Quote :

"how exactly would electing Obama be a reward to the Republicans again?"

read again and see if you comprehend it this time around

8/25/2008 6:22:40 PM

read my statement again and see if you comprehend it this time around...

8/26/2008 5:59:05 PM

Quote :

"After all that has happened in the past eight years, if America is so afraid of whatever perceived threat that Obama supposedly brings to reward the Republicans with another term in office, it deserves to be punished with the terrible policies, dissolution of civil liberties and subjugation of democracy for which it yearns."

-Scuba Steve

me fail english?

Passive voice + poor grammar + one run-on sentence = incomprehensible post

This is the worst post I've ever read. And Steve blames the reader for not understanding it? Talk about Biden-level arrogance.

Anyways, I think ScubaSteve was talking about the American people rewarding Republicans the Presidency. I guess he's saying that, after everything that has happened, Americans get what they deserve if they elect another Republican President? As if all Republicans are exactly like George Bush? I don't know. Even if that's what Steve meant it's still kinda retarded.

[Edited on August 26, 2008 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ``]

8/26/2008 6:36:52 PM

I understood his post perfectly. He doesn't understand my post, mang...

8/26/2008 6:41:44 PM

Quote :

"This is the worst post I've ever read."

You win tickets to Hyperbole 2008.

By the way, how it is a run-on sentence? I see two dependent clauses and an independent clause.

8/26/2008 7:20:39 PM

Quote :

"Talk about Biden-level arrogance. "

lol. look at these talking points come oozing out. Dude, you sound like Rush. You probably listen to him now...talk about falling down and out.

8/27/2008 8:34:25 AM

^Not taking sides in the personal dispute you are having, but there is a certain amount of irony in belittling someone else for listening to Rush when you've obviously listened to him enough to know what he sounds like.

Carry on.

8/27/2008 9:34:45 AM

Knowing Socks``, I can safely say that he is NOT a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure there are more than enough posts on TWW from him that would attest to this fact. Socks`` might listen to Rush every now and then, but I'd be willing to bet it is solely out of morbid curiosity.

8/27/2008 9:57:10 PM

Quote :

"YEAH FUCK businesses b.c EVERY incorporated business is some multi-billion dollar greedy corporation."

This is clearly not my position on the matter. I'm an employee of one great incorporated business and own part of another which I started with friends in college. I'd rather see a balance between helping the poor and supporting business than a completely disregard for the poor however, yes.

Quote :

"So you care more about some lazy fat ass mom or some thug who can only get a job making $9/hr after obtaining a criminal record for various felony offenses; than a hard working diligent couple that run the local mom and pop store or the crafty college grad that obtained a loan in order to start a business making a product that may cause the next paradigm shift."

Would you like a corncob pipe for your strawman?

Quote :

"In 2006 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.[7] Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children"

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

Obviously, not every person in poverty is "some lazy fat ass mom or some thug who can only get a job making $9/hr after obtaining a criminal record for various felony offenses," but way to show your colors. Also, clearly not every business owner is "a hard working diligent couple that run the local mom and pop store or the crafty college grad that obtained a loan in order to start a business making a product that may cause the next paradigm shift"

[Edited on August 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2008 12:48:44 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather see a balance between helping the poor and supporting business than a completely disregard for the poor however, yes."

I think that in many cases, it's possible to do both. Often times, what is good for business is good for the poor by virtue of job creation, boom-driven revenue surpluses and more private money spent on charitable organizations.



[Edited on August 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : 3]

8/28/2008 12:53:29 PM

It's possible to balance helping the poor and supporting business while disregarding the poor?

Just kidding. I know what you meant. Obviously there needs to be a balance, but we don't currently have one. I don't feel that McCain or the Republican party as a whole wants one, either.

8/28/2008 12:55:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't feel that McCain or the Republican party as a whole wants one, either."

I can't speak for McCain or the republicans, but I gather they are not opposed to helping the poor. Rather, they are opposed to state coercion as the means to achieve that end. There is the growing false-premise among many Americans that if the government didn't do a certain activitiy, it would not be done. I think this is incorrect as evidenced by the billions donated to private charities and the amount of man-hours private individuals put forth to helping those in their community.

After 60+ years of re-distributing private wealth, why has there been little in the way of cost-benefit analysis? What specific government program can we identify and honestly say that it has had a profound effect on society, more so than any private charity. How has robbing Peter to pay Paul been effective in bettering Paul's situation? Furthermore, what incentives have we created that will lead Paul to our desired goal for him? (or, more perversely, what disincentives have been created that may lead to his dependence on Peter's money?)





[Edited on August 28, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2008 2:13:51 PM

Quote :

"There is the growing false-premise among many Americans that if the government didn't do a certain activitiy, it would not be done. I think this is incorrect as evidenced by the billions donated to private charities and the amount of man-hours private individuals put forth to helping those in their community."

I certainly don't think that. I'm pretty libertarian on that point. What I do know is that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars just in the last few years to kill people rather than to help them. If it's ok to spend those billions, I'm just suggesting diverting them to help our own people rather than harm people half a world away.

8/28/2008 3:05:44 PM

Quote :

"we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars just in the last few years to kill people rather than to help them"

Yes, all those billions of dollars have been spent killing people in Iraq, not on rebuilding the country and helping Iraqis. Glad you got it all figured out.

