***OFFICIAL ECONOMICS DISCUSSION***

Dear FTR:

I would like to start a civilized discussion about economics. The God thread has definitely gone off topic and I'd like to branch off the discussion of Austrian and Keynesian economics into this thread.

I recommend you read this book online:
http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

it explains about 99% of what politicians bullshit about, like how the government expenditure improves economy, when in fact lowering taxes the same amount would work the same because people generally spend or invest money when they get it

:wall:

Quote:

---

the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.

---

see cash for clunkers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

The God thread has definitely went off topic

---

How about an ***OFFICIAL ENGLISH*** thread?

*** OFFICIAL iopq CONTAINMENT THREAD ***

one time!

hai guise my name r iogq and i r gon poast stuff that make no cents and hope wufgoogy dun show up an skoal me on wat lojic aktually r

liek this cash 5 clunkars progrum. im liek wtfomgbbq this r so stupid amirite. wufgoogy prolly knows taht i think this r broken window fallacy bcuz he r smrt but i hactually doesn't kno wat borken window fallicy rly meens so imma prolly compelety wrong but i dun care cuz that wat i r do

[ ] a civilized discussion

Maybe if you stopped cherry picking, shifting the goalposts, ceased cognitive biases, faulty generalizations, and red herrings, then stopped providing incorrect answers, and instead realized that your talking points and inept evaluations are doing nobody any good. Then sit down, shut up, and spend the next year of your life assuming that what you think is wrong and avidly seek out people and information that conforms with reality

Removing your head from the sand just long enough to type a couple one liners then hitting 'submit' doesn't get the job done

[x] owned.

PWNED AGAIN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Maybe if you stopped cherry picking, shifting the goalposts, ceased cognitive biases, faulty generalizations, and red herrings, then stopped providing incorrect answers, and instead realized that your talking points and inept evaluations are doing nobody any good. Then sit down, shut up, and spend the next year of your life assuming that what you think is wrong and avidly seek out people and information that conforms with reality

Removing your head from the sand just long enough to type a couple one liners then hitting 'submit' doesn't get the job done

---

Why would I assume that you're right and I'm wrong? Liberalism is a god damn religion. Neither of us offered any proof, but suddenly you're right.

Link provided by OP is unreadable.

For a decent discussion, Amartya Sen vs James M. Buchanan is always a good start.

iopq, providing you with evidence is like trying to prove that E=MC2 to a four year old; no matter how strong the evidence, the four year old will never get it. You're this four year old, and instead of acting reasonably, you would rather just run to mommy and show her the poopie you made.

You're not even remotely close to the stage where you need to worry about evidence. That's for the grown ups. This is why I told you to assume that you're wrong and seek out professionals. That's the first step in knowledge gathering. Only after you've read masses of work published by the most qualified people available, watched masses of lectures by the most qualified people available, engaged in discourse consisting of you only asking questions with the most qualified people available, and have developed a firm grasp of logical principles and fallacies can you begin to ask for evidence; because only then will you know what you're looking at.

But now I'm going to, once again, show you where you're wrong, but I fully expect you to completely disregard everything, once again shift the goalposts, and channel some kind of fusion between Rodney Dangerfield, Glenn Beck, and the Star Wars Kid for your next response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Why would I assume that you're right and I'm wrong?

---

Not once did I ask you to do that. What I said was for you to assume that you're wrong, I said nothing about assuming I'm right. This is a straw man, and here's your fucking evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote:

---

Liberalism is a god damn religion.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with any of the discourse thus far, and even if it did, it would not matter one bit. The discourse has always been about facts and logic, and pointing out that for the most part, the liberal position has been on the side of the factual position. This is like you showing up to a physics lecture claiming that it's all a religion because the fundamentals of mathematics are based on assumed premises.

Your position is non sequitur and a red herring, and here's your goddamned evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_her...29#Red_herring

Quote:

---

Neither of us offered any proof, but suddenly you're right.

---

You offered a majority of one liners that to any educated person are clearly irrational, while I offered actual debate. You could have chosen to be like Benny, and have a brain behind your face and actually try to use it to develop a reasoned and informed discussion, but instead you've chosen to make as much sense as a sperm whale shitting out mini Harvey Keitels

and here's your Jesus fist fucking Christ evidence









http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4...0798856895.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Link provided by OP is unreadable.

For a decent discussion, Amartya Sen vs James M. Buchanan is always a good start.

---

IMO, the fastest way to go from knowing nothing about the political aspect of economics to knowing a decent amount is to watch a bunch of lectures and interviews and panel discussions with professionals (usually professors) of economics, finances, politics, etc

Good names to start with are Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz.... Here's one of the ones I remember the most because Elizabeth Warren is super smart, a great speaker, and the US history of the middle class is very interesting (the focus of this lecture).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

you said: "You offered a majority of one liners that to any educated person are clearly irrational"
14. Another good trick is to appeal to your opponent's intelligence: "you're a smart guy, you know ...", if he disagrees it looks like he admits to being an idiot.


you said: "You're this four year old, and instead of acting reasonably, you would rather just run to mommy and show her the poopie you made."
2. Remember, your opponent has to prove he's not a moron. If he's trying to prove that, he has no time to argue his point.


this is proof you're trolling and not actually contributing to the forum, you're following the rules of demagoguery

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

hai guise my name r iogq and i r gon poast stuff that make no cents and hope wufgoogy dun show up an skoal me on wat lojic aktually r

liek this cash 5 clunkars progrum. im liek wtfomgbbq this r so stupid amirite. wufgoogy prolly knows taht i think this r broken window fallacy bcuz he r smrt but i hactually doesn't kno wat borken window fallicy rly meens so imma prolly compelety wrong but i dun care cuz that wat i r do

---

wuf, you're better than that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

---

we were arguing about the redistribution of wealth and the economic policies of the Obama administration

my point was that some of the programs like cash for clunkers destroy wealth, and that redistribution of wealth is not necessary for a working economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

hai guise my name r iogq and i r gon poast stuff that make no cents and hope wufgoogy dun show up an skoal me on wat lojic aktually r

liek this cash 5 clunkars progrum. im liek wtfomgbbq this r so stupid amirite. wufgoogy prolly knows taht i think this r broken window fallacy bcuz he r smrt but i hactually doesn't kno wat borken window fallicy rly meens so imma prolly compelety wrong but i dun care cuz that wat i r do

---

wuf, you're better than that

---

Maybe so. I usually resort to some form of asinine taunting after correction of irrational arguments is disregarded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

hai guise my name r iogq and i r gon poast stuff that make no cents and hope wufgoogy dun show up an skoal me on wat lojic aktually r

liek this cash 5 clunkars progrum. im liek wtfomgbbq this r so stupid amirite. wufgoogy prolly knows taht i think this r broken window fallacy bcuz he r smrt but i hactually doesn't kno wat borken window fallicy rly meens so imma prolly compelety wrong but i dun care cuz that wat i r do

---

wuf, you're better than that

---

Maybe so. I usually resort to some form of asinine taunting after correction of irrational arguments is disregarded

---

you're not supposed to

5. Don't flame or insult; subtle derision is a hundred times more hurtful.

The economy, in a single word...is crap right now. Jobs are very hard to come by in the U.S, and I think a lot of other countries are also having economic difficulties right now. While we could sit here for days, arguing how the economy got into this mess, the real question is how are we going to get out of it?

