Trains are functionally equivalent to horizontal elevators. Close the doors, travel to next stop, open the doors, lather rinse repeat. The driver can be replaced with a dollar's worth of electronics.
Partially true. But it's much less likely for stuff to fall on the "tracks" of an elevator (since they're both vertical and enclosed). I want a driver who can stop a train if there's damage ahead or a cow lying on the tracks. Granted, you can design systems to automate this checking, but they cost more than a dollar.
That said, we have a monorail on Newark Liberty Airport that has no drivers. Works fine. I don't know if they have sensors or if they simply do periodic inspection - for such short lengths of elevated track the chances of something dangerous falling on them is probably small.
Send me $1,000. I guarantee you there is a 0.000000000001% chance that I will send you back $1,000,000. Of course, if you don't send me the money, the odds of me paying you are zero. So you should definitely send me the money.
In a 'nicer' time, banks might look at a person's situation before foreclosing after the first missed payment. But in lean times, missing a payment means distrupting the bank's own flow of money. It's better, in their head, to foreclose, sell to recoup what can be recouped, and reinvest in something else that is less likely to miss a payment.
This argument makes no sense. The bank's thinking is very simple: will it cost more to foreclose (which means probably losing value on the property itself, which likely has not been well maintained, plus costs of transferring ownership, selling to a new owner, etc.) than the expected net present value of the lost revenue stream? In fat or lean times, if the answer is yes, the bank is likely to be "nice" and take another look at your terms. And in fat or lean times, if the answer is no, the bank will foreclose.
The only difference the overall economy or the bank's health might make to the above calculation is how they expect it will affect those costs. For example, with the housing market depressed, foreclosure on a house that has negative equity carries the built-in cost (to the bank) of the amount by which the mortgage is under water. This can be a pretty significant amount in the current market. If the bank can figure out a way to "split the difference" with the borrower, they can both come out ahead, even if they lose money overall.
Part of the problem we have now, though, is that for a lot of non-performing, negative-equity mortgages, no one bank owns them. They are split up into various tranches. So changing the terms isn't just a simple deal between the borrower and the lender.
The western culture you are talking about is in mostly American culture, Europe is far more accepting towards gay marriage or at the very least treating gays form/informal partnership equal to marriage in law. Canada has no problems with gay marriage.
Europe has a slightly longer tradition than the past couple of decades. While some European laws give gay partnerships legal status, this is not the same thing as saying that European culture is completely accepting of gay marriage. Ask some French (or French-Canadian) villager how he feels about it and let me know. It's not much different from America (esp. in rural areas; city folk are probably more accepting).
Now I don't for a second believe letting gays people get married will affect your culture in any significant way, especially not in a negative way when it means more acceptance towards gays. Though I don't feel marriage is important in the issue but how the law favors one union over another.
Your second sentence is the reason why I can't give much weight to your first. I think marriage is important.
European culture is dying off. Europeans aren't reproducing fast enough to replace their own population. While I don't think this is directly attributable to gay marriage, I do think that a common factor probably explains the decline of marriage, the (relative) acceptance of non-traditional "families", and the decline in childbirth. I think it's a disaster. Europe's in real trouble in 50 years. I don't wish it on them (you, I guess), but I really don't want that future for America.
"...shared insurance shouldn't have anything to do with marriage..." "...'benefits' obviously shouldn't exist..." "...inheritance, etc. are [you mean 'should be' here; inheritance law strongly favors family relationships] separate civil matters..." "...that should be entirely up to the hospital and the patient..."
That's all great, and maybe you're right that things "should" all be this way. But they aren't. So what's the point of this argument?
[T]here is no reasonable, religion-neutral objection to such arrangements.
Well, gosh, I guess you've declared yourself the winner then. Congrats.
Basically, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior. That's the one core issue for me that makes gay marriage very different from marrying a goat (or a minor).
Sure, I get that argument, and it's compelling (I held that position myself in my younger, more radical days). Two problems, though.
