Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

London Olympics

Results 1 to 75 of 75

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Yeah Cuba is a nation in poverty... the reason for this is US enforced economic blockade, much like NK and Iran. But despite the poverty, the people are happy. They have food, because the government told everyone to plant seeds wherever they find suitable land. NK take a different route... out of sheer pride, their people starve while those in power ensure the army are funded and fed. At least this is my understanding of the situation.

    It's incredible that the west can cause a nation to suffer via economic warfare, and then use the fact that they suffer as "evidence" that the leaders are corrupt.

    What is poverty?

    Last edited by OngBonga; 07-31-2012 at 01:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #2
    So like, Ong, I'm a graduate student in economics. And listening to you talk is making my brain hurt; I had to skip a great deal of it. All I gotta say is, I'm sorry you feel that way. You've clearly made up your mind on this issue and there's nothing in the world I could tell you to make you feel otherwise. That's why I asked about your assumptions in the first place.

    But you are unequivocally wrong on a lot of points:

    I hate the way the capitalist world works. Corporations put profit before anything else, including environment and human life. The bigger the company, the more tax they pay, the more they can get away with disregarding what's important to the majority of us... our land and families.
    I disagree that paying taxes somehow allows companies to circumvent laws and regulations in order to "get away" with things. Does the government let you commit crimes if you're in a higher tax bracket? I'll assume what you meant is that bigger companies have the means to bribe or lobby their way into favourable legislation being enacted. If that's what bothers you, then there's a reason you live in a democracy; you have the power to remove corrupt officials from office. Regardless, I don't think this is as big a problem as you're making it out to be.

    Aside from that, consider that while firms are profit maximizers, the government exists as a means to correct any market failures or distortions that occur (these, as you can imagine, happen quite often; see 2008).

    A good example is legislation related to environmental issues; cap and trade systems, straight up taxes on pollution, etc. Some people get upset when they hear of such schemes. But they represent real efforts on the part of the government to limit pollution and negative environmental impacts, and, shocker of shockers, they actually work.

    I could probably go on. Actually, I will, just for this one comment though:

    Any world leader with the strength to move his nation towards a different system gets marginalised and slandered by the west. What's your impression of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? These guys are revered in their nations. But we'd be led to believe they're tyrants. That's because the west do not want their economic models to spread, it would be a serious threat to the big corporations.

    Capitalism represents everything wrong with humanity.
    Part about revered is just wrong. Have you been to Cuba, btw? I wouldn't typify Cubans as excessively happy. At least not the ones living in slums earning 1/50th of what most Canadians do in a day. And certainly not the ones who beg for change from tourists, perpetually launching into a sob story about how one dollar makes such a big difference for them and means so little to you.

    I'm not sure where you get this idea that countries like Cuba and Venezuela are marginalized because of their form of government or economic models... Cuba is a special case indeed, there is a background there with the Cold war and so on that I'm not going to go into. But Venezuela marginalizes itself. Listen to a Chavez speech one of these days, I implore you. He didn't need much coaxing to get the way he is, either. By the way if it weren't for the exploitation of natural resources, Venezuela would probably be in just as bad a situation as Cuba, economically.

    To wrap this up: I mentioned I'm a grad student in econ. I want to say that a lot of my colleagues do not feel the same way as I do; you'll find plenty of environmentalists and others who take issue with pure free-market systems and so on. Some feel like our system is inherently flawed and that vast changes are required in order to close income gaps (income gaps have been increasing in recent years). Others feel like the priority should be on the environment and an emphasis on cleaner resource extraction (a big deal in Canada). These are pretty close to the ideas you're hinting at.

    Thing is, none of them use the arguments you're using, and that is because your arguments are pretty much unreasonable and poorly founded; you are essentially spouting rhetoric and half-truths and none of it adds up. Even the biggest lefty in my program would admit that elements of free market competition are necessary in today's economy. And certainly, no one would ever spout off communist catch-phrases like "Capitalism is the reason why this country is going to shit" a lot is objectionable in that phrase, and not just the part about capitalism. Is your country really going to shit... really?

    tl;dr: that's enough, ong.
  3. #3
    Does the government let you commit crimes if you're in a higher tax bracket? I'll assume what you meant is that bigger companies have the means to bribe or lobby their way into favourable legislation being enacted. If that's what bothers you, then there's a reason you live in a democracy; you have the power to remove corrupt officials from office
    Democracy? I can choose to eat dog shit or cat shit. Our democracy is an illusion. Every time you spend money, you vote to keep the world as it is... corrupt as fuck. You think you're free? Try going somewhere without money.

    A good example is legislation related to environmental issues; cap and trade systems, straight up taxes on pollution, etc. Some people get upset when they hear of such schemes. But they represent real efforts on the part of the government to limit pollution and negative environmental impacts, and, shocker of shockers, they actually work.
    So you're telling me what, that the big companies do not pollute? Yeah and I don't breathe. Check out DOW Chemicals, sponsor of the Olympics.

    Part about revered is just wrong. Have you been to Cuba, btw? I wouldn't typify Cubans as excessively happy. At least not the ones living in slums earning 1/50th of what most Canadians do in a day. And certainly not the ones who beg for change from tourists, perpetually launching into a sob story about how one dollar makes such a big difference for them and means so little to you.
    So yeah, back to how USA fuck up their economy, and then westerners point at the fucked up economy and think this reflects badly on their leader. It doesn't. It reflects badly on those enforcing an economic embargo.