8/28/2008 3:22:17 PM

Quote :

"not on rebuilding the country that we destroyed and helping Iraqis"

8/28/2008 3:24:49 PM

Here's a tax calculator that will tell you how much you'd save with Obama's tax plan. Very easy to use. I bet you each and everyone of you would save...

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

8/28/2008 4:52:00 PM

^weird...i plugged in both $100k and $125k and it said i probably wouldnt get a tax cut (i dont make that much btw) but then i plugged in $150k and they save a measly $235 dollars, whereas someone making $200k saves almost $2800?

8/28/2008 4:55:32 PM

Weird...shit maybe it doesn't work.

8/28/2008 4:59:18 PM

maybe thats just how the brackets are setup, i havent kept up with the tax plans as much as most other people probably have so i dunno

fyi i used Single and Zero dependants

[Edited on August 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2008 5:08:30 PM

I do not understand why liberals automatically go to raising taxes for the rich, lowering taxes for the poor, and giving more handouts. There is more that can be done to improve the lifestyle of the lower quintiles of our society without punishing those who make responsible life decisions.

I think we have come a long way since the days of factory workers spending 12 hours per days, 6 days per week, in a hazardous mill getting paid pocket change per day.

^ I don't understand how/why those getting paid 15K are getting $896 in tax cuts. After the personnal exemption and the standard deduction a single person would only have about $6000-$7000 in taxable income. This would of course be taxed at the lowest rate of 10%. Last time I checked this would come to about $700 in taxes. So according to Obama this wage earner would be getting a tax credit of $196. Likely people making income at this low level are either a Dependant or getting full gov't assistance (subsidized housing, welfare, foodstamps, medicare, etc). No the poor shouldn't be starving in the streets but why do liberals believe bending over back to cater to the poor many of whom are the way they are for good reasons.

Un-fucking believable though that the Sallie Sue that is picking her boogers while working the hardees drive through is getting a bigger tax cut. Disregarding the fact that I probably pay 10x the taxes and actually am making a contribution to society not living on the system

I suppose it is possible Obama does not actually believe his policy is the best but merely wants to cater to what he knows is one of his primary voter demographics.

If I was poor, lacked ambition, lazy, lacking the smarts to get a good job, a stoner hippy, and/or had a criminal record I too would probably enjoy the idea of working as a Domino's Delivery Guy 20 hours a week. My income might be a meager 15K but thanks to Obama I know i could spend all my money on bud, video games, and my favorite stoner movies. Since after all I would pay no taxes, get my share of welfare money, and can live on the system.



[Edited on August 28, 2008 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ll]

8/28/2008 8:27:44 PM

Quote :

"There is more that can be done to improve the lifestyle of the lower quintiles of our society without punishing those who make responsible life decisions."

Taxing the very rich can hardly be described as a punishment. It's just moving numbers around. Oh dear, I have fifty million today instead of a hundred million. Who cares?

8/28/2008 10:56:40 PM

i know. who cares that I worked hard. fuck me because I actually contribute to the economy.

8/28/2008 11:38:22 PM

^^ They and their tax lawyers care. As tax rates increase the deadweight loss to society increases. And that loss is borne by all through lower tax revenues (eventually), lower profits, higher prices, and lower wages.

8/29/2008 12:20:26 AM

Quote :

"They and their tax lawyers care."

Why? I doubt it would affect their consumption habits. There's a limit to how many goods and services a person can use.

Quote :

"As tax rates increase the deadweight loss to society increases. And that loss is borne by all through lower tax revenues (eventually), lower profits, higher prices, and lower wages."

According to that dismal pseudoscience, sure. As you know, I'm no fan of the government. I'd personally rather smash the entire price system and adopt technocracy. Until that happens, I support taxing the rich as much as possible. Tax them until they no longer exist. If we must have a state, I want it to do something worthwhile with all those guns.

8/29/2008 12:59:58 AM

^dude...they might only buy 7 houses instead of like 10 or something...

8/29/2008 1:03:41 AM

But buying a house alone isn't really consumption. That's the insane part about our property rights. Rich folks own things simply to control them, not to use. Why is that considered acceptable? Why is this right conflated with that of use? I have no idea. I imagine our species will one day look back on such property rights as bizarre barbarism.

8/29/2008 1:32:02 AM

Quote :

"Taxing the very rich can hardly be described as a punishment. It's just moving numbers around. Oh dear, I have fifty million today instead of a hundred million"

I am not even talking about the uber rich; more like the upper middle class lawyer, manager, engineer, small business owner, etc that is getting raped with 28%-32% tax rate to pay for the hardees grill handler to live nearly tax free on a gov't subsidized lifestyle b.c they choose to drop out of high school

8/29/2008 8:41:53 AM

ahhh, HUR, you know those people inherited those jobs from their rich uncles.

