Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,288,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 387 of 400 FirstFirst ... 287337377385386387388389397 ... LastLast
Results 28,951 to 29,025 of 29970
  1. #28951
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You're right, the status quo of mainly retributive justice is addressing a reality that doesn't exist. If a solution addresses a reality that isn't real, how likely is that solution to work?
    It wont solve the problem, even if it alleviates some symptoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Is it working?
    You know how I feel about the "Land of the Free" incarcerating more of its citizens in its own prisons than any other nation we know about.

    You know how I feel about the hypocrisy in allowing laws to stand when the people who wrote those laws have later said in public interviews that the motivation of the law was to criminalize black voters.

    Beyond that, no... the US criminal justice system is broken AF. As many, many studies have shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    But you want to throw your hands up and say we're stuck with it? Milquetoast status-quo embracing liberalism.
    I'm not saying that, no. I'm saying that the way in which we currently view the entire criminal justice system is at odds with recent scientific discoveries, and the truth of those discoveries is unpalatable to everyone.

    You can't tell me you don't feel personal agency. Well, OK, you could... but it'd take a LOT of convincing for me to believe you weren't just fucking with me. 'Cause everyone I've ever met seems to feel like they make decisions that affect the course of their life. Whether that is true or not, that's what we feel. That's what we observe directly. The science says that our observation process is ad-hoc, applied after the fact, that our decision making process happens behind the conscious scenes, and the conscious simply rationalizes the decision in such a way as to create an illusion of agency.

    We can both agree on what the data show, but it doesn't change that I feel like I make decisions. You and I can be smart enough to abstract that into greater thoughts and plans, but we have to convince everyone to go along with it. A majority, at least.

    And it undermines literally every argument that underpins the criminal justice system, so it's a huge overhaul. And as you're about to say... the end result doesn't look remarkably different except that we express humanity to those in prisons, which is what I was already calling for, whether or not the data holds for the long run.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Rehabilitation and retributive justice are not the same. We do a lot of the latter to our detriment. Now are there and will there likely always be people among us that simply can't be left roaming in society? Yeah, definitely. And we should 1) segregate them from society in the most humane way we're capable of and 2) regularly check in to make sure we weren't wrong in our diagnosis.
    I do agree.
    And the process is going to involve proving to a jury of peers that a wrong was committed by the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt.
    And if the accused is guilty, they need to be segregated from society.
    This is all the same in practice, but the reasons and arguments that justify it need to be changed entirely.

    We should be regularly checking to verify that anyone whose freedom has been taken by the state can get their full freedoms back as soon as possible. Keeping non-criminal people out of free, productive work is to all of our detriment, not to mention that we all have to pay their bills so long as their imprisoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If you're really worried that we'll never get enough people on board with our apparent lack of free will
    Call it a worry if you like. I consider it an impossibility. Everyone feels agency.
    Telling someone what they feel is wrong is a very difficult sell.
    Telling everyone what they feel is wrong is an impossible sell.

    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    , that's fine, we can appeal to their humanity-- the convicts aren't the only victims. The current system necessitates passive if not active abusers to facilitate its operation. The prison staff, guards, nurses, administrators, etc all are regular civilians, looking for a pay check, and they are living (part time) in these miniature hells too.
    Whose humanity are you appealing to? 'Cause 1-on-1 people have humanity, but give them the slightest excuse to dehumanize someone they don't actually know and most will climb on that wagon.

    The entire reason the Republican party has been so powerful and able to pull the Democrat party further and further to the right for the past 50 years is because they constantly attack the Dems as soft on crime, and that gets Americans all riled up and frothy at the mouth.

    So long as there is that kind of political power to be easily grabbed by vilifying "criminals," while then broadening what counts as a criminal, we have a problem.


    When it is past the point that good people can fight it? When is it time to admit that this thing got out of hand and the only way I can do what's best for me and my future is to find another place to live?
    IDK if I'm being paranoid and lazy or intelligent and proactive on this one. Quite the difficult one to suss out. Trump as POTUS was an increasingly scary prospect, but the battle of ideas hasn't been budged. He's still the ostensible leader of the Republican party, despite scandal after scandal for the past 4 years. If I can't understand that... and I really can't... then how can I fight it? How can I address it? When is it time to accept the reality as beyond my grasp and GTFO? Is it close or really far and I'm just dumb?
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 11-28-2020 at 10:21 PM.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  2. #28952
    We are disturbingly in agreement. We just caught each other on a day, in a mood, where we emphasized different facets.

    I certainly worry that the inertia is insurmountable. I currently am not in a position to leave, nor do I think there's any obvious place to bet on being a safe haven should the US further descend into madness. So all I have is to vacillate between trying to mitigate the effects of the madness on me and mine, curling up into the comforts of existential dread, and trying to convince people a better way is possible and working to bring it about. The latter is the hardest for sure.
  3. #28953
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Total change of subject of High Stakes Poker and Poker After Dark are both returning in a couple of weeks.

    Requires a $10 /month or $99/year subscription to PokerGO to view them.

    I'm hoping they show up on YouTube sooner than later.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  4. #28954
    Just got a letter in the post from one of those payday loan companies, offering me a loan of up to £800 at ***535%*** interest.

    Screw betting on elections, I'm going to become a payday loan company.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  5. #28955
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Life is easy when you have money to work for you. I remember a reddit AMA titled something like "Quit my job to travel the world AMA"... someone asked him how he could afford it, and he was like: you know i don't need money, i just eat peanut butter sandwiches and apples and live off the couple grand i get from renting out my property.
    The older I get the more I turn into a full blown commie. The amount of wealth getting squandered by people who were born into it is absurd.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  6. #28956
    So you think people shouldn't be able to spend their money as they please?

    I respectfully disagree.

    If you earned it, you can squander it, and that goes for Daddy giving Little Johnny a house, car and allowance. If this guy travelled the world, he no doubt spent money in places where tourism is essential for the locals. It's not like the money is being set on fire.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #28957
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's not like the money is being set on fire.
    Fun fact, that's (in theory) the most egalitarian thing you can do. It raises the value of everyone else's monies, not just giving it to those whose businesses you use.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  8. #28958
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So you think people shouldn't be able to spend their money as they please?

    I respectfully disagree.

    If you earned it, you can squander it, and that goes for Daddy giving Little Johnny a house, car and allowance. If this guy travelled the world, he no doubt spent money in places where tourism is essential for the locals. It's not like the money is being set on fire.
    In the current economy it is almost impossible to earn enough money to get to a point where you can live live off the interest before your 70's. Most landlords either inherited or work in proximity to wealth like personal injury attorneys or politicians. Positions that you are mostly locked out of if you're not born into the upper class. You'll see a lot of like "Bedford and sons, attorneys at law" but you're not getting partnered if you're outside the bloodline.
    It's very much a feudal system. If you look at the dynasties of dunces that are the Trump and Koch families of the world, I think it's hard to argue that handing down obscene wealth to your clueless spawn is the best system for society at large. You are right to say it's their right. I think I'm right in saying: it ought not be.

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  9. #28959
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Fun fact, that's (in theory) the most egalitarian thing you can do. It raises the value of everyone else's monies, not just giving it to those whose businesses you use.
    This isn't true in the real world, at least I don't think so. It would be if money was based on gold, or another physical commodity, but money is fiat, its value is what people consider it to be worth. If I set fire to £1m, then the Bank of England can just print another £1m, which eventually they will when the next round of QE happens. So all you're doing is handing the money to the BoE, not increasing other peoples' wealth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #28960
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If you're not already familiar with this anthropomorphized tub of lard, you owe it to yourself to do a deep dive... esp for the americans because that's you president in another 8-12 years.

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  11. #28961
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    If you look at the dynasties of dunces that is the Trump or Koch family I think it's hard to argue that handing down obscene wealth to your clueless spawn is the best system for society ta large.
    I understand why you think this, but if people can't do as they please with their money (including give it away) then there's no incentive to become wealthy. And without such incentive, without wealthy people, less businesses get created, which means less jobs. For what? So everyone is equally poor? If we all had the same amount of money, whether it be doctors, binmen, idle fuckers like me, or Little Johnny with his rich Daddy, who gets the nice houses to live in? Should we knock down the mansions and make all dwellings identical? Should we all drive the same model of car? Should we all wear the same clothes? I don't like that world, for me that's a worse world to live in than one where people can accumulate wealth and spend it as they like.

    What we need is an end to corruption, not an end to wealth. Legally acquired wealth should be encouraged.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #28962
    I'll watch that shortly, I need to do the washing up.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #28963
    Well the first clip lasted a minute, it's just a bunch of people insulting a fat ginger cunt, and the second one is a cheesy advert for shirts.

    I'm probably better off reading his Wikipedia page.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #28964
    He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Why is he relevant?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #28965
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    if people can't do as they please with their money (including give it away) then there's no incentive to become wealthy. And without such incentive, without wealthy people, less businesses get created, which means less jobs.
    Just what (the fuck), exactly, is this ridiculous set of assertions based on?

    Like there's no middle ground between total freedom to control your wealth and no wealth at all?
    Like taxation isn't exactly that middle ground?

    Like people are only, exclusively, motivated to create a business or to create jobs based on their personal growth of wealth?
    People have lots of motivations, and growing personal wealth is one of them, but not the only one.
    Putting that motivation at the top of the pile like it's the most important one to create and uphold a healthy society is what we've done, but I find no logical, data-driven argument that suggests it's "best."

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    For what? So everyone is equally poor? If we all had the same amount of money, whether it be doctors, binmen, idle fuckers like me, or Little Johnny with his rich Daddy, who gets the nice houses to live in? Should we knock down the mansions and make all dwellings identical? Should we all drive the same model of car? Should we all wear the same clothes? I don't like that world, for me that's a worse world to live in than one where people can accumulate wealth and spend it as they like.

    What we need is an end to corruption, not an end to wealth. Legally acquired wealth should be encouraged.
    I reject this binary conclusion out of course. See above for why this black-and-white analysis cannot be applied to something so varied and complex as humans and our social structures.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  16. #28966
    Just what (the fuck), exactly, is this ridiculous set of assertions based on?
    Risk/reward. It takes money to create a business. I'm sure there are examples where someone spent $100 to build a million dollar business, but for the vast majority of businesses, it requires capital investment, and if wealthy people have less money, then they are less likely to take the risk of creating a new business. Less money gets invested into existing businesses. If I can't build a future for my offspring, why should I continue to invest once I reach a certain level of wealth?