    Haven't been to Cuba. Would like to go.

    I'm not sure where you get this idea that countries like Cuba and Venezuela are marginalized because of their form of government or economic models...
    Venezuela: A Threat to Washington? | venezuelanalysis.com

    Thing is, none of them use the arguments you're using, and that is because your arguments are pretty much unreasonable and poorly founded; you are essentially spouting rhetoric and half-truths and none of it adds up.
    Hey I'll be brutally honest, I think you're very probably right here. I don't know my facts, I'm not an economist or a politician, I'm a nobody.

    So what, does that mean I can't have the opinion that the way the world works is fucked up? Where do all our resources come from? How much are the people who live on the land where our resources come from getting paid?

    I know nothing, so I must sit down and shut the fuck up, is that it?

    Is your country really going to shit... really?
    Yes, it most certainly is. The whole world is going to shit. I'd flee to Iceland if I could afford to, preferably before these fucking games finish.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 07-31-2012 at 08:02 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #4
    rpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    maaaaaaaaaaate
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    I disagree that paying taxes somehow allows companies to circumvent laws and regulations in order to "get away" with things. Does the government let you commit crimes if you're in a higher tax bracket?
    no. not strictly. but if you look at average sentences for "white collar" vs "blue collar" crimes and compare them with the scale of harm caused by each on both the individual and wider social levels, you'll find a pretty gross imbalance.
  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by rpm View Post
    no. not strictly. but if you look at average sentences for "white collar" vs "blue collar" crimes and compare them with the scale of harm caused by each on both the individual and wider social levels, you'll find a pretty gross imbalance.
    I'm highly doubtful that there's an objective measure of scale of harm... besides, your comment is sort of tangential to the point I was making
  6. #6
    rpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    maaaaaaaaaaate
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    I'm highly doubtful that there's an objective measure of scale of harm.
    if you're talking about something solvable by numbers then no, probably not. re my comment being un-related, yeah you're probably right. i felt like what i was saying was an extrapolation though, not unrelated. i'm probably wrong. i guess my point was that the law enforcement/legal systems of most "first-world" countries are structured and set up in a way which
    - are more capable and apt to apprehend the type of crimes typically committed by poorer people than those of richer people. this could well be simply a matter of funding allocation to law enforcement agencies from those who allocate the countries' money, as well as legislative power over who/what/how far these law enforcement agencies seek to pursue certain crimes as opposed to others.
    - treat the crimes typical of the poor far harsher than those of the rich (in sentencing and conviction) in relation to the nature/scope of the harm they cause to their society or community.

    i do not have available to me at the moment any sources to back this up. but i know they do exist and are academically reputable amongst criminologists. so, back to where i started, it is true that the more taxes you pay (obviously being indicative of personaly wealth) the less likely you are to be proportionately pursed/apprehended/sentenced for committing crimes.

    edit: insert standard disclaimer here. not a personal attack, just voicing an opinion, i know everybody has a bias, open to being refuted etc etc
    Last edited by rpm; 08-01-2012 at 04:49 AM.
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by rpm View Post
    so, back to where i started, it is true that the more taxes you pay (obviously being indicative of personaly wealth) the less likely you are to be proportionately pursed/apprehended/sentenced for committing crimes
    Dude, this is a classic case of selection bias. It's not necessarily that poorer people and the crimes that may be committed by them are punished more severely than those people of higher incomes.

    It's that people of higher incomes self-select into not committing violent crimes in the first place. This makes sense, obviously. You're not going to mug someone for the 200$ they're carrying when you make that amount in roughly 2-3 hours of work. Not to mention the other side of the coin; if you're able to earn a high income, this says a great amount about the type of upbringing you've had, the genes you carry, what level of education your parents had, how smart you are etc. These are all things that make it less likely for you to commit violent crimes to begin with.

    If you're concerned about sentencing for violent crimes vs. white collar crimes, I have less to say about this. But, there are two points worth noting. One is that white collar crimes occur with far less frequency than most other types of crimes. I think that either society has a tendency to view them as being more prevalent, or there is a desire from anti-capitalist types to exaggerate and essentially make it sound like anyone who owns a business is somehow circumventing the law and harming others etc.

    The other point is that, while white collar crimes are harmful to others, it's usually from an economic standpoint i.e. people losing jobs, getting screwed out of sums of money, etc. In many cases, even, there are no clear-cut victims of these crimes, other than something very vast and vague like company stockholders.

    So I don't know that it's fair to point out that higher-income earners tend to get shorter sentences simply on the basis of their income. It seems pretty clear to me that they self-select into committing different types of crimes that carry lighter sentences, and that the financial incentive for committing "lower-class", more violent crimes simply doesn't exist for them.

    Regarding sentencing -- my thinking is that white collar crimes, by not having clearly defined victims in many cases - and even when they do, there is usually no physical harm involved - are simply not viewed in societal terms as being as severe as these more violent, low-class crimes you're talking about. Thus the lower sentence.

    Think about it. Would you sooner be friends with A: someone who was convicted of assault and armed robbery or B: someone who was convicted of cheque fraud (say for large enough sums of money to merit an equal sentence), and that in both cases the person had already done their time in jail and professed their remorse.

    Well, I know what I'd choose...
  8. #8
    rpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    maaaaaaaaaaate
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post

    Well, I know what I'd choose...
    all fair points man. i imagine that final hypothetical question you posed would be far far closer a decision for me than you. thanks for taking the time and effort to respond.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •