YouTube - Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interviews With Participants
YouTube - Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interview B-Roll
Printable View
I stopped at 9 min and cant bring myself to watch the 2nd vid
I'm 2 minutes in and this fills my heart with sadness.
edit HAHAHAAHA how do I link to a specific time in a youtube video? @3:20
Well, it's impossible to link to all of the golden quotes in the first video, but these are not our future. They are our dying present.
edit found the best one from 2nd vid: "Explain to me why Cap and Trade is bad" "I just don't believe God would allow us to destroy the Earth with CO2"
I believe that CHILDREN are our future. Teach them well and let THEM lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess INSIDE.
lol benny
omg... 2 minutes in....
It's amazing... half of the words are just like filler and the others are
pride, america, freedom, yay, communist, socialist, doom.
we're so nationalist it's amazing. like 1.30-2.00 in the video. We are the last bastion of hope... and everyone follows us and needs us.. and we need to
"our doorstep in the county is extremely dirty and it needs straightened out before we straighten out other peoples doorsteps" ... gah... this is "amazing" and if it's the future we're fuxxxed.
so many lawls.. but then you stop and realize this is real, then its just sadface.
There was one mini montage of like 3 interviews in I believe the first video. I forget the subject, but I just remember that all three people regurgitated the exact same soundbite.
The one lady that said she wished things would go back to the way things were in the days following 9/11 said so much with that one sentence. These tea baggers were just normal people who were thrown into a state of perpetual fear by 9/11. As time has passed, the source of their fears has eroded, but they have found comfort in this fearful existence. And so the Tea Party is born; enemies are invented giving them something to fear and allowing them to maintain their 'comfort' zone. Because they are invented and easily disproven the people allow themselves to be ignorant of facts and closed off to anything that disagrees with thier irrational fears, else they'd lose the source of their fear once again.
add #t=3m20s to the end of the urlQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
i'm so disappointed that that lady in yellow talking about people infringing on her rights wasn't on the main video. that was so so so so win.
asking why i believe what i believe makes me mad, and disagreeing with me makes me mad grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Those guys have a bunch of teabagger interview videos, and the b-sides are usually better. I think the reason is that their main videos are more thematic while the b-sides are more random, yet the random often turns out more interesting than the themeQuote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
oh god republicans are fucked up. luckily just as i got bored of it i saw this in the list of related videos
YouTube - Cat gets Vacuumed SFW
Koreans explain the Tea Party
YouTube - ????????? Tea Party Express derails GOP candidates
I might be going against the grain here but why the hell would I or any of us want to pay for other people's healthcare, welfare, public housing, food stamps, farm subsidy, bank bailout, mortgage modification, bridge to nowhere, etc.
If I want to donate to a charity I'll write a check, I don't need the government raking my fking paychecks to help people I don't know/ care about.
Ya dig? It's not nice or compassionate if you're spending other people's money.
As for the Glen Beck rally... yeah, everyone speaking there seems to think very highly of themselves.
Because it makes you wealthier. Your financial return on investment in an economy that serves the people is greater than one that doesn't. Not to mention your social 'return on investment' is astronomically improved in a society that provides for its people. All this garbage about "it's my money blah blah why should I be forced to blah blah" is nothing but propaganda hogwash perpetuated by the effective royal class who are lucky to be carried on the shoulders of the rest of the world. Deservedness is largely a false perception, and when it comes face to face with real world shit like economics, it falls flatQuote:
Originally Posted by runrrunrstr8
The next time you see a homeless bum on the street who lives on welfare, think to yourself that he has contributed more to society than the average Wall Street banker. And here's the crazy part, it's true. The return on the entire economy by this bum simply using food stamps is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than the mega mega mega mega wealthy guy who manipulates numbers and robs the economy of millions that he sucks out of the economy.
You know the supposed 5-6 trillion $ hole we're in right now? Well, ALL of that is entirely due to the people who 'earned' the most money and felt they didn't have to pay any of it back, and instead sucked it out of the economy. They send trillions overseas, trillions in their bank accounts earning interest, and trillions stolen from a squeezed labor force. The amount of money that the American taxpayers has paid in corporate welfare of the last two years is immensely higher than the amount of poor welfare we've paid over the entire history of our nation. In fact, the difference is so vast that they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. Yet people are still raving against the Welfare Cadillac Queen fairy tale while unwittingly dropping off their debit cards at the nearest mansion. Don't be fooled when the source of the talking points that rail against social safety nets are the people who benefit the most from those safety nets not existing.
The way human society works is that the vast majority of the time, the people who do the least, make the most, and the people who do the most, make the least. Social safety nets and public programs are the one and only thing that keep you and me and everybody we know out of serfdom. When everybody gets together and pays for the basic needs of everybody else, none of us get left behind and we all move forward as a unit. Look to the most heavily taxed nations in the world and see that the people who live there are much better off. Then look to the lowest taxed nations and find that everybody except the ruling powers are living in shit
If I come off as curt or mean, I don't mean to be
Wuf gives you really good reasons to stop being a selfish idiot and instead open your eyes to what is really going on. But it gets even better. Our society wants to be humane, so hospitals are not allowed to turn people away who have immediate needs. This means that the only way to get free treatment is to have let your problem go on for so long that it is an immediate threat to your life. At this point the cost of treatment is far greater than the cost of preventative methods that could have been offered long before the person was on their death bed.
You really only have two options: offer universal healthcare, or allow hospitals to deny treatment as they see fit. I do not believe anyone wants to see the latter, but people opposed to the former want some sort of silly middle ground that simply is not economically viable since it actually costs more than just providing care in the first place. So if you want to be greedy, you actually want universal healthcare, as rates should go down.
One of the best measures for having universal healthcare is to ask people in country's that have it if they would give it up. Don't ask the rich about anything, ask the middle classes. I come form upper middle class and nobody would want the health care stopped. Your system would turn middle class people poor with one sick child or parent. I think of it as insurance. If I never need it then good, but I want to be covered for that untimely accident.
But America isn't the land of the middle-class. It's the land of entrepreneurs. Everyone here will tell you, if you have an idea for a business, you go for it. The belief is that anyone can be rich; there are only a few things getting in our way and most of those few things are the gov't and taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
If you try to start up a business, State and Federal are already combing you down for all the money they can get, everyone who dreams big is put off by those thoughts. "So I'm 1 week into a business that will likely fail 8/10 times and I'm teetering on the edge because I need to feed some poor people? If they can't get jobs, it's because we can't employ them!"
That's why we're so adverse to Socialism, because accepting taxes so high is accepting that a central pillar of the American Dream has crumbled. We aren't being run by a dark cabal of the rich, we all believe we're one idea away from being rich and we want to make sure the road is as clear as possible for when it comes.
Yes, it's awesome that being born Canadian guarantees you a certain standard for living, but we're not Canadian, we're American. And being born American means rolling the dice and shooting from the hip, Cowboy-style.
Not my opinion on the matter, just my understanding of things.
Also, we don't have universal health care, the bill Obama passed was the first step in bringing down inflated Healthcare costs nationwide. We spend waaaaay more per year on healthcare and get worse returns than anyone else. (17% of our income goes to healthcare if I remember Bill Clinton's interview on TDS, and I think the next highest was 10%)
We had to do something to bring down costs across the board, and the first step is getting everyone covered.
The bill was a move toward universal health insurance and a gov't intervention on how health insurers can do business.
The funny thing is that middle class taxes wouldn't need to be that much higher, if at all, in order to provide free health care, free advanced education, etc. There's more than enough revenue from the high end of income, capital gains, and estate for progressive taxes to cover. In fact, we could probably drop income, sales, property taxes focused on the middle class if only we used the correct policy on the high end.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
This goes back to one of the reasons I think that the US is not doing any sort of collapse, and will still remain as the leading nation throughout the century. We have sooooo much room for improvement, and when the shit hits the fan, I think we'll find some push for some of those improvements. The US simply adopting economic policy similar to, say, Norway would provide massive improvements which would IMO be on par with some of the best in the past.
Which brings up an important point about this recession. It ended a while back, yet employment is fucked, and consuming on credit is crunched. I think this fact is going to force the US to adopt policy that will bring back increasing wages. The whole reason we're in this spot is lack of increasing wages since Reagan, the way we coped with it was borrowing and debt, but the veil has been pulled down, and politicians will be forced to fix wages or else they'll get voted out. The process will take quite a long time, but I think it's coming, at least to some degree
Aside from the rabbit trail, I wanted to point out the the whole 'entrepreneurship' milieu of the US would be hugely benefited by social safety improvements. If you know that if your small business fails you still have health care, still have shelter, and your kids can still go to college, then you're going to be much more likely to take the risk in the first place. It's good for everybody. US right-wing rhetoric and philosophy are solely a product of the fatclass reverse-Robin Hooding the populace. Super wealth is a product of gaming the system. Even the most 'deserved' of super wealth conglomerates (like, say, Microsoft) have the potential to make more money by gaming the system than they do on legit economic activity. Corporations themselves are a gaming of the system. They're microcosmic monopolies that excel at political influence at the expense of product development
This could be somewhat true, but it depends on your definition on what "contributed to society means." In your definition, it's clearly true. But in an absolute definition its pretty clearly false. How much money you make is directly correlated to the amount of value you provide to the people around you. The problem is people value pretty worthless and fucked up shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This in no way means that heavy taxes means everyone is better off. There are a very very large amount of factors that would contribute to shitty living conditions for everyone but the ruling powers. Taxes certainly don't have everything, if much, to do with it.Quote:
Look to the most heavily taxed nations in the world and see that the people who live there are much better off. Then look to the lowest taxed nations and find that everybody except the ruling powers are living in shit
What's your definition of "do"? This seems completely untrue to me unless "doing" is physical labor. Would you argue that Bill Gates hasn't "done" much?Quote:
The way human society works is that the vast majority of the time, the people who do the least, make the most, and the people who do the most, make the least.
I don't understand why everyone hates risk in this world. We risk our lives every day by just sitting in bed. The risk of dying or losing your job or your business failing is present everywhere. For me, the goal isn't to eliminate risk. There's a great quote from the Bhagavad Gita that sums up my point. Krishna says to Arjuna "You are responsible for action alone, never of its fruits." Results are often uncontrollable, but we must live to act in an "enlightened" manner. At least, that's what I believe personally.
I assume someone is going to respond to my previous post saying that some people have become rich through exploitation of others. I don't disagree with this at all. I personally believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to mandate a ton of transparency, as well as creating laws that severely punishes those who decieve people and exploit them for money. This happens. But it also so happens that most businesses and owners have made money because people have voluntarily exchanged their money for the businesses good or service. A good or service that was thought up and put into practice by a entrepreneur. A good or service that is so much better than the substitutes that despite the fact the result of a persons voluntary transaction with the business will be the owner becoming filthy rich, that we still will give our money.
Danny wins this thread.
And although half the tea party seems like total idiots, I still think they are a good move for the republican party away from this ridiculous religious movement that went against all that a conservative stood for.
So you're saying the 1% richest people in the world should pay for everything but also have essentially no say in how that money is used? While the others pay for jack shit and get many of the benefits? Sounds good to me, rich people suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The correlation is tiny, often non-existent, and people don't value as fucked up of shit as many opinions claim. Attempting to explain status and value by equating them is getting into woo woo territory. It works only when you continually expand the definitionsQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
In the real economy, we know for fact that financial status is determined by much more than how well you're valued, and sometimes has very little to do with value. Also, using a term like 'value' to broadly explain economics can be problematic because sometimes it can only account for a fraction of what actually happens, and sometimes misses the point. Many examples can be found in the myriad of circumstances where different values collide, some values are naturally or artificially propped up while others are depressed, etc
Taxes in modern democracies have a substantially higher return on the social and economic wellbeing of the populace than anything else, and it's not really even close. Corruption is possible, and history is rife with taxation by totalitarian regimes being massively burdensome, but we're not dealing with this sort of circumstance. The amount of oversight that goes into tax spending is much higher than in pretty much any private industry, and the amount of economic return our taxes provides the nation is much higher than the return on purchases from, say, the most prolific retail corporation on the planet.Quote:
This in no way means that heavy taxes means everyone is better off. There are a very very large amount of factors that would contribute to shitty living conditions for everyone but the ruling powers. Taxes certainly don't have everything, if much, to do with it.
This isn't that complicated, but it is made so by misunderstanding taxes, and misunderstanding how economics works in the first place. The reason taxes are so beneficial is because of how well they distribute wealth and activity through the classes, and how well they invest in things like infrastructure and education and all sorts of social services we take for granted. Through the history of the US, tax dollars have gone to investment and social wellbeing to a vastly greater degree than any corporation or any business enterprise. Taxes can get too high, but nobody knows where that point is, and we're not even remotely close to that area in the first place. The top tax rate was about 3x higher under Eisenhower than today, and that was when the US middle class was becoming a thing of legend
My point was that status tends to be self-perpetuating and often deflects from progression elsewhere. Bill Gates is arguably the most beneficial mega wealthy person to ever live, but I don't really care about specific examples here because then I'll just bring up how Kim Il-sung decimated more value and wealth and all things good in the history of his nation, yet had more status than anybody because of it. Or how the House of Saud massively oppresses their citizenry, exports much of the nations' wealth, yet they have the most power and "do" the most. Or how Walmart is ransacking a portion of US wealth by monopolizing and crunching wages while overflowing their executive accounts. Or how Wall Street annihilated trillions, yet are among the wealthiest and "do" oh so much.Quote:
What's your definition of "do"? This seems completely untrue to me unless "doing" is physical labor. Would you argue that Bill Gates hasn't "done" much?
