Taxes And Unions Got Us Out Of The Depression

[Hogarth]

Interesting? Discuss....

Dave Johnson
Fri Feb 8, 11:32 AM ET



I wonder why no one has pointed out the real reason the Republicans filibustered the "Stimulus Bill" this week? They blocked an expansion of Food Stamps, an extension of unemployment benefits, assistance for disabled veterans, help for seniors and a boost for renewable energy.

Here is the reason: Those were not about taxes.

The Democrats caved (of course), so the public now has validation of the notion that taxes harm the economy.

Message: Economy in trouble? Tax rebates and tax cuts will "stimulate" things.

So will this "stimulus" help? Maybe a slight bit. The government will borrow another $150-or-so billion and pump it into the economy. The deficit will be even bigger. The world will trust the dollar even less.

Here is something to think about. This economic problem is about debt. Since Reagan the country and the people in it have been borrowing huge amounts of money to keep things going. (Except for the years that Clinton balanced the budget and was paying back some of the debt.)

Taxes and unions got us out of the depression. Redistribution of income. Taxes on the rich, the money used to build infrastructure and provide good jobs, and unions to force the corporations to give raises and benefits. In a consumer economy you want more money in the hands of the consumers - not the rich. DUH!

[markalot]

Just wrong, not interesting.

Next.

[silentpaul]

(Except for the years that Clinton balanced the budget and was paying back some of the debt.)

Why did the potentially most relevant and useful part get mentioned parenthetically?

[Hogarth]

Just wrong, not interesting.

Next.

Not exactly.

When the Great Depression happened, the rich took their profits from the 1929 crash and sat on their butts, waiting for an upturn before re-investing in the economy. The upturn didn't happen until the late 1940's, and then only because the government siezed their assets(in the form of taxes) to pay for WW2. The wages paid to suddenly empoyed factory workers and soldiers, along with GI benefits, the FHA, and large public works projects, sparked a wave of consuption that drove a huge, sustained surge in the economy, one that didn't slow down until the Nixon admistration. None of this would have happened due to the market alone, but because of wealth distribution and direct government action. Sure, taxes aren't so good for corporations, but corporations don't eat, breathe, have kids, etc., so I don't have much sympathy for them.

[jneale]

Taxes and unions got us out of the depression. Redistribution of income. Taxes on the rich, the money used to build infrastructure and provide good jobs, and unions to force the corporations to give raises and benefits.

89.3% of all the taxes paid in the US are paid by people earning between $50K to $1 million or more. Do you really think someone earning $50K is rich?

50.5% of all tax returns are people earning between less than $1K -$25K - they pay 0.3% of the taxes in the US

9.6% of tax returns are people earning over $100K, paying 67.8% of taxes paid

Give me a flax tax where everyone participates - that will bring us around.

Have you ever worked in a UNION shop? Its a false economy & the reason why US MFG is in the toilet. I'll agree when we were turning people into hotdogs they were a good thing - but no longer.

[Hogarth]

89.3% of all the taxes paid in the US are paid by people earning between $50K to $1 million or more. Do you really think someone earning $50K is rich?

50.5% of all tax returns are people earning between less than $1K -$25K - they pay 0.3% of the taxes in the US

9.6% of tax returns are people earning over $100K, paying 67.8% of taxes paid

Give me a flax tax where everyone participates - that will bring us around.

Have you ever worked in a UNION shop? Its a false economy & the reason why US MFG is in the toilet. I'll agree when we were turning people into hotdogs they were a good thing - but no longer.

1. No. The point is that, in our economy, which is based on consumer spending, money is only useful if it's spent, preferably by as many different people as possible. When wages don't rise, as they haven't for the last 8 years or so, people have to cut back on discretionary spending to pay the mortgage, utilities, etc. As spending drops, companies cut wages and hiring, thus starting a vicious cycle. What you get is a depression. There are only 2 ways out: a paradigm breaking innovation (like electricty distribution or the internet), or govt. intervention.

2. High taxes are revolution insurance. When people no longer feel they benefit from the current system, they revolt, and the rich get put up against the wall. Just ask the French, Russians, and Chinese.

3. I've been a Teamster. It was a great place to work, but the managers were totally hosed. The corporation should have found a way to get the workers more motivated by tying compensation to productivity, but that would've required some creativity. Just look at the RIAA for good examples of that.

This is today's lesson: when the economy goes bad, the rich sit on their hands, which doesn't work when the economy is based on consumtion.

[markalot]

I've been a Teamster.

That pretty much sums it up. Unions are great for protecting the worker, but as they discovered if they don't keep the interests of the employers in mind then in the end jobs will be lost. You can't force consumers to buy overpriced crap.

You're solution is to tax the hell out of the rich in oder to 'equal' the playing field. Another way to say it is to remove the incentive to get rich. Sorry, I don't want to live there.

When wages don't rise, as they haven't for the last 8 years or so, people have to cut back on discretionary spending to pay the mortgage, utilities, etc. As spending drops, companies cut wages and hiring, thus starting a vicious cycle. What you get is a depression. There are only 2 ways out: a paradigm breaking innovation (like electricty distribution or the internet), or govt. intervention.


No. A depression is caused by the insolvency of banks and the lost value of money. We're not even in the same universe and this is just crazy to even talk about.

Income disparity causes economic strife which can be corrected by fixing the disparity. The government doesn't need to step in and fix it. We're talking about a slight contraction of the economy here, maybe even no contraction, but not a depression.

It's like I've said in many of the Walmart threads; if consumers are really hurting and they stop buying stuff businesses will go under. It's not happening, which means these poor saps everyone is talking about still have money to spend.

The economy can self correct, no intervention required.

Besides, guess what happens if income increases. Prices will have to increase. And what does price increase mean? Inflation. What does inflation mean? Your dollar is worth less. So make more to earn less.

[upwithpeople]

No. A depression is caused by the insolvency of banks and the lost value of money. We're not even in the same universe and this is just crazy to even talk about.I don't want to mix it up in here or anything, but what you're describing here are the symptoms of a depression, not the causes. Hogarth is largely correct is describing the causes.

The economy can self correct, no intervention required.Again, not looking to mix it up here, but what a silly thing to say. The Great Depression didn't make itself go away.

[Hogarth]

That pretty much sums it up. Unions are great for protecting the worker, but as they discovered if they don't keep the interests of the employers in mind then in the end jobs will be lost. You can't force consumers to buy overpriced crap.

You're solution is to tax the hell out of the rich in oder to 'equal' the playing field. Another way to say it is to remove the incentive to get rich. Sorry, I don't want to live there.



No. A depression is caused by the insolvency of banks and the lost value of money. We're not even in the same universe and this is just crazy to even talk about.

Income disparity causes economic strife which can be corrected by fixing the disparity. The government doesn't need to step in and fix it. We're talking about a slight contraction of the economy here, maybe even no contraction, but not a depression.

It's like I've said in many of the Walmart threads; if consumers are really hurting and they stop buying stuff businesses will go under. It's not happening, which means these poor saps everyone is talking about still have money to spend.

The economy can self correct, no intervention required.

Besides, guess what happens if income increases. Prices will have to increase. And what does price increase mean? Inflation. What does inflation mean? Your dollar is worth less. So make more to earn less.


Unless, of couse, manufacturers ramp up production to meet the increase in demand, which causes prices to level off. Companies will have to hire to sustain the new production levels, which leads to sustained, true growth, not just an increase in profits.

As to the beginning of your quote, companies usually fail to keep the interests of their employees in mind, and then complain when their employees are disloyal and unproductive.:rolleyes:

Workers, white collar included need to stand up for themselves sometimes.

[markalot]

You seem to be under the impression that most companies are making unreasonable profits. I suppose this is typical of the worker who only cares about himself.

Great Depression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

pretty even handed article.

I won't be able to sway the opinion of those who think government needs to take a heavy hand int he economy. Nor will I be able to convince people that hate business that they're wrong. Generally if you ever decide to run a business yourself, or at least consider running one, you'll come to a better understanding of all the issues on both sides.

[Sushi]

This discussion is interesting because it assumes that the all union workers are in manufacturing, and that isn't true. I'm a professional staff member at a state university and a proud member of SEIU local 1199, which is fastest-growing union in the country. It focuses on three employment sectors: largest health care, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; property services union, including building cleaning and security; and public employees, such as universities and libraries. No manufacturing. I was among 11 people in my former college laid off just before Christmas, and thanks to the protection of my union contract, I was transferred to another position within the university. The union put the transfer clause in there. The university would have left me and others high dry. Unions are still very relevant, just in a different manner. [/slight derail]

[the-dude]

(Except for the years that Clinton balanced the budget and was paying back some of the debt.)

Not true. He did technically balance the budget, but the national debt went UP, not down, every year (probably every second) of his presidency. This is essentially accounting trickery similar to what businesses often do. I think it is something like the interest on the debt is not counted against the budget! So it can look like it is balanced when in practical terms you are not paying anything off. Now, if you can't even balance the budget through clever accounting (aka Mr Bush) then you have very drastic rise in national debt. So I'm not dogging Clinton, but the myth of his supposed balanced budgets. This is NOT a right wing talking point, it is simply the truth. The Clintonian balanced budget is an illusion, but not technically a lie, more like political positioning. But I'd prefer a Clintonian budget over a Bush budget, although the booming economy certainly helped him a ton.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
The clinton era certainly had a lower rate of increase in national debt, but it did not lower, as one would expect if we were truly paying off more than we owe each year.

[jneale]

This discussion is interesting because it assumes that the all union workers are in manufacturing, and that isn't true. I'm a professional staff member at a state university and a proud member of SEIU local 1199, which is fastest-growing union in the country. It focuses on three employment sectors: largest health care, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; property services union, including building cleaning and security; and public employees, such as universities and libraries. No manufacturing. I was among 11 people in my former college laid off just before Christmas, and thanks to the protection of my union contract, I was transferred to another position within the university. The union put the transfer clause in there. The university would have left me and others high dry. Unions are still very relevant, just in a different manner. [/slight derail]

Ok, you know I love you & I'd never take $ out of your pocket.

Yep, there are tons of unions, MFG unions are down in membership - unions are business - nothing more. They are going after non-traditional members - why? Laws have forced companies to have better HR policies. I know it isn't a perfect world - but things are working & in MFG unions aren't needed to protect workers as they once were.

Now let's talk about a hypothetical company on hard times. They've got less sales, the first thing they need to do is adjust their headcount to match the lower volume/workload. But - they've got a union that makes them make decisions NOT based on the economics, but on a contract that addresses emotional issues - not economic ones. So instead of reducing costs - your employer wasn't able to match the market - they've got higher costs due to a union - they might not be that competitive now, what happens next?

I'm just in from a meal & a drink or two - so my words might not be clear....you are protected, the financials might not be, and going forward - next down turn - maybe it will be worse because they couldn't make as deep of an adjustment as they could have without the union.

[markalot]

This discussion is interesting because it assumes that the all union workers are in manufacturing, and that isn't true. I'm a professional staff member at a state university and a proud member of SEIU local 1199, which is fastest-growing union in the country. It focuses on three employment sectors: largest health care, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; property services union, including building cleaning and security; and public employees, such as universities and libraries. No manufacturing. I was among 11 people in my former college laid off just before Christmas, and thanks to the protection of my union contract, I was transferred to another position within the university. The union put the transfer clause in there. The university would have left me and others high dry. Unions are still very relevant, just in a different manner. [/slight derail]

I'm certainly glad you have a job, but long term do you think anything is solved. Sounds like the university needed to save money but the union was able to quash it. So what happens when the money runs out. I think you know what happens. For companies who are cash strapped and stuck with employees they don't need the only solution is to go oversees for cheaper labor. In the case of a school I think the situation might be worse.

Either way I bet it's a short term fix.

There are good unions, though, and I hope yours is one of them.

[markalot]

Pretty unbiased, huh?

Nick I can't trust anything you say. Why is it you feel the need to delete all your old posts? Perhaps you're not comfortable with them after a while? :)

[Sushi]

I'm certainly glad you have a job, but long term do you think anything is solved. Sounds like the university needed to save money but the union was able to quash it. So what happens when the money runs out. I think you know what happens. For companies who are cash strapped and stuck with employees they don't need the only solution is to go oversees for cheaper labor. In the case of a school I think the situation might be worse.

Either way I bet it's a short term fix.

There are good unions, though, and I hope yours is one of them.
Actually, our college is in debt to the university for $1.6 million because our former dean gambled with the budget (nothing illegal or immoral that I know of). He's a schmuck.

The clause in the contract saying that union members who are laid off get transferred to another position w/in the university for which they are immediately qualified is what kept me employed. And my (very good) union put that clause in the contract. Just want to point out that not all unions are "bad" and that the face of union workers has changed dramatically. Seventy years ago, who would have thought white collar workers would be unionized? (Or would need to be unionized?)

The damn thing is, part of our college (and our university's) problem is the sharp decrease in funding from the state (in our case, through the Ohio Urban University Program). And there's less money to be given to state universities because there's less money being given to the states from the feds because the feds have less revenue because of tax reductions.

I'm going to bed. All you people should leave CE&P and go and read my Amazon entry and write a glowing review. It's be cosmic brownie points. Seriously.

[Breeze]

Why is it you feel the need to delete all your old posts?

He's not the only one who does this. Why is it an issue?

[classicgrrl]

89.3% of all the taxes paid in the US are paid by people earning between $50K to $1 million or more. Do you really think someone earning $50K is rich?