    Like there's no middle ground between total freedom to control your wealth and no wealth at all?
    Wealth is relative. If everyone has the same amount of money, if we're literally all economically equal, then wealth doesn't exist.

    Like taxation isn't exactly that middle ground?
    As far as I'm aware, we're talking about wealth redistribution here. Taxation is how governments are funded. Welfare is wealth redistribution, but only on a minor scale, handing out a pittance so people can survive.

    Like people are only, exclusively, motivated to create a business or to create jobs based on their personal growth of wealth?
    More or less. Financial security is why many people work and invest. What other reason is there to create a business? What other reason is there to invest in business? People generally don't go to work because they love it. They go because they have bills to pay, they need an income to support their family. This is why people create businesses and invest. To become wealthier. Of course it's not the only motivation, but it's the prime one.

    Putting that motivation at the top of the pile like it's the most important one to create and uphold a healthy society is what we've done, but I find no logical, data-driven argument that suggests it's "best."
    It's the nature of capitalism. Whether capitalism is "best" is open to debate, but I've not seen a better system for large societies. Democracy and capitalism. If you've got better than that, give it to me. But stopping people from acquiring wealth seems to me to be taking away an incentive to work hard, invest, and create.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #28967
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Why is he relevant?
    Because the second his dad croaks, he's a billionaire, and that will make him relevant. Thats what happened to Trump. Remove Trump's inheritance and you remove him from history.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  18. #28968
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Because the second his dad croaks, he's a billionaire, and that will make him relevant. Thats what happened to Trump. Remove Trump's inheritance and you remove him from history.
    And this is a good thing to you? Removing people you think are unpleasant from history? This seems a bit... fascist.

    The American people made Trump relevant by voting him in.

    You seem motivated by jealousy and/or dislike for certain individuals.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #28969
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    All things of real value are created by labor. When a single person is able to rake in 7 figures a week, that's value created by someone's labor ending up at that person. That is not value that has been created through the labor of that one person, it's surplus value that workers of their company have created. Another way to call that would be wage theft.

    You could argue that they then spend money which creates jobs, which is true, but it creates jobs that serve the interest of the wealthy. There is no shortage of work on this planet. You can work and create value anywhere by simply creating worthwhile living spaces for people. That could be anything from parks to schools to market places. But that is work that does not serve capital interests well, whereas creating ridiculous luxury perfectly serves capital interests... which is why the former is being socialized and paid for through taxes.
    That is why I am massively in favor of taxing obscene wealth out of existence in exchange for shorter work weeks and jobs that serve the public interest rather than that of capital.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  20. #28970
    Another way to call that would be wage theft.
    I guess this is the communist term for "profit".

    Every time you make a purchase, someone makes money. You buy a loaf of bread? Someone makes money. You pay your internet bill? Someone makes money. Without this incentive, why would people make bread? Why invest in internet infrastructure?

    If ALL of your labour is translated into income for you, then why would someone create your job in the first place?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #28971
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    There are massive organizations that are socialized. Most of infrastructure, collectives of all forms, associations, education and healthcare in most first world countries... They work just fine without a major profit incentive for a singular person.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  22. #28972
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why invest in internet infrastructure?
    All infrastructure, including the internet is at best massively subsidized, or entirely socialized. South Korea probably wouldn't be where it is today if they didn't massively invest in broadband in the 90's... compare that to the US that still lacks basic coverage despite the miracle cure that is neoliberalism.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  23. #28973
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    There are massive organizations that are socialized. Most of infrastructure, collectives of all forms, associations, education and healthcare in most first world countries... They work just fine without a major profit incentive for a singular person.
    Education and healthcare is paid for by tax, and certainly in the case of pharmaceutical companies, it's not socialism. They make profit, and lots of it. Many schools make money too, and they tend to pay teachers more, and therefore get better teachers and have a better quality of education. Same with healthcare. You don't want to wait for your operation? Go private, get better doctors, shorter waiting times.

    And it's most certainly in a capitalist country's interest to provide good quality education and healthcare, as it means a smarter and healthier population, which means more profit for business, more tax income for government, better services, a strong economy. The motivation for a government to provide good services is still profit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #28974
    I am actually in favour of socialism when it comes to essential infrastructure. You mention South Korea... this is the home of Samsung, and very profitable business. South Korea is not a socialist country, it just has more rigorously regulated and state controlled infrastructure. It's probably a fine model for where we should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #28975
    I will say though that socialised infrastructure should be complimented with private alternatives, where possible, to improve competition and consumer choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #28976
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,711
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Socialized doesn't mean you can't have a profit margin, just that you have to use that profit to reinvest or raise wages, not syphon it for your yacht.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I will say though that socialised infrastructure should be complimented with private alternatives, where possible, to improve competition and consumer choice.
    You mean like US healthcare where the pharma industry lobbies politicians for billions, creating system where the average american spends $11k p.a. for worse healthcare than you get for free?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  27. #28977
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Wealth acquisition is an incentive, but it's not the only incentive. I didn't choose my job for the amazing wealth it generates. I chose my job because I love it. I love what I do and I feel like I'm using my best skills to make a difference in the world. I couldn't do it without the money, but I don't do it for the money.