8/29/2008 11:10:51 AM

why can't we all just sit around smoking dope and eating cheetoes all day by taxing Bill Gates at 60%

8/29/2008 11:18:26 AM

hehe, cause Gates is smart enough to get rid of a lot of his income so it doesn't get wasted by the government

8/29/2008 11:21:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm a big fan of getting back up, personal responsibility, educating yourself, making good choices, and getting over the idea that the world owes you a living. "

8/29/2008 11:22:20 AM

Quote :

"I am not even talking about the uber rich; more like the upper middle class lawyer, manager, engineer, small business owner, etc that is getting raped with 28%-32% tax rate to pay for the hardees grill handler to live nearly tax free on a gov't subsidized lifestyle b.c they choose to drop out of high school"

Look, middle-class people ain't getting screwed by poor folks. I have no idea why you're worried about Wal-Mart employees living it up. Existence at the economic bottom isn't so wonderful. Lawyers and such retain countless advantages. They're doing fine.

8/29/2008 11:16:21 PM

Quote :

"But buying a house alone isn't really consumption. That's the insane part about our property rights. Rich folks own things simply to control them, not to use. Why is that considered acceptable? Why is this right conflated with that of use? I have no idea. I imagine our species will one day look back on such property rights as bizarre barbarism."

Because ownership to control allows one to perform such miracles as renting and leasing. Consider the up and coming musician. He can rent time in a studio for a fraction of the cost that it would entail to purchase, set up and maintain his own studio. If the owner of the studio couldn't just buy things to be able to control them, renting it would be impossible. Sure you could argue that if the owner wasn't owning and controlling it, the musician wouldn't have to rent it at all, but that ignores the point that likely the studio wouldn't even exist without someone who wanted to own it and fronted the capital to have it built in the first place. The cost to produce the last album I was involved in (as far as studio and production, not counting rights and manufacturing) was about $1500. That included some fantastic deals on time rented but even still, by comparison, the software that the studio was using alone was roughly the same cost, never mind the mics which were a couple hundred a piece, the hardware involved was in the thousands, and you don't want to know how much sound proofing and deadening a room can run you. Without some rich person (or persons in this case) with the ability and desire to own this, even though they didn't use it themselves, we could never have recorded the album as it would have just been way outside our financial ability.

Quote :

"Look, middle-class people ain't getting screwed by poor folks. I have no idea why you're worried about Wal-Mart employees living it up. Existence at the economic bottom isn't so wonderful. Lawyers and such retain countless advantages. They're doing fine."

Every hike in taxes hits the middle class in some way shape or form. Hike the capital gains tax, and all of a sudden the ability of the middle class to retire on their own funds has decreased. Hike the cost of doing business, and the prices will go up. Hike the cost of living for the people that own the businesses, and the prices go up. Increase the taxes enough to push the marginal people out, and competition and choice goes down, and you guessed it, prices go up. A local example, a privately owned shop around here hires and pays fairly not only unskilled employees but also students (both high school and college). The recent changes in minimum wage had three immediate results 1) A freeze was put on hiring any new employees as the store couldn't afford it anymore, 2) student employees had their hours cut to reduce their costs so that non student employees who needed the money for a living could keep their hours 3) prices went up so that the store could still turn a profit and hopefully in the future afford to hire more students or give hours back to those whose hours were cut. Incidentally, since the employees of the store were also customers, the minimum wage hike had the following effect on them: Non student employees already making above the hike limit saw a decrease in their spending power as they were making no more money, but prices went up all the same. Student employees saw their income stay the same or be cut, and dealt with the price increase.

It fascinates me that someone like you, who is constantly talking about how people are connected and how doing X ultimately helps Y doesn't see that increasing anyone's cost, anyone at all, increases costs for everyone.

And never forget that the government is just as much of a middle man as any business out there. Sure, you might take a few million from the rich, but now you have to pay the people who take that money, and pay the people who distribute that money, and you need to pay the people who over see the taking and distributing of that money, and since this is the government, don't forget the chunk that will be "set aside" for the general fund. Also being the government, I'm sure we'll contract most of it out, so now we'll be paying the contractor AND paying people to watch the contractor.

8/30/2008 12:19:16 AM

if obama is lowering taxes for 95 percent of folks how much do folks in the top 5% make...i'm guessing more than 100k(which means they can probably afford it)

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 12:31 AM. Reason : wrong person]

8/30/2008 12:31:22 AM

Quote :

"Because ownership to control allows one to perform such miracles as renting and leasing."

While you personally may have had a pleasant experience here, many do not. Control of property allows owners to screw over renters. The practice has a long history in this country.

Quote :

"Sure you could argue that if the owner wasn't owning and controlling it, the musician wouldn't have to rent it at all, but that ignores the point that likely the studio wouldn't even exist without someone who wanted to own it and fronted the capital to have it built in the first place."

That's exactly what I'd argue, yes. I guess capitalism deserves a few points for producing results, albeit at high human cost. I reject the idea that folks couldn't produce studios and the like without the current system. You don't need markets or money to construct a building. You need raw materials, workers, and a plan.

Quote :

"It fascinates me that someone like you, who is constantly talking about how people are connected and how doing X ultimately helps Y doesn't see that increasing anyone's cost, anyone at all, increases costs for everyone."

I understand deadweight loss and other such economic jargon. Regardless, governments can successfully redistribute wealth. The European model demonstrates it. Even TGD admits this. Redistribution might reduce economic growth, but I could accept that. I value equality highly.