50.5% of all tax returns are people earning between less than $1K -$25K - they pay 0.3% of the taxes in the US

9.6% of tax returns are people earning over $100K, paying 67.8% of taxes paid

Give me a flax tax where everyone participates - that will bring us around.

Have you ever worked in a UNION shop? Its a false economy & the reason why US MFG is in the toilet. I'll agree when we were turning people into hotdogs they were a good thing - but no longer.

don't listen to him he's in HR. :p

[classicgrrl]

He's not the only one who does this. Why is it an issue?

if he is who I think he is; he may delete his posts because of where he works and what he does for a living.

I might be completely wrong too, don't really know of course.

I think it sad that due to certain types or places of employment people don't have freedom of speech. I don't have a myspace or facebook page because of it. I draw the line at woxy.com...

[DaHood]

All you people should leave CE&P and go and read my Amazon entry and write a glowing review. It's be cosmic brownie points. Seriously.That's a fanfuckingtastic idea. That and...







http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Images/LBUN-6QB4N4/$File/Ferret.jpg

[jneale]

Just want to point out that not all unions are "bad" and that the face of union workers has changed dramatically. Seventy years ago, who would have thought white collar workers would be unionized? (Or would need to be unionized?)


Unnecessary is the word I'd use.

white collar workers are unionized now because unions are a business - there is no need for them in mfg. anymore - so they've moved on to greener pastures

is anyone really being ground up into sausage with a mop bucket?

unions served a purpose once upon a time, now they are just another reasons to offshore work

[DudeMan]

Taxes and unions got us out of the depression. Redistribution of income. Taxes on the rich, the money used to build infrastructure and provide good jobs, and unions to force the corporations to give raises and benefits. In a consumer economy you want more money in the hands of the consumers - not the rich. DUH!
not even the most liberal of economists will agree with you that increasing taxes during tough economic times is a good idea. that's straight out of keynes, the lefty-liberal economist. your premise that taking more money out of an anemic private sector is somehow going to 'solve' or 'heal' an economic downturn is pure fantasy. what colour is the sky in your world?

i don't care one way or the other about private sector unions. the dramatic decline in union membership is a pretty clear indication that they have largely outlived their usefulness. but, for the ones that remain, good luck to you.

what i don't like about unions is the recent trend for government workers to unionize. for private sector unions, the union bosses may very well be gready assholes, but even the dumbest union boss knows that if the company goes out of business, there won't be any jobs to protect. so, there is a semblance of a 'reality check' for them. for government workers however, their funding is limitless, for all intents and purposes. so, they don't give a fuck how ridiculous and greedy and unfair they are being, because the sucker-taxpayers will always be there to fund them.

[frizgolf]

what i don't like about unions is the recent trend for government workers to unionize.
Wasteful.
We can't change a light bulb or move a cubicle wall at work without going through 'contract labor'.

[markalot]

Actually, our college is in debt to the university for $1.6 million because our former dean gambled with the budget (nothing illegal or immoral that I know of). He's a schmuck.

The clause in the contract saying that union members who are laid off get transferred to another position w/in the university for which they are immediately qualified is what kept me employed. And my (very good) union put that clause in the contract. Just want to point out that not all unions are "bad" and that the face of union workers has changed dramatically. Seventy years ago, who would have thought white collar workers would be unionized? (Or would need to be unionized?)

The damn thing is, part of our college (and our university's) problem is the sharp decrease in funding from the state (in our case, through the Ohio Urban University Program). And there's less money to be given to state universities because there's less money being given to the states from the feds because the feds have less revenue because of tax reductions.

I'm going to bed. All you people should leave CE&P and go and read my Amazon entry and write a glowing review. It's be cosmic brownie points. Seriously.

I don't get it. So you're cool with everyone losing a job just to protect yours for a little while? It's always the employers fault, that's the burden they take on for running the place. If they are in debt and could survive by cutting jobs, but they can't cut yours, I see a problem.

[classicgrrl]

actually MAL, what I have learned during my studies is that if an employer is truthfully down to cutting jobs to try to stay viable then the light bulb already went out and it ain't coming back.

most employers do NOT cut jobs to save themselves from bankruptcy, they do it to make themselves more profitable which they will claim is in the interest of keeping themselves competitive and sometimes this is true and more often is an excuse to put more money in their and their shareholders pockets.

it is FAR different in the nonprofit and education sectors who are, theoretically, not in existance for making money.

the government is in its own fucked up world. :p

[purple_octopus]

...make themselves more profitable which they will claim is in the interest of keeping themselves competitive and sometimes this is true and more often is an excuse to put more money in their and their shareholders pockets...
Now just why would someone ever invest in business? I forgot.:confused:

[Sushi]

I don't get it. So you're cool with everyone losing a job just to protect yours for a little while? It's always the employers fault, that's the burden they take on for running the place. If they are in debt and could survive by cutting jobs, but they can't cut yours, I see a problem.
I'm not sure how to read your comment, which makes me think that perhaps I wasn't clear. I was laid off, as were 10 other people in my college, which is one several colleges in a state university. My old job no longer exists. Thanks to a clause that my union had put in the contract, the university had to make an effort to transfer me and the other people to open positions within the university if we were qualified for those jobs. We didn't have to apply for those positions and most of us left our old jobs on Friday and started the new gigs on Monday, so there was no loss of benefits. I didn't take anyone's job--these were all open positions. I have my union to thank for having a job right now.

[purple_octopus]

I'm not sure how to read your comment, which makes me think that perhaps I wasn't clear. I was laid off, as were 10 other people in my college, which is one several colleges in a state university. My old job no longer exists. Thanks to a clause that my union had put in the contract, the university had to make an effort to transfer me and the other people to open positions within the university if we were qualified for those jobs. We didn't have to apply for those positions and most of us left our old jobs on Friday and started the new gigs on Monday, so there was no loss of benefits. I didn't take anyone's job--these were all open positions. I have my union to thank for having a job right now.

You are way too modest. Anyone with your talent and intelligence would be high in demand, regardless of the status of your union membership.

[Buzzstein]

The existence of unions is necessary.

[DudeMan]

The union of existence is necessary.
fixed that for you

[BigSugar]

Taxes and unions got us out of the depression. Redistribution of income. Taxes on the rich, the money used to build infrastructure and provide good jobs, and unions to force the corporations to give raises and benefits. In a consumer economy you want more money in the hands of the consumers - not the rich. DUH!

Single most moronic rewrite of history...ever. You should be strung up and flogged for imparting this stupidity upon humanity. Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.

[Breeze]

Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.
Now, now... no one else has to do this. You're proof enough of that. :p

[BigSugar]

less money being given to the states from the feds because the feds have less revenue because of tax reductions.

Since the tax cuts have gone into effect, we've increased the amount of taxes paid to the US govt. every year (to the tune of a couple hundred BILLION). Also, since capital gains taxes have been cut from 20% to 15%, we've increased tax revenue in that area almost three-fold.

do the research, then do the typing.

[BigSugar]

btw...as i finished reading this post, could someone please point me to the part of the constitution that guarantees a worker the right to a job? If you want to guarantee yourself work, work for yourself. Or get yourself an employment contract.

The job of a union is to guarantee workplace safety and better overall general working conditions, not to guarantee a job to every moron that joins. Ford is drowning in debt b/c they were fucking retarded and guaranteed a certain number of jobs to UAW workers....quality fell, sales fell, profits turned to losses, and yet Ford has 8000 workers getting paid full salary and benefits to sit on their asses at home (or more likely, at the local bar drinking). Fuck them. I say cut them loose and let them sink or swim. I'd rather have a large company employing people that actually work, than the phony jobs of thousands of union workers who hit the lottery.

every one of you should start a business of your own, and then come back in a couple years and see how you feel about union labor.

If the union can get a foothold and the employer makes the deal, so be it...but to slam the employer when they cut the union loose or the workers loose in the search for profitability, that's just stupid. good for you Sushi for having that power. But to say that unions are "necessary" in todays day and age of over-arching govt. safety regulation and the massive exodus of overpriced union jobs overseas, you are dead freaking wrong. necessary? not a chance. a fact of life? unfortunately.

here's how they pay for Sushi's continued employment.....raise tuition. I seem to remember all kinds of discussions on here complaining about this.....but i guess having the cake and eating it too is a "right". ;)

[Breeze]

If you want to guarantee yourself work, work for yourself. Or get yourself an employment contract.

Thanks to a clause that my union had put in the contract, the university had to make an effort to transfer me and the other people to open positions within the university if we were qualified for those jobs.


do the research, then do the typing.

Sometimes these things just write themselves. ;)

[justa bill]

i got an email this morning... this thread made me think of it...

>>Bar Stool Economics, this is "real food for thought"

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia<<

:shrug:

i don't necessarily endorse any of that, but the part i underlined... that's kind of scary. and already happens to a degree. a lot of entertainers have left the UK for friendlier environments. Tina Turner and a number of other US entertainers live in Switzerland for tax reasons. (or so i've read...)

Stanley Corp. (the company that probably made the measuring tape in your closet) "left" Connecticut (i think was the state) for Bermuda (i think was the country) a while back. and they did it just for tax reasons... :shrug:

[BigSugar]

Sometimes these things just write themselves. ;)

it's especially funny when you take things out of context. the "do the research quote" was directed at her completely incorrect statement that raising taxes increases the amount of money the feds have. in fact, the truth is much different. i noticed you also left this out.....

good for you Sushi for having that power.

But as i pointed out in not so many words, Sushi's school now has 11 excess employees who they don't need......thanx to the union who pushed unncessary employees on the school. now tuition will go up b/c federal money is down. then people will bitch about the school raising tuition. then they will demand more federal money. then they will demand the feds raise taxes. then the feds will have less money to pass around. then tuition will go up to pay for more unnecessary employees b/c the feds don't give enough money.

i'll say it again though. a union who's existence is to guarantee employment, and not only employment, but employment at rates substantially higher than the general market will otherwise bear (note my Ford example) are a bane on the economy. Good for individual worker who gets to keep his phony baloney job...bad for economy.

So, now you can take every third word of my post and make it say what you want again, or you can show me how i'm wrong. you're choice.

[jneale]

actually MAL, what I have learned during my studies is that if an employer is truthfully down to cutting jobs to try to stay viable then the light bulb already went out and it ain't coming back.

most employers do NOT cut jobs to save themselves from bankruptcy, they do it to make themselves more profitable which they will claim is in the interest of keeping themselves competitive and sometimes this is true and more often is an excuse to put more money in their and their shareholders pockets.

Didn't we talk this summer about what I was going through @ work? I didn't end up on medications for heartburn & hives because I was helping someone get an extra $1 in their pocket.

Um.....having been on both sides now of a RIF (it happened to me once remember...) I can tell you that no one goes through the process just to put $ in someone's pocket.

I sat in meetings last year & watched grown men cry - the ones making the decisions as well as the ones getting downsized. The guy that owns the joint was in the most pain - & he has the deepest pocket under the roof. I sat in from the start & I can tell you NO one took it lightly. It wasn't pretty. The owner didn't get $.01.

There aren’t easy answers to economic problems & that is the real issue – more taxes, less taxes, unions, no-unions – fundamentally there just needs to be a rethinking of how it all works.

Everyone wants cheap prices at Wal-Mart – but no one wants to swallow the pill of how much it really costs. There aren’t any quick fixes & lots of people in the US are going to loose. Globalization is a sword that cuts both ways.

[Ambassador V3.0]

Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.

I would, but I only post on the weekends or holidays, and I'm usually drunk. :D You people are enabling me! I blame you Society! Now gimme some money!:D:D:cool:

[jneale]

every one of you should start a business of your own, and then come back in a couple years and see how you feel about union labor.

The president of the Cincinnati Bar association is a pretty cool guy & once worked for a local HR organization. He is still pretty active in it & gave us mini-seminar about the changes in Ohio’s pregnancy law – ANYWAY – his joke to us was he hopes Ted Kennedy is reincarnated as a business owner of a 100 person company so he’d have to deal with the mess he helped create.

Even me, clinging to my last shred of democratic idealism laughed.

[Ambassador V3.0]

ANYWAY – his joke to us was he hopes Ted Kennedy is reincarnated as a business owner of a 100 person company so he’d have to deal with the mess he helped create.

Even me, clinging to my last shred of democratic idealism laughed.

That would be way too cool. Could I be the CFO of said organization? I'd take Teddy a'sailin' on the Potomac! :D

[jneale]

That would be way too cool. Could I be the CFO of said organization? I'd take Teddy a'sailin' on the Potomac! :D

Don't you mean to a meeting in the company car over a bridge???

[Ambassador V3.0]

Don't you mean to a meeting in the company car over a bridge???

Only if alligator huntin' in Florida was out of the question. To preserve the Everglades and such. I am a community minded individual, because it takes a village! :D

[Breeze]

you're choice.
I think so, too. At last, something on which we can agree. :cool:

[markalot]

I'm not sure how to read your comment, which makes me think that perhaps I wasn't clear. I was laid off, as were 10 other people in my college, which is one several colleges in a state university. My old job no longer exists. Thanks to a clause that my union had put in the contract, the university had to make an effort to transfer me and the other people to open positions within the university if we were qualified for those jobs. We didn't have to apply for those positions and most of us left our old jobs on Friday and started the new gigs on Monday, so there was no loss of benefits. I didn't take anyone's job--these were all open positions. I have my union to thank for having a job right now.

Yes, I did not understand they were OPEN positions. Sorry about that.

[Breeze]

Yes, I did not understand they were OPEN positions. Sorry about that.
And doesn't the fact that these were open positions pretty much negate this whole rant?


But as i pointed out in not so many words, Sushi's school now has 11 excess employees who they don't need......thanx to the union who pushed unncessary employees on the school. now tuition will go up b/c federal money is down. then people will bitch about the school raising tuition. then they will demand more federal money. then they will demand the feds raise taxes. then the feds will have less money to pass around. then tuition will go up to pay for more unnecessary employees b/c the feds don't give enough money.

[Shlep]

most employers do NOT cut jobs to save themselves from bankruptcy, they do it to make themselves more profitable which they will claim is in the interest of keeping themselves competitive and sometimes this is true and more often is an excuse to put more money in their and their shareholders pockets.

I didn't think that being profitable and (if applicable) putting more money in the shareholders' pockets was something that a company needed a creative excuse to do; I thought that's why they existed in the first place.

Of course, I understand that most companies are not going to say "We've had to cut 500 positions in our XYZ Division because we love money, money MONEY!!! HAHAHAHAAA!!! FILTHY LUCRE TO ROLL AROUND AND RUB ON OUR NAKED BODIES!!" just because it's true, especially when they sound less like assholes when they say "...in order to remain competitive" or something, and that's also not really a lie either. If that's what you're getting it, then I'll just take my usual measure of enjoyment that I get stating the obvious and sounding all smart and stuff and be quiet. :)

[DudeMan]

would our society be be better off today if we had 'saved' all of the candlemaking jobs when lightbulbs were invented? or if we had 'saved' the buggywhip-makers when cars were invented? in 1900, most people were employed in agriculture. today most are employed in services. do we want to go back to that? what do you think would happen to our economy and our wealth if we only worried about keeping the status quo?

unions are a dinosaur, and the idea of 'protecting' jobs is lunacy. the fact is that no job will stay the same and exist in the same form 5 years from now as it does today. everything changes. if unions really cared, they'd be more interested in getting training for their members to be ready for the jobs of tomorrow instead of artificially preserving the jobs of yesterday.

[BigSugar]

And doesn't the fact that these were open positions pretty much negate this whole rant?

Depends. Maybe. Were the positions open and the school was actively seeking to fill them? If yes, then my position is moot. If they were open, but not being actively filled, then no. But there is also an issue with state and federal employment law regarding EEOC and posting and interviewing that has to be complied with when a state agency posts to fill positions.....were those glossed over in favor of the "union labor"? is there an in-house exemption or seniority exemption that applies? All good questions i think....but you may be absolutely 100% right.

and Sushi, this isn't anything against you. i'm glad you still have a job and that you were able to protect your position/salary. Good on ya'. My issue is more with the need for/power of unions in general and their current incarnation as "job protectors" v. "worker protectors".

[Hogarth]

Single most moronic rewrite of history...ever. You should be strung up and flogged for imparting this stupidity upon humanity. Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.

Did you forget your insulin again, BS? jeez.... glad I don't have your Karma.

And why am I the only one who has to think first?

The point was, IMO, that the nation may be returning to the conditions that prevailed in 1929, low, stagnant wages, failing investments (stocks, housing) for everyone who can't buy into hedge funds, out of control banks, and unhealthy concentration of wealth. What got us out was large gvt. action. That's the facts. pbbbth:p

edit: ya know, economics is not an exact science. Sometimes you go with Friedman, sometimes with Keynes. pbbbbth.

[jneale]

The point was, IMO, that the nation may be returning to the conditions that prevailed in 1929, low, stagnant wages, failing investments (stocks, housing) for everyone who can't buy into hedge funds, out of control banks, and unhealthy concentration of wealth. What got us out was large gvt. action. That's the facts. pbbbth:p

Stop watching the news & dig into the facts, you’ll find that it ain’t that bad.

[Hogarth]

Stop watching the news & dig into the facts, you’ll find that it ain’t that bad.....

.....yet. Which is why the upcoming election is so important. We may not get a depression(I pray we don't), but the paralells are there.

[george]

Here's a good article on why income is a stupid way to measure inequality and how globalization has helped the American poor..

February 10, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors
You Are What You Spend
By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM
Dallas

WITH markets swinging widely, the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates and the word “recession” on everybody’s lips, renewed attention is being given to the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Most of this debate, however, is focused on the wrong measurement of financial well-being.

It’s true that the share of national income going to the richest 20 percent of households rose from 43.6 percent in 1975 to 49.6 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has complete data. Meanwhile, families in the lowest fifth saw their piece of the pie fall from 4.3 percent to 3.3 percent.

Income statistics, however, don’t tell the whole story of Americans’ living standards. Looking at a far more direct measure of American families’ economic status — household consumption — indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society.

The top fifth of American households earned an average of $149,963 a year in 2006. As shown in the first accompanying chart, they spent $69,863 on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, health care and other categories of consumption. The rest of their income went largely to taxes and savings.

The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that — an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? A look at the far right-hand column of the consumption chart, labeled “financial flows,” shows why: those lower-income families have access to various sources of spending money that doesn’t fall under taxable income. These sources include portions of sales of property like homes and cars and securities that are not subject to capital gains taxes, insurance policies redeemed, or the drawing down of bank accounts. While some of these families are mired in poverty, many (the exact proportion is unclear) are headed by retirees and those temporarily between jobs, and thus their low income total doesn’t accurately reflect their long-term financial status.

So, bearing this in mind, if we compare the incomes of the top and bottom fifths, we see a ratio of 15 to 1. If we turn to consumption, the gap declines to around 4 to 1. A similar narrowing takes place throughout all levels of income distribution. The middle 20 percent of families had incomes more than four times the bottom fifth. Yet their edge in consumption fell to about 2 to 1.

Let’s take the adjustments one step further. Richer households are larger — an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. If we look at consumption per person, the difference between the richest and poorest households falls to just 2.1 to 1. The average person in the middle fifth consumes just 29 percent more than someone living in a bottom-fifth household.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/10/opinion/10chart.large.gif

To understand why consumption is a better guideline of economic prosperity than income, it helps to consider how our lives have changed. Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more than 80 percent of households.

As the second chart, on the spread of consumption, shows, this wasn’t always so. The conveniences we take for granted today usually began as niche products only a few wealthy families could afford. In time, ownership spread through the levels of income distribution as rising wages and falling prices made them affordable in the currency that matters most — the amount of time one had to put in at work to gain the necessary purchasing power.

At the average wage, a VCR fell from 365 hours in 1972 to a mere two hours today. A cellphone dropped from 456 hours in 1984 to four hours. A personal computer, jazzed up with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours to 25 hours. Even cars are taking a smaller toll on our bank accounts: in the past decade, the work-time price of a mid-size Ford sedan declined by 6 percent.

There are several reasons that the costs of goods have dropped so drastically, but perhaps the biggest is increased international trade. Imports lower prices directly. Cheaper inputs cut domestic companies’ costs. International competition forces producers everywhere to become more efficient and hold down prices. Nations do what they do best and trade for the rest.

Thus there is a certain perversity to suggestions that the proper reaction to a potential recession is to enact protectionist measures. While foreign competition may have eroded some American workers’ incomes, looking at consumption broadens our perspective. Simply put, the poor are less poor. Globalization extends and deepens a capitalist system that has for generations been lifting American living standards — for high-income households, of course, but for low-income ones as well.

W. Michael Cox is the senior vice president and chief economist and Richard Alm is the senior economics writer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

[Hogarth]

The problem the article fails to address is that long term wealth concentration is in itself unhealthy.

[the-dude]

an opinion piece like the one above failing to mention Credit Card and debt is simply being intentionally misleading.

"The average person in the middle fifth consumes just 29 percent more than someone living in a bottom-fifth household." - uh yeah, and also can pay off their credit cards. It seems to just assume that the reasons for more consumption than spending is everything apart from increased debt.

Also, this exact data looks way worse when comparing by 10% intervals, but they were clever enough not to do that.

[george]

The problem the article fails to address is that long term wealth concentration is in itself unhealthy.

So, basically your problem is with capitalism itself? You think a system in which government mandates equal distribution of wealth is superior?

[Hogarth]

Look at the chart at the far right, labled financial flows. Doesn't that just look bad? What happened to all the boats getting lifted?

The more unequal things get, the less faith people will have in the system. Trend out from there.

[markalot]

Look at the chart at the far right, labled financial flows. Doesn't that just look bad? What happened to all the boats getting lifted?

The more unequal things get, the less faith people will have in the system. Trend out from there.

The more equal it gets the less incentive people have to do anything.

[Hogarth]

The more equal it gets the less incentive people have to do anything.

I was concerned more for the long term stability of the Republic. Besides, I think we have a long way to go before we have that kind of equality problem.

[Hogarth]

Jeff Madrick
Mon Feb 11, 12:11 PM ET



Christopher Caldwell wrote some -- well, let's call it what it was, pie-in-the-sky nonsense -- in the New York Times magazine recently. In looking to justify the Reagan-Bush tax cut policies and economic management, he wrote that recessions and slowdowns since 1980 were simply the birth pangs of this New Economy. To have overregulated or overtaxed Bill Gates twenty years ago, he argues, might have killed the golden goose.

Sounds fine if you know no history. But great new companies were not new to the 1980s, nor were new economies. There was a new economy in the 1950s and 1960s, too. In that period of high tax rates, a growing welfare state, and substantial regulation, companies like Xerox, Polaroid, Syntex, Merck, Merrill Lynch, and IBM took off and became giants. So did entrepreneurial phenomena like Johnson & Johnson and 3M and new steel companies like Nucor. The TV networks, NBC and CBS were built then as television swept the world, and ABC was started. And GDP growth was as rapid as it ever had been, recessions subdued, and wages rose very rapidly.

The Reagan-Bush policies of tax cuts and deregulation had little to do with entrepreneurial vibrancy. The notion is conservative wish-fulfillment made possible by historical ignorance.

But Caldwell was right about a more important issue. The anxieties of the 1980s and 1990s are not the anxieties of today. And the lesson for the candidates and the electorate is that, for all Bill Clinton's successes with the economy, his policies are not all relevant today.

The anxieties back then were not Caldwell's simplistic claims about economic transition. It was a period dominated by deep anxiety over international competition, inflation, high unemployment, budget deficits and stubbornly high interest rates. The Reagan policies never brought higher wages or much capital investment. And the budget and trade deficits kept soaring.

Times have changed radically. These times -- the times the next president will face -- are dominated by, above all, anxieties over low-paying and insecure jobs, but also high oil prices, rapidly rising healthcare costs, new international economic super powers, and an economy reeling from irresponsible strategies and stunning levels of corruption in the financial community -- brought to you by unintelligent, willy-nilly deregulation.

Brushing off the Clinton policies of deficit cutting and deregulation will not do the trick of creating the domestic jobs the nation needs. It's time for government to invest seriously in infrastructure, education, planning for efficient energy usage, and an adequate safety net. That will create jobs at home. It's time to turn its attention to smart re-regulation. It's time to fix healthcare in a way that above all gets those costs down.

And it's time, to tax higher-income individuals to pay for some of this, not to make deficit reduction the runaway priority of the nation. If there is ever a peace dividend from reduced fighting in Iraq, use that to invest also. Some fiscal prudence, yes, but we've neglected too much along the way.

see, you can have high growth and higher taxes.

[DaHood]

I got this in an email yesterday. I don't know if many of you have seen it or not. I am not saying I agree or disagree with it but I will admit that there is at least an element of truth.

EDIT: Nevermind. As friz pointed out justabill posted it already. Sorry I missed it.

[frizgolf]

I got this in an email yesterday. I don't know if many of you have seen it or not. I am not saying I agree or disagree with it but I will admit that there is at least an element of truth.

Justabill justa posted that.

[DaHood]

Justabill justa posted that.I got rid of it. I don't know how the hell I missed that!

[Hogarth]

You should be strung up and flogged for imparting this stupidity upon humanity. Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

[akip]

all's i know is that the top mere fraction of 1% are still rolling in buckets of money. they can give up another 3% of their income, no sweat, and without taking the economy down.

[frizgolf]

all's i know is that the top mere fraction of 1% are still rolling in buckets of money. they can give up another 3% of their income, no sweat, and without taking the economy down.

But as has been mentioned, if there's a way to keep their grubs on that 3%, they'll find a way.

[BigSugar]

all's i know is that the top mere fraction of 1% are still rolling in buckets of money. they can give up another 3% of their income, no sweat, and without taking the economy down.

Why? Why should you or any other person have it? Just wondering.......i mean are you a socialist? communist? Marxist?

Taxes support a republic/democracy....they're not designed to redistribute wealth per se, but to provide for the necessary expenses of national defense and roads and education, etc... But we are a capitalist society, so where is the justification for taking an additional 3% from the top just so hand it out to the bottom on a whim?

Those top 1%'ers also provide the lions share of the support and financing to most every charity in the country......take from that pot and where does the American Cancer Society and The American Red Cross, etc get their funding? You? me? Johnny Wad working at Home Depot and making $10 an hour? I don't think so....

Sounds like the "Gimme, Gimme's" got the best of your senses. who the hell are you or anyone else to make the determination that Rich Guy A doesn't deserve to keep as much of his assets as he legally can?

[Hogarth]

We're not talking straight re-distribution. We're talking investment in infra-structure, education, and the sciences, all of which provide jobs and improve the economy for the long haul. Debt reduction would be nice as well.

And maybe its time to call those opposing necessary tax hikes selfish.:p

[upwithpeople]

Why? Why should you or any other person have it? Just wondering.......i mean are you a socialist? communist? Marxist?

