|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 14:06:28 GMT -8
can you give me a couple of minutes? I'm still responding to that last post.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 14:32:30 GMT -8
this might take a while
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 15:37:23 GMT -8
Somebody flashed the Libertarian Signal. Don't worry, world. Here I am. Let me break it down for ya: Damn. I really don't know where to begin? Do I start with the fact that printing off nearly three trillion dollars financed by foreign-held securities is one of the worst things we could possibly be doing right now? What happens, you suppose, if our foreign guarantors decide that they no longer have confidence in the American economy's ability to rebound? Want me to spell it our for you? There will be no more money. I won't argue this point, I have studied the German Great Depression so I know that printing money is just a stupid idea. However I'd like to point out an article that I think you should read: www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaperBy the way, this guy won the Nobel Prize for economics so I think he has some credentials. Despite what the Democrats would have you believe, dollars don't just grow on trees and they certainly don't magically multiply once you put them into the economy. You want evidence? If that were the case, then why does Obama want to limit salaries for executives working at TARP-effected financials? Their having higher salaries would just as surely put money in the economy, right? Why is one sort of throwing money at the problem different than another sort of throwing money at the problem? I'll tell you why: because Obama is running a perpetual campaign, playing to the populist notions of this country all the while completely obfuscating the fact that he has no fucking clue what he's doing. Well actually, the reason why one is different than the other depends on how effective they are. The way things get fixed is usually that you throw money at it (whether it be through tax breaks or through a stimulus plan) and the people who asked for it usually fixes it. However, We have hit a wall with this because it turns out that big business is not trust worthy with our economy. Big surprise, greedy businessmen running the country into the ground so that they can have year round vacations in Cancun and yet Bush saw fit to remove all regulations telling them that they CAN'T fuck us over. mmm sorry, tangent. Anyway, it's weird that this can also be responded to in the same way. Please read this: www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?ref=todayspaperIf you labor under the false impression that most legislators or the President have anything close to an idea what they are doing, I would like to refer you back to Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that got us into this whole mess in the first place. It turns out that just because poor people getting to have homes sounds like a good idea it turns into a downright shitty idea once those poor people can no longer pay for their mortgages and consequently drag the entire credit market down with them. You know why that happened? Because Jim was not an economist. He was a well-meaning peanut farmer. Do you know what I am not comfortable with? Having people who do not work in the business world and who are not subject to the consequences of their actions (beyond not getting re-elected; boo-fucking-hoo) throwing money around like they know how it works. Well, the truth is that NO one knows exactly what to do. Aren't we all kind of flying by the seat of our pants? that's kind of life for you. I mean, no on could have predicted that Carters plan would fall flat on it's face. However, that said, it's not like the huge idiotic tax cuts that Bush created while in the middle of a WAR didn't have anything to do with it. And of course who could forget the toxic mortgage that could pile up only after the massive deregulation that Bush used to maintain popularity with the rich (talk about perpetual campaign, read What happened by Scott McClellan the whole first third is about the permanent campaign and its uses.) The Congressional Budget Office has already project that the net effect of the stimulus bill will be an over-all deepening of the recession and a net decrease in GDP. Why? Because it turns out that when you award massive amounts of public funding to whatever random is quick enough to put his hand up first, you crowd out private investing. Nobody gets the benefits of those dollars multiplying, either, because issuing such a massive amount of money (by the time that it's said and done, we'll hit nearly half of our GDP in government slosh, which is a big number) will fundamentally devalue our currency. That sound more like what Paulson was doing. Anyway, yeah the plan is not a solve all solution but it's a start. Many economists think that Obama needs a more long term plan that includes even more spending but I think that that will come later. As the economy progresses I think that Obama will come out with more and more of his stimulus plan little by little which will give it more flexibility. Of course that's just speculation. The important thing to remember is that this is actually the best shot we have right now. Economists think that they have better planes but the truth is that none of them are in a position to implement those plans. Who has the ability to implement them? Obama and/or Congress. However, Congress can only come up with shitty plans. So in essence, Obama really is the best bet we have as is pointed out in that Op-ed I pointed out to you, "On the Edge" What we need to fix this problem is a recession, because right now our economy is built on unsound credit. You don't just take out more credit cards when you're already in default on the ones you've already maxed out. And you certainly don't do that all the while trying to convince me that by maxing out this one