First, as I posted a few minutes ago, we're not starting ab initio. We have a long-standing cultural institution to deal with that I think ought to get the benefit of the doubt. Only if the arguments on the other side are so compelling as to constitute an emergency should we consider a change.
Second, the ideal of the government staying out of all transactions between consenting adults has to be considered in the context of all the other rights, expectations, benefits, etc. that the government already mediates. Maybe a perfect world would be one in which the government truly does stay out of all of these things. But removing it from the business of regulating marriage, when it also confers other rights based on marriage, is a recipe for the abuse of those rights.
By the way, just to throw some other wrenches into the discussion: what constitutes a "minor"? What about "legally incompetent" adults? If the government is not to regulate transactions between consenting adults, does that mean they can't charge sales tax if I sell something to my neighbor? What about if I start a business and sell the same thing? Can I perform surgery without a license, as long as the patient agrees? (What if I lie about it? Lying isn't a crime. So how would you prevent this?)
Basically, while the strict libertarian position has nice internal consistency, there's really no way we're getting there from here. So it can't work as the basis of an argument for gay marriage.
And all the arguments against could be used against interracial marriage, marriage between people of different nationalities, marriage between people of different religions but that's all fine?
I don't think there's a good parallel here, but just for the sake of argument let's say you're right. I still would prefer not to force a major change to the culture just hoping that it doesn't become the camel's nose under the tent. We're not starting from a position of trying to figure out the best definition of marriage. We're starting from one in which we have a long-standing cultural idea of marriage. It has gone through various adjustments over time, but one constant has been that it's between one man and one woman. Wars have been fought over this standard. (I ignore here the edge cases of Guinean tribes or whatever with different standards. That's fine, but it isn't Western culture and we're under no obligation to accommodate it.) So I think the burden of proof is entirely on those arguing for the change.
You can't possibly argue that the right for gays to marry will somehow extend too allow people to marry goats.
Pretty funny saying that since the parent of my post did exactly that.
Wow. I was about to use this as a reductio ad absurdum, then you went ahead and did it for me. Do you know why people want marriage rights? Because they bring with them other rights, like insurance, social security benefits, health care powers, etc. Do you seriously think that setting up a system where a goat receives social security benefits when its human "husband" dies would not hurt you? Use your imagination a tiny bit and imagine the possible abuse.
As for gay marriage specifically, you've hit on exactly the problem. Once you concede that, what principle prevents any old arrangement - marrying your sister, marrying a goat, marrying a group of people, whatever? All the arguments used in support of gay marriage could be used to support any of these arrangements.
...some people think the world will come to an end of two people of the same sex get married.
Lots of people who oppose gay marriage don't think the world will end if it's allowed. You're just choosing that language to make them sound like raving lunatics. But if the cost/benefit of a policy (taking justice and fairness into account as a benefit, of course) adds up to a net cost, rational opposition is possible.
Incidentally, I'm not sure where I personally stand on this. I guess my own cost/benefit calculations comes out very close to zero.
As another aside, there are raving lunatics on both sides of this debate. Lately I've been hearing that Prop 8 opponents have been creating maps highlighting locations of homes of Prop 8 supporters, together with thinly veiled personal threats against their safety. I sure wouldn't want to associate myself with that crowd.
What I've been reading from people who've actually been there is that Iraqis badly want us to leave. And greatly fear the prospect of us leaving. It isn't that they are cheering our presence wholeheartedly, but they know we're a big factor keeping the peace (such as it is) right now. While it would definitely be expedient for us to leave right away, it might not be prudent. It's a tough situation, one that I'd prefer we were not in. But we are.
Individual plans allow insurance companies to "cherry pick" only healthy clients, rather than serve to spread risk like they're supposed to.
I'm not against regulation to prevent this. We have similar regulations in many other industries. If you go to a hospital, for instance, they have to treat you, even if you can't pay.