If the answer were "endure a depression" would you accept it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

If the answer were "endure a depression" would you accept it?

---

that or cause a worse depression because people in congress mostly don't have a good idea of how the economy works because they're not economists

the daily show just owned your "look at how children sing to their dear leader obama" hope you caught it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

the daily show just owned your "look at how children sing to their dear leader obama" hope you caught it.

---

I didn't see that one; but I'm not really implying that the government is hellbent on creating some kind of a personality cult around Obama. But I did see on CNN that they showed some of the parents were pissed off about their kids singing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

---

we were arguing about the redistribution of wealth and the economic policies of the Obama administration


Ah,

my point was that some of the programs like cash for clunkers destroy wealth, and that redistribution of wealth is not necessary for a working economy

---

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

Talking about the "redistribution of wealth" is too simple. Its difficult, b/c using such phrase suggests, that theres "wealth" (which has different meanings for different individuals anyway) is taken away from someone to give it to someone else and that societies wealth is reduced or sacrificed for equality aspects.

Liberal argumentation is usually, that redistribution collides with the measurement of Pareto-efficiency, which is largely accepted and used amongst economists. According to Pareto, society has reached an efficient state, when it is not possible to put someone in a better situation without someone else have taken something away from him.

The problem is to determine, what "wealth" exactly we want to maximize. If society´s goal is to put the wealthiest person in the most wealthiest position he can achieve, than by any means dont take anything away from anyone else. If however you want to maximize some sort of overall wealth, you´ll get to the point, where the marginal utility of a "wealthy" persons last consumed unit is way way smaller than a not-so-wealthy persons marginal utility would be had he one more unit consumed.

thoughts on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbUIlH0stSc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

---

fact: you can load more poundage in a truck (F-150) than in a sedan (Audi A4). should it be so that you would use both vehicles only to carry equal weight, because its unfair to the truck that the audi can't carry as much as it can? and if you want to carry more weight in the truck than the sedan can carry, you should employ a second truck?


of course, this argument is based on the fact that the truck can't shapeshift to become a sedan or viceversa, at least, not easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

---

we were arguing about the redistribution of wealth and the economic policies of the Obama administration


Ah,

my point was that some of the programs like cash for clunkers destroy wealth, and that redistribution of wealth is not necessary for a working economy

---

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

---

You have to be careful with your sales tax based system though because the current sales tax system is not equal. For your system to be truly effective and on point with your fairness argument, the sales tax would be on everything, not just a boat or car, but a house purchase and all the personal, professional services of the wealty including lawyers, doctors, brokers, etc. For example, a $1,000,000 house purchase in Miami would cost you $70,000 in sales taxes. What would the tax on a stock purchase look like (beyond intangible taxes that are currently levied that are much lower than the sales tax rate)? This example should show that if you only meant a sales tax on consumer or consumption goods like the current system, you are placing a greater burden on the lower class.

Taxes: The science behind economics has shown that progressive income taxes are best. You can't think of economies like they're just a bunch of isolated factors thrown into a giant pile; they're elaborate networks which can be manipulated in innumerable ways to achieve desired results. There is no 'redistribution', just distribution based in chosen economic paradigms. There is no 'deserved wealth', just what works and what doesn't

Generally speaking, the more the economy is structured in such a way that wealth gets distributed to the working class more than the rich/investment class, the stronger and more vibrant the economy. The US has seen both sides of the coin. We've been through progressive distribution policies, and the opposite trickle-down corporate policies. Watch the Elizabeth Warren video I posted, it's all about this specific issue.

In a nutshell, our corporate trickle-down economy of the last 40 years has absolutely devastated the middle class. The populous has been tricked into Reaganomic 'gubmint is bad, rich people create the jobs, wealthy people deserve everything they've made', etc. Except that reality is that government is not bad, the consumption of the working class is what actually creates jobs, and nobody actually deserves anything without some conditions.

A rule of thumb about taxes is that if they don't target the wealthy, they're made up for by targeting the poor and middle class. Even the most optimal tax system we've ever had was massively favorable to the wealthy and corporations. It is very likely that the correct economic paradigm is one that taxes the wealthy at several magnitudes higher than current, and puts it into assloads of social programs as well as a baseline tax credits for the entire population (effectively eliminating the poverty line)

Hyperinflation: Never happen. I'm not going to watch the entire video because I've seen it all before. Hyperinflation scaremongers are stupid fuckshits who wouldn't know a legitimate claim if they fell from the brilliance tree and hit every branch on the way down

The US is currently in deflation. This is the opposite of inflation. People crying about hyperinflation now is like walking into a restaurant and complaining that they serve food. It makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, the actual numbers on what it would take to hyperinflate the USD are astounding. Not only is this one of the last things any country wants due to connectedness on USD, but the fed would literally have to be printing assloads of money non-stop for a very long time.

The two most popular examples given by scaremongers are Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic, neither of which have anything to do with anything. Zimbabwe has literally zero economy, and the printing presses have been running off the hook for years, and Weimar was post-war Germany and in massive debt with toppling interest and restrictions. US could inflate itself out of this mess several times over and wouldn't even come close to these idiots' version of hyperinflation. Also, in order to hyperinflate a currency, you have to keep doing it over and over. The fed bends over backwards to keep inflation below 10%, hyperinflation is like 500% or something stupid, and Zimbabwe's is on the order of 100k% or something.

How we get out of the mess: The root of the problem is income distribution. I forget the exact numbers, but but in the last 40 years, the working class has received something on the order of 100x less percentage of the wealth than it did in previous decades. This is 100% caused by corporatism, deregulation, non-progressive taxes, and Reaganomics

We get out of this mess by stopping voting for non-liberals. Dead serious. Socialist liberal progressives are the only people in the country who do not get kickbacks from corporations, and they are the only people who fight them. Even libertarians are wet dreams for corporations because they are deregulating free marketeers.

I don't understand the specifics about how to keep the same crisis from happening, but it would be things like isolating specific banks and insurance companies and regulating things like derivatives and hedging. But none of this will matter because in a society that lets money rule, they will simply find a new way to fuck everybody. On top of that, things are looking worse now than they were before. The specific recession isn't, but the future is. Corporations are already trying to do the same thing that caused the Crisis of 08, but in different areas, the Supreme Court is still massively corporate favored and may rule on law that would effectively ruin the working class and turn the nation into a full-blown corporate dictatorship. If you think elections are a sham now, just wait until the Supreme Court removes the cap on campaign funding. We would then see millions of corporate dollars being given to both parties, and nothing short of the second Revolutionary War would stop them

Oh and I forgot to mention that the whole too big to fail thing isn't being fixed. Wall Street is actually becoming bigger now than before, and because of this they know they're immune to having to pay for their own fuck ups. Fully expect to be bailing them out even more than we did this time in the next decade or one after.

It only took a couple years for the banks to exploit the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 99 (which caused this mess), then it only took a couple more years for the entire ship to start sinking. Even if we get great regulations things will eventually get deregulated again.

But we won't even get good regulations in the first place. The last time we did it was during the Great Depression (which was astronomically worse than this), with a Congress that was extremely favorable towards socialist liberal progressive policy, and a president whom I recall was waaaaaaaaaaaay further socialist, anti-corporate, and pro-middle class than the policies he was able to get reflected.

