|
||||
| Home » Forums » Business » Message | Login | |||
|
||||
|
You are not logged in. Consider these WOODWEB Member advantages:
State of the trade6/4
I have come to the conclusion that the trades I have worked very hard in over the last 10 years have become so ridiculously cutthroat as to be an insane person's game. At least as an employee. Never expected or wanted to have my arse kissed but don't need to be walking around wearing a chainmail scarf either. I don't want your advise I want someone to tell me I am wrong. 6/4
You've been doing this for ten years.
6/4
You are wrong. Get out of the trenches. Nothing in there but mud, blood and beer. Find a niche and exploit it. Look at Nature - animals and plants adapt to exploit a niche and then they flourish. They learn new things, adaptations, or they go extinct. Any small shop making boxes for kitchens will have to fight for everything, and in the end, have nothing but exhaustion. Before this recent crash, I saw shops doing over a million, BMW's and such, all new Euro equipment. Now they are all gone and the ones that survived went from 10 people to 2, sold off the big overhead stuff, and owners have sawdust in their pockets and a pencil in their ear. And their product mix went from anything grand to a few things that are very well made. Adapt or die. 6/4
A basic rule of economics is that in a perfect market profit is zero. The market for Euro boxes is pretty close to perfect. We went from 5 to 2, and what's left is our niche work. Didn't have to sell any equipment, but I do spend a lot more time on the shop floor than I used to. The longer this high unemployment environment persists, the harder and harder it will be for the working class no matter what industry you're in. You can either rant about it or join the Occupy movement and do something about it. 6/4
"You can either rant about it or join the Occupy movement and do something about it." Really? "A basic rule of economics is that in a perfect market profit is zero." Can you splain me how that works?
6/4
Don't waste your time, the Occupy movement isn't doing anything BUT ranting - incoherently at that. Use tools (the one between your ears is best), don't be one. 6/4
Pat, In a perfect market capital is attracted to opportunity. Eventually enough capital shows up that it beats the price of something down to what it costs to do it.
As soon as cabinet shops start generating 10% profit people will stop investing in Starbucks and start investing in cabinet shops. As for the Occupy movement I imagine the original Tea Party people looked a whole lot like those rabble rousers i It was a little chaotic at first but eventually started to make sense to those who thought the fix was in. Or was that the French Revolution? Or maybe Arab Spring.
6/4
Ok thanks on the 0 profit thing. Regarding the OWS thing one group are rational intelligent individuals standing up for the Liberty granted to them in the constitution the other more resembles the Greeks than anything else. 6/4
Pat, I was talking about the "original" Tea Party ie, the guys that wrote the constitution.
6/4
Not long ago my kids were watching an old episode of Little house on the praire. In this scene charles ingals, who works for a sawmill is told by his boss that a recent client went bankrupt and therefore he himself had to shut down and could not pay charles for the last 3 months. Charles, after a time of reflection got up, went out and looked for any work to pay the bills. And they made it! A book i recently read asked the question " does our generation expect to much out of life ?". Now this was a spiritual book but it made me reflect on past generations. Even todays poor are better off than many people of long ago. I'm told that the produce and mechandise available today, year-round, to even the most average person, outdoes what kings of the past had on their table. I am not implying some of us are not really hurting, and i certainly am not immune to discouragement, but are we expecting to much from this imperfect life? Several times in recent yrs we came away from the tax office with my wife crying due to a very below average yr. I have had to point out to her that during the past yr we A. paid all our bills B. went out for pizza weekly C. paid all our medical bills D. Gave generously to our church E. did a few repairs to the house. F.Went on a modest family vacation G. Had friend over E. and more. What did we not do? A. buy a newer car. B. add alot of overhead C. Sit around D. Overextend ourself financially E. Upgrade out of our "starter" house( even when bank said we could have) F. Put any or much into savings Please do not misunderstand this post. Many of you are in markets worse than ours. Just something for us to consider. Have we come to expect an ever increasing economy w/ no major bumps. Have we positioned our lives and business's for the inevitable lean times?Are we thankfull for what we do have? Humbly submitted, mike 6/4
Chaz "Substitute "Wall Street" for the "King" and the story is essentially the same." Sigh Mike Good post, I think that the trick is to view things as they are not as they "should be".
6/5
Pat, Can you please tell us which parts of the OWS movement you disagree with? 6/5
Mike,, i enjoyed reading your post, i chose to be a woodworker and many times in the early years (i have told this before here) i would have to go out in the parking lot and pray "Lord help me fall back in love with my business, before i get back in the door", it has been some years since i have had to do that. the reason i feel is i have long come to terms with the fact that i will do what i have to do and have done that so many times at this point that it seems natural. today i have a interesting problem to solve and will do that with all the integrity i have. thanks for helping me start this day with your post it will help. jim 6/5
Regarding the original Tea Party participants, it is important to see them in context. These were the revolutionaries of the day, rebelling against the Tory/British/Establishment structure that governed everyday commerce. Be a Tory, or be locked out. Were we to have these folks walk in our shop looking for a job, we would eye them with some real skepticism. We certainly would not welcome nor recognize them as harbingers of Liberty. I'll let you guess who are the Tories of today, and who are the revolutionaries. Remember, Jefferson said a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. Stewart Brand said that you can't know the center unless you know the edges. The edges are prominent, be they OWS, Republicrats, Syrian dictators, or SuperPacs. It is the center that is getting hard to find. 6/5
At one time during the recent past we had uprisings similar to what you see with the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In this case it was protesters against the Vietnam War. These people were considered uncouth and anti-patriotic. The National Guard surrounded them with rifles on our campuses. They killed four of them at Kent State University. Didn't liked the way they looked or the way they acted. You would be hard pressed today to find anyone who supported the idea of invading Vietnam, yet the protesters at the time were considered much the same way as protesters at today's OWS. History will look back at this time period differently than it does now. When the rhetoric is stripped out I think we will agree that the 99% got screwed. 6/5
That is the story your going with? 6/5
Pat,
6/5
Economic illiteracy 6/5
Do you mean like being able to comprehend what socialism is? 6/5
I mean economic literacy. 6/5
"History will look back at this time period differently than it does now. When the rhetoric is stripped out I think we will agree that the 99% got screwed." When has that ever NOT been the case? History is always looked on differently by subsequent generations as they get the "cliff notes" version. And the lower class always bares the brunt. Why is it these threads always go off on a political tangent as if there was ever, or will ever, be a political system that is going to make everyone happy and prosperous? Mike had some great points, as bad as it is for some people poverty today is not near what it was even 100 years ago. As much as some may dislike the current government this is still one of the best places in the world to live. One of the places where the hippies can protest without fear of being shot, or having their families slaughtered as just happened in Syria! Guys always seem to bring up the revolution without having a true grasp of what was really involved. It was about a LOT more than just paying tax on Tea. It's far too complex an issue to explain in a short post, (not that I'm qualified to anyway mind you). I suggest those who think the revolution was a great thing to go through read up on history a little. It may have yielded good results for us, but I'll pass on having another one in my lifetime thank you. I think guys like Dave and Jim make good points. You can keep ranting about what's wrong, or you can find a way to improve your place in life. In my limited experience I've seen friends and acquaintances who have made the most effort in succeeding have mostly done so, Those who did the most complaining....are still complaining and have not improved their lives whatsoever. So to answer Pete's question....I can't tell you whether you are wrong or right. Only you really know what's happening in your specific circle. I will ask if it's so bad you need a chain mail scarf, is it time to reconsider your career? I should admit I'm a bit biased here. Whenever I start to feel my career path sucks, and I certainly do on occasion, I remember my ancestors sailed across an ocean about 140 years ago to make a better life working in the coal mines of PA.. Yeah, think about that for a minute, a better life working in a frigging coal mine.....my life's really not so bad;>) JeffD 6/5
Besides which OWS arguments Pat thinks are invalid, even more telling would be his definition of "economic literacy." 6/5
Interesting, it's not the pay I am really complaining about as that is what it is. It's the psycho attittude of so many of these guys. It just wears you out. As far as the rich and the poor the government and all that... I dunno. All I can say is corporate higher ups need to be held accountable/dissuaded in some way for sending manufacturing jobs and such overseas.
6/5
Pete - Can you explain the 'psycho attitude' you are referring to? Would that be: Work 'til you drop
6/5
Time to walk the plank to the jolly.Cact ,Splatt and George are still aboard. 6/5
CM, Joel... "Can you please tell us which parts of the OWS movement you disagree with?" Anti-capitalism, entitlement (they are owed something), wealth distribution, forgiveness of student debt, mindless repetition of whatever a speaker is saying so that noone is perceived more important than the next (tell that to your kids), intense regulation of the private sector by (I guess) those who are more important than the next, destruction of business owner property at their events causing claims INCREASING the business owners insurance, the mess they leave behind for OTHERS to deal with, etc... while all movements have their weaknesses, there really is no valid comparison of the OWS to the Tea Party... How many OWS people are on the ballot this year? The challenge I would think ANY business owner would have with this movement is the idea that anyone is OWED anything other than what they work for... where did that idea come from? 99 weeks and they want MORE? Really? We all go out everyday and EARN what we need to run a business. Nobody owes us a customer, we have to work to get them. We are unemployed everyday. If an owner goes out of business, no unemployment for them... It makes me sad whenever I watch those people because they confuse activity (as limited as it is) with accomplishment and the kicker is, they aren't going to become customers anytime soon. If they put HALF the energy they waste into learning a new trade or increasing their education (the internet is useful for more things than surfing), they could make themselves marketable. Instead, they wait around EXPECTING more from others instead of taking it upon themselves to do for themselves... What right do you have to another's money? There is a VAST INCOME DISPARITY between Bill Gates and I, but I don't look at Bill Gates and think he owes me anything... it is useless to do so... When you rely on someone else to take from one person and distribute their income, you are a slave to the one acting on your behalf... waiting on and being disappointed ALWAYS at the results they come up with and left with a life less lived... How does that get any of us any customers so that we can employ more? .
You are wrong... I think you already knew that though... 6/5
The state of the trade here is looking good. This year is doing nothing but getting better and better. One thing to bear in mind is that the population is increasing exponentially. Therefore it only makes sense, even with a housing market slump, that more and more people in the world= more and more housing= more and more doors, cabinets, windows, etc. Yes many households are fuller these days, but there comes a breaking point, and I have heard much talk in the media of late indicating we have reached a bottom and are on the upswing.... 6/5
They feel disenfranchised. They’d just like a decent days pay for a decent days work. They’re being left with an indebted, exploited, corrupt economy, with few jobs, unaffordable housing and a ballooning bunch of entitlement drooling baby boomers who expect their pensions and healthcare be provided free of charge for the next bazillion years. If not blended with a little human development style socialism, consumption driven (dollar development) style capitalism may be our downfall since by its very nature tends to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. 6/5
Joel, "They feel disenfranchised. They’d just like a decent days pay for a decent days work." Define decent day's pay... "...ballooning bunch of entitlement drooling baby boomers who expect their pensions and healthcare be provided free of charge for the next bazillion years." The OWS protesters are asking for the same... They want their student loans to be wiped out, they want MORE than 99 weeks unemployment, they want "FREE" healthcare, etc... "If not blended with a little human development style socialism, consumption driven (dollar development) style capitalism may be our downfall since by its very nature tends to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands." And yet, the USA has somehow become the most prosperous country in history where even the poorest among us are among the richest in the world. What it comes down to is that they feel ENTITLED to other people's money. Where they come up with the justification for that, I just don't know... They live in a country where if they start young, ANYONE with minor effort can retire a millionaire... There's a reason it is not good for young adults to stay at home with Mom & Dad past a certain point... they become DEPENDENT and stop growing... It's no different when it come to unemployment... The problem is, the more of them there are, the less customers we end up with, and the more freedom others have to give up to pay for their entitlements, right?... When I was in debt, I didn't blame the rich, when I didn't have money, I didn't blame the rich, when I didn't have a house, I didn't blame the rich... because blaming the rich does NOTHING to alleviate any of those issues... they are all self-inflicted wounds... Keeping people dependent on government keeps them in a state of adolescence, whereby it's somebody else's fault for their plight... How did Bill Gates making BILLIONS for himself (not to mention millionaires of others and high-paying employees, who pay taxes, never mind the billions he is giving away) EVER affect YOUR ability to go out and do for yourself?... We need to stop making excuses for people and make it UNCOMFORTABLE and HARD to remain dependent on the government... We should help, but it should be to help them back on their feet (i.e. - temporary) NOT onto the couch... There are SO MANY ways people can save money, but they CHOOSE not to... Whose fault is that?... Bill Gates?
6/5
You define a decent days pay! You need to revisit what OWS is really about. Here’s a clue…. Wall Street. Yes the USA is a grand example of growing prosperity….. and consumption….more and more and bigger and bigger like a balloon, until, possibly….POP. It’s not ALL about money. 6/5
Kap, A whole lot of businesses depend on the government tit. Without the government providing FDIC insurance banks don't exist. Without the government bailing out the banks wall street bonuses do not exist. Bill Gates did not pay to train his workers.
Bill Gates did not build the highways that his workers use to come to work. He did not build the off ramps to his parking lots. All kinds of people have their hand out.
You mentioned described the OWS movement as "mindless repetition of whatever a speaker is saying". I challenge you to some creative thinking:
If you can't think of anything then you probably also fall into the "mindless repetition" camp. 6/5
Joel, "You define a decent days pay!" You want me to define what you put up as one of the reasons for OWS protesting? ... they are the ones (or you in this case) charging they don't have a decent days pay, right?... It seems to me that they (you) would already know the answer to that, otherwise why would they (or you rather) say it in the first place? If you haven't thought it through, how can it be a legitimate gripe? Your reply in #28 is all about the money and then go onto say in reply #30 that OWS is about Wall Street, then go onto say it's not all about money... ??? Noone say's it all about money... I would argue the money is a by-product of the important things... sacrifice, delayed satisfaction, hard work, creativity, initiative, opportunity, etc... all which are HARMED by dependence on handouts from the government. If you do that for your kids, they will grow up with weaker character and most likely spoiled, and have a harder time transitioning from adolescence to adulthood... why do you think it's any different for adults? There is NO political or economic system in the world where the rich do not benefit more than those who are not rich... it is BECAUSE they are rich... If a guy who makes $45K / year gets a 20% raise ($9k), and a guy who makes $100K gets only a 10% raise (half, BTW), the guy who makes $100K will STILL make $1K more BECAUSE he makes more... works the same with taxes... So it seems to me that the answer is to become one of the "rich" guys... why not that? They live in the richest and most prosperous country in the world. There is only one party in our economic system that is responsible for our annual deficits and national debt that squanders the treasure of the people... government... NOTHING can happen as it relates to expenditures without their say so (BOTH parties)... And the sick thing is, the more government sucks up out of the economy, the LESS customers we have and the harder it is on everyone... 6/5
i had an interesting argument with a medical professional who was thoughly convinced the medical industry self financed all the technologys they use well you should have seen the look on his face whern i reminded him of our country going to the moon !! (think adhesives, solid sufraces kevla, radar, satelites) how quickly we forget that most all we have we did together. 6/5
Charles Darwin, "Name just one thing you agree with them on. Same thing goes for the people you think that don't somehow mindlessly repeat platitude." EASY... that banks or companies shouldn't be bailed out... interestingly, that is one thing that both the Tea Party and OWS agree on... I also don't believe we should keep bailing out the government for its bad decisions, especially when they are literally wasting TRILLIONS of dollars on interest alone on the national debt... worse than ANY corporation... "Name just one thing you disagree with about the Tea Party." I don't believe that Medicare and SS are worthy programs in their current form as they cost too much and are not efficient... Anytime you remove competition from the mix, all you end up with is more corruption and one-sided results which are not to the benefit of the people receiving them... Charles, are you disputing the mindless repetition of the OWS when they are talking so noone person is more important than the next? 6/5
Kip, Pat and JeffD, you guys are my heroes. 6/5
Spot on Joel T. That is pretty much what I am saying. I define psycho as someone who has no concern whatsoever for anothers feelings. 6/5
To clarify, We are not going to church but to work. That doesn't mean everyone should forget a little decency. It doesn't matter as I checked out Monday. More for you I guess. Also, take a break on the political diatribe. Do any of us really have a clue? 6/5
The underlying problem in our economic system is debt. Small amounts of debt (relative to GDP) act as a useful economic lubricant as well as a mechanism to smooth out the peaks and troughs of business cycles. Large amounts of debt are a problem because such debt "steals" work (or opportunity) from future generations and hands that money over to a small number of people living now (disproportionately to people in the financial industry). People like Pete are justifiably upset that they can't find work because that work has been stolen (in the form of debt) and handed to the financial industry (Wall street). Proper government regulation of the financial industry would keep that from happening to the degree that it has. There are 2 ways to look at this. You can moralize and blame individuals for taking on too much debt. Or you can accept that greed is part of human nature just like getting high on drugs is, and you can regulate it for the benefit of everyone in society. 6/5
You’re fishing, I don’t have to explain this to you. Decent = “characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality, proper and fitting, appropriate, respectable, just, principled…….” This, in the context of a decent days pay, should allow for food, housing, education, health care, and some sprinkling of modern day comforts. Yes of course there will always be richer and poorer. That’s not the problem. Entitlements aren’t the root problem either. Everybody gets those. It’s the exponentially growing income disparity fueled by a perverted reverence of profit over people that will most certainly cause revolt of some sort. Your solution over and over again is for the poor to become rich, otherwise coined by the prophets as upward mobility. Really?? All chiefs and no Indians. That’s a copout you need to grasp. 6/5
@ Charles Darwin Banks existed before the FDIC. Wall Street bonuses existed before bail outs. The Gov't uses OUR money to 'train' (is that what we call 'educate'?). The Gov't built the roads taxpayers funded. And a bunch of other crap that no one would have funded if they HAD THE CHOICE. I agree with the OWS sheeple that we are in a time of reduced opportunity. I disagree with them as to who is the agent of that reduction. I disagree with the tea people that civil discourse is a viable path. I agree with their desire to have Govt out of their lives and out of their pockets. Use tools...or be one.
6/5
Why is everyone but me a complete moron? 6/5
Joel, "You’re fishing, I don’t have to explain this to you. Decent = “characterized by conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality, proper and fitting, appropriate, respectable, just, principled…….This, in the context of a decent days pay, should allow for food, housing, education, health care, and some sprinkling of modern day comforts." I am not fishing, I am looking for context in what you consider a living wage. The problem with your reply, is that is different for everyone and affected by a variety of factors. Without a number, this is meaningless... It's not what you make, it is what you save... "It’s the exponentially growing income disparity fueled by a perverted reverence of profit over people that will most certainly cause revolt of some sort." So then what are you advocating for? Whereby, I am totally on board with CEO's being overpaid, etc... especially when one person gets a six-seven figure bonus on top of their six-seven figure salary while others are laid off, or don't get a raise, etc... the fact of the matter is the rich will ALWAYS get richer. You can't stop that... and the government taking money from them to GROW an already bloated government doesn't put money in your pocket on a day-to-day basis. When you EARN something, you appreciate it more and you take ownership of it. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be such things as ghetto's... "Your solution over and over again is for the poor to become rich, otherwise coined by the prophets as upward mobility. Really??" Joel, the only other option is for the government to take it on behalf of the lower income and subject them to live a life less lived while waiting for the next handout or another way to game the system. MORE has been added over the years since the war on poverty started, and the results are people just wanting MORE... "All chiefs and no Indians. That’s a copout you need to grasp." No, what I encourage you to grasp is for YOU to become the chief of your own life... otherwise you ALLOW someone else to be in that position... How does Bill Gates wealth affect you in ANY way? It doesn't... and I would argue he is doing MORE productive things with that wealth than the government could ever do... so in whose hands would that money benefit society more, Bill Gates or the government?... Noone ever got rich by complaining about the other guy... 6/5
Another potentially informative thread ruined by political discourse. Thanks, guys... 6/5
Joel Templin says that OWS has some feeling or other. Who cares? Their feelings are their responsibility. 6/5
Hey idiots! Guess what, you aren't changing anybodys mind about anything by arguing about politics on a woodworking forum. Get back to work! 6/5
This is a step in the right direction: Scott Walker wins Wisconsin recall election If you don't see the correlation between the OP's complaint and politics and economics you fail. 6/6
I've been in business for 22 years. In that time my state has had 4 different governors and 4 different presidents equally split between Democrats and Republicans. Despite all the rhetoric every 4 years at the state level and the national level, I have never, ever, ever seen or felt a single signficant change that has affected my business. I am on pace for the best year my company has ever had while shops are still folding all around me. Did Obama have anything to do with that? No. Will Romney improve upon that? No. Nothing has ever changed, and nothing will ever change. Stop wasting your time concerning yourselves with something that you will never have any affect on and that will never have any affect on you. Make your own destiny, look out for youself and your family. The opportunities for success and failure are the same regardless of the administration.
6/6
Politics is a distraction, used to get our focus away from things that really matter, as this thread is proving well. Re: gay marriage vs financial reform - one is emotional and unresolvable, and one is practical but untouchable due to lobbying efforts. Politics is the symptom, not the cure. Now, let's get back to the OP's topic..... 6/6
It may be a mute point as Pete say's he "checked out" on Monday. I am not sure if that means he quit or went out of business. If it was quit, I hope he had the foresight to get another gig first. If he was an employee, maybe time to be an employer, and if an employer, maybe time to be an employee. He certainly sounds like whatever role he is in, he is not happy. Whether nor not you are an employee or in business for yourself, ultimately, what goes on in your head is up to you. He was looking for someone to tell him he was wrong in his perspective. Some did exactly that, and suggested alternative ways of viewing his situation. I don't know how far this thread can go if it is all "I'm frustrated, tired of my industry, and I'm done, more for you"... I certainly hope that Pete finds what he is looking for... at least he is not working in a coal mine, though... 6/6
John D And that is why we have the mess we have that is going to profoundly change your life, whether you can see it or not. 6/6
Pat, The great thing is if I just focus on my business and do what I'm supposed to do, I will be a model for what you hold so dear; you win either way. I get to keep being naive with the opinion that what I hear you saying is the same things that have been said for a hundred years without affecting any change, and you get to keep on believing that your opinion matters to someone other than yourself. In the mean time I'm the model capitalist you so admire.
6/6
Continued apathy in understanding and trying to carve a path to a healthy socioeconomic balance will lead to chaos of the sort we see when people break down doors and trample over people to get the latest pair of Nike shoes. It will be for food though. (Wish they'd break down doors to get my cabinets.) 6/6
"I certainly hope that Pete finds what he is looking for... at least he is not working in a coal mine, though..." Well he may be soon;>) The problem is we don't know what the real deal with Pete is. Is he a young guy who just can't handle the real world? Is he an older guy who worked in a really poorly run shop? We just don't know b/c he has not elaborated on his situation, just kinda came and vented without giving us much to go on. Either way I doubt the political spouting has affected him one way or another. I do find I tend to think towards the first thing though. My experience with the younger crowd in general is what I'd consider a poor work ethic and what seems like some sort of need for praise and re-affirment for doing one's job? That seemed to be the tone coming across his few sparsely worded posts? His implying the pay wasn't a problem, but the others around him not treating him with decency may be one clue? Being an employee generally stinks... that's why you get paid to do it! If it were fun and everyone got along then why would anyone pay you to do it? If it's a poor enough situation than you try to find another better situation and move on. From the tone it sounds like Pete upped and quit possibly without having another source of employment? Again leading me to believe he's a younger guy in a different place than most of us. I worked in the trade for another shop before I started out on my own and never thought of it as being cut throat. There are a lot of other fields that certainly are, but that hasn't been my experience in this trade. I also thought the pay was decent, and I was pretty close to the bottom of the ladder. However I wanted to make more, not b/c I deserved it, b/c I wanted it. So I made the effort, like many here, to do something to change my situation. I think Pete probably needs to, and is, changing his situation, but only he can decide how to go forward. So after all this we still don't know the real deal on Pete! I'd wish him luck....except he may be another one of my competitors tomorrow....then he may really learn what cut throat is;>) JeffD......just enjoying another day in paradise!!! 6/6
John D You are trying to sell the virtue's of complacency... 6/6
Pat and Joel, Your voices are just a part of the white noise that I choose to ignore. What do you think is going to happen? Total economic collapse? And what would you have me do differently than what I'm doing? I work my ass off, I live conservatively, I make a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes locally and federally. I volunteer tremendous amounts of my time to kids in my community. Would I be better served using my time to figure out new and innovative ways of insulting the current administration? Or maybe I should waste time waving flags on the overpasses? 6/6
Pat, What is it that you do exactly to further this country besides spout your political agenda on a woodworking forum? Do you think you do more than me? But you have the balls to call me apathetic? I never should have contributed, you guys can have your meaningless debate, I'm going back to work.
6/6
John D, I don't know how you can look at the last 100 years and not see any change... in any form... All the things you listed are all good things, but I would challenge your perception that nothing changes... Take the Walker recall... by doing what he did, whether you agree with it or not, not only were local governments, schools, etc. able to manage their budgets better,which allowed them to keep people employed, but the people, given the choice of NOT being forced into a union, voted with their feet and membership dropped substantially, and I would imagine increasing the money in their pocket. And this was in the backdrop of an all-out effort by the unions for over a year... Certainly wouldn't have happened if everyone thought "nothing changes"... But in the macro sense, I agree that historically, it doesn't matter who is in office, they continue to WASTE the treasure of the people under the auspices of helping them all while they exert more and more control over the people who are supposed to control the government... not the other way around...