Nobody's arguing against risk, just against undue risk. The way economics work is that when you decrease risk in some areas you can increase it in other areas. Our society has done this by substantially decreasing the risk of certain powerful interests, which has added extra burden to others that happen to be the middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
If it was not possible for economic wealth to be hoarded, siphoned off from median flow, or generally have any imbalance of distribution, then we wouldn't really need social safety nets to the degree we do now because risk would be naturally decreased for the middle class due to having increase collective access to flow of wealth and product
But that's a fantasy world. Society is naturally very unequal, has strong self-perpetuating qualities, and real world economic demonstration determines that if you don't want the majority of the public to experience undue problems, policy needs to provide social services.
Most of the time, it's both. An important trend is as wealth increases and power consolidates, there is a stronger shift from providing valuable goods or services to exploitation.Quote:
I assume someone is going to respond to my previous post saying that some people have become rich through exploitation of others. I don't disagree with this at all. I personally believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to mandate a ton of transparency, as well as creating laws that severely punishes those who decieve people and exploit them for money. This happens. But it also so happens that most businesses and owners have made money because people have voluntarily exchanged their money for the businesses good or service. A good or service that was thought up and put into practice by a entrepreneur. A good or service that is so much better than the substitutes that despite the fact the result of a persons voluntary transaction with the business will be the owner becoming filthy rich, that we still will give our money.
The teabaggers are even more religious than the pre-TP GOPQuote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
It would be an okay movement if it were something like libertarianism, but it's not, it's Fox consolidating their power that GOP politicians have gradually handed over to them. This is showing us how much Fox calls the shots, and their purpose is ratings and further shifting politics to the right
Well, no. That's clearly a straw man, and you know itQuote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
My argument is for everybody to pay their share, no matter how much they make. The way this works according to understood economics is in a progressive tax system where the more you make the higher a percentage of your income you spend. It's not about hating the rich, but about good policy. It could also be viewed as not hating the poor or unlucky.
Let me try to break it down: Economies run on capital distribution through the median and poor classes. When the flow is reduced, the economy loses strength, and when the flow is increased the economy gains strength. Progressive, strong taxation on higher earners is not for the purpose of despising the rich or anything, but simply for the purpose of operating the economy. For the most part, a strengthening upper class is detrimental to the economy due to the simple fact that the upper class simply cannot be the meat of an economy no matter how hard they try.
This is one of the most demonstrable truths in economics. We see it through history, and we have even been obviously living it for the last few years, but never let the ability for people to not know what they're doing or understand a situation fool you. Today, there is way, way more than enough wealth to turn the economy into a behemoth virtually overnight, but the one and only reason we've been stagnant for so long is because the wealth that can do that has been siphoned up to the top. There are trillions of dollars just sitting around doing nothing. In fact, the surplus of cash at the top end is so enormous that its being used as a tool to siphon even more from the real economy by being used to speculate on the markets or scams like purchasing T$ from at near zero interest then loaning it back to the Fed at higher interest.
There has only been one other time in the last hundred years of US history that the wealth gap has been as big as it is today, and that time was most prominent up to the 1929 Wall Street collapse. Then for the next several decades, the gap tightened, the flow of capital was more efficient, the US became known as the greatest middle class in the world's history, then by around the 80s the gap began to widen again, has been ever since, and is currently widening even further even though we're experiencing as strong of telltale signs of what we're doing wrong as we did in the Great Depression.
We made an enormous longterm mistake by not letting Wall Street collapse. We did this because we were told it would be okay because enough regulations would be made to bring the capital back into median circulation, which would have worked wonders, but it hasn't happened, and really the only reason it happened during the Great Depression was because the super rich lost everything along with the median. They had to wait until the working class was able to build an economy again so they could then again steal it and point the fingers back at the workers.
I understand positive outcomes that can come from the changes you are talking about. To me, the most important thing in the world has nothing to do with positive outcomes, although positive outcomes can be the result of right action.
The most important thing to me is evolution, evolution of myself and the human race. I understand this is vague, but I mean a lot of things. Improve our technology, our strength, our minds, and our decision making are some of the main things that fall under this category.
I'm wondering if you'd like to argue that socialism/high taxes/strong government control of economic and social health will cause more evolution in the world than free market, laissez faire, little government intervention type of world?
Give me an example in a free market where someone has earned a lot of money, but has done so without the voluntary exchange of money for a good or service. If your arguing that people are manipulated to give their money to something they don't value, what do you believe is the solution to this problem?Quote:
In the real economy, we know for fact that financial status is determined by much more than how well you're valued, and sometimes has very little to do with value. Also, using a term like 'value' to broadly explain economics can be problematic because sometimes it can only account for a fraction of what actually happens, and sometimes misses the point. Many examples can be found in the myriad of circumstances where different values collide, some values are naturally or artificially propped up while others are depressed, etc
Maybe f'ed up was too strong. I will say this, I have yet to meet a person whose values and actions are congruent with the world they desire. Gandhi is an historical figure who I feel had values and actions congruent with the world he desired. Hippies who live in trees and consume nothing from the outside world are another example.Quote:
people don't value as fucked up of shit as many opinions claim
I completely agree about evolution of self, but WRT evolution of society, I'm not all too for it. Not sure I want to get into that though because it involves a bunch of gloomy speculation. My observation is that the evolution of technology has so far made life worse on average for humans, but this isn't even close to what it will be like in the future. But like I said, different topic, we can discuss it in a different thread if you'd likeQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
In a way, however, evolution of society can be viewed as a benefit. I think this benefit is ultimately microcosmic, but we have seen some arguable benefits from things like strong social governance or medical improvements.
Evolution is amoral, and mostly emanates from bad/change/disaster. I don't really agree with your premise, and don't really want to debate about how society can best evolve. I'm not concerned with evolution, but with collective health and happinessQuote:
I'm wondering if you'd like to argue that socialism/high taxes/strong government control of economic and social health will cause more evolution in the world than free market, laissez faire, little government intervention type of world?
On that note, I absolutely believe that a strong public sector and social programs is better for society than the false libertarian utopia. I think we should start at pointing out that a basic mistake people make is not correctly designating government. They say 'big vs little', but reality is actually 'good for the public vs bad for the public'. There is always government. Always. Even anarchy is a form of governance, and it's such a weak form of governance that it's always transitory i.e. it collapses as soon as powerful people see resources they want.
The correct way to view democratic governance is through the lens of public sector and private sector. This is different than dictatorial governance which is viewed through the lens of the special ruling powers and those who threaten that power. Real world societies operates either at one of those extremes or at some wavelength between the extremes
What the US is currently dealing with is private interests trying to squash public interests, and thus become the governing force. Our society is already a hybrid of this.
Also, this 'lack of government intervention' free market stuff is misunderstood. You can't have a free market without strong government intervention. We don't really even have a free market anymore. We have a sorta free but top heavy corporate favored market. This is because government regulations have been stymied.
