_________________

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2011-02-14/20912.jpg

lolololo.

Step one: get off your fat ass and out of the house.
Step two: write an illegible poorly worded bilboard/sign.
Step three: join the tea party.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Socialism can mean different things. It could mean a system where wealth is owned collectively and shared according to the needs of the community. It could also mean a system where resources are collected from members of the community and used for the well-being of the community, which includes pretty much every government ever (e.g. tax-supported national military or roads). And pretty much everything the government does is a redistribution of wealth (where do you think your paycheck comes from?). In the interview there, Obama mentioned redistributions like allocating resources to get schools that used to exclusively serve black kids up to par (which is, as he mentioned, sort of questionable for the judicial system to mandate). Remember this? Do you think that supply-side or demand-side redistribution works better for a healthy (mixed capitalist) economy (including the wealthy)? And have you read The Communist Manifesto? "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Do you really think that Obama or any major politician is trying to do that?

Probably somewhat more than 4%. History shows that, not only are we on the upslope of the Laffer curve, better GDP growth correlates with a higher top rate than at present, apparently peaking in the neighborhood of 60%-70%. Remember how taxes can go to things that help keep the economy in good shape (including keeping wealth inequality within healthy levels)? And who do you think wants to cut taxes and reduce government investment in things like basic research and infrastructure that lay the foundations for growth?

That's because, compared to the Clinton years when those rates produced a surplus, the economy is in worse shape and there are wars, a new Medicare program, and more interest on the debt to pay for. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels would not solve the problem outright, but it would go a long way towards it.

A rather large drop. As in, an amount similar to that $1.3T in four years, then three years, then two years.

You mean like this?

More like a quarter mile down one street, half a mile down another, and another quarter mile down a third, but whatever. The pizza deal was a publicity stunt. On Obama's campaign, he stopped at that pizza guy's restaurant and apparently commented that it was his favorite pizza. So the Ritz-Carlton hotel in DC offered to fly the guy to DC to cook for the "Presidential Inauguration Expo" if Obama won. So it wasn't done by Obama, it wasn't at the White House, and it wasn't paid for by the government. But then, if you've researched the situation to make that criticism, you already know that, right?

Related to who got us into things is how things came to be as they are. Related to that is how problems can be fixed. If we disagree about what people did to get us here, it implies that we disagree about the other things, and therefore that moving on to discussing policy solutions would not be productive. What do you think can't be afforded, what tax loopholes would you eliminate, and why do you think that?

He said it back here. "But it's not something that bothers me, seeing as I don't believe in this whole Global Warming scare."

Only since Reagan (and to some extent Ford). Before that, Republicans were serious about balancing budgets too, which is one reason why the debt from WWII wasn't a problem.

That's still pretty much the picture for 2015 and 2030. The difference for 2011 and thereabouts is the short-term loss of revenue from the recession combined with the short-term spending increases from the recession. As the economy improves, most of the current deficit will close in its own, leaving about the numbers given there.

Historical implementations of taxes on people without money have involved confiscation of goods. But then, that wasn't what Q.U. was talking about there. Do you think that poor people or rich people have more discretionary spending money? What do you think would happen to aggregate demand if most of the discretionary spending money of the poor and middle class went to taxes in order to give the rich somewhat more money, of which little would go to buying things?

In terms of federal income tax, perhaps, but that's hardly the whole picture. Including entitlement, state, and local taxes (which are more regressive), and other federal taxes, the tax burden is much flatter. And federal taxes become regressive for the very rich. Remember Warren Buffett and his secretary?

As in good decisions guaranteed financial success and bad decisions guaranteed failure? Those days never existed. The poor have always suffered from lack of capital, and the rich have always had wealth to fall back on, even ignoring complications beyond the control of individuals.

Yes, the good old days, when the poor were left to starve (no Social Security), infectious diseases were the leading cause of death (no Medicare/Medicaid/CDC), and no large standing military. Or perhaps you were referring to the mid-20th century, when those things were in place and funded with enough taxation to keep the debt under control.

ORLY?

Are you saying that current high unemployment is due to Mexicans taking jobs? As opposed to, say, the recession? And when was the US a worse job market than Mexico?

Not necessarily. In the olden days, it was common to believe that material wealth represented favor from the gods, so poor people not only didn't deserve help, they were regarded as implicitly bad people. That attitude took a hit with the establishment of current major religions which tell people to help the needy, etc. but notions of divine favor have stuck around. Notably in modern megachurches. A different idea of why poor people have it coming derives from classical economics and Objectivist philosophy, where nothing prevents anyone from going from destitution to wealth if only they weren't lazy and actually tried. Objectivist libertarianism is a rather specifically 20th century attitude.

Regardless of Eisenhower's leadership abilities, the Allies were not in a position to lose. The Allies outproduced the Axis several-fold, and could have used nukes had the war in Europe lasted much longer. Imagine a Starcraft game where one side starts with 4x the economy and a research advantage.