last credit card, you'll finally gain the liquidity you need to pull yourself out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Well, you do if you are the Democrats in congress. Which is fine and dandy, because when this thing fails (and it will), they will hopefully be punted out of office and back into the private sector where you don't just spend other people's money on credit. Yeah, and here we go. What you are saying is that we need to reset the economy. I have heard this before many times. The problem is that instead of fixing things the recession will likely just get worse and worse. In fact, in "On the Edge" Krugman actually states that "...most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that 'absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.'" We need a recession, and until our government lets that happen, we'll continue to see volatility like we've never seen before as the market continually tries to play catch-up with whatever moronic scheme Congress is pushing that week, hoping that perhaps some crumbs will fall off the table when what they should be doing is reevaluating their portfolios, cutting costs, increasing productivity, and acting like a business instead of a beggar. That's what Congress is doing: turning corporations who formerly lived or died by virtue of their ability to compete into welfare cases who live and die by the grace of a few hundred Washington bureaucrats. Skipping this since I what ever I didn't already cover is mostly your opinion and I cannot contest opinion. And if I hear this populist "rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" nonsense one more time outta anybody's mouth as a justification for why we shouldn't cut taxes, cut regulations, and let businesses do what they are good at, I am going to just ignore whoever brings it up because it's obvious that if they keep typing for any longer than it takes for them to throw out such a stupid assertion they might fall down and strangle themselves with their keyboard cord, and I can't have that on my conscience. Well, actually that's NOT why all of those things are stupid. Granted it's true and a little scary and why the middle class (which is part of what the economy is based on being the consumer and all) is rapidly disappearing, that's actually NOT why it needs to stop. The reason why it needs to stop is as such: tax cuts are statistically proven to NOT stimulate the economy as much as we thought; cooperations have proven that they aren't trust worthy with out Uncle Sam staring over their shoulder. Granted it's a pain for both the cooperations and Uncle Sam it is also a necessary evil. Before the crash near the end of last year, opposition to deregulation Wall Street claimed that Wall Street was irresponsible and would take our economy into a nose dive. After the deregulation and the economy taking a nose dive, every one of those people said "SEE I TOLD YOU! Now here's what we do" NOW conservatives are saying that these people are stupid and caused the whole thing in the first place and thus we should stop listening to them. Umm...sorry if I fail to see the logic. Newsflash, you touchy-feely reality-challenged tardos who think this way: corporations survive because they are good at giving people what they want and doing so as cheaply as possible. Put another way, the business of corporations is making dollars work harder. And, yes, there are a few people at the top of many of the largest corporations who will make more money in the next few hours than you will your whole life. Get over it. Or, if it bothers you that badly, go bust your ass through eight years of college, four years of internships, and then forty years of eighty-hour workweeks and you too can live the good life. But whatever you do, don't tell your representatives in government to raise their taxes, because raising taxes means lost jobs. I know it seems like some kinda arcane magic trick, this science of economics, but believe me... You add a cost (taxes) one place and you have to subtract a cost (jobs) from another place. Corporations aren't like the government; they can't just print money whenever they feel like it. They actually have to maintain a balance sheet. Actually there is no statistic that says raising taxes = lost jobs. In fact some of the lowest unemployment rates were during years when or right after an increase in taxes. You see, it's actually a well propagated myth that I didn't actually get either. I mean, raise taxes...more employment, I don't see the correlation. But apparently it works. I think that it has something to do with what the taxes actually DO but I'll have to read up on that one and get back to you. By the way, read this: www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?ref=todayspaperAnd before you bitch about trickle-down economics, go and read a fucking book, for the love of Mike. Or, I dunno, use some common sense. What the fuck do you think rich people do with their money? Seriously? Answer me that question! Do you think they hide it under their lavish curtained king-size beds? For all I know, you might. No, tard, they don't. They spend it. Then it goes back into the economy in a measured, informed way based on what people actually want and need rather than what some unconcerned third party believes the economy needs because he read last week in Time that a fountain in Baton Rouge was cracked and needed some repairs that cost $250 billion. Cripes. Well actually the rich are a bit more stingy than you might think but that's not the problem actually. The problem is that the rich aren't usually consumers, that's the job of the rapidly disappearing middle class. So essentially the problem with trickle-down economics is that it takes to damn long. If we wait for trickle-down economics to fix all of our problem chances are that they won't work fast enough and it will have more and more problems to fix and eventually we'll be in too deep a tailspin for even the