Taxes support a republic/democracy....they're not designed to redistribute wealth per se, but to provide for the necessary expenses of national defense and roads and education, etc... But we are a capitalist society, so where is the justification for taking an additional 3% from the top just so hand it out to the bottom on a whim?

Those top 1%'ers also provide the lions share of the support and financing to most every charity in the country......take from that pot and where does the American Cancer Society and The American Red Cross, etc get their funding? You? me? Johnny Wad working at Home Depot and making $10 an hour? I don't think so....

Sounds like the "Gimme, Gimme's" got the best of your senses. who the hell are you or anyone else to make the determination that Rich Guy A doesn't deserve to keep as much of his assets as he legally can?Mmmm-emm-BOY! I gots a bad case of the gimme gimmes! I can feel 'em dancin' round in muh toes! Free money fallin' from the sky! Hey ya'll, let's us po' folk make a wishlist of what were-a gunna do now that dem richies is bein' bled dry. I'll start! Here goes:

1.) How about so another fucking bridge doesn't collapse?

[BigSugar]

here's an idea......how about we take the 2.5 TRILLION dollars in taxes the Fed. Govt. collects each year and find a way to make them streeeeeeeetch.....we can start with spending....slash and burn the budget and every govt. agency to the bones and then rebuild from there.

and it's almost perfect time for a spring cleaning.....out with the junk and have a yardsale.

Govt. is the single most inefficient engine on the planet. simply handing them more money NEVER.......EVER.....results in fixing the problem.

and how about the dichotomy that raising taxes results in less tax revenue? We cut taxes under Bush and tax revenue doubled. We cut Capital Gains (you know, the tax that those richy rich types have to pay on things like stock transactions, etc...) and we tripled the amount of tax revenue from capital gains......hhhhmmmmmmmmm.......but it sho' seems like dem' rich folks still have money, so's we should sho' try and get some mo'!!!

[DudeMan]

here's an idea......how about we take the 2.5 TRILLION dollars in taxes the Fed. Govt. collects each year and find a way to make them streeeeeeeetch.....we can start with spending....slash and burn the budget and every govt. agency to the bones and then rebuild from there.

you're in luck, sug. the FY09 budget proposal bush just released is actually $3.1 trillion (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009930328). so, it's going to be even easier now to find a few places to move money around so we can fix all of the bridges and tunnels in america.

to those of you who are advocating raising taxes during a soft economy, i can only say: get thee to a nunnery. you have no conception of how the economy works and what the implications are of what you're saying are, particularly in light of a soft & possibly recession economy. so a nunnery is a better place for you to be.

[markalot]

Mmmm-emm-BOY! I gots a bad case of the gimme gimmes! I can feel 'em dancin' round in muh toes! Free money fallin' from the sky! Hey ya'll, let's us po' folk make a wishlist of what were-a gunna do now that dem richies is bein' bled dry. I'll start! Here goes:

1.) How about so another fucking bridge doesn't collapse?

How about we stop earmarks like the bridge to nowhere to fund it instead of taking more money in that will end up going to more earmarks.

[BigSugar]

you're in luck, sug. the FY09 budget proposal bush just released is actually $3.1 trillion (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009930328). so, it's going to be even easier now to find a few places to move money around so we can fix all of the bridges and tunnels in america.

to those of you who are advocating raising taxes during a soft economy, i can only say: get thee to a nunnery. you have no conception of how the economy works and what the implications are of what you're saying are, particularly in light of a soft & possibly recession economy. so a nunnery is a better place for you to be.
right, but that 3.1 Trillion projects a defecit of about 400 Billion, so really we're talking 2.7 Trillion in income to the Govt from all sources....the majority of that being tax revenue.

and if we're using "nunnery" in the literal Shakespearian meaning, we're gonna need more money! :) http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/get-thee-nunn-ry

[DudeMan]

and if we're using "nunnery" in the literal Shakespearian meaning, we're gonna need more money! :) http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/get-thee-nunn-ry
wow, i never knew that. it gives a whole new layer of irony to that exchange.

and finally, i find an area of government spending i actually like! more shakespearian nunneries!

[akip]

Why? Why should you or any other person have it? Just wondering.......i mean are you a socialist? communist? Marxist?

Taxes support a republic/democracy....they're not designed to redistribute wealth per se, but to provide for the necessary expenses of national defense and roads and education, etc... But we are a capitalist society, so where is the justification for taking an additional 3% from the top just so hand it out to the bottom on a whim?

Those top 1%'ers also provide the lions share of the support and financing to most every charity in the country......take from that pot and where does the American Cancer Society and The American Red Cross, etc get their funding? You? me? Johnny Wad working at Home Depot and making $10 an hour? I don't think so....

Sounds like the "Gimme, Gimme's" got the best of your senses. who the hell are you or anyone else to make the determination that Rich Guy A doesn't deserve to keep as much of his assets as he legally can?

yeah, i believe in a certain level of progressive taxation, where the top rate is fine at 38%. call me a commie.:p

[BigSugar]

yeah, i believe in a certain level of progressive taxation, where the top rate is fine at 38%. call me a commie.:p

even if it means we create fewer jobs, collect less tax revenue and have less money to redistribute to the bottom 30%?

[DudeMan]

even if it means we create fewer jobs, collect less tax revenue and have less money to redistribute to the bottom 30%?
sadly, with a lot of people, the answer to that is an emphatic "yes". it's offensive to many that someone might have a penny more than they do, so they consider it a 'moral' issue to take their rightly-earned money from them.

so sugar, if someone raises your taxes, you might have to lay off one of your employees or change your plans to expand your business, thereby resulting in fewer people employed in the private sector and smaller overall GDP. but hey, at least you are now taxed more! so that's a good thing because you had too much money and we need to do something about it.

[akip]

what makes you think that 3% automatically goes to job creation in the united states? it could just as easily go into foreign investment.

[purple_octopus]

what makes you think that 3% automatically goes to job creation in the united states? it could just as easily go into foreign investment.

I guess you're racist and think the Chinese don't deserve to eat! :p

[snarf!]

here's an idea......how about we take the 2.5 TRILLION dollars in taxes the Fed. Govt. collects each year and find a way to make them streeeeeeeetch.....we can start with spending....slash and burn the budget and every govt. agency to the bones and then rebuild from there.

and it's almost perfect time for a spring cleaning.....out with the junk and have a yardsale.

Govt. is the single most inefficient engine on the planet. simply handing them more money NEVER.......EVER.....results in fixing the problem.


Here! Here! Giving the government more money is never going to get the results you want. So inefficient!

[DudeMan]

what makes you think that 3% automatically goes to job creation in the united states? it could just as easily go into foreign investment.
right, and when foreign economies propser, it's also good for the US. and by the way, why do you think YOU should somhow have a say in what someone does with THEIR money? i'll make you a deal -- you do what you want with your money and i'll do what i want with mine.

[TripleShockPowa]

I guess you're racist and think the Chinese don't deserve to eat! :p

But my problem w/ my $$ going to China is: China is a communist government, not an open market. That $$ fattens a very VERY small proportion of the general population (whome the government has been starving for decades now w/o our help) and helps pay for missles that are still aimed at you and me!

All this aside I've long believed that since we live in a consumer-based society we need a tax system that reflects that; a flat 10% sales tax on every transaction. No damn income taxes, that punishes me for prospering and as history has shown, those with the most $$ have the ability to finagle the system.

What does a flat sales tax get you? No cheating!

Drug dealers pay the same as you and me for their bling
Mobsters pay the same as you and me for shovels and lime
Illegial aliens pay the same as you and me for their gas/food/lodging
Donald Trump pays the same for his hair as you and me for our haircuts

Sure the overall picture is more complicated than that but you get the picture.

[DaHood]

But my problem w/ my $$ going to China is: China is a communist government, not an open market. That $$ fattens a very VERY small proportion of the general population (whome the government has been starving for decades now w/o our help) and helps pay for missles that are still aimed at you and me!

All this aside I've long believed that since we live in a consumer-based society we need a tax system that reflects that; a flat 10% sales tax on every transaction. No damn income taxes, that punishes me for prospering and as history has shown, those with the most $$ have the ability to finagle the system.

What does a flat sales tax get you? No cheating!

Drug dealers pay the same as you and me for their bling
Mobsters pay the same as you and me for shovels and lime
Illegial aliens pay the same as you and me for their gas/food/lodging
Donald Trump pays the same for his hair as you and me for our haircuts

Sure the overall picture is more complicated than that but you get the picture.Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

[the happy prole]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me what is so special about roads and national defense. What makes them economic externalities while the environment or healthcare is not? As far as I can tell clean air is as much a "tragedy of the commons" as national defense.

I'm also not a big fan of unions, but guess what? They are part of the free market. If there is a demand for cars, then the car companies have a demand for labor. The car companies take advantage of demand by upping their prices. The laborers take advantage of the demand for labor by upping THEIR prices.

Look at the Hollywood writer's strike. The availability of streaming video has created a new market. The entertainment companies are looking to profit from that market. Only if they don't have a product, they can't make money. So if you write "The Office" why shouldn't you get a cut of that? Those are your jokes NBC is profiting from.

If you believe in a free market, it's pretty stupid to blame unions for screwing things up. They're made up of private individuals acting in their best interests, so... where's the problem? As long as the government isn't involved, they can go ahead and run closed-shops if they want.

btw, redistribution of income is 100% efficient. It's the only government action that is. If you ask me, that's a pretty good reason for it right there.
There's really no economic reason why you shouldn't do it. Every argument I see is about how certain people "deserve" their wealth and others don't. That's a moral judgment. And if you're claiming to be a libertarian or free market advocate, what are you doing passing moral judgment?

[akip]

right, and when foreign economies propser, it's also good for the US.

not entirely. they're also our global competitors for power and resources.

but that wasn't my point anyway. i was saying that extra dollars in a billionaire's pocket doesn't necessarily translate to jobs any more than extra dollars in your pocket or mine or the govt's. jobs are also created by consumer demand and by govt too. you may prefer one over the other, but it's not a simple equation.

it also behooves us for the general populace to get a decent education out of our tax dollars. an under-educated work force drags down prosperity as well.

[markalot]

There's really no economic reason why you shouldn't do it.

Come now. Removing the incentive to make more money isn't a good reason. How do you explain the fact that we've collected more taxes since lowering some upper tax rates. Could it be more people saw a chance to invest or create more wealth? Is the goal to collect more money or just tax those dirty rich?

Organized labor is a necessity, but unions can certainly be blamed when they are primarily responsible for hurting struggling corporations. Or perhaps you can tell me why so many unions have changed their strategy to one of being more involved with the success of the employer.

The writers strike was a good example of a decent union striking for something they felt (and most people felt) was important. They won.

[the happy prole]

All this aside I've long believed that since we live in a consumer-based society we need a tax system that reflects that; a flat 10% sales tax on every transaction. No damn income taxes, that punishes me for prospering and as history has shown, those with the most $$ have the ability to finagle the system.

How would a flat sales tax not punish you for prospering unless you plan to never use that money? The more money you make, the more shit you're going to buy. The more shit you buy, the more taxes you pay. Ergo, the more money you have, the higher your taxes.

A sales tax is regressive in that poor people spend a greater percentage of their income on goods, but you don't care about that. All you care about is how much in YOU pay. Does it matter to you if you make $100k and the government takes 30k from your income or if you make $100k and spend 60k and the government charges you a 50% sales tax on it? 30k is 30k.

It's not going to solve the "really rich people get out of taxes" issue, either. If rich people dodge out of their tax burden, it's because their money and power allows them to do so. The same political clout that is used to cut them some nice loopholes in income tax will also be used to remove the sales taxes on cars costing over 50k or something stupid like that.

The only reason to have a sales tax is to encourage actions that are not taxed, aka. investment. I'm not even sure it works all that great in the long term anyway. I invest in GM because it's a good tax dodge. So does everyone else. Now GM has tons of cash only no one is buying cars because they're investing rather than purchasing goods. They don't sell a single car, but they will issue nice dividends because they've got all this cash floating around and they want to encourage investment. They're making more money from investment trades than they are the production of goods and services.

So you get a nice dividend, but that dividend was your money in the first place. All you did was give to GM to sit on for a year or two and then give it right back. It's nice that you didn't pay taxes on it and all, but did it really improve the economy in a way that couldn't have been accomplished more efficiently by simply lowering income taxes? No.

[the happy prole]

Come now. Removing the incentive to make more money isn't a good reason. How do you explain the fact that we've collected more taxes since lowering some upper tax rates. Could it be more people saw a chance to invest or create more wealth? Is the goal to collect more money or just tax those dirty rich?

It's like this. Let's say I took all of your money and gave it to a homeless person. Guess what? Now you're poor.

And being the hard-working American values dude that you are, you're going to work your ass off. You're probably going to work overtime and possibly even take another job to try to get your kids through college, right? You'll work fast food if you have to. And you'll be good at it.

In comparison, that lazy dude at Mickey D's with the five kids who always fucks up my order? Well he doesn't have to work anymore, so he won't.

So now when I go to McDonald's my service is going to be ten times better, because I'll have you taking my order instead of that other dude. How cool is that?

See, now I got all the best talent and hardest workers working *more* and the crappy lazy people working *less*. I am maximizing the return from my best resources. How can this not be good for the economy?


Organized labor is a necessity, but unions can certainly be blamed when they are primarily responsible for hurting struggling corporations. Or perhaps you can tell me why so many unions have changed their strategy to one of being more involved with the success of the employer.