Because I wanted to give a reasonable proposal for how the budget could be balanced without Ryan-style entitlement cuts. Or many cuts at all, to serve as a counterpoint to your statements that major cuts are necessary.

So you think that some tax increases are called for? Otherwise, there are more cuts than I'd like, but it's fairly reasonable. Certainly better than the Ryan plan, and not just because it actually balances the budget.

It eliminates loopholes (like the Bowles-Simpson plan above it) but has higher tax rates than the Bowles-Simpson plan. So no doublespeak involved.

Except most millionaires didn't start with "next to nothing". And that's not what Neo was talking about. A family with $10k in income facing a $1k loss would be hit a lot harder than someone with $1m in income facing a $100k loss. The poor family would probably find it a lot harder to meet their basic needs like food, shelter, and transportation, while the rich person probably wouldn't have to forgo a second yacht or vacation house. If the government needs $1B in income, do you think it would be better for society to get it from 10k rich people or from a million poor people?

So do poor people. Do you think the marginal propensity of charitable donation for rich people is more or less than the percent of taxes that go to help the needy?

Unless the "charity" serves their interests. Keep in mind that very rich people get most of their income from capital gains, which is not subject to the federal income tax. That said, yes, some rich people do care about the less fortunate. That doesn't mean that all do.

I think you should define what "because a rich person made them that way" means. For example, certain rich people (the dudes running certain financial institutions) caused the financial crisis, which led to assorted economic troubles. If that counts, it would be pretty easy to find people homeless because of rich people. But if you're willing to back it with money, you may have a different idea about what counts.

In general, systemic issues (defense, regulation, economic management, etc.) and things prone to market failure, especially due to externalities (environmental protection, infrastructure, education, etc.).

So public museums, public school art/music programs, and public performing arts centers are baaad?

How many US citizens would drive for miles to work as a day laborer for $1/hour?

Perhaps because the conditions in such factories (though likely worse than regulations would have it) are probably better than foreign sweat shops? And because it retains domestic manufacturing and its accompanying economic activity rather than outsourcing manufacturing?

And which countries would those be?

It may be news to some, but most wealth is created by workers. The business owners hire them and supply equipment, but the workers actually produce the real wealth, whether physical goods, services, information, etc.

Regarding millionaires, most did not start as millionaires. That's not to say that they were poor. They tend to take advantage of social services like public education and infrastructure, and they had enough financial resources to capitalize on a market opportunity (which requires a demand be present, which requires a strong consumer base) when they saw one.

Essentially, yes. Wealth can (and largely does) consist of physical goods, and wealthy people had most of those before monetary economies got going. Wealth disparity in hunter-gatherer societies is usually relatively small, but once agriculture gets going, the surplus food allows social specialization, including aristocracy and soldiers who work for the aristocracy.

Something like that would be appropriate, but I wanted to show that the budget could be balanced without it.

But where/when has that not been the case?

Carbon monoxide, ammonia, and acetone are also byproducts of human breathing. That doesn't mean that they are safe in all concentrations. More generally, existing safely somewhere in nature does not mean that something is safe in all concentrations and circumstances. As you read through the next few bits, consider what you think about CFCs and why. You can read here for more information on CO2 and related subjects.

Actually, it's about 0.04%. At that concentration, it is chemically dangerous to certain sea life, particularly those with calcium carbonate shells. That concentration is also enough to alter global climate by altering the radiative equilibrium. Most of the carbon dioxide produced by human activity goes into the oceans, and the plants of the world are not keeping up with the remainder (as the concentration is rising).

CO2 alters planetary radiative equilibrium -> climate changes -> human activities are disrupted. Chemical toxicity to humans is not the concern.

How many trees do you think it would take to absorb 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year? Because that would just about deal with the increase. Though the number is increasing as China and other nations industrialize. And keep in mind that a tree serves as a carbon sink only for the lifetime of the tree - it is released again when the tree decomposes. Are you advocating the permanent restoration of the eastern and western US forests?

You mean like, say, the cap and trade system put in place by H.W. Bush that has economically reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than half since its implementation?

The idea of a carbon tax is to increase the cost of things that emit a lot of carbon dioxide, thereby discouraging them in the market. Since the market hasn't reduced emissions on its own (the effects of carbon dioxide are externalities), and a cap and trade system is less disruptive than direct regulation (like what was done in Europe for sulfur dioxide), it seems that the disagreement here comes down to you not thinking that carbon dioxide should be regulated. Is that still the case?

Ahem.

Then would you care to explain in detail what DID cause the economic collapse?

Because it means that wealth has a positive feedback that becomes stronger with more wealth. This means that, given a free market, wealth will naturally concentrate, resulting in a plutocracy unless other factors prevent it. Since that's bad for society, Q.U. seems to think it's silly that the US doesn't have more guards against it.