Note that taxing the rich blind isn't my ideal system. That leaves the state intact, with all its oppression. It's garbage, but I'd rather have government socialism than the growing economic gap we've got now. If we must have a state, let's be equals under it.

8/30/2008 1:26:32 AM

Quote :

"if obama is lowering taxes for 95 percent of folks how much do folks in the top 5% make...i'm guessing more than 100k(which means they can probably afford it)"

Not always....

Quote :

" Which of the following families is "richer"? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000. The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items. Many politicians and media people confuse taxable income with disposable and in-kind income. The second family is clearly far better off financially than the first family, yet many in the U.S. Congress, including Sen. Barack Obama, want to increase taxes on the first (and poorer) family and not on the wealthier family. They have mis-defined "rich" by confusing a flow (income) with a stock (real net assets), and thus come to the wrong conclusion. They want to tax those (who make more than $250,000 a year) who are trying to become rich, while preserving the status for those who already have wealth. Increasing taxes on those 2.3 million American households who earn more than $250,000 per year is foolish and destructive for several reasons. It reduces the incentives for highly productive people to spend years in school obtaining needed skills, and then work hard in producing goods and services desired by their fellow citizens. It encourages the misallocation of productive resources by encouraging people to find ways to minimize the tax burden rather than to use their labor and savings for the highest and best use. It reduces the mobility of families up and down the income scale, and freezes the advantages of those who have substantial inherited wealth (e.g., the Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis, etc.). Those who want the "rich" to pay more or "give back" not only confuse income with wealth, but also fail to understand life cycle mobility, and the effects of taxation and income redistribution programs on "disposable income." Many people, when they are young (including the average graduate student), would be classified as poor in terms of taxable income. Most people have a sharp rise in family or "household" income after they graduate from school, and many of these enter the definition of "upper income" in their forties and fifties, but after they retire, their taxable income often drops to the point where they are considered middle income, even though they may have more than a million dollars in net assets. Income distribution is most often defined by "household" income as contrasted with individual income. Most low-income "households" consist of single (often young) individuals, while most families with more than one income earner are higher income "households." The fact is there are about 4 times (8.9 million) as many households that have net assets of a million or more than there are households that earn more than $250,000. And many of the high-income households do not have a million dollars in net assets. Many politicians and media people confuse taxable income with disposable and in-kind income. Because of the highly progressive income tax system, (97 percent of income taxes are paid by the top 50 percent of income earners and the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of the tax, despite having only 20 percent of the income), the difference in high-income and low-income families in after-tax income is far less than pre-tax income. In addition, there are many government welfare and subsidy programs for low-income people that are not included in many of the standard definitions of income. Given that high marginal tax rates on income are counterproductive, some have argued for a wealth tax, but that doesn't work either. A wealth tax mainly taxes productive capital, thus reducing job and productivity growth, and it also encourages people to move their wealth to other countries and/or engage in extravagant expenditures - as the French have found out, much to their regret. Mr. Obama also says that he wants to increase the capital gains tax. Many people have times in their lives when they reap a substantial capital gain from the sale of a farm or small business or a vacation home, etc. If they receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more from the capital gain, they appear to be "rich" in that year, according to Mr. Obama's definition, even though they may have an average yearly income of less than $100,000 and net assets of less than a half-million dollars. They will not only be taxed at a higher rate, but if the asset has been held for many years and has grown in value no faster than inflation, they will be taxed on imaginary income, and may well suffer a real loss - which is not only economically destructive but immoral. Those who confuse taxable income with wealth are guilty of both sloppy use of language and sloppy thinking. Is it prudent to trust the writing of the tax code to a group of sloppy thinkers? "

http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9611

8/30/2008 8:48:27 AM

Quote :

"Until that happens, I support taxing the rich as much as possible. Tax them until they no longer exist."

There is nothing the government can do to eliminate rich people, just as there seems to be nothing it can do to eliminate drug users. Order their arrest, and they will all magically become upper middle class with huge bank accounts in the carribean. That is, of course, until they can get out of the country. Then I guess the rest of us can enjoy confiscating all their property, recording studios and all, it will be a real orgy of consumption for a few months.

That is, until the machines start to break down, costs go unchecked, and everyone suffers from a lack of credit. And even driving out all the old rich will not prevent the rise of a new wealthy class which does not file tax returns, an illegal class which has no choice but to use violence to secure basic services such as dispute resolution. And while they are using machine guns to settle disputes, might as well use them to fight over territory and kill agents of the government trying to tax their illicit activities. I can see your rampage against your fellow citizens turning into a great movie, similar to The Untouchables, but not just alcohol, the whole productive economy.

But I guess you will be happy, as government statistics would no longer report an income gap, since those with high incomes are not reporting to the government. Yes, most urban centers would be war zones as the government ravaged the countryside looking for smugglers, but you would feel better. Or, we could accomplish the same goal, without killing lots of people, if we just published up some fake government documents for you which show no wealth gap.

8/30/2008 9:44:48 AM

Quote :

"There is nothing the government can do to eliminate rich people, just as there seems to be nothing it can do to eliminate drug users."

Are you sure about this? If so, why? We know government can redistribute wealth to some degree. What's the limit? I would support any move in this direction. The more equality, the better.