They're need to do this because an individual customer faced with a insurance corporation is a small fry, he can pay the price or go someplace else. In the micro scale his decision means nothing. The pricing power rests in the hands of the insurance companies.
Look, you can make exactly the same theoretical argument for why Wal-Mart's prices should be the highest in town. But they're the lowest. Think about why that is and you might see the flaw in your reasoning. If insurance prices are high and out of whack now, by and large it's because of various regulations*, not because "insurance companies are big and powerful".
* Note that I don't support complete deregulation. Just better regulation.
Serious question: why do we care how much the top 0.01% of the population makes? This number is guaranteed by its nature to be tied very closely to the stock market, and thus to be mostly a measure of paper wealth, rather than have any real meaning. Your graphs really serve to prove the supply-siders point: low marginal tax rates expand business activity and job creation, thus lifting the stock market and the wealth of the very wealthiest people. It also, by the way, brings big benefits for poorer people - maybe not so great as for those really wealthy folks, but still big.
Besides, shouldn't our goal be to help as many people as possible make a decent living, rather than to bring down the wealthiest 0.01%? (Note: I am not even close to the wealthiest 0.01%. Nor the wealthiest 1.0%.) During the Great Depression, your graph shows a big improvement in income equality. Surely that's not a goal to aspire to.
Most of these households are students (getting help from their parents) or retirees (living off savings or social security), and for most of the rest you are undercounting income (not including unemployment benefits, for example). You're simply distorting the facts.
Yes, let's tax these peoples income, they're scamming us (sarcasm)!
Regardless of the specific numbers of these households (which I claim you overstate by at least a factor of four and possibly more), obviously I don't want to make their lives any more difficult. However, I do want most people to have a stake - however small - in our tax code. Something like 40% of American households pay no taxes already. They do vote, though. I think it is very dangerous to have large blocs of the public not paying any taxes at all, because then they have no incentive to keep taxes on the rest of us low.
But if Obama was president when you were in college, you'd have paid less for your tuition via a larger tax credit. Then you'd be paying less in student loans right now.
People always reverse causality on college tuition. They think "higher tuitions mean that I need tuition subsidies". However, most of the evidence points the other way, i.e. "tuition subsidies lead to higher tuitions." You see, while college education is a public good, it is also a private good, and people really are willing to pay for it.
But your $250k person got to the position they are in now *because* of federal programs! Their schools were probably taxpayer funded, their college education was probably taxpayer subsidized and their tuition was tax credited.
You see the vicious circle this creates? One hand washes the other, right? Surely you can see that this pattern is unsustainable.
Furthermore, you are incorrect: most schools are not federally funded, but locally funded (with some state and a little federal help, but the bulk is local, and going back 10+ years, when most of us were in school, the local percentage was higher). Public college education is subsidized, but by the state, not the feds. You are correct about federal tuition tax credits, however.
They were able to exploit the public highway system, use public transit, ship their cargo through public airports and seaports. They used public sewers and water. They got their energy from the public grid.
What on earth makes you think that water, sewer, energy, airports, and seaports are free for public use? There may be some subsidization, but users pay for these things. As for highways and public transit: sure, but it's basically current taxpayers who are footing the bill. You make it sound like taxpayers from years ago made a big one-time investment that we're all just living large off of now, which is a complete distortion of the truth. Years ago we started spending federal money on these projects, and your taxes now continue to pay for them.
Often people become wealthy due to both earning more and spending less.
That's extremely rare, not something that happens "often". Most wealthy people make more and spend more than you do. I guess this depends on what you mean by "wealthy", of course. I, for example, would not consider myself wealthy, but I'm comfortable and relatively frugal. Still, there is a definite difference between my lifestyle today versus 10 years ago, when I was fairly new to the workforce. I spend less now as a percentage of my total income, but a lot more in total.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of electrons will be going to hell tonight.
Don't worry, the name Battlestar Galactica has also been deprecated. It will now be called: Caprica Hills 40210 (then 40195, then 40183,...)