government to pull us out and we'll end up like the USSR. You know...kaput. The government is terrible at spending money. They have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever gotten anything right. Name me one non-emergency first responder government program that works as advertised, and I will send you an signed photograph of me sticking my head up my own ass and kissing my own brain. Alternatively, I will point out all the reasons why you are wrong about that program, and you must agree to whatever terms I come up with after my fury has subsided. Well, I'm not going to accept those terms but I think that most of what Alexander Hamilton did was pretty cool, like the Bank of America. The NASA program was pretty cool, brought us Velcro and the moon. The Hoover dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. Despite the violation of it, the Social Security System worked (though that's a point of debate). There's a couple more but I'd have to dig a little. Granted, no system is perfect. Have you ever heard the military axiom: no plan ever goes off perfectly. That's usually why we come up with hail Mary's. Just because things don't always go off perfectly doesn't mean that they always fail. There's a lot of things that the gov. got wrong, but it's not like they aren't human, I'm sure there's a lot you got wrong too. Ball's in ya'lls' courts, tards. Let's do this.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 15:59:20 GMT -8
By the way that stuff about tax cuts doing kaput was in Paul Krugman "The Obama Gap" on 1/9/09 when he said:Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50. But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?scp=1&sq=The%20Obama%20Gap&st=cse
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 9, 2009 17:01:36 GMT -8
No. I know you didn't mention them but that's where all of your arguments come from. The tax cuts and trickle down economics as well as other ineffective economical tactics come from Reagan. I actually got Nixon and Regan mixed up so what I really meant was Reagan. The Bush thing is my support for why Reaganomics (Reagan+Economics) doesn't work and the Clinton thing is my answer to counter arguments from Bush. When ever you hear conservatives talk about the economy they always start talking about Reagan and I'm just really sick of it. Reagan is cool and all, but all of his policies have lead us to this point and to say that what he did is what FDR should have done is ignorant. What the fuck? Seriously? * Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Right, I like how you have to group Clinton and Bush together. Two questions, first, Bushy or Bush senior? Second, can you give me a statistic that doesn't group two presidents together? Something like this: krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/job-creation/?scp=2&sq=economic%20growth%20presidency%20op-ed%20chart&st=csekrugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/look-whos-talking-2/?scp=13&sq=economic%20growth%20presidency%20op-ed%20chart&st=cseOh and this one is about the new deal, Chris you might like to read this: krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/new-deal-economics/?scp=17&sq=economic%20growth%20presidency%20op-ed%20chart&st=cse * Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Right: krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/reaganomics/?scp=25&sq=economic%20growth%20presidency%20op-ed%20chart&st=cse . You have to be careful about things like per capita and average income, it usually is misleading. * Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. well they fluctuated faster. See above links. * The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Hahahahahaha. Is that all? Hahahahahaha. This is coming from the cynic that said that government fucks up everything? Hahahahaha. Please see the above links. I'm begging you, I might split a side. Clinton didn't do shit to help the economy. If you will recall, the Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 1994. The Congress is where all spending bills originate. The White House signs stuff. So, really, if you want to contend that the 90s were a time of magical economic expansion, you'd also have to concede it was the Republicans that made it happen. you should have made these paragraphs a single paragraph. Anyway, that all may be true but I think you will see that I didn't actually say Clinton made it that way just that that was the era we lived in. But really, that would be wrong too. What really helped the economy to expand in the 1990s? You're looking at it. The internet, the most revolutionary invention since Henry Ford's assembly line, was the economic driver of that decade. Now, a case can be made that the internet bubble's bursting was a direct result of the Fed's raising interest rates six consecutive times coupled with the Clinton-era bullshit prosecution of Microsoft. Clinton didn't create the prosperity in the nineties, but Clinton-era policies certainly helped to put a kibosh on them. Right. Again, you seem to completely ignore the MASSIVE tax cuts and deregulation during TWO WARS being fought simultaneously. WHO PAYS FOR OUR WARS? WHO? You want to blame Clinton? Fine, just explain the past eight years to me and explain, what, exactly negates that.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 9, 2009 20:58:32 GMT -8
Krugman? Feh. I've shit pieces of corn smarter that that hack.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Feb 9, 2009 23:06:18 GMT -8
With no real evidence. So much for intellectual honesty. And kudos for your efforts in argument. You even stumped snooty girl today.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2009 2:13:22 GMT -8
I'm just gonna throw a few things out there. I know I'm not nearly as well-educated on these issues as username or Sean Sultan, but I found a couple things a little interesting. I'll use Sean's favorite source of unbiased, objective information: Wikipedia.