When a company struggles, its because not enough people want to buy their product at the price they are selling it. Blaming the union for driving labor costs up is like blaming the consumer for refusing to spend $5 more on a piece of crap they don't want. There is no reason you should pay extra for a widget if you can get it for cheaper, and there's no reason a laborer should settle for $10 an hour to build that widget if they can get $15.

A good union understands that they sort of need their employer happy. A good employer understands that they sort of need need their union happy. There are stupid unions, and there are stupid companies. When the two meet and the company goes down and the laborers end up unemployed it's good riddance to bad rubbish.

[BigSugar]

Prole, do you black out when you type and come to having then posted things you wrote during the blackout? Just wondering.....seems like it sometimes. We're all dumber for having read your last two posts....thanx.

[Hogarth]

Single most moronic post in history...ever. You should be strung up and flogged for imparting this stupidity upon humanity. Please think before you post idiotic pieces of crap.

Physician, heal thy self.

[BigSugar]

Physician, heal thy self.

i don't like to repeat myself, so i figured instead of just reposting what i said to you, i'd ask a knew question. besides, I still think your original premise was waaaaay more dumb than Prole's posts. not letting you off the hook.

[Hogarth]

Your slagging of fellow boarders is grating and obnoxious. You do better when you address the subject matter.

I stopped calling people names when I was 12. Perhaps you should try it.

[the happy prole]

Prole, do you black out when you type and come to having then posted things you wrote during the blackout? Just wondering.....seems like it sometimes. We're all dumber for having read your last two posts....thanx.

Well if you'd like I'd be happy to write it out as a mathematical proof, and then you can really feel dumber when you can't understand it.

I know more about economics than you do. Deal with it.

[BigSugar]

Well if you'd like I'd be happy to write it out as a mathematical proof, and then you can really feel dumber when you can't understand it.

I know more about economics than you do. Deal with it.

you're right. you're a genius....i just reread your posts again (at great peril to my intelligence) and agree with you....i want to add one caveat. When you come take all my money and give it to Joe Blow at McD's, i'm not going to take his job and make your burger 10X faster, i'm going to get my gun and come shoot you in the head b/c you are a thief. that way, there'll be one less moron to feed. and then i'm going to go find Joe Blow and shoot him in the head, b/c at that point all bets are off. two less morons to feed. wonderful economic plan you've got there. it'll really keep the coffin makers in business!

i look very much forward to seeing your mathematical proof based upon your amazingly faulty conclusions drawn in your posts above. just remember, squiggly lines, angry faces and exclamation points are not part of any mathematical equation. annnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddd.........go!

[Breeze]

i want to add one caveat. When you come take all my money and give it to Joe Blow at McD's, i'm not going to take his job and make your burger 10X faster, i'm going to get my gun and come shoot you in the head b/c you are a thief. that way, there'll be one less moron to feed. and then i'm going to go find Joe Blow and shoot him in the head, b/c at that point all bets are off. two less morons to feed. wonderful economic plan you've got there. it'll really keep the coffin makers in business!

There's always the one who acts like an ass and takes things too far.

Congratulations, you are that one.

[mike]

you're right. you're a genius....i just reread your posts again (at great peril to my intelligence) and agree with you....i want to add one caveat. When you come take all my money and give it to Joe Blow at McD's, i'm not going to take his job and make your burger 10X faster, i'm going to get my gun and come shoot you in the head b/c you are a thief. that way, there'll be one less moron to feed. and then i'm going to go find Joe Blow and shoot him in the head, b/c at that point all bets are off. two less morons to feed. wonderful economic plan you've got there. it'll really keep the coffin makers in business!

i look very much forward to seeing your mathematical proof based upon your amazingly faulty conclusions drawn in your posts above. just remember, squiggly lines, angry faces and exclamation points are not part of any mathematical equation. annnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddd.........go!

maybe you oughta get shot in the head for being an asshat. You're outta here. Enough is enough.

[Hogarth]

"There's such a fine line between clever and stupid.":rolleyes:

[jneale]

"There's such a fine line between clever and stupid.":rolleyes:

and when to quit beating a dead horse.

[seafoamgreen]

well, that was something.

I just read a really interesting piece on the political shifts that led from spending based welfare programs in the new deal to tax based welfare that is presently. I'm going to try to find it later and post it.

[the happy prole]

Look-- in a free market, there are no values. Only efficiency.

The government trying to value anything other than efficiency leads to an inefficient outcome. It's kind of a no-brainer, really. If efficiency isn't your number one goal, then it won't be maximized. Duh.

If you are at the point of maximum efficiency, it does not matter where you are on the PPF. Person A having 100 and Person B having 0 is exactly the same as Person B having 100 and Person A having 0.

If you are not at the point of maximum efficiency, the only thing you care about is how to get there. And you get there by doing absolutely nothing to help anyone and simply letting the free market get there on it's own. Which it will do. Just like water flows downhill, resources flow to towards the most efficient usage of them.

There is therefore no reason to try to help the poor. And for the exact same reasons, there is also no reason to try to help the rich. There is no reason to provide incentives to the supply side, there is no reason to provide incentives to the demand side. There is no reason to ever worry about how you are treating one group relative to the other.

Now, it turns out that it is actually possible for the government to redistribute wealth with a zero loss in efficiency. It turns some "winners" into "losers" and vice versa. Temporarily. But why should the government do that, when it doesn't matter. As long as you are at maximum efficiency, there is no difference at all between how those resources are distributed.

That's if you believe in the free market. Which you don't have to. Just don't use free market arguments to boost your viewpoint.

Also, this might not be true if you believe in supply-side economics and the Laffer curve and shit like that. But honestly, as of now those are theories trotted out more by politicians than actual economists. I'm not saying they're totally wrong, but I do think certain groups are putting a lot more faith into them than is actually merited based purely on studies, theories, math and whatnot. And at any rate, you're talking now about MACROeconomics anyway so the notion of free markets has already kind of been tossed out the window.

[Hogarth]

Look-- in a free market, there are no values.

I thought Republicans we're all about "values".:)

Your post is interesting, but it leads to this question: Is a free market truely in the best interest of a society? Or should the market be shaped by the values of the society in which it opperates? To what extent should the market be limited by the voluntary consent of a majority of the participants?

[Buzzstein]

Did BigSug just get banned? If so I am amused. If not I am still amused.

btw it's good to see tHP back in the thick of things.

[frizgolf]

Did BigSug just get banned? If so I am amused. If not I am still amused.

btw it's good to see tHP back in the thick of things.

Yep. He can be (was) incendiary as hell, but I hate to tell you, he possesses a representation of the attitudes of a helluva lot of folks who don't bother to post here.
Dumb ass. He went overboard. I'll miss his counterbalance.

[DaHood]

It's going to be a bit less colorful around here without him.

[Sushi]

Geez, I quit participating in this thread when the ferret showed up. Missed out on all the fun.

Oh yeah, I'm not an "excess employee."

[markalot]

If you are at the point of maximum efficiency, it does not matter where you are on the PPF. Person A having 100 and Person B having 0 is exactly the same as Person B having 100 and Person A having 0.

Wrong wrong wrong.

person B has 0 because they don't have the skills person A does. Redistribution would just make sure B got money for nothing while A got money taken away for having it. Person A is not going to have the incentive to make money again if it's going to be taken away again.

You can extrapolate that example until you get to a realistic point where person A is going to lose productivity because they don't have the incentive to make more.

How can you talk about efficiency in these terms?

If you take all the oil out of engine A (500hp) and put it in engine B (200hp) you decrease efficiency. You're right, the free market has no values, but it can decide who offers more bang for the buck.

Honestly, bigsug was being rather kind. You know better than the crap you posted ... I hope.

[Hogarth]

It's going to be a bit less colorful around here without him.

Hey, why can't he just come back under a different name?

[frizgolf]

Hey, why can't he just come back under a different name?

Why would he want to?

[Hogarth]

Uhh, cause he wants to troll?

It's too bad he got run, cause sometimes he got folks riled up in a good way (as long as he kept his lid on).

[akip]

a white male just shot 15 people at northern illinois university. i wonder how many message boards that guy was trolling.

[markalot]

a white male just shot 15 people at northern illinois university. i wonder how many message boards that guy was trolling.

That's not a dumb thing to say ... no really, not dumb at all.

[the happy prole]

markalot, here's a simple example for you. We're stuck on an island. There are two pigs we need to breed to maintain a food supply. You know how to breed those pigs, and I don't.

Suppose you have control of the two pigs, and you just happen to be a professional pig breeder. Well, what do you need me for? Pretty much nothing. You own the skills AND the resources. So you go about breeding the pigs and you survive and I die.

Let's suppose you're the pig breeder, but I've got control of the pigs. I say, "Look if you breed my two pigs, we'll split all the offspring." If you want to live, you'll take that offer.

It's the same result. Either way the pigs are bred by the same person. They are therefore utilized just as efficiently. The only thing that changes is that in the first scenario, one of us survives with all the goods and in the other two of us survive and split them.

The reason why communism is inefficient is not because it takes money from the rich and gives them no incentive to work hard. It's inefficient because the government is holding the goods and-- not knowing the demand for those goods-- has no idea how to allocate them efficiently to generate the most "utils."

[dannyboy]

So, would it be more efficient for the government to simply be the broker for all business deals? That way wealth distribution would be maintained before money ever changed hands.

[the happy prole]

The most efficient thing the government can do is nothing. The free-market takes care of efficiency on it's own.

If the government wants to assess a tax, the most efficient way to do it is for everyone to take the same hit to their "utils." Owing to the law of diminished marginal utility that would almost certainly mean a progressive tax, it's just a matter of how progressive is right. The best way to approximate a fair tax on utility is probably a consumption tax.

If the government wants to redistribute income, the most efficient way to do it is via a lump sum payment. It don't think it would matter who you gave it to. You could tax the poor and give to the rich if you wanted.

But what would it really get you? You're just shuffling things around. If you took money from rich white dudes and gave it to stoners, then Judge Smails would suffer. Danny Noonan would probably be better off. Bill Murray is fine either way. Waterford would start making crystal bongs instead of crystal vases.

Would the change even be that drastic? To mix movie metaphors, maybe all that happens is Eddie Murphy turns into Louis Winthorpe III and not much changes except a few winners and losers change hands.

This is the thing: If any of us had a million dollars (no BNL, please) we would probably either stop working or switch jobs. We do what we do because to some extent because of the salary it pays us. The salary we get paid is tied into demand. Rich people have a bigger say in demand because they have more money. So, we're kind of working for rich people. There's nothing good or bad about it, it's simply the truth.

So if we had money, we probably wouldn't work the same jobs so the production in those sectors might decrease. On the other hand, we're going to spend money on stuff so some other sector will increase and probably the moneyless rich people will have to have skills in that area. Britney Spears sells a lot less records, The Decemberists sell a lot more. CC goes bust, WOXY makes a mint.

If you have some universally valuable skill like being an awesome brain surgeon, you'll just be working with different clients is all. If you produce a cheap necessity, nothing changes at all. You're still producing for the same people you produced before because everyone buys milk regardless of income. The things that everyone needs will still be the things that everyone needs and the people that produce them will make the same amount of money they do now.

Overall society is just as efficient as it ever was. I am made immensely happy, but my increase in utils is offset by Donald Trump's loss in utils. Or if I like casinos (which I do) Donald Trump does just fine and someone else takes the hit. It's the same shit, just different people.

Unless there is some reason to believe the values of present rich people are inherently superior to those of poor people, nothing changes. And there really is no reason to make that argument. Everyone maximizes their own utility. Everyone is a rational actor. Those are two basic principles of economics and they hold true regardless of income.

So things are neither unfair or fair, they're just efficient or not. And a free market is always efficient no matter how the income is distributed. The reason certain people are rich and certain people are poor is simply a result of game theory and initial starting condition. Reshuffling income would give you a new starting condition and you would reach a different but exactly as efficient outcome.

Beyond the fact that horsepower has nothing to do with mechanical efficiency, the reason why markalot's analogy fails is that engine B can't pay engine A to run for it. Otherwise engine B would just be like "Hey, engine A. These humans gave me a bunch of oil but I don't feel like getting my parts all worn down and shit. How about I give you this oil, and you run it. So long as the humans are getting their requisite hp they don't care."

There's winners, and there's losers. It ain't no big deal. Little pink houses for you and me.

That's if you believe in traditional economic theory.

[the happy prole]

Yeah well, the NFL gets a ton of perks in addition to the regulatory control too.

Anway, it's not about whether the NFL can thrive but whether it might thrive BETTER.

Actually it's not even about a single entity at all, but whether society as a whole is made better off. NFL should thrive exactly to the extent that it helps society. If it thrives any more or less than that it's not good.

It's trying to find that exact point and make it stay there that is the basis for all economic theories.

[purple_octopus]

maybe you oughta get shot in the head for being an asshat. You're outta here. Enough is enough.

Thank God we have such open-minded, politically unbiased moderators.

[markalot]

Beyond the fact that horsepower has nothing to do with mechanical efficiency, the reason why markalot's analogy fails is that engine B can't pay engine A to run for it. Otherwise engine B would just be like "Hey, engine A. These humans gave me a bunch of oil but I don't feel like getting my parts all worn down and shit. How about I give you this oil, and you run it. So long as the humans are getting their requisite hp they don't care."

I supposes if you look at it that way.

2 on an island ...

If I own the pigs and know how to breed them there is no reason for me to share, especially if sharing might mean risking my food supply. But let's say I wasn't worried about that. I would pity you and say hey, I can feed you if you help me clean the pens ... you do something for me and I'll do something for you. I've got the skill, I get the most of the food.