It will be. It. Will. Be.
Partially true. But it's much less likely for stuff to fall on the "tracks" of an elevator (since they're both vertical and enclosed). I want a driver who can stop a train if there's damage ahead or a cow lying on the tracks. Granted, you can design systems to automate this checking, but they cost more than a dollar.
That said, we have a monorail on Newark Liberty Airport that has no drivers. Works fine. I don't know if they have sensors or if they simply do periodic inspection - for such short lengths of elevated track the chances of something dangerous falling on them is probably small.
Send me $1,000. I guarantee you there is a 0.000000000001% chance that I will send you back $1,000,000. Of course, if you don't send me the money, the odds of me paying you are zero. So you should definitely send me the money.
This argument makes no sense. The bank's thinking is very simple: will it cost more to foreclose (which means probably losing value on the property itself, which likely has not been well maintained, plus costs of transferring ownership, selling to a new owner, etc.) than the expected net present value of the lost revenue stream? In fat or lean times, if the answer is yes, the bank is likely to be "nice" and take another look at your terms. And in fat or lean times, if the answer is no, the bank will foreclose.
The only difference the overall economy or the bank's health might make to the above calculation is how they expect it will affect those costs. For example, with the housing market depressed, foreclosure on a house that has negative equity carries the built-in cost (to the bank) of the amount by which the mortgage is under water. This can be a pretty significant amount in the current market. If the bank can figure out a way to "split the difference" with the borrower, they can both come out ahead, even if they lose money overall.
Part of the problem we have now, though, is that for a lot of non-performing, negative-equity mortgages, no one bank owns them. They are split up into various tranches. So changing the terms isn't just a simple deal between the borrower and the lender.
Yeah, but I didn't expect it also to take out the rest of my network! Oh wait...
Europe has a slightly longer tradition than the past couple of decades. While some European laws give gay partnerships legal status, this is not the same thing as saying that European culture is completely accepting of gay marriage. Ask some French (or French-Canadian) villager how he feels about it and let me know. It's not much different from America (esp. in rural areas; city folk are probably more accepting).
Your second sentence is the reason why I can't give much weight to your first. I think marriage is important.
European culture is dying off. Europeans aren't reproducing fast enough to replace their own population. While I don't think this is directly attributable to gay marriage, I do think that a common factor probably explains the decline of marriage, the (relative) acceptance of non-traditional "families", and the decline in childbirth. I think it's a disaster. Europe's in real trouble in 50 years. I don't wish it on them (you, I guess), but I really don't want that future for America.
"...shared insurance shouldn't have anything to do with marriage..." "...'benefits' obviously shouldn't exist..." "...inheritance, etc. are [you mean 'should be' here; inheritance law strongly favors family relationships] separate civil matters..." "...that should be entirely up to the hospital and the patient..."
That's all great, and maybe you're right that things "should" all be this way. But they aren't. So what's the point of this argument?
Well, gosh, I guess you've declared yourself the winner then. Congrats.
Sure, I get that argument, and it's compelling (I held that position myself in my younger, more radical days). Two problems, though.
First, as I posted a few minutes ago, we're not starting ab initio. We have a long-standing cultural institution to deal with that I think ought to get the benefit of the doubt. Only if the arguments on the other side are so compelling as to constitute an emergency should we consider a change.
Second, the ideal of the government staying out of all transactions between consenting adults has to be considered in the context of all the other rights, expectations, benefits, etc. that the government already mediates. Maybe a perfect world would be one in which the government truly does stay out of all of these things. But removing it from the business of regulating marriage, when it also confers other rights based on marriage, is a recipe for the abuse of those rights.
By the way, just to throw some other wrenches into the discussion: what constitutes a "minor"? What about "legally incompetent" adults? If the government is not to regulate transactions between consenting adults, does that mean they can't charge sales tax if I sell something to my neighbor? What about if I start a business and sell the same thing? Can I perform surgery without a license, as long as the patient