    This is pretty common in the world. People choose their jobs. Some choose poorly and feel more trapped than they actually are. As Lincoln said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." That's true, but not the whole story.

    Plenty of professions are largely populated by people who feel a calling to civic duty, regardless of the pay, so long as the pay is enough to live on.

    So your notion that people only create jobs or value due to financial gain is just so obviously and clearly not the whole story... not even a big part of the story, I'd argue.

    The social norm of encouraging the personal greed to the point of vast income disparity even within a single company is a clear wrong on human rights. Just because our culture celebrates people who hoard the wealth earned by others by relying on their ignorance and negotiation skills - that doesn't make it a good thing.

    People earning more than they had before by creating jobs or advancing their industry or filling a consumer niche... that's awesome... but the notion that they should be left alone to run amok without any regulation or regard is also a problem.

    The fantasy that Trump is somehow more deserving of attention because of his money and ability to buy TV shows and billboards and hotels and all that... that's a cultural weirdness... and just because it has happened doesn't mean it's good.

    If not for Trump, the republicans would have an equivalent figurehead. Trump is a symptom, not a cause. So don't confuse the politics with the argument.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  28. #28978
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Socialized doesn't mean you can't have a profit margin, just that you have to use that profit to reinvest or raise wages, not syphon it for your yacht.



    You mean like US healthcare where the pharma industry lobbies politicians for billions, creating system where the average american spends $11k p.a. for worse healthcare than you get for free?
    No, I mean like the UK where you basically get access to better doctors (because even doctors like money) and have shorter waiting times.

    Don't get me wrong, pharma companies are dirt, the people who own them are pure fucking evil, putting profit ahead of health, but that isn't going to change if we suddenly overthrow capitalism. Socialist countries are corrupt as fuck, too.

    The problem is corruption, not wealth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #28979
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    I couldn't do it without the money, but I don't do it for the money.
    This isn't really about "conscious choice" incentive. You say it yourself... you couldn't do it without the money. Whether you consciously are aware of it or not, money is the prime motivation for what you do with your life. If I offered you a job in the UK, with perhaps triple your income, you would at least talk it over with your family, ask if England is somewhere you could settle. Perhaps even if it was as an accountant or something mundane like that, instead of fun. Why do you suppose poop is in a country he holds in contempt? Money motivates nearly all of us more than anything except perhaps love.

    I know you love your job, and that's great. I'm sure if everyone got paid the same, you'd still do what you do. But the bin men wouldn't. Most people don't enjoy their work. Most people do it because they have to, and they make the most of it. And those who love their job still primarily do it for the money.

    I mean, I don't. I literally give up my time for nothing. But it's one day a week. I wouldn't do it full time for nothing, even though I have the time. I do it because I get bored at home and like to feel like I'm doing at least something useful with my life. You're right that there's more motivation than money, and money isn't the prime motivation for everyone. But for most of us, it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #28980
    The fantasy that Trump is somehow more deserving of attention because of his money and ability to buy TV shows and billboards and hotels and all that
    I don't think he is worthy of attention because of money. He's worthy of attention because he got voted in. And, assuming his money was legally acquired, he can do as he legally pleases with it. Or illegally if he wants to snort coke. I don't give a fuck what people do with their money. I care about corruption, but not rich people buying yachts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #28981
    As for labour, people make the choice. If an individual feels they are being excessively exploited by their employer, get another job. Yes, easier said than done, but ultimately people make the choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #28982
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why do you suppose poop is in a country he holds in contempt?
    I don't hold the UK in contempt. I hold stupid nationalistic #MAGA and #MEGA types in contempt. They just happen to be in charge here which makes it annoying right now. But I certainly don't have a problem with most of the people I live or work with here.

    Also the reason I work here is for the job where I can focus on doing research and not have a shitload of teaching to do every year. Those kinds of jobs aren't easy to find. But given a choice I would do it in Canada or maybe the Netherlands or maaabye the US (where the money would be better). But note that's a maaaaybe, it's not that I chose my job for the money.

    If I wanted to be rich I'd go do stats for some big soulless marketing firm, and would probably have triple my current salary. The job itself is the prime motivator, not the money, just like with Mojo.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Money motivates nearly all of us more than anything except perhaps love.
    It's not even in my top three or four. Work, love, leisure time, freedom, dogs, all come before money to me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  33. #28983
    Ong, you're on about corruption-- a spiral of influence and corruption has led many who agree with you, and quite probably you, to believe the rich deserve to pay less than whatever the status quo is, or at the very least never pay more. Think about it-- no matter where you are, no matter what the local tax rate on the rich is, the same arguments are being made. Funny, seems like these are just arguments to justify the corrupt practice of buying lower tax rates.