For anybody who thinks in terms of 'government intervention', I'll ask that you take a while and think on what our government actually does. Think about all those highways, parks, security forces, health, education, etc, think on the direct effects as well as residual and cascading effects this has, then think on private interest role here
The answer can be found in the vast majority of benefit to society being social programs and socialism, while the vast majority of benefit to private industry being usurping social engines and turning them into a pure profit engines. We've been lied to so deeply. Nearly every big industry rides on the back of R&D performed by the public, then the private takes it for themselves then eventually claims they came up with it in the first place
It's like how conservatives think they favor human rights. Historically, conservatives railed against womens rights, minority rights, labor rights, but after some of those rights become standard they claim they were always on board yet belie their own position by railing against a new set of rights. It's similar with corporations. They take something that the public either did very well or necessitate, then privatize it and say it was theirs all along.
Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Really, it's everything. I think you misunderstand my point. Yes you're right that when somebody purchases something they are expressing some level of value to it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it, right?), but my point has to do with the real value of that purchase, which is something that people don't fully know.
If every time you bought something at Walmart, you were shown a video of a 6 year old in a Chinese sweatshop, I'm pretty sure you'd rethink your purchase, as would everybody. This is one of the 'values' of the purchase, but it is proxy enough that most of us are not cognizant of it.
Also, in a real free market, it's arguable that it would be impossible to ever get mega wealthy. A free market is much different than corporatism. In a free market that cares about keeping itself fully free for all enterprise, we would see a ton of regulation that effectively redistributes power and wealth from the more successful in order to provide the same opportunity for the fresh and young.
Don't be fooled by what they tell you, US doesn't really have a free market, and in order to actually have a free market you need tons of regulations to keep it free.
I think it's more complicated than thatQuote:
If your arguing that people are manipulated to give their money to something they don't value, what do you believe is the solution to this problem?
As to solving the problem despite its cause, the initial steps are already well known, well documented factors like strong education system, strong social rights, etc, and I would argue, these rights are a more accurate expression of value in the system
You might like that actually. Think about this: what is the value to our society from waste collection and disposal? Does the guy who comes to your house and dumps your trash in a truck and drives it off provide less value to you than Microsoft?
My answer is not necessarily "no", but "not really", and I believe that social and economic status should reflect that to some degree. I don't propose to go to the extreme and claim that waste disposal service should have the exact same worth as any other service or good, but that at the very least we should recognize that the value of waste disposal is enough that they deserve strong social and labor rights, and if we have to get those rights from acquiring a fraction of the surplus in other more lucrative industry, then that's how we do it. Go to the other extreme where the entire waste disposal labor force goes on strike. Imagine how much we'd all be clamoring to make it worth their while to keep working. Likewise, if Goldman Sachs went on strike I'd rejoice and tell them to go fuck themselves off a cliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
this little bit made me chuckle.
First off, explain how any of the things you mentioned are examples of people getting rich without the voluntary exchange of a good or service.Quote:
Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....
Really, it's everything. I think you misunderstand my point. Yes you're right that when somebody purchases something they are expressing some level of value to it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it, right?), but my point has to do with the real value of that purchase, which is something that people don't fully know.
If every time you bought something at Walmart, you were shown a video of a 6 year old in a Chinese sweatshop, I'm pretty sure you'd rethink your purchase, as would everybody. This is one of the 'values' of the purchase, but it is proxy enough that most of us are not cognizant of it.
Also, in a real free market, it's arguable that it would be impossible to ever get mega wealthy. A free market is much different than corporatism. In a free market that cares about keeping itself fully free for all enterprise, we would see a ton of regulation that effectively redistributes power and wealth from the more successful in order to provide the same opportunity for the fresh and young.
Don't be fooled by what they tell you, US doesn't really have a free market, and in order to actually have a free market you need tons of regulations to keep it free.
Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government. What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.
I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government. I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Give me an example in a free market where someone has earned a lot of money, but has done so without the voluntary exchange of money for a good or service.
None of these are examples. In all cases people voluntarily exchange money for a good or service. Bernie Madoff included...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable. The reason trash truck drivers aren't paid as much is because there is labor competition. If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.Quote:
You might like that actually. Think about this: what is the value to our society from waste collection and disposal? Does the guy who comes to your house and dumps your trash in a truck and drives it off provide less value to you than Microsoft?
My answer is not necessarily "no", but "not really", and I believe that social and economic status should reflect that to some degree.
It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.
I sorta side stepped that in order to address the bigger picture and because it's a straw man. The only time you can't find some level of voluntary exchange for something else is when it's completely forced, but this doesn't mean that we live in a force vs choice dichotomy or anything. There's much more going onQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Actually, public sector regulation against monopolized private abuse is pretty much the final respite.Quote:
Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government.
Yes, public sector attention to transparency is very important, but sadly, it's way too important for private industry as well as governmental corruption to keep this away, and that's why it hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.Quote:
What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.
I'm not sure where you're getting this information. US regulation and taxes and 'intervention' into business are substantially lower than they have ever been, and we know for demonstrable fact that things are much better with increased regulation etcQuote:
I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government.
I've been trying to explain this. Economics is not an open system, there is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, and the entire systems runs based on how wealth flows. Because wealth naturally flows up, artificial redistribution is necessary for the health of the non-upper class and overall economy. This is very well documented in economic history. It's just that we don't believe it because the propaganda machines incessantly spew lies about how we need supply side trickle down, they're the job creators, and other false garbage. The evidence could not be more clear that our problems are due to too much money and power at the top, yet apparently that doesn't stop the general public from imagining that's not the problem but the solutionQuote:
I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?
I should have worded it differently. Hope I cleared it upQuote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
There's a lot of labor competition because there's a lot of poor people, there's a lot of poor people because there's too many rich people or the rich are too rich. There are many explanations, this is only one, but an important oneQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Do this: create a society that cares about its citizens, one where every single natural born citizen has entirely equal rights to every other. Then find how much the market for low-skill labor decreases. In fact, the market would be so small that people would end up taking the jobs mostly due to the vast increase in pay. The market would eventually reach equilibrium, and we know for a fact that this equilibrium level is substantially lower than in current US labor markets
This is assuming a truly equal society, which is nothing close to what we have now, and never will be. We think of equality as encompassing pretty much only the stigma issues we've had in the past, yet don't realize that real equality would mean things like 100% estate tax, 100% equal distribution of national wealth. I'm not claiming to be in favor of those things, but the point is that arguments for deservedness tend to ride on the back of inequality
Fortunately for the lucky and the smart, people care enough about food and shelter and basic camaraderie for them to take the shit jobs when that's all there is at one point in time. In the US, this exploitation is far more apparent than in Europe. Take Europeans and drop their level of rights down to US levels, and watch as the entire labor force goes on strike. Same can be said of taking Americans and giving them those Chinese sweatshop jobs that all those Chinese people obviously value enough to takeQuote:
If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.
You're taking elaborate issues and trying to explain them in simplistic, cut and dry terms. In some areas of the world, agriculture has been subsidized to the point that it's super cheap, in other parts of the world, agriculture is so expensive that people go without dinner. There's much more going on here than just how people value thingsQuote:
It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.