Quote :

"That is, until the machines start to break down, costs go unchecked, and everyone suffers from a lack of credit."

Few rich folks repair machines themselves. Costs and credit are imaginary.

Quote :

"And even driving out all the old rich will not prevent the rise of a new wealthy class which does not file tax returns, an illegal class which has no choice but to use violence to secure basic services such as dispute resolution."

Sounds about like now. Violence backs everything up. That's the problem with states and bosses.

Quote :

"But I guess you will be happy, as government statistics would no longer report an income gap, since those with high incomes are not reporting to the government."

I'd only be happy if actual equality increased.

8/30/2008 10:45:58 AM

I'm not understanding why so many people are in favor of taxing the hell out of those that make the most money. The top few percent of earners already pay nearly all the taxex and people keep insisting that they should pay more. If I recall correctly I earned $18,500 last year and my total federal tax burden was around $900. The Obama plan suggests I should get most of that back and each member of the top 0.1% of earners should pay the tax burden for me and tens of thousands of bottom tier earners.

The original poster says fairly directly that, because I don't make millions of dollars, I shouldn't care about any of this. Instead, I should be egocentric and vote for Obama and save a few dollars. The problem here is the government is just spending way too much money, regardless of where it comes from and as long as the majority of Americans don't have to foot the bill, they don't care since they benefit far more than they pay.

People who call this "fair" really get to me, because the current tax system and Obama's and McCain's plans are far from it. I am completely against income tax and capital gains tax in their entirety, because it allows the government to pick and choose who gets taxed how based on where and how much they earn. It is inherently unfair. I'm further against the IRS keeping tabs on the earnings of everyone in the country for the course of their lives, because it really is none of their business.

Furthermore, there are arguments about illegal immigrants and criminals with undeclared income who don't pay taxes, yet receive the benefits afforded to all citizens at the taxpayers' expense. Consumption-based taxes would tax these individuals as well.

Consumption-based taxes also create an insentive to save money. If my memory of economics serves correctly, increased savings mean lower interest rates on loans and mortgages.

8/30/2008 11:32:35 AM

Quote :

"Are you sure about this? If so, why? We know government can redistribute wealth to some degree. What's the limit? I would support any move in this direction. The"

Why is having more affluent individuals such as a bad thing as long as they made their money legit??

Some people just are not as smart, as ambitious, have criminal tendencies, or are just plain lazy. Why should they be entitled to money that is not theirs beyond just ensuring they are not rotting in the streets.

Quote :

"'m not understanding why so many people are in favor of taxing the hell out of those that make the most money"

It just pisses me off when people confuse income and wealth. Ignorant and usually liberals, poor, and working class people always bitch about taxing people who make more money. When this is not necessarily the benchmark for being rich if the high income owner lacks assets. Steve Jobs has a salary of $1 per year from Apple yet i wouldn't define him as poor.

We need a purely flat income tax.

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ll]

8/30/2008 11:44:25 AM

Quote :

"Why is having more affluent individuals such as a bad thing as long as they made their money legit??"

Because I value equality. I consider imbalances of power harmful and oppressive. I don't believe anyone can become rich legitimately.

Quote :

"Some people just are not as smart, as ambitious, have criminal tendencies, or are just plain lazy."

I don't see why consumption should be tied to ability and performance. In this age of plenty, it's completely unnecessary.

8/30/2008 11:58:56 AM

Quote :

"While you personally may have had a pleasant experience here, many do not. Control of property allows owners to screw over renters. The practice has a long history in this country. "

And renting successfully without being screwed over has a longer and deeper history. Yes, everyone has a story about the evil land lord, but that doesn't mean that on the whole, renting is a beautiful arrangement for many people, if it wasn't more people would buy everything. Controllers that screw renters will soon find themselves unable to rent as other owners see upticks in rentals and the bad owners lose business. Of course clearly you would rather have the government or some nebulous group of "people" control the property, but who do you go to when the government or the people screw you? When no one else is allowed to offer you a different service, how is that a good thing?

Quote :

"That's exactly what I'd argue, yes. I guess capitalism deserves a few points for producing results, albeit at high human cost. I reject the idea that folks couldn't produce studios and the like without the current system. You don't need markets or money to construct a building. You need raw materials, workers, and a plan. "

Right, but who is going to supply the materials workers and plan? Who's going to decide what their materials and workers are used for? Yes, a building is simple, but making a building isn't the issue at hand, it's providing the building for a specific purpose.

Quote :

" understand deadweight loss and other such economic jargon. Regardless, governments can successfully redistribute wealth. The European model demonstrates it. Even TGD admits this. Redistribution might reduce economic growth, but I could accept that. I value equality highly. "

The european models seeing increasing unemployment you mean?

Quote :

"ote that taxing the rich blind isn't my ideal system. That leaves the state intact, with all its oppression. It's garbage, but I'd rather have government socialism than the growing economic gap we've got now. If we must have a state, let's be equals under it."

And who is the equal to the state? Which people get to be unequal so that we have a state? And why do they get to be unequal?

Quote :

" Few rich folks repair machines themselves. Costs and credit are imaginary. "

Costs are imaginary? Really? Hell then, I order you to build me a house, and make me some food. Oh and I want a new TV too. Cost are imaginary after all so you should be able to do this no problem. Even if you can't buy it directly, all it takes is some raw materials and workers. Go for it.