It isn't, but it's silly to think that the federal government can't increase its revenue (especially from the current situation in which taxation is unusually low).

Inheritors of wealth tend not to be as productive as those who founded the fortune. It is entirely possible to maintain a comfortable lifestyle off the interest of inherited wealth. This is one reason why Andrew Carnegie gave away almost all of his wealth before he died. He wanted his children to get enough to help them along, but not enough to let them slack off. Regarding job creation, please read this. With the current economic situation, demand is reduced, therefore supply is not being fully utilized. In such conditions, investment isn't very useful unless it's going towards untapped markets (i.e. technological innovation like improved electric cars and solar panels). It is economically better to shift the tax burden to the wealthy (who do more investing) and away from the poor and middle class (who do more consumer spending) because that brings supply more in line with demand. One way to do this is with the estate tax (which is one of the most highly targeted taxes for this). it used to be that the estate tax could prevent unrealized capital gains from passing down through generations untaxed, concentrating wealth beyond what is healthy for society, but now trusts can be used to avoid capital gains and estate taxes. It's not that there's something wrong with passing on (a lot of) wealth to relatives, it's that taxing some of that transaction helps the economy and society.

Business cycles in the 1800s typically lasted a couple years or so. So probably about that long.

Not really, at least theoretically. There's nothing intrinsic to capitalism that prevents everyone from living well. It's just that such losers are an emergent property of real-world capitalism. As opposed to, say, classical ideal free market capitalism. And the ideals of classical free market capitalism are what is often invoked by proponents of deregulation and the dismantling of social safety nets.

Capitalism is a way of organizing the economy. As in applying society's means to its ends. It doesn't determine what those ends are. People just tend to like material wealth.

For the edification of those reading, dirt cookies are a real thing.

Suppose all federal taxes were set to zero. Suppose also that you run a private sector business and do not receive any federal money directly. With no taxes, the federal government would not be able to pay for much, and most federal services would be cut in short order. So among other things, no entitlements that keep some of your customers in good enough financial shape to use your business. Combined with those other things, you might consider that the business environment (or perhaps society overall) was better with federal taxation and services in place. You could then lobby for an increase in taxation and government service to a level that works better. Why not just send the government a check? Because it wouldn't fix the problem.

The millionaires lobbying for higher taxes similarly think that taxes ought to be higher to pay for the things the government ought to do. Writing checks themselves would similarly not fix the problem. BeeAre's point with referencing them was more like, "These people want taxes on the wealthy raised even though they will experience the increase themselves. This is counter to straightforward self-interest, so perhaps there's something else to their argument." Why, specifically, do you call them ignorant? Why do you think they want higher taxes?

The proletariat, who equitably distribute the wealth of society so none experience hardship for want of material goods. Then again, perhaps you had something other than Marxism in mind when replying to considerations of Marxism. Stalinism, say?

Because publicly owned wealth doesn't count? Suppose you have a house and a car nominally owned publicly but allotted for your use (which perhaps you do, being in the military). Does that make you less wealthy in real terms than a person who nominally owns an identical house and car?

Are you aware of what capitalist nations were like when the Manifesto was written? Ever read Dickens or The Jungle? "Everyone is poor" looks pretty appealing when most people are destitute in the service of making relatively few rich, and that's why people in charge of capitalist nations freaked out about Communism. The capitalism we know in the US today enjoys many social safety nets that were put in place in part to dissuade communistic revolutions by addressing the worst abuses of free capitalism.

But then it's not Marxism, is it?

You realize that this is how Communist governments have typically formed, following abuses by those in power in a capitalist system, right? And that Communist governments have typically fallen with peaceful internal reforms? And that Marxist Communism has not been implemented in reality?

In fact, the opposite is true of most modern economies.

Because "Hey, let's kill everyone of that ethnicity," is just as correct as "Hey, let's not," is it? And facts don't matter for being right or wrong?

You are aware, are you not, that "trying to gouge the customer (in order to maximize profit)" is EXACTLY the same as "changing prices based on supply and demand (in order to maximize profit)"? Someone using knowledge of the market's demand curve to set prices would make MORE profit than someone gouging customers with higher prices than that. So the second person seems to be a better businessman, whether by controlling costs better or by exerting more market power.

Both taxable incomes would be about $15.4m, but the first person's gross income would be $154m to $308m, compared to the second person's gross income of about $61.5m.

Not necessarily. You never specified that they sell the same kinds of goods. One could specialize in bulk sales, with a corresponding reduction in workers and customers. If they operate in different markets, prices of similar goods need not be similar.

Clearly the customers CAN afford the merchandise, as they're buying enough to generate millions in profit. For practical purposes, what the owners personally care about doesn't matter except as it is reflected in what they do.