6/6
To answer your questions. I would consider myself a master carpenter. I'm down and just got kicked in the nuts by somebody so there you have my attitude. I posted this so maybe I would soften a few psychos so they won't slit the next throat without so much as a simple explanation. Maybe I have been just unlucky with who I have chanced to work for. Joel T your a smart guy just like most people on here. Your worried about nothing though as the Gov't won't let the poor go without food or shelter. At least they won't if there smart. Our system is self righting and I have confidence the me me's are falling out of favor. Peace 6/6
WOW. Epic thread. When OWS kicked off here last fall I thought about asking opinions in here, but did not because I felt like maybe it would be taken the wrong way, and I'd be hit with some big trolling. I admit that I have no knowledge about economics. What I can see with my own eyes and life is that Republicans and Democrats are the same. It does not matter won is up there, we all get screwed down here. Just like us, profit is their desire. All I can do here to fight the system pay my workers as best I can, offer free lunch to them, cash more checks and show a loss can. Learn, organize, support local business and education. Train young minorities in my area that will not have the advantage to go to college and take care of my family. The system is broken, taken over, and not much is going to fix it or stop the innocent people all over the world from getting killed by senseless drone attacks in the name of peace. What I see is not a government scared that there will be more terror attacks, what I see is a government scared that the people will wake up to the lies they are being fed and upraising. Long live all the dreamers and occupiers out there. Feel free to troll on me, it won't hurt my feelings. 6/6
That's a good one Rob, you think that some innocent people are being killed by drones, but ignore the people in your own little corner of hell who were killed by Muslim extremists. The smug in your place must be overwhelming. I sure hope your trust fund never runs out - it would be a shame if you actually had to earn a living, based on your self-acknowledged ignorance and love of anarchy. 6/6
You got me there, I heart anarchists. There's nothing more scary than free food and education. So innocent people have been killed on both sides, whats the point?
6/6
FREE EVERYTHING, "There's nothing more scary than free food and education." The more you are given, the more you expect and the more you abuse that which you are given... the more you earn for yourself, the more you appreciate and take care of it... Why work when you can get it for free? Pete never addressed it, but I hope he got a new job before leaving his other one. If not, he KNOWS he can get unemployment, just as those who run out of the 99 weeks are now collecting disability... so why work? A life less lived...
6/6
"Why work when you can get it for free?" Just another Wall Street motto. :-) 6/6
Joel, "Why work when you can get it for free?" - "Just another Wall Street motto. :-)" You mean Occupy Wall Street'ers motto... 8^)
6/6
The government has indoctrinated them into it is a right. 6/6
Pat, When you speak of "them" do you mean the OWS people, the bankers, the recipients of 2nd home mortgage interest deduction or all three of these groups? 6/6
Geo This may surprise you, All of them. Except I don't have a problem with bankers just the ones who were bailed out. You (TS) and Dave actually understand this stuff pretty well it is just that you fail to understand that conservatives are just as against crony capitalism as the tyranny of democracy (OWS). This is from my congressman he sums up why I'm tired of the cabinet business in my area: California: I would be remiss if I did not, as a part of this series, mention the state of my birth and home. I love California. I love the weather and the natural beauty. I love its spirit of enterprise and discovery. I love that it has a culture that rewards and accepts rather than shuns something new and out of the ordinary. But, I HATE California's government. I used to serve in that government and I know it inside and out. California's government is the antithesis of the state itself. There is no enterprise or ingenuity. It is a system that seems bent on perpetuating outdated and failed programs and institutions. And, even as inventive as the California populace is, the government punishes invention and blocks opportunity. Now, you may ask what does this have to do with our "Fix It" theme for getting the United States on track for a new, extended period of growth and prosperity? Well, California is 12% of the nation's economy. If it California is failing, America's growth will be stunted solely because the golden state is so big. And, California is fast becoming the Greece of the United States. Our unemployment rate has hovered around 12% since 2009. That is the 3rd highest in the nation. In the period from 2000-2010, more people moved out of California to the other 49 states than moved in. That is the first time that has occurred since statehood. We have the highest taxes of any state in the nation (recently surpassing New Jersey), but also the largest deficit. We have 12% of the country's population, but nearly 30% of its welfare recipients because we pay out more than any other state. We pay teachers more money than any other state, but have some of the lowest test scores. We pay more than double the cost per year to incarcerate a prisoner as Texas. We now have the lowest credit score for our debt (and just had another warning that it may go lower). And, although I cannot show you a statistic to prove it, I'm sure we have more regulations on everything than any other state. My mother's family moved to California from Kansas in the 1920s not because of the weather, but because of the "freedom" that existed there. If they were alive today, they might move back to Kansas for the same reason. So, what is Governor Jerry Brown's solution? Not fixing any of this. No reforms to anything. Just raise the highest taxes in the country even higher. He has an initiative on the November ballot to do just that. But, it won't work. Hopefully, the voters will turn this abomination down. But, even if they don't, it won't raise any revenue. Governor Schwarzenegger put through the last tax increase a few years ago and revenues declined after the taxes went up. That's because income taxes are a price on income. When the price of something goes up, people consume less of it. It’s simple economics. When the price of milk or gas goes up, people use less. When the price of income goes up, people make less. They change their behavior by taking less risk or by moving their income and business to another state. They seek tax shelters instead of higher earnings. And, that will happen again. I wonder what Texas and Nevada and Florida will do with all the new revenue they get from Californians moving out if Jerry Brown gets his tax increase? So, this antiquated and ineffective solution will not solve the problem. The Governor will not stand up to the unions (a prerequisite to fix California) or make any real reforms. So, California, like Greece, may soldier on until investors refuse to buy its debt. Then a crisis will occur. What's the fix? The great residents of this state that gave the world Ronald Reagan will have to demand changes from their elected officials. I just hope they do it before we reach that looming fiscal cliff. Until next time, I remain respectfully, Congressman John Campbell 6/6
Pat, I would definitely add bankers to your short list of welfare recipients. To my way of thinking any dollar that flows to a citizen is welfare and any dollar that flows to the government is tax. It does not matter if the tax is called a fee, a license, or a permit. It is still a tax. It also doesn't matter whether you are wearing a blue pinstripe suit and sit on the board of public corporations or wear your pajamas while you sit on the sofa eating potato chips and watching TV. If the money flows to you from the government it is welfare. A dollar is a dollar, the only difference is the direction the dollar flows. Conservatives make a big deal out benefits that accrue to lower income strata. They call it socialism and try to get stupid people up in arms against it. Bankers are first in line at the trough and the amount of dollars they receive are significantly greater than those dollars that flow to food stamp programs or college loans. When the Fed decides the economy needs a spark they go to banks and give them first shot at the money. It's a slam dunk for the first guy in. There is no risk. He always makes money every time. If he loses any money it was never his money to lose anyway. Somehow Jamie Dimon and his gang at JP Morgan have convinced everybody else that these guys are the brightest of the bright and can't get out of bed for less than $16 million a year. (As though somebody else was waiting in the wings to hire them) Look at the dumbass bets these guys made and tell me how smart they are. A bank is really no different than an public utility. They don't do anything intrinsically. They lubricate the economy for those who do then charge them so much money for a business loan that nobody can qualify for one. They are akin to a hydroelectric company or a sewage treatment plant. They are not, of themselves, a "job creator". I agree that we should kill all the welfare. I just somehow can't see how conservatives don't recognize the welfare queens in their own midst. 6/6
Conservatives (not necessarily republicans) definitely see the welfare on both sides. You, Dave, and Joel have bought into the straw man that the media has fed you and are not going to let go of it no matter what... One question can you give me an example of, non government, jobs that were not created through investment? The first part of the letter from my congressman: Too Big to Fail: There is a lot of talk these days about the $3 billion loss at JP Morgan Chase. There is a lot of hand-wringing, concern, and investigation into what happened. We are asked about it on Capitol Hill, we have an opinion, and we all care about it. And, that is the problem. We shouldn't have to care. The only reason we are all in a tizzy over this is because JP Morgan is too big to fail. If Apple announced it lost $3 billion tomorrow, the shareholders, Wall Street and some trial lawyers would care, but it wouldn't be any of Washington's concern. That's the way it should work with private companies. They take risks to make money. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Dodd-Frank did not fix this problem for the banks. Arguably, a provision in Dodd-Frank was part of the cause of the JP Morgan loss. Dodd-Frank requires disclosure of trading that was previously private. Hedge funds saw JP Morgan taking big positions (which just a few years ago would not have been made public) and decided to play the other side of the trade. The hedge funds won and JP Morgan lost. However, in this case, we all lost. That’s why we have to fix too big to fail. If we do, then JP Morgan's loss becomes just an issue for investors and not for taxpayers. Over 100 years ago, we enacted anti-trust laws in this country because it was determined that it was not in the public’s interest to have monopolies. I think most people today believe that was good legislation. We need to pass equivalent laws for a financial institution that is "systemically significant" - which is the beltway euphemism for "too big to fail" (TBTF). TBTF entities put the taxpayer at risk for losses without giving the taxpayer any of the gains. TBTF entities have an unfair competitive advantage over other institutions that could, in theory, fail without any government rescue. And because of the implicit government backstop, TBTF entities are encouraged to take more speculative bets than they normally would allow. I think that TBTF institutions should have reserve and capital requirements that make them so safe that they practically could not fail. Of course, this would greatly reduce their return on equity. So, they would have a choice. Be very big and very safe and very boring. Or, break up into smaller units that are individually not too big to fail. This does not force any company to do anything except cut their ties to the unwritten taxpayer backing one way or the other. Detractors to this idea will point to the international marketplace and say that this will put our large banks at a disadvantage to large banks in foreign countries. I disagree. Banks in Europe are already much larger relative to their economies than US banks. For example, Santander is a troubled Spanish bank much discussed in the news these days. For Bank of America to be as big in the US as Santander is in Spain, Bank of America would need to be 7.5 times BIGGER than it is. And, look at how well that huge bank model is working for Europe right now. Not well. No, our banks should be competitive because they are strong and our system is stronger, not because they are big. 6/6
BTW, this is a great thread. I think it should most certainly belong on a woodworking forum for 'business and management' because this (political/economic milieu) surrounds all else that we and our customers do. It is the wind into which we lean. Even if we choose to ignore it, we are not immune from its effects. 6/6
Pat, James Dimon and JP Morgan are regarded as the best risk managers in the business. That's why Dimon has so much clout and commands (commanded) so much respect on Capitol Hill. Your Congressman Campbell over simplifies when he says the source of all this hand wringing is because JP Morgan is TBTF. The underlying concern is that all banks operate under these same (lack of) regulations. If someone as prestigious and powerful as JP Morgan can't figure out which way to bet then we shouldn't have abundance of confidence in the smaller regional banks. The reason for the Glass-Steagal Act was because we couldn't trust the bankers to police themselves. We couldn't trust them then and shouldn't trust them now. Now could you please explain how banks actually create jobs? Or at least connect the dots to the straw man analogy? 6/7
"I have come to the conclusion that the trades I have worked very hard in over the last 10 years have become so ridiculously cutthroat as to be an insane person's game. At least as an employee. Never expected or wanted to have my arse kissed but don't need to be walking around wearing a chainmail scarf either. I don't want your advise I want someone to tell me I am wrong. " You are not wrong at all. When employers are in survival mode, they may act in ways that hurt others. I have had to lay loyal employees off. Sometimes we do all the right things, and it still isn't good enough. That has been my humble life experience. 6/7
What provision in the DF rule ? 6/7
Like I pointed out before ,it's not Barney and the CRA you should worry about.......it's derivitives. Beware of Romeo The Truth
Someone mention an opening down at the coal mine ?
Coal mine pay
Kali,, i enjoyed reading that ! the last paragraph of the summation is priceless
I don't believe the banks are stronger than ever. God only knows what kind of swaps are out there tied to overseas banks.
I think this summer is 2008 all over again.
As long as the taxpayer is there to bailout the government and business, why do you think they both will not just increase risk and debt?
Both big government and crony capitalism are anathema to a free people...
Right now, the taxpayer has to share the rick with both of them and neither has a good track record. If you are "too big to fail" you are too big. That goes for both government and crony big business...
The big difference here is government oversees both government and business and they fail miserably at it.
We had MULTIPLE agencies policing markets, and you didn't hear of any of them getting axed or funding removed because they failed.
Their answer? Add ANOTHER agency... you can't make this stuff up...
The REAL answer?...
1. Balanced budget
There's more, but am I deluded into thinking they would ever do much of this? No, it's not in THEIR interest... even though it is in ours...
Case in point... The don't KNOW what's coming in and going out... keep in mind, this $70 BILLION does not include the $100's of BILLIONS annually spent on duplicate or overlapping programs identified by the GAO.
They literally WASTE the money... The above $70 BILLION represents 6-7% of the EXISTING annual deficit that it could be applied to, but instead we BORROWED it from China...
Until the government gets their house in order, I don't blame any taxpayer for not wanting to feed a black hole...
Fed gov't sitting on $70 billion in CASH
Tim
The first thing to know about economics is that we don't know and there is something know about it and it does not come from the news or politicians or Kalli's inane paranoid sources. Before you say it yes I read books on the subject from Austrian economics and the Chicago school of economics, not that I'm an expert but I do know which way is north which is more than I can say for most of you.
This is from an email from Economics 101 about a year ago. He talks about how Glass Steagal is irrelevant and how Lehman brothers losses were exaggerated and not the problem the media would have you believe it was.
There's that old Glass/Steagal "regulation" trope, again.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, had Glass still been in effect, Bank of America could NOT have bought Merrill Lynch, nor could have any other bank. Now, BoA probably wishes they hadn't bought the pile of garbage that was ML, but that's beside the point.
Similarly, JPMorgan Chase could NOT have acquired Bear Stearns. The taxpayers would have wound up owning both of those disasters. Repeal of Glass/Steagal was actually very helpful.
As for OTC derivatives being unregulated, so, what? They never were regulated. Ever. Repealing Glass didn't change that one iota.
Lehman Brothers had a gazillion dollars of derivative exposure and what happened? Absolutely nothing. The final net settlement of the whole pile amounted to a few tens of millions of dollars and nobody lost a penny due to any non-performance because there was none.
How can that be? Because by agreement the parties to virtually all derivative instruments require the posting of collateral on a daily basis as the market prices of underlying instruments change.
Why are the derivative totals (and risk) always grossly overstated? Simple.
Company A buys what amounts to insurance in the form of a derivative on, for instance, the bonds of Company B which A owns. It buys the "insurance" from Company C covering, say $10 million of B's bonds.
A then sells the bonds or for whatever decides that it no longer needs the "insurance" and conducts an offsetting transaction (another derivative) covering $10 million of B's bonds with Company D. The new net derivative risk in the market as a whole? ZERO. Zip. Nada.
The reported derivative total? $20 million.
Rinse and repeat a few thousand times each on a few thousand underlying instruments and the simple process of routine trading and hedging of risk results in ridiculous derivative totals that have absolutely no relationship to reality.
But, the meaningless totals are great for scaring people. And, people who don't know what they're talking about have a lot of fun throwing them around.
Nope, Glass/Steagal repeal and/or lack of derivatives regulation weren't the problem.
And that all sounds reasonable to me
Problem is Kap ,the overspending goes all the way down to the local level.
As we speak the chino pd is biulding a 25 million dollar monument to themselves.
Just about every city in my state has the same spending plan.
Good post Kap.
I would only change two things:
Instead of an income tax I would make this a tax on consumption.
On the spending side I would allow all tax payers to vote where 25% of their tax contribution is applied. If you People who pay more taxes get more votes. Truly productive people should be the ones steering government.
On a slightly different trajectory I have some thoughts about the role of government in higher education. I think it ought to free for anybody who wants it.
Several years ago a woman from Russia came into my shop. This was before glasnost and people from these countries were an anomaly. I asked her what the single most thing was that impressed her about the US. I was expecting her to talk about grocery stores. What she said stood the most was: given as competitive of a society as we live in - how little emphasis was placed on education".
Lack of education is what gives us the quality of government that we have. People are too busy watching TV to pay attention to what is going on, much less comprehend what is happening.
My education mandate has two caveats:
The second caveat is that you have to pay the education back. If you want a four year education then you owe four years of public service.
Payment for this education is half now, half later. The primary benefit of half now is that you compel a break between high school and college. Instead of one long slide you get some practical experience before you take up a precious seat in our classrooms. This year or two of seasoning will make you a better, more diligent student. You will be more mature before you start your study and you will have learned that the work world sucks without an education. You will try harder in school.
I think this program will have an income redistribution effect. Anybody can go to college right now if their parents can raise the tuition. This is a major reason that a college degree is worthless.
Under my program you create better, smarter graduates and private industry will compete vigorously to get these smarter employees. If the education world can offer a better product to employers then a merit based income redistribution will ensue. People from all walks of life will wake up each day knowing they have an equal chance rather than the resignation that comes from knowing the deal was rigged by an accident of birth.
KAP I'd agree with all of that although I'm amazed that you of all people suggested #7, setting up another govt agency :-)
Just getting #1 done is proving impossible. EVERYBODY knows it needs to be done and it isn't getting done. It will happen - things cannot keep ballooning, just like the housing bubble everybody sat back and watched. This a much bigger problem and it's becoming more likely that a correction will come through some sort of collapse rather than managed. How great a "collapse" remains to be seen.
So what are your credentials ?
My inane source
Yes aren't you the one that believes Elizabeth Warren is fantastic her credentials are that she teaches at Harvard which just goes to show...
My credentials are that I can look.
Hey Darwin, speaking of evolution....while all your ideas are really good ones, what are the majority of todays kids going to school to learn anyway...flipping burgers or installing cabinets? Computers and robots are taking away more and more jobs. And Pat, just what is upward mobility in a service oriented (as opposed to manufacturing) economy?
And you LOOK like a fool.
Kahlikid,
"Problem is Kap ,the overspending goes all the way down to the local level."
Yes, but the difference is they HAVE to balance the budget... and I would argue the politicians are more accessible and accountable...
Joel,
"KAP I'd agree with all of that although I'm amazed that you of all people suggested #7, setting up another govt agency :-)"
The difference is that their compensation is tied directly to results... they only have one mission... to find the savings... I would have a problem spending a little to save ALOT... you don't find that anywhere in the government right now... EVERYTHING in the government costs more than it should...
We're worried about TRILLION dollar deficits (and rightly so), but in the face of that, they cannot even come up with the gumption to remove duplicate programs, ALREADY IDENTIFIED, that cost $100's of BILLIONS from the budget, but instead BORROW the money from China and pay all that interest and principal for something that shouldn't be in the budget in the first place. This will cost MORE than the ENTIRE GDP of Greece... WASTED MONEY...
And the kicker is, they are all about the Buffet Rule, which would only give $42B over TEN YEARS... And the kicker is by actually doing their job and stop wasting money, it's the same as getting 20X ANNUALLY the amount the Buffet Rule would give over 10 YEARS... and this doesn't even take into account the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in interest alone on the national debt, that is slated to INCREASE over the coming years with rising interest rates when we do "recover"...
Why should ANY taxpayer want to give the government ANYMORE MONEY just so they could get through this (i.e. - bail them out)? What for? So they can waster even MORE!... The government would indite themselves if they were a company...
But history shows us that they will never change... If, in this environment, they STILL won't do anything about it and cut costs, what makes you think it will happen ANYTIME...
Think almost $16 TRILLION in debt is bad?!... the CBO just projected that is slated to DOUBLE over the next 15-20 years!... It is COMPOUNDING, and will not stop...
So whenever I hear "raise the taxes on the rich" it makes me want to puke, because as you can see from the above examples, the politicians WASTE more than they could EVER collect from the rich... and it's not like they are collecting it to pay down debt, it's to SPEND MORE!
Unfortunately, the die is cast... it's only a matter of time... 8^(
no not everyone sat back and watched, my father was an old school real estate man, one of those who lived by a code of ethics and never sold a house to someone who could not afford it. he died in 04 and before he did he told me and others what to watch for.. i stopped, i repeat i stopped doing residential in 06..sold all the property, paid off all tools with the proceeds, we struggle a small bit here and there, but we layed no one off, no one collected unemployment, we adjusted and made good work of all we had, i set two new rules in place 1) noone could have two bad days in a row,,, 2) all mistakes had to get cut in half, this is not the new economy it is the way it should have been all along,,,thank god for my dad all his life he taught us the lessons of the depression and WW2 never in my wildest dreams would i imagine i would need them but they sure came in handy !!! a ply salesman came in one day and said "hey that sounds nice" and i asked what sound is that,, he said to me "your machinery is running"
This thread is outstanding!
My hat if off to all you well spoken folk. There is more substance here than in all of Washington or on Wall Street.
Keep the peace and keep building the world, towards a new, more perfect Union.
I believe:
We should pay in full for the programs our government has funded.
If you don't like the programs, then work to eliminate them, but if you can't eliminate them, then tax enough to pay for them.
If enough people agree to eliminate programs, good, we can reduce taxes.
If we don't eliminate the programs, then we are obligated to pay for them.
I believe it is wrong to refuse to pay for our obligations, regardless of how wasteful or inefficient you think they are. Not paying for them will just make matters worse as we increase the national debt from such action.
It is cutthroat , but some of the time and not all of the time. I've lost a lot of business due to two competitors that have been telling out and out lies about my product ( a furniture product). All I can do is build the best product for the best price. All of my customers are very happy with what I build. My feelings are that it's really only a small percent who do this ( like the 1 % who screwed us all over big time and still are). So the best thing we can do is push on, find a niche, find a new way to make a living and don't let the bad guys get you down.
Yes, but the difference is they HAVE to balance the budget... and I would argue the politicians are more accessible and accountable...
No they don't.
The 94 orange county bankruptcy was a direct result of cooking the books via swaps
See the pattern?
Out of 93 posts in this thread, maybe 4 or 5 were on topic. I can get the same political opinions from the comments after every news article on the internet. Nothing new here. I used to come here for interesting information on the business of woodworking, but I am deleting the bookmark in my browser now. This forum has degenerated to a new low.
and you read all 93 posts because........
I read a few at the top of the page and skimmed the rest. Does that answer your question, Joel? Wanna talk about your woodworking business or just be a troll?
About the wisconsin recall, he won because of the millions of out of state dollars that were donated to his cause. Is this where our country should be headed? A few extremely rich people being allowed to buy elections? Is it right that a couple of corporations can put up more money than the entire working class?
To wit:
My job sucks. My boss sucks. My company sucks. My competitors suck
Woe is me. Whatever am I to do?
1)Build a better mousetrap.
Ken, You have missed the point. About 1/2 of the country lives in poverty. We have the 4th largest income inequality gap. Most people can't afford to purchase a mousetrap.
Jimbob is right.
When the US Supreme Court granted first amendment rights to for-profit corporations, it allowed them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support any political cause or candidate. This can be done without revealing who is the source of any political contribution.
Our electoral candidates are simply for sale now.
Pat, is this what you really want when you advocate for de-regulation?
What do you think will be the outcome of this de-regulation?
JimBob,
"About 1/2 of the country lives in poverty."
What our country calls "poverty" now is what was called upper middle class not a short 100 years ago.
If you want to see what real poverty is, consider 3rd world country's... Noone in the USA HAS to be in a lower income class, it is a choice... you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise... try literally having to sell the shoes off your
"We have the 4th largest income inequality gap. Most people can't afford to purchase a mousetrap."
And yet people can afford big-screen TV's, computers, cell-phones, etc... these are not necessity's but WANTS...
Income inequality is solved by the individual NOT the government... We did not NEED McMansion's (2500sf +), we WANTED them and the prestige and comforts that went along with them... people used to live in homes that were 800-1200sf, no TV, no A/C, etc.. and were considered middle class.
.
"I read a few at the top of the page and skimmed the rest. Does that answer your question, Joel? Wanna talk about your woodworking business or just be a troll?"
The discussion as it started ran it's course, and then branched out into other discussion related to it. It's just what happens on threads... Only YOU can decide to continue to read and participate... noone is forcing you to do anything. 98-99% of the threads on this site are dedicated towards woodworking. Political discussions relating to business make up a very minor portion, whereby it's probably the equivalent of a rounding error as contrasted to content.
Just because you don't think political discussion as it relates to business is relevant to the discussion doesn't mean others don't... There were a few posts at the extreme opposite of yours saying how great the thread is... Do we base the total content and the validity of the thread off your opinion?
You don't have to read or participate...
Jimbob,
No point missed. If, somehow, every family were given a million dollars tomorrow, within a very short time, the ones that are poor today will soon be poor again. Why? Because it is in their nature, and they are unwilling to change.
I'm just saying that when one's business sucks, one has to change one's philosophy, attitudes and actions if one wants to improve. Talking/debating politics rarely helps a business' bottom line. If you are an employee, help your employer and his business to be better. If you are an employer, help your employee be better, and you will have a better business.
"Noone in the USA HAS to be in a lower income class, it is a choice..."
KAP this is where you and I are most divided. Not every person in business can be the owner, foreman, or even leadman. Some are needed to do the benchwork. Some are needed to just sweep the floor. Some are needed to be in that "lower" income. The growing problem, exponentially growing, is the disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom. It goes without saying that of course, relatively speaking, we ALL are rather spoiled these days, and, of course, there will always be a "rich" and a "poor" and everything inbetween. A disparity in income is one thing but a GROWING disparity is a dangerous problem. Not everyone can be at the top and we can't leave those at the bottom behind. We need them.
State of the trade?I just watch a news show that had on the new french government that wants to raise their tax rate to 75% as the highest tax rate. So is this what we want here in the U.S. Do we want to take the upper class people here to that tax rate. I have been doing this for 30 some years now and I have never built anything for someone in what we consider is the middle class. They buy from large store that most of their products are made
@Joel
The growing income disparity we have is a good thing...and is 180 degrees from what the Obfuscating Bullcrap Agenda Management Articulators have propagandized into 'common wisdom'.