    Since you insist on demonizing the pro tax the rich argument by conflating it with the extreme that not many (certainly none of us) are calling for, here's a fun thought experiment that peddles in extremes:

    The maximally rich (m) person would be one who controls all wealth, either by subjugating all others or eliminating all others. I believe it's self evident that we should not incentivize the pursuit of this level of wealth. Further, I think it's clear that the pursuit of m-$1 should not be encouraged, nor should m-$2, and so on for quite a while. Now the question is, at what point do the scales tip-- what level of wealth pursuit should we incentivize? And at the highest level that we agree we should incentivize, just how much should we incentivize it?
    Last edited by boost; 12-10-2020 at 11:43 PM.
  34. #28984
    I've had 5 hours sleep and been at work, so excuse me if I ignore this conversation for another day.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #28985
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    If I wanted to be rich I'd go do stats for some big soulless marketing firm, and would probably have triple my current salary. The job itself is the prime motivator, not the money, just like with Mojo.
    Fair enough. But understand you guys have interesting jobs. Physicist, researcher, these are cool things to do. Accountants and lawyers don't tend to do it for the love of the job, bus drivers don't, butchers don't, retail store managers don't, they all do it for the money. Few people are lucky enough to get paid well to do something they love doing. Those who are lucky probably aren't motivated as much by money, but that motivation still exists. You wouldn't do it for minimum wage, would you? But at the same time you're not greedy, which I sincerely respect.

    It's not even in my top three or four. Work, love, leisure time, freedom, dogs, all come before money to me.
    The problem is that money is intrinsically related to your enjoyment of these things. Would being in poverty strain your relationship? Can you do the things you enjoy doing for leisure if you are broke? I love dogs but can't have one because I don't have my own home, I have to rent. I won't have a dog if I can't provide it with a secure place to live. I doubt I'll find love again if I remain unemployed and broke, women don't want an unemployed loser.

    This is why money motivates people so much, and this is why it isn't conscious. It lays the foundation for all the other things that do motivate.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #28986
    Quote Originally Posted by boost
    the rich deserve to pay less than whatever the status quo is, or at the very least never pay more.
    They shouldn't pay less tax. Honestly, idk if they should pay the same or more. I can see it from both arguments. If they earn more, they pay more even if it's the same % of earnings. But tax is already pretty huge for wealthy people when they die. Inheritance tax exists. You can't just hand everything you have to your offspring, the taxman wants his piece of the cake too. And is that tax helping to make the poor less poor? No. More tax just means more corruption. The wealthy still find a way to cream it off the top.

    You make the wealthy pay more tax, and they just become more corrupt. You don't make poor peoples' lives better.

    The maximally rich (m) person would be one who controls all wealth, either by subjugating all others or eliminating all others. I believe it's self evident that we should not incentivize the pursuit of this level of wealth.
    It's not possibly to reach that level of wealth.

    Further, I think it's clear that the pursuit of m-$1 should not be encouraged
    This is ludicrous and kinda implies you've lost any real sense of the value of money. $1m is not a massive amount of money to be worth, if you own your own home. To have that much cash is the bank is ludicrous, but if you want to own your own home and have enough money to be comfortable without being greedy, $1m isn't massive. You're not going to build a dynasty with that by giving an allowance to your fat ginger son.

    On-paper wealth of $1m should certainly be encouraged.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #28987
    Average house price in London is around £650,000, which is not much under $1m.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #28988
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    What he meant by "m-$1" is $1 less than all of the money (m), not a million dollars.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  39. #28989
    Oh. Well then. I guess that renders my latter comments completely irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #28990
    I mean, ok then, what level of wealth should we encourage, and at what point do we think it is too much. I guess that's what we're asking here, right?

    idk, but for me it's clearly above $1m. I mean, if I won a million on the lottery, I'm not going to be able to give my family enough money so they can all retire. So it's not like that much money is going to change anyone's life except my own. Two million? Getting there, but probably still pushing it in terms of my entire family retiring. Five million? That'll do it. So I guess from the point of view of me doing anything I could possibly want to do with large amounts of money, five million is enough.

    But if I had that much money, I would likely invest. And if those investments came good, perhaps I could turn five million into a billion. What's immoral about that? Those investments didn't just make me rich, they helped make a business succeed, creating jobs in the process. Yes, I made money off peoples' labour, but that labour was partly created by my investment.

    If I had a billion, I could invest in a lot more, potentially creating many more jobs in the process. This kind of wealth accumulation, I don't see a problem with it, and I don't see why we should put a limit on it. It will never result in someone controlling all the money in the world, because otherwise there is no way any of the businesses can succeed. Consumers need to be financially stable. So there's already a limit on how rich a person can become. If someone owns all the money in the world, he's as broke as everyone else because people will trade using gold, and if one person owns all the gold, people will trade using salt.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #28991
    I guess what I'm saying is that if you become too rich, the system breaks and your wealth collapses. There has to be enough money for everyone else for a financial system to work in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #28992
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I mean, ok then, what level of wealth should we encourage, and at what point do we think it is too much. I guess that's what we're asking here, right?
    Yes, essentially. I'm not sure there's a conclusive answer for the pinpoint amount that is ok to incentivize, but that's fine, we can play in the extremes, and when we do I believe we see that there is a level that is too high. Once this is established, arguments that hold the incentives created by the possibilities of wealth to be an unconditional good fall apart.

    idk, but for me it's clearly above $1m. I mean, if I won a million on the lottery, I'm not going to be able to give my family enough money so they can all retire. So it's not like that much money is going to change anyone's life except my own. Two million? Getting there, but probably still pushing it in terms of my entire family retiring. Five million? That'll do it. So I guess from the point of view of me doing anything I could possibly want to do with large amounts of money, five million is enough.
    Yes, it's hard to find the exact point-- we certainly won't hone in on it ITT.