First, you seem to quote the vast majority of your articles from the New York Times, a newspaper perpetually being accused and criticized for being subjective to the liberal cause. Wikipedia states:
On the NY Times:
"...The paper has often been accused of giving too little or too much coverage to events for reasons not related to objective journalism...."
"...Jayson Blair was a Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories...."
"The Times has been variously described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper, or of having a conservative bias on certain issues or by some writers...."
On Paul Krugman:
"...Krugman is a self-described liberal...."
"...Krugman has explained that he views the term 'liberal' in the American context to mean 'more or less what social democratic means in Europe'...."
On Reed Hastings:
"...Wilmot Reed Hastings, Jr. (b. 8 October 1960 in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American businessman and entrepreneur. He is the founder, CEO, president and chairman of the board of Netflix...."
"...'I wanted to go to a small liberal arts school and went to Bowdoin College in Maine. I majored in math because I found the abstractions beautiful and engaging,' said Hastings...."
On Scott McClellan:
"...McClellan conceded that the president had never asked him to shade the truth, use innuendo or employ propaganda, nor ordered anyone else to do so in his presence...."
Sean, I'm not saying that your argument is invalid. In fact, I find your arguments quite engaging and you've obviously read up on the issues you care about. However, I'd like to see you mix it up a little on where you obtain your information.
So far you've quoted several NY Times articles, several Krugman articles, the owner of Netflix (?!?!), and a bitter, former White House staff member looking to sell a few books.
I'm not saying that everything username has said is the gospel and that you're completely incorrect. I'd just like to see you have some factual evidence from sources other than the ones listed prior, as they all have an obvious left slant (Other than McClellan; who from what I've read is trying to play off of the unpopularity of the Bush administration and make a buck.)
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 10, 2009 6:03:21 GMT -8
Now I'm just doing this to defend my sources.
First off, Username? Really? Nobel Prize. When was the last time you won a Nobel?
Second, Chris, valid point I do often quote the liberal media or other wise unreliable sources. MSNBC, Wikipedia, The NY Times. Sure, I'll admit that I have a more liberal bias but it's not like these aren't well respected sources, with the exception of Wikipedia. To be honest, after Bush I don't trust any conservative media to not lie or spit propaganda at me. I'm not kidding, it actually makes me sick to watch FOX. I'm sure some people feel the same about the liberal media and I admit that sometimes I feel uncomfortable listening to the opinions of the anchors at MSNBC but what are you gonna do. Its not like there is many center media running around. NPR is about as center as you get and even that conservatives wave the liberal finger at. Anyway rest of my sources:
Krugman: What can I say, I like a guy with credentials and a Nobel is a pretty good credential. Sure he has a liberal lean but it's not like he lies to us, every thing he puts out is well thought through and backed with factual data. He's really the kind of person that it's hard to argue with.
Reed Hastings: Actually, liberal arts does not necessarily mean a liberal school. It refers to a college curriculum often referred to as classical. Anyone who studied or is studying music in college studied the liberal arts, so just about everyone over 18 here. I don't really know, I'm kind of grasping at straws here because I'm not sure I understand your objections to Reed Hastings. Moving on.