Stephen Rose of Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (as reported in the WSJ Jan,26 2012):
Then, I'll add for myself - whaddya expect when you regulate away jobs to lower-cost offshore sources AND import millions of unskilled workers through the southern border EXCEPT high unemployment and lower realized wages (i.e. income disparity). Prop that stupidity up with minimum wage laws and it gets...well...worse. All the chatter about disparity is making an obfuscatory fuss about the results rather than clear talk about the causes.
Jim,
Quoting pablum from the Wall Street Journal means absolutely nothing. Who owns that newspaper? What is their agenda? (Big Hint: same guy that owns FOX News)
If you can't look around and find anecdotal logic to come up with a conclusion then you're not looking hard enough. To say that the middle class has evaporated because everybody got rich is just plain ridiculous.
If you were right wouldn't we be seeing these newly rich customers in our shops today?
@Charles
That's the point! Anecdotes can seem logical, but not prove reliable nor true. Anecdotal logic sounds like an oxymoron.
Take a bell curve (frequency distribution), skew the median while holding the tails. Suddenly the bell looks more like a ramp and the low tail stretches out thin. Suddenly, "INCOME DISPARITY PROBLEM", despite the fact that the skew was created by more people improving AND ignoring that the whole scale moved UP. Better to ignore that and get into the 'income envy' game whereas citizens beseech Big Brother to unskew the curve by seizing more of other citizen's fruits and spreading that wealth around. Then the real wizard behind the screen gets lots of smoke to hide behind and lots of activist license to stomp on citizens in the name of 'correcting' the (anecdotal) 'flaws in the system'. Less OWS types looking behind the screen as to 'why' when they are out bashing other citizens.
We did see them in our shops until 2008 took everybody down...err...except those living a days commute from DC. Recession Boomtown.
Experiment: average income $55k. Gather up ALL income and spread it out to $55k each-all the same. Average, right? You will have NO one in your shop.
Heres a thought experiment ,think back two years ago ,what did the experts have to say.
Heres what stephen said
Getting sucked in. Whoever says that the lower class has more than the the average guy in many other countries is right. But it is getting worse....quickly. The issue is decent paying stable jobs available to the average Joe (That's me) I stepped back from my silly little situation the other day and really thought about it. I have been swinging for the fences in this industry for 10 years and what do I have to show for it. A bunch of skills, an enjoyment of my craft. Not nothin. But it sure would be nice to come home to MY house and support a family on my wages.
Pete, Can I ask you, what do you think the problem is you can not bring home enough money to support your family? I use to say this and I always said that it was someone or something that was causing this but then I found the real reason was the way I was doing business.
Pinetree, we can't use individual cases to objectively see what's happening across the board to different quintiles or groups of income. Pat and KAP mistakenly excuse a groups stagnant income as an individuals problem that can be corrected by individual effort aka upward mobility. Upward mobility is limited to individuals. A percentage quintile is a quintile group. The average income of a quintile is what it is - it doesn't matter the coming and goings of individuals among the quintiles. Using Pat and KAPs logic 100% could (improve our incomes) be (in the top) 5%. The missing 95% is in a black hole I guess.
Joel,
"Pat and KAP mistakenly excuse a groups stagnant income as an individuals problem that can be corrected by individual effort aka upward mobility."
You actually make my point... NOONE has to stay in any "group"... it is a choice... Even millionaires fluctuate... we lost a few hundred thousand out of that group over the past couple of years...
And the more people who choose to rely on or blame others for their plight, the bigger the group becomes a self-fulling prophecy... there is literally NOTHING the government can do to change the "groups" income other than artificially inflating it through taxation. We have spent TRILLIONS on the war on poverty and that group never goes away (and it will never)... That is not money earned through their own effort and it just dulls down the WILL to do so when they can just badger politicians to do get it from someone else... Much easier to point to one group and say "they have more, get it from them" than to look at your electorate and tell them to go after and their treasure. Hence Ben Franklin's warning...
Regardless, no matter what group they are in, their standard of living is far and above the rest of the world and going back 50-60 years here in our own country...
Kap,
How does the statement that our "poorest citizens are better off than he was 100 years ago and better off than 2/3rds of the poor wretches of the world" have anything at all to do with refuting Joel's contentions.
Do you have anything to back up the argument (other than red herrings) that all you need to do is tighten your bootlaces to reach that golden ring?
Do you not think being born into the right family is a stronger indicator of future prosperity than work ethic?
Do you think the government has only "artificially inflated" some of our citizen's wealth with tax policy?
Pinetree,
See above. I will add that for me and my area, I can honestly say that there a few if any trade jobs available that pay a living wage. ($18 or above) (Excluding machinists.) Even the lower paying ones at $15 are fought over. So no work available. I even went down to labor ready and they were all set. I am capable of working for myself but no institution will loan me money without collateral worth the loan amount aka...a house. To answer your question in verse: You ain't got no money you ain't got no car, you ain't got no woman and there ya are.
CD,
"Do you have anything to back up the argument (other than red herrings) that all you need to do is tighten your bootlaces to reach that golden ring?"
Yes, basic math...
"Do you not think being born into the right family is a stronger indicator of future prosperity than work ethic?"
If by right family, you mean one that has a work ethic, teaches delayed satisfaction, sacrifice, hard work... yes.
"Do you think the government has only "artificially inflated" some of our citizen's wealth with tax policy?"
This assumes the government has a right to someone's money first... It is my contention that they do not... EVERYONE, including Warren Buffet does what they can to reduce their tax load otherwise he wouldn't take a $100K salary and the rest as capital gains. But those capital gains only come from INVESTMENT, which creates jobs and more government receipts. He certainly doesn't need the money, but continues to invest it. If he just handed 100% of it over to the government, do you think THAT is the wiser investment?....
So as an indicator of potential future earnings, being born into a family that:
"has a work ethic, teaches delayed satisfaction, sacrifice, hard work... "
trumps being born into a family of incredible current wealth?
Is this one those feel good things like it is easier for a poor (but hard working) man to get into heaven than a rich man pass through the eye of a needle stories?
I will agree with you that you should leverage the capital you have. If all you got is attitude then you go with that. Hard work and perseverance will out weigh sloth and indolence every time.
If you have your parents money to work with and tax policy to enhance it then I would suspect the second person is going to win and their children will be even richer.
Just a hunch.
KAP, nowhere did I make your point. My point applies to quintile groups. Your point can only apply to individuals. The GROWING income inequity problems that exist are NOT between individuals, they are between different income groups. You CANNOT eliminate income groups. Everyone cannot be in the top 5%, some of which is because of what CD points out. Why do you choose to ignore my data supported point that the lower income groups have been getting squeezed on more and more for the last 30 or so years?
Pete, I agree with you as in my area of Chicago $18.00 per hour is a min of what a person can live on by themselves. As a business owner I do not mind paying that at all but I do want something in return for that.
KAP,
If you had a choice, would you rather have really really rich parents or come from a family who told you to mow lawns, be thrifty and gave you a suitcase for your high school graduation present?
Joel,
"Why do you choose to ignore my data supported point that the lower income groups have been getting squeezed on more and more for the last 30 or so years?"
Squeezed more and more? Their benefits have GONE UP during this time so how can you say they were squeezed more and more?
I never proposed nor did I say that income groups would be "eliminated". My point was that these groups, including millionaires (whom the vast majority MADE their money going through the income groups) are fluid. The government doesn't take you from one income group to another, but KEEPS YOU in that income group through legislative obsoleting...
If you are in one income group for any length of time, that is a CHOICE to stay there... it's no more complicated than that... so if you are feeling squeezed, there are so MANY things you can do to go from one income group to another, but it takes more than learned reliance on the government. I've lived it myself and I didn't do anything special...
.
"If you have your parents money to work with and tax policy to enhance it then I would suspect the second person is going to win and their children will be even richer."
Money is a tool, not a determining factor of success... just ask anyone who won the lottery and gone on to lose it all or any celebrity who lost their mojo...
.
"If you had a choice, would you rather have really really rich parents or come from a family who told you to mow lawns, be thrifty and gave you a suitcase for your high school graduation present?"
It's a false choice... it's like me asking which would you rather have a single mom who is on welfare and teaches her kids how to game the system (i.e. - have more babies to collect more as one example) or come from a family who told you to mow lawns, be thrifty and gave you a suitcase for your high school graduation present?
KAP,
Do you think the child of that "single mom who is on welfare and teaches her kids how to game the system (i.e. - have more babies to collect more)" has the same economic opportunities of that child who's parents are on corporate welfare (bankers and other socialists etc) and teach their child to game the system with lobbyists and tax attorneys?
To say that the poorer people in our country have just as much opportunity as the richer ones (because you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps) is just plain ridiculous.
Even you know that.
Chuck,
"To say that the poorer people in our country have just as much opportunity as the richer ones (because you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps) is just plain ridiculous... Even you know that."
That's why I said it was a false choice...
So then just pull yourself up by your bootstraps is another false choice?
No,
Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps is called initiative, sacrifice, believing in yourself, etc... all traits harmed by legislative obsoleting and learned dependency...
Many of the large mega-companies whom so many vilify for profit were started on a bootstrap...
People don't know how sharp they can become until they are put to the grindstone... government reliance just keeps adding rust...
So do you think banks would become better off with less government reliance?
Do you think the mega-companies that were started by Horatio Alger would be better off without their corporate version of affirmative action, i.e. lobbyists?
"So do you think banks would become better off with less government reliance?"
To heck with the government, I think the taxpayer would be better off... NO business should be backed by the government. That is forcing the taxpayer into the position of investor without their consent...
"Do you think the mega-companies that were started by Horatio Alger would be better off without their corporate version of affirmative action, i.e. lobbyists?"
As I've said many times, with the exception of charity, remove ALL deductions and everyone pays on a sliding scale with no deductions, REMOVING all legislative influence by lobbyists, no matter their call. Tie the politicians pay to the average median income of the citizen...
You're starting to make some sense now.
I disagree with the average pay part for congressmen and senators. This should be high dollar wages tied to two term limits.
In fact right now we need some really smart people.
I recommend that next years crop of legislators gets this year's budget to work with and gets to take home to their families whatever they don't spend. Same thing goes for next year's crop. They get to work with this year's appropriations.
Each legislative class gets to work with last year's appropriations. If they do a good job with prioritizing how much for the citizens and how much for themselves then we vote them back for term 2.
You will create some really rich people in the beginning but each successive year will cost less and less. Probably only take about five years to get the price down to what it takes to do the job.
Businesses can hire all the lobbyists they want. If ex-legislators try to become lobbyists then we put them in prison for the rest of their lives.
And, No business should be able to fund an election.
How about unions?
Assuming you are refering to cabinetmakers unions. I thought about it and I don't see it. There is too much price competition in this industry to support a unions demands. Perhaps a guild, whatever that is.
Pete,
As far as unions go, considering it was right after the post about businesses funding elections, I think the poster was referring to unions funding the same.
I assume since you just up and left that you were at a point financially where you could leave and then decide what you wanted to do without concern for money, so let me ask you something.
If money were not a concern, what would be your dream job. I am not asking about a job with no issues, as there is no such animal, but one that on the days you were grumbling about your existing path over the past 10 years you thought, man I wish I could just do this...
“If you are in one income group for any length of time, that is a CHOICE to stay there.”
There you go again, talking about individuals. There is no choice though for the groups.
(Lower income groups) “Squeezed more and more? Their benefits have GONE UP during this time so how can you say they were squeezed more and more? “
Easy - here’s just one of many examples
Joel,
What exactly do you expect the government to do as it relates to income equality? At what point in history did the rich not exist and ALWAYS, no matter the political or economic system benefit MORE than everyone else? It is BECAUSE they are rich that they are able to leverage more, hence my example of someone at $40K getting a 20% pay raise benefiting LESS than someone at $100K getting a 10% raise. It has never been different and will ALWAYS be the case... even when the tax rate on the rich were in the 90% range...
A group is MADE UP OF individuals so it matters NOT the group, but the individual, as it is the individual that changes the make-up of the group. You cannot move the GROUP itself forward as it relates to income, you can only add more to it and keep it behind.
The lower quintiles pay MUCH less in taxes today than when the war on poverty started AND have added benefits, so they have ADDED to that group, without any real long-term benefit except a life less lived and dependency in return for a menial existence while badgering the politicians for more...
Your view seems to be take from the rich and give to the poor, but my view is to give the poor the tools to live a better life on their own efforts or even become rich...
... and it is spreading to include people who want 99 WEEKS of unemployment, and then jump to disability INCREASING the group of dependents because of government. Unemployment is supposed to be insurance to get you from one job to another if you lose your job, NOT a way of life, where you become unemployable through atrophy...
So again... what exactly do you think the government can do as it relates to income inequality?
“What exactly do you expect the government to do as it relates to income equality? …the rich… ALWAYS… benefit MORE… than everyone else.” It is BECAUSE they are rich that they are able to leverage more.”
I don’t know exactly but for starters they/we could acknowledge it as a problem as you just finally did and work on leveling the playing field.
“Your view seems to be take from the rich and give to the poor.”
Well, not in so many words, but it’s been the other way around for so many years a change would be a positive move.
KAP,
If two distinct groups of individuals receive differential tax treatment then the group with the tax advantage will accrue assets at a higher rate thereby increasing disparity between the two groups.
Investment income being taxed at 15% vs wage income being taxed at 28% is an example of this. To assume that people will stop investing merely because of an increased tax rate is not accurate. Capital will continue to flow to highest return, i.e., passive income from investment.
Interest deduction for mortgage deduction on second homes. There is no similar tax deduction for people who rent their homes.
Some groups (of individuals) will always be locked out of the big money because every time they try to crawl into the boat somebody smacks their fingers with an oar.
Joel is just advocating that some of the pie get shared.
whatwouldjesusdo,
"If two distinct groups of individuals receive differential tax treatment then the group with the tax advantage will accrue assets at a higher rate thereby increasing disparity between the two groups."
The disparity comes not from the tax (we all pay capital gains tax when the income is realized) but from the amount invested.
Someone with $100K to invest and someone with $10K to invest
If they both realize an identical 10% return, the person who invested $100K now has $110K and the person investing $10K now has $11K, but the "income disparity" has INCREASED from $90K to $99K.
Even if the person who invested $10K got a 50% return versus the $100K investor at 10%, the income disparity will STILL INCREASE by $5K for the guy investing $100K.
Even if the government taxed the $100K guy at 50% and the $10K guy at 10% on their capital gains income, there would STILL be an income disparity.
So the whole idea of an "income disparity" is bogus in any and all practical effect... what a rich guy makes has absolutely NO EFFECT on your life. It is a GREAT misconception and sets up the government as the supposed savior in this scenario, whereby HISTORY shows us, they can do NOTHING concrete about... but it keeps you from looking at your own life and instead of making REAL changes, you now have a boogie-man to blame...
In the meantime, people will go through their lives THINKING the government can somehow do something about it... when they CANNOT... and they end up living a life less lived, never realizing their potential because they think something is "owed to them"...
.
The pie is not fixed where one income group takes from another to enhance their pie. In America, you create YOUR OWN PIE...
Joel's argument is not that different investors are treated differently.
Crank 28 % against 15% and tell me again how your model works.
Please explain away the differential treatment that occurs when one group can deduct interest from mortgages on second home and the other group (the renters) don't get any tax break at all on their housing.
I agree with all your righteousness about work ethic being better than no work ethic. Nobody can argue against that.
You, however, always change the subject when Joel is talking about institutional support for relative opportunities for each income class.
The rich get treated better by our government than the poor do. Do you disagree with that?
I give up. I'd like to think your rebuttals always revert back to individuals because you've conceded that lower income quintiles have a growing disadvantage in generating income. We all know an investment of 100K will return more than an investment of 10K, that goes without saying. My complaint, which it appears you agree with,is about the fact that lower income groups are being buried in a system that is giving them less and less of a chance to make that 10K investment or any investment at all. The injustice has little to do with individuals, just income brackets. Pete's witnessing that possibly in saying that "the trades (he has) worked very hard in over the last 10 years have become so ridiculously cutthroat as to be an insane person's game." Pete is an individual, the trades are part of a group. Pete can explore upward mobility, the trades cannot.
Joel,
"about the fact that lower income groups are being buried in a system that is giving them less and less of a chance to make that 10K investment or any investment at all."
Taking that at face value, the government can do NOTHING about that... We disagree on WHY they are being buried... My contention it has more to do with dependency on the government programs and decisions they are making in their own lives, you seem to think it is companies who are at fault. Well you can do nothing about the companies paying what they will pay. We see this in our industry. If we can't find a good guy for $XX.00 per hour, we have to up it or LIMIT our ability to produce.
.
"Crank 28 % against 15% and tell me again how your model works."
If you re-read the post (#136), you will see that I actually did almost TWICE that capital gains tax rate at 50%... and then showed how even with a 50% capital gains tax for the $100K guy, and only a 10% capital gains tax for $10K guy, there is STILL an "income disparity" which shows you that the taxation CANNOT STOP the "income disparity"...
That said, using your 15% for the $10K guy and 28% example for the rich guy...
$10K guy x 10% ROI = $1K total taxable income MINUS 15% capital gains = $850 net profit PLUS initial investment = $10,850
Income disparity STILL grows even using your tax rate of 28% for the rich guy and only 15% for the $10K guy. Even if you removed 100% of the tax for the $10K guy, and DOUBLED the tax again for the $100K rich guy to 56%, the "income disparity" STILL grows. So it is a BOGUS argument... Taxes DO NOT remove the income disparity...
"Please explain away the differential treatment that occurs when one group can deduct interest from mortgages on second home and the other group (the renters) don't get any tax break at all on their housing."
Renters are not paying interest on a mortgage, nor are they paying maintenance costs or real estate taxes... that goes to the landlord because like anyone who owns the home, they are responsible for any interest paid on it, and maintenance and property taxes... renters are not...
"The rich get treated better by our government than the poor do. Do you disagree with that?"
Yes, I do... We ALL have access to the same laws... you cannot fault a rich person for setting up their finances to benefit them the most. Instead of taking a salary, they REINVEST their money (which creates jobs and ADDS to the economy, BTW) to realize a ROI... This is what they pay themselves at the end of the year. And if they didn't, the government wouldn't realize anything either.
Warren Buffet is set up EXACTLY like this. He takes $100K / year "salary" and the rest of his $42 MILLION came in the form of capital gains AFTER his business was already taxed... He doesn't HAVE to do this...
You have either been brainwashed into thinking that you cannot create your OWN PIE, or you aren't but are willing to subject others to that line of thinking, and it rarely ever leads to prosperity...
I used to be just like you... interestingly enough, it was when I was robbing Peter to pay Paul... I encourage you to open your eyes and don't subject you, your family or others to the flawed concept that government is the answer...
...you don't get the time back... Best of luck... 8^)
"Renters are not paying interest on a mortgage, nor are they paying maintenance costs or real estate taxes... that goes to the landlord because like anyone who owns the home, they are responsible for any interest paid on it, and maintenance and property taxes... renters are not..."
Along with a profit factor and vacancy factor and a principle payment the renters pay the interest and maintenance and property taxes for the owner yet the owner gets the deduction as though the money came out of his wallet.
Joel,
"Along with a profit factor and vacancy factor and a principle payment the renters pay the interest and maintenance and property taxes for the owner yet the owner gets the deduction as though the money came out of his wallet."
No, the renters pays so that they don't HAVE an obligation to pay a mortgage, interest, maintenance and real estate tax that is subject to police powers of the state in the form of foreclosure, tax levy and fines. The renter is generally not there the life of the mortgage, and they can leave, the landlord can't and IS there. Only one gets the deduction as only one's name is on the mortgage and tax bill. If the renter doesn't pay, the mortgage et al STILL has to be paid. Want to get an interest deduction, BUY a house...
A rented home is no different than any other product. It is there to make a profit. If you are going to argue that the renter pays the above, you are also unwittingly realizing that whenever you hear the government wanting to tax business 'profits", they are talking about taxing everyone who uses their products NOT the business.
So just realize who they are after when they do so...
KAP,
You are a master at pea-shell logic.
To somehow arrive at the end of your sentence with the conclusion that the costs of a rental house are not paid by the renter is absolutely amazing.
CD,
"To somehow arrive at the end of your sentence with the conclusion that the costs of a rental house are not paid by the renter is absolutely amazing. "
Who pays when there is no renter or the renter doesn't pay but has to be evicted? And the court costs, and the maintenance that cannot be taken into consideration of raising the rent when the boiler goes or the septic or the water bill that the last renter didn't pay?...
Really no pea shell involved...
So, you really don't think it would make a difference if investments were taxed at 28%, just like my measly paycheck is? If anything, an increased tax rate will make people have to work harder to make the same amount as they did before the increase. This shouldn't be a problem since those individuals at the top have already shown that they have the best work ethic, and clearly know how to make all of the right choices.
KAP,
ALL of those expenses are rolled into the price of the rent.
The landlords are just as good of business people as you are with your cabinetshop. Just like not a single customer of yours gets an extra penny worth of value that has not been compensated for the landlord gets every nickel of outgo on his part.
Just like your customer pays for your cabinet the tenant pays for the building.
Simple math. Not hard to understand.
Wha?,
"So, you really don't think it would make a difference if investments were taxed at 28%, just like my measly paycheck is?"
Of course it wouldn't help... History shows us it won't... it would go right down the black hole of government and actually ADD more debt because it would INCREASE their ability to borrow... If it were written into law that it go to pay off the national debt and nothing else, I would support that as little as it is... but not for MORE government spending...
If you are in the 28% tax bracket (not your actual tax rate that you end up paying after deductions), then you make a minimum of $85K per year (minimum for that tax bracket, so most likely more) and to a person making $15/hour, you ARE rich and what you make would hardly be considered a "measly paycheck" since it is about twice the national average...
Mathwiz,
"ALL of those expenses are rolled into the price of the rent."
Market bears rent, otherwise, landlords would charge more or leave it unrented. The CAP rate is affected by everything. The expenses you are referring cannot assume a septic doesn't go, the water bill by the previous tenant is not paid, a boiler, a leak in the roof, a tenant not paying, court costs, etc... NONE of that can be accounted for in advance as they are variable costs almost impossible to account for...
"Just like not a single customer of yours gets an extra penny worth of value that has not been compensated for the landlord gets every nickel of outgo on his part."
This is indeed not the case when the tenant does not pay. It takes 2-6 months to evict a tenant, and this money lost, along with the court costs cannot generally be passed along to the next renter, as renters generally have 1-2 year leases. All the expenses have to be paid ANYWAY, so the lost profit AND the expenses that have to paid anyway eat away at the CAP rate... IOW...
Simple math. Not hard to understand.
And you think the renter should get the interest deduction... What about your shop? Do you think you should get to deduct the interest on your landlord's rental to you and not him?
Along that line of thinking, why don't we get to deduct the interest big companies pay on their loans since we are the customers?
Joel
The income disparity meme was covered in the 800 post thread ad nauseam you refuse to listen, but don't think my reticence means anything other than I'm tired of stating the same thing over and over. How it is you can't see the difference between a category and real flesh and blood people is beyond me, but I don't want to waste my time on it.
Jim Conklin and Kap get it the rest of yoos not even a little bit.
I must admit that in my early years of high school and college, I was a liberal on every issue except abortion. I then spent time working for the government at both the federal and county level. Even as a young adult who was naive about the world you'd be astonished at the amount of waste and abuse of power that goes on in government, it's crazy and it's get's worse the longer you are in it. Just like you can't beat the government, those who work for it who have good intentions cannot either. In 99.9% of the cases, a government worker will either quit or adapt their standards to government standards. I've had it happen to my father. Someone who 20 years ago would get into a fight with every law enforcement officer he ran into and spoke derogitory about their abuse of power (once had a bad cop threaten to kill him), this same person now doesn't do any more than the absolute necessity and brags about how many fines and tickets they write now that they are in law enforcement. He's a good man but at work...well it transforms you. You folks who think government is the answer are absoletly nuts and live in dream world. You may have great intentions, you may want the right thing, but government is not the answer. It has to be at an individual level. Would I love a world of peace, yes, who wouldn't? But believe me there are actually people who don't. But the politicians beat us into submission guns are the problem...no they are not. You put a gun in every honest citizen's hand in this nation and crime would drop over night by 90%. The government will protect us they say...you go back in history and show me just one nation who has every truly protected it's citizen's. I love this country and it's the greatest there ever was on the face of the earth but you can't even say that about this country.
My own mother whose in her early fifties plays the government game & collects it's handouts. Screams how the government isn't doing enough...it's the rich people's fault she's living in her sister's basement. But the rich people haven't gotten her divorced three times and the rich people don't make her only work 1/2 time 3/4 of the year. She just won't work anymore...j
Sorry, I know this sounds bad. If you knew me, you'd know me as a good guy. Good husband, great father, very charitable...but folks who can still believe the government is the answer...well I just think you're dull or blind. I just can't believe anyone could still think that after witnessing this last five years. Joel, some of you other folks...sound like really nice folks but you need to go work in a government agency for half a year and then come back on this forum and tell me you think government is the answer. Better yet, work there for six months...then try to change government for another six months when you are done beating your head against the wall then come back. I think you all have the best intentions but really the only answer is smaller, much smaller government. Get them out of our lives and out of our pocketbooks...but in order for that to happen American's have to grow up. We've lost our hunger, edge, faith, work ethic and we wont' get that back until we HAVE to get that back...that is until we are up against it and will starve or be in the streets without it. As long as the government is there just keeping us comfortable enough to keep us from being the folks we need to be, we will continue not to be. It's time to wake up, grow up & shape up...but it's going to have to happen one person at a time from the bottom up. Not from a program from DC or any state capital....we humans just don't work that way, afterall now matter how much technology we invent we are still humans. Humans cannot change from legislation...
