The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
02-15-2019, 02:23 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
There's a big difference between equality of opportunity under the law and egality (egalite en Francais) which strives for equality of economic outcome by enforcing it as policy.
I want everyone to be treated equally under the law and given the same opportunities sink or swim as they see fit. The fable of the ant and the grasshopper comes to my mind. There's about 20% of the population that will do absolutely nothing if you let them. If it were quite a bit more uncomfortable to do nothing then I think fewer people would choose that route. They shouldn't be on the back the guy who's busting his *** or risking what he's saved to try to get ahead.
I want everyone to be treated equally under the law and given the same opportunities sink or swim as they see fit. The fable of the ant and the grasshopper comes to my mind. There's about 20% of the population that will do absolutely nothing if you let them. If it were quite a bit more uncomfortable to do nothing then I think fewer people would choose that route. They shouldn't be on the back the guy who's busting his *** or risking what he's saved to try to get ahead.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:27 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
There's a big difference between equality of opportunity under the law and egality (egalite en Francais) which strives for equality of economic outcome by enforcing it as policy.
I want everyone to be treated equally under the law and given the same opportunities sink or swim as they see fit. The fable of the ant and the grasshopper comes to my mind. There's about 20% of the population that will do absolutely nothing if you let them. If it were quite a bit more uncomfortable to do nothing then I think fewer people would choose that route. They shouldn't be on the back the guy who's busting his *** or risking what he's saved to try to get ahead.
I want everyone to be treated equally under the law and given the same opportunities sink or swim as they see fit. The fable of the ant and the grasshopper comes to my mind. There's about 20% of the population that will do absolutely nothing if you let them. If it were quite a bit more uncomfortable to do nothing then I think fewer people would choose that route. They shouldn't be on the back the guy who's busting his *** or risking what he's saved to try to get ahead.
Even though I pointed out I was being sarcastic, and reading my previous responses in this topic, you both somehow think I'm some ACO supporter? Or somehow being against corporate welfare means I'm for individual welfare? Pointing out that if I'm taxed, I want you taxed as well (IE playing under the same rules)? Or that Republican's are actually in favor of taxes/redistribution when it benefits them?
Are you both "on the spectrum?"
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:28 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Go get a job in the private sector.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:30 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
And that is precisely why, when implemented at large scale, true socialist / communist countries also tend to develop brutal and draconian systems of law enforcement and criminal justice. The gulags, the MVD, all that scary stuff. It was developed out of the necessity to scare the 20% into actually doing something resembling their job. Obviously, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those mechanisms quickly found themselves as tools of political and social enforcement as well.
That's the natural end-state of absolute socialism / communism. It devolves into a brutally authoritarian apparatus, because that's what is necessary to make everyone participate.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:33 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Even though I pointed out I was being sarcastic, and reading my previous responses in this topic, you both somehow think I'm some ACO supporter? Or somehow being against corporate welfare means I'm for individual welfare? Pointing out that if I'm taxed, I want you taxed as well? Or that Republican's are actually in favor of taxes/redistribution when it benefits them?
Your example was that if something had happens to you (taxation), then it had better happen to me as well. This is equality of misery.
My example was that if something good happens to you (free stuff), I think it ought to happen to me as well. This is simply equal treatment.
It's not false.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:38 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
If you carefully read what Braineack wrote, his statement is technically correct.
Your example was that if something had happens to you (taxation), then it had better happen to me as well. This is equality of misery.
My example was that if something good happens to you (free stuff), I think it ought to happen to me as well. This is simply equal treatment.
It's not false.
Your example was that if something had happens to you (taxation), then it had better happen to me as well. This is equality of misery.
My example was that if something good happens to you (free stuff), I think it ought to happen to me as well. This is simply equal treatment.
It's not false.
I think we all know it was not my intent to convey that everyone should have the same outcome in life.
But I also realize I'm on the internet, and anytime you can say "GOTCHA!" even if incorrect, is valued over everything else.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 02:54 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Brainey was not talking about equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. He was observing that the specific example you gave of equal treatment under the law was that if something bad was happening to you, you wanted to be sure that something bad also happened to me (so that we'd be equally miserable), whereas my example was that if something good was happening to you, I'd like for the good thing to also happen to me, so that we'd be equally happy.
IOW, you stated that everyone should be treated equally badly, I stated that everyone should be treated equally well.
Does this make sense to you? We're not being pedantic, we're exploring the motivation for why you're unhappy about the fact that someone else might not be suffering as much as you are, while I want everyone to be happy and get free stuff, and not be made to suffer.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2019, 04:59 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS
FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.
MODERN RUSSIA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.
MODERN FINANCE
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.
IRISH ORGANIZED CRIME
Your family has two cows and your neighbor's family has two cows. You poison the neighbor's cows so you can charge more for your milk.
ITALIAN ORGANIZED CRIME
Your neighbor has two cows and he wakes up with the head of one of them in his bed. He gives you milk from the other one every other day.
SCHADEN FREUDE
Your neighbor has two cows. One of them stops giving milk. You are pleased.
FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.
MODERN RUSSIA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.
MODERN FINANCE
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.
IRISH ORGANIZED CRIME
Your family has two cows and your neighbor's family has two cows. You poison the neighbor's cows so you can charge more for your milk.
ITALIAN ORGANIZED CRIME
Your neighbor has two cows and he wakes up with the head of one of them in his bed. He gives you milk from the other one every other day.
SCHADEN FREUDE
Your neighbor has two cows. One of them stops giving milk. You are pleased.
Reply
0
0
02-16-2019, 09:51 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
Something has been bugging me...
It's clear that government spending can exceed government revenue. We've been doing this for decades, and nothing catastrophic has happened. You just keep running up more and more debt, and for some reason which is unclear to me, people keep purchasing the bonds which fund it.
And, realistically, does anyone (either inside or outside of government) have any illusion that the so-called "National Debt" will ever be repaid, or even stop growing? No, it is likely going to just keep growing without any clear boundary.
That being the case, why bother even collecting taxes at all? There is no fundamental difference between that, and our present situation.
Wanna instantly win a totality of the legislative branch? Campaign on a platform of tax-elimination.
It's clear that government spending can exceed government revenue. We've been doing this for decades, and nothing catastrophic has happened. You just keep running up more and more debt, and for some reason which is unclear to me, people keep purchasing the bonds which fund it.
And, realistically, does anyone (either inside or outside of government) have any illusion that the so-called "National Debt" will ever be repaid, or even stop growing? No, it is likely going to just keep growing without any clear boundary.
That being the case, why bother even collecting taxes at all? There is no fundamental difference between that, and our present situation.
Wanna instantly win a totality of the legislative branch? Campaign on a platform of tax-elimination.
Reply
0
0
02-16-2019, 10:56 AM
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
Seriously what is a Democrat or Republican going to say against embracing Florida Man and selling visits to see him in his natural habitat.
Reply
0
0
02-16-2019, 01:32 PM
Taxes can be used as a tool to combat inflation, slow down the velocity of money, reduce income inequality, or whatever other goal you might have in mind and government spending can be used to either stimulate or slow the economy. But you wouldn't think of taxes as a necessary device to fund government spending because the government can fund it's own spending whenever it wants by just creating new money.
It's a really interesting theory and I can definitely see why the reframing Keynesian economics could be useful but I'm also not enough of an expert to know how well it would work in practice.
Reply
0
0
02-17-2019, 08:18 AM
I guess in general, spending more than you take in works as long as you can afford the debt services. When the time comes that you can’t afford the debt services, and that time always comes if you increase your borrowing in perpetuity, the debt collector comes knocking.
Weirdly, I just found out last year that most of the US govt debt is actually owed by the US.
So, when we run out of money to pay ourselves, we need to print more money or seize our own assets.
Ref for who owns US debt. (Hope it’s accurate and not fake!)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he...ebt-2018-08-21
Weirdly, I just found out last year that most of the US govt debt is actually owed by the US.
So, when we run out of money to pay ourselves, we need to print more money or seize our own assets.