But that was a bygone era which I doubt we will ever see again. Maybe after the Earth is 5 degrees C hotter than today, or when everybody have brain chips that make them smarter and more empathetic. It was only because of how bad the Great Depression was that stuff got fixed to the degree that it did. By bailing out the banks, we stopped another GD from happening. While this is better for us, the effects are worse for our future and progeny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

---

we were arguing about the redistribution of wealth and the economic policies of the Obama administration


Ah,

my point was that some of the programs like cash for clunkers destroy wealth, and that redistribution of wealth is not necessary for a working economy

---

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

---

You have to be careful with your sales tax based system though because the current sales tax system is not equal. For your system to be truly effective and on point with your fairness argument, the sales tax would be on everything, not just a boat or car, but a house purchase and all the personal, professional services of the wealty including lawyers, doctors, brokers, etc. For example, a $1,000,000 house purchase in Miami would cost you $70,000 in sales taxes. What would the tax on a stock purchase look like (beyond intangible taxes that are currently levied that are much lower than the sales tax rate)? This example should show that if you only meant a sales tax on consumer or consumption goods like the current system, you are placing a greater burden on the lower class.

---

Yes, the current sales tax system would need to be revamped to make this a workable plan, and I probably should have mentioned that. The sales tax would be universal, on everything, cars, houses, clothes, cigarettes, food, everything. If you buy it, you pay the tax. The tax rate would also be the same for everything, I don't know what that figure would be, but I've heard rumor of between 4% and 12%, which would be the equivalent of the current tax intake.

Now I'm no expert, but it sounds logical to me... then again, it may create an even larger black market where no taxes are paid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Taxes: The science behind economics has shown that progressive income taxes are best. You can't think of economies like they're just a bunch of isolated factors thrown into a giant pile; they're elaborate networks which can be manipulated in innumerable ways to achieve desired results. There is no 'redistribution', just distribution based in chosen economic paradigms. There is no 'deserved wealth', just what works and what doesn't

Generally speaking, the more the economy is structured in such a way that wealth gets distributed to the working class more than the rich/investment class, the stronger and more vibrant the economy. The US has seen both sides of the coin. We've been through progressive distribution policies, and the opposite trickle-down corporate policies. Watch the Elizabeth Warren video I posted, it's all about this specific issue.

In a nutshell, our corporate trickle-down economy of the last 40 years has absolutely devastated the middle class. The populous has been tricked into Reaganomic 'gubmint is bad, rich people create the jobs, wealthy people deserve everything they've made', etc. Except that reality is that government is not bad, the consumption of the working class is what actually creates jobs, and nobody actually deserves anything without some conditions.

A rule of thumb about taxes is that if they don't target the wealthy, they're made up for by targeting the poor and middle class. Even the most optimal tax system we've ever had was massively favorable to the wealthy and corporations. It is very likely that the correct economic paradigm is one that taxes the wealthy at several magnitudes higher than current, and puts it into assloads of social programs as well as a baseline tax credits for the entire population (effectively eliminating the poverty line)

Hyperinflation: Never happen. I'm not going to watch the entire video because I've seen it all before. Hyperinflation scaremongers are stupid fuckshits who wouldn't know a legitimate claim if they fell from the brilliance tree and hit every branch on the way down

The US is currently in deflation. This is the opposite of inflation. People crying about hyperinflation now is like walking into a restaurant and complaining that they serve food. It makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, the actual numbers on what it would take to hyperinflate the USD are astounding. Not only is this one of the last things any country wants due to connectedness on USD, but the fed would literally have to be printing assloads of money non-stop for a very long time.

The two most popular examples given by scaremongers are Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic, neither of which have anything to do with anything. Zimbabwe has literally zero economy, and the printing presses have been running off the hook for years, and Weimar was post-war Germany and in massive debt with toppling interest and restrictions. US could inflate itself out of this mess several times over and wouldn't even come close to these idiots' version of hyperinflation. Also, in order to hyperinflate a currency, you have to keep doing it over and over. The fed bends over backwards to keep inflation below 10%, hyperinflation is like 500% or something stupid, and Zimbabwe's is on the order of 100k% or something.

How we get out of the mess: The root of the problem is income distribution. I forget the exact numbers, but but in the last 40 years, the working class has received something on the order of 100x less percentage of the wealth than it did in previous decades. This is 100% caused by corporatism, deregulation, non-progressive taxes, and Reaganomics

We get out of this mess by stopping voting for non-liberals. Dead serious. Socialist liberal progressives are the only people in the country who do not get kickbacks from corporations, and they are the only people who fight them. Even libertarians are wet dreams for corporations because they are deregulating free marketeers.

I don't understand the specifics about how to keep the same crisis from happening, but it would be things like isolating specific banks and insurance companies and regulating things like derivatives and hedging. But none of this will matter because in a society that lets money rule, they will simply find a new way to fuck everybody. On top of that, things are looking worse now than they were before. The specific recession isn't, but the future is. Corporations are already trying to do the same thing that caused the Crisis of 08, but in different areas, the Supreme Court is still massively corporate favored and may rule on law that would effectively ruin the working class and turn the nation into a full-blown corporate dictatorship. If you think elections are a sham now, just wait until the Supreme Court removes the cap on campaign funding. We would then see millions of corporate dollars being given to both parties, and nothing short of the second Revolutionary War would stop them

---

Hmm... I didn't have a chance to watch the video you referenced (at work) but as towards taxes that are progressive, I am just not convinced. If I work and earn a certain amount of money, no matter what that amount of money is, I get the same services from the government. Why should a larger percentage of my income go to the government when I am receiving the same services as someone else? In actuality, as I earn more money I use less services from the government, so let me rephrase that... If I work hard and earn more money, using progressively less government services, why should I pay more for them as my income increases?

As towards voting in only non-liberals. I'm not sure that is a viable answer either. It sounds from your message that you support taking the money earned by the wealthy and distributing it down... which being in the middle class myself sounds good, I'd like to have more money, but it has a backwards effect as well. Just because I have more money that was taken from the wealthy, doesn't improve my standard of living in the long run. The wealthy will work to recoup those losses that are being forced upon them one of two ways, increase prices on the goods they manufacture or move to another country for their manufacturing. If they move, my middle class job goes away... and I become poor. If they increase prices, the additional money I have now is worth less, so I stay about the same.

So I'm not sure I understand how redistribution through taxation is going to benefit anyone... maybe you can break it down better for me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

If the answer were "endure a depression" would you accept it?

---

Considering the fact that nobody else has yet to come up with a better answer, I am more or less forced to accept it...for the time being anyway. Nobody in politics or otherwise seems to offer any real answer, so it's tough.

(To Monty3038's question of why a progressive tax if the same services are used and save a large quote)

Because the government and the system help support the rich to amass their wealth and allow them to get richer, the rich should pay more for this system because they derive a much larger benefit, simply because they have more to protect. Instead of an electronic bank account, let's assume all our wealth was in canned food and that there was no government or police, only you and however you are able to protect and store your food. How long would you be able to hold on to all your canned food before some of it is stolen from you or you are killed by the hungry to eat? To keep your food and not feel so threatened, you and others decide to get together and create a system to protect your food so that you don't have to guard it all day and can do other things. The more food you have, the more you would have a vested interest in protecting your food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So I'm not sure I understand how redistribution through taxation is going to benefit anyone... maybe you can break it down better for me...