Quote :

"I'd only be happy if actual equality increased."

Yet you seek to increase inequality. Some people will have more of their property confiscated than others. Some people are less deserving of the fruits of their labor than others. So really, some people are just more equal than others. See, what you don't realize is that there's more than one type of equality. If I have a midget that dances on tuesdays and sings, and you have a midget that dances on tuesdays and sings, then that is equal, but if I don't want that midget and you do, than it isn't equal anymore because you have what you want and I don't.

8/30/2008 12:05:31 PM

Quote :

" Because I value equality. I consider imbalances of power harmful and oppressive. I don't believe anyone can become rich legitimately. "

Well I don't value some liberal hippy utopian equality shithole.

With my current salary if I save diligently 25% per year even assuming no pay raises and a marginal rate of return of approx 5% I can retire with over 2+ Million dollars. Did i not earn my money legitimately??

I must be doing something wrong by saving versus using my money to buy 20" chrome rims, tims, and drugs.

8/30/2008 12:34:49 PM

Quote :

"I must be doing something wrong by saving versus using my money to buy 20" chrome rims, tims, and drugs. "

yeah, you're waiting until youre too old to enjoy your money.

8/30/2008 12:39:00 PM

Quote :

"Are you sure about this? If so, why? We know government can redistribute wealth to some degree. What's the limit? I would support any move in this direction. The more equality, the better."

It varies depending on social and cultural circumstances. There is no magic point of failure, it is a continuous slide into illegality. In the west, at tax rates below 70% people simply avoid the taxes by investing into untaxed or undertaxed activities, starving the productive sector of investment and capital, but otherwise honoring government authority. This is because there is very little of the infrastructure that would be needed to wage open warfare on government authority, such as is the situation is Russia which as a result has trouble even collecting a 15% flat tax (Russian tax agents suffer a very high murder rate).

As you push up the rates above what people consider acceptable, government legitimacy begins to erode away, causing people to self organize into non-governmental organizations for social services such as protection (usually from their confiscatory government) and dispute resolution. If the government does not reverse course to restore legitimacy, authority can collapse all together.

So, to put it in economic terms, once it is cheaper to reject the state than to live within the laws they will do so. As more people reject the state the cost to others of doing the same falls, leading to a perverse spiral into the illegality which predominates in third world countries.

As such, your efforts would turn America into a third world country, where our beloved machines are smashed and sold as scrap metal overseas.

Quote :

"The European model demonstrates it. Even TGD admits this. Redistribution might reduce economic growth, but I could accept that. I value equality highly."

Studies show that the American government is more distributive (from rich to poor) than most European governments. It is largely due to the fact that in Europe the rich are taxed to subsidize rich activities such as opera, art, culture, and above all protection and subsidization of rich owned businesses and property. Meanwhile, taxes are leavied far more heavily upon the non-rich to pay for the subsidies provided to the non-rich.

Quote :

"I don't see why consumption should be tied to ability and performance. In this age of plenty, it's completely unnecessary."

This age of plenty was created by the tying of consumption to ability and performance. Sever that connection and the resultant perverse incentives will destroy the efficiency which has produced this age of plenty. Third world countries have access to the same machines as Americans, but because their economic system rewards illegality above efficiency, they have a lot of illegality and very little efficiency.

8/30/2008 1:58:42 PM

Quote :

"And renting successfully without being screwed over has a longer and deeper history."

Really? I'm not sure you're familiar with the history. Perhaps you just interpret it differently. I think of daily capitalist transactions as oppressive. You may see them as perfectly successful. But consider sharecropping, for example. That's wonderful case of renting and ownership in action.

Quote :

"Of course clearly you would rather have the government or some nebulous group of "people" control the property, but who do you go to when the government or the people screw you?"

People who freely work for the benefit of all, yes. There's no reason this should be impossible. As conditioned as we are to capitalism, similar things still happen. Human can organize without money and markets, without guns and coercion. There would be many ways to address problems in such a community. Discussion and concensus, ideally, but I'm sure that would break down at times. The basic principle would be to treat each other as human beings.

Quote :

"Right, but who is going to supply the materials workers and plan?"

The appropriate syndicate or sequence, depending on which jargon you prefer. AIs and robots, eventually.

Quote :

"Costs are imaginary? Really?"

Yes. Money is merely an organizing tool. Resources and labor are real needs, but they don't have to be measured in dollars.

Quote :

"Yet you seek to increase inequality."

By your strange definition, maybe.

Quote :

"Some people will have more of their property confiscated than others."

That's how we get to equality, yes.

Quote :

"Some people are less deserving of the fruits of their labor than others."

I don't agree. As stated earlier, I reject the entire philosophy of earning and deserving. It's particularly harmful in this age, when have the material ability to give everyone a comfortable life.

Quote :

"See, what you don't realize is that there's more than one type of equality."

No, I'm quite aware. However, I don't think this is the time or place for hairsplitting arguments about the true nature of the term. We live in world of vast inequality, hierarchy, and oppression. Given this fact, I want to smash the bosses, not wonder about how maybe we're all equal already because it can mean anything. That's what I despise about postmodernism. It's too often used to bolster the status quo.