This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game. I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.
Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.
Well, I didn't say that. I said you asked me to explain a straw man, then I alluded to the inadvertent false dichotomy of either voluntary or involuntary that you're beginning to get into. Do I really need to explain how economic activity is determined and affected by more than voluntary input?Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
I was pointing out the only way we know how to fight child labor abuseQuote:
I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.
Transparent yet still behind the bushes. Great. The reality is that there is strong push against policy that brings abuse out to light, and they're winningQuote:
I disagree, there is tons of transparency. Is there something about Wal-mart for example that damns them that the public couldn't find out about? Information transparency doesn't have to be done publicly either, I would gladly pay, and it would likely be cheap, to get information on business I buy goods from.
This paragraph is self-contradictory. You can't deny frame of reference then claim quantification on that frame of reference. And you can't ignore evidence then claim to want evidenceQuote:
I don't really care if its lower or higher than the past. There is still tons of taxes, control, and regulation. And show me the demonstrable facts.
As far as providing the facts, you need to follow the work of people who know what they're doing. People like Stiglitz or Krugman. Here's one illustration demonstrating the role of top rate taxation and median purchasing power
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w...ychart-1-1.jpg
This isn't my style because it's a gimmick to think you can browse an issue and easily understand it. If you want the real stuff, go watch ten hours of lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Finding the information is very easy. Understanding it or not buying the lies, is the hard part
I didn't use correct phrasing, I wasn't meaning to imply exact balance in economics, but that at each point in time there is a particular finite amount of wealth located in specific regions of the economy. Which is true.Quote:
This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game.
You're misunderstanding me. Wealth flows up because of demand. The less wealth in the lower brackets, the less demand. Period. Upper wealth brackets are systemically incapable of providing the amount of demand as lower bracketsQuote:
I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.
See dude, this is just simply not true. If it was true then the wealth gap would not have been increasing for the last three decades.Quote:
There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.
Also, the rich you're talking about isn't the rich I'm talking about. It's well documented that the mega wealthy are hoarding trillions. Not to mention, the more wealth increases, the more relative spending decreases. It's individually prudent, but harmful economically when taken too far.
It's not coincidence that of the most populous nations, the strongest median classes have the most top-rate taxation, regulation, and social programs
I'm not referring to any of that, I'm referring to the stuff for which we have the most evidence. Our best idea of our problems causes are not different than my statements. I don't make this stuff up, I mainly just reiterate the information that comes from the most qualified sourcesQuote:
Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
I like when I skim through a huge dense set of words that I know I wouldn't understand upon thorough reading and find bits I like.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
N2: If the tea party could somehow create an actual fiscally conservative gov't, that'd be sweet. The more I think about it, the more I like that America should be the most fertile grounds for starting a business, because that would tend towards having the best businesses be American, and the best jobs be in America. The problem is always in execution. It's far too easy to say they'll be fiscally conservative, decide that means "I'm all about free enterprise" which justifies deficit spending and gov't subsidies of American Pharma and a staunch opposition to necessary steps towards spending less money on health care as a nation.
Whatever, I'm just rambling. I'd like to read this all later but I wanted to comment.
Wufwugy,
I will watch lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Any links you recommend?
I would also suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged if you haven't already and watch video of Milton Friedman on the economy.
Also, why do you value the middle class over everyone else?
This question confuses me. The few and the wealthy, the many and the poor, or the sufficient and middlingly populated, pick one?Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - studyQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.
edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.
Well hmmmm the point I should have made is that I don't favor one class over the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Hmm, my two favoritesQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
FORA.tv - Richard Wolff: Capitalism Hits the Fan
YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class
I also recommend to read Paul Krugman's blog. He updates several times a day, has good prose, and periodic browsing can really benefit
Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
I personally enjoy Robert Reich's blog more though
Robert Reich
I read some material from both, but will do moreso at a later dateQuote:
I would also suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged if you haven't already and watch video of Milton Friedman on the economy.
Middle class is pretty much economic vernacular for "the people" or "the working class". Middle class is supposed to be pretty much everybody with a job, and demonstrate the power of the economy based on median purchasing power. I focus on the middle class because it's the most populous class, and the health of any economy is determined primarily by the health of the middle class. In this particular economic turmoil, focusing on the middle class is even more important because that's exactly where the problems lay. We're dealing with demand crunch based on poor purchasing power, not a supply crunch like many special interests are trying to tell usQuote:
Also, why do you value the middle class over everyone else?
So the reasons I care about the middle class are 1) it's the people, the public, I care about people, and 2) I enjoy economics, and understanding econ requires understanding the middle class. But really, I care more about the poor than I do the middle class. By that, I mean the global poor. Not only are the super poor the most populous class in the world, they're also the ones suffering the most.
I wouldn't call improving equality favoritism. Actually, I would call decreasing equality favoritism. Life is rather unfair, so we have to go out of our way if we want to decrease suffering of the unluckyQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
This has been a sticking point for me as well. Talk radio keeps telling me that the rich create wealth and that gov't destroys it. I am decidedly confused on wealth entropy.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Wolff's speech has a terrible intro. I was excited to stay up and watch it until his speech started.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"It's not a financial crisis."
-Alright, so what is it or why isn't it a financial crisis?
"To say it's a financial crisis is to limit it."
-Ugh...
It's everything and terrible and forever.
-Thanks, Rush.
Not sure exactly how they're getting their figures, but overall, wealth is characterized by a myriad of factors like market indexes, wages, economic activity. What the article is basically getting at is that the return on investment garnered from things like product-less service-less speculative banking is negative whereas real product real service activity is positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
A whole lot of "investment" banking (speculative ponzi banking is a better phrase) doesn't really do anything real, yet its size, due to deregulating mergers and caps etc, still has a stranglehold on the entire economy. Their destruction of wealth can be viewed as creating faux wealth, siphoning real wealth into their secret vaults, then releasing the faux wealth onto the economy. Which is pretty much what happened. Creating and destroying wealth happens all the time. If i find an oil field I've created wealth, if I burn down your house I've destroyed it
Not sure what's terrible about that. He's rightQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I tried to skip around to find some meat, but I just don't like him as a speaker. Anyway, I'm going to sleep.
He doesn't say anything but hopes you presume he's telling you everything. It's a style to which I am adverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Mainly, he says "to say its a financial crisis is to limit it" but does not expand upon that. Just leaves it and moves on to painting his picture.
I don't really get it. The entire lecture is expanding on why it's not fundamentally financial. Maybe it was different for me since I've been over a bunch of similar materialQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Just watch Capitalism: A Love Story. I was surprised at how much was in that that was strikingly similar to Wolff's lecture, as well as many others I've seen.
March to Restore Sanity anyone?