Pat, I'll listen if you have something to offer, but except for questioning methodology which might skew results a little, you and Sowell have never presented any studies or facts that support anything contrary to the as yet undisputed growing income disparity. You both choose not to see the difference between an income groups and people because you're only able to formulate arguments that apply to individuals. It's an important difference you fail to understand.
Anon, my rant is about income disparity, not about the government. It's a part of the problems and part of the solutions.
Joel,
You raise some very good points.
Consider for a moment the ramifications of income disparity taken to an extreme. Jeb Bush alluded to this the other day when commenting on what extreme positions Romney took on immigration in order to pander to the extremists in his party. Bush said that even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting the nomination in today's political climate.
Demographic studies indicate that we are soon to become a dominantly hispanic nation. Take the percentage of hispanic children under age 5 and add 15 years to the age. When this group reaches the age that they want to start a family we will in fact then become a hispanic nation.
Many conservatives advocate denying these people access to our public schools. So what do you end up with when the majority of your population is uneducated?
If you have a lot of money you may seem immune but consider this scenario: I had dinner recently with a man and woman from South Africa. He was a British Barrister. She was an economist. They migrated to America with a green card. They really liked South Africa. In many ways it was much calmer than the US. The reason, however, that they moved was that their children were soon going to be teenagers and as such it would be much harder to control their whereabouts. If you have money in South Africa then your children lead very sheltered lives with much adult supervision...............behind two rows of electric fence.
When their children were young things were fine but as their children grew older the places they wanted to go did not have electric fences.
Consider the gangs in Long Island or any other major city in America or farming community in the midwest. KAP should try selling his concept about tightening up your boot laces in these communities.
It only took a couple of generations in Mexico to go from a fairly upwardly mobile nation to one where kids don't think anything of cutting somebody's head off just to make a point.
This is what happens to a society that locks whole groups out and pontificates to them about personal responsibility. We're not there yet but we've still pretty young in the cycle.
How are the wealthy going to feel when they need to band together in armed caravans in order to celebrate thanksgiving with the inlaws? (The ones with three rows of electric fence)
Nosta
Let's try another thought experiment. The last one discredited the economist Stephen Rose. He's the guy pontif pat and his merry men of misinform get their talking points from.
Here it is.
Are my children Hispanic ?
nostrodamus,
"When their children were young things were fine but as their children grew older the places they wanted to go did not have electric fences.... Consider the gangs in Long Island or any other major city in America or farming community in the midwest. KAP should try selling his concept about tightening up your boot laces in these communities."
As you can see for that family, the answer was not to remain part of a group that are exposed to that but to make a decision to leave and provide a better life for their family. They didn't need the government to make the decision for them to move out of that group... they did it themselves... if they relied on the government, they would still be there...
This is exactly the context of what I am talking about. The government didn't make the difference, the individual did... the "group" is irrelevant as it relates to real life...
Joel is stuck on a "group" that he conceded that he doesn't know what the government can do anything about as it relates to "income disparity", and they CANNOT. Anyone else who believe's government can do something... I am all ears... They have REDUCED the amount the bottom "group" pays in federal taxes to the point where they are not only NOT paying these taxes but are getting refunds (i.e. - income redistribution). And where has it gotten them?
When you become dependent on someone, you relinquish in the process your own self esteem, initiative, and will. This is true whether it's an abusive relationship, a gang, or on the government dole instead of providing a life for yourself. And the longer you are in that frame of mind, the more it becomes the new norm, and unfortunately, the next generation.
If government is the answer, why not just give all our money to the government that we earn, and let them dole it out as they see fit?
Until you get the concept that YOU, not anyone else, are responsible for your portion of the pie you are WILLING to accept, or better yet, make your own pie, you will continue on the same path you are on.
Why anyone would advocate the government as the answer to people's ills is beyond me...
Again... Anyone else who believe's government can do something as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"... I am all ears...
KAP,
It's real easy to leave South Africa if you are an English Barrister and an Economist with a green card. Not so easy if you have a job in a cabinet shop with a stay-at-home wife. All you can do is arm yourself and hope you have enough fuel for the generator to keep the electric fence juiced.
As Joel observed, your analysis only works for the individual but ignores the group. It is the group dynamic (eventually the mob dynamic) that will one day make it very uncomfortable to live in America.
Imagine our cities 20 years from now. They can hardly field a police force and the population is uneducated and very very poor.
Tell the guy who gets mugged for his groceries on his way to the parking lot that he should have just tightened his bootlaces and moved to a better quality neighborhood.
You are ignoring the fact that the income disparity is getting more and more severe and the implications to this are not just rhetorical. You conservatives are painting yourself into a corner just like Jeb Bush said. Even Lindsey Graham says it's time to dump the Norquist tax pledge.
You can't give all the resources to just the few. This has never worked in any society.
Socialist,
"As Joel observed, your analysis only works for the individual but ignores the group. It is the group dynamic (eventually the mob dynamic) that will one day make it very uncomfortable to live in America."
My point is the group is irrelevant as it relates to real life. If you are going to stay along this line of thinking... what can government do as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"?
"You can't give all the resources to just the few. This has never worked in any society. "
Who is giving what resources to whom?
Socialist you are on the mark, it is our society, not anyone's group !!! Bravo for putting it on the table, too many anti government arguments here have hidden agends in the name of taxes and spending
KAP,
Did you go to a publicly funded college?
Did any of your children?
Socialist,
Tell you what... I'll be happy to answer your question, but first...
"what can government do as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"?"
BTW, I am not anti-government... government has a role. I am anit-BIG-government. In the same vain that I am anti-crony capitalism... both are corrupt and not at all what this country was founded on and made her great...
KAP,
If you want to create a great citizen you need to educate them. This education needs to start in the home and be nurtured in the early school years. This costs money and can only be publicly funded.
My girlfriend's children attend the same grade school that Bill Gate's children attended. These are amazing children and the school is an amazing place. These kids are starting life out with a tremendous advantage.
Why we can't support this quality of education for every child is incomprehensible. We have the resources to do so and the need but we can't get our head out of our ass long enough to contemplate the cost-benefit of this approach. All we can see is cost.
The conservative movement can somehow rationalize not funding education because of a blind allegiance to dogma. I think if you look behind the dogma what you will really see is not a commitment to personal responsibility but rather a commitment to personal aggrandizement. Greed, simple and direct. They don't want to diminish their standard of living to assist someone else's.
This is one area that government can diminish income disparity. I would like to hear any of the conservatives on this forum please weigh in on what role they think government should take in education.
I would also like to know where they were educated and whether or not public funding was involved in that education.
Socialist,
Well, I guess the groups "income disparity/inequality" doesn't have an answer from you... Education is only ONE determining factor in life. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates didn't finish college. Einstein never even finished high school.
Even if education were the panacea that you make it out to be, education only addresses the next generation, not the existing "groups"...
"If you want to create a great citizen you need to educate them. This education needs to start in the home and be nurtured in the early school years. This costs money and can only be publicly funded."
If it can only be publicly funded, then why are there private and religious schools not to mention MILLIONS of home-schooled children who do more with less resources than publicly funded schools and yet score higher and have better results and do better in life in general?
If your concern is to REALLY help people in this way, give the people vouchers to make their own decision on which schools to attend and I GUARANTEE you public schools will not be the first option in most cases. If you are going to argue that it takes away resources from the public schools, despite them doing worse, what are you arguing for? To keep giving more money to a system that does worse? Sounds like government to me...
The chart pretty much shoots up over the years as it relates to spending on public education with less results.
Now realize that people that homeschool and send their kids to private or religous school don't get out of paying their property or state or federal taxes.
KAP,
Where were you educated?
Where were your children educated?
Was public funding involved in this education?
Socialist,
Again, I'll be happy to answer your question when you address...
""what can government do as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"?"
You guys are the one who think government can do something about it, I contend they cannot, that it is up to the individual. And the more government gets involved, the worse, not better, it is...
KAP,
I bet they have a really tremendous science curriculum at the home school you attended.
“They don't want to diminish their standard of living to assist someone else's.” Oh lordy lordy Socialist, you’re hitting the nail squarely on the head with that one. That’s the profit over people syndrome that has them go to church on Sunday to get forgiveness for being complete jerks the rest of the week.
As to "what can government do as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"?" That I don’t have an answer doesn’t lessen the problem. The govt is the only thing (besides civil war) that can put solutions in place to that kind of problem. While I think the earned income credit is a bazzar solution, this debate has me thinking it may be creditable as a part of a solution. The group at the top has no moral impetus to help.
“Who is giving what resources to whom?” It appears, from ALL the data I can find, the wealth has been moving to the top. Lower income groups are at the bottom of the ladder – HOLDING IT UP. What’s gonna happen to those at the top if they let go of the ladder.
This for KAP.....about individuals.
Socialist,
So I guess no answer? I can list off DOZENS of things, that people can do to change their life and move from one income "group" to another, and your inability to back up your claim and show how government can do the same shows who is the victim of dogma... the fact that you want to subject people to this line of thinking and subjugate them to a life dependent on the government is sad to me...
"I bet they have a really tremendous science curriculum at the home school you attended."
The funny thing about this is that homeschoolers test better, and are better set for college, and one of the reasons is that they learn to manage their time.
Since they do better, and it your contention that this is an example of addressing "income disparity/inequality", we would have to assume you are for homeschooling, right?
Kap,
I notice you have not yet answered my question.
Was the school you and your children attended publicly financed or not?
No obfuscation please.
Yes or No
Joel,
"That I don’t have an answer doesn’t lessen the problem. The govt is the only thing (besides civil war) that can put solutions in place to that kind of problem."
You don't have an answer but have come to the conclusion that government is the solution? Really?
"Lower income groups are at the bottom of the ladder – HOLDING IT UP. What’s gonna happen to those at the top if they let go of the ladder. "
Cute analogy, but not representative of real life... explain how the lower income groups are holding up the ladder...
.
"I notice you have not yet answered my question. Was the school you and your children attended publicly financed or not?
Aside from the fact that it is irrelevant, I told I would be HAPPY to answer your question after you address:
""what can government do as it relates to "income disparity/inequality"?"
KAP,
I already answered your question.
Earlier in this thread I advocated for public financing for college education to those people who would trade work for school.
The reason you don't recognize this as an answer is because you refuse to accept as valid any thing that disagrees with your point of view. You are like Michele Bachman in this respect and, like her ability to somehow defend her husband's farm subsidy, you somehow won't tell us whether or not your education was publicly financed.
I have already read Alice in Wonderland.
Socialist,
"I already answered your question.
Your answer is create a viable education system? HOW? More money? Putting aside the fact that they spend MORE than their private counterpart with less results, HOW does this address income disparity/inequality? Especially in existing generations?
"The reason you don't recognize this as an answer is because you refuse to accept as valid any thing that disagrees with your point of view."
That's not accurate... I learn all the time, but you have yet to put forth a viable POV on this other than to say, just as Joel, that government is the answer without any specifics on how that will get them from one group to the next... you don't have the answer, just blind dogmatic obedience to the concept that government is the answer.
If you REALLY believed education was the answer to income disparity/inequality, why would you not be advocating vouchers for education to let the PEOPLE decide for themselves where a better education is?
KAP,
Stay on message.
The money, however, has to come from somewhere.
Maybe we have a twofer here.
We could create better children because they'll know everything they have is what they personally created. The money can all flow directly to school vouchers. Hardly any government touch at all.
How do you feel about using inheritance tax as a mechanism for public good?
PS: If you can't find an answer in this response to your question about what government can do to affect income inequality you are not looking hard enough.
I think you owe me the answer now to my question: Did you or your children receive public financed education?
I am also curious about what you think we should do about inheritance tax law.
No talking points please, just answers.
Socialist,
"We could finance school vouchers with an inheritance tax. Since we all agree (you most of all) that assistance from any source kills self-determinism, is harmful to the human spirit and keeps people from becoming all they can be maybe we can redirect assets from those who no longer need them to those who do."
No, I do not agree that assistance kills self-determination. DEPENDENCE (i.e. - 99 weeks, etc.). I have never argued that we shouldn't help people, just not as a way of life. THAT is what kills self-determination.
I do not believe that the government after taxing you your whole life should then be party to your demise and tax you once again.
No, the answer lies between... By giving people vouchers, you will do for the public system what is already done in the private system, you CREATE competition, which FORCES costs down making the whole education system cost less instead of WASTING RESOURCES.
KAP
You asked me to answer how the government could affect income disparity.
Those are both valid answers.
Now you owe me an answer.
The terms were not that you had to agree with the answer.
Pay up.
(You two are on to something with education.)
KAP my focus is NOT on moving anyone between groups. Stop obsessing with that. (I'd feel better if I knew you understood that. Not sure you do.) It is in bringing top and bottom groups closer together, or, at the very least, stopping the growing spread between groups.
“You don't have an answer but have come to the conclusion that government is the solution? Really?”
Really.
“explain how the lower income groups are holding up the ladder.”
Tendencies…Those towards the top 'may' provide the work but those towards the bottom DO the work.
Unless I’m mistaken (I hear Pat moaning in the background) you’re acknowledging there’s a growing income disparity between the working (key word) income groups toward the bottom and the group towards the top. Your suggestions might give good balance. Something must be done. A communist govt would have a solution overnight. A Socialist style govt would handle things fairly quickly. Our capitalist democracy takes forever (or longer – think budget) to solve problems. A balance will come to be – planned out, or otherwise.
Individuals have some control over their personal income group but groups have ZERO control. Again, the bottom working income group will forever be the bottom group. Right now it is getting screwed. The top is being deitized, if that’s a word. My disgust is the growing spread between top and bottom income level groups. That that keeps getting ignored in rebuttal is why I keep pounding it out. And again, the bottom group will always be the bottom group. PERIOD. The bottom group has little control (unions aside?) of the level of income relative to the top.
KAP,
Inheritance tax does tax YOU again, it taxes your heirs. You are not taking anything away from them that they earned.
How about this as a panacea? No income tax for anybody. Finance all government with inheritance tax.
How would that accord with your beliefs that people should do for themselves?
Or are those beliefs just the ones you trot out when convenient?
Is this another way government policy could affect wealth distribution?
I have given you several viable answers that directly affect income disparity.
You still need to give me an answer.
Was you or your children's education publicly financed?
"Inheritance tax doesn't tax YOU again, it taxes your heirs. You are not taking anything away from them that they earned."
Pat always says I refuse to change my thinking. To his way of course. That little sentence has changed my opinion on the inheritance tax. It may not be so oppressive after all.
Now, if I don't get these 2 bids done that were supposed to be done around noon, oops, it's pushing 2, I'll be dropping to a different income group.
I'll chime in on education. I went to public school and it was aweful. Even though I graduated with a wheelbarrow full of awards and scholarships it was taught by 90% of teachers who had an agenda and 50% of teachers who'd pass you for "being nice".
I refused to send my kids. They are 5 & 7, are homeschooled and are 3 years ahead in school even though they only go to homeschool for 2 hours a day. My youngest who would start K in the fall can read anything you put in front of her, do better math than some of the folks working for me and she could teach you a thing or two about science Socialist. Don't even get me started on the oldest...I feel dumb around him. You are nuts to think the answer is government...it's family. As the family has broken down so has our kids & nation. I still pay all my taxes and finiance my own kids homeschool education. Public school is glorified babysitting anymore...and real babysitters usually have more authority.
Anon,
Do you think every child should be home schooled?
Anon,
Do you think all of your employees have the skill sets to home school their children?
Do you think we should have teaching colleges at the university?
I don't get the problem with income. Or wealth. It's not like there is a fixed amount of it and that some get more entails that others get less - like the fat guy on the see-saw. It is easy to fall into a semantic trap when seeing a graph entitled 'income distribution' of thinking that incomes get distributed (tho some wish they would). Incomes get earned. Someone gets 10 million because someone else is willing to pay it. Someone can't get above $25/hr because no one is willing to pay over that for the skill set/warm body. So, you do the work. So what? It is valued at the prevailing rate. Legislate that it should be more ('a living wage' for low value-added activities) and watch the job disappear. Some other work has a different rate. An investor 'works' their investments.
Income disparity is not the issue, the low will always be there, and so will the high. The issue is a shrinking path or incentive for people to migrate into higher valued activities. And inflation squeezes us all.
I will certainly choose a public school over home school, or any religious school, any day. I will tell you what the answer isn't. It isn't to cut funding to public schools. A few states have tried that, look at how they are doing.
Lets stop letting religions off the hook for taxes, in fact, tax the shit out of em. That should just about clear up all of our debt.
Jim, unless we move off this planet there actually is a fixed amount of wealth. Nothing can keep growing forever except egos. But, that’s for another 800 post thread sometime.
“Incomes get earned.”
My definition of earned may be different than yours.
“Someone gets 10 million because someone else is willing to pay it.”
Other times they get ten million cause they (have ten million to) rig the game, and other times people pay it because they HAVE to.
“Income disparity is not the issue, the low will always be there, and so will the high.”
I’ve said that all along. It’s the growing spread that is the problem.
Government run ed is the best way. Things break sometimes - fix it. The voucher system has merit but home schooling will only work for a few. Nobody's at home, much less capable, to teach. It takes two to generate that "household" income, where it used to take only one.
Wha,
I'm not so sure that I agree with you about the state of public schools vs home school (religious or otherwise). I don't have enough information to make that call.
I do agree with you about taxing the businesses owned by the churches. As near as I can tell a lot of them are not much more than a huge McDonald's franchise.
We should at least require that church property be appraised so that we can decide whether the contribution they provide to communities exceeds the value of their tax exemption. It could be that government or private business could, for example, provide homeless shelters or soup kitchens at a lower cost. We're going to need more of these in the future so it would be best to understand the opportunity cost of subsidizing religion.
Is subsidizing religion another example of socialism?
Ok, no 800 posts, but, not to let you punch-and-run, wealth has proven to be upwardly expansive historically. In that it relates to how people value 'things', there is no theoretic nor physical limit.
"Other times they get ten million cause they (have ten million to) rig the game, and other times people pay it because they HAVE to."
So you are admitting that 'income disparity' is not the issue, but that increasing income disparity is a symptom of cronyism, corporatism, semi-closed markets, human nature asserting itself among the ruling class? As I said, the causes are more important than 'disparity-as-an-issue'. Taken as an issue per se, the proposed fixes mal-address the causes and introduce a whole new set of distorting consequences.
"Government run ed is the best way."
I agree that education is a good. It has to be good to be good and people have to take advantage of it...learn, apply themselves. I fear that too many are insulated from from the essential wisdom of 'get it or languish'. I hope by "Gov't run", you mean local gov't.
“So you are admitting that 'income disparity' is not the issue, but that increasing income disparity is a symptom…”
Yes
“I hope by "Gov't run", you mean local gov't.”
Yes, Eliminate the Dept of Ed. Make things state run with funding help from the feds that would force some continuity. Sounds good to me – but what do I know.
Yes, most of our parents could if they had to homeschool...but only if they had to. My assertion is that we are to the point where you have to. No change is going to happen in the schools/government until the $ is cut off. Everyone pull their kid out until you can send your kid to the school of your choice where discipline and values are taught. Not liberal agenda and just be nice shoved down our kids throats, not to mention everyone else's belief's are appropriate but yours/I mean the traditional American values. Get rid of the bad teachers...but this isn't going to happen. We aren't anywhere close to being that mature and sacrificial as a group of americans today. Many more americans could live on one income if dad could still fix the car that they bought used with cash and didn't spend on the latest gadgets, saved the money on childcare because someone is home with the kids and aren't spending 3x the amount of $ on fast/prepared food. But of course that would mean we didn't get divorced as often as now happens and that would mean grandpa & grandma would need to help out. Remember when retirement didn't exsist? Is it really better to spend the last years of your life doing what you want whenever you want or could a lot of that energy be spent on your kids/grandkids...but again that means sacrifice and thinking of others. We are a me society and we are going to have to hit bottom before that changes. Am I living in a dream world to expect this of the"group" of American's, yes...it has to be made one person, one family at a time.
In the name of family values I must ask "whose family"?
In the name of traditional American values do you mean Islamic Americans or Hispanic Americans or African Americans or Native Americans or Gay Americans?
Or do you mean Americans that came from Europe a couple hundred years ago?
How do you get rid of a bad teacher if you home school?
You don't seem to favor liberal agendas.
How do you fall on the divide about evolution vs creationism? Should we teach our children about dinosaurs or teach them that the world is only 6000 years old?
What about Christmas?
So many options and so many people to include. Just like you Anon, I really wish life was a lot simpler. I miss the days when I could tear the fix the carburetor on my volkswagen with a coat hanger. That first VW with fuel injection changed life as I knew it.
For what it is worth, my folks were thrifty people who grew up in the Depression, fought in the war and saved every nickel. I would not have wanted them to homeschool me or my kids.
Mr Rodgers,
Outside of maybe Islamic (and even there we may find agreement on a vast majority of issues) and Gay Americans...you take Hispanic, Black, Native, white family values of 50 years ago and they were pretty much the same. Martin Luther King Jr. is turning over in his grave at the values our president holds true. Now, MLK would be glad that a black man was president but would strongly oppose a vast majority of his beliefs and policy.
Or do you mean Americans that came from Europe a couple hundred years ago?
How do you get rid of a bad teacher if you home school?
Simple, enough parents pull their kids until the school can no longer be funded (you do know schools get paid per kid, right?). I know to many teachers who have recently started homeschooling...they don't believe in the public system anymore either.
You don't seem to favor liberal agendas.
How do you fall on the divide about evolution vs creationism? Should we teach our children about dinosaurs or teach them that the world is only 6000 years old?
That's a whole book in itself, but if you think that is the only two options you aren't very educated on the subject yourself. Believe me most folks just take what they are spoon fed on either side of that arguement and hold blindly to those beliefs. Do I belive the earth is millions of years old and we crawled out of the swamp...no way, but I could explain my creationist beliefs in a way that fits with science if someone had a day or two to just sit and listen or if they wanted to read the books... but most folks have to much of an agenda to do that.
What about Christmas? America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs...if you don't believe that you are nuts or just don't want to believe it and if you close your eyes and ears long enough and repeat it then it'll eventually become truth to you...Yes kids can celebrate Christmas in school.
What's lacking is common sense in this country. Everyone has an agenda. And yes, I do believe a lot of it comes down to faith & our choices about our faith. Listen, you want to be gay...fine, I don't get it but it shouldn't be illegal. But when you start saying the Bible says it's okay to be gay, you've got to be nuts- plain and simple. Seems to me you've got an agenda...fine I do to. Yours is the more popular one these days...I get that. I'm not politically correct, I get that. But the liberal progressive agenda is anti-Christian, anti-family and pro-government....I'm sorry as unpopular as it is today I just can't stand with it. I think it's backwards. If you want to send you kids to schools like that, then go for it. I prefer kids have a choice.
So you are pro-choice?
Ut...oh someone's got some splainin ta do.
Even the fed admitts the truth
Joel,
"KAP my focus is NOT on moving anyone between groups. Stop obsessing with that. (I'd feel better if I knew you understood that. Not sure you do.) It is in bringing top and bottom groups closer together, or, at the very least, stopping the growing spread between groups."
My point is there is nothing the government can DO about any perceived or real gap between the incomes. HISTORY shows us that time and time again under every political and economic system.
Kahlikid just posted a link. Contrary to what he thought it shows, it demonstrates what I have been saying all along. The BOTTOM income group experienced 100% drop in net worth, the 2nd and 3rd quartile, saw a drop of 40-50% and the top 10% saw a drop of 6.4%. Now the bottom income group can look to the next and claim "income disparity/inequality" because they only lost 40-50%, and they lost 100%. Are they wrong?
IOW, the groups are irrelevant to you as an individual. But if more individuals focused on their own pie, instead of looking to a government that AT THE MOST can give them other people's income, which does nothing but make them dependent on the government, the groups and any movement in between will take care of themselves.
The more people who become dependent on the government the WORSE it gets, not better. You can't decry crony-capitalism and not get this... at least the crony-capitalists create wealth and jobs...
.
"Was you or your children's education publicly financed?"
Although I disagree that you posted an answer to my question, and as irrelevant as it is, I went to a public school.
Kap ,you are without a doubt the used car salesman of woodwebbers.
Kahlikid,
"Kap ,you are without a doubt the used car salesman of woodwebbers."
Opinions vary... :-)
But you know what they say about opinions...
KAP,
Now that we have crossed that Rubicon I would like to develop a question that I asked about earlier. You have a mind that can parse detail. I thought I would direct the question to you (though I ask it generally for all who have strong sentiments about church and socialism).
The reason that church property is not taxed is because it is assumed they provide social services that would otherwise need to be provided by local government.
This assumption might be true but we still don't know if it is good policy because we don't know the value of church property, i.e., it is simply taken off the tax rolls and has no valuation to examine. If we were to assign a dollar value to the (non-temple) assets of the church we could easily figure out how much revenue they would generate if taxed.
If we similarly assigned a dollar value to their contribution to the community,( ie., what it would cost to hire it done by private industry or government entity) we could then make a rational decision about whether or not it would less or more expensive to provide those services another way.
Here is my question: IF it turned out that community dollars were flowing to the church (i.e., we forgave tax revenue in excess of the value of charitable contribution) would this be considered as an act of socialism???
Socialism, in this case, meaning for the benefit of society.
So is this the longest running thread in Woodweb history yet?
This thread illustrates the problem and uselessness with political threads in general on a Woodworking site. Nothing has come of it! It's become a forum for everyone to post their opinions, and their facts, and their agendas, and all b/c they feel the have their moment on the soap box....yes I'm including myself also. We started out with the "state of the trade" and now we're talking Creationism...really? Has anyone changed their positions since the beginning? Has anyone solved a single problem? Has this thread produced anything useful for anyone? Pete?