Your example doesn't include the relevant information for investigating that. Consumer markets where producers wield disproportional power is a factor, but wealth diverges mainly from the labor market and the treatment of investment gains. Low dividends, capital gains, etc. taxes combined with a labor market in which workers have little negotiating power (if they are not unionized, say) diverts the gains from economic growth disproportionately to the bourgeoisie, who are already rich. Depending on the magnitude of the power disparity, all growth and then some could go to the rich, leaving most people with reduced real incomes. This is what happened in the US over George W. Bush's presidency.

Again, you seem not to know about the working poor. Again, have you read Dickens or The Jungle, and do you know about conditions of the real world that make your assertion far from universal?

AIG played a major role in crashing the economy with its risky practices, resulting in millions of people losing their jobs, and it was bailed out by the government. In 2009, it handed out a $billion or so in bonuses, more than a third of which went to the department that caused the problem, and about $165m in bonuses to executives who drove the company and the economy into the ground. Transocean cut corners to save money, and the Deepwater Horizon spill resulted from such cut corners. The incident killed several workers outright, trashed much of the Gulf causing widespread economic hardship, and exposed thousands of people to toxic chemicals whose effects are as yet largely unknown. Transocean awarded its executives bonuses for safety performance that year. Other examples abound. Executive compensation has largely been decoupled from performance, especially the long-term performance that matters for the well-being of the economy.

Remember how real income for most people in the US has gone down in the last decade despite real GDP growth? And how the real income of the very wealthy has increased in excess of GDP growth? Systemically, it is like that, as that's essentially what happened, even if particular rich people did not personally advance the situation.

Remember how corporations are people now? Anyway, a corporation is a single entity, pooling considerable resources in an organized endeavor to achieve a goal. The People are not, and do not (except in the government itself). Some parts of The People (unions, say) can act comparably to a corporation in that regard, but such organizations are rather small compared to corporate interests at the present.

Large corporations have dedicated legal departments backed with billions. What sort of consumer effort do you think it would take to, say, change the business practices of BP? Do you think that such an effort is likely at this point? Do you see the point of government regulation?

Not really. That person would have to have legal standing and a lot of money and time. Those aren't easy to come by. For consideration, how would you go about challenging a law you don't like? Obamacare, say, which had a lot of input from health insurers?

Bullshit. Flagrant violations of the Constitution and personal rights abound in US history. Now, with that in mind, do you believe that major corporations with interests demonstrably at odds with the majority of US citizens should have unrestricted influence in the government? Remember what's going on in Michigan? The issue is power and influence in government and society, and right now major corporations have a significant advantage over "the Many".

Because information asymmetry does not exist, and a loan made with reasonable expectations of a low variable rate and maintaining one's job does not become harder to pay when the rate increases and the job is lost in the recession? Do you know why banks were so eager to make these risky loans? Because they sold the loans and passed the risk to others while understating their risk, making a tidy profit at others' expense. To use an analogy, it's not a good idea to walk alone through Central Park at night, but that doesn't excuse the mugger for mugging someone walking alone through Central Park at night.

You can drink and drive just fine, so long as your blood alcohol level stays within legal limits, and you aren't obviously impaired. Just don't drink WHILE driving.

Except his home, car, health insurance, etc.

The median unemployed person in the US has been without a job for about five months. You understand that it's harder to get a job when there's high unemployment, right?

Unlikely. High unemployment depresses wages. Unless you believe that Keynesian mumbo-jumbo about short-term price stickiness. But then you might consider that the economy has long been shifting from relatively high paying manufacturing jobs to relatively low paying service jobs. Do you think Walmart pays better than his old job?

Let's put some realistic numbers to this. Suppose he's unemployed for twenty weeks (shorter than median) and worked full time for minimum wage with no benefits. That's a $5,800 loss in cash flow. For a skilled worker who made more like $30/hour unemployed for 39 weeks (about the mean length of unemployment in the US), that's $46,800. How long did you think typical unemployed lasts?

Except his home, car, health insurance, etc. And little of consequence if the business is insured against trouble. Even less so if his investments were prudently diversified (as millionaires are wont to do).

Is this millionaire the owner of a car dealership (in which case he would not be liable for the car problems), or does he own an auto manufacturer (in which case he would more likely be a billionaire head of a major corporation with dedicated R&D and legal departments, and would likely not be personally liable for damages)? It looks like best-case in this scenario is that he's out some customers, but no money. Suppose for the sake of argument he's down to just his $300k house and $50k car. That's still a much better financial position than the poor man.

The millionaire (by definition with a net worth of at least a million USD) would have at least $500k left. The poor man starts with a net worth of $0 ("poor" people in the US typically have more debt than assets, and so have negative net worth) and loses $500 (let's go with your figure), and is now in debt. So yes, the wealthy are insulated from financial damage. The millionaire lost a thousand times as much as the poor man, but did not go into debt like the poor man did. Rather, the former millionaire's remaining wealth may be more than the poor man will earn in his life, and far more than he will keep.