Danny, Max- I do not agree with pretty much anything you two have said in this thread, however I really do appreciate your posts. You have forced wuf to actually flesh out the ideas he has presented and I've learned a lot from the back and forth.
boost,Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
<3 you, you want to expand on why? It would be nice to argue with someone who is not wuf for a change. Don't get me totally wrong though I'm not totally against socialist type ideas. I just believe that a lasseiz faire government would be better. And it isn't like I believe that charity is unneccessary. If the type of political system I desire was set in place it would require a very large step up in the amount of money donated to charitable organizations to take the place of governmental programs. There are tons of people who are poor, unwealthy, sick, hungry, etc. and deserving of help.
One random point: This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billion dollars.
Now here's something different. Let's say there is a new movie with Miley Cyrus in it that millions of people voluntarily go and see. Because of the earnings potential of the movie, Cyrus is paid 10 million dollars for her 50 or so hours of work. Tell me why she does not deserve every cent. And also I'd like to know if it is "wrong" that she made 10 million dollars, why there is little blame in this situation on the parents, kids, and people who made her worth 10 million by buying a ticket/merchandise/whatever.
what about the people who can't afford to buy his cure?Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
I would not mind if the government gave money to people who couldn't afford the cure, but I think the charitable route should be explored first.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
I do have a more extreme POV on this but I'm not going to say it because I don't want to argue about it.
Wilbur, do you feel like the person who made the cure should pay taxes on his income from it?
One might suggest that one of the things that makes America great is that anyone can use their ingenuity and build a fortune from nothing, and that one of the reasons for that is that there is policy that alleviates financial burden from the poor and onto the rich.
What you are describing is 19th century Britain complete with notions of the deserving poor. It did not work then and it would not work now.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Firstly people would not donate enough to meet the need. How do you increase the money donated to charities? Some people will never give, or give only a little, so what do you do then? Introduce compulsion, so they have to give money to these causes ....errr.... like taxes?
Provision of help would be patchy and inconsistent. All over Britain there are elementary schools marked 1848 or 1859, where the wealthy of a parish banded together in the best Victorian tradition to build a school for the local children. Marvellous, if you lived in a parish with generous wealthy people, but not so good if your local tycoons were Scrooges. So in 1870, the British Government had to act to introduce universal education because charitable provision of education was not working and the country needed a literate workforce.
The third problem is that charities have their own agendas. To use the victorian education example again, a lot of charities set up religious schoools. Too bad if you were a catholic in a Church of England parish. The Catholic Church today does a lot of charitable work, but you don't see them handing our free contraception to mothers in the Philippines with 12 children.
It is interesting that you used the words deserving of help. The Victorians definitely classed people as "undeserving poor". It may be unfair to imply that you meant that, but when private money is involved, you would certainly find that people would have strong views on who is "deserving". Sometimes those with ginger hair would find themselves denied help they needed, sometimes those who had ever played poker, and on and on.....
Do you think the offspring of the person who cures cancer should inherit billions and not pay taxes on it? If you are arguing that people should keep money they have earned for themselves, then do you agree with 100% inheritance taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Of course people should benefit from their hard work and talent, but its I think its right that money is taken from those who have everything a person could want and given to those in need. How does Mr "Richman" having 10 yachts help the evolution of humankind? Educating a bright kid born in a slum may in fact reap the benefit of that kid using that education to cure cancer.
It's also right that the government takes some of this money, since then the whole populace (theoretically) has a say in how it is spent. I would like to see Tom Cruise and John Travolta taxed a lot more heavily as I bet a lot of their money goes to the Church of Scientology and I would much prefer the American Government, whatever its flaws, to be spending it.
When you voluntarily exchange your money for a good or service, you are sanctioning that the person you exchanged that money with has the right to do whatever the hell he wants with it. If you exchange money for a good or service with people who do not donate to charity or do not act in good will than you have helped create that, is despicable to strong of a word, state of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffryn
I think the trouble I have with your argument so far is that you are assuming that the rich have gained money through illegitimate means. I think there should be laws protecting the stealing of money in many different forms so this isn't possible, which there are (and maybe need to be more of). People have a choice of where they spend their money. I don't have to shop at Wal-Mart (as an example of a general point), there are other places that I can get general supplies. I would likely have to pay more, but that is because supplies from another store would be worth more to me if I did not want the benefactors from a purchase at Wal-Mart to be rich. People claim that Wal-Mart forces local stores out of business. They don't. People who do not care about the actions of the benefactors of their voluntary exchange put local stores out of business. This is because these people, when faced with a choice to buy one of two identical goods or services, will buy the cheapest one.
So the whole populace should have a say on how I spend my money in your theory correct? So basically, I should cede control of my own decisions on how to spend my money to the governments approximation of what is right and good? The problem I have with this is that the government fails to spend money in this fashion, at least in terms of my values. This approximation need not take place anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffryn
I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich. Unfortunately for you, you represent the tiniest percent of the human race. On the other hand, anyone who sees a John Travolta or Tom Cruise movie, whether they actually want them to be rich or not, are sanctioning TC and JT to be rich. They are buying that $9 movie ticket in exchange for their entertainment and consequently in exchange for JT and TC's decision on how to use that money. Now if you then tax JT and TC a shitload, you are taking away the responsibility of the people for their own actions. And when people are not responsible for their own actions, there is no incentive to evolve.
I don't think this is fair or true - some people can't afford to make a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
I can - I buy from local butchers, local greengrocers etc, only free range or organic meat, try and stick to veg grown in Enlgand and in season etc. But I have a disposable income. I choose not to shop at Asda/Walmart because I can afford not to. The poor don't really have a chioce but to buy the cheapest.
As for should the guy who found a cure for cancer be taxed? Of course, if he turns it into a business or whatever. But then I'd hope that whoever did would make it free and available to everyone.
Can you explain this further? Why does building a fortune require the alleviation of financial burden from the poor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Nothing wrong with them being rich - but tax them a fair amount. And by that I don't mean what they'd consider fair. I'd start at around 65% and poss more.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
If everyone is taxed on income so should the guy who found the cure for cancer. I don't think anyone should be taxed on income. It makes no difference to me what he wants to charge for it either. Whatever he wants to charge is fine with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
Everyone can afford to make a choice. No one is free from the responsibility of a decision. There are people who live in trees and do not consume anything and live off little money, if any at all. When you value something in the world you must use your time, energy, money, etc. to create it. When you say hate rich monsanto investors but buy monsanto broccoli for $2.60 because you have no money to buy the higher quality $5.20 broccoli, you clearly don't hate monsanto that much.
Businesses are simply reflections of the values, needs, and wants of the people. If this isn't the case for some business please let me know.
As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."
Explain why they, or anyone, should be taxed on income at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
No, I am buying goods or services that I need. I don't have the time or the information to know where that money is going or how charitable the recipients are.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
I think you have me confused with someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Because if the poor had to pay substantially higher taxes than they do (read: ANY taxes) then they might be in such abject poverty that it would be impossible to aspire to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
I, for example, having grown up in a poor family, may not have been able to go to college because I'd have to have dropped out of high school to get a job and help keep the lights on.
well I guess you could tax other ways maybe - income tax is probably the fairest and easiest way to asses peoples cicumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Do you think everyone should pay the same tax? Or no tax at all?