---

People with low income can afford food, rent and medical insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Hmm... I didn't have a chance to watch the video you referenced (at work) but as towards taxes that are progressive, I am just not convinced. If I work and earn a certain amount of money, no matter what that amount of money is, I get the same services from the government. Why should a larger percentage of my income go to the government when I am receiving the same services as someone else? In actuality, as I earn more money I use less services from the government, so let me rephrase that... If I work hard and earn more money, using progressively less government services, why should I pay more for them as my income increases?

---

Monty,

Say you earn $100. If the government taxes you 10% on that, you take home only $90. You cannot buy a lot of things with $100, let alone $90.
Now say you earn $100,000. The government taxes you 45%. You still have $55,000, and with that amount of money you can still pay for all sorts of nice things.
Obviously, a person who earns very little will miss a small percentage of that already puny salary much more than someone who earns a heck of a lot. I don't know the terms, but financial capacity is close to what I'm trying to point out. The low earner has inherently low financial capacity, while the big earner has high financial capacity. Also obviously, you will have a lot more people with lower financial capacity than higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

(To Monty3038's question of why a progressive tax if the same services are used and save a large quote)

Because the government and the system help support the rich to amass their wealth and allow them to get richer, the rich should pay more for this system because they derive a much larger benefit, simply because they have more to protect. Instead of an electronic bank account, let's assume all our wealth was in canned food and that there was no government or police, only you and however you are able to protect and store your food. How long would you be able to hold on to all your canned food before some of it is stolen from you or you are killed by the hungry to eat? To keep your food and not feel so threatened, you and others decide to get together and create a system to protect your food so that you don't have to guard it all day and can do other things. The more food you have, the more you would have a vested interest in protecting your food.

---

Society is not total road warrior level chaos... and even if it was... the people you employ by paying them in food will help defend your food... because it benefits them. Thus you would have employees, just as people who own companies do today. And the people you employ through your wealth (i.e.-banks, financial advisors, stock brokers, etc.) protect your wealth. Guess I don't get that explanation from you at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So I'm not sure I understand how redistribution through taxation is going to benefit anyone... maybe you can break it down better for me...

---

People with low income can afford food, rent and medical insurance.

---

Umm... no, they won't be able to.

Supply and demand.

If you take away my profit from making something, why would I continue to make it? Also, if you give that profit to someone who 'needs' it, can't I just raise the prices to compensate and then they can't afford it? AND... taking away incentive for me to succeed takes away capitalism, which leads to socialism, which leads to the society mentioned above where only kickbacks rule. In a socialist society, everyone suffers from a lack of initiative and production, as there is no reason to produce, everyone has exactly the same and is punished the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Hmm... I didn't have a chance to watch the video you referenced (at work) but as towards taxes that are progressive, I am just not convinced. If I work and earn a certain amount of money, no matter what that amount of money is, I get the same services from the government. Why should a larger percentage of my income go to the government when I am receiving the same services as someone else? In actuality, as I earn more money I use less services from the government, so let me rephrase that... If I work hard and earn more money, using progressively less government services, why should I pay more for them as my income increases?

---

Monty,

Say you earn $100. If the government taxes you 10% on that, you take home only $90. You cannot buy a lot of things with $100, let alone $90.
Now say you earn $100,000. The government taxes you 45%. You still have $55,000, and with that amount of money you can still pay for all sorts of nice things.
Obviously, a person who earns very little will miss a small percentage of that already puny salary much more than someone who earns a heck of a lot. I don't know the terms, but financial capacity is close to what I'm trying to point out. The low earner has inherently low financial capacity, while the big earner has high financial capacity. Also obviously, you will have a lot more people with lower financial capacity than higher.

---

Ok, so basically you are punishing someone for succeeding, correct? And, is there some point in that breakdown where the person earning x dollars says... there is no point in me earning y dollars as I actually am losing too much to make the extra effort to get to y worthwhile?

So if I am understanding your statement correctly, as I EARN more, I OWE more to SOCIETY? Is that correct? If it is, I'd like a better explanation than the fact that I 'able' to pay more...

Does that also mean that, for example, if I own a bakery, and I can produce 50 loaves of bread each day, I have to produce those 50 loaves, even if I am only able to sell 35, because I am 'able' to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

(To Monty3038's question of why a progressive tax if the same services are used and save a large quote)

Because the government and the system help support the rich to amass their wealth and allow them to get richer, the rich should pay more for this system because they derive a much larger benefit, simply because they have more to protect. Instead of an electronic bank account, let's assume all our wealth was in canned food and that there was no government or police, only you and however you are able to protect and store your food. How long would you be able to hold on to all your canned food before some of it is stolen from you or you are killed by the hungry to eat? To keep your food and not feel so threatened, you and others decide to get together and create a system to protect your food so that you don't have to guard it all day and can do other things. The more food you have, the more you would have a vested interest in protecting your food.

---

Society is not total road warrior level chaos... and even if it was... the people you employ by paying them in food will help defend your food... because it benefits them. Thus you would have employees, just as people who own companies do today. And the people you employ through your wealth (i.e.-banks, financial advisors, stock brokers, etc.) protect your wealth. Guess I don't get that explanation from you at all.

---

What you described is exactly what happens in third world, warlord type countries where there is no nation state, only organized crime under the guise of a government fighting over small economic scraps in the scope of the global economy. However, increase the scope of the wealth you are talking about. Paying one or two people to protect a house of food with guns is one thing, now multiply that by Bill Gates numbers.

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

---

You have the same theoretical, legal rights to life, liberty and property. However, if you have more to protect, you are consuming more of societies resources to keep your wealth and security. For example, on Miami Beach, there is an island called Star Island, which is very exclusive and many celebrities have houses there. It has City of Miami Beach public roads, meaning they cannot really restrict access, but the guardhouse is manned by a uniformed City of Miami Beach police officer 24/7. I can guarantee you that the poor communities in Opa Locka and Liberty City do not have their own uniformed officer.

Also, the law hardly protects all individuals equally, yes, they are different depending upon income. As a quick example (best I could come up with at the moment), a $90 theft will likely receive a harsher treatment than a $900,000 theft because the $90 theft was likely due to the threat of bodily injury (gun, knife) versus a white collar crime, even though the white collar crime does more overall damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, so basically you are punishing someone for succeeding, correct?

---

You are still missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So if I am understanding your statement correctly, as I EARN more, I OWE more to SOCIETY? Is that correct? If it is, I'd like a better explanation than the fact that I 'able' to pay more...

---

Ideally, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Does that also mean that, for example, if I own a bakery, and I can produce 50 loaves of bread each day, I have to produce those 50 loaves, even if I am only able to sell 35, because I am 'able' to?