Why not....simple, there's no right answer! Heck there's not even a "right" problem! If you can't get people to agree on the problem, how could you possibly agree on the solution? There is no right and wrong here, no black and white, these are just personal beliefs we've acquired individually from each of our life experiences. An endless spectrum of gray.
Some guys seem pretty convinced we're heading for certain doom. That our government is bound to fail and that those who don't see it are blind....maybe? Of course people have been predicting the same thing in different ways since man had the ability to produce a coherent thought, (more than 6000 years ago in my opinion anyway). How many people out there spend countless hours trying to link Nostradamus's predictions to real life events? Or some past civilizations calendar....(better enjoy life now as all this is gone Dec 21st for those who don't already know:>)). Don't forget asteroids from space, solar flares taking out the grid, super volcanoes, end of days, and on and on.
What's the point.....simply this, the more we learn, the more we find to fear. There are so many things that could end life as we know it tomorrow, whether it be a failing government or a supernatural event, or a simple car accident on the way to work. You have to ask yourself is it better to enjoy life as much as possible and appreciate what you do have today, or do you really want to just sit around and keep ranting about how it should be better?
I'm not advocating burying one's head in the sand either. If you guys really want to make things better, get involved in your local government and try to make a difference. Just being involved in one question on a small town ballot will make far more difference than anything you could post here over the rest of your life!
I'm just hoping to illustrate the uselessness of expending the energy here. Just b/c you believe it firmly does't make you right, nor does it make the other guy wrong. So no matter how many posts you type, your not going to change anyone's mind here. At best you'll be involved in the longest running thread that didn't accomplish anything. As opposed to my recent thread on shaper tooling which only had several responses, but made an impact on a real life buying decision:>)
carry on....
Oh and not that anyone asked me, but I went to parochial school. My son will be going to public school come September, and I'm confident he will have a better education than I did.
Pro-choice? I guess you're just jesting? How could you come to that conclusion? In fact, can anyone explain to me how they come to that conclusion? This is one I cannot understand, no matter how one explains it. To me there is no other issue that points to how far our society as fallen. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to anybody with a conscience as far as I can understand...
Anon,
Sorry about the confusion.
It was a cheap shot on my part.
Good luck with that question Socialist. Be prepared for stuttering. Most of the souls that portray themselves any flavor of religious are hypocrites extraordinaire in as much as they are loving socialists on Sunday yet anything but that Monday through Saturday.
Jeff,
You are a good writer and have strong critical thinking skills. Parochial school did you well.
I disagree with you about the value of political discourse on these forums but do agree with you that maybe they should be on a forum of their own titled: POLITICS & BUSINESS. As Pat and many others have pointed out politics is a very big part of our business environment.
And continuing education. I would guess threads like this get a lot of eyeballs, if only for entertainment value. I would suspect also that some people actually benefit from them.
My recent diatribe about the whether or not subsidizing the church constitutes socialism is, for example, a brand new thought for me, spawned from this thread.
Maybe we should have a dedicated forum for these topics. The woodweb people have been fairly gracious about our use of their space. They've only pulled one of my posts (a benign one at that) on this thread. Their business needs the eyeballs too.
On a slightly different trajectory I think you should get used to these dialogs. My hunch is that we pick our 2016 presidential candidates from a slate of internet parties rather than republican democratic party bosses.
Jeff "If you can't get people to agree on the problem, how could you possibly agree on the solution?" True. That's why my focus about growing income disparity. People are finally starting to acknowlege it, and that it's a problem. That will help eventually with a needed solution.
Anon, "I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to anybody with a conscience as far as I can understand..."
While you might not agree I'm certain I could help you understand.....but not here.
Well your right Joel, Here's a solution go to work everyday work hard and watch the guys in the shop that know what they are doing so you can learn. Then as you know more you get paid more and maybe one day you can open your own shop and make more than you did before and only get on woodweb during your lunch time or after work because that way you get more done and more money coming on here. ok lunch is over have to get back we have a 10 month back log to deal with.
Pinetree, more examples of how to help an individual do NOTHING to help the group.
Joel,
Here is an option that could float everybody's boat:
We could develop charity based trade schools for teaching people to maintain electric generators. Going to need somebody to install the electric fences. That part could go to those who attend public school and consequentially are only qualified to dig fence post holes upon graduation.
The generators are going to need fuel.
It's a win win for everybody.
Kali
The splaining is that the statistic is based once again on households which is specious I explained this ad nauseum on the mega thread last year. As usual you and Joel won't Look, which I'm beginning to think is a prerequisite to being a woodworker?
Jeff
Nope 600 more posts to top the 800 post thread last year of which KAP, Economics 101, Anon, and myself thoroughly explained all of Joel and Kalli's "concerns" but they are still saying the same things?
Once again regarding the income disparity meme from Economics 101:
There's been a lot of chatter about an alleged "growing income disparity."
It's all based on totally false premises.
Every single bit of it.
A little history of this trope is in order.
It started in the '80s and has continued ever since with claims that wages had stagnated.
Based on BLS's "average earnings of production and non-supervisory workers" series. Usually falsely stating that it represented 80% of workers.
80%?
Funny stuff, considering that half of all US workers earn salaries, not hourly wages.
Never mind the 30+% of total compensation in the form of fringe benefits that's not included in the BLS wage number. Not to mention the increasing use of part-time workers in retail and low-skilled immigrants which drags the average down.
BLS admits that the series is incredibly statistically flawed for many reasons and plans to discontinue it.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, if you're a valued hourly employee, you continued on your track to higher earnings based on your increased productivity.
Real (inflation-adjusted) compensation per hour (including fringe benefits) has risen about 50% in the last 30 years.
That's reality.
Per capita consumption is up by about the same amount. That's also reality. "Rich" people didn't buy all of the good stuff for the last 30 years.
"Wage stagnation" was and is a statistical hoax.
Then, along came economists Piketty (France) and Saez (Berkeley) about 6 years ago. They reported that the top 1% of taxpayers accounted for 16.1% of REPORTED tax return income in 2004.
OMG!
This got widely converted by the economically illiterate media to 16% of all PERSONAL income. And repeated by people like Senator Jim Webb and many other influential people and newspapers all over the country.
Except that the top 1% actually only got 10.6% of all PERSONAL income in '04.
The huge discrepancy is due to the fact that the REPORTED tax return income figures Piketty and Saez include no transfer payments (welfare of all varieties and stripes) and they then went on to exclude Social Security payments.
PERSONAL income is actually about 35% larger than REPORTED tax return income.
Oops.
16.1% was really 10.6% of PERSONAL INCOME.
Still, even 10.6% was much higher than it was in 1980, so there must be SOME increasing disparity.
Right?
Well, no.
The remaining appearance of disparity was caused by tax rate changes.
The top personal rate dropped to 28% in '88 from 50% in '86. Lots of C-corp returns became S-corp returns. People aren't stupid, they take advantage of lower rates and reported more personal income at the new, lower rate. 28% beats the 35% corporate rate. The trend started in '83.
In 1981, only about 8% of the income of the top 1% came from business. By '04, it was over 28%.
Can you say S-corp or LLC or partnership? Can you say flow-though to your personal return?
That's called tax-shifting. 5 hunks of important tax legislation in '86, '90, '93, '96 and '03 were responsible. Flow-through filings rose about 10% per year since '86. Not to mention other tax-motivated compensation structures that resulted in more personal income being reported.
The problem for the "growing income inequality" crowd is that income shifting from C-corp tax returns to individual returns didn't make anyone any richer.
At all.
The income was always there, it was just being reported differently.
If you knock the shifted business income out, the top 1%'s share of PERSONAL income is a little over 7%.
SAME AS IT WAS IN THE '80s.
But people like Senator Webb got all excited and said widely quoted things like "8% has doubled to 16%!" because they didn't have even the foggiest notion about the underlying data. Nor did the listeners or readers.
And it got propagated far and wide. Throw in the "evil bankster" meme and there you have it. We're all being screwed by somebody, even if exactly who that is always remains totally indeterminate and a mystery.
Not to mention that most investment income of middle-income taxpayers is now inside 401Ks and IRAs and the like and is invisible in REPORTED tax return data. Which further distorts income shares.
All of this elaborate myth-making has been in the service of justifying higher taxes on the so-called "rich," a total misnomer because income in any given year has little to do with actual wealth.
But, slagging the "rich" was the whole idea. It's the reason studies like those by Piketty and Saez are produced in the first place. What's distressing is how many people have been totally fooled by all of it.
At this point, it should be obvious why "gini" disparity figures are sheer rubbish.
And, it should also be obvious why the nonexistent and carefully cultivated mythology of a "growing income disparity" isn't due to "cronyism" or anything else. It simply doesn't exist.
There will always be the rich, there will always be the poor, but the relative income ratio between them will always be about the same (very large, just because of the large variation in human talent) because both groups are always made up of a changing group of people. Just like we have raised about 18% of GDP in federal taxes whether marginal rates are high (91%) or low (28%) over the last 60 years.
As Illinois and California (and all of Europe) can testify, if you want less of something, say, growth and jobs, tax it more.
Which is why our only way out of this mess is lower taxes. On EVERYONE. But especially on those who might actually be inclined and able to create a job or six. Combined with much lower spending.
I don't know about you, but no bum on the street has ever offered me a job.
The only person or entity that can offer anyone a job is one with financial resources. We compete with the rest of the world for capital that enables jobs.
Or, we wind up like Europe. It took them a few decades to get there, but they did it. I won't even mention Greece, they're not a serious country, 25% of Greeks "work" for the government, the rest of them cheat on their taxes or government subsidies, and then wonder why they're bankrupt.
We, too, can get there via higher taxes and spending, but I don't think you'll enjoy either the ride or the destination.
A couple of additional tax points.
The '03 tax cuts actually resulted in over 2/3rds of them going to the bottom 90%. It's the reason that some of EVERYONES taxable income is taxed at only 10%. The so-called "rich" got a disproportionate share of the cuts only because they pay a disproportionately high share of income taxes. Their share then INCREASED after the cuts.
Extending those cuts benefits the vast majority of taxpayers both absolutely and relatively far more than the few.
The 2% FICA payroll tax cut went to employees, not the employer.
If an employee FICA-tax cut had become law back when I employed people as an incentive to hire anyone, I would have laughed at it. As I'm sure many of you did when it actually happened. I'll bet that there's not one shop owner here who actually thought seriously about hiring anyone because of the 2% employee FICA tax cut, never mind did so.
It was essentially yet another welfare program, except that it was administered by the IRS. There was and is absolutely no incentive to hire someone based on a small, temporary tax cut of a few hundred dollars paid to a prospective new employee. Which is why it had no effect on unemployment and still won't if it's extended.
Worse, the employee FICA cut amounts to saying "Oh, yeah, and about that Social Security retirement benefit you're "entitled" to (not really, any given Congress could decide you're not entitled to anything at all) and therefore you have to pay for it? Never mind, you don't have to pay for part of it, we just made that part 'free.'"
Yeah, that'll work.
Which is why one can support extension of the marginal-rate cuts but not the employee FICA cuts.
He's baaaack. Good post Pat - I knew you had it in ya. Way too much to disect today though. I gotta get back to work to maintain my income group status.
Socialist
You are assigning the pathology of this situation to the 1%?
My contention is that the real problem is there are individuals who benefit from creating conflict. This story is as old as it gets, you even see it every Disney movie, and most people are unwittingly being played by this simple tactic. Ayn Rand illustrates this tactic superbly through a character named Ellsworth Toohey in a book called the Fountainhead. Who insidiously attacks the protagonist Howard Roarke from the shadows of the collective(group think). Here is a speech that gives the gist of what the book is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsNO0
What is a fountainhead? Glad you asked a fountain head is the headwaters or source of something. What is the source of the economy? In my estimation it is free trade for the reason explained in this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html?quote=777
So how do you determine what is true and what is an individual looking to gain power? You have to employee a more and more anachronistic technique called LOOKING. Most us are not looking even though you are absolutely convinced you are looking and that I'm the dumb ass.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
So who do we believe? You have to look for yourself you should not allow the "helping individuals" to tell you what to believe. Just Look.
Has socialism created a better standard of living or has it been individuals following their own interest?
Do you want to be use the invisible hand or be bitch slapped by it? Do you want to Look or drink deep from the Kool Aid well?
Pat,
Socialism is all around you.
If you drove there on a public highway then you are the beneficiary of socialism.
If you drink from the community well then you are drinking from a socialistic water supply. I doubt very much you purify your own drinking water and compost your own waste.
All of these socialist enterprises are needed in order for the individual to succeed.
Socialist
Capitalism is all around you. The road often started out as a toll road or was just a path followed by the trail breakers, the water well was privately dug before it was taken over by the city, the school was paid for by private citizens getting together to pay for the school marm.
You idealistic ideas sound great but in reality are anything but.
Did you consider anything I said in the previous post?
Sigh...
Taxman/Socialist,
"Here is my question: IF it turned out that community dollars were flowing to the church (i.e., we forgave tax revenue in excess of the value of charitable contribution) would this be considered as an act of socialism???... Socialism, in this case, meaning for the benefit of society."
You have a flawed definition of socialism.... "for the benefit of society" can be applied to all political AND economic systems.
Money does not flow FROM the government to the Church, because they do not pay taxes that need to be refunded for overpayment, just like every other charitable organization. Money does not flow from the government to the people, but from the people to the government and then BACK to the people after being sifted and WASTED through the bureaucracy... HIGHLY inefficient.
"Socialism is all around you.
This is incorrect... everyone would have to use public schools with the outcomes being "equal and fair"... No, school's allowing for UNequal and merit-based outcomes are more equivalent to market-based approach, but where the socialism comes in (and makes it worse, IMHO) is the "equal and fair" as it relates to teachers and administrators and the inability to fire them based on merit. THIS is where it ends up costing MORE. It's not the kids that cost more in public schools, it's the socialistic approach from the ones in charge...
Nice try though...
Pat,
Do you think we should all dig our own wells?
KAP,
A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy.
A tax abeyance given to the church is also welfare, filtered sometimes by greedy ministers who drive around Bentleys and commute in helicopters. *This a nod to your government filter.
The welfare we extend to the church is no different than the welfare we extent to the bad woman.
A subsidy is a subsidy.
Including all the welfare you enjoy because you no longer have to pay Pat a toll to drive on his road or drink from his well.
Socialism is all around us.
Joel & Socialist,
Joel, on a seperate note...sorry to say I won't ever understand abortion. A parent killing their own children, it's incomprehensible in my mind and heart. Sorry, there is no convincing me on that one. There are things I'm willing and open to learning and listening to...sorry this ain't one. You can reason it away all you want but it's wrong, period.
Anon,
You look too hard for a message in my writings. I am ambivalent about churches. I can see all the good that they do and all the bad as well. I do have a hard time believing that any of these ministers actually have God on their speed dial and God given logic tells me that Jesus didn't look like a Norwegian in a shampoo commercial. My hunch is that he looked kind of swarthy like all the other people from the middle east. Your vision may vary.
But I am not on a rant about religion nor about capitalism. If we let Pat be in charge of the well then the water probably wouldn't be as pure. I don't think he would necessarily regulate himself. Maybe he would but what about KAP?
What I object to most is extremism. It's easy to poke holes in extremism and that what you see in my threads. KAP can only see things literally. I developed a very well reasoned argument about the merits of subsidizing charity. I would just like to know the value of the subsidy to see if it is good policy. He is convinced that since the check was not mailed back that the subsidy does not exist, ergo no welfare.
Evaluating things based on good policy is a better approach than knee jerk reactions based on ideology. Some conservative ideas are great ones. Some liberal ideas are too. The best ideas are probably in the middle. It's when you have to pander to extremism that you paint yourself into a corner. What is needed today is options.
I agree with you about abortion. I also question the right-to-life group about how it is they can choose to buy dog food for Fido when there are starving children all around them. When you ask about this they justify it by saying that they are not perfect so therefore that proves only Jesus is perfect. I have a hard time connecting those dots. I think those other children have as much right to life as the unborn.
People make compromises. This is how they get through life. Without compromises we all perish.
Joel, Guess who make up the group? That's right individuals do. So you have to start somewhere and then your group will change.
@Socialism:
"Including all the welfare you enjoy because you no longer have to pay Pat a toll to drive on his road or drink from his well."
That is really disingenuous.
We do pay a toll, called highway taxes, embedded in every gallon of gas - a use tax - pay to ride. Property owners pay county taxes in my state that also cover road maint. Ditto with water. Most muni's have a water authority - and people get billed by the MUA based on usage.
Well, boys and girls, I now have more than enough fodder to complete my thesis:"Aberrant Human Behavior: The Direct Correlation of Declining Productivity and Workers' Earnings in the American Workplace and Its (arguable) Effect on the Increasing Wage Gap Crisis vis-a-vis The Constantly Increasing Amount of Time Spent on Internet Business Forums Arcanely Decrying Our Governmental and/or Social Structure."
Next Monday, because of my concern for the wage-gap crisis, I will tell my 2 best and highest-paid employees, who have been with me for many years, that I will be cutting their salaries in order to increase and equalize the salaries of the 2 guys that I have just hired, both of whom have their degrees in Philosophy and will need at least 6 months of training before they are even close to being functional in the workplace. After all, fair is fair.
The next day, my old pros will tell me "Goodbye" because they know that they have marketable skills which has a higher value than that which I assigned them in order to even the playing field. Obviously they have no charity in their hearts.
Jim,
You are absolutely right. Socialism costs money. It is not a gift.
In the case of water and roads it is less expensive to have the government to provide this than buy it from Pat or Kap.
Would you want to have Comcast own your source of water?
Would you feel confident having unregulated low bidder in charge of maintaining the water supply? This is where capitalism doesn't work.
Capitalism works very well when I go to buy shoes. Nordstrom often didn't have what I wanted so I went to JC Penneys. I eventually learned that I could have JCP send the shoes to me over the internet. That worked until the clerks got so stupid they couldn't write up an order. I now buy my from a company called Online Shoes.
Anon, I TOTALLY respect your ideals, beliefs and conclusions. Let me just say, there's very seldom good justification to end a human life. (Here or in Afghanistan for that matter.) And, briefly, life begins at conception, human life does not begin at conception.
I don't much care one way or the other about religion except that separation of church and state is very important. I'm an agnostic, yet my wife is of a very religious nature. My father was a Methodist minister so I was around the pomp a lot but it wasn't pressed on me by any stretch. I've read the bible, wrote a thesis way back when on Science and the ideas of God. I enjoy in person debates, except with my wife :-) Online though tends to become too heated. Religion seems peculiar and very outdated to me but I don't fault anybody for it. Old habits die hard. The arrogance and hypocrisy I see from those holier than thou does get to me sometimes though, especially in the business environment. I can make very stinging observations sometimes.
Sorry, I should have underlined the word 'welfare' when quoting you.
welfare is a transfer of payments consumed by people other than those paying it, not a use tax like water or roads. Is socialism 'welfare'?
Oh yea now I remember why I quit posting on these type threads.
On the off chance that someone is actually interested in learning something the link to Matt Ridley on post 207 is well worth the time spent on it.
Joel & Socialist,
That said, and maybe I'm giving KAP the benefit of the doubt (I do struggle with some of Pat's stuff...he might take it a step to far for me now and again) but I don't see the literalism or extremism in his comments. I don't think he is against government, just big government because I believe he understands how ineffiecent, power hunger and deabiliting it can be/is. Maybe he is naive about some of the free markets ability to regulate itself. I think both you and Socialist probably have just as good of intentions, but I belive you are naive to borderline knocked up side of the head about the good government can do (as it relates to it's effiency, power, and waste). There is no doubt there is a place for government in utilites, education, safety net, etc but the government has to be regulated by it's people (just as it needs to regulate those who won't regulate themselves)...problem is the people rarely win in regulating the government anymore. It has grown to big, to powerful, to twisted. It buys off the electorate (by both sides). The only solution I can see to this problem is two fold. One starts with the government. We must put mandatory term limits and a mandatory budget (must live within our means). Second one starts with the people, and as bad as this sounds I don't think will happen like I stated earlier until we hit a depression and gain back things like our hunger to work, importance in family, sacrifice, and the importance of our freedom. Like a fat man or a drunk...we as a nation have to look in the mirror and see what we've become and then start to get our life as a nation back in order.
I know that sounds naive, too simple and obviously there are a million details on the edges of that we can and will fight over but that's the bottom line in my opinion.
Yes Jim.
Any flow TO the government is tax.
The net difference between the two will tell you who benefits most.
For example, do bankers receive more NET benefit than people sitting on their sofa all day in their pajamas?
I don't know the answer to this but I do know both groups are probably net NET beneficiaries.
My point to exasperated Pat is that everybody, even Ayn Rand, is a beneficiary of socialism.
Anon
The term limit thing does not work, we tried it here a few years back, what happened was the staff stays on and influences the new senator and the collective agenda continues. If you want to see what not to do just look to this state.
I will agree with you about the real problem and I hope that this forum does not reflect the rest of the country. I think probably O will be fired.
As far as education and government NO it does have a place in education and certainly not at the federal level created by Carter. The tyranny of democracy just perpetuates itself through the schools. At the very least the union busting voucher system is the way to go. As far as the budget goes it will be interesting to see which union eats what other union as the money dries up here. The only real place government works is rule of law and national defense and they get abused as well.
Regarding the budget if we just got rid of most of the corporate subsidies the budget would be balanced. On the other side we need to get rid of entire agencies like the Energy Department (Carter again) otherwise the money drain will continue.
Socialism
The examples of the benefits of Socialism you bring up can easily be provided for a fraction of the cost by the free market.
If you want to see real benefits look at the benefits of comparative advantage that Matt Ridley talks about which he states actually differentiates modern man from the Neanderthal which perhaps explains some of my exasperation? (8^(l)
Pat,
Socialist,
"Any flow TO the government is tax.
Non-taxation is not flow from the government to Churches. For it to flow from the government, they would have had to collect it in the first place to let it flow... otherwise, all income is welfare, and the government letting us keep our percentage is welfare. Obviously, this is not reality, so again, your understanding of socialism is flawed.
In the Church's case, if we were to tax them, this would be money taken DIRECTLY from the service it provides to the local, regional and national recipients. Catholics don't only give to Catholics, nor Protestant to Protestant, etc...
That is like having a bake sale for a cause, only to tax it to give to the government under the auspice of helping that cause. Less money for the cause lost in the black hole of government. Why in the world would you want to do this? And the kicker, according to your reasoning, the money the government would return back to the cause would be considered welfare.
All that said, noone is saying we should not help people. Where this gets us in trouble is when it is no longer help, but hindrance... a great example is 99weeks of unemployment. Companies look at people who take 99weeks as an increased liability as the company pays towards unemployment. If they have been unemployed for 6 months or longer, they don't even generally get considered because the people who collect this don't generally better themselves with all that time they have.
So what was supposed to help them, hurts them, as it will take even longer to get back in the workforce and their skills will be less marketable.
You don't get the time back... a life less lived...
That indicates some naivety regarding the indoctrinating culture of the beltway.
Which further indicates the necessity of changing the real problem you discussed earlier. Culture is a very powerful influence. I recently worked at a job doing trade show dismantling of a 20,000 square foot exhibit during which I lost about 7 lbs in 2 days as they have a culture of it is going to be done on time period. Me thinks the beltway is the antithesis of this. And that is what has to be changed by the real problem or this country WILL fail.
Kap,
Do you think business that are owned by the church should be taxed at a lower rate than cabinetshops?
Socialist,
"Do you think business that are owned by the church should be taxed at a lower rate than cabinetshops?"
What business... be specific...
St Vincent De Paul woodshops.
Socialist,
"St Vincent De Paul woodshops.
Do they sell it to make a profit to give back to the community after expanses? (think Shindler)
KAP,
You are good at answering questions with questions when you have no answers.
Let me rephrase this:
Given the separation of church and state that this country was founded on, do you think we should subsidize religion based business enterprises? Non catholics have to pay additional taxes because catholic churches have excessive lawyer fees these days.
Do you think we should expend national treasure subsidizing these enterprises?
Methodist / Socialist / Taxman (make up your mind Sybil),
"You are good at answering questions with questions when you have no answers. "
No, I am simply getting all the information before giving my opinion as we can see you ask straw men questions and details are important.
Since you did not answer it, if the company is started with the intent of using the proceeds/profit to benefit those they service, no... Since there can really be no other purpose, as the assets remain with the Church which ultimately end up in service, again, no...
If it were started for individuals to profit in the Church personally, that is a separate business entity and would not be associated with the Church finances and therefore subject to business taxes/laws, so your point is mute.
Remember this phrase... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof..."
KAP,
You (and Pat) are fond of extolling how inefficient government is.
If we could provide the same social services the church provides at a lower cost would you be in favor of doing so?
What if we could do this at a lower cost by taxing church real estate (do they really need to own more than a temple, parking lot and parsonage?) for fair market value then applying the savings directly to bringing down the national debt.
Would you support at least examining the value of this real estate to get such an appraisal of opportunity cost?
Or do you think we should just assume the intentions are good so the subsidy is worthwhile?
Methodist,
You operate under the assumption that it all belongs to the state, and we are apparently serf's to be ruled and apportioned our treasure. IOW, government knows best... I couldn't disagree more... I don't believe the government subsidizes Church's because the government, just as the Church, gets the money from a supposed free people.
The question you ask is irrelevant and the reason is you don't have very much to convince your question has any basis in reality therefore it is invalid.
Show me ONE, just one, social program that the government started, where it not only cost what they said it would, but did not EXPLODE in cost... because you will never find one where they actually saved money...
When it comes to the money, we are better off with a small government, and people are better off with making decisions for themselves as it relates to money... government has shown it is INCAPABLE of doing what you hypothesize, so it is a useless exercise...