I think also with regards everyone having a choice....this isn't really true.
The poorest people don't choose to live that way. It's a cycle of poverty, tied into education, upbringing etc etc, which is extremely difficult to stop.
Fair enough, I don't disagree with anything you said. No one should have to pay any income taxes. Any funding needed to give people enough opportunity can come from other tax sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
No one should pay income tax. Some other taxes are acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
I'll respond to the last part soon im playing poker.
I know this is douchey replying every time with a link butQuote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.
Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:
"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.
Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.
"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."
UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"
So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.
No, the government has the right to take a proportion of your money and spend it. So you think that there should be no taxation and therefore no government?Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
No-one is ever going to say that they are happy with the way any government spends every cent. But I would rather a Government is in charge of spending money for the common good than to be reliant on a collection of wealthy individuals accountable to no-one. That's the main point about Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You want the only option for the education of your children to be in a Scientology school? Or muslim/atheist/catholic/mormon/whatever depending on the religion/non religion of your local benefactor?
Actually, I think a huge majority of the world's population would want John Travolta and Tom Cruise to be less rich. The rewards they receive are out of proportion. You really think the millions around the world living on less than $1 a day or less think its great that John Travolta has two jumbo jets parked in his back yard?
The idea that buying something is wholesale acceptance of any associated practice is bizarre. Going to see a Tom Cruise film is not endorsement of Scientology or the way he spends his money. That's like saying that voting means you agree with all that a Government does.
But people should always be paid less than they generate. You can guarantee yourself a raise if you prove that you've generated X revenue for the company while holding a salary of Y (X>>Y) and it provides for societal surpluses if everyone is taking less in than they create. So obviously the shit workers shouldn't be paid awesome wages, but you can't say that the rich do everything for society when the many poor take the brunt of the workload, is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.
I hate that I keep getting pulled back to this right now, but I also think the idea is that the value created by remedial workers is obvious and straight forward and undervalued, while the value crated by bankers and the like is very difficult to parse through. So the stance that crap workers definitely create value is easy to stand by, while defending the allocators of investment capital seeking to marry ideas with resources to grow a 20% likely to succeed company is a concept beyond the grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
As ISF said before, it's a problem with too many variables floating around in the unknown.
Let me propose a basic hypothetical. Someone offers you a stereo system for $100. You know that he stole this stereo and this is why you can buy it at such a low price. You buy it. Did you not endorse stealing? If not, now lets say that nearly everyone in the world declined to buy stolen merchandise, would the amount of stealing in the world be more, less, or the same than it is now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffryn
Danny, I am not well versed in economics, so I am trying to stick to the sidelines here.
However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes. At best, as I believe Wilbur pointed out, we would have a blotchy landscape of well funded schools with special interest leanings in some regions and woefully underfunded schools in other regions. Or, there could be a central charity (government run? independent? not sure it matters) that would distribute the charitable donations more evenly. Yet I still fail to be convinced that you truly believe that these charitable donations would be enough to fund schools to today's levels (woefully underfunded) much less to the standards that they should be funded.
You keep suggesting that the window to peoples values is a view of their check book. Yet you are missing a fundamental concept in that when a person becomes rich and can afford the highest private school for his child without even blinking, he has no reason to value a public school system. So without a need, we have no value; without value, we have no charity. So essentially the schooling of the less than rich is left to the less than rich. Maybe you think this is fair, but it just divides the classes further and makes the classes more self perpetuating through the generations than they already are.
Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game, but I think it proves my point just the same.
I think the strongest counter to your argument as a whole is that people pay taxes. If you can claim that, despite being threatened with starvation, the poorest person still has a choice between monsanto and the higher-priced/harder-to-come-by local organic and in making that choice is supporting the practices and ideals of the producer; then the flip side of the coin is that Joe Billionaire is making a choice to pay taxes, and by making that choice is supporting where those taxes go by choice. He is threatened with jail time, and they are threatened with death.
The libertarian house is built on a sandy lot.. it looks like a great place to live, but even the most superficial inspection reveals that the foundation is sinking.
side notes: I do not think either of you (max/danny) have rebutted the theory that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy and therefore is beneficial to the upper class. That of course goes hand in hand with the theory that a strong middle class is created by social safety nets funded by taxation. As far as I know (and like I said, I am not very well versed in economics) this is theory insomuch as the theory of evolution is theory.
Also I do not believe either of you have commented on the question about a 100% inheritance tax.
So are you just saying many people have a hard time understanding why the cleaner gets paid less? Or are you saying you still don't believe he should be paid less?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It's going to be tough to break down the discussion I've missed so far, but I'll try
Because of inequality. Not only is life naturally very unequal, but due to things like finiteness and feedback loops in economics, the scenario you describe furthers inequality. ISF, in all the debate we've had, you've unwittingly been arguing for special rights and totalitarianism. As soon as you replace arbitrary philosophizing with how real society and real econ works, I think you'll begin to realize this. Part of me thinks you may actually agree with special rights and totalitarianism, though. If that's the case then I'll just shut upQuote:
Originally Posted by ISF
I'm not trying to be rude. The majority of people unwittingly support policy that promotes special rights and totalitarianism. The human brain is normally very selfish, and our thoughts reflect that. It's only when we look at the real world evidence that we can begin seeing how the real world actually works
The rest of the post is more general than pointing fingers at any individuals
RE: cure for cancer. It is incredibly rare for private industry to provide much R&D into things like this, and really about anything. Private industry cares about profit above all. R&D is incredibly unprofitable. When the cure for cancer comes, here's what's gonna happen: 1) the vast, vast majority of R&D was public funding i.e. taxes, and 2) pharmaceutical companies are going to jump in ASAP in attempt to acquire as much profit as possible, then eventually everybody will again believe that the private company was responsible for the cure in the first place
Science and technology development is almost entirely publicly funded. Private industry jumps in at the final stages when it's time to create and distribute product. In a "tax-free" utopia, you'll find that advancing technology comes to an abrupt halt. R&D is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and the one and only way to tackle it is via public funding. Private funding does exist, but it's a small portion of total technological R&D that doesn't revolve around a specific distributable product
The only example I know of when private funding was most important in developing a cure was when the entire nation was scared to death that their kids would become deformed by polio. A rich guy paid Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine, they did, then gave it away for free. A highly rare occurrence, and Salk was already very hard on the heels of the vaccine in the first place
Big fat chance at that happening today. Pharmaceutical companies are too busy robbing old people of hundreds of millions of dollars to do something that actually helps people
RE: deservedness. This idea really needs to be abandoned. It's about as arbitrary as it gets. Let me use the exact same logic used by anybody who believes that deservedness should play a pivotal role in resource acquisition to illustrate why it's silly
What does Isaac Newton deserve? He's the father of physics after all. Without him, Bill Gates would be flipping burgers. Without Newton, there is no Wall Street, no F-22s, no oil refineries. Now, let's quantify how much money Newton (or his offspring because estate taxes are wrong ldo) "deserves" based on the exact same criteria we determine how much Buffet or Gates or the Koch brothers or anybody else "deserves"
After crunching all the unfathomable numbers, would we find that a thousand trillion $$ is way too tiny to cover all that Newton "deserves"? This ideology is arbitrary, unsustainable, irrational, and silly. After we give Newton's estate everything it "deserves" we've created a totalitarian regime.
