus.
Regardless of what bill they were in, the income tax cuts and the credits are functionally independent. One can pass legislation that extends the tax cuts without the credits, and vice-versa. Because they are not functionally linked, they are separate promises.RuffDraft wrote:No, these two items do constitute a repeat, because those were both parts of the Bush tax cuts. His promise was to keep parts of the Bush tax cuts, including the child tax credits, marriage penalty fixes, etc. They are all part of the same bill. Distinguishing different parts of the bill and saying you want some but not others does not separate the two as different promises. It is not a separate promise. He came to a compromise."Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes" and "Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes". I wouldn't say they oppose. And those were 2 specifics, not the same thing. If they were repeated it would be like "Repeal the Bush tax cut for higher income" and "Extend higher income taxes to pre-Bush levels". That's a repeat.
Not quite. As of late, Republicans have been a lot better at communicating to voters. For example, George W. Bush, though extremely wealthy, Yale-educated, and from Connecticut, successfully portrayed himself as a folksy cowboy, someone who one would like to have a beer with, thus emotionally appealing to the common man. He appealed to the wealthy through policy by giving them large tax cuts and pushing for deregulation. Democrats tend to do that somewhat in reverse, relying more on policies that benefit the common man to persuade people, which often come at the expense of regulations and increased taxes for the wealthy.RuffDraft wrote:This is all deflection and not worth my time.Right. So the common man, who needs health care. The common man, who can't afford private education. The common man, who earns less than $50,000.In fact, there are probably more rich on the Democrats' side and there are probably more Republican politicians that appeal to the common man.
Non sequitur. Are you saying that Democrats had more donors, or that each donor gave more? Because the exceptionally large number of Obama donations made the news at the time. The totals indicate that while more people donated to Obama, resulting in greater overall funds, a greater portion of the donations were "small" and "medium" than in the donations for McCain.RuffDraft wrote:If you have 100 friends who can pay the maximum of $2,400, and your competitor has 1000 friends who can pay an average of $240 each, you are evenly matched. The Democrats gathered nearly $200,000,000 more than the Republicans. Your argument is invalid.As for the fundraising, the fact that I can earn money in a fund raiser doesn't mean I'm rich.
You made a claim about Obama's statement. Dacrum pointed out that there are other possible interpretations. As oil is currently used, it is a fuel of the present. As it was used in the past, it is a fuel of the past. If you want to support your claim that it means a particular thing, the burden is on you to provide the context and, from that, build a case for your interpretation. Saying that it's ridiculous does not do that.RuffDraft wrote:Ridiculous. It's a fuel of the present because it is still in use. It will be in use for at least the next six years. Until they come up with a better way of powering a car, one that works, we are still dependent on oil. The fact that he calls it a "fuel of the past" is simply indicative of his "green" agenda, and the fact that he's willing to let other companies fail because of his agenda just shows that he doesn't care who suffers as long as he gets his way.It's energy from sunshine millions of years ago. So it's the 'fuel of the past'. We're burning what was buried for millions of years ago.Obama said that oil is "the fuel of the past." Do you drive a car to work every day? I do, and I find that comment utterly absurd.
The President has pretty broad executive powers, which are greatly extended in times of emergency. This is well-established. Do you think that the drilling moratorium was unjustified (distinct from not being the action you would have preferred), or that is was worse than what Bush did regarding actions of questionable legality?RuffDraft wrote:Exactly. If the Constitution represents the Rule of Law in America, and the President just performs illegal maneuvers around it when it doesn't meet up with his goals, then there is no Rule of Law in America. Contrary to what we might wish, the President does not have the power to do whatever the fuck he wants.The Constitution is older than combustion. So probably nowhere in the Constitution does it mention where he can make a moratorium.And what gives him the right to place a moratorium on off-shore drilling? Where does it say in the Constitution that he can?
Citation? How have you reached these conclusions?RuffDraft wrote:He illegally banned off-shore drilling, which forced companies to file for bankruptcy in the middle of a recession. All he cares about is pushing his agendas. He's demonstrated that he doesn't care who stands in his way, he will shove them aside without a thought.
I'd consider being wrong about everything more notable than being partially wrong. An anti-oracle can be almost as useful as an oracle, after all. Also, I would have a harder time refuting things if you made your arguments irrefutable in the first place. As an aid to that, you might consider what it would take to refute something, and revise accordingly.RuffDraft wrote:I do hope you're not just going to refute everything I say. I thought I was at least partially right about most of my points.
I would propose that solid logical reasoning is more fundamental, as statistical models can be derived from it, while without it, the statistical models may not be applied properly. Cognitive biases can cause problems with that.BeeAre wrote:so like, anyway, have you taken statistics courses? they show you pretty solid ways to reliably interpret data.
I would propose that such things may be beneficial if the benefit exceeds the harm, as the net value for society is positive. This may require some corrective actions, such as a tax, to sustain. E.g. people A and B perform an action that makes A $10 and costs B $5. A tax of $6-$9 can be applied to person A and given to person B to alter the cost/benefit of the action from +/- to +/+, thereby encouraging both parties to perform the action, resulting in greater overall wealth.BeeAre wrote:if someone's success ever harmed someone else's chance at success, they should be punished for that success.
that means the rich don't pay enough. heh. *puts on troll glasses, flies away from thread*
More topically, it can be beneficial to allow the wealthy to make money at the expense of others, so long as there is a net gain for society.