Add a few consumers to that Island. You keep my pens clean, I breed the pigs and make the bacon and sell it to the other 2. In turn they give me shiny things. I like shiny things. I keep you fed, I get shiny things.

Maybe you want shiny things too, but you have nothing to offer. Ok, I tell you what, I'll give you one shiny thing a month if you also help me grow some crops to feed these pigs. I'm sick and tired of first tending the fields and then romancing these fucking pigs.

So you clean the pens and the tend fields for a shiny thing a month.

So aren't you saying, at this point, that someone should take my shiny things give them to everyone else? And this would be efficient? I built my pig business from the ground up and I offered you a job because you needed one and I wanted the help. Now apparently I've built the business enough, and collected enough shiny things, to be considered rich and I need to pay for it?

I don't use roads more than you do, my guilt is that I built a business and made money and grew the business and made more money and now I'm evil and I should pay MORE than someone else because .... why?

I am jobs, I am the economy. Hurt me, piss me off, and those jobs go bye bye. Remember, all I want is some bacon. I can find someone else to clean the pens and grow the crops, someone who I can pay less and who won't whine about shiny things. You don't like it get a skill and start your own damn business. I don't owe you anything.

... or something like that.

[DudeMan]

Try the NFL. If you hate socialism, quit watching football.
you're partly right, but this is mostly a canard. i don't defend the NFL system by any means. but, you should think of the NFL more as a single company competing in a market for entertainment dollars against other companies, MLB, NHL, PGA, Broadway plays, movies, etc., are all competing against each other, just like nike competes with adidas and IBM competes against HP. so, just like IBM centrally manages budgets and 'redistributes' profit from one business unit to another, so too does the NFL.

so in other words, the NFL is not in fact a communist organization. it's a single entity acting to maximize its profits, just like any other company.

[twentyshots]

Thank God we have such open-minded, politically unbiased moderators.

i'd call suffering through 3000 posts pretty open minded!

[frizgolf]

Thank God we have such open-minded, politically unbiased moderators.

i'd call suffering through 3000 posts pretty open minded!

I'm not optimistic.

[Breeze]

Thank God we have such open-minded, politically unbiased moderators.

It was taken beyond politics, beyond even the usual bomb-throwing that takes place in CE/P. That's not hard to see... even if it is hard to accept.

[frizgolf]

It was taken beyond politics, beyond even the usual bomb-throwing that takes place in CE/P. That's not hard to see... even if it is hard to accept.

That one post could have been deleted.
I smell long-standing loggerheads.

[seafoamgreen]

Private Property sucks.







says the guy who's sifting through 120 midterm essays about Locke's labor theory of value.

[Emperor Wog]

Aww... Big Sug started around here about the same time as me back in 1999 I believe (usernames were refreshed in '01). Bring back the Sug!

How about a two week suspension without pay?

[Breeze]

That one post could have been deleted.
I smell long-standing loggerheads.

I don't buy it. There's an obvious difference between calling someone a moron and saying you're going to shoot them.

There's a line, and it was crossed. Simple as that.

[purple_octopus]

I don't buy it. There's an obvious difference between calling someone a moron and saying you're going to shoot them.

There's a line, and it was crossed. Simple as that.

Whatever. It was sarcasm. No worse than any of the bullshit THP posts on a regular basis, and he's still around. I see nothing wrong with BugSug's post. Whatsoever. And the fact that Mike is so often outspoken about his politics (not that there's anything wrong with that...) is a blatant indication of his TRUE motivations for banning Brian.

[Breeze]

Whatever. It was sarcasm. No worse than any of the bullshit THP posts on a regular basis, and he's still around. I see nothing wrong with BugSug's post. Whatsoever. And the fact that Mike is so often outspoken about his politics (not that there's anything wrong with that...) is a blatant indication of his TRUE motivations for banning Brian.

Ooh, a conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:

[jneale]

Whatever. It was sarcasm. No worse than any of the bullshit THP posts on a regular basis, and he's still around. I see nothing wrong with BugSug's post. Whatsoever. And the fact that Mike is so often outspoken about his politics (not that there's anything wrong with that...) is a blatant indication of his TRUE motivations for banning Brian.

yeah, and i agree, but....

threats of harm have to be addressed seriously, otherwise it is would be negligence not to address it once the line was crossed. Isn't BS a lawyer? He knew what he was doing.

[Breeze]

threats of harm have to be addressed seriously, otherwise it is would be negligence not to address it once the line was crossed.

Finally, someone reasonable.

If and when this is opened for debate, then the matter of intent can enter the discussion. But unless or until that time, it has to be assumed to be genuine. It's no different than the jokester at the airport muttering about a bomb as he goes through security; you may find out later that he was just kidding, but you may not. Better safe than sorry and all that.

[purple_octopus]

Finally, someone reasonable.

If and when this is opened for debate, then the matter of intent can enter the discussion. But unless or until that time, it has to be assumed to be genuine. It's no different than the jokester at the airport muttering about a bomb as he goes through security; you may find out later that he was just kidding, but you may not. Better safe than sorry and all that.

I wonder who the whiny little bitch was that flagged the post to begin with.

[Breeze]

I wonder who the whiny little bitch was that flagged the post to begin with.

What, no theories?

[Buzzstein]

tHP doesn't display the same level of assholery as BS does.

Wait a minute...did you just quote John Mellencamp?? I may just have to bitch slap you sir.

[seafoamgreen]

Wait a minute...did you just quote John Mellencamp? I may just have to bitch slap you sir.

I'm pretty sure that violates the geneva convention.

[Shlep]

I don't buy it. There's an obvious difference between calling someone a moron and saying you're going to shoot them.

There's a line, and it was crossed. Simple as that.

Hell, yeah! This is a free country and-- by extension-- a free messageboard. And that means...that...if you ever decide you wanna go to someone elses' house, take their money, and give it all to Joe Blow at McDonalds, then you should be able to do that! Hence, nobody has the right to say they will kill you if you try and do that!!!

This isn't Dodge City, for crying out loud!

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/danbopurple/Walter-Sobchak-gun.jpg

"NO, AND IT AIN'T FUCKIN' VIETNAM EITHER! THERE ARE RULES!! AND I DIDN'T WATCH MY BUDDIES DIE FACE-DOWN IN THE MUCK SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD LOSE THE RIGHT TO TAKE PEOPLES' MONEY AND GIVE IT TO JOE BLOW..."

...uuuh, Walter....never mind.

[Breeze]

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/donny_1.jpg
Who's got your undies, Walter?

[the happy prole]

Just play it out, markalot. You've only covered one situation. Now "tax" the pig breeder and redistribute the resources, by taking his pigs away and giving them to the pig tender.

We know that guy can clean pens but can't breed pigs. So he owns the pigs and he cleans up after them himself. He's got the pigs, you've got the skills (let's make lots of money). All your pig-breeding skills are worth nothing if you have no pigs.

So the pig owner kinda has some leverage on you. The first thing he's going to say is "Screw this 90/10, I-live-off-scraps shit. I got the pigs now, jack. It's a whole new ballgame." Of course he doesn't have complete leverage, since those pigs aren't worth much without breeding.

The pigs are worth nothing and the breeding skills are worth nothing unless one can be paired with the other. A 50/50 split seems kinda fair and a logical negotiation outcome since both sides bring something equally necessary to the table. The pig breeder is not going to say "Screw you, I'm not breeding pigs anymore, that shit was unfair" because the pig breeder does not want to starve and die.

So now both sides have some pigs, they both make some bacon, they both sell it to the consumers, they both get shiny things. The same guy is still tending the pigs and cleaning the pens. The same guy is still breeding the pigs. The same consumers are still paying the same amount of shiny things for the same amount of bacon. It's exactly the same level of efficiency. NOTHING has changed.

The only thing that has changed is the pig tender has worked out a more favorable 50/50 split so he is a bit more happy and the pig breeder is a bit more sad. Unless there is some reason to favor the pig breeder's happiness over the pig tender's happiness, it doesn't make a difference. You end up with the same production and the same overall utility. It's still 100% efficient.

Now-- if you're asking me which one I'd rather be in this situation, I'd rather be the pig breeder. Because he has a skill that is valuable. If he gets the pigs, he can go 90/10 or whatever split he wants because he holds all the cards. If not, he still manages a 50/50. The other guy is totally reliant on luck as to whether he gets the pigs or not, and even if he does he's still looking at 50/50.

So if I were choosing an occupation for this mythical island, I'd choose pig breeder. And so would you. But the government doesn't have to reward or encourage us for being pig breeders, the skills pay for themselves. You have the incentive to learn that skill, and then you have the incentive to use it. No matter who gets the pigs.

Those who have are can develop universally needed skills will always do okay no matter what happens. The less your skills are universal, the more dependent you are upon the luck of the draw. People not being perfect, there's bound to be a lot of "luck of the draw" going on. Either you got the cash in the first place, or you happen to be really good at something that those with the cash want.

[twentyshots]

I'm pretty sure that violates the geneva convention.

dick cheney has cited many times article 89 of section III (Disciplinary sanctions) that you are only in violation when quoting john cougar mellencamp.

so it looks like buzz is operating within the law.

[Sofa King]

Hell, yeah! This is a free country and-- by extension-- a free messageboard. And that means...that...if you ever decide you wanna go to someone elses' house, take their money, and give it all to Joe Blow at McDonalds, then you should be able to do that!

Agreed.

I don't align with Sug on anything politically, but I can tell when someone is obviously making a sarcastic retort to what someone would do in the previously laid out hypothetical world of chaos.

We just lost one of the longest active Woxy boarders and someone interesting enough to argue with, debate, and poke fun at.

Now we got a Yankee/Devil Ray rivalry. Lame.

[Shlep]

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/donny_1.jpg
Who's got your undies, Walter?

http://photos3.flickr.com/2640943_d2244b7037_m.jpg

"You are entering a world of pain...SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNY!!



Okay guys...Breeze, everyone...seriously. I would not ever expect any messageboard to tolerate members threatening to kill each other, especially not on one where most of the membership can not only threaten another member but drive a short dstance to find them and pick them out in a crowd, maybe even divine when and where they might be hanging out somewhere. WOXY is the only board I've been on where a healthy percentage of the board not only knows but has met, maybe even hung out and had beers with, a healthy percentage of the rest of the board.

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/05/94/63/image_3663945.jpg

"That kind of aggression cannot st..."

Awright, enough "Lebowski" references.

What I want to say is this: banning Big Sugar because he threatened to shoot someone if that person came to his house, took his money, and gave it to some stupid poor person...for fucks' sake, I can't imagine how anyone would take that seriously. Quite frankly, the more I see the issue being elevated into some sort of serious big deal, the less I believe it.

I think it stinks. Is BS abrasive and often downright obnoxious to some folks? Yes, he is, which I acknowledge even as I also acknowledge-- in the interest of being totally forthcoming-- that I happen to think he's right most of the time. You wanna call him out for being obnoxious? FIne, fair enough...I meant to recently, but I am easily distracted and have attention-span problems, and my wife will surely tell you if she hasn't already.

But a "death-threat" ban? Please. To paraphrase The Bard, something is rotten in the state of Ohio.

[Breeze]

Quite frankly, the more I see the issue being elevated into some sort of serious big deal, the less I believe it.

See, I agree with you on this. It was something of big deal at the time, and it was handled as such--at the time. Obviously, when you look at the possibility of actual intent to harm, it's not likely to hold up. As, I suspect, the banishment won't hold up.

But the claims of conspiracy and political shenanigans, and the lamenting of the "loss" of a popular if antagonistic boarder, are more than a little melodramatic.

[markalot]

Drama queens, all of yas.

Prole I just can't get excited about pig breeding skills.

[Breeze]

Prole I just can't get excited about pig breeding skills.

But bacon tastes good... pork chops taste good...

[The_Deacon]

But bacon tastes good... pork chops taste good...

Yes they do.

I usually don't read shit in CE/P, but I just read some of this thread. My fucking head hurts now.

[seafoamgreen]

you know what didn't get us out of the depression?


unicorns. that's what.






solidarity forever, brothers and sisters.

[Frost]

On the streets of Cinti, now he's free
But with freedom comes big responsibility
He used to walk around driven by a farce
I remember how large Big Sug was when he fell off
I used to wonder about posters that used to rock
They were large, but none of them could manage to stay on top

Do you ever think about when you outta here?
Hairy pic in avatar outta here?
Stereotypes and death threats outta here?
No doubt CE/P is old school, but we ain't goin' out!


FRESH (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z6L1AIpA8MM) for 2008...you suckaaaaas!

[seafoamgreen]

FRESH (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z6L1AIpA8MM) for 2008...you suckaaaaas!

god bless you sir.

[jps]

What I want to say is this: banning Big Sugar because he threatened to shoot someone if that person came to his house, took his money, and gave it to some stupid poor person...for fucks' sake, I can't imagine how anyone would take that seriously. Quite frankly, the more I see the issue being elevated into some sort of serious big deal, the less I believe it.

I think it stinks. Is BS abrasive and often downright obnoxious to some folks? Yes, he is, which I acknowledge even as I also acknowledge-- in the interest of being totally forthcoming-- that I happen to think he's right most of the time. You wanna call him out for being obnoxious? FIne, fair enough...I meant to recently, but I am easily distracted and have attention-span problems, and my wife will surely tell you if she hasn't already.

But a "death-threat" ban? Please. To paraphrase The Bard, something is rotten in the state of Ohio.
To borrow and for emphasis:
I think it stinks. Is BS abrasive and often downright obnoxious to some folks? Yes, he is, which I acknowledge even as I also acknowledge-- in the interest of being totally forthcoming-- that I happen to think he's being an idiot most of the time.

But this is still lame

[Homsar]

It was taken beyond politics, beyond even the usual bomb-throwing that takes place in CE/P. That's not hard to see... even if it is hard to accept.
He was KIDDING. You know? Sarcastic? Hypothetical? Joking?
That one post could have been deleted.
I smell long-standing loggerheads.
Possibility. BigSug + Due = burnination
I don't buy it. There's an obvious difference between calling someone a moron and saying you're going to shoot them.
Yes, the first is harmless but the second means they're actually going to do it.
Whatever. It was sarcasm. No worse than any of the bullshit THP posts on a regular basis, and he's still around. I see nothing wrong with BugSug's post. Whatsoever.
Yes, I've seen much worse.
To borrow and for emphasis:
I think it stinks. Is BS abrasive and often downright obnoxious to some folks? Yes, he is, which I acknowledge even as I also acknowledge-- in the interest of being totally forthcoming-- that I happen to think he's being an idiot most of the time.

But this is still lame
Yes.

[the happy prole]

Prole I just can't get excited about pig breeding skills.

Fine. Let me try it a different way. How's this for simple and easy-to-digest:

If I took away all your money and forced you to work harder to provide for you and your family I'm pretty sure you'd do it. You'd be as offended and outraged as all get-out, and rightly so. But you'd do it. And if I offered you more money to work harder and provide for you and your family better I'm pretty sure you'd do that as well.

I really don't believe for a second, you'd just say "Aw fuck it. This system stinks. I'm gonna pack it in and me and my family will just starve to death."

It's the same thing for me and everyone else. Unless you're at the way far extreme where you either have nothing to lose or nothing to gain (if indeed, anyone is actually at that point), either the carrot or the stick will work. For the people at the middle income levels, we could probably use an extra $50k as badly as it would suck to lose $50k. And the tax rate changes we are talking about are much, much less than that as a percentage of income.

That's just the ugly truth. I'm not saying it's fair or it's right or anything of the sort. I'm just saying the end result in terms of increased production is going to be the same. If you care about more than simply increasing production by any means, I'm right there in your corner. If I haven't made it clear, I think taxing people and trying to redistribute income is largely a pointless endeavor. We agree on that, although perhaps for different reasons. Fair enough?

As for BigSugar, his post didn't bother me. He was speaking in hypotheticals. However, I have to point out he actually has threatened people NOT in hypotheticals albeit in such bizarre and outlandish ways no one in their right mind would take him seriously. So that didn't offended me either.

I can see how he would offend a lot of people, which I doubt he would deny. But also, I can see how I offend a lot of people which I don't deny. Honestly, I think he was just a little off his game today and maybe the sarcasm/humor/blatant outrageousness didn't come off quite as well as it usually does. Maybe it was just a bit too much all in one day. Or maybe it was us. I don't know.

I did not report his post. He got banned before I even read it, and I was kind of surprised by the ban to tell you the truth. I can't recall ever personally reporting anyone's post or even threatening to do so. Speaking only for myself, I'm happy to have him around and would be in favor of removing the ban.

[the happy prole]

Whatever. It was sarcasm. No worse than any of the bullshit THP posts on a regular basis, and he's still around.

See my above post. I just happen to be the unlucky sucker who BigSugar was responding to when he got banned. I didn't insult BigSugar or bait him into anything. I'm not claiming to be a victim here, since I don't feel particularly victimized. He just did what he does a lot, and it doesn't bother me and has never bothered me.

I don't think what he said was any big deal, and I'm on his side. I am pretty much just a bystander here, same as you. So could you maybe do me a favor and kind of leave me out of this?

[DaHood]

tHP doesn't display the same level of assholery as BS does.No, but what thp says I take seriously and what BigSug says I take with a grain of salt. I will admit that his comment was over the top but consider the source.

[akip]

that idiot kristy (or kristie?) got booted for saying that brit rock sucks about 50 times and nobody misses her 'cause she wasn't amusing enough, or fighting their own proxy war.

the standard is already low enough that 99.99% of antagonistic types can stir up shit and drive most people out of discussions. i vote for having some rock bottom chalk line---the simpler the better. whether your idol is chomsky or g. gordon liddy, threaten to shoot someone (or bash their brains in or run them over with an SUV) and you're out. still gives everyone plenty of room to exercise their inalienable right to be a creep.

i can't see anyone else here, no matter how belligerent they can get when they're in a shitty mood, threatening someone, even in some idiotic quasi-joke. face it---it's beyond garden variety shithead rhetoric---it's sick. belies somebody who cannot put a filter of any sort over their rampaging hostility. seems name-calling wasn't making BS feel powerful enough.

[Breeze]

He was KIDDING. You know? Sarcastic? Hypothetical? Joking?
How does that even approach the level of a joke?

Yes, I've seen much worse.

So where would you draw the line? Or would you at all?


the standard is already low enough that 99.99% of antagonistic types can stir up shit and drive most people out of discussions. i vote for having some rock bottom chalk line---the simpler the better. whether your idol is chomsky or g. gordon liddy, threaten to shoot someone (or bash their brains in or run them over with an SUV) and you're out. still gives everyone plenty of room to exercise their inalienable right to be a creep.

i can't see anyone else here, no matter how belligerent they can get when they're in a shitty mood, threatening someone, even in some idiotic quasi-joke. face it---it's beyond garden variety shithead rhetoric---it's sick. belies somebody who cannot put a filter of any sort over their rampaging hostility. seems name-calling wasn't making BS feel powerful enough.
Yes. Exactly.

[Breeze]

No, but what thp says I take seriously and what BigSug says I take with a grain of salt. I will admit that his comment was over the top but consider the source.
I understand what you're saying... but do you assume that everyone weighs such things in the exact same way that you do?

[DudeMan]

See my above post. I just happen to be the unlucky sucker who BigSugar was responding to when he got banned. I didn't insult BigSugar or bait him into anything. I'm not claiming to be a victim here, since I don't feel particularly victimized. He just did what he does a lot, and it doesn't bother me and has never bothered me.

I don't think what he said was any big deal, and I'm on his side. I am pretty much just a bystander here, same as you. So could you maybe do me a favor and kind of leave me out of this?
i'm with you THP, and you're making fully valid points.


akip & breeze, you both have really disappointed me. i almost never agree wtih either of your political views, but i always respected you since you're both intelligent and have interesting things to say. but, i've now lost a lot of respect for both of you, because you're not being objective in the slightest. you probably both don't give a shit what i think, but there you go. i'll probably be banned soon, too, for expressing a contrary opinion to the orthodoxy here. so i hope you enjoy the future living in your happy little echo chamber where everyone agrees with you.

[Breeze]

akip & breeze, you both have really disappointed me. i almost never agree wtih either of your political views, but i always respected you since you're both intelligent and have interesting things to say. but, i've now lost a lot of respect for both of you, because you're not being objective in the slightest.
Actually, the folks who keep saying things like "it was because of his politics" aren't being objective.

you probably both don't give a shit what i think, but there you go. i'll probably be banned soon, too, for expressing a contrary opinion to the orthodoxy here. so i hope you enjoy the future living in your happy little echo chamber where everyone agrees with you.
If nothing else, this whole exercise has shown this not to be a happy little echo chamber where everyone agrees.

[Motti]

akip & breeze, you both have really disappointed me. i almost never agree wtih either of your political views, but i always respected you since you're both intelligent and have interesting things to say. but, i've now lost a lot of respect for both of you, because you're not being objective in the slightest. you probably both don't give a shit what i think, but there you go. i'll probably be banned soon, too, for expressing a contrary opinion to the orthodoxy here. so i hope you enjoy the future living in your happy little echo chamber where everyone agrees with you.

I think it's safe to say that BigSug was not banned on that post alone, he was banned by his body of work. As long as he is causing stress to people, then it drips down to the mods and they have better things to do than pay attention to some troll (yes, troll) on the boards.

Is BigSug funny? Well, not to me, but I understand how some people may think he is. But he has said some things that are just plain horrible around here. He is the only person on this board I would never shake hands with. I thought harnk was pretty funny (I really do) but I can see why he needs to be banned (time and again).

You can be funny, opinionated and nice (suntzu comes to mind, I love him). It's a different thing being funny, opinionated and specifically seeking out to antagonize people by making personal attacks. Yeah, he might have been amusing, but Jerry Springer also is.

[akip]

i'm with you THP, and you're making fully valid points.


akip & breeze, you both have really disappointed me. i almost never agree wtih either of your political views, but i always respected you since you're both intelligent and have interesting things to say. but, i've now lost a lot of respect for both of you, because you're not being objective in the slightest. you probably both don't give a shit what i think, but there you go. i'll probably be banned soon, too, for expressing a contrary opinion to the orthodoxy here. so i hope you enjoy the future living in your happy little echo chamber where everyone agrees with you.

normally i wouldn't bother responding, but i would like to state emphatically that if someone i agreed with 110% were spouting the same assaultive shit, i'd pull the trap door as well. who needs it.

there are plenty of people i 'm in opposition with who i'd hate to see leave CE/P---marlowe, monkeyneck, etc.

[Motti]

I wonder who the whiny little bitch was that flagged the post to begin with.

P_O, I love you, but there's nothing wrong with flagging abusive posts. Now you may not think BigSug's post was abusive, but someone might have and that, in itself, makes it abusive.

BTW, I've never seen him apologize to anyone, ever. I love sarcasm, but I'm quick to apologize if I feel someone is hurt by it.

[Motti]

normally i wouldn't bother responding, but i would like to state emphatically that if someone i agreed with 110% were spouting the same assaultive shit, i'd pull the trap door as well. who needs it.

there are plenty of people i 'm in opposition with who i'd hate to see leave CE/P---marlowe, monkeyneck, etc.

Yes, yes, yes.

[akip]

you want to give me 3 examples where you called someone out who agrees with your political philosophy? 2? 1?

find someone who's threatened to shoot another boarder in defense of hillary clinton and i'd be happy to tell them off. but you're the one who's gotta go digging, 'cause i've not seen it happen.:p

if you read my post, i'm not talking about banning people for behaving like the usual shit-throwing assholes around here. i said, whether you're a chomskyite or a liddy lover, if you threaten someone with extreme physical violence, you should get the boot.

[DudeMan]

find someone who's threatened to shoot another boarder in defense of hillary clinton and i'd be happy to tell them off. but you're the one who's gotta go digging, 'cause i've not seen it happen.:p

if you read my post, i'm not talking about banning people for behaving like the usual shit-throwing assholes around here. i said, whether you're a chomskyite or a liddy lover, if you threaten someone with extreme physical violence, you should get the boot.
i deleted my post because i didn't view it as worthwhile to get into such a discussion. but since you quoted me before i deleted, i'll respond... you have answered my question by not answering my question. thanks.

[frizgolf]

if you threaten someone with extreme physical violence, you should get the boot.

And who boots the mod who responds with the same "threat"?

[Motti]

And who boots the mod who responds with the same "threat"?

I can't speak for Mike (who has always been nice to anyone in any situation I've seen), but I think he was merely showing how offensive BigSug could be.

I also think it's really weird to attack Mike (very nice person) for clamping down on the wrongdoings of BigSug ([insert your opinion here]).

[frizgolf]

I can't speak for Mike (who has always been nice to anyone in any situation I've seen), but I think he was merely showing how offensive BigSug could be.

Who was emphasizing how ludicrous he thought THP's Robin Hood ramblings were. Wrong or right, he made a point. If you're gonna criticize, even ban someone for using extreme measures to do so, you don't use those same extreme measures making your own point, lest you slide right down that slippery hole yourself.
I picture BigSug sitting somewhere having a laugh over all the irony.

[akip]

And who boots the mod who responds with the same "threat"?

when you start your own station, you can make the rules.

[Breeze]

And who boots the mod who responds with the same "threat"?

first and foremost, woxy has the right to ban anyone for any reason. it's not censorship and it's their prerogative.
That's all the answer you need.

[DudeMan]

I can't speak for Mike (who has always been nice to anyone in any situation I've seen), but I think he was merely showing how offensive BigSug could be.

I also think it's really weird to attack Mike (very nice person) for clamping down on the wrongdoings of BigSug ([insert your opinion here]).
that's an easy sentiment to express if you are on the same side of the political fence as mike, which you are.

for example, mike made an extremely offensive, blanket statement about republicans and conservatives here in CE/P a month or two ago. he subsequently deleted it, but not before i quoted it. after a few exchanges, i deleted my quotation-post out of fairness to someone who spoke out of the heat of the moment and then thought better of it. too bad mike doesn't give the same benefit of the doubt to people whom he doesn't agree with politically.

[akip]

i deleted my post because i didn't view it as worthwhile to get into such a discussion. but since you quoted me before i deleted, i'll respond... you have answered my question by not answering my question. thanks.

hello? is anybody home?:p i have NEVER, until yesterday, read a single other post on woxy.com where a boarder threatened to shoot, or otherwise kill, another boarder over anything, not even radiohead or amy winehouse.:p if it's happened before, I have never seen it. so no, i have never called out anyone on my own side for threatening to kill someone here. that is the answer to your question.

*beats head against wall*

yes, i know this is futile.:p

[DudeMan]

hello? is anybody home?:p i have NEVER, until yesterday, read a single other post on woxy.com where a boarder threatened to shoot, or otherwise kill, another boarder over anything, not even radiohead or amy winehouse.:p if it's happened before, I have never seen it. so no, i have never called out anyone on my own side for threatening to kill someone here. that is the answer to your question.