Scott McClellan: well, there's a lot of controversy over him. The White House, and their lap dog, FOX news, are mostly the ones that have tried to discredit him. Now I'm not 100% sure who's right, but then who ever is? I don't think that the white house would have gone to so much trouble to discredit Scott if they didn't feel threatened and to be honest, in their position I would probably try to make out like he was lying too. However, I think you will notice that I didn't actually site him as a source. I just said that I thought you should read it because it really go in depth about the permanent campaign and it's history.
I'll try to incorporate a wider array of sources for yalls benefit but no promises that I wont revert to just NPR.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 10, 2009 7:12:17 GMT -8
By the way, why isn't anyone asking for username's sources? I find it interesting that username lists some statistics (of which validity I didn't question) yet not where he got them and that's just fine. Yet I list sources and they're all to liberal for ya. Not disputing that I need a broader range of sources but maybe username should site some and maybe y'all should give use equal amounts of skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2009 11:49:16 GMT -8
Reed Hastings: Actually, liberal arts does not necessarily mean a liberal school. It refers to a college curriculum often referred to as classical. Anyone who studied or is studying music in college studied the liberal arts, so just about everyone over 18 here. I don't really know, I'm kind of grasping at straws here because I'm not sure I understand your objections to Reed Hastings. Moving on. I know what liberal arts means. I was suggesting that as the owner of Netflix and a mathematics degree he's not necessarily qualified as en economist or a journalist.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 10, 2009 14:37:25 GMT -8
Okay I just didn't know where you were coming from.
So your argument is that he is not an economist or a journalist and therefor is irrelevant to our discussion? Again, you will notice that I didn't actually incorporate his article into my argument, though I do think that it is relevant and supports my own beliefs. Had you read (I'm assuming you didn't) the article I think you would have realized that his statements were more along the line experience of being a CE of a large corporate organization, of which he is more than qualified. He shows insight into the mind and environment of big business and he presents better taxing policies. However, that being said, I'm not sure I understand your complaints. You are saying that the Chief executive of a large successful business, who also has a degree in mathematics, is in no way qualified in this discussion? You do understand that economics involves understanding in American and international business and their practices as well as understanding in finance and accounting.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 10, 2009 15:10:47 GMT -8
Okay I just didn't know where you were coming from. So your argument is that he is not an economist or a journalist and therefor is irrelevant to our discussion? Again, you will notice that I didn't actually incorporate his article into my argument, though I do think that it is relevant and supports my own beliefs. Had you read (I'm assuming you didn't) the article I think you would have realized that his statements were more along the line experience of being a CE of a large corporate organization, of which he is more than qualified. He shows insight into the mind and environment of big business and he presents better taxing policies. However, that being said, I'm not sure I understand your complaints. You are saying that the Chief executive of a large successful business, who also has a degree in mathematics, is in no way qualified in this discussion? You do understand that economics involves understanding in American and international business and their practices as well as understanding in finance and accounting. I read it. I guess it's easy to give up 50% of your earned income when you make $2,418,577.00 a year ( people.forbes.com/profile/reed-hastings/53620). "Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh dude, CEO's of huge corporations are only in it for the challenge of the job and most certainly not the money. Hahaha, I'm not throwing his credibility out the window completely, but come on. That being the second to last paragraph almost nullifies what he said in the entire piece.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 10, 2009 19:36:28 GMT -8
You know who else won the Nobel Prize? Friedrich Hayek. Not that it matters. You've just engaged in what we like to call an "appeal to authority." Congrats on your already fallacious reasoning. Listen here, smartness: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. Say it with me now: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. They didn't make it, they didn't contract on it, and they certainly aren't better at deciding how it is used than someone with a vested interest in it. Deregulation was not the cause of the current crisis. You ever hear of Sarbanes-Oxley? Yeah, that was a massively-costly law that was designed to prevent the sort of accounting scandals that brought down Enron. It was signed into law during the Bush Administration. But you know to which government-backed financial entities it did not apply? If you guessed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, give yourself several points. Also, I read the provided link. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. There are lots of people who know exactly what to do. They are called private citizens and they are the best judges of how their money ought to be spent. You know, because it's their money and not the government's money. Oh yeah, and war spending was a fuck-all absolute awful waste. You happy now? Obama is not the best shot we have now. The free market did not get us into this mess. Low interest rates and lax lending standards did. Those low interest rates came from the Fed slashing and burning our currency to "give the economy a helping hand" after 9/11. The lax lending standards came from Fannie and Freddie assuming any and every loan that was thrown accross their counter, thus reallocating the risk from private companies that would pay a price if those mortgages went bad to a federally-backed pair of holding companies who couldn't give a shit how risky the loans they were buying up was, because they knew that if they got in a bad way, the federales would be there to bail them out. And that's exactly what happened. And now you're telling me that the solution to a problem created by excess government intervention in the market is... More government intervention in the market? Forgive me if I think that's absofuckinglutely terrifying. FDR tried that shit, and gave us five more years of Great Depression. Read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes, and don't buy the hype. I do think the government needs to do things: they need to eliminate the minimum wage so that more people who want a job will be able to get one. They need to cut taxes so that more people have more of their own money to spend. Most importantly, they need to stop printing money like its gangbusters so that our currency can stabilize. The prosperity of the last twenty years has been almost entirely built on easy credit facilitated by loose federal monetary policy coupled with the internet in all her etherial glory. The internet is still around, but the easy credit has mostly evaporated which is a good thing because easy credit leads to violent boom-bust cycles like we're seeing now. The bailout is nothing but the ultimate easy credit, except in this case it's the government taking on debt on our behalf and then spending it on whatever random-ass projects they can come up with to fill up the economy with fake foreign-backed collapse-prone dollars. That's no way to fix an economy, but a very good way for people who have no vested interest in seeing it fixed to cement their place in the power structure for the forseeable future. And this isn't just my opinion, man. It's logic. It's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FUCKING MONEY. Is that hard to understand? The government is nothing but the result of the torch-weiling mob picking up ballots instead of pitchforks. Just because they have the legal power to extort wealth by threat of jail time doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean they should engage in more of it. Do you seriously want someone taking your money and, having never met you before, telling you how you have to spend it under penalty of legal sanction? I mean, do you? Or is it only okay because "the rich can afford it?" Read up on the French Revolution to find out how well popular disdain for the rich being the driving force of a movement usually works out. NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT'S FUCKING MONEY, FOR SHIT'S SAKE! And I'll tell you how this "more taxes=more jobs" stupidity works: You raise taxes on private corporations who can then not hire as many high-skilled employees at a competitive wage as they want to. Then you pool all that money, as the government, and hire retard paper-pushers and sign-holders and no-bid-contractors wily nily in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with demand for those jobs and everything to do with spending other people's money. Woo. "Economic change is a messy process. New technologies open up many opportunities for those prepared to take advantage of them. At the same time, old firms and their workers are displaced and forced to start over. In 1900, for example, 40% of the U.S. work force was involved in agriculture. Today, that figure is less than 2%, and no serious observer would argue that we are worse off as a result of this transformation. Yet many of today's most prominent politicians and pundits are making an updated version of precisely this argument. They claim that the decline in the number of manufacturing jobs has led to the replacement of good middle-class jobs by low-skill, low-pay "hamburger-flipping" service jobs. This kind of populist dogma is bad politics and even worse economics. The assertion that the American middle-class is disappearing along with manufacturing jobs is, put simply, based on an outdated view of how the economy operates, and is empirically wrong. Nonetheless, the view that the economy has failed the middle class is widespread. The outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries is, of course, the latest culprit." online.wsj.com/article/SB119318171973969059.html?mod=opinion_main_commentariesYar. I can link. Tax cuts free up capital to be allocated according to the desires of the spenders rather than unconcerned third parties. Therefore that money will be used in a wat that reflects actual demand and allows the market to realign itself around facilitating actual needs and providing for them with higher levels of quality and lower costs. This is pretty elementary stuff, here. It was of course Bush I. Oooh! More Krugman. By all means, don't make your own arguments. You seem to think that I think that paying for those wars was a smart move. Well, joke's on you, buddy. Paying for those wars was an awful idea. See what happens when you make assumptions? That's right! Yasser Arafat won a Nobel Peace prize. It's because I don't appeal to authority all that often. I just use good clean logic. So, to review: IT'S NOT THE MOTHERFUCKING GOVERNMENT'S MOTHERFUCKING MONEY. Just thought I'd reiterate.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Feb 10, 2009 20:17:59 GMT -8