History is not on your side...
KAP,
Is everything you disagree with irrelevant?
Methodist,
"Is everything you disagree with irrelevant? "
Absolutely not... only things that have no basis in reality...
The kicker is, the very thing you ask about the Church can EASILY be applied to the government in many, many areas because the private sector has shown time and time again that it can reduce costs, increase efficiency, and SAVE MONEY. The problem is, the government (and you apparently) feels they have a right to this money.
The GOA has shown the government literally WASTES HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars ANNUALLY in duplicate programs. It is already defined for them! And none of the politicians, except the ones they call "extreme" are willing to do anything about it. So instead of saving it, they BORROW this money from China, and will have to pay interest on it FOREVER...
And this is the entity you want to give MORE money to under the auspices of SAVING money and LOWERING costs... So yes, your point is irrelevant when you look at history and facts instead of hypothesis...
You can't make this stuff up...
Methodist,
Instead of hypothesize... show WHY we should give the government any more money by addressing this....
Show me ONE, just one, social program that the government started, where it not only cost what they said it would, but did not EXPLODE in cost... because you will never find one where they actually saved money...
One of the MANY reasons why socialism fails everytime it's tried...
KAP,
If somebody disagrees with you are they wrong?
KAP,
Many highway programs cost way more than originally budgeted. Do you think these type of socialist endeavors are a bad idea? Do you think we should go back to Pat's toll roads?
Methodist,
You crack me up...
"If somebody disagrees with you are they wrong?"
Until you provide facts that support your side, you leave the vacuum open yourself, so you leave the wrong sign flashing above your own head... unlike you, I have addressed all your points, even when you didn't answer questions clarifying your position.
All I am doing is giving you facts while you answer questions with questions after you accused me of the same...
You're being silly... and your lack of answers to back up your claims or positions demonstrate the unenviable position you find yourself in trying to defend socialism...
So we are left with?... lol
Best of luck... 8^)
KAP,
You have exactly two answers for any question: "big government is bad" or "that's irrelevant so I won't answer".
Then you go on to back up your argument by saying "big government is bad".
I get it. You don't like big government. Everybody should just dig their own well, move to a better neighborhood, tighten their bootlaces.
Everytime you are shown an example of socialism your respond with "socialism fails everytime it's tried.." If you really believe that go dig your own well.
@socialism
"Any flow TO the government is tax.
The net difference between the two will tell you who benefits most."
Innarestin' definitions of socialism and welfare. No wonder i couldn't keep up. Last year 47% of my money went to taxes and fees-posing-as-taxes - fed-state-local-property-sales-whatever suck hole has the power to extort. How do I measure the net flow-back to me so I can see where I stack up in the benefit groupings?
Cuz I'm feelin' the squeeze and wanna make sure I get mine!
Methodist,
"You have exactly two answers for any question: "big government is bad" or "that's irrelevant so I won't answer".
Your answer is "big government is good" or you just don't answer...
Go back and re-read our exchange... only one of us wasn't answering what was posed, and it wasn't me... in fact, go back and look at our exchange, and I only said it's "irrelevant" to one subject you were talking about BECAUSE you couldn't provide a basis for the question. I even explained to you WHY it was irrelevant and challenged your reasoning and you still didn't address it. Again, another assertion with nothing to back it up.
"Everytime you are shown an example of socialism your respond with "socialism fails everytime it's tried.." If you really believe that go dig your own well."
Your examples of "socialism" are flawed as it relates to the actual definition and application of socialism.
We actually have our own well, but we also have a connection if we want to use it to the community well which is privately owned in our town.
Pat, I liked those vid's, very interesting thoughts....thanks for posting the links.
Can I ask a question.....why is Socialism such a dirty word these days? Now I wasn't around but it reminds me of stuff I've seen and read about from the 50's and Communism. Which apparently was seen then as the evil of all evils! I understand as a country being afraid of the Soviet communist party in particular, but communism as an idea seems to have been vilified?
I have very little in depth understanding of either, (as I guess is true of most people), but to me they are, along with capitalism, forms of governing people and an economy. I don't think any of the three are bad or good per se, but just different ideas on how to accomplish something. And as ideas go very easily argued look better on paper than capitalism. It's the 'in practice part' where things get murky...at least IMO.
Here in the States we quite obviously have a Capitalist society and it seems to have worked so far. Though several hundred years is a pretty short lifespan in the overall scheme of things. For instance compared to Asian dynasty's which lasted for thousands of years. But still, it's gotten us this far, and is to my knowledge the longest running democracy of it's type. But as any form of government there is no strict definition on what is allowed, or not, in a Capitalist society. So we get loud cries of "Socialism" when one group feels they don't like certain social aspects of their government. In my opinion our place in the world has been carved out by Capitalism and it is the only way to maintain it. It will not change regardless of what social programs our government engages in. It's the whole "slippery slope" argument that's used when logic and reasoning cannot be.
Is municipal supplied water Socialism? The more important question to me is why does it matter? I chose to live in an area where I need to have water supplied to me. I chose where to live, I pay for the water, and also for the disposal of the waste water. Is it a capitalist program or a socialist program.....I believe it could be part of either. It works in a capitalist society and it would work in a socialist society, albeit the details of compensation may change. At the end of the day it in itself does not change the form of government.
Communists have roads and highways as do Socialists.....in reality all forms of government provide roads for their citizens. (Let's leave out the historical aspect of why roads were really established for now!) So what does it say that all forms of government provide roads? It says to me anyway, that the act of building a road does not constitute a type of government. Governments regardless of type provide an infrastructure for their citizens.
Of course where everyone takes aim is actual social programs, i.e.. welfare, food stamps, social security, unemployment etc.. This again becomes much too complicated a topic for anyone to fully disect. Let's all take a step back for a moment and look at the overall picture. Those on the left generally lean towards maintaining and expanding these programs. Those on the right generally lean the opposite, and would like to shrink and cut them to some extent. I however have not heard even the extremists talk about completely eliminating all these programs? So that to me implies that having these programs is NOT a bad thing. Nor is having them turning our government into a Socialist one. Instead it's widely accepted that we need these programs to some extent and the bickering is over size and quantity.
So my point after all this rambling?....I see the word "Socialism" in todays context as being used as a dirty word to describe those opposed to more liberal beliefs. It has little to do with the idea of a true Socialist society, which I would think most reasonable people understand we are not.
Sure the current leader leans towards the left, but that does not mean he's creating a Socialist government, anymore than when the left was crying that Bush was going to extend term limits to maintain his hold of power, implying an altogether different form of government. These are just mindless banter, mud throwing by both sides to scare people who don't know better, (and unfortunately it usually works!), and it will continue for the next 4 years regardless of who's in office. And as a side note, having been privy to the leadership of the current challenger, I feel pretty confident there will not be much improvement regardless of outcome:>( We may just have slightly different things to complain about.
Maybe I'm wrong? I don't know, but I just don't see the point with arguing about this being socialism, and that being socialism. We're a capitalist society which is trying to figure out how to take care of it's people to some extent in a time where most of the free world is in an economic crisis. Is everything working....nope, but show me another government that's doing it better?
Hmmm, come to think of it...China's doing pretty well;>)
JeffD
Jeff,
You raise an interesting point about China.
They also have a balance sheet any family in America would aspire to. In fact they even own huge parts of America.
How can this be? PAT? KAP?
Socialist speaks much better to his points than I do KAP but it's frustrating to see you completely ignore his points. Socialistic methods are laced throughout our society and I can't imagine many things working better any other way. The important difference, at least to me, is these methods seek results rather than profit. Schools, Fire stations, Law enforcement from local cops to CIA, Military bases. I'm certain if pressed you could add to the list, starting with your little towns privately owned community well, a totally socialistic enterprise if it's operated to generate water as opposed to profits. I certainly wouldn't want any of those things to be run for profit only. Capitalistic flaws for profits do probably make some expenses skyrocket as you point out when criticizing govt run programs. You know the kind, the “thank you thank you moment Pat drools about when the govt buys a hammer from a seller for $200. It's certainly arguable as to whether it's capitalism or socialism that's screwing with the expense ledger the most. I’m all for capitalism but it’s gotta be laced with some socialism. For you religious folks to understand…a little of Sunday needs to be spread onto Monday through Saturday.
Jeff, capitalism works for profits, socialism works for results or production of.
Communist...China is hardly a capitalistic society. It's overwelmingly a Monday through Saturday sprinkled VERY lightly with Sunday.
Poorly mixed metaphor's. China's Monday through Saturday is Communism, ours is Capitalism - kinda.
Joel,
You have to be careful with metaphors.
That invisible hand of capitalism is like the tree that falls in the forest. Nobody can hear it so therefore it is irrelevant.
Joel,
"Socialist speaks much better to his points than I do KAP but it's frustrating to see you completely ignore his points."
I don't know how in the world you can come to the conclusion that I ignored his posts. Posts are numbered, please feel free to point out which ones I "ignored" in our exchange... as you will see, I addressed each of his points and questions...
"I'm certain if pressed you could add to the list, starting with your little towns privately owned community well, a totally socialistic enterprise if it's operated to generate water as opposed to profits."
The private water system we are on is serviced by the same company that services the 550K town one town over...
Socialistic ideas are not the same as socialism, just as capitalistic ideas are not the same as capitalism, but the more you IMPLEMENT socialistic ideas, the more you put a drag on the economy. The more you implement capitalistic ideas the more a country thrives... hence China...
It's kinda' like a boat with oars... the more people paddling, the easier it is for EVERYONE, the more others sit back and rely on others to do the paddling the HARDER it is for everyone...
If socialism is the way to go, why don't we mandate that everyone buy vehicle insurance, everyone has to get somewhere right? What about life insurance; we all die... or at the least burial insurance? Why not mandate what we can and cannot eat? Why not mandate that everyone buy an electric car? Why not mandate everybody buy new cabinets or remodel their home, etc...
It's all beneficial to us as a "collective", right?
Because in each of these examples, you GIVE UP your freedom in the process. There are plenty of places in the world you can feel free to subjugate yourself to that environment if you choose to, but you don't... as a matter of fact, you don't see people flocking to do so like they do to come to here... people literally DIE trying to get here for that promise of freedom. We can just get on a plane or boat...
Kinda' tells you all you need to know...
Jeff
Thank you for looking at the videos I linked.
Socialism is a form of government that provides more services for you through more government interaction with the market place.
The Constitution of the United States defines our form of government as limited and market driven.
Advocates of socialism contend that without regulation the country is run by corporations. I will admit there is crony capitalism, but look for yourself and look for examples of monopolies that exist for any duration that are not monopolies through government. I have not seen any evidence to this argument.
The Capitalism advocates argue that government agencies that provide the services are permanent and cost an ever growing amount. Examples of this are starting with Teddy Roosevelt and the anti trust laws for Robber Barons, Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve central bank regulating the currency, income tax, and U.S. senators elected by popular vote which has lead to tyranny of a democracy (google this to understand it better), FDR who gave us social security and it unfunded liability, LBJ who gave us medicare/medicaid and the 100 trillion dollar unfunded liability because he also allowed the money that was taken for this purpose to be put into the general fund and spent, Carter who gave us National education, the energy department, the Community Investment Act, Clinton then morphed the CRA into the agency that created the current economic mess. Truthfully though Clinton was more conservative than anyone since Reagan, and now Obama with healthcare and the consumer protection agency. All of this adds up to a huge burden on the economy and money that would otherwise be spent in the free market is instead taken to pay back borrowed money to pay for these services currently 40 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed.
The real question is which form of government works the best which means gives the highest standard of living. Of course when you borrow the money you can live high on the hog until you reach your credit limit.
But there is also a social aspect to this which ironically comes from Capitalism which gives people a better life. My definition of life is that life is a game. When you are regulated and safeguarded and told that we will do that for you the game is not very fun. As they say: Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO what a ride!
Look at the difference between N. Korea and S. Korea, West Germany and East Germany, China (15yr ago) and Hong Kong or Taiwan.
This video indicates what has actually WORKED through out history and therefore is a recipe that should be followed and the free market is clearly a part of that which is also indicated in Matt Ridley's video, it also warns that when it is not followed the end is abrupt and not pretty.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_pr As I stated earlier a huge part of this conflict is the politician who stands to gain votes from creating the straw man. So it is vital that a person Look for himself (Kathryn Schultz video) and take the rhetoric with a Large grain of salt. My advise is not to allow anyone to tell you what to think that is yours and yours alone and you should not allow anyone to rent space in your head.
Dunno KAP, maybe you're missing our point rather than ignoring them. Mandates had nothing to do with socialistic tendancies, Socialism or Capitalism in my post. Your cities well is a form of Socialism in that it is run to supply water as opposed to supplying profits. Can you agree with that?
Pat, KAP, is the city that runs and owns KAPs water well a socialistic or capitalistic form of government? Does it have to be one or the other? I don't know.
Socialism but in the scheme of things who cares that is trivial.
I know in my city it was private but then was "annexed" and the price has gone up not that is necessarily from government being more expensive but I would not bet against it.
Pat,
In the Soviet State of Washington liquor used to be sold by state owned stores. An initiative sponsored by Costco just privatized these sales.
The theory was that competition would drive the prices down but in fact prices have for the most part gone up.
I know that this is trivial so therefore irrelevant, but it is a fact nonetheless.
There are a lot of things that government can do for less money than private industry. That's why Romney was the key proponent of Obamacare when he was governor. Go figure.
There is more to that story, do your Paul Harvey imitation and tell us the rest of the story.
There are very few things that the government can do cheaper please give some examples.
single payer healthcare
Yea right that is categorically not true. The best example is in England the 2nd largest organization in the world behind Red Chinese army who's healthcare is known worldwide to be laughable and as with all government ponzi schemes have to ration the heathcare.
Pat,
Think voucher system payment for medical services with the services being provided by for profit healthcare centers.
Most of your healthcare costs today go to the cost of processing paperwork for insurance companies and/or the insurance carrier's profit. The insurance companies have a lock on premiums on a state by state basis.
Get the insurance companies out of the picture altogether and see what happens to cost. Let the medical centers compete for your business without having to compete with the insurance companies to get paid.
Pat,
You need a throttle for your arguments.
The government's role in my health care has not changed an iota yet my premiums go up each year.
Insurance for myself and a healthy 21 year old girl is now $1065 per month with $6000 deductible between us.
Nothing says we have to model our delivery system for the health care. We could allow 7-11's to park as many MRI machines in the back as the marketplace would support.
The health care providers can compete any way they want. A once a month blood pressure test by the lady the health care company sends to my office to cut my hair would get my dollars.
Nothing about this precludes a single source for paying the bill. Why I also have to feed an insurance company actuarial is beyond me.
So Pat, think throttle. It is possible to blend capitalism with socialism. Even the Republican candidate for President thinks so.
I don't know a lot about the particulars but in general when the government gets involved the cost goes up as with student loans and the cost of education or housing loans and the cost of housing. This is the case with medicare and its influence on healthcare.
There is also not a lot of interstate competition for health insurance which keep the price artificially high.
Healthcare today is a lot more involved than the past when you would just be dead. If allowed to healthcare will evolve as our industry has allowing technology and competition and exchange through comparative advantage to improve the industry. This will not occur if the government hierarchy is allowed to continue. This is where Lean can work wonders.
Once again there is more to your story regarding the insurance.
The problem is that your idea will eliminate competition and exchange.
Also think bottom up not top down.
Pat,
Let's imagine you have a cabinetshop where each time the cabinetmaker gets ready to make a cut with the saw or run a board through the widebelt sander he had to come to you see if it was an allowable operation and you had to go to the contractor to see if he would pay for it.
Let's imagine there were several contractors involved and some of them were building out shoe stores and some of them custom kitchens.
Think about how much of your total cost accrues from the guy at the saw vs the contractor's bean counter.
Maybe the government could solicit bids from private industry to manage the single payer system.
We have vehicle insurance, life insurance, disability, etc... ALL of them cheaper today than 20 years ago with better product for less money... the one difference? Government is not in charge, competition is...
Same goes for phones, computers, internet access, etc... this is what competition does... it forces innovation and price improvement when dealing with large numbers of people... Government, not so much... has the OPPOSITE effect. Do you dispute this?
All government run healthcare does is expose taxpayers to the same inefficiencies and wasted money in the Medicare/Medicaid system that they have been able to fix for DECADES...
It's the same around the world... Canada, Great Britain, Cuba...
And they are alot smaller than us...
No no no
The essential ingredient is competition no matter how much you think the government can create that it is much subject to individuals following their own interest (seeking power) inside of the collective, very much at the expense of the program.
Joel,
"Dunno KAP, maybe you're missing our point rather than ignoring them. Mandates had nothing to do with socialistic tendancies, Socialism or Capitalism in my post."
Missing a point and ignoring them are two different things, but I did neither. I addressed all the points, unless you can find a post with a # that I didn't...
Mandates are FORCED under penalty. If you don't do it, this is the consequence because it is for the "collective". CHOICE is the opposite.
"Your cities well is a form of Socialism in that it is run to supply water as opposed to supplying profits. Can you agree with that?"
No, the company that runs it, runs it for a profit... It was the reason I identified it is as private...
KAP I don't know why you brought mandates into this, they have nothing to do with this conversation. I'm mistaken about the private city well setup I guess. If it's run to provide profit, not water, I assume they are paying taxes on that profit and most everyone is paying a different "free market" price per gallon then. Am I correct?
KAP,
Do you think all wells should be privately developed and managed?
Be kind of tough to do in downtown New York don't you think?
Pat, "when the government gets involved the cost goes up as with student loans and the cost of education." True but the private sector is why the costs are increasing....I think. The govt's effort through loan guarantees of making education available to a broader spectrum of the public is being taken advantage of by the ever multiplying "colleges" that make their money not by teaching but purely by having names on a list. They are charging more and more for less and less. They don't have to be concerned about kids being qualified or care if they even have any interest in going to school beyond getting the money. It's the next housing bubble.
I have to ask you guys this. When do you work? It seems like at the end of our work day I get on and get an email that there is 30 new post. When do you guys work?
Joel,
"KAP I don't know why you brought mandates into this, they have nothing to do with this conversation."
They fit right into it as it relates to socialism versus competition (i.e. - free market)... mandates provide a guaranteed business revenue... They don't have to compete for it. Health care for people would benefit like every other insurance, IF it were opened up to competition across state lines... As we can see from Canada, Great Britain, etc... who are now looking to private industry because their government system cannot do it...
"I'm mistaken about the private city well setup I guess."
There was no "setup, Joel... you just didn't read it. But that's my fault, right?
"If it's run to provide profit, not water, I assume they are paying taxes on that profit and most everyone is paying a different "free market" price per gallon then. Am I correct?"
Well, I do not have a water bill as I have a well, but my neighbor spends about $35-$40/month, and if I remember, there is a tax on that each month. Then the company that provides the water must also pay their tax, so the government gets two bites at the apple, all of which are paid for by the taxpayer...
.
"Do you think all wells should be privately developed and managed? Be kind of tough to do in downtown New York don't you think?"
You kind of answered your own question, right? It seems to me that anytime private companies can do it better, we should... The city is an example where that might not be the case...
The challenge is not that private industry couldn't do it better, it's that the money the city would save by doing do wouldn't go back to the taxpayer or pay down debt... they would just waste it...
Joel
It is supply and demand more money is made available the price goes up.
Additionally the professors and unions and the tenure process and donations from alumnus make the colleges not have to respond to the market place.
KAP,
So you are saying we need a blend of socialism & capitalism?
Social Capitalist,
"So you are saying we need a blend of socialism & capitalism?"
You have a flawed definition of socialism...
KAP,
At least I deal with the full deck of cards.
This forum is populated but many great minds, which I have come to admire in years of valuable and indespensible advice.
Although it is very entertaining, it is also very sad to see creative minds simply spewing party dogma.
Politics is a trap. It is a loaded deck, designed to divide the population.
All of you are beyond this.
Michael,
I appreciate the admonishment and I agree that perhaps discussions like this belong on their own forum. That would at least allow the original posts to stay on message.
I disagree with a couple of the parts. The reason threads like this go on and on and on is because they have legs. People are interested in them. I suspect the eyeball count is higher for this type of post than some others.
The reason these threads happen at this particular forum is partly because some people think the political climate is a big part of the environment our businesses live in and other reasons might simply be that this is where we live. If we were all fly fishermen then maybe the debate would be about environmental policy and habitat.
There are some beneficial aspects to threads like this. Joel says he has softened his stance on inheritance tax laws as a result. I myself came to the epiphany that perhaps the tax exemptions we provide to charitable organizations might actually constitute socialism, i.e., using the public treasure for the common good.
KAP jumped all over that because he has a more limited interpretation of what socialism is. (According to KAP if it isn't according to KAP then it is wrong or simply irrelevant). This leads us to a discussion about what actually does constitute socialism.
We all know, as Jeff pointed out, that a lot of debate is just histrionics. He asked "why is Socialism such a dirty word these days?" If you watched the Repubican Presidential candidates debate they threw those words around like McCarthy did about communists in the 50's. Michele Bachman despise socialists but somehow rationalizes her husband's family farm subsidy as being good for the small farmer, backbone of America.
So debates like this get people talking and that is better than just getting your politics in sound bite form from some talking head from the TV station you agree with.
I can't count how many times arguments I have advanced on this forum were rejected merely because they started out in the NY Times. That's kind of close minded.
David Brooks has a column in the NY times. He doesn't like Obama. (Maybe Pat would be willing to read him if he knew that.) Mr. Brooks thinks the 2016 Presidential platform will include a third party that introduces it's candidates on the internet. This platform has got to be a lot better than whatever you can stuff into a three minute response on TV.
So I think these threads are useful.
And while they are tinkering with the website maybe they could include a forum dedicated to lean manufacturing like that Schultz guy keeps lobbying for.
Tim
I'm glad I could help you to better understand this subject. (8^(l)
I'm telling ya Lean can useful in government big time as illustrated by your fellow Washingtonian. The beauty is that it is bottom up so it bypasses the union bs.
This doesn't need a different forum. People that object can just skip the thread if they want to miss the fun and lose the chance to challenge their brains. My thumb is up to everyone here!
KAP, You have a flawed definition of most things, and you are hopelessly stuck in the bubble.
YUP.
Pat
I have to go with Matt Ridley's theory of those who understand the value of exchange are modern man the ones who don't are the Neanderthals.
Or check out the Kathryn Shulz talk which is more to the point.
Oh my, some writings to help understand what I've seen all along. I'll probably get that book from Mooney. Thanks for the link Pat R :-)
Pat Robertson / Socialist Entrepreneur / Methodist, etc... forget it, takes too long to type.. we'll just call you Sybil...
"KAP, You have a flawed definition of most things, and you are hopelessly stuck in the bubble." & "KAP jumped all over that because he has a more limited interpretation of what socialism is. (According to KAP if it isn't according to KAP then it is wrong or simply irrelevant). This leads us to a discussion about what actually does constitute socialism.:"
You are very good at throwing out charges that you seem to have trouble backing up... so consequently they carry little weight...
You seem to be of the position that if government pays for it, it is socialism. That's not how it works.
Your religion example fell flat on its face...
The fact that you linked to a book that is not ranked in the top 10, nor 100, nor 1000, but is ranked on Amazon currently at #2,343 speaks volumes... if you go further down the page, you'll note that "people who bought this book, also bought" lists all liberal authors... could you have a weaker argument... doubtfully...
socialism
— n
Your examples lack substance... EVERY political and economic system has in it all aspects of every other. The difference is which is the dominant culture or foundation...
Your challenge is history is not on your side as it relates to socialism. In fact, I would argue that it is the adoption of socialistic programs that are putting a drag on our country.
But the funny thing is for all those who are arguing about "income disparity / inequality" and "groups" fail to realize this one point... when you woke up this morning, there is only one person staring at you in the mirror... you!... no group
The main difference between what you are arguing for in socialism is bringing DOWN those who have to "equalize" everything. The difference between what I am arguing and for which there is historical evidence for, is bringing people UP... You view the pie as fixed, I KNOW the pie is ever-expanding and better yet, you can make your own pie... I wake up everyday unemployed, and we have to make the argument to our clients to hire us...
It makes me sad that so obviously intelligent people can come to the conclusion that subjugation to the state is a better life and WORSE arguing to subject others to the same...
I think the idea of a future presidential candidate being introduced via the internet is an interesting one and I've heard a similar prediction before. I'm not sure the country as a whole is ready for that yet....but then again if you asked me 7 years or so ago if the country was ready for a candidate of African American descent....???
Here's an question I've wondered about for some years now, and though it's slightly off topic, humor me for a minute as it is related. Why would someone in this day and age want to become president? Yes it's a serious question. You see when I was growing up....say grade school years, being president was something unimaginable. The leader of the free world. Only someone truly great would strive for such a position.
Fast forward to today....and I look at it differently. Overnight roughly half the world, including your own country, instantly hates you. A small amount of people actually want you dead, and out of that group surely several or more will try in some way, shape, or form to assassinate you over your term, (luckily the secret service does a pretty good job of keeping you standing). You lose any 'free' time you once had as every minute of every day is planned and filled. Even your vacations are planned and scripted and someone is watching over you constantly. Your daily grind consists in meeting people who ALL want something from you. The people who support you want you to do one thing, the people against you want another thing, and what you want doesn't necessarily fit into either side! Your constantly being attacked and smeared, you can't go out in public without scheduling it and having a parade of defense around you. Your decisions can affect millions of people for good or bad, and you make them knowing even some of the ones you feel are good and for the betterment of society will surly hurt others. And for all this you make what....several hundred thousand a year or so? Then after your term you still require protection everywhere you go for the rest of your life!
