That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
That's just wrong. When small handguns came out, they allowed women and men of inferior strength to defend themselves against big and strong attackers, and they were both viewed positively for that reason and widely purchased.
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs. The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
That is also wrong. The majority of illicit substances are, in fact, created as chemical variations of psychoactive substances. And there is a demand for these variations because the traditional drugs, most of which are no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, have been made illegal (see here).
VAT doesn't affect international trade because it just doesn't apply there.
It does affect international trade: it discourages consumption, turning your country into a country of worker bees producing for export who themselves are strongly discouraged from consuming. It makes for a more "positive" balance of trade and a poor population, kind of like... Europe actually.
What Massachusetts is doing here is to bring its tax code more in line with de-facto international standard.
Good for them. They can finally demonstrate by direct experiment that the "international standard" is broken, just like so many other things Europeans do.
And no, there are no discernible deleterious effects of VAT, and it doesn't affect international competitiveness much
VAT is, in fact, great for international competitiveness, on paper: it decreases consumption, decreases imports, improves trade surpluses, and increases savings. But you're wrong if you think those are good things.
It's not that hard to understand, and it's a weaker version of what happened with the industrial revolution and subsequent rise of socialism in parts of Europe:
(1) States develop rapidly and the economy grows rapidly.
(2) Lots of people move there, forming big urban centers. Lots of unionized jobs and manufacturing move there.
(3) As a result of (2), many people start voting for left-wing candidates.
(4) As a result of (3), taxes get raised and governmental power increases.
The high taxes, high government spending, and intrusive government don't cause development. You can easily see that because there are lots of regions that have those policies but fail to develop.
Where do you think the money comes from that pays for the services you use? Like roads and healthcare?
I pay significant user fees for roads where I live, and a special assessment for the roads leading up to my home. My employer and me pay for my health care (quite a bit actually), entirely separate from taxes. So, your point is... what?
And those data centers, well, they're using a lot of the local infrastructure, like the electrical grid and parking lots and air. Why shouldn't they be taxed?
They are already taxed, through real estate taxes, taxes on their employees, taxes on the electricity they use, real estate taxes their employees pay, real estate taxes the businesses their employees use pay, corporate taxes, and plenty more. And "they are using air"? How do they "use air"?
First you admit taxes were raised considerably during WWII and remained far higher than they are today for decades, then agree that after the conclusion of WWII the US became a superpower.
You don't understand the difference between "during WWII" and "until after WWII"? In any case, the US became a superpower because Europe, European empires, and European economies self-destructed, killing millions in the process; and they self-destructed mainly because they had adopted the kind of paternalistic governmental policies you seem to favor.
Guess how the government paid for becoming a superpower, and doing all the things a government does? Go ahead, guess.
In different words, you are saying that you favor high taxes in order to finance a large military, which can then be used to US military and economic advantage. This would make you a high-tax GOP military hawk. Well, sorry, I don't agree. I think the US should scale back its military and the taxes that pay for it. The US should also require its "allies" in Europe to pay for their own defense.
Watching people who aren't 7-figure-income rich or richer defend GOP economic ideas is baffling.
It's baffling to you because you are apparently financially and economically illiterate. More taxes, on the rich or anybody else, doesn't help any of us, it makes all of us poorer. The problem isn't so much the taking from the rich, it's the giving to everybody else. If you insulate people from the unpleasant consequences of bad choices, our society ceases to function. That's true as much for bankers and car manufacturers as it is for people choosing to study art history in college or buying a home they can't afford.
As is typical for left wing demagogues, you are shifting your claims and bringing in issues that are irrelevant to the original discussion. This is what TapeCutter said:
Yeah, the US government just takes your money, the fact the US is the world's only superpower and has the largest economy on the planet is just a coincidence,
The fact is that taxes were considerably lower than they are today until after WWII was concluded and the US had become the sole superpower.
As to your second claim:
Now, the fact that wages for about 90% of the population have been flat for decades while productivity
That "fact" is economically meaningless. What you need to ask is whether people are better off today than they were decades ago, and they clearly are much better off. The flatness of wages is an artifact of games people play with inflation adjustments, as well as simply how we measure "wages".
I'm not having a political debate with you, I was pointing out your rhetorical bullshit by echoing it. Seems like you recognize yourself for what you are: a demagogue with nothing substantive to say.
No, you didn't say that. You simply evaded the issue altogether and tried to change the subject from the $60k government waste to an irrelevant side issue. Typical left-wing debating strategy.
Yeah, low information voters like you keep making a mockery out of our political process. That's why people like Obama are now feeling free to kill US citizens with drones and ruining the country with unfulfillable entitlements.
You can't use those observations to justify current levels of government spending. The US became the world's only superpower and got the largest economy on the planet when taxes were lower and the role of the federal government was much smaller. For a few decades, we have been entering a phase of decline, analogous to the decline of the formerly powerful European empires, and roughly for the same reasons.
Right - what has the government done for us.... (insert monty python quote here) education , sanitation, roads, police,
All of those are local and state matters and should be paid for by local and state taxes. The IRS collects federal income tax.
Seriously, try to imagine what the US would be like without a government, or if people had to pay specifically for the services they wanted.
I think the US would be a whole lot better off with a much smaller federal government, leaving more to state and local control and restricting the federal government to its enumerated powers, primarily interstate commerce and national defense.
It would be a hell on earth - a scaled up Somalia.
Deluging her with letters of disapproval (one sender at a time) is not: she is an activist and a media personality, and people have a right to respond to her.
And, of course, you know this to be so, as you are fair and balanced, and know who is American and who is un-American.
None of what I said requires me to be "fair and balanced"; I just stated facts that are independent of my personal political views. Which of those facts do you disagree with?
The basic claim about Fox News' bias is that every single story is framed in such a way to reinforce a distorted, reactionary worldview, even when it's supposedly NOT an opinion piece.
In modern politics, the term "reactionary" is mainly a derogatory term for those who oppose socialist and progressive ideologies. Yes, Fox is unapologetically opposed to socialism and progressivism, as are the majority of Americans. And as such, even in its new segments, Fox tends to select stories intended to show failures of progressive, socialist, and Keynsian policies, just like MSNBC tends to select stories intended to show success of such policies. If you want to get a balanced view, look at both, check the facts, and draw your own conclusions. If you simply reject one source of news because you don't like the politics of the people behind it, you are not a well-informed person.
In professional contexts, I always keep my language professional and dress conservatively, and I don't have a problem in principle complying with the PyCon code of conduct. But the fact that the conference has to have such a code of conduct tells me that the conference organizers are incapable of dealing with problems in a professional manner and that there is a problem with the crowd of attendees (perhaps in part, the fact that there is a "crowd" to begin with). And the fact that non-technical marketers like Adria even attend tell me that the conference is spiraling down the drain. Women are welcome at technical conferences; marketers and social activists are not, even if they happen to be women. I haven't been to Python conferences in a while, but looks like I won't be going again.
The main historical cause for creating the US government monopoly on printing money wasn't stability, as you erroneously claim, it was financing the US civil war, i.e., increasing government spending. In different words, you are full of sh*t.
As for the problems experienced by Europe and their relationships to currencies, are you living under a rock? If Greece, Spain, and other nations could devalue their currencies, this crisis wouldn't be so serious. Devaluing their currencies would punish those people who were stupid enough to lend money to them. Instead, Deutsche Bank and others now go to their respective governments, belly-ache about the consequences of their own stupidity, and ask for tax payers to cover their losses and risk taking. And just like the single currency causes these kinds of problems at a European level, similar mechanisms operate at a national level.
As for "Free markets are theoretical ideals, not real-world alternatives.", gravity is also a "theoretical ideal", but we still use it usefully in engineering and science. Apparently, you don't understand how economic (or scientific) arguments involving theoretical ideals and abstractions work. Right now, we have a complete governmental monopoly on money. Creating a "free market" in money doesn't mean an ideal, totally unregulated market in money, it means the reasonable approximation we have for many other goods and services. That would allow the market to punish governments, banks, and businesses that misuse money or monetary policy.
Slashdot Mirror
A real hacker doesn't buy an iPhone.
That's just wrong. When small handguns came out, they allowed women and men of inferior strength to defend themselves against big and strong attackers, and they were both viewed positively for that reason and widely purchased.
That is also wrong. The majority of illicit substances are, in fact, created as chemical variations of psychoactive substances. And there is a demand for these variations because the traditional drugs, most of which are no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, have been made illegal (see here).
It does affect international trade: it discourages consumption, turning your country into a country of worker bees producing for export who themselves are strongly discouraged from consuming. It makes for a more "positive" balance of trade and a poor population, kind of like ... Europe actually.
Good for them. They can finally demonstrate by direct experiment that the "international standard" is broken, just like so many other things Europeans do.
VAT is, in fact, great for international competitiveness, on paper: it decreases consumption, decreases imports, improves trade surpluses, and increases savings. But you're wrong if you think those are good things.
It's not that hard to understand, and it's a weaker version of what happened with the industrial revolution and subsequent rise of socialism in parts of Europe:
(1) States develop rapidly and the economy grows rapidly.
(2) Lots of people move there, forming big urban centers. Lots of unionized jobs and manufacturing move there.
(3) As a result of (2), many people start voting for left-wing candidates.
(4) As a result of (3), taxes get raised and governmental power increases.
The high taxes, high government spending, and intrusive government don't cause development. You can easily see that because there are lots of regions that have those policies but fail to develop.
That's what Europe thought in the 20th century. The exodus continues to this day.
There's a lot of us in every crowd, actually.
I pay significant user fees for roads where I live, and a special assessment for the roads leading up to my home. My employer and me pay for my health care (quite a bit actually), entirely separate from taxes. So, your point is... what?
They are already taxed, through real estate taxes, taxes on their employees, taxes on the electricity they use, real estate taxes their employees pay, real estate taxes the businesses their employees use pay, corporate taxes, and plenty more. And "they are using air"? How do they "use air"?
There still seem to be lots of essential UI actions that have no visible on-screen counterparts: no buttons, no menus, nothing.
And the UI still seems as schizophrenic as ever, with Metro and a completely separate Vista-like desktop.
You don't understand the difference between "during WWII" and "until after WWII"? In any case, the US became a superpower because Europe, European empires, and European economies self-destructed, killing millions in the process; and they self-destructed mainly because they had adopted the kind of paternalistic governmental policies you seem to favor.
In different words, you are saying that you favor high taxes in order to finance a large military, which can then be used to US military and economic advantage. This would make you a high-tax GOP military hawk. Well, sorry, I don't agree. I think the US should scale back its military and the taxes that pay for it. The US should also require its "allies" in Europe to pay for their own defense.
It's baffling to you because you are apparently financially and economically illiterate. More taxes, on the rich or anybody else, doesn't help any of us, it makes all of us poorer. The problem isn't so much the taking from the rich, it's the giving to everybody else. If you insulate people from the unpleasant consequences of bad choices, our society ceases to function. That's true as much for bankers and car manufacturers as it is for people choosing to study art history in college or buying a home they can't afford.
As is typical for left wing demagogues, you are shifting your claims and bringing in issues that are irrelevant to the original discussion. This is what TapeCutter said:
The fact is that taxes were considerably lower than they are today until after WWII was concluded and the US had become the sole superpower.
As to your second claim:
That "fact" is economically meaningless. What you need to ask is whether people are better off today than they were decades ago, and they clearly are much better off. The flatness of wages is an artifact of games people play with inflation adjustments, as well as simply how we measure "wages".
Any more economic b.s. you want to air out?
I didn't say that the BBC was not "credible", I said that they were biased. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.
BBC is biased in the direction of mainstream European intellectuals. You may think of that as "unbiased", many others do not, not even within Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
I'm not having a political debate with you, I was pointing out your rhetorical bullshit by echoing it. Seems like you recognize yourself for what you are: a demagogue with nothing substantive to say.
No, you didn't say that. You simply evaded the issue altogether and tried to change the subject from the $60k government waste to an irrelevant side issue. Typical left-wing debating strategy.
Yeah, low information voters like you keep making a mockery out of our political process. That's why people like Obama are now feeling free to kill US citizens with drones and ruining the country with unfulfillable entitlements.
You can't use those observations to justify current levels of government spending. The US became the world's only superpower and got the largest economy on the planet when taxes were lower and the role of the federal government was much smaller. For a few decades, we have been entering a phase of decline, analogous to the decline of the formerly powerful European empires, and roughly for the same reasons.
All of those are local and state matters and should be paid for by local and state taxes. The IRS collects federal income tax.
I think the US would be a whole lot better off with a much smaller federal government, leaving more to state and local control and restricting the federal government to its enumerated powers, primarily interstate commerce and national defense.
That meme is both false and tired.
Deluging her with death threats is wrong.
Deluging her with letters of disapproval (one sender at a time) is not: she is an activist and a media personality, and people have a right to respond to her.
None of what I said requires me to be "fair and balanced"; I just stated facts that are independent of my personal political views. Which of those facts do you disagree with?
In modern politics, the term "reactionary" is mainly a derogatory term for those who oppose socialist and progressive ideologies. Yes, Fox is unapologetically opposed to socialism and progressivism, as are the majority of Americans. And as such, even in its new segments, Fox tends to select stories intended to show failures of progressive, socialist, and Keynsian policies, just like MSNBC tends to select stories intended to show success of such policies. If you want to get a balanced view, look at both, check the facts, and draw your own conclusions. If you simply reject one source of news because you don't like the politics of the people behind it, you are not a well-informed person.
I don't know about ABC, but BBC is hardly a source of unbiased news. Its bias may simply be more in line with your preferences.
I agree: she is highly hypocritical. Adria's work seems to be primarily in marketing, not technology, so she isn't exactly a poster girl for women in technology. And she is using sexual innuendo, unprofessional dress and gestures, and controversy over feminist causes as part of her image and work.
In professional contexts, I always keep my language professional and dress conservatively, and I don't have a problem in principle complying with the PyCon code of conduct. But the fact that the conference has to have such a code of conduct tells me that the conference organizers are incapable of dealing with problems in a professional manner and that there is a problem with the crowd of attendees (perhaps in part, the fact that there is a "crowd" to begin with). And the fact that non-technical marketers like Adria even attend tell me that the conference is spiraling down the drain. Women are welcome at technical conferences; marketers and social activists are not, even if they happen to be women. I haven't been to Python conferences in a while, but looks like I won't be going again.
The main historical cause for creating the US government monopoly on printing money wasn't stability, as you erroneously claim, it was financing the US civil war, i.e., increasing government spending. In different words, you are full of sh*t.
As for the problems experienced by Europe and their relationships to currencies, are you living under a rock? If Greece, Spain, and other nations could devalue their currencies, this crisis wouldn't be so serious. Devaluing their currencies would punish those people who were stupid enough to lend money to them. Instead, Deutsche Bank and others now go to their respective governments, belly-ache about the consequences of their own stupidity, and ask for tax payers to cover their losses and risk taking. And just like the single currency causes these kinds of problems at a European level, similar mechanisms operate at a national level.
As for "Free markets are theoretical ideals, not real-world alternatives.", gravity is also a "theoretical ideal", but we still use it usefully in engineering and science. Apparently, you don't understand how economic (or scientific) arguments involving theoretical ideals and abstractions work. Right now, we have a complete governmental monopoly on money. Creating a "free market" in money doesn't mean an ideal, totally unregulated market in money, it means the reasonable approximation we have for many other goods and services. That would allow the market to punish governments, banks, and businesses that misuse money or monetary policy.
Ah, more of that "let's protect the stupid people" ideology.