Quote :

"With my current salary if I save diligently 25% per year even assuming no pay raises and a marginal rate of return of approx 5% I can retire with over 2+ Million dollars. Did i not earn my money legitimately??"

No, it came from the oppression of countless other folks. Such is the nature of capitalism. Return on investment would be particularly dubious. Why should money work for you?

Quote :

"If the government does not reverse course to restore legitimacy, authority can collapse all together."

Tell me more. I like what I'm hearing.

Quote :

"As such, your efforts would turn America into a third world country, where our beloved machines are smashed and sold as scrap metal overseas."

So you claim. I'll take my chances.

Quote :

"Studies show that the American government is more distributive (from rich to poor) than most European governments."

That's not why I remember at all, though I haven't looked at the numbers in a while. What studies are you using? If this is true, then why are European countries so much more economically equal?

Quote :

"This age of plenty was created by the tying of consumption to ability and performance."

It was created by the invention of machines. At least when compared with what came before, capitalism has encouraged creativity. I'll give you that much. However, there's little reason to believe that we need the price system for technology. In fact, various psychological studies cast doubt on behaviorist notions about motivation. Rewards and competition may actually hinder performance.

Quote :

"Sever that connection and the resultant perverse incentives will destroy the efficiency which has produced this age of plenty."

That's a bold leap. Even if capitalism was a necessary stage in the development of our species, that doesn't mean it must endure. We have the technology now. Soon production will be possible without any human effort whatsoever. Will your beloved system last when I can grab a nanofac and hop on a rocket to Titan? If nothing else, things will change once technology gives individuals true self-sufficiency.

8/30/2008 10:53:50 PM

Quote :

"Really? I'm not sure you're familiar with the history. Perhaps you just interpret it differently. I think of daily capitalist transactions as oppressive. You may see them as perfectly successful. But consider sharecropping, for example. That's wonderful case of renting and ownership in action."

Have you ever leased a car? Take out a mortgage for your home? Used a credit card? Lived in an apartment, or a dorm? Went to school? Rented a movie? Rented a car? Flown anywhere? Ridden in a taxi? Taken a cruise? All of these are examples of successful, non oppressive voluntary transactions that allow people to have and do things which would otherwise be beyond their means to obtain, simply because people are allowed to own property they don't use themselves and rent to others.

Quote :

"People who freely work for the benefit of all, yes."

Define "the benefit of all," because clearly plenty of people here do not see your ideals as beneficial. Who decides what the benefit of all is? Certainly Hitler thought what he was doing was for the benefit of all (Godwin I know). The unibomber believed what he was doing was for the benefit of all. So did the people who flew planes into the WTC. You keep forgetting there isn't one "benefit for all" because we are all very different.

Quote :

"Human can organize without money and markets, without guns and coercion. There would be many ways to address problems in such a community. Discussion and concensus, ideally, but I'm sure that would break down at times. The basic principle would be to treat each other as human beings."

Does treating people like human being including taking what they produce away from them because it isn't fair?

Quote :

"The appropriate syndicate or sequence, depending on which jargon you prefer. AIs and robots, eventually. "

And why pray tell are they just going to supply these things to you, unless they see a benefit from it? And as far as your AI and robots, when we get there, then we can reconsider this whole capitalism thing.

Quote :

"Yes. Money is merely an organizing tool. Resources and labor are real needs, but they don't have to be measured in dollars. "

Costs != dollars. Resources taken from project a for project b are a cost. Time spent in labor instead of swimming is a cost. Time spent waiting because the only people you can find willing to contribute free labor to your "Uncle Bob's House of Pot" are stoners who aren't sober but once a week is a cost. Dollars are merely a tool of trade, much like apples, fur pelts, wampum and gold bars. Dollars are unique in that they are designed to be a universal good (your apple salesman may not have use for your cows, but he can use dollars because someone else will accept dollars even if they don't want apples) but they are still a trade tool none the less. Costs are not imaginary.

Quote :

"By your strange definition, maybe. "

No strange definition at all, if you have everything you want, and I don't, then we aren't equal, no matter how many apples we both have.

Quote :

"That's how we get to equality, yes. "

So to be equal, we must be unequal?

Quote :

"I don't agree. As stated earlier, I reject the entire philosophy of earning and deserving. It's particularly harmful in this age, when have the material ability to give everyone a comfortable life."

Define comfortable life. And let's assume for the moment we reach your utopia. When I create a sculpture out of clay for myself because I want to, are you going to force me to make hundreds more for people who want one too? Or are you just going to take it away because I have no right to something other people don't have?

Quote :

"No, I'm quite aware. However, I don't think this is the time or place for hairsplitting arguments about the true nature of the term. We live in world of vast inequality, hierarchy, and oppression. Given this fact, I want to smash the bosses, not wonder about how maybe we're all equal already because it can mean anything. That's what I despise about postmodernism. It's too often used to bolster the status quo."

So you are quite aware that there are different forms of equality, but you are OK with all other forms being unequal as long as your one definition is met?

Quote :

"No, it came from the oppression of countless other folks. Such is the nature of capitalism. Return on investment would be particularly dubious. Why should money work for you? "

Because it first worked for someone else. Or maybe you don't understand how investing works?