---

Wrong analogy. A better analogy would be, that if you were the Prince of Bahrain, which of the following cars are you able to buy? A '72 Ford Pinto, a '89 Toyota Celica, a 2002 Ferrari Modena 360 or a 2010 Bugatti Veyron? The correct answer, if you were the Prince of Bahrain (or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates) would be "all of the above". If you had a particularly badly paying job, like say, what an average Chinese factory worker gets in China, you'd have trouble getting even the second hand pinto that probably costs like $300. The prince can obviously buy any of those cars without much effort or financial strain, while average Chinese factory worker wouldn't even be able to think of standing near the Modena, let alone the Bugatti.
Just as that car (the MSRP for a Bugatti veyron, if you didn't know, is 1.25 MILLION dollars, and the car also has a unique W16 engine) would not make a dent in the Prince's finances, so would not higher taxes. You would be left with less money, but it just wouldn't make a dent in your finances or overall quality of your life (what, one less G550 for you to buy this year?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

---

The person earning $90 is much more likely to sit life in prison while the person earning $900,000 gets a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation, but that is best left for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

---

You have the same theoretical, legal rights to life, liberty and property. However, if you have more to protect, you are consuming more of societies resources to keep your wealth and security. For example, on Miami Beach, there is an island called Star Island, which is very exclusive and many celebrities have houses there. It has City of Miami Beach public roads, meaning they cannot really restrict access, but the guardhouse is manned by a uniformed City of Miami Beach police officer 24/7. I can guarantee you that the poor communities in Opa Locka and Liberty City do not have their own uniformed officer.

Also, the law hardly protects all individuals equally, yes, they are different depending upon income. As a quick example (best I could come up with at the moment), a $90 theft will likely receive a harsher treatment than a $900,000 theft because the $90 theft was likely due to the threat of bodily injury (gun, knife) versus a white collar crime, even though the white collar crime does more overall damage.

---

Ok, let's back up a bit. The employees will do what they are told or they won't get paid. Pay is what is the deciding factor there. Now, let's move on to the discussion of the differences in justice. While the magnitude of the crimes are quite different, I doubt seriously that you meant to put such a difference, let's change it up a bit. Let's say a $9,000 crime versus a $900,000 crime. So what would the punishment be? Let's take a look at the crimes that are likely, say the $9,000 crime is grand theft auto. Jail time? Sure, probably a few years. $900,000 crime is likely embezzlement or similar, jail time? Likely many years. White Collar? Sure... but you are discussing a failure of your judicial system you are being a proponent for. Should there be more appropriate penalties? Sure... but that isn't due to economic factors, in my opinion, it is a failure of the judicial system.

But let's look at it differently, let's get to my life in my community. My community is made up of homes ranging from $60,000 to $1,000,000. How many calls last week did the police make to the homes in the bottom half of the range compared to those in the top half? At least double. How many crimes were committed there? More. Crime in more expensive neighborhoods, in Ohio at least, is not nearly as prevelant as it is in poor neighborhoods, thus they use more government resources as far as the judicial system is concerned. I live in a $150,000 home. I use city water, city sewer and have my road plowed. I pay for that out of pocket, every three months through a direct bill. I have a sidewalk, I had to pay for it out of my pocket. I don't collect welfare, social security, medicaid, or any government assistance. I don't have trouble with the law, I just honestly don't use government services unless I have to. So I guess I might be the exception, but I just don't see how I cost more to provide for government-wise than someone living in a poor neighborhood, on welfare, food stamps, in trouble with the law, etc. does. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but I just don't see it.

Back to your example. On the 900,000 dollar crime. Why is the punishment less? What are the causes for that punishment to be less, and is it truly less? Why are there white collar prisons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, so basically you are punishing someone for succeeding, correct?

---

You are still missing the point.

---

No, I get the point. The point is you expect for everyone to support everyone else. I believe your point is called socialism. So what happens when everyone only does what is necessary to get by, no one tries to excel? No one goes above and beyond? What happens then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, so basically you are punishing someone for succeeding, correct?

---

You are still missing the point.

---

No, I get the point. The point is you expect for everyone to support everyone else. I believe your point is called socialism. So what happens when everyone only does what is necessary to get by, no one tries to excel? No one goes above and beyond? What happens then?

---

Yah, but what happens when people reach a saturation point of success where their great means allow them to control the worlds wealth or governments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

---

Because if you try to levy an equal tax upon everyone you get kicked out of power..

The first time the British government attempted to levy an equal tax regardless of income, the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 happened. The last time they attempted it, the Poll Tax Riots (of 1990) happened.

There's a reason why an equal tax is forbidden in the Constitution of the United States.

Monty,

Economies are structured in such a way that people who make higher incomes do so more easily. The working class puts in 9 to 5 labor and can make 100k a year, but the wealthy class makes another 100k by doing virtually nothing but letting their money make more money.

The notion of earnings being linear is a false paradigm simply due to the nature of finances i.e. the more money you have the more money you make, and the less you have the less you make. Due to this being the reality of finances, the data shows that progressive taxation provides better overall results to the economy. This position is not one of ideology, but of empiricism.

On top of that, the idea that the wealthy class receives fewer services from the government is false. This goes back to how I opened my initial post on this subject, and how things are structured causing different outcomes. Well, the governmental structures that provide with modern finances and economies are heavily favored towards the wealthy. I mean, just massively favored for them. Let me reiterate, due to how the government is structured, the wealthy actually receive MORE services than the poor and middle classes.

Look at it this way: one child is born to a crack whore, and another child is born to Warren Buffet. The former child ends up pulling himself out of the calamity his crack whore mother brought him into, and works his ass off. He defies all odds and lands a cushy job that nets him 80k plus bennies. OTOH, the latter child, the one born to Buffet, doesn't really do anything out of the ordinary. He parties and pwns noobs and his mom's not a crack whore and he doesn't do much with his life but copy his father, and he makes billions and billions of dollars.

Do you see the disconnect?

Also the notion that strong progressive taxes provoke the wealthy to take their investments elsewhere is complete hogwash. Consumption drives economies, not investment. The wealthy class don't consume much because there is small demand that high above median. The current recession is a great example of this. The US has massive supply. We have so much money, I mean SO MUCH MONEY, but it's concentrated into the hands of only a few. We have no problems with investment and supply, but with consumption and demand. The only way this recession will end is by shoveling income into the middle class

Also, there are politicians who know what they're doing. A small handful of Congresspeople did vote against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, after all.

And if you put me in total control of the economy I guarantee that every investor in the world would be clamoring over each other to put money into US business. I would achieve this by structuring the economy in such a way that the working class has EXTREMELY strong consumptive powers.

I really can't overstate the disconnect we have between supply and demand. There's the PS3, Wii, XBOX, PSP, PC, GBA, with loads and loads of constantly new games, but there are masses of consumers who don't own them, yet I'm sure would like to. How more incredibly rich would the developers and manufacturers be if everybody had strong enough consumptive powers to own them all? Progressive policy is actually better for wealth. The problem comes from specific special interests screwing with the system. Just like how the banks have done, and they aren't paying for it

The top 1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 95%. Think about that for a moment.

I'm starting to really like Michael Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9pYp2M4444

I haven't seen any of his films, have only seen two interviews with him, and two clips from this interview/lecture, but he's been absolutely right on everything I've seen thus far. In this particular clip, he maintains the same position as David Simon on the issue of newspaper bankruptcies. The position is the correct one, yet contrary to popular opinion

wait wuf, what is the popular opinion? My opinion is that newspapers failed to morph with the times and went broke because the interwebs is outpacing the scaling they believed would occur, couple that with apathy from the media, and a lacidasical work ethic and you get pure failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

If you take away my profit from making something, why would I continue to make it? Also, if you give that profit to someone who 'needs' it, can't I just raise the prices to compensate and then they can't afford it?