Ref for who owns US debt. (Hope it’s accurate and not fake!)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he...ebt-2018-08-21
Reply
0
0
02-17-2019, 09:25 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Well, it looks like the racially motivated attack on the actor on the TV show Empire was a hoax and a publicity stunt.
It always sounded fishy to me that a pair of guys were walking around with a noose. Sounds like the bad plot from a TV drama.
It always sounded fishy to me that a pair of guys were walking around with a noose. Sounds like the bad plot from a TV drama.
Reply
0
0
02-17-2019, 07:37 PM
As I'm sure you're aware, you are basically describing modern monetary theory but taking it to an extreme. If we reframe how we think about the relationship between taxes collected and government spending, by decoupling the idea completely, then we can change how we approach tax policy.
Taxes can be used as a tool to combat inflation, slow down the velocity of money, reduce income inequality, or whatever other goal you might have in mind and government spending can be used to either stimulate or slow the economy. But you wouldn't think of taxes as a necessary device to fund government spending because the government can fund it's own spending whenever it wants by just creating new money.
It's a really interesting theory and I can definitely see why the reframing Keynesian economics could be useful but I'm also not enough of an expert to know how well it would work in practice.
Taxes can be used as a tool to combat inflation, slow down the velocity of money, reduce income inequality, or whatever other goal you might have in mind and government spending can be used to either stimulate or slow the economy. But you wouldn't think of taxes as a necessary device to fund government spending because the government can fund it's own spending whenever it wants by just creating new money.
It's a really interesting theory and I can definitely see why the reframing Keynesian economics could be useful but I'm also not enough of an expert to know how well it would work in practice.
The greatest natural resource in the entire world are the 7 billion brains humming along. Dampen that drive and we all suffer.
Reply
0
0
02-17-2019, 10:34 PM
You lost me at "reduce economic inequality." Joe six pack on the corner trying to score some drugs does not deserve my income, unless he earns it.. It should NEVER be equality of outcome. It should be equality of opportunity and a level playing field.
The greatest natural resource in the entire world are the 7 billion brains humming along. Dampen that drive and we all suffer.
The greatest natural resource in the entire world are the 7 billion brains humming along. Dampen that drive and we all suffer.
Reply
0
0
02-18-2019, 08:39 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I would love for someone to explain to me why economic inequality is inherently a bad thing and something we need to "solve". The most points goes to the most talking points you can use.
how about a really crazy approach: DONT decouple the relationship between taxes collected and gov't spending, DONT use taxes as a weapon, and STOP collecting them.
Reframing Keynesian economics like that, is like trying to reframe infantcide as a reproductive health issue.
we are here tohelp tax you:
how about a really crazy approach: DONT decouple the relationship between taxes collected and gov't spending, DONT use taxes as a weapon, and STOP collecting them.
Reframing Keynesian economics like that, is like trying to reframe infantcide as a reproductive health issue.
we are here to
When Philadelphia became the first major U.S. city to pass a soda tax in 2016, Mayor Jim Kenney said it would improve public health while funding universal pre-K. Two years in, the policy hasn’t delivered on that elite ideological goal. But the tax has come at the expense of working people… On Jan. 2, Brown’s Super Stores announced the closure of a ShopRite on Haverford Avenue. The supermarket is close to the city limit, and customers discovered they could avoid the soda tax by shopping outside Philly. …the once-profitable store began losing about $1 million a year. …That means fewer opportunities for workers with a criminal record. Mr. Brown’s supermarkets employ more than 600 of them, with the majority in Philadelphia. Some of the ex-cons have become his most-valued employees.
Philadelphia’s outlandish soda tax is what Democratic-party politics looks like when it lets its freak flag fly. So many classic elements are there: (failed) social engineering and “think of the children!” on one side, paid for with a punitive tax on poor people and destroyed businesses, which means destroyed jobs, which in turn means lives upended. …Now that beer is, in some cases, cheaper than soda in Philadelphia, alcohol sales are up sharply. …the total loss attributable to the tax in sales of all items was $300,000 a month per store. Other, untaxed drinks also suffered sales declines within the city, suggesting people were simply saving up their shopping trips for when they left town.
Last edited by Braineack; 02-18-2019 at 08:52 AM.
Reply
0
0