Now contrast that to the life of a somewhat above average successful entrepreneur....basically someone with all that's required to become president. You go wherever you want whenever you want. You have the ability to enjoy all that life offers. You can go out in public with little regard to people recognizing you or harassing you. Nobody is after you for pictures or harm. And your salary is whatever you can make. You can live wherever you want, travel wherever you want, do whatever you want whenever you want to. And if you want to change a policy that affects one of your businesses...you hire lobbyists to go and do it. Throw enough cash at the problem and it goes away and you don't even have to leave your yacht!
So why would someone want to become president? Or more importantly, what type of person would want to be president? I question whether we can ever have the kind of leader who will be able to change Washington? Those type of people, the kind of guy, (or woman I guess?), that can walk into a big corporation, grab it by the horns and change it's direction towards profitability....probably aren't going to be in the race? So for all those looking towards positive change in the next election, or even the following....where does that leave us???
JeffD
KAP,
Nobody is arguing that socialism is better, just that it is already all around us. Your mother doesn't want to give up her medicare and you won't either when that time comes.
It would be great if we could all do everything for ourselves but you know, we can't. So we band together and make a community effort.
KAP, you need to relax more. Just take a big sip of the koolaid. Pretend it's ice tea and you grew the tea leaves yourself.
PS: Don't know who this Pat Robertson fellow is, (obviously an imposter) but I will be happy to known as Sybil. (You're going to be known as Sybil too when you consume that first medicare benefit.)
When one slings some crap at a wall he must be prepared for what splatters on him, i for one do not want to exclude opinion yet the hardliners appear to work pretty hard to invalidate it. on the other hand, my mother said to me "Honesty without compasion is intended cruelty"
My question to you, is there anything about our country, our government, our president or your fellow cabinetmakers and peers moving thru a difficult and complex time caused by many faults and unrepairable with out cooperation by all concerned that you could find something good to say ?
Compassion is still available in America!!
New article
i am still surprised the forum uses Anonymus names, this is left over from before good security and is not allowed on many forums anymore. it is good to own your crap and makes it as strong as your vote. unless you are hidding something. Just be who you say you are other wise most of the posting is pretty invalid and just meant to be inflamatory
So why would someone want to become president?
I think there are 2 types of motivation one is an addiction to the admiration that comes with the office. I think Schwarzenegger and Obama and many celebrities haven fallen prey to this one, I have to admit it is addictive why even myself have gotten so much admiration from posters like Joel and Kalli that I have to watch out for this trap. (8^(l) The other motivation is to help. I think that all but the most depraved have this motivation.
I question whether we can ever have the kind of leader who will be able to change Washington?
Some are pretty amazing Reagan, Kennedy but for the most part they are just a reflection of us which is the problem.
Those type of people, the kind of guy, (or woman I guess?), that can walk into a big corporation, grab it by the horns and change it's direction towards profitability....probably aren't going to be in the race?
Administrative skill is much more rare than political skill. First off you have to find something that people want and then get everyone working toward a common goal. Think Stephan Jobs, Jack Welch, Edward Deming, Taiichi Ohno type guys.
So for all those looking towards positive change in the next election, or even the following....where does that leave us???
We are on the edge of a precipice. Things might start improving if the current president is ousted if not I would look into a change of venue.
James
You honestly don't think that is a tactic to get Latino votes?
It shows greater empathy to give people freedom from the tyranny of government.
Sybil,
"Nobody is arguing that socialism is better, just that it is already all around us."
That is why I am arguing for the better system... history tells us which one that is...
"It would be great if we could all do everything for ourselves but you know, we can't."
Why? I am not saying we don't help people. It's the HOW that's the problem... I'll give you a real life scenario... Had an Eagle Scout that needed money. I could have just given him money, but instead gave him an opportunity to earn the money on his own time that he needed as he works on cars (mechanical and body work) and is going to school. Not only did that help him, but gave him a sense of purpose.
We now also use him for other repairs (i.e. - brakes, oil changes, etc.) because he isn't afraid to work for the money. Even made a logo up for him and offered to create a website for him and showed him how to get up and running so he has a part-time gig while going to school that CAN pay him well and maximize his time.
THAT to me is much better than handing him a check... You don't have any real appreciation for what you don't earn, which is why people who get food stamps as a way of life don't generally clip coupons but instead buy things like cigarettes. It's why those on Medicaid will go to an emergency room instead of waiting for an appointment, which costs us MUCH MORE... It's why people who are on Section 8 abuse the very place they live in... why not? Someone else is paying for it.
But it comes at a price... they live life subjugated to the government and have a hard time escaping that dependency... that is not a good thing IMHO...
To be clear, I am not talking about those with temporary need...
"(You're going to be known as Sybil too when you consume that first medicare benefit.)"
Why is that? I don't have a problem with people collecting SS or using Medicare. They paid into it their whole life. And as it relates to Medicare, they will continue to pay. BOTH of these are extremely inefficient and programs that have ALOT of waste, fraud and abuse in them.
The Republican brain. Pat and KAP's deeper psychological and cognitive issues are explained in this book. Their aberrations are wired in. Ann Coulter could only wish.... This is gonna be fun :-)
KAP the main difference we seem to have is that you are only concerned with yourself, the "individual." Nothing wrong with that bottom line. I and possibly others though are also concerned about others collectively, as "groups." I don't condemn or squash your efforts to improve the "individual," quite the contrary actually. I wish you wouldn't ignore my interest in helping improve the "group." These groups exist, are real, (just as the slavery "group" was before it as a group was liberated) and are an integral part of the economy just as individuals are.
Joel,
"The Republican brain. Pat and KAP's deeper psychological and cognitive issues are explained in this book. Their aberrations are wired in. Ann Coulter could only wish.... This is gonna be fun :-)"
That's like me applying "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" to you... it's just silly... but then again, she is addressing "groups", so it might apply to you after all... lol
"KAP the main difference we seem to have is that you are only concerned with yourself, the "individual." Nothing wrong with that bottom line."
And that is exactly what I would think is your perspective. It is wrong... I am concerned for the WHOLE group, not just particular ones... The difference in our approach is you are dependent on government to solve the issue you yourself have said they don't have an answer to (and haven't historically), whereas, I recognize that the individuals MAKE UP the group, and changing the individual changes the group in the same way adding drops of koolaide to water changes it.
If you have a family with 5 kids (quintile groups) and parents (government), and they all go out to earn a living. One comes back because of a job loss or whatever circumstance. The parents pick up the tab while they are there because they are trying to help them get back on their feet. We help; it's in our nature. But what happens when that kid doesn't get pro-active and get their life in order while taking advantage of their generosity, and lets say this goes on for 99 weeks, whose fault is it when the kid wants more? Now imagine that a SECOND kid comes home during this same time... should they not be afforded the same help? Now realize, the parents (government) have a limited amount of resources. Now you have two relying on the parents for support. And the more kids that come home, and the longer they stat, the harder it gets, and noone is really being helped unless the parent puts an end to it. They will atrophy and not grow as people, dependent on others and you end up with the 40-year old living with his Mom... Is that in anyway healthy? Does it add to the household (economy) income?
"I and possibly others though are also concerned about others collectively, as "groups." I don't condemn or squash your efforts to improve the "individual," quite the contrary actually. I wish you wouldn't ignore my interest in helping improve the "group."
I am not ignoring it at all, I just disagree with your premise and lack of a solution. I reject that I am not thinking about others. I want a better life for them and it is NOT on the government dole. The real difference is based on what you write you want the government to define these people, and I think that is tragic in every form...
"These groups exist, are real, (just as the slavery "group" was before it as a group was liberated) and are an integral part of the economy just as individuals are."
The group DOES NOT EXIST without the individual... adding less people to paddle in the economy boat, does not make it flow faster... it works AGAINST it....
pat, actually i am convienced it is not for votes, i am irish direct decendant an immigrant, here in SC the republicans in power changed the voting districts to strengthen position by changing the numbers, belive me your thoughts on why our this is does not fall on deaf ears, the Right is not all wrong but it ain't all Right either.
i miss my talented hard working conciencous mexicans, we ran them all off and are now left with crack and methheads wanting 25.00 per hour and at best they are drunk trim carpenters with no work ethic,, it doesnot matter what color they are. just a difference in drug.
i have 5 talented american fellows pros in thier field, paid well and kept employed, any one wanting and WILLING to work can get though this. personnaly i consider 40 to 60% of the issues to be legit and the balance used as an excuse to get the country back to something that never existed, ex: the hidden agenda of religion and false patriotism when what they really mean is self centered gimme gimme.. if anyone thinks a little socialism is not a wee bit good then how do we fund a military, police who owns those buildings and assets, water roads airports. give it it the private sector and they will sell it to the chinese. you know good old American patriots, i can therefore i will.. and whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.
Gerrymandering is not peculiar to SC, Maxine Waters wants it both ways on this subject because her district is now predominately Latino when she is Black and the district was once Black.
I have had good and bad Mexican workers just as I had good and bad every other ethnicity of worker. But without defining the border then you are not defining the country. Victor Davis Hanson blames a lot of the current woes on Reagan and his amnesty.
You nailed it when you capitalize willingness that is the touchstone to the whole deal. My point is that socialism creates a culture that foments a lack of willingness. In France for instance the unemployment benefits are so generous that the citizens stay on unemployment and work for cash and come out ahead. Meanwhile the new president wants to raise the taxes to 75%, the problem with a wee bit of socialism is it never stays a wee bit.
A rule of law and national defense are organic to any form of government north of Somalia.
Do you see there is a reciprocal between the individual and the government? The stronger the government the weaker the individual, as is the case with your unwilling workers (they were trained to be unwilling), the stronger the individual the weaker the government. The point is that everything good in life has come from the individual, everything bad to greater or lesser extent has come from the accumulated indifference of the collective.
i really appreciate your well thought out response, one of my real problems is these idiots are comming in here spewing politics like Kap (not comparing Kap to an idiot) and asking to be paid under the table till the unemployment runs out, we show them the door, i layed off no employees at all thru this whole thing, i have a leg to stand on and paid dearly for it.
welfare reform is needed, tort reform is needed, corporate veil taxation is needed, simplification of taxes, is needed, yet i am convinced that the real winner here will be the ones who surrender in the name of compromise to start the process. here in SC we will start drug testing for unemployment ( i am all for this)
i need to stop posting as an architect has lied to me and i need to write the GC and refuse the work. my focus is now angry at something else and it would not be a good thing for me to displace this here.
welfare reform is needed, tort reform is needed, corporate veil taxation is needed, simplification of taxes, is needed, yet i am convinced that the real winner here will be the ones who surrender in the name of compromise to start the process. here in SC we will start drug testing for unemployment ( i am all for this)
I don't have a disagreement with any of that even the part that there will have to be some compromise (except on the budget). Maybe you are more conservative than you think?
“You disagree with my lack of a solution? I’m not even sure what that means. If I’ve no solution how could I be dependent on the government to solve the problem. I do think though that the govt is probably in a better position to solve the problem because the fangs of capitalism would interfere less.
Let’s use your analogy and look at that family of 5 income level quintile groups as kids some more. Each of these kids have a different income level (job.) A quintile group cannot be eliminated or “unemployed. It’s economically and mathematically impossible, so, these kids ALWAYS work but at varying levels of income due to varying skillsets among other things. These five kids have 5 different income level jobs - A, B, C, D, and E, from sweeping floors or picking strawberries to the CEOs skills and entrepreneurial ventures, and for the family (economy) to survive ALL jobs must be completed. The kid sweeping floors may replace the CEO but the CEO must then start sweeping floors. You can talk all you want about individuals moving around inside different groups or even changing groups but the GROUPS income level or job ALWAYS remains at either level A, B, C, D or E. You or nobody else can change that. The difference in income levels between GROUP A and GROUP E is growing exponentially by all reports. It’s not a myth. There’s nothing available to show anything else. The evidence is overwhelming. The best arguments offer no evidence to the contrary just challenges about computation methods using households and income mobility. (More on that latter.) This growing disparity is a time bomb. You, as Pat would say, need to Look.
pat as a business owner i have to have some conservative in me, money does not grow on trees, yet we cannot solve these problems with Knee jerk hardline methods being played out in congress, the Norquist pledge is crippleing our economy at the same rate the budjet is, one is simply inflating the other with bigotry, hardheadedness, i have been in trouble many a time in business, in the early 2000. i would have been declared insolvent in a heartbeat it took a mixture of austerity, income and shear belief in my ability (like we should have in each other) to overcome this, it felt real good to walk into the IRS in march of 07 and simply ask "ok so how much do i owe you"? (do not ever do this but that is another story) i wrote a check for the whole kit and kaboddle (it took three weeks but again that is another story) the hard right is far too stuck on the hidden agendas and norquist pledge to be effective and this is the single largest reason they will loose the election this year and hopefully not the house. the pledge is too stiff and the budget to high,,, we need to kick the entire bunch out and start with some fresh ideas,
Do you think there are knee jerk methods used by the left, for example statements like we have to pass it to see what’s in it, we need a consumer protection agency to protect the citizens from the government created housing problems, we need to finance every one’s college education.
Can you give me some examples where austerity has been practiced at the federal level in the last 20 year by either party? Is it any wonder why these people want the brakes put on spending. If spending is not gotten in check this country is toast, I’m not exaggerating on this. History is strewn with countries who did not get their spending in check and they were a whole lot smaller than 15 trillion current debt and 100 trillion in unfounded liabilities.
There are no hidden agendas they are plain for anyone to see and are unknowingly manifested by those who follow them.
This from the Republican candidate for President:
(see link)
Link
that was a good laugh thanks for the laugh,, wanna cure some things,,,
remove funding of politicians by corporations, the health industry, the unions, and any entity that does not have a drivers license breathes and can recieve mail. give up obama care and in its place open state lines to medical insurance competition and require that no insurance company can own a hospital or health provider facility,,, pay lawmakers expenses and payroll, make them buy health care on the open market or open the government health insurance they enjoy to the general public, we have the drugs and cures we need so shorten the patents on drugs, come up with a cure for cancer, aids and i will vote to reward to reward these people, i mean really just how many billions does one person need in the interest of humanity.
but here is the catch,,, write the new law to replace the old law, the republicans want to take there foot ball and go home because they got caught and got thier feelings hurt, now the stance is remove the obamacare, reduce the budjet and maybe we will do this. this is not good enough
Tort reform, make punitive damages hands off to an attourney and you will see the end of malpractice and funding by lawyers of lawsuits. keep regulations in place to protect us in the form of law,,
nobody likes a regulation till you find out the unprofessional jack leg is undercutting you or unless it is your water that is poluted with no one responsible, and oh yea,, toughen umemployment laws technology is a wonderful thing it can be done. oh and by the way i went to the VA hospital in Columbia SC yesterday and was so impressed at how effiecient they were when compared to the local "private hospitals" with the multimillion dollar lobbys, yes i make a good living off off woodwork but some of these building cost are extreme. it could get a whole lot more practicle at every level and unfortunantly it takes a recession depression to cause that, we all beneifited and now some are mad because they want more.
Once again I'm as much against crony capitalism or corporate welfare as the other. And disagree with Romni on this and a number of things but he will likely be our next president.
The football teams are private enterprises, in Humboldt county the "farmers" take a share of their income and put in a pool for the farmers who suffer an unforeseen catastrophe it is voluntary and it works, it is not socialism.
Regarding campaign contributions but Mccain Feingold has been useless so what do you propose that will work? If it going to apply to the corporations it also has to apply to unions.
You mention some good things with regard to healthcare, I would add that the consumer being aware of the costs as with Bush's HSA's. Come up with a cure for cancer? As for streamlining the FDA easy get rid of it. No the universe will not explode at the speed of light.
Regarding the catch NO forget the new law we need to get government out healthcare including reforms to medicare. I'm not sure I follow this paragraph?
Tort reform for starters make the loser pay court costs. Secondly on lower level cases criminal and civil I would just have a judge and get rid of the attorneys completely. There is a different mentality/discipline with judges that would move things along at a fraction of the cost.
Yup we need regulations but a hell of a lot less them. Just a quick example in California the Mr. dumb ass from Austria as a parting gift gave us cap and trade which will no doubt drive business out of here in droves using nitrous oxide. Or Sarbanes Oxley that hasn't found one single "financial irregularity" in 10 years at an estimated annual cost of 1.5 trillion. I can't wait to see Dodd Frank does to economy. NO we do not need these regulation give me a break.
The lobbying efforts add cost to the healthcare not make it more efficient because the simple truth is that corporations don't pay increased costs the customer does unless there is an alternative which state mandates has seen to that there are not.
The NFL's business model levels the playing field by sharing the revenue between high income groups and low income groups. This somehow makes for a more competitive business environment, i.e. the lower income groups have an equal chance to compete for prize.
You say that the socialist model is okay for them because they are a private enterprise.
In all your other arguments you also say that government should model itself after private enterprise.
So tell me again, why if it works for the most competitive sector of our society it would not work for the rest of society?
In the NFL is voluntary to own a team. You don't have to buy the team and you know the rules if you do. AGAIN, VOLUNTARY. Nothing the government does is VOLUNTARY. It's about freedom, bottom line...That is what our country is about. Capitalism is a byproduct of that...but not the goal- the goal is freedom to make the choices you want. You want to pool your money in every year into an association and then split it up...fine with me as long as everyone there is doing it because they choose it.
Anon,
I would ask you and others to look past the ideology and answer a very specific question:
Why does sharing work?
This is not a question about freedom.
Why do you think it works?
My hunch is that teams from smaller markets have latent skills that we would never be able to avail ourselves of if the only people who could afford a stadium (big enough to attract advertising dollars).
Without revenue sharing we would be deprived of these people's contribution.
This seems to make a more competitive football league and increases the quality of life for the fans.
So tell me again why revenue sharing wouldn't work in your community.
Once again: If revenue sharing makes for better football why would it not make for better societies?
Tim
What Anon said. Out of the points that were brought up you pick the football one? Time to use the ask why 5 times regarding Socialism.
Why socialism? because it raises the standard of living for everyone
Why does it raise the standard of living for everyone? because if does the Robin Hood thing taking from the rich and giving to the poor creating equality for everyone.
How does that work because the rich are going to be discouraged and the poor are going to say why work when I get this stuff for free see the link:
http://www.nationalgunforum.com/off-topic/7074-bar-room-economics-how-tax Why does socialism really work? it borrows from the future to pay for now as they have been doing in Greece.
Why is that bad? Because life is not about trading purpose and freedom for for comfort, life is about overcoming barriers this how we grow as individuals
Then why are we not just overcoming barriers and pursuing goals? Because we have let people who want power to rent space in our heads and tell us what we want and what we should do.
Why did we let people inside our heads?
Tim
The reason sharing works is the concept of comparative advantage which is explained very thoroughly in the Matt Ridley video. Simply and partially put it is crop insurance.
The reason sharing does not work is explained very well in the previous post linked at bar stool economics. (thanks Glen) Simply put it is not sharing it is exploitation that the Socialist are constantly complaing about. This is not to say there are not abuses with Capitalism exploiting it is just that Capitalism is temporary one way or another government is not until the country fails.
Pat,
You raise some interesting points.
1) WHY does revenue sharing make for better NFL football?
2) WHY aren't the teams from the richer markets discouraged as a result of having to share money that they and they alone created?
3) WHY do the teams from the poorer markets even bother to show up for tackling practice if they are going to be paid whether they win or not?
4) WHY is it deemed good policy for municipalities to borrow from the future for developing sports stadiums for private enterprise today?
5) WHY if "....life is not about trading purpose and freedom for for comfort, life is about overcoming barriers this how we grow as individuals" is there so much resistance to inheritance tax. Are we depriving these poor athlete's children a life "more fully lived" (feel free to jump in here KAP) by having to compete like everybody else?
I know Taichi only advocated for 5 whys but I will throw in a bonus one:
Why did we let people inside our heads?
Because professional sports is like a narcotic. Rooting for the home team is just a distraction. There is no home team. Nobody on the team grew up in the town the team is based. Not a one of them would not leave for another team for more money when they become free agents.
The truth of the matter is it probably is good business for the public treasure to subsidize sports stadiums. Here is yet another example of how socialism and capitalism feed each other.
If your political point of view can be boiled down to a sound bite your information source is probably not a whole lot more nutritious than a corn dog you get at the stadium concession stand.
That is not the 5 whys and you are the Lean guru?
Again look at the video about comparative advantage.
Inheritance has to do with private property. And it is often abused because the children have sell the family farm or similar to pay the tax.
With James there was communication with you there is not. I have wasted way more time on this then I should I will leave it at that hopefully you have been a good shill for anyone who actually wants to Look at this stuff.
Pat,
You and Pat attempt to refute every one of Joel's contentions by stating that it's the individual you see in mirror everyday and that all group change can only be achieved with individual change.
Yet when I offer up two individual examples all you can hand me back is conservative group think videos. In Kap's case an idea only has legitimacy if it his idea. In your case it's only legitimate if somebody made it on video. I imagine if we were to see whatever other videos these people make we could discover a bias (therefore making them irrelevant as per KAP's usual argument)
I don't think professional sports can exist without publicly financed stadiums. These teams are privately owned but can't stand on their own two legs without the invisible hand of socialism propping them up.
The teams can't stay in business without sharing revenue.
These are two concrete individual examples of how socialism is all around us and a necessary part of our day. The Marxists would even say that Capitalism needs the opiate that professional sports provides.
Are there abuses in socialism? You bet.
I ask both you and Kap to name just one capitalist enterprise that could stay alive without government subsidy or protection.
I was gonna stay out of this, especially after being quoted at length by Pat above regarding "income inequality" which seemed to put a cork in most of that totally useless nonsense, but there are too many specious "arguments" being tossed around as something which is even remotely credible.
As for anyone who thinks that we have to increase taxes in return for spending cuts and that BOTH WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN, well, quite frankly, you're dreaming.
The tax increases ALWAYS happen, the spending cuts NEVER happen. That's just an indisputable fact.
In 1982, after the 25% across-the-board marginal-rate tax cuts of 1981 which led to 25 years of prosperity, Reagan agreed to a budget "deal" with a 3:1 ratio of promised spending cuts to tax increases and TEFRA promptly raised taxes by 38 billion per year.
In 1990, GHW Bush agreed to a 2:1 budget "deal" of a 5-year 137 billion tax increase in return for promised spending cuts of 274 billion, and taxes were promptly raised by 27 billion per year.
What was the end result?
Total federal outlays (trillions):
1982 1.03 <=== Reagan 3:1 budget "deal"
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/04budget/content/appendix/hist.pdf
< NO promised spending cut in return for an immediate tax increase has EVER actually materialized. Remember that the next time some silver-tongued devil is busy telling you how he'll cut spending if only you'll agree to a tax increase.
That's why pledges not to increase taxes are important. Either you seriously resist ever-expanding government spending or it will eat you and your entire society alive.
Witness the debt and spending melt-down now going on in the socialist nanny-states of Europe (not to mention here in CA and IL and federally.)
The Greek public will lose 1/2 to 3/4 of their accumulated net worth when they exit the Euro for the Drachma, voluntarily or otherwise. Spain and Italy are next on the front burner.
France isn't far behind. Yeah, lower the retirement age! Raise taxes to 75% on the "rich"! That'll work! We, too, can become Greece! Viva la France!
Portugal and Cyprus are toast. Ireland is already pretty well cooked, but they want to re-do their deal because Spain's banks got a better deal. Right. Add a side-act to the carnival of clowns.
The remaining semi-competitive, socialist northern Euro countries have their own large problems, and are in no position to bail anyone out ad infinitum, or at all.
NOBODY can bail us out.
We have to do it ourselves, with a return to fiscal sanity. People either figure that out, or we're toast, too. We'll see if there is sufficient common sense remaining in this great republic in about 5 months.
Some software glitch stuck a "paragraph" HTML tag into the middle of my post. I can't even point it out, all HTML symbols are verboten, even in quotes.
Is it time to investigate other forum software? Karl?
Economics 101
Question, other than Reagan and Coolidge has there been any other spending reductions in the last 100 years?
Pat
To say it's not about freedom is like saying you don't believe in the Constituition. That's the foundation of our country. That's IS WHAT IT'S ABOUT. It is what our country is about, it's the non-negotable. It's the whole goal and everything else is the details. If you want to live in a country where that is not the case they would be glad to take you but here the whole goal is to give the government as little power & money as possible and for us the citizens to take care of ourselves and neighbors. Because you are in America you can believe otherwise but you don't believe in the true America if you can't say the bottom line is about freedom. Yes, that includes the freedom to fail.
Do you know something we don't know?
Every Republican presidential contender, including Mitt Romney, said during the primary campaign that they would reject a budget deal with Democrats even if it entailed $10 of spending reductions for every $1 in taxes.
If all we have to pick from is ideologues then I wouldn't be so optimistic that there is a choice. That's why blind allegiance to dogma is so bad.
Yup Tim
Do you know more about woodwork than the average home owner?
You don't know what you don't know about economics.
Mr. Economist,
Would you support a plan that includes $10 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue?
Mr. Economist,
So I guess ideology is more important than results?
" 'income inequality' ..... totally useless nonsense."
Econ, All I've been able to find on this subject is innumerable charts and graphs supporting a "growing" disparity between income group quintiles. I'd like to see some graphs at least trying to support some other conclusion. You of all people should have something for me. In the age of the internet and with the ease of maneuvering facts being what it is, surely there must be something from the naysayers depicting something other than exponentially growing differences.