Deservedness should play some role because it's an important factor in how humans work, but we've taken it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far, and created a society where the guy at the right place in the right time with the right parents and right upbringing is worth 53 billion
RE: income taxes. By far the most correct taxes available. Real world society cares about how things actually work, and taxes based on relative social operation capacity and burden are the most fair. Things like flat tax actually disproportionately decrease burden on the luckiest while increasing burden on the unluckiest.
I mean I just don't get this. How is it possible for people to think that somebody who lives at the low end of social structure needs to pay a huge chunk of their worth on taxes, while somebody who lives far above normal social structure shouldn't have to pay as much? People struggling for food pay substantially higher relative taxes than Warren Buffet who couldn't imagine what struggling for food is, unless it's similar to struggling to beat the other guy at the auction for that prized yacht he's gonna add to his collection
Not to mention the self-perpetuating qualities of inequality. The wealthy are supposed to pay a ton in taxes because if they don't then everybody else is born into squalor, then whoosh out the window flies any semblance of free market, equality, or anything other than totalitarianism. And this "ton" in taxes still provides for the wealthy to still live substantially above median and in mansions with hookers and blow and stuff. Also, the kind of wealthy I'm referring to is the mega wealthy. Not the people with a million or so to their name, but the people who make so much they can buy islands. Wasn't 100M the average income of Wall Street CEOs last year? I love how we pay guys to steal from us
No matter how you slice it, the people who acquire more do so with the aid of those who acquire less. No matter how you slice it, the lucky ride on the backs of the unlucky. These factors are not the only at play, but they are among the most significant. When somebody claims you should pick yourself up by you own bootstraps, maybe point out to him that he never did, so why should I
None of this is new information. It's been standard knowledge for quite some time. But just like how there's still creationists, global warming deniers, flat-earthers, alternative medicine hippies, there's still denial of the real evidence and real facts of how society works
Also, I want to add that some people are so rich that they make more by just letting their money sit in the bank than the annual incomes of everybody on this board right now. And they pay substantially lower taxes on it than some illegal immigrants who barely get by. This shit is wrong
This is not trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
Not only do societies exist where the lowest skill jobs make very strong wages, but the effects throughout the society are one of equalizing and raising living standards and such of the rest of society, not everybody and their brother clamoring to get one particular 'overvalued' job. What you may think is overvaluing menial labor is actually increasing economic strength, and our history shows it's one of the only ways to do so.
"Value" is largely artificial. The middle class used to be "valued" more than it is now. Their real value hasn't gone down at all, just the ability for corporations to centralize profit payout into the executive bracket. They've done this by lying and gradually shifting the goalposts to the point that the populace believes them and believes their real value is less than it should be
Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than othersQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though
People don't have a hard time understanding why cleaners get paid less, they have a difficult time reconciling why industries of capital-allocation get paid so much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
And I believe he should be paid "less" and adequately but less than the value he produces, I believe that of all jobs including my own.
I have a point I want to make, but it's lost to me right now, maybe later tonight I can summon it up.
The world is not that simple. Suppose I need a new computer. Should I buy a micromac, whose CEO, Bill Jobs is a billionaire but never gives any money to charity? But their biggest investor just donated $1m to victims of the Haiti earthquake. But they just switched their production of computers to China and threw 20, 000 americans out of work. Ummm.... What about MacMicro? CEO Steve Gates has a charitable foundation. But they were just found guilty of discriminating against their ginger haired workers. And they employ child labourers in India. Hmmm. Do I support a greedy CEO or the exploitation of children? Most of the time you don't know the nefarious practices of the suppliers of goods and services, but if you did, you would be lucky ever to find a supplier whose values you totally agreed with. Most of the time we have the illusion of choice not a real choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Rich people are not accountable. They are newsworthy. If you shot 20 people tomorrow, you would find yourself "accountable". Mel Gibson may have lost some income, but that is hardly being accountable. His DVDs have not been removed from shelves and he is still living a very comfortable life with more money than 99.99% of the world's population.
A charitable society is unrealistic. Some wealthy people would give selflessly as they do now. But others would give with strings attached or just buy a third jumbo jet. Even if people cared enough to boycott the goods and services of those they disliked, the non charitable rich would employ expensive PR companies to present themselves more favourably or even buy media outlets to ensure they got a good press. Just look at how the world works now.
Such a society would be an oligarchy and there has never been one of those that was not tyrannical. I agree with wufwugy that this would end up in totalitarianism. It would not matter if 99% of the population was not bananaist, if the rich person paying for the hospital, school or soup kitchen was a bananaist, then in most cases if you wanted treatment, an education or food, at the very least you would have to listen to the principles of bananaism and attempts to convert you. If you did not conform to the principles of bananaism, then you would get no help. And what could you do about that? Boycott the bananaist's company? Who would care amongst all the PR propaganda persuading everyone about its caring, charitable and non-banaist activities.
The argument is interesting though. I have never understood the advocates of small government and had no clue that some thought this would be more compassionate.
Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O NQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.
This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.
There are a lot of different ways and levels upon which this can be described, but I'll approach it with the the most fundamental yet meaningful way I know howQuote:
Originally Posted by Duffryn
Humans are naturally wrong. The survival of our ancestry was dependent upon being wrong much more often than being right. Here's why: when you're in the jungle and there's a strange sound behind a bush, you have two options, 1) treat it like it's a danger or 2) treat it like it's not a danger. Now, the vast majority of the time, the noise is not a danger. It's a squirrel or the wind or whatever, but a certain small fraction of the time it's a tiger and that's all it takes to end your life. This and other scenarios is why humans (and all animals) have incredibly strong positive affirmations that are ultimately irrational. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't have survived.
So yeah, when our ancestors were walking through the jungle and heard a strange sound, they were "wrong" by responding to it as if it were danger, but that's also the only way they could promote survival. This carries over to everything we do and are today. If you take everything humans believe, the vast vast majority of it is wrong, but because we believe it it makes sense to us and all that.
Human biology has evolved to normally believe the most ridiculous things ever make total sense, and the more complicated and abstract things become, the worse this is. Things like economics are so difficult to understand that only a tiny fraction of people who express thought on the matter have the slightest clue of what they're doing, and their correct analysis also comes exclusively from proper usage of the scientific method. One of the biggest "thought-crimes" people make is thinking that "sense" has any bearing on truth. The only bearing on truth is demonstrable observation, and that really has no discernible correlation with "sense"