Okay I just didn't know where you were coming from. So your argument is that he is not an economist or a journalist and therefor is irrelevant to our discussion? Again, you will notice that I didn't actually incorporate his article into my argument, though I do think that it is relevant and supports my own beliefs. Had you read (I'm assuming you didn't) the article I think you would have realized that his statements were more along the line experience of being a CE of a large corporate organization, of which he is more than qualified. He shows insight into the mind and environment of big business and he presents better taxing policies. However, that being said, I'm not sure I understand your complaints. You are saying that the Chief executive of a large successful business, who also has a degree in mathematics, is in no way qualified in this discussion? You do understand that economics involves understanding in American and international business and their practices as well as understanding in finance and accounting. I read it. I guess it's easy to give up 50% of your earned income when you make $2,418,577.00 a year ( people.forbes.com/profile/reed-hastings/53620). "Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh dude, CEO's of huge corporations are only in it for the challenge of the job and most certainly not the money. Hahaha, I'm not throwing his credibility out the window completely, but come on. That being the second to last paragraph almost nullifies what he said in the entire piece. Well good, I'm glad you have read the article but it's interesting how your argument has changed. So now your argument is that the second to last paragraph essentially hamstrings his entire op-ed simply based on the statement that CEO's are in it for the challenge not the money. Well I'll admit that it is a strange statement that took me aback when I read it. However, I'm studying my major not for the money which it promises (which is actually quite a lot) but because I enjoy it and enjoy the challenge. Mark my words, it is a mistake to enter a profession you do not enjoy. You see I'm not a CEO and neither are you, so whether we understand it or not we shouldn't discredit a statement based on our predispositions unless we have personal experience or we have been taught by reliable sources. I'm not saying to take him at his word, but he hasn't really given us any reason to believe that he is misleading us. In fact we can infer that this is a potentially dangerous statement for him, as a representative of his company, to be making especially if it is largely wrong or misrepresenting other CEO's. However, it's not like they don't make enough to not have to care about it. That being said, you brought up concerns about the placement of this paragraph. Well lets analyze it. It appears to be in the traditional hamburger style format, that is oriented with the thesis statement in the first and last paragraph with supporting reasons in the middle. admittedly, not a very persuasive format but still quite effective. So the first paragraph is basically saying "hi, this is what I do" and introducing the thesis. The second paragraph is kind of an extention of the first and seems to set up a pro for such a large tax. The next paragraph is giving you historical evidence as well as introducing this idea that what has happened in the past clearly was not wise and does not work. After that paragraph he keeps on this theme that current policies are ineffective because, though boards hate overpaying, they realize the dangers of a bad CEO and will be willing to pay the price for "already proven talent", which seems to introduce this new theme of competition. Next, he almost seems to be extending the last paragraph again, but is actually voiceing some of the public's concerns about CEO's who get away with practically murdering our economy and how his idea of “tax, not shame” would soften the blow and actually turn it into a benefit for the country. Then he talks about celebs and how this would cover them too instead of just businesses. In the next paragraph he seems to apply what he has gone over to what the Obama plans are and talks about how he strongly disagrees with him. finally we get to the statement we are concerned about. This almost seems like a turning point, he talks about how his plan could be initiated, he gives a small counter argument which he brushes off pretty quickly, he concludes he theme about competition and ends with this attention grabbing and startling statement: "most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." The final paragraph is basically a restatement of the thesis. Anyway, since the statement: "Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway." is supporting the thesis:" Instead of trying to shame companies and executives, President Obama should take advantage of our success by using CEO's outsized earnings to pay for the needs of our nation." It seems to actually be quite effective and does not conflict with his other statements. Since it concludes this theme of competition, it is possible that it could be placed in a more effective spot but since it is, kind of, a response to the paragraph before it it would be inappropriate to move that portion. He could have split it up, but the shock of the last statement would have been less effective anywhere but at the end. So I have to disagree with you there, where it is seems quite effective
|
|