Income inequality is not nonsense. The more money that goes to the top, the less that actually gets spent. You cannot argue about this, it is true. What more needs to be said.
i have a proposal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is fathers day and my hats off to those of us all !! we seem to be consatantly going to the " One side wants to give one part and take ten" and it appears both sides feel this way,, yet we also want to blame the other side for causing this and there fore one or the other is due,,,, the bad news is this will only continue to stiffle any new or positive ideas form any one at this point and i am unsure as to why anyone here wishes to live in a wahing maching with each other.........
so here is my proposal,, man up, take the weekend off, see if you can find anything about the position you do not like and work with it a bit to see how and if we can make the changes without continuing this really stupid logjam,, you guys are much smarter than this and the topic is not smarter than we are, you make negotiating decisions every day in every area of your life,, anyone with any real business skills knows that "No deal is a ood deal till everyone gets most of what the want and need". otherwise it is a dead deal. is an american civil war really necessary are we that stupid ? again take the weekend off start your monday and come back at 5 O'clock i garanatee you your ideas and opinons will be much more respected if you can show some personal fortitude in this.
Not that you will look at this without spewing your fixed ideas
If one looked at only the private sector ,what would we see ?
It's no secret that public unions and leadership is grossly overcompensated.
Real unemployment in the private sector in Cali is what twenty ,thirty percent ? How could there not be growing disparity ?
Pat,
That chart might be useful to this conversation if it also included income from assets.
We can tell that income dipped for everybody in the early 1980's and generally increased for everybody from there forward and that public employees generally made more money than the private sector. There's no new information here. Public employees are paid too much. We all agree about that.
Find us a chart that talks about income distribution that also includes income from investment. Show us a pie chart that shows distribution of asset ownership in the 1970's vs today.
What do you think the trend would look like?
Let's move past whether or not you agree there is a growing income inequality. Lets move now to something a little more theoretical.
In a purely hypothetical, non existent world, what do you think the consequences would be for a society in which a minority of the population had the majority of the assets?
Why do you think the rich people in S.Africa have electric fences around their houses?
201 said:
"Every Republican presidential contender, including Mitt Romney, said during the primary campaign that they would reject a budget deal with Democrats even if it entailed $10 of spending reductions for every $1 in taxes."
Which tells you what?
Simply that they are all on to the bogus spending-cuts-for-tax-increases scam that I detailed above.
And that they all knew that we can't spend our way to prosperity, something we have demonstrated for the last 3.5 years, at great and completely unnecessary expense.
BTW, "dogma" isn't something that has been proven to be true. What I laid out a few posts above is just a fact.
The only dogma has been that trillions in additional government debt and spending would somehow make us better off.
Unfortunately, it hasn't and the incumbent will just have to live with that.
There is a growing income disparity between the public and private sector as the graph indicates? No one is disputing that fact.
The contention Joel has is that it is growing between the middle class and the rich. As indicated in post 80 this is specious.
But this has been gone over many times.
Better yet ,why are gated communities springing up all over southern California ?
And that ain't hypothetical.
Pat,
Your logic is like Bizarro World from the old superman comics. What part of $10 spending cuts vs $1 increased revenue do you not understand?
It is this blind adherence to dogma that is going to sink this nation, not Obama.
We need spending cuts and we need tax increases if we are going to see debt reduction. If you are not willing to surrender $1 to get $10 back then you're really not the guy we want at the steering wheel.
When you decry Obama and Obama's policies stop and think about who ran the country for 8 years prior to his inauguration. As I recall the financial markets completely imploded under a Republican administration. Your memory might be different than mine about this one.
Putting these guys back in charge would be like appointing a fox to be sheriff in the chicken coop.
James,
History also teaches us what becomes of communism...millions and millions of dead people and the ones that live have a horrible quality of life. History also teaches us what becomes of socialism, a broke country that ends with war or dictatorship. Sorry, but you cannot deny the facts. Those that think things have changed because we have cell phones and the internet you are living in dream land. People and governments do not get along...that's the fact of life (I believe I know why that is but that's rooted in my beliefs) and the sooner you accept that and begin to just set boundaries on government you'll be better off. That is why communism and socialism are dirty words. Will they work for a while, yes, but will they end with millions and millions lying in unmarked graves, yes. We who want to limit government are not for hurting our fellow man, you may not understand it, but we are trying to help our fellow man. Are corporations and the rich taking undo advantage, yes, but if I have to choose between them and the government taking undo advantage I will pick the corporation and the rich. Does it have to be choice, yes and no. There will never be heaven on earth and we had better realize that. Should we do what we can to limit what others on here call crony capitalism, yes, but not by giving the government even more control and power over us. Because the only thing more corrupt, intrusive and evil than those multi-national corp's is the government...and we can't stop buying it's products to starve it. It will just continue to take and take and take.
For those of you who keep getting hung up on this "group"...I don't know any individual that works hard that is truly poor. What I do know is as a "group" has an ever increasing poorer work ethic and family values. The folks I know who are struggling, and that is many, are not working (I live in an area with one of the highest unemployement rates and there are jobs...people just won't take them) or have family's that are broken, divorced, or just plain disintegrating. Any healthy economy is based on a healthy family unit and cannot survive without it. Now I will let you draw your own conclusions on why our families are struggling.
Joel,
Re-read post 205 in this thread where Pat reposted what I wrote about so-called income inequality on the other big thread.
It explains why all of those wonderful charts and graphs you see are a total fantasy, all based on incomplete, misleading, skewed and manipulated data, mostly done by people who have an agenda.
When the underlying data are totally flawed, you can't construct any meaningful graph or chart, but you sure can get the general public all riled up about nothing.
At the same time, I'm not going to bother to construct a chart of reality, which would be about the fact that "income inequality" hasn't changed much in the last 30 years. Why? Because it's totally boring. A flat line with little blips up and down from year to year excites no one.
The same guys are in charge. To think different is delusional.
Econ 101,
From post 205:
"There will always be the rich, there will always be the poor.............., because of the large variation in human talent".
Does accident of birth or public policy figure into any of your logic or is all accumulated wealth based on meritocracy?
We ought to try that one out on my recent customer who hasn't worked a day in her life but somehow managed to fund a $10 million remodel.
Anon, with all due respect "if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"
Pat your chart showed zero in comparing top and bottom quintiles. Econ, I see you've nothing to offer. The passion you, Pat and others of your ilk have in challenging all the statistics currently available would have by now produced something tangible if it were truly available. Sowell's one of the best at statisitical trickery. Household incomes being his favorite target. He offers volumns in explaining individuals moving in and out of groups and households and the variances in both quantity and ethnicity of households. Lots about household size declining. I wish there was more data available, but most studies use household income. Sowell has pointed out that the IRS and Michigan State University appear to have the only studies that use individual incomes as a basis. Yet here is at least one summation I found from his "preferred" source.
"The rich really are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, a new University of Michigan study shows. The study—the most recent available analysis of long-term wealth trends among U.S. households is based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, conducted by the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR) since 1968. Over the last 20 years, the net worth of the top two percentile of American families nearly doubled, from $1,071,000 in 1984 to $2,100,500 in 2005. But the poorest quarter of American families lost ground over the same period, with their 2005 net worth below their 1984 net worth, measured in constant 2005 dollars."
Jeez, how could that be?? By the way, I see nothing terribly wrong with using household incomes. Isn't it the family unit that this country kinda lives on? Oh and the humongous inconsistancy in makeup and quantity in households - in 30 years the household size shrank .16 going from 2.75 people to 2.59 people. How does THAT totally screw the numbers up as is suggested?
Peter Pan Economics...
Why would anyone work when you have someone to take it from someone else and give it to you?
As Margaret Thatcher once said - "the problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"...
Look around the world... LOTS of robbing Peter to pay Paul going on...
The rest is noise...
Joel
Most socialist articles state that middle class income has gone down the above graph indicates this is not true.
In the off chance that anyone is watching Every single socialist myth that has been brought up on this forum has been thoroughly exposed for the crap that it is.
Pat,
Now that you have exposed all these arguments for socialism as the crap they are could you answer some of the questions that have been raised.
Here's a couple of softballs for you:
Should sports stadiums be publicly financed? Why or why not?
This is a pretty simple question. If you can't or won't answer it maybe KAP can.
If you can't or won't answer it maybe it is because your answer will refute your arguments?
Give it try. We are all waiting for an answer that doesn't veer off into charts or videos, just a simple answer.
(PS KAP, irrelevant is not an answer)
Real life example, real life answer.
Can you do it?
Pat,
Your obvious bias taints all your answers.
I retract my request.
Mostly no. But the cities make a lot of money from stadiums locally Anaheim makes a boat load from the Angels, Ducks, Disneyland, Clippers, convention center. But then the money mostly gets wasted on overpaid public servants.
What was your first clue?
Sybil,
"Should sports stadiums be publicly financed? Why or why not?"
Of course it's no... Just another example of someone taking from someone else... makes my point exactly... you can't blame one and not the other...
Like I said, the rest is noise...
Sybil,
Now perhaps we can get you to answer...
Why would anyone work when you have someone to take it from someone else and give it to you?
As Margaret Thatcher once said - "the problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"...
Pat, the Michigan State quote gave numbers to the growing differences in wealth - didn't say anything about income one way or the other. Your chart doesn't even romotely debunk the growing income disparity. It's not that incomes are going up or down anyway, it's that there's a growing spread between the amount of growth. Your last chart was redundant. It dittoed my numbers on family size. You two don't usually strike out so bad - sorry about the downturn in credibility.
OK, Joel. There's nothing further I can say to anyone who is so hung up on contrived notions of class-warfare that facts and reason have no hope of being understood.
I wish you good luck in your business. But, if we ever have anywhere near the amount of government that would guarantee what you seem to support, you're going to need a lot more than mere luck. Think about the end-game of what you are implicitly advocating.
When the POTUS demonstrates such economic illiteracy to make the statement:
"The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. "
Is it any wonder that Joel and Tim are as economically illiterate as they are?
Think about the end-game of what you are implicitly ignoring.
Say, Joel, under your implied scenario of increasing-income-disparity-is-bad, what would happen in the universe of cabinetmakers?
Let's say that it was discovered by a group of ivory tower researchers that the 1,000 highest-earning cabinet shop owners had made 200 times as much as the lowest 1,000 (not including garage dudes) instead of the previous 100 times as much 20 years ago.
Income disparity doubled!
There could be a lot of lawyers for the slacker plaintiff shops filing suits against the high achievers (as a class action) if your idea of group equity ever catches on, and we'll assume it did and that we therefore enacted a marvelous equity law to remedy all of this gross inequity.
Perhaps the newly formed Department of Cabinetmaking Equity will decree (pursuant to its vast rule-making power) that some money should be taken from the successful innovators and be given to the slackers and losers in the great game of running a successful cabinetmaking shop.
After all, our new income equity law says that those high income shops shouldn't make 200 times as much. That's an "increasing disparity" and that is obviously "unfair." So that must be remedied.
But, what happens when the top 1,000 make 300 times as much as the bottom 1,000?
What's the standard then? The old standard of 200 to 1? The even older 100 to 1? Our new law is unclear. Who decides what applies? Why, it's the Department of Cabinetmaking Equity! (See any opportunity for cronyism here?) Who decides who is eligible to be counted and who can get a subsidy? Why, what do you know, it's the Department of Cabinetmaking Equity that is empowered by law to make all of those decisions!
What happens when the Department of Cabinetmaking Equity decides that all shops will get an equal profit after its "equalization" rule-making, required within 5 years of enactment? After all, all shops are equally good and income disparity is very, very, very bad.
Who will be held accountable for the fact that there are no more cabinet shops at all because there is then no point to being in business as a cabinet shop?
I'd hold everyone who thinks "income disparity" matters accountable.
Not even Greece is stupid enough to actually worry or try to do anything about income disparity.
Doesn’t matter how economically literate I am. Bureau of Labor, CBO, State Universities, CBPP, IRS and the like is where the data comes from. Where’s your data come from? Oops – you have no data. Here's more stuff that doesn't matter.
Here's more unrelated stuff that doesn't matter
I guess the cabinetmakers at the bottom will just have to quit. Obviously a "law" would most likely be riddled with problems. I can't even imagine what the law would be. It's the "growing" inequity that will lead to some sort of resolution. Growing is the key word. You're example drilled down to a small segment using individuals. There will always be disparity for good reasons and there will always be a bottom quintile. IF you believed, what do you think would happen with unjustifiable exponentially growing income disparity
Joel,
Since, once again, Sybil doesn't answer questions...
Why would anyone work when you have someone to take it from someone else and give it to you?
Ok, Joel, we get it that you don't get it. Or much seem to care what the downside of silly class-warfare is. But it sounds good. Or something. Until it isn't. Wait for November.
Joel,
Wait, let me ask this a little differently...
Why would anyone from one group work when you have someone to take it from another group and give it to you?
Probably the same reason they wouldn't work if they don't get paid KAP.
Joel,
"Probably the same reason they wouldn't work if they don't get paid KAP."
And why do you think that is?...
I would like to indicate that the socialists are getting their asses handed to them. Because they are incompetent on this subject.
Please choose carefully this Nov.
Wow.....you guys have been busy this weekend! I have to say I enjoyed hanging out with the family and barbecuing and didn't get online once over the weekend....felt good!
But now I see my beloved football is being tossed around and brought into this dirty conversation...no, no, no! We can't have that! Since it's a topic I enjoy I'll add a few points to keep in mind. Probably a good time to lighten the conversation anyway;>)
1)Why does profit sharing work in football?
Simple, it creates a theoretcially level playing field between 32 teams so that you don't have, (or more accurately, have less of), the same powerhouse teams in the playoffs every year...example... generally speaking teams like Yankees/Red Sox in baseball, and Celtics/Lakers in basketball etc. etc. With a level playing field every team has the same theoretical chance to win giving each fan some glimpse of optimism.
2) So if it's a level playing field and the revenue mostly gets shared....why do teams still try?
Several reasons I believe. First remember that it's a level playing field....not business field. Although each team has a minimum and maximum player payroll, there is no maximum for business profit! Not all revenues are shared! This is very important to remember. The big market teams, (owners), make more money!
Also, playoff games provide increased income for teams that make it! Each round of playoffs offer increased revenue and therefore more $$$ in the owners pockets who make it. There are also other sources of revenue connected to the teams success, which are not part of the revenue sharing pool!
Probably as important though is the desire to win. You have a group of people involved who all have a strong desire to win. NFL franchises are businesses of course. But I think you'll find the owners of these teams are as, or sometimes more interested in winning than just the bottom line.
Why does the NFL have nothing to do with Socialism on a government level? The NFL "employs" (key word here), a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population. If your not in the top 1% of football players you don't even have a chance to get in. If you don't perform you don't stay in. Average football career.....3 years. Once your out of football, your out. While there are some benefits provided post career, your mostly on your own.
The government, (Roger and the 32 owners) make the majority of the money. The citizens, (players), generally make a small fraction of what the top makes.
Outside of the owners the highest paid are quarterbacks....you want to talk income disparity....compare Peyton's paycheck to a rookie blocker! That's income disparity. The guys keeping Manning on his feet make a fraction of what he makes! Now take it a step further....compare what the quarterback makes to the guy working in the ticket booth, or the guy selling beer and hot dogs!
You can't use a private organization as a model for a government...it just does't work. NFL's revenues are generated by selling entertainment and non-essential merchandise to millions of people. Entertainment can be as or more profitable than any necessary product or service outside of maybe oil. So if you want to play this game a different question may be....could the NFL exist within a Socialist government? Ironically, I'd argue that it couldn't;>)
Oh and lastly, I have no problem with a local government providing funding for a stadium "IF" the people OK it. In reality the tax dollars returned to the local government over time exceed the money invested. The city in which our local stadium is located has very low tax rates, which make it a desirable place to live. Governments routinely make investments in order to increase revenues. Investing in a stadium is not all that different than loaning money to another country. I wouldn't be surprised if the ROI was even better?
happy Monday!!!
Individualism- "My house needs painting. I think I will do it. No thank you, I will choose my own color."
Capitalism 101- "My house needs painting. I will choose whoever can do the best job at a price that seems reasonable to me.
Collectivism- "Listen, friend, our group has decided that your house is damaging our property values. It is time for you to re-paint. Here are your color choices."
Socialism- "It has been decided that, for the common good of all of society, you must paint your house--- and here is the painter who will do it for you. Normally, it will take him 2 years to finish it, but if you will give just a little hand-out, I will try to convince him to do it in a year."
Communism- "You want to paint your house? You idiot! You do not even own that pigsty you call "home". It belongs to the State. We will tell you when, or if, that dreary dung-heap will ever be painted. By the way, you are under arrest.
Fundamentalism- We don't like your paint job. Attack! Kill!
Anarchism- Hey! your paint job offends our group! Besides that, any government sucks. Let's burn down the house.
Classism- Your paint job is better than our paint job. That's just not fair. There needs to be a law.
Cronyism- Chicago and [fill in the blank] politics. Vote for me, and I promise you that every house in America will be painted. Of course, you will have to let my pal, Vito, do it. And, by the way, you will have to pay a permit fee. Not a tax, a fee.
Solipsism- Paint, houses, and the world as I know it exists only in my mind.
Patism - it only needs painting if I think so.
But for PATism it can only be one color.
and more facts on growing income disparity
"...the wealthy are paying a greater share of federal taxes even though they are paying less tax on each dollar they earn. They’re simply making many more dollars than they used to."
http://tragicfarce.com/2011/11/10/ron-paul-on-wealth-and-privileges/
The naysayers, Pat comes to mind, will sound like boats...but,but,but,but,but,but,
Joel,
So they are paying a LARGER share of the federal taxes even though they are paying a lower tax rate... interesting...
How much more "fair" do you want it to get?
Seems like for rich to pay MORE someone else has to pay LESS...
...but, but, but... indeed...
Pat,
Since you have appointed yourself "the economist" on this board I have a question about supply & demand that you may be uniquely qualified to answer:
As you get older and have fewer and fewer lucid thoughts, do you get to charge more for them?
Or is this more of a demand issue?
I see Tim has resorted to ad hominem, the mark of someone who is down to his last tool.
Nothing personal Tim, this subject is important.
I dropped out when you posted the picture of a dog defecating on President Obama. I made that decision because this subject is important.
Our government has been redistributing the wealth for a long time to achieve the desired income equality. I had until recently an employee who's situation shows how effective that system is. He could be a good craftsman, when he was here. He was hired as a full time person 15 years ago. Maybe once a year he'd get 40 hours/week in. He would always promise to get here and work it but it was just too much effort. He did have time to get his lady friend pregnant twice. She was already getting welfare for her past kids. Two more helped her better achieve income equality. Since he was having $ taken from his paycheck for child support and only managing to work 28 hours a week he felt depressed and needed time at the bar to recover. Never fear though, the government came to the rescue. Two years ago he got $7,000 back on income taxes he never paid. That of course brought him closer to equality. He promptly went out and bought a hot motorcycle with it. He owed back house payments on a nice house he had inherited and owed on about everything else. This year he got better equality, $8,000 back on taxes he hadn't paid. It helped bail him out of jail, again. Paid for many nights at the bar with his new 20 something girl friend, which ultimately got him fired. Yes, it's true he never achieved income equity. He deserves more government help. He still has over 6 months of unemployment to collect but that really doesn't meet his life style needs. Life's a bitch!
Larry
Am I to understand that you object to that?
A lesson in irony.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
An example of your government @ work. "Marriott International Inc. and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) have entered a partnership to support new, environmentally sustainable hotel development in growth markets in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The venture was unveiled at the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
Under terms of the agreement, OPIC will make long-term loans to the third-party owners of the hotels, with Marriott providing hotel management or franchising services. OPIC, the U.S. government's development finance institution, says as much as $200 million in loans will be available for the hotel projects." I could probably think of a better way to spend $200 million!
Income redistribution has been going on since taxes have been collected. For the past 20 or 30yrs things have been redistributed up. That is a documented fact as is growing income disparity. You naysayers STILL have shown zero comparative (key word) documentation to the contrary. A question to Larry, Pat, KAP and those others that incessantly argue the validity of growing income disparity with the lame unrelated argument that some people are mooches and deadbeats (crony capitalists?) …… Just what percentage of the bottom 90+% of the working folks do you think are those mooches anyway? As much and as bad as you talk about them you all must have a piss poor attitude about the majority of the working class. I don’t. I’m not much for unions but with the prevalent attitude of profits over people I’m seeing here, it may be time for a resurgence.
Pat,
Your analogy about bears breaks down with just a cursory examination.
The bankers in this country have been fed by the public for over 80 years. They are first in line for the free money and are completely dependent on the government, ie.would not exist without.
In spite of this dependency they have learned to take very good care of themselves.
So here you have a real life example of how your logic breaks down.
This ends this afternoon's lesson.
Ok Sybil good to know.
What you say is true of SOME banks, to say all is moronic.
The fact is that some of the banks are like water and are always going to find the leaks.
The solution is no handouts for any of them and no Fed but the current president, you know the one I posted in the heart warming picture (I'm a sucker for cute animal pictures), has as incestuous a relationship with Goldman Sachs as any other president.
Pat,
You are leading with your chin, again.
Until you can name some banks that do not have access to the free money first (i.e. lowest interest rates possible) and who have not prospered from this place in line, you have no basis for calling anybody moronic.
You need to pause for a second each time you read something. You need a little time to interpret things before jumping to visceral conclusions.
It is a good first step to recognize that this greed and abuse is all around us. The bad guy who worked for Larry is not in any way unique from the bad banker guy who found a leak in the system. (The only difference between these two groups is that the banker was able to fleece the system for millions of dollars more.)
The next step is to allow for the possibility that no side owns reality. No party owns the franchise for stupid or greedy. Obama may be the root cause of your nightmare but a whole lot of the world we live in is what he inherited from the bad people in the last presidential administration.
Most banks especially the ones who no longer or will no longer exist because of the toxic assets.
Don't flatter yourself.
Both groups found the leaks, eliminate the free stuff and it will be irrelevant.
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said the buck stops here, Obama has a sign that says the buck stops with Bush. After 4 years that don't get it done.
No matter I predict a landslide victory for Romney.
Pat,
Speaking of signs, your man actually had a real sign. Not just this Tea Party hyperbole you try to pass off for logic.
How'd that work out for ya?
OMG, not that cheap trope, yet again.
No one disputes that the message was something that the crew of the carrier Abraham Lincoln wanted displayed and it was their idea. They were returning home from a very long, 10-month deployment. Hence the sign.
Bush has since admitted that the sign was a bad idea because it conveyed a message that could be misinterpreted (and was) regarding the over-all status of the war that he didn't believe nor express at the time. The subsequent insurgency and his response to it was derided by people like Harry "The war is lost" Reid and our Dear Leader, who just knew, apparently from his vast experience as a community rabble-rouser, that the surge would fail and said so, repeatedly. Except that it did work. Spectacularly well.
Oops.
The same guy now whines about any foreign policy criticism, not to mention everything else under the sun. Never mind that he felt free to and did criticize then-President Bush without limit in 2008. So much for foreign policy disagreements ending at the waters' edge.
In 2011, Dear Leader simply threw away our chance of negotiating a long-term deal with what should have been a long-term ally in Iraq. He made no serious effort. Apparently of no importance to him. Major lost opportunity. Believe it or not, we have serious interests in the Middle East, at least until fracking and horizontal drilling make foreign energy sources moot, maybe 20 years from now.
Of course, Dear Leader and his fanatical EPA hate fracking and any and all carbon-based fuels, so they've done their best to make energy prices "skyrocket," as he pointedly said he would in 2008. He was proud of it. We may see brown-outs here and there as a result of their ideological war on coal and oil before the election.
In spite of your and others' off-target cheap shots at an ex-President, this election is going to be about the difference between
1) an economic illiterate who thinks that growth comes from government direction and allocation of capital, favoritism, cronyism and more government spending in general and more government spending on public-union employees, and,
2) someone who knows that that is utter rubbish and won't have a very hard time getting an American public that has been abused for almost 4 years of "stimulus," high unemployment, record deficits, record debt and crummy growth to agree with him.
I'm looking forward to watching the results on November 6.
We are totally wasting resources screwing around in the middle east. Why the heck do you think the middle east is a serious concern? Roughly half our oil comes from within the US, the next 25% from Canada and Mexico. The last 25% from South America, Saudi Arabia and maybe 10% from that middle east we're wasting lives and dollars in.
Joel
Because people of Tim's ilk won't allow oil to be taken as with the fracking that Economics 101 mentions or Alaska or California or the entire west coast.
Strange with the peak oil scare you would think they would change their thinking, even though they fail to realize as the price changes so does the technology and the reserves.
Hey Guys , Don't know if you saw that CNN and Fox News will be doing a daily spot of woodworking to solve all our problem in our trade because we have solved the world problems here. Time to go to work already.
Pat,
Extrapolating from ilk now?
Sounds like the mark of someone who is down to his last tool.
Wow, now I'm really excited about the November election! I didn't know that Romney was so capable and ready to fix all our problems!
Oh wait a minute....already had him here for 4 years....yeah never mind...good luck with that;>)
I hear you Jeff
But compared to Jerry Brown or Obama he is aces.
The Middle East isn't a serious concern? Imports from Saudi-Iraq-Kuwait total about 10% of our consumption. Saudi is the only significant swing producer in the world, everyone else on the planet is basically flat-out. See what happens to prices if those 2 million barrels per day aren't coming here and the over 13 million barrels per day S-I-K export to other countries aren't being produced.
You can stick your head in the sand, but that doesn't make the problem go away. We have serious interests in the ME whether anyone likes it or not.
We let the swamp fester for decades and that didn't work out too well. I agree that we shouldn't be in the nation-building business, but at least Iraq is no longer financing, harboring and exporting terrorists. The largest unaddressed problem is Iran, whom we've been at war with for 32 years, even if no one admits it. Pakistan is another major problem. We're going to be spending lots of money in and on the ME for many years.
Econ101!
You are right. The Iraq war always was about oil. Had nothing to do with weapons of mass distraction.
While we are talking about terrorism and oil, Is it a bromide or a trope to say
Was that Bush or Obama got that done?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member