    But if I had that much money, I would likely invest. And if those investments came good, perhaps I could turn five million into a billion. What's immoral about that? Those investments didn't just make me rich, they helped make a business succeed, creating jobs in the process. Yes, I made money off peoples' labour, but that labour was partly created by my investment.

    If I had a billion, I could invest in a lot more, potentially creating many more jobs in the process. This kind of wealth accumulation, I don't see a problem with it, and I don't see why we should put a limit on it. It will never result in someone controlling all the money in the world, because otherwise there is no way any of the businesses can succeed. Consumers need to be financially stable. So there's already a limit on how rich a person can become. If someone owns all the money in the world, he's as broke as everyone else because people will trade using gold, and if one person owns all the gold, people will trade using salt.
    Yeah, great, but that's unfortunately not what seems to happen in practice. This is exactly my point, that wealth generation and social good often are tethered at the start. People have a problem, you solve it, they reward you. What I'm claiming, is that there are diminishing and ultimately reversing returns as the wealth accumulation increases. Rent seeking, lobbying for financially beneficial policy that serves no good for society, edging out upstart competition with incumbent might, creating monopolies, etc. Further, that greater wealth inequality, the more ground the average person needs to cover to join the top 5%, the less effective the acquisition of wealth works as an incentive. If making it to the top is not a feasible goal, cynicism will creep in and grow right alongside the wealth inequality.
  43. #28993
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    $1 million isn't exactly the "enough money to not ever need to worry about money again" value it was 20 years ago.

    A big issue is that you'll probably want to own a house and property as a "good" investment of that money... but that's going to tie up about half your money right away. So your $1 M is now halved, and you're not earning any interest on the property investment. You hope the land values will increase, but you have to maintain the home on that property in the mean time. More costs.

    Then you're probably going to buy presents for your family and loved ones. Presents like cars and expensive vacations. That can burn up another $100k real fast.

    Then you're also not acquainted with this kind of wealth and probably don't know any accountants you can trust and your wealth management strategies are going to be unrefined if not totally shit.


    I don't recall the specifics, but I read once that the long-term stories of people who've won the big lottery cashes are pretty grim.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  44. #28994
    MMM, good points, but I just want to flag this all as a tangent that was created by Ong's convenient misreading of a variable that lead to a off topic strawman. After this was pointed out, Ong acknowledged it, then oddly returned to $1mm as some sort of goal post to argue against. No one has claimed $1mm is a level of wealth that should not be incentivized.

    That said, $1mm, barring a catastrophic bad run that would probably mean a global financial depression, is enough money to never have to do something you're not interested in again. If you're super frugal, you could not work again-- but more realistically, you could work in whatever field interests you without worry about compensation, because whatever your salary, you're going to be averaging $40-60k in safe investment returns, and at some point you can start drawing down principle.

    But again, this is a tangent, born of a strawman, that isn't even all that interesting.
  45. #28995
    Quote Originally Posted by boost
    Yeah, great, but that's unfortunately not what seems to happen in practice.
    I don't even know what happens in practise. I don't tend to worry myself about how people acquire enormous wealth. I assume they're either corrupt or lucky. In any case, it's beyond my control. I don't moan about it because it's not worth me getting upset about. It's not like I can become wealthy by crying. This isn't a problem that magically disappears if we go full on socialist. There's always a way to acquire enormous wealth if you are well positioned.

    Where is your "too much" line? The problem is, you're basically going to pull a figure out of your arse. It will be an arbitrary number, based on subjective concepts like morality. For me, the "too much" line is based on the liquidity of the entire system, it's very likely impossible for an individual to acquire enough money to cause the system to collapse. Even the collective wealth of the elite has its limit... they can only become wealthier if the economies they control are functional, if people are actually working. If they control all the money, there's none left for the businesses that everyone works for, people don't get paid, everything stops. What use is money if there's nobody to build your yacht?