*beats head against wall*

yes, i know this is futile.:p
let's be really really clear... there was no threat.

let's look at what he said:

y When you come take all my money and give it to Joe Blow at McD's, i'm not going to take his job and make your burger 10X faster, i'm going to get my gun and come shoot you in the head b/c you are a thief.

you can call that over the top, but you can't call it a threat. it is a hypothetical response to a hypothetical post. the person who posted the hypothetical himself said he wasn't offended. not sure why you are, unless you are using your own personal baggage to judge the situation.

[frizgolf]

And I still don't see any threat.
Whatever "shooting" was to be done was predicated on retaliation for a Robin Hood scenario that anyone above a fifth grade reading level knew wasn't gonna happen.

ETA: That's what Dude just said.

[Breeze]

And I still don't see any threat.
Whatever "shooting" was to be done was predicated on retaliation for a Robin Hood scenario that anyone above a fifth grade reading level knew wasn't gonna happen.

There was a line, and it was crossed. Period. Has nothing to do with reading comprehension.

[akip]

you can call that over the top, but you can't call it a threat. it is a hypothetical response to a hypothetical post. the person who posted the hypothetical himself said he wasn't offended. not sure why you are, unless you are using your own personal baggage to judge the situation.

you're editing, dudeman, my dear.;)

[frizgolf]

There was a line, and it was crossed.
Yep. Twice.
That's the problem I have with it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Breeze]

Yep. Twice.
That's the problem I have with it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Wait--I thought the issue you had was that it was no threat to begin with?
And I still don't see any threat.
Whatever "shooting" was to be done was predicated on retaliation for a Robin Hood scenario that anyone above a fifth grade reading level knew wasn't gonna happen.
By that logic, neither Sug's nor Mike's comments were over the line.

Now you're saying that you agree that Sug's comment was over the line (i.e., a "wrong")--and therefore that so was Mike's retort.

Which is it?

[Sofa King]

Question... Hypothetically, if a person broke into your house, and tried to steal from or harm you and your family, and you were armed... what would you do?

On this message board, you can't defend yourself. Or say that you will defend yourself as an answer to the hypothetical question. Because then you would be banned. So think before you answer.

[Breeze]

On this message board, you can't defend yourself. Or say that you will defend yourself as an answer to the hypothetical question. Because then you would be banned. So think before you answer.
That would seem to be the case. At least in this instance.

Not the same as being banned for one's political views, though, is it?

[frizgolf]

Wait--I thought the issue you had was that it was no threat to begin with?

By that logic, neither Sug's nor Mike's comments were over the line.

Now you're saying that you agree that Sug's comment was over the line (i.e., a "wrong")--and therefore that so was Mike's retort.

Which is it?
Both.
No threat to begin with. None in reply.
I'm saying two comments were over the line, a line established now, in hindsight, by banishment.
But one's been banned for it, and the other gets to take his ball and go home.

[Breeze]

But one's been banned for it, and the other gets to take his ball and go home.
One's a mod. One isn't. The mod's in charge. The poster wasn't.

[Sushi]

Question... Hypothetically, if a person broke into your house, and tried to steal from or harm you and your family, and you were armed... what would you do?

On this message board, you can't defend yourself. Or say that you will defend yourself as an answer to the hypothetical question. Because then you would be banned. So think before you answer.
I'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. You can defend yourself verbally here without being banned. Big Sug was not banned because Mike disagrees with his political beliefs. Big Sug was banned for consistently being beligerent and insulting. We don't know what type of private messages or emails they might get from boarders complaining about one thing or another or about other boarders.
The DJs' collective job is running a radio station, finding great new music, and playing said great new music. I'm pretty sure babysitting the message boards isn't in any of their job descriptions. I think Mike just got sick of seeing consistently mean, pugnacious posts from the same person.

[miami2112]

Question... Hypothetically, if a person broke into your house, and tried to steal from or harm you and your family, and you were armed... what would you do?

On this message board, you can't defend yourself. Or say that you will defend yourself as an answer to the hypothetical question. Because then you would be banned. So think before you answer.

dial 911.

____________

[silentpaul]

I think Mike just got sick of seeing consistently mean, pugnacious posts from the same person.

Either that, or he got sick of seeing emails from people complaining about said posts.

[akip]

Question... Hypothetically, if a person broke into your house, and tried to steal from or harm you and your family, and you were armed... what would you do?

On this message board, you can't defend yourself. Or say that you will defend yourself as an answer to the hypothetical question. Because then you would be banned. So think before you answer.

i'd certainly try to beat the shit out of him with anything i could get my hands on (lamp, hockey stick?) screaming for my kid to run!

but i wouldn't then drive down to mcdonald's and start shooting the help.:p

[Motti]

that's an easy sentiment to express if you are on the same side of the political fence as mike, which you are.

I am? Gee, I don't even know which side of the fence I'm on, much less the one Mike is.

BTW, I'm not even sure there's a fence in politics. You guys may have only two parties over there, we have more than a 100 here. And I don't like any of them.

[frizgolf]

One's a mod. One isn't. The mod's in charge. The poster wasn't.

That's all I'm saying.
I've called him out for being a dumbass and going overboard.
Just a lesson to the rest of us. A message board is not covered by any Bill Of Rights.

[Breeze]

I am? Gee, I don't even know which side of the fence I'm on, much less the one Mike is.

BTW, I'm not even sure there's a fence in politics. You guys may have only two parties over there, we have more than a 100 here. And I don't like any of them.

This is a good illustration of why it doesn't pay to assume you know someone else's politics.

[Breeze]

That's all I'm saying.
I've called him out for being a dumbass and going overboard.
Just a lesson to the rest of us. A message board is not covered by any Bill Of Rights.
Called who out?

[frizgolf]

Called who out?

BigSugar.
.

[Breeze]

BigSugar.
.

Got it. Just trying to keep the pronouns straight.

[markalot]

Would you people just shut the fuck up already? I don't see anything helpful here.

That's just the ugly truth. I'm not saying it's fair or it's right or anything of the sort. I'm just saying the end result in terms of increased production is going to be the same.

Well we do see an increase in investing if rates are lowered, and as I pointed out we actually saw an increase in tax revenue. Investments lead to jobs, sometimes here, sometimes overseas. In your example of taking all my money away you neglect to consider crime, or maybe some would call it revolution. The shot to the head reference perhaps? :)

I was just reading about a company who finally scored some venture capital so they can continue to develop their software. That investment of money from some 'rich' people just created an estimated 10 jobs in the next month or so and those jobs should last a few years and longer if the software is successful. If you raise taxes on the rich you reduce the money available to invest. Worse yet you give that money to the government who will most likely waste it on a bridge to nowhere. Sorry, I can't find the efficiencies in that.

[Breeze]

Would you people just shut the fuck up already? I don't see anything helpful here.

No one's making you come here--or post.

[markalot]

No one's making you come here--or post.

Look wind gust, you might notice I'm still posting ON TOPIC.

Ok? :D

[Breeze]

Look wind gust, you might notice I'm still posting ON TOPIC.

Ok? :D

Good for you, felt tip.

[DaHood]

The DJs' collective job is running a radio station, finding great new music, and playing said great new music. I'm pretty sure babysitting the message boards isn't in any of their job descriptions.Which is exactly the reason why I don't like 'reporting' people. I did it once, one time and I regret it. We don't need it. We can handle assholes on our own. I've always thought that made this board special, which it is but I don't like bans.

By the grace of the mods this is a very free and open community. They own it but we are the community. I'm very thankful that they've allowed this.

[Shlep]

Question... Hypothetically, if a person broke into your house, and tried to steal from or harm you and your family, and you were armed... what would you do?

dial 911.

Time permitting, be sure to tell them to bring plenty of chalk and that special festive yellow cop-type bunting that has CRIME SCENE! DO NOT CROSS! stenciled on it.

Just to be clear: this isn't a vague threat from me towards anyone else.

We can handle assholes on our own.

Look, keep your "hobbies" to yourself, you...uh, wait. I get it. Never mind. :)

[TripleShockPowa]

And who boots the mod who responds with the same "threat"?

^^THIS^^

"Quit saying A____, A____!"

[the happy prole]

In your example of taking all my money away you neglect to consider crime, or maybe some would call it revolution. The shot to the head reference perhaps? :)

Yeah, but see now you're talking like a Marxist. The oppressive government is holding you down and yet you are the valuable laborer. You control the means of production, therefore you need to rise up and rebel.

It's almost an argument for the positive benefits of redistributing wealth. In order to keep the poor people happy and ensure greater peace that benefits all of us, we ought to keep them happy.

It's not that I disagree with your basic points. What I'm saying is that you are kind of selectively applying arguments to one group and then a different set to another. Rich people need the carrot. Poor people need the stick. And what I am saying is that there is no valid free market reason to assign different motivational factors to people based on income.

So to answer frizgolf's argument, I'm NOT assigning Robin Hood values here. I believe I even said that under a free market assumption you could rob from the poor and give to the rich and it still wouldn't make a difference.

We don't need you to work any harder markalot. Whatever shit you do, you do exactly enough of it. If we need more of it, we get hire someone else to do it at a rate that is acceptable. If we needed your specific shit that desperately, you could get away with charging us a ton more. This is also true for me, and it's true for Bill Gates and Donald Trump and Mark Cuban.

And just to assure you I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal about this, we definitely don't need any more of whatever poor people do either. They are at market equilibrium the same as anyone else. Theoretically, they are either choosing not to work harder or them working harder is not of any benefit to us so there's not point in encouraging it.

You will always achieve maximum efficiency in a free-market environment regardless of initial allocation of resources.

[the happy prole]

btw, the argument you that you and BigSugar used relies on the same principle as the bartender e-mail. And like I said-- it's not wrong per se, it's just selective application.

What you are talking about is a notion of fairness, or to get all fancy "interdependence of marginal utility." What it means is that A and B's happiness is not dependent merely upon whether they are better off, but on how much better off they are RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.

Step away from the carrot vs. stick side of things and just look at a situation that is all carrot. In the bar example, everyone ends up paying a lesser or equal tab. That's even pointed out in the e-mail. If everyone just looks at themselves in isolation, they should be happy. What is pissing them off is how their situation changed relative to the others in their group.

The thing is, if interdependence of marginal utility is a factor, it's a factor ALL THE TIME and FOR EVERYONE. If people in the bar example are all mad that their cut of the bar tab is now greater or that someone got a bigger break than they did, why weren't they mad before?

I mean, the dudes in the bar example had a perfectly happy arrangement even though the rich guy was paying a lot more. Why wouldn't the rich guy have been whining from the get-go about how come he has to pay for the poor dude's tab? Why would he suddenly start to care?

If anything, the mistake the bartender (aka the government) made was to lower the bar tab. The prior arrangement was far more progressive and far less favorable to the group as a whole. They didn't get mad until someone tried to cut them a break. So the lesson you can take away from that is: DON'T EVER LOWER TAXES. :p

You can't just introduce interdependent utility halfway through the hypothetical. If it's there, it's always there. Furthermore, you don't know which way the interdependence of utility is going to break. If the rich bar patron was happy with paying for the poor guy, maybe it's because that was his good buddy who lets him cheat at golf. He's HAPPY to subsidize the poor guy and might be MORE happy that he can now help him out even more. If you give him more $$, he'll voluntarily use it to help the poor guy instead of whining about how his cut is now unfair.

Or maybe the poor guy feels bad he never pays his tab. If you give him more $$, maybe he's happy to pay more of the tab because A is his good buddy and now he feels less guilty. We just don't know.

So in a limited way markalot, you might very well be right. It may be that a few years ago, we were hitting the rich too hard relative to the poor and we are better off now that we've redistributed the burden a bit. That argument certainly has some merit as the rich definitely took it up the ass in terms of having their tax burden raised in the Clinton years. But it's not ALWAYS true that you need to give tax cuts to the rich.

The vast majority of economists agree that if you must for some reason tax people, the way to do it is based on hurt everyone the same amount of "utils." You don't focus on how much they have or how happy they are right now, but rather on how much happier they will be AFTER the change. Sometimes making the poor happier than the rich is the right move, sometimes it's the reverse.

The problem is-- it's almost impossible to correctly assign a tax based on expected change in utility. Without having some kind of electrodes attached to everyone's brain, it is pretty much impossible to figure out how to assign taxes, and any improper distribution is inefficient.

About all I can say is that it is generally (though not unanimously) agreed that a consumption tax is the best approximation of how happy your money makes you. We indicate our happiness by spending. That's how we "vote" in a free market. But it's still just an approximation.

That's why it's arguably best not to tax at all. If we're going to base taxes on consumption, why not just leave it alone in the first place. Your money is your vote. The more money in the hands of private consumers, the more votes are in the hands of private consumers. Instead of trying to simulate a free-market via a consumption tax, let's just go ahead and have a free market in the first place.

[Hogarth]

When I started this thread, I thought we'd just have a nice little discussion about what values a just economy should be based on. I had no idea it would get so out of hand. I'm a little embarrised.:o

But it's not like BS wasn't warned. Some of us tried to tell him to chill. The thing to remember is these boards exist to build a sense of community, to which they've succeded. This is not a place to exercise your personal frustrations, but a place to talk. If you can't handle it, get a punching bag.

BTW, if Mike wanted to ban somebody for their right wing politics, wouldn't he ban someone who was intelligent and thoughtful, instead of some second rate Limbaugh clone?