Quote :

"Soon production will be possible without any human effort whatsoever. Will your beloved system last when I can grab a nanofac and hop on a rocket to Titan? If nothing else, things will change once technology gives individuals true self-sufficiency."

When we reach that point, then we can reconsider this whole capitalism thing. Until then, you're just bat shit insane.

8/31/2008 12:09:48 AM

If Republicans are so against "social welfare" and "helping out those crack addicts" then why are they touting lowering oil prices and creating new jobs? After all, if Laquisha didn't spend all her money on crack and rims, then she shouldn't have gotten fired from her job and she should be able to afford gas.

8/31/2008 12:49:09 AM

Quote :

"All of these are examples of successful, non oppressive voluntary transactions that allow people to have and do things which would otherwise be beyond their means to obtain, simply because people are allowed to own property they don't use themselves and rent to others."

How did I get the money to pay the owners in all these wonderful voluntary transactions? Yes, that's right, wage slavery. It's not brutal oppression like you get in wars and dictatorships, but it's oppression nonetheless.

Quote :

"Define "the benefit of all," because clearly plenty of people here do not see your ideals as beneficial. Who decides what the benefit of all is?"

Individuals, of course. Anarchy won't be imposed by violence. We might take your stuff, but we won't make you do anything. Given the philosophy's unpopularity, separatism does seem ideal. We'll be lucky to ever get a space without bosses. Overthrowing hierarchy completely appears nearly impossible at this point.

Quote :

"You keep forgetting there isn't one "benefit for all" because we are all very different."

Good grief, you know I'm more experienced than this. I'm not forgetting any of the things you claim. We disagree at a very basic level. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of your arguments and reasoning. Believe me, I've heard them before. I understand them fully. I used to make some of them myself.

Quote :

"Does treating people like human being including taking what they produce away from them because it isn't fair?"

Well, I'd always want room to compromise and negotiation. Folks would have determine when to struggle and when to accept minor inequality. Some agreement between collectivists and capitalists could possibly be reached. Given current conditions, I don't consider these details too important. We're blatantly unequal, and talking alone ain't working. It's time for direct action.

Quote :

"And why pray tell are they just going to supply these things to you, unless they see a benefit from it?"

Because they believe in cooperation and value their work. Intrinsic motivation is the most powerful kind. Producing such people might take conditioning, but it should be possible.

Quote :

"And as far as your AI and robots, when we get there, then we can reconsider this whole capitalism thing."

Now you're speaking my language. Wait for it. Barring misfortune, you'll be alive to see the changes.

Quote :

"So to be equal, we must be unequal?"

No, to become equal, we must smash hierarchy and privilege. This isn't rocket science. If Dick has a bunch of stuff and Jane has none, equality mandates redistribution. The unequal treatment serves to fix the imbalance.

Quote :

"Define comfortable life."

Food, housing, health care, clothing. Just the basics would be a good start.

Quote :

"When I create a sculpture out of clay for myself because I want to, are you going to force me to make hundreds more for people who want one too? Or are you just going to take it away because I have no right to something other people don't have?"

No, nothing like that. I wouldn't want to make everything identical. I would wish you complete freedom to produce sculpture. I believe the arts would flourish like never before under technocracy. Again, these kind of questions strike me as silly under circumstances of extreme inequality. We live in world of bosses. I'm not worried about your clay sculpture.

Quote :

"So you are quite aware that there are different forms of equality, but you are OK with all other forms being unequal as long as your one definition is met?"

Yes. If I didn't make such choices, I'd drown in postmodern ambiguity. You know this.

Quote :

"Because it first worked for someone else. Or maybe you don't understand how investing works?"

I know it's awfully good for folks with capital. That's how far deserving goes under our current system. Folks are worthy of money because they have money. Great.

For the record, anarcho-capitalism appeals to me about as much as state socialism. Perhaps a little more. Markets between equals and near equals wouldn't be so bad. Being opposed to damn near everything about the current system gives me remarkable flexibility. As libertarian socialist, I'm roughly as likely to support a libertarian as a socialist.

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 1:23 AM. Reason : flexibility]

8/31/2008 1:12:24 AM

So you are a voluntary socialist. That's just great. You go ahead and smash the state, and when me and my neighbors opt not to equalize, instead choosing to secure our property ourselves (guns, custom, and hired security) you will simply leave us be, right? No sending in men with guns to kill us for failure to adhere to your idiology? What happens when we start imposing our justice on others we believe have wronged us (custom based systems usually involve involuntary compensation of victims), will you still leave us alone then?

If so, then you are doomed to failure, in our opinion, as voluntary socialism requires love and there is simply not enough love for strangers to compensate for the very real sacrifice required for the production required in their name. And when your syndicalist farmers have the option of giving the grain away to fellow syndicalist bakers, or selling it for money to anarcho-capitalist bakers, they will opt for the latter. All you will have done is swap one property system for another, which may not get you any closer to your goal.

But I too recognize this stops being true once production no longer requires human sacrifice (AI), thus negating the need for any incentive whatsoever, be it reward or love.

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ,0,]

8/31/2008 2:03:47 AM