Valhallen used Wall of Text! Is it effective?

Because longer is better.

Now, what needs to happen is for Detroit to get one of those managers, who will bring in military robots to deal with crime. And so on.

Valhallen, I am interested in several things

What are your opinions on the next presidential candidates? Any favorites? Such and such?

I've heard about something called the "skilled workers' deficit, that supposedly, even with unemployment being incredibly high, there is a deficit of skilled workers such as welders, mechanics, and other physically laboring positions including those necessary to the improvement and upkeep of US infrastructure. What's your opinion on this?

And the reversal of the economic recovery. Some news stations have been broadcasting that it seems that economic recovery has stopped, and possibly even reversed. What do you think?

_________________
Escape will make me God.

It looks like it'll be Obama vs. whoever the Republicans pick. The declared Republican candidates look pretty weak IMO. The ones that look to do well in the primaries probably wouldn't do well in the general election and vice-versa. I think Mitt Romney might fare the best in the general election (and probably has the most reasonable policies of the bunch), but he's too moderate for a lot of Republicans today, especially with his support of "Romneycare". Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren't associated with the Tea Party and some of its unpopular aspects, but Paul is a libertarian and honest about it, and Gingrich has a huge amount of stuff for any opponent to use as ammunition in a campaign. The newer crowd (including Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman if they decide to run) would probably do better in the primaries (though they may split the Tea Party vote), but they are prone to unusual positions and appearing to not understand complex issues. The comedy opportunities that would give would be pretty awesome, but that wouldn't be good for their chances in the general election. For now, I'm hoping that the "the rent is too damn high" guy will make a good show.

I haven't heard that in regards to those kinds of professions, but such a deficit seems plausible. Have any info on it? On-the-job training can help with those jobs though, so the market should be reasonably flexible. The deficit I'd heard of (and the one that shows up on a quick search) is in stuff more like engineering, computer science, and nursing, which take a multi-year degree to get into.

Latest I saw is that GDP and job growth are positive, if slow, so basically the recovery is puffing along. Some other indicators aren't so good though. Unemployment went up a little in the past couple months, and home prices have fallen a few more percent. It doesn't look too bad though, so we'll just have to wait and see if trends change. Overall, I'd say the picture is positive but weak, though Congress is in a position to mess things up, and trusting Congress not to mess things up isn't always a good bet.

Also, while checking recent stats, I found this. Interesting, isn't it?

What I've read about the job opportunities is that too many people in college are majoring in subjects such as the humanities, rather than in fields like science and technology. Seeing as that's what you're doing DC, you should be fine. We have a workforce that isn't trained properly for the jobs that are open. Another part of the problem is that companies just assume the perfect candidate will fall into their lap with the job market; one that requires no training for the job. However, because of this, they actually end up having the position go unfulfilled for quite a while, leaving behind the specter of there being available jobs while unemployment is high. I haven't heard anything about the manual labor positions you speak of though.

I'm guessing you're talking more about vocational positions there, but engineering (a science major) also fits into it. Historically though, the U.S. has not been good on training people for jobs such as plumbers or welders. Vocational training came to be viewed as where dumb people go, which has in turn depressed the amount of people training to work those jobs, which is why plumbers cost so much because there are so few of them. People are told to go into college, when really college isn't supposed to be an institution that supports everyone. In Europe they do a much better job of herding children into vocational programs when teachers can tell the child isn't fit for the academic environment that college would be, and instead directs them to the more hands-on nature of vocational school, a career path generally without stigma there as compared to here.

about eisenhower, valhallen: I knew the eisenhower thing was a bad argument, even as a heavily sarcastic comment. :x

and my schpiel about capitalism was tied to the goals of capitalism. sure, capitalism allows for the technical improvement of everyone, but if maximizing profit is the only CLEARLY STATED goal, and there are no practical factors in the system to stop someone from detaching themselves from the apparent checks the system has on its own, then the means of achieving this goal become rather personal, don't they? It becomes one person's apparent willpower as enacted through spending (albeit with the rule of spending less capital than they make) to achieve the goal of being in effective control of all capital circulating in the whole system.

like, I'm talking "There Will Be Blood" caliber (or higher) economic strong-arming. Making your industry key for so many other industries that you for all intents and purposes own those industries too. Basically, a devoted capitalist, who wants to make money for the sake of money, wants to take over the world's money in one singular dictatorship monarchy monopoly. Is that too unfair? Is that really too strong a generalization?




...

even if this little post is ultimately an adolescent attempt at justifying my position, i hope that i can improve with the link you just gave me. the rationality wiki? wholy hshit. i've got some fuckin' studying to do.

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

By what I'm doing, do you refer to my plan to major in liberal arts to become a teacher? Because I like it too. I'm actually aiming to become a Music Ed, Perc major, minor in Hist, and credential in both Music(or whatever is needed for music teachers) and Hist.