If you work for a salary and do not own the means of production... you might be in the proletariat. Exploiting others for monetary gain is more a bourgeois thing.RuffDraft wrote:@BR: I am richer...
Entirely separate issues.RuffDraft wrote:Exactly. And that's why someone who makes $1 billion dollars a year should not pay a higher taxe rate than someone making $50k.BeeAre wrote:you being richer than me does not make you better than me or worse than me, man.
Which is a practical impossibility. And a questionable goal even if it were possible. Check out Q.U.'s explanation for why the rich should pay more.BeeAre wrote:first: i am saying the rich should pay more because NO ONE SHOULD BE RICH OR POOR.
Because there are no such things as self-employed people, small businesses, cooperatives, or government jobs. Or corporations, for that matter (as a corporation is legally and financially distinct from the people who make it up or own it, who are not necessarily individually wealthy).RuffDraft wrote:And if you want to talk about this ridiculous game of class warfare you like to play, then "No rich" also means "no jobs." "No jobs" means "no taxes." "No taxes" means "government bankruptcy."
How is it a conflict of interest? Unions advocate for their members, and political advocacy comes with the territory. Do you think it would be improper for Wisconsin unions to fund the campaign of whoever runs against Scott Walker in 2014? If so, why?RuffDraft wrote:Next we can work on the issue of Union Dues being given away to politicians to fund their political campaigns. It's a conflict of interest and a waste of Union Dues.
Depending on what exactly you mean there to, taxes qualify as that. Social contract and such.Q.U. wrote:I'm too liberal to agree with policies forcing people to share their wealth or possessions. In definition it's no different than robbery, having something you own taken away from you without your say in the matter.
And that's why progressive taxation is less bad than the alternatives. The problem is that calculating an optimal setup depends on the goals to be achieved, and people don't all agree on that. 4 internets for the nuclear physics though.Q.U. wrote:But let's make a simplified model of taxes to finish the silly bickering of people about how high taxes should be and how they should be applied to different income groups.
I believe the "optimal" tax rates are fluid and changing, but they CAN be defined for a given moment or situation. It's like nucleus stability in nuclear physics, all you have to do is to find the magic numbers. The best solution being one that slowly helps fix the old problems without causing new ones, like a double-magic nucleus.
Not necessarily. Money is a medium of exchange, and using money does not require a capitalist economy. And money makes a lot of things a lot easier.BeeAre wrote:RD: your questions assume that you are still functioning under capitalism since you advocate the exchange of money. by me disregarding that assumption, yes, i throw out your premise. it's not me disrespecting you, it's me disrespecting the need for money at all.
Not really, as usually used. But definitions vary anyway. What are the attributes of the system you want to discuss?BeeAre wrote:socialism is a form of government, communism is a form of economy. they are not in opposition to each other, and you can in fact have both at the same time. socialism is a government model as a distribution of participation (resources follow secondarily, which means it is easier for socialism to go to), communism (which) is an economic model where the distribution of material resources is measured and sent out according to a standard of measurement best appropriated to the situation. The two ideas are not opposed, otherwise a lot of people against them wouldn't be grouping them together; they're not even aligned, they are parallel ideas.
Money allows nominal measures of an economy, but without money, there can still be unemployment, taxes, and bankruptcy based on real value.BeeAre wrote:And if you want to talk about this ridiculous game of class warfare I like to play, then no money means nothing stopping a government from giving everyone who wants a job a job, which means low unemployment. Anything you refer to like taxes and bankruptcy are irrelevant to a model without money.
By historical standards, average people in developed countries are vastly rich, and most do not contribute most of their resources to helping people. Makes one think about needles and camels, doesn't it?BeeAre wrote:I badmouth the vastly rich who are not contributing most of their fortunes to helping people.
I think you may be thinking of happiness, which does top out after a certain income. Money appears to be an incentive at all levels up to multibillionaires, but as you said, other motivations can be sufficient.BeeAre wrote:You seem to think that you need money in every situation to provide incentive for people to work. I think we've already talked about how it isn't for any job that is not strictly manual labor or production. There's a threshold for when money stops working as an adequate incentive to work, and that threshold is very low for a job that has 'creative' work involved in it.
But there are differences between people. People have different skills, amounts of wealth, connections, etc. Those differences may not matter for some considerations (moral worth, say), but they can matter very much for others (power and influence, say). And class warfare usually refers to the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat over economic power, not something illusory.BeeAre wrote:The only people who get involved in class warfare are those who try to perpetuate the illusion of differences between people.
In my opinion, the thing that's wrong with communism is that it can't withstand large-scale contact with human nature. It has sometimes worked on very small scales, but I don't know of any model that would plausibly work for anything like the real world.BeeAre wrote:Now, seriously, what's wrong with communism that makes you dislike it?...