    I'm wholly unqualified to put a serious figure on the "too much" debate, either morally or economically.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #28996
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Where is your "too much" line? The problem is, you're basically going to pull a figure out of your arse. It will be an arbitrary number, based on subjective concepts like morality.
    There is no objective too-much line, but that's just what makes progressive taxation so great, you don't need one. Assign a range for basic-necessity (based on annual living expenses, average wages, food, gas and commodity prices etc.), and tax anything that goes over that progressively, adjust ranges annually for inflation etc. Easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    For me, the "too much" line is based on the liquidity of the entire system, it's very likely impossible for an individual to acquire enough money to cause the system to collapse. Even the collective wealth of the elite has its limit... they can only become wealthier if the economies they control are functional, if people are actually working. If they control all the money, there's none left for the businesses that everyone works for, people don't get paid, everything stops. What use is money if there's nobody to build your yacht?
    And here we have the upper range of the tax progression, so probably we don't want it to hit 100%, at least not too soon. Someone better than me in maths and economics should be able to come up with something workable, and the great thing is the values can always be adjusted if they didn't pan out. Clearly (at least in the US and some other countries) the progression isn't currently steep enough.
    Last edited by CoccoBill; 12-21-2020 at 06:35 AM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  47. #28997
    so probably we don't want it to hit 100%, at least not too soon.
    I can't even believe that a 100% tax rate past a certain level could ever even be seriously discussed. In the UK, the upper limit for income tax is 45% of earnings above £150k. Inheritance tax is 40% of anything above £325k. These are already high. The govt are taking nearly half of wealthy people's money, even after they die. Raising this figure isn't the solution... enforcing it is. The problem is that wealthy people are allowed to bypass tax regulations to ringfence their assets, allowing them to accumulate wealth faster. Corruption is the problem, not wealth.

    Just tax people fairly. 45% is fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #28998
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Yeah I left the term "income tax" out of there for a reason, just taxing income does nothing to alleviate the problem. Capital gains tax needs similar progression, and maybe even just taxing wealth over some (absurdly high) limit.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  49. #28999
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    IDK how it is in the UK, but if you have enough income to fall into the top tax bracket, that still doesn't mean your entire income is taxed at that rate.

    The tax rates are applied progressively in that (just making up numbers, here) the first $10,000 you earned for the year is untaxed. The next $10,000 you earned is taxed at 5%. The next $10,000 you earned is taxed at 10%.

    So if you made $30k in the above purely hypothetical situation, you are not paying $3k in taxes, you are paying $0 + $500 + $1,000 = $1.5k in taxes. So you're in the 10% tax bracket, but you pay 5% tax in total.


    Now, all those numbers are pure BS and serve only to illustrate the method of applying taxes. So by the US method of applying taxes, for that earner who is getting hit with the 45% tax rate, the whole 45% only applies to the earnings they made in excess of the next lower tax bracket's high end.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  50. #29000
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    IDK how it is in the UK, but if you have enough income to fall into the top tax bracket, that still doesn't mean your entire income is taxed at that rate.
    Yeah, this is why I was saying stuff like "45% tax over earnings of £150k". It's a lot more complex than that though, the first £12.5k is tax free, then the next x amount is 20%, rising with every threshold. Same system as yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Yeah I left the term "income tax" out of there for a reason, just taxing income does nothing to alleviate the problem. Capital gains tax needs similar progression, and maybe even just taxing wealth over some (absurdly high) limit.
    Income tax is the single biggest source of tax revenue, but it only accounts for around 25% of tax revenue. VAT and National Insurance are the other large sources. Capital Gains tax isn't even on the table I'm looking at, it's with "other taxes" which accounts for about 10% of total revenue.

    And for the lulz, the UK govt's largest spending goes on social protection... basically you want to tax the hell out of the rich to allow people like me to sit at home smoking weed. How amusing that it's me that thinks this unfair.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #29001
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Indeed.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a9566211.html

    Capital gains tax perhaps should be far higher than it currently is.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  52. #29002
    I don't understand why you want to disincentiveise someone selling their assets. If you want to raise CGT, then you'll need to increase the threshold by a large amount so regular people can sell their records or whatever else they spent their entire lives collecting.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #29003
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Capital gains includes stuff like dividends and rental income, that's how the rich get their income, avoiding income tax.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  54. #29004
    Yeah but it also includes me selling my record collection.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #29005
    My records are probably worth around £2k. Fuck all. But my collection is puny compared to many. Why should someone have to pay tax on belongings they have accumulated over their life? My Auntie has a shit load of Beatles records. She hasn't sold them and my cousin my likely inherit them. In 40 years or so, that collection will be worth a fortune, and the taxman will want his slice. Bullshit. My Auntie bought those in the 60s.

    You want to slap a tax on that? Do you think that's right?

    Dividends and rental income should be taxed as income, not capital gains.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #29006
    Actually idk about dividends. But rental earnings are an income, it's a regular and predictable payment for, essentially, a service. Dividends are a reward for sound investment, the fruits of a successful business. Capital gains is probably fair here.

    I mean, I'm up for tax reform, but punishing people for accumulating wealth, whether that be assets or money, is crazy. You're essentially taxing the same income twice. You pay tax on your earnings, buy stuff with the earnings, and then pay tax when you sell the stuff. That isn't right to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #29007
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't even know what happens in practise. I don't tend to worry myself about how people acquire enormous wealth. I assume they're either corrupt or lucky. In any case, it's beyond my control. I don't moan about it because it's not worth me getting upset about. It's not like I can become wealthy by crying. This isn't a problem that magically disappears if we go full on socialist. There's always a way to acquire enormous wealth if you are well positioned.