The only evidence I've found was a presentation Mike Rowe did for a Congressional Hearing on the "skilled workers' deficit". Perhaps it might be useful to encourage students to seek vocational ed if that looks like what'll work best for them rather than blanket push them all into college.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Oh I thought you had some interest in science and was majoring in some field of it. Never mind. What you're majoring in is going to lead to difficulties for you.

Fighting social stigmas is hard though, and takes a while to erode. Kids view plumbers as people who didn't succeed in life. No one's going to train for a job they think means failure. Even if a lot of those kids are just going to end up dropping out of college anyways.

Geez, Val. How do you expect me to respond to all this? I'm only a quarter of the way through that first long post on page 22... I'm not sure I have the time to answer all of this within the month. And I'm not about to spend every hour of my off-duty time trying to, when I have a bunch of stuff I'm ultimately more interested in.

I suppose I can start posting smaller chunks of it. And as long as I respond only to you and don't get tag-teamed by people like Q.U. and DaCrum, I should be fine. Yeah, that should work.

_________________

_________________
Escape will make me God.

DaCrum.

Please.

Please.

Stop posting stupid bullshit.

Or at least do it somewhere else.

I don't even feel like picking apart the flaws in that blog.

Valhallen, I'm gonna work on some of the post; could you take care of this for me? [lol]

_________________

Ah, the working poor...

When I read that, I thought of this discussion.

And what's wrong with it, Ruff? I've seen several similar charts and figures. Last I checked, the top 20% do own a rather significant part of the country. More than perhaps they ought to, even.

_________________

Oh certainly, they own a high percentage of assets; that's not what I'm hitting on. The rich make a good deal more money than the rest of us. They also pay that much more in taxes; not just income tax. Property tax and sales tax to start; then there's also payroll taxes if they own... virtually any type of business nowadays. So while you're making 50K and worrying about that tax rate that is somewhere between 25% and 30%, a rich guy who owns a business pays about 15% in Corporate tax, then another 15-20% in property tax on the land and property he "owns" (read: rents from the government). And then, any other taxes that I'm not thinking about right now. Some rich people might actually be paying about 60% of what they make just in taxes.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

_________________

Okay, you're right, he did talk about that; however, he just said that people wouldn't be able to afford health care anymore, which is not true either. Ryan's plan called for a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid that was supposed to be geared towards people who couldn't afford it in the first place.

Right now the system we have

• Is highly susceptible to fraud;
• Gives out more than it takes in;
• Is extremely outdated;

We have been trying to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for a long time, but no one can seem to agree on how to do it. Every time the Republicans come up with something, the Democrats either say they want to kill old women or babies, or else they call the idea "extreme," and then offer no alternative. And every time a Democrat comes up with something, even other Democrats don't like the idea.

Democrats are saying Medicare needs to be dismantled; Republicans are trying to save it. Which idea do you think is worse? What do you want to see happen? We already know that Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security, I might add) need drastic reforms, or else there are going to be drastic consequences. So why does a change to M&M mean it is extreme?

So, are you're saying that it is the government's duty and legal obligation to take care of everyone's health care? If so, then the one with the disconnect is you.

We are discussing apples and oranges here. In America, we are a Constitutional Republic with a focus on individual freedoms and incentive for prosperity. Darfur is effectively a Dictatorship whose government drove people from their homes and set fire to everything they owned. How exactly do you think the notions of American prosperity apply to the current situation in Darfur?

It's exactly as I said. He says we'll basically be killing kids with Down Syndrome and throwing grandma out into the street. That's a disgusting, untrue revision of Ryan's plan that skews it to make to look like Ryan wants to let people die just so we don't have to spend several hundred billion dollars.

...okay, fine, it's a plan. I just find the merits of this plan wanting. I find the terminology he often uses (deficit, rather than debt) to be misleading. I also find it dubious that his plan will work as he says it will.

[Continued]

_________________

No, that's pretty much how things played out before antitrust and anti-monopoly regulations were in place. See Standard Oil or US Steel.

Up to you what to respond to, how, and when. I just ask that whatever arguments you make be solid. But for reference, it seems that you have not responded yet to my post on page 10 and most of my post on page 15.

I actually posted something with similar information earlier (midway down, CTRL+F "please read" if you want the context I referenced it in).

I would if there were obvious flaws, but you can check out the paper it's based on. It seems solid for what it's referenced for.

If the rich guy actually owns the business personally, it's personal income, not corporate. If it's a corporation and he owns the stock, it's capital gains or dividends. Or personal income if he works at the corporation.

Where did you get those numbers?

I'd really like to see the numbers for a realistic situation that you think justifies that supposition.

It's not about being fair. It's about making society work.

Ugh...

Yeah, I don't think I can do this, and if I do it's going to be hurried and not very well-researched. I'll have to do something like 10 pages of actual writing and another 25-30 pages of research or something if I reply to EVERYTHING you've said here.

In summary: You're wrong, end of story. (This statement not based on facts of any sort.)

_________________

How about you pick a single point where you think I'm wrong and take as long as you want to build a solid argument about it?



But for reference, about 30 pages of research went into this post.

Damn, 30 pages went into that? What do you even do for a living?

On the thing about property taxes, I was reading something from New York where it talked about the way they calculate property taxes and it talked about appraisal and the rate at which things were taxed. I can't find it anymore, but I remember it saying something about tax at a 15% rate. Not sure if it was saying they were actually taxing it at that rate, but...

In any case, I actually have heard (rich) people claim they pay 60% of their income on overall taxes. I'm sorry that I can't provide a real link to that source, I'll have to scour the net for a few hours if I am to find one.

Admittedly, I'm somewhat of a novice on economics. So I don't know with 100% certainty how exactly the rich are taxed and on what. I'll do more research on it.

I also don't like being tag-teamed by six different people. When I'm talking to one person and I ask that person a question, I expect that person to respond back. My vice becomes that, when I respond to one person, another person responds to me, and then when I respond to that person, another person responds. Then I respond in turn, and get yet another person's response, and so on and so on. It becomes frustrating. If someone has a legitimate question about what I said, fine. But I'd prefer someone proving me wrong by doing their own research, you know?

Now, I'll try to find something in your posts I want to discuss.

_________________

I checked that I had the names and deeds right for Standard Oil and US Steel, I checked this thread from page 10 to 23 to see what in my posts you had responded to, I checked the earlier reference about wealth and its location in my post again (and that in one part, it references the same paper that influenced the blog DaCrum linked), and I read the blog and the paper (13 pages) where it got the graphic. So 30 pages or so. Most probably took less than 20 seconds, but then I've had practice at that sort of thing.

the reason you are tag teamed by 6 different people is because you are wrong =D
(This statement not based on facts of any sort.)

_________________

I see that. I just don't believe it SHOULD be balanced without it. The cause of the recession and economic collapse is still there, and can still actively add to another collapse. There's no point in waving your arms while you're falling out the airplane while your parachute plug is dandling right next to your face.



??


My guess would be, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
Watch the whole thing, you will love it.


I heard of that in other countries of Europe. That is actually a global problem. As countries develop people seem to be more and more eager to try and reach for white collar jobs, seeing blue collar jobs as bad or for uneducated simpletons. That is usually countered by those specialists being "imported", in a country with working and stable migration situation.


He should run for president man.
"In The Rent is Too Damn High party, our position on homosexual marriage is: if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry you."


I used to be, as I still am, opinionated and I find it hard to change my mind on things. But a longer while ago I start working hard to learn to "get a hint". When I see many educated and intelligent/respected people disagree with my views coherently, I take a hint that it might be me who is wrong.


You know, usually it's when I get told I'm wrong by a bunch of people as opposed to those who support my views.


Funny how that goes Ruff.



Right?



It does.

Whichever way you look at it, you don't need $0.5 million for food every month.
The ability to move capital for charities, investments, or unnecessary self development and luxuries should be a privilege, not a right.

I won't respond to the rest of what you're posting now, cause I think Val will crush you without my help. No point in wasting my time.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

@ Q.U. (and only Q.U.): So the assertion is that I'm wrong, just because I choose to believe that the rich are not automatically evil because they are wealthy? Because I don't believe that the rich are under-taxed?

If the rich want to buy gourmet food for ten or twenty times what it's really worth, why should I have a problem with that? My parents are poor; they don't call in favor of higher taxes for the rich.

I'm well-off enough that I'm satisfied with what I have right now. Even so, I know that I could be wealthier some day, and I know it's important to strive towards that goal.

I am not "wrong" for thinking that the rich are important in society. The more money someone makes, the more likely he is to spend it (read: recycle it into the economy). If someone takes home $50 million a year, and he spends $48 million of it and saves the last 2 million, why do I care? What is wrong with that? It's his money. He can damn well do what he wants. And think about the people on the receiving end of his spending. That's $48 million that went to other, less-wealthy people.

So now let's say that these less-wealthy people petition the government for higher taxes for the rich. Now he takes home about $40 million. And then he spends $38 million and keeps the remaining 2. The government gets $10 million dollars more, and the economy loses $10 million. So as a result, this rich guy can't spend as much on the things that he used to, and the people who used to get that money no longer do. What about the jobs lost because of that? What about the people whose lives will be ruined because of that? You're so damn concerned about who has the wealth in this country that you're forgetting that this also negatively affects the "poor" by destroying jobs.

And what's to say that the extra money that goes into the government will be spent productively, towards improving the economy? Maybe it'll go into increasing the wages of currently-existing workers. So they're happy, and you're fucked! Is that what you want?