Help me in a discussion, rather than an argument, to find a model we could both agree on.
Freedom of assembly does not protect unions' ability to collectively bargain. Rather, it protects their ability to gather together and express their opinions.DaCrum wrote:So this new law prevents the workers from meeting together. Also known as assemble. So it's unconstitutional.
Which is why things like this should be kept in mind.Mathias wrote:From my experience, unions only make things more difficult than they have to be.
No, but neither does it address BeeAre's point there.RuffDraft wrote:Mmmmmm. Sorry, but I'm a hardcore capitalist. I actually dream of owning a business some day and becoming rich off it. I have some good ideas that I'm trying to churn out into an actual plan. If I get rich, the vast majority of my money will either be recycled into the company or kept to myself, that's just the way that is. Does that make me a bad person?BeeAre wrote:RD: your questions assume that you are still functioning under capitalism since you advocate the exchange of money. by me disregarding that assumption, yes, i throw out your premise. it's not me disrespecting you, it's me disrespecting the need for money at all.
It doesn't always work out great for everyone, but it often works out better than a free market solution would. I assume you agree for things like the military, roads, police, and fire protection. How about enforcement of safety and health regulations? Generally, a government outperforms the private sector in providing goods and services with large positive externalities, because a market left to its own devices will underproduce them.RuffDraft wrote:Are you telling me that the government being in charge of something always works out great for everyone? (education, mail, health care; all of these are worse in the public sector versus the private sector)BeeAr wrote:And if you want to talk about this ridiculous game of class warfare I like to play, then no money means nothing stopping a government from giving everyone who wants a job a job, which means low unemployment.
Take education. I assume you're referring there to how some private schools outperform some public schools. Fair enough, but consider what the situation would be if the government did not provide for public education. Only those wealthy enough to pay the full cost of education would be able to send their children to school. Consequently, many (probably a large minority of) children would not receive much formal education. The human capital of that and future generations would be greatly reduced, greatly impairing economic development. Thus, public education is a Very Important thing.
Now consider the USPS. It's competes capitalistically with FedEx and UPS for packages, and for that it is competitive. It also has a monopoly over standard letters. How do you conclude that it performs worse than the private sector?
Also, that's not what BeeAre was saying there.
There is only one business in the US that employs more than one million people, and about half the employees in the US work for businesses with 500 or fewer employees. And those that hire large numbers of people tend to be corporations owned by multiple shareholders, who are not necessarily rich individually.RuffDraft wrote:Many, if not most, rich people own businesses--and each business creates jobs for thousands if not millions of people
Consider what would rationally motivate Rhee to offer that deal. It implies the estimation that the cost of nearly doubling salary would be less than the cost of tenure. That implies that there was a plan to fire a lot of teachers who took the deal at the next opportunity. Not a good deal for the union to take. Though I suppose that letting it go through would weed out the teachers dumb enough to take it, if it was an individual choice offer.RuffDraft wrote:A few years back, in D.C., Michelle Rhee proposed this: If teachers wanted to keep their tenure, they could only be paid what they were currently being paid (about $70K plus benefits); if they wanted to drop their tenure, they could be paid almost twice that. However, the Union leaders found that idea so threatening they wouldn't even let it go to a vote.
The Union leaders claim to favor better working conditions and higher salaries for the employees, but all they really want is to get rich off the Union's dues and make deals with politicians for more money.
It kinda upsets me.
Note that that was the bottoming out of the Dow for the recession. After that, it increased pretty quickly. Now, what happened just before the turnaround? The stimulus bill passed. Thoughts?RuffDraft wrote:Cute statistic. I could also point out that in 2007, under Bush, the Dow Jones did remarkably well, climbing to 14,000. And yes, Bush was very likely responsible in some way for the recession, but the fact is that when B. Hussein Obama was sworn in the Dow was about 8500, not 6500. About two months later it had fallen below 6500.DaCrum wrote:17) When Barack Obama was sworn in, the Dow Jones was at 6500. Today, it’s at 12,400, almost double where it was. And at that time, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs per month, a trend that has been arrested and reversed ever since. From that, you deduce Obama’s the one who wrecked the economy.
G. Walker BushRuffDraft wrote:B. Hussein Obama
W. Jefferson Blythe
G. Herbert Walker Bush
R. Wilson Reagan
J. Earl Carter
L. Lynch King
R. Milhous Nixon
L. Baines Johnson
J. Fitsgerald Kennedy
D. David Eisenhower
H. S Truman
F. Delano Roosevelt
H. Clark Hoover
J. Calvin Coolidge
W. Gamaliel Harding
T. Woodrow Wilson
@RuffDraft: I was going to mention this about Rand, but DaCrum beat me to it. From what you've been saying, it seems that you have a fairly Randian view of things. What do you think it says about the merits of a government-provided social safety net when such a paragon of extreme individualism makes use of it?DaCrum wrote:29) Your spiritual hero, the Grande Dame of the conservative movement, is Ayn Rand; the dedicated anti-socialist. And yet, she herself in her later years, had no problem secretly cashing in on social security and Medicare.