    Where is your "too much" line? The problem is, you're basically going to pull a figure out of your arse. It will be an arbitrary number, based on subjective concepts like morality. For me, the "too much" line is based on the liquidity of the entire system, it's very likely impossible for an individual to acquire enough money to cause the system to collapse. Even the collective wealth of the elite has its limit... they can only become wealthier if the economies they control are functional, if people are actually working. If they control all the money, there's none left for the businesses that everyone works for, people don't get paid, everything stops. What use is money if there's nobody to build your yacht?

    I'm wholly unqualified to put a serious figure on the "too much" debate, either morally or economically.
    You think a tragedy of the commons among the rich can't cause fractures and eventual collapse of society. I think it can. It happened in France. It happened in Russia. Not sure why you think we've reached historical escape velocity.
  58. #29008
    Does anyone remember Jack the UPS delivery guy from Mad TV? Looks like he's back!

    https://twitter.com/iamclaudiusjr/st...33306095181824
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  59. #29009
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  60. #29010
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,657
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    WTF is this voodoo!!

    Burn the witch!!!!!


    Seriously... they don't even have the same number of syllables!
    When I hear the Brainstorm, I can't even imagine where that 3rd syllable could come from.
    Then when I hear Green Needle, I'm like... it's obviously 3 syllables.

    Every time... back and forth. I tricked myself into listening for the other word each time, and then tried to switch it up while not looking at the screen, and I was locked into that same back and forth pattern. It was so convincing that I double-checked to make sure the video is only looping through 1 time. Then I covered up the word I was thinking about and it immediately switched to the other word.


    Brains are so dumb. C'mon, brain. I'm trying to do science, here!
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  61. #29011
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  62. #29012
    Why is so much porn about incest now? Seriously, what is that about?
  63. #29013
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Banana View Post
    Why is so much porn about incest now? Seriously, what is that about?
    Is there? I tend to search for "japanese lesbian" so I guess it's easy for me to miss "sisterfucking".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #29014
    Well pull up pornhub, or any of those tube-sites. We all have our dark corners we eventually navigate to. But the main page has always been the most tame/mainstream shit. Top, A-list porn star scenes, softcore stuff, just "general porn" i guess.

    But now....it's all step-moms and cousins and step-sisters, and aunts, and that stuff. And there's a lot of it.
  65. #29015
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Is there? I tend to search for "japanese lesbian" so I guess it's easy for me to miss "sisterfucking".
    I thought most Japanese porn was about incest.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  66. #29016
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I thought most Japanese porn was about incest.
    There's a reason I add "lesbian" to the search. Japanese porn can be a bit weird. I dunno about incest, but there's a lot of "rapey" stuff where it's an older guy and the girl looks like she's not into it. I don't know how people get their rocks off to that. I just want to see pussy licking and scissoring to be crass.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #29017
    At least in the West it's always a step-relative or some sort (which is weird enough, like how is that a fantasy for any but the smallest minority of people?). Japanese porn pretends it's men screwing their own daughter, or brothers and sisters or you name it. I really don't get where that comes from.

    To be fair though I don't think I've ever come across a mother-daughter scene, so you're probably safe if you're into lesbos.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  68. #29018
    I could understand having the hots for a step-sister if she was fucking smoking. It's a bit weird, but not really. I used to live in foster homes, and I remember fancying one of my foster sisters. I mean I was 14 and she had fantastic tits. It's not exactly a fantasy though.

    I've never been a fan of guys in porn. It's not that I'm offended by the sight of another man's cock, but men in porn don't tend to be making realistic sex scenes, it seems the guy is enjoying himself while the girl is just doing her job. It's how I imagine it would be like to nail a hooker. Lesbians, more often than not, act like they actually like each other and are both enjoying themselves. It seems like I'm spying on two people in love. Much more erotic.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #29019
    You sound like a closet lesbian lol.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  70. #29020
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You sound like a closet lesbian lol.
    Soulread
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #29021
    $2600 bucks for a water heater!!!???

    Fuck my life
  72. #29022
    It's getting to the point where I'm genuinely worried that I might be cancelled as a person just because I'm white, straight, and vote mostly republican. at least, I'll have no basis to compete in a marketplace driven by identity politics. Diversity is hyper-fashionable at the moment and I'm a 40 year old white guy who wears his shirts tucked in.

    I've decided, that in order to continue to exist, I need to identify as some intransigent minority. I don't have many options considering my skin color and genitalia. But all I have to do to prove I'm gay is marry a man. It can be a sexless, open, long-distance relationship where I still date women. But for purposes of affirmative action, I'm a gay guy.

    So with that....

    Ong, would you be my long-distance, sexless, non-monagamous gay husband?


    [PS I know when a gay guy uses a woman to pretend he's straight, she's called a "beard". But this is the inverse situation, so I had to think of a different term. What do you think of "muff"? Ong, will you be my muff?"]
  73. #29023
    Just wear a dress on Sundays. I have a bright pink fluffy dressing gown. That makes me transgender, and therefore a protected minority.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #29024
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Just wear a dress on Sundays. I have a bright pink fluffy dressing gown. That makes me transgender, and therefore a protected minority.
    If it's only Sundays then you're gender-fluid. You're part of the "+" in LGBTQ+. The legal precedents there are really fuzzy. You better protect yourself and get married.
  75. #29025
    Fine, I'll wear knickers every day.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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