---

Do you mean everyone would just stop working high paid jobs? Please don't confuse private income taxation with corporate taxation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

AND... taking away incentive for me to succeed takes away capitalism, which leads to socialism, which leads to the society mentioned above where only kickbacks rule. In a socialist society, everyone suffers from a lack of initiative and production, as there is no reason to produce, everyone has exactly the same and is punished the same.

---

So you mean if a person who now makes $200000 net per year would not work for say $190000 per year? Total loss of incentive right? We are not talking about some fixed national income that's the same for everyone. For the guy making $200k/year the $10k is a whole lot less money than for someone making $35k per year.

And please spare me your empty rhetoric and see this report:

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiative...port/index.htm

Using your description of socialism, most of the top 10 competitive economies in the world are socialist.

Part of what you mentioned (interwebs beating them) is what I was referring to. If you've seen The Wire, you'll notice that the theme of the fifth season is how the papers sacrificed content for revenue, and this is the reason that Simon gives for why he thinks newspapers are going bust. The issue is definitely debatable, but I found myself rather surprised when Simon gave his thoughts on the matter because he was the most intelligent and qualified person I'd seen speak on the matter to date, and everybody else I'd seen opined that it was because of the free internet option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash256

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

---

Because if you try to levy an equal tax upon everyone you get kicked out of power..

The first time the British government attempted to levy an equal tax regardless of income, the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 happened. The last time they attempted it, the Poll Tax Riots (of 1990) happened.

There's a reason why an equal tax is forbidden in the Constitution of the United States.

---

An Equal tax is forbidden in the constitution? Hmm... explain please.

Ah well, I can see that being educated in the public school system and not having the time to dig up a bunch of references makes me ill equipped to rebuff a lot of your discussion points, but to be honest, I still don't see it the way you describe it. I think generalizations are coming from both sides, mine and yours.

So I will bow out of this conversation, it is taking time I don't have to spare at work to read all of the posts and I'm sure you'll consider your side a success, though I remain unconvinced. I agree most of the governments in this world are socialistic, and ours in the USA is trying to become more so... though I cannot see the allure.

Thanks for letting me participate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

---

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

---

Apparently there is more for a government to be done than maintaining law and order and providing their citizens with national security. You can be believing in the power of a free market as much as want, there are still 4 classical states of market failure:

- public goods
- external effects
- resistant natural monopolies
- incomplete information

The problem of taxation correlates particularly with the entire problem of public goods (and to a lesser extent to external effects where things like a Pigou-tax can lead to more efficiency).

A (pure) public good is defined as a good where consumers can´t be excluded from using that good and neither are rivals in using these goods (hence national security and LAO are prime examples). When it comes to providing things classified as public goods, private production will usually lead to a non-efficient production level. You may want to read about free rider, the [economical] prisoners dilemma and how collective and individual rationality diverge when it comes to public goods.

Now even if you are going for a "maximize the individuals wealth"-approach and absolutely don´t care about developing your national economy as a whole, you still face problems that an inequal distribution of income results in inequal willingnesses-to-pay for said public goods.

Imagine you pulled 500k/yr and your neighbour was living off welfare checks. While your willingness-to-pay for law and order should be quiet high (assuming your neighbour is likely to kick ur ass and piss on your Lambo), he himself couldnt care less about how many cops are patroling around his block, b/c he has very little that could be protected by the cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

An Equal tax is forbidden in the constitution? Hmm... explain please.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_ta...deral_taxation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash256

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

An Equal tax is forbidden in the constitution? Hmm... explain please.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_ta...deral_taxation

---

So in the second paragraph for where you linked, it clearly states that an income tax is not a capitation tax... so if we taxed all income at the same rate, say 12%, that would not be a tax forbidden by the constitution. Or if we imposed a sales tax rate of say 8% on all purchases, that would not be illegal according to the constitution, correct?

Yeah, i said I was done with this thread but couldn't stay away.

Let me ask a question, for those of you who seem to study this heavily, and have lots of reference materials... which economy in the present day world do you feel most represents the ideals you would like the United States to strive towards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Yeah, i said I was done with this thread but couldn't stay away.

Let me ask a question, for those of you who seem to study this heavily, and have lots of reference materials... which economy in the present day world do you feel most represents the ideals you would like the United States to strive towards?

---

***I misread the question, but didn't feel like deleting the post

I'm not sure. It's also a difficult question to answer due to the heavy dynamics involved. For example: China could be the *best*, but their starting point is a bit behind modern, and they have a whole load of social issues, and I kinda don't consider China a candidate (maybe in 50 years)

There are a bunch of nations that are currently doing a better job than the US. Canada for one. If I had to guess at who's number one I would say France or Sweden, but a whole bunch of other ones in similar areas would be contenders. Possibly even South Korea. I really don't know though. I only guess France because the strength of their health insurance and unions suggests that they have a strong middle class, and Sweden was pretty much the best place to be in the 30s during the Depression. They were waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of everybody else, were the first country to exit the Depression, even before Germany, and by a wide margin

*** As to the exact question, I'd say a conglomeration of several European nations like I mentioned, and some pieces from places like China, Canada, probably Brazil and SK, maybe Japan.

The thing is that no one country has it right. Overall, the best country on the planet to be born into is probably Denmark, but that's not just for economics. The thing is that even the best country is way behind where it should be. By this I mean liberal and socialist. Forget everything you've heard about what those are, and start by looking them up on wiki. They're much different than many think. In a nutshell, they're about liberty and equality, and that's it. Which brings up the interesting notion that people think that capitalism is all about equality, yet there's this diametrically opposed ideology (socialism) which is also about equality, yet it's the one that, according to the data, works.

And just to be clear, socialism is not some kind of command society. Because private enterprise is important for equality, it is also important for socialism

And Monty, about taxes, you're caught up on a certain ideology about equality which disregards the relative. Things like consumption and flat taxes are very disproportionately burdensome on the lower income brackets because they end up paying a larger percentage of their living expenses on taxes.

The real equal taxes are progressive taxes because they're subjective, and because reality is subjective, they work better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Part of what you mentioned (interwebs beating them) is what I was referring to. If you've seen The Wire, you'll notice that the theme of the fifth season is how the papers sacrificed content for revenue, and this is the reason that Simon gives for why he thinks newspapers are going bust. The issue is definitely debatable, but I found myself rather surprised when Simon gave his thoughts on the matter because he was the most intelligent and qualified person I'd seen speak on the matter to date, and everybody else I'd seen opined that it was because of the free internet option

---

You know, being an old dude and all that... the decline of the newspaper does concern me. Not 'cause I'm going to miss the medium. I'm going to miss the checks and balances that were in place (no matter how imperfect), the brand/reputation that forced some sense of accountability, a heritage of fact checking and editorial control (again... no matter how imperfect), and an infrastructure that could afford qualified, competent reporters.

They screwed the pooch on their own, and have nobody to blame but themselves for their demise. But, now we're increasingly left with nothing but a morass of poorly written, poorly substantiated, misinformed internet crap that feeds on itself and manufactures "truth" far more than reports it.

The health care debate is a perfect example. The rise of individual bloggers as viable sources is scary, as it completely blurs the line between journalistic reporting and "everyone has an @sshole" opinion. I've made a point of reading every public version of the various healthcare bills as they've become available. Sure, traditional newspapers always skewed their perspective based on political bent. But the absolute blatant bullsh!t that populates the blogosphere on both sides of the discussion, that is then self-perpetuated (gotta love the "blog quotes blog quotes blog" like the original person had any credibility whatsoever...) is astounding. It's actually downright scary.

Reminds me of when desktop publishing first emerged, and all of a sudden, everyone was freed to express their inner designer. The outcome was 99% total crap. This most recent destruction of any requirement for true journalistic integrity or accountability is far more insidious.

And for those that'll scream at me that "corporate voice" is far more distorting than the liberated individual... my response is that, in general, the liberated individual is an idiot -- naturally so, as there is no longer a "barrier for entry" based on skill or merit. And anybody who ever communicated anything did so through the distortion of their own POV. The difference is the "free" individual has far less to risk, far less accountability and far less incentive to actually do anything but shape the available information to support their own perspective.

Ok, so I saw this on a humor site today and couldn't resist adding it...

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7806/n2xcd.jpg

lol that's fucking spot on

hahahahah

favorite is libertarianism described by everybody else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Part of what you mentioned (interwebs beating them) is what I was referring to. If you've seen The Wire, you'll notice that the theme of the fifth season is how the papers sacrificed content for revenue, and this is the reason that Simon gives for why he thinks newspapers are going bust. The issue is definitely debatable, but I found myself rather surprised when Simon gave his thoughts on the matter because he was the most intelligent and qualified person I'd seen speak on the matter to date, and everybody else I'd seen opined that it was because of the free internet option

---

You know, being an old dude and all that... the decline of the newspaper does concern me. Not 'cause I'm going to miss the medium. I'm going to miss the checks and balances that were in place (no matter how imperfect), the brand/reputation that forced some sense of accountability, a heritage of fact checking and editorial control (again... no matter how imperfect), and an infrastructure that could afford qualified, competent reporters.

They screwed the pooch on their own, and have nobody to blame but themselves for their demise. But, now we're increasingly left with nothing but a morass of poorly written, poorly substantiated, misinformed internet crap that feeds on itself and manufactures "truth" far more than reports it.

The health care debate is a perfect example. The rise of individual bloggers as viable sources is scary, as it completely blurs the line between journalistic reporting and "everyone has an @sshole" opinion. I've made a point of reading every public version of the various healthcare bills as they've become available. Sure, traditional newspapers always skewed their perspective based on political bent. But the absolute blatant bullsh!t that populates the blogosphere on both sides of the discussion, that is then self-perpetuated (gotta love the "blog quotes blog quotes blog" like the original person had any credibility whatsoever...) is astounding. It's actually downright scary.

Reminds me of when desktop publishing first emerged, and all of a sudden, everyone was freed to express their inner designer. The outcome was 99% total crap. This most recent destruction of any requirement for true journalistic integrity or accountability is far more insidious.

And for those that'll scream at me that "corporate voice" is far more distorting than the liberated individual... my response is that, in general, the liberated individual is an idiot -- naturally so, as there is no longer a "barrier for entry" based on skill or merit. And anybody who ever communicated anything did so through the distortion of their own POV. The difference is the "free" individual has far less to risk, far less accountability and far less incentive to actually do anything but shape the available information to support their own perspective.

---

It's a bad sign when one of the most trusted news sources is parody news, like Jon Stewart. While I would contend that we still have good news sources (Lehrer, Rose, Moyers), there's just nothing like Murrow anymore, and I feel that we may never get it back. I'm too young to have experienced that time though, but from what I hear, that was when journalists actually had some balls and integrity

While I've seen sources like the ones mentioned above do controversial stuff, it's never in a controversial manner. Probably the biggest balls I've seen from a journalist in the last decade would be from Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondence speech (but in many ways he's not even a journalist, just a comedian), and Bill Maher never holds back, but he's preaching to the choir

I honestly hope we see a new paradigm of journalism influenced by the Daily Show. Stewart always says that he's not a source for news, but he knows that he has become influential, and he actually does some hard hitting stuff, even though it's coupled with parody and doesn't reach a wide enough berth to garner a ton of attention

I agree with you Wuf. Also have a lot of respect for your opinion. We differ on conclusions i.e. I've spent a ton of time in China, esp the outer provinces and the bulk of that country is dirt poor w/out even access to clean water, basic health care etc. The Chinese are a sig contributor to global GDP, but as are most of the emerging markets which will make up 90%+ of the growth in global GDP by 2010. There's a ton of reasons, but none of them make me have any interest in adopting China's approach to social and economic management. But at the end of the day, you have an informed opinion, and your response reflect that. Much <3 for that sh!t.

I fear the days of old school investigative journalism are behind us - in part because consumers don't want it. Partisanship is more fun and the internet presents the opportunity to find support for virtually any idiotic position or misinformed premise. It blurs if not eliminates the idea of "right" and "wrong." Whatever I want to believe, I can gravitate to the folks that have selectively distorted the facts in support of my opinion.

Classic example... the "death panels" argument in the health care debate is beyond ignorant and manipulative. On the other side, I had dinner with 3 very liberal friends (also very educated) who swore to the death that 30% of the US population is uninsured. Nice as a talking point, but completely incorrect -- it's actually at best 40m, if you stretch and include the invincibles who don't WANT to pay for insurance 'cause they'd rather buy beer and video games... and that's against a 2009 census number of a little over 300mil which puts it at slightly over 10%. But that wasn't the talking point their liberal advocates had fed them...

Bottom line... the US increasingly lacks the intellectual curiosity to pursue the truth. Instead, they display a preference for the comfort of spoon fed partisanship on both sides... which sucks. And gone are the days of a quality news media that holds both sides accountable for the bullsh!t strictly because, well, they should.

I like Stewart in big part because he calls both sides on their crap. I dislike Maher in part because he soft pedals liberals while skewering w/ sometimes questionable premise and data those who don't agree. But at least he's transparent in his platform and doesn't pretend to be "fair and balanced."

I think we're in some deep sh!t if we opt for just more of the same.....

Oh... BTW, re: your point on news sources. I solve the problem by a daily feeding on everything from CNN, BBC, WSJ, IHT, Al Jazeera, Hareetz, and about 20 other sources. Funny thing... if you read the same coverage from all of these perspectives, you can actually still piece together something that's close to the truth. Wonder how long that will last...

Im guessing that your 3 liberal friends meant uninsured and underinsured. Obv there is a difference, but their point is very valid, and Im guessing that when underinsured people are included it probably is somewhere around 1/3. And even though the facts were skewed they really arent that far off. Being underinsured is damn near the same as being uninsured. Youll be far less likely to seek/receive preventative care, and if anything big happens youre probably gonna be filing for bankruptcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Im guessing that your 3 liberal friends meant uninsured and underinsured. Obv there is a difference, but their point is very valid, and Im guessing that when underinsured people are included it probably is somewhere around 1/3. And even though the facts were skewed they really arent that far off. Being underinsured is damn near the same as being uninsured. Youll be far less likely to seek/receive preventative care, and if anything big happens youre probably gonna be filing for bankruptcy.

---

Meh... I have yet to see a meaningful definition of "underinsured" that compels me. A big part of the problem is the entitlement mentality of most of my fellow Americans. We bristle at the idea of an HMO limiting our choice in doctors and anyone -- including panels of credentialed physicans -- telling us that we can't have something. Then we want to sue the sh!t out of anybody we can find when an unfortunate outcome presents itself.

The European coverage models work in part because of a cultural focus on the benefit of the collective over the individual. I grew up under Britains NHS. You don't ring the govt up and yell at them because, well, you'd rather go to another doctor that you like better. You don't sue the NHS and expect a 7 or 8 figure jackpot (or at least, you don't do it expecting to actually GET one...) And you don't argue about contributing to coverage from the first $ you make.

And yet the NHS (and other national health services) ration care (out of necessity... let's all just agree that that's a fundamental requirement of scarce resources) and manage the hell out of the process. The outcome is okay for cultures that are more communally focused... the rile the hell out of our Walden Pond, float a f-kin raft down the river, me against the world culture.

My biggest problem is what Americans really want is unlimited coverage for everyone with nobody telling them no... ever... about anything. And that's fundamentally idiotic. So the left smokes the pipe dream that it's somehow attainable, without honest calibration of the costs, implications and practical long-term methods of delivery. And the right fights the fight of the individual, unfortunate be damned.

And no... my liberal friends were truly misinformed and it's nowhere near 1/3 if you don't base your opinion on partisan talking points.

Thanks for the kind words. And yeah I'm not going to defend China. I don't know much about non-US anyways.

Have you watched Maher recently? While some of his positions are just bleh, for the last year he's been virtually spot on with his ending monologue, and he most often has strong guests on his show. I also get the impression that many of his guests really like him. Like the episode where he interviewed Oliver Stone and Cameron Diaz, Stone was vocally impressed by him, and Diaz looked like she was about to cum.

Nonetheless, I really like Maher. He has a few unsubstantiated positions that nobody has yet called him out on (like how bad he thinks some food is), but for the most part he uses his ears

Right I agree it should be rationed. But being underinsured is way different than being under a system that rations medical services. Turning people down because they dont have good enough insurance is way different than turning them down based on merit.

Also the whole "well a lot of those people are young and dont even want health insurance" thing is a pretty lame argument. What if Im 45 and dont have kids and dont want any, maybe Ive even got snipped to keep my men from marching. I still have to fucking pay taxes that go to schools.

All that being said, I do have a quick question that has been baffling me. What exactly does a healthcare reform bill do without a public option? Isnt that the fucking point? What are we reforming without a public option? And these arent rhetorical questions, I truly dont understand what is in the bill that changes anything if its still all a privately run system.

While nobody hypothetically needs a public option, in the US, I believe we do because of our massive deregulatory and loophole driven policies. A public option would go a long way in ensuring that gains with health insurance are not lost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlcCh...r_profilepage#

The challenge is that, by definition, a "competitive public option" is a pure fiction and, by most perspectives, a complete oxymoron. A "competitive public option" would:

- Be required to operate under the same financial transparency as any public company (SOX, SEC disclosure laws, GAAP, financial reporting cycles, etc.)
- Be required to operate under the same state and federal insurance regulations, requiring compliance with 50 distinct sets of regulatory obligations
- Be required to run AT LEAST at a sustainable break-even point, with no opaque funding from other souces.
- Be required to deliver some form of return from operations to investors, in this case the tax payers, in the form of tax reduction or at least offset revenue to replace politicized depletion of social security funds.
- Be comletely delinked from programs that, for any other company, would be considered unfair competition such as Medicare/Medicaid and not permited to use their negotiating power to compete UNLESS competing public companies were also permitted to collude in ways that are currently considered illegal.

And the list goes on...

Point is, there is no "competitive public option." There IS a "public option" that could very effectively fill the gap for the less than 10% that are uninsured by need, provide bridge coverage for the un- or under-employed and act as a backstop for the current process. Or we could scrap the entire process and move to a completely govt sponsored option, keeping in mind the many and large implications of such a change.

A couple of stream-of-consciousness points...
1. I'm not supporting the "I'm young, I don't want to pay" movement. I think it's a fundamental leak in any actuarial model. Just as you can't say "I only want to pay my $200 a month auto insurance premium right before I hit the back of a f-kin truck", you can't say "Goddamn insurance people won't let me sign up for $200 a month with the guarantee I'm gonna stick them with $10K a month in treatment cost for pre-existing conditions". That's just dumb, and is a fundamental reason why the current system won't work. To fix it, you have to take rights from both sides... the insurer cannot deny based on pre-existing and the insured can't hop around from company to company based on what they perceive is "the best deal" and elect not to contribute to the actuarial pool until their old, sick and ready to shop. I'm all for mandatory contributions.
2) There are two distinct issues at play - a) coverage and b) cost of care. But as usual in our f-d up political process, we've merged the two and everyone is using their position to beat the crap out of the opposing group based alot of stuff other than the real solutions to these problems. Coverage is actually easy to fix assuming you force individual responsibility through mandatory contributions and leverage MedX as the backstop based on need.

Cost of care is much, much bigger problem. And Wuf - I kinda agree with you... altho' I don't see the arbitrary creation of a public option as solving the problem. MedX already "squeezes the water balloon" whereby doctors (to meet the income they believe they should have, net of grossly expensive education costs and horrendous malpractice insurance overhead) charge insurance cos and individuals (esp) higher rates to make up for the hit they take on MedX customers. So private already subsidizes public, but gets no credit for it. Putting more people on the public tab doesn't really solve the cost equation as it assumes that "big bad insurance profits" are the main driver of cost.

As usual it's far more complex than that... but we're going to take the simplistic approach 'cause our partisan method screams either "government is hitler" or "corporations are hitler"... neither of which makes for a very nuanced response in public policy.

Take bioethics out of the equation and you still have an incredibly complex challenge. Throw them in, and you got one of Sisyphusian proportians. Even the countries that have universal coverage (for now) are facing cost nightmares that leave the status quo unsustainable (France, Germany, UK) so just throwing it at the govt obv doesn't solve the problem.

We have to find a nuanced way to solve everything from the insane cost/risk ratios of biopharm research (most major drug companies have virtually empty pipelines), our own sue-happy culture, the cost of medical education, physicians expectation of earning power, unrealistic expectations of consumption and choice, the ridiculously fractured state-level mandate for insurance regulation, multiple layers of cost/profit taking (altho' keeping in mind the implications of eliminating layers... ie. alot of those insurance company $ go to creating jobs, a portion of which would go away in order to save costs) and the list goes on.

But we don't like complex 'cause it doesn't boil down into tasty sound bites and fodder for either party's loud and feisty fringe base. Plus it makes our heads hurt to think about.....

I don't understand this issue nearly as well as you do, so I'll just ask a few questions

Do we already have an insurance option that is non-profit and correctly controls administrative costs? If so, why does anybody care about a public option since those are the effective cost cutters? And if not, how is a public option not a great idea?

Tell me more about France etc cost problems. I know nothing about that, but they're regularly rated higher than US. Also, are all experiencing these problems, could they simply be recession related, and which country does it the best cost-wise?


Like I said, I don't follow this nearly as much as I should if I were to fully understand it, but that won't keep me from opining that I suspect that if I did study it enough I would still think that the most correct system is one that completely de-profitizes, de-privatizes, and covers everybody. This may not be the most cost-effective, but dammit, at least it's the most moral. I suspect that cost could be easily met via appropriate taxation policies

Also, do all nations' care involve insurance? I would assume that under governmental universal care the 'insurance' part would simply be skipped