And Q.U., I realize that you're not from America and yet you have a decent idea of how things work over here. But you're not thinking about cause and effect; you just see a problem and the solution you have would do more harm than good. And then you tell me that I'm wrong because I don't see eye to eye with you? Most of the time, it's not just me that disagrees with you, either. I'm not sure if half the things you say are just rhetoric, but if half the ideas you present were to be used, the system in question would collapse around itself.

You say we should raise taxes on the rich? I say we should fix current tax loopholes. You say the rich are too wealthy, I say they're probably not wealthy enough. What makes you right and me wrong?

_________________

I'm amazed at what kind of reasoning lets you sleep at night.


You forgot to add "...and I base this conclusion on... absolutely nothing."

Anyway, here, let's make it realistic now.


If a rich person after taxation has $50 million a year, he will spend ~$2 million on necessities (food, clothes, electricity, heating etc), further ~$12 million on luxuries (3 new cars, new jacuzzi, 2 new villas he will visit once), he will save up ~$2 million as savings (or invest normally), he will spend ~$3 million on charities, just to be thought of as good, further send ~$24 million to his other rich friends through bets, favours, phony investments, buying politicians/lobbying for his income source, and finally remaining ~$7 million on travel and other expenses. And that's an actual estimate.

Now try and see how much do the little guys get.
From the $2 million spent on food or clothes, well I'm guessing he's rich so he only buys the rich and expensive stuff, so after taking away the profit margin (the rich restaurant owner/etc getting over 50%) you're left with the not-so-poor chefs getting some as wages, and even less for the the poor people who actually cultivated the food (wheat/vegetables) or made the clothes (maybe even from sweatshops overseas).
$12 million spent on luxuries, still profit margins are very high, so the people who actually MAKE the things or who make the parts get less than 15% of the price of the product (and that's being optimistic), while the rest goes again, to the CEOs and company owners/shareholders who are mostly made up of millionaires like him.
$3 million spent on charities will most likely go to the ones that need it almost entirely.
from $7 million of other expenses about 30% will go to the actual workers, the rest going into the pockets of oil companies or companies hiring the workers.
And lastly, from the $24 million, next to none will go to the little guys.

That is how it works, the lower you are in the chain of wealth and power the lower % of the sold product/service goes to you. The employee in Ferrari factory will get a measly couple of bucks per hour, the Ferrari salesman will get a % of the price of the car he sold, and the company owner will make the biggest profit there. And I won't try to say that it shouldn't be that way, cause this is normal, this is how rich people are and stay rich, by getting more money.

If the rich guy had $10 million less, well, he won't stop eating, heating his house or the like, so the amount he spends on things that actually go to the little workers will not go down significantly. Charity may go down, though unlikely. Most likely he will cut the $24 million spending on the "rich club", which wouldn't go to the poor people or workers anyway.

But comparing to 1000 people, each spending $50.000 a year, now these will spend in total even more on the basic needs than that one rich guy. And they will be buying second grade necessities cause they cannot waste money on unnecessarily expensive stuff. They still contribute more to the MAIN LINE products and services.

Let's not discuss how much goes to who for a minute, and ask yourself this:
How many people make a living packaging some cheap crap in a factory?
How many people make a living providing some basic services, like a cashier at the store or a janitor?
How many people make a living producing food or cultivating plants in general?

And now compare to how many people make a living by giving massages to rich people?
How many make a living as butlers for rich people? Or maids?
How many people are limo drivers, or private jet pilots?

You will see a disparity there, MOST of Americans earn their living by providing products and services to the other non-millionaires in the society.

Now since the amount of wealth in a country can grow, but it's getting redistributed unevenly to the rich, poor people are getting poorer and rich are getting richer. Poor people can afford less and less, decreasing the demand while the rich can afford more and more buying more of what they need.

This makes people in those most populated sectors lose jobs due to unnaturally low demand, and they have to try and find ways to get to the sectors where demand grows. A farmer cannot become a jet pilot just like that, so they end up unemployed.

THIS is the problem here. There should be poor and rich. In a capitalist economy there HAVE to be rich and poor. The problem is the growing inequality between the two groups. And seeing that there are a LOT more extremely poor people than extremely rich people, you may want to start asking yourself where will that lead to.

That's exactly what this graph is all about. You need to have reasonably even income growth in all income groups to have a stable and sustainable economy and population.

So stop trying to cry and argue that we hate rich people, cause we don't and that argument is ridiculous. All people here who are "discussing" things with you simply agree that the current state is unbalanced, unstable and heading in the wrong direction. And that ideal wealth distribution would have benefited EVERYBODY (hence it's called "ideal", or "model distribution").

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I have to agree with Q.U on this point, rich people spending profits mostly other rich people, the money circulation is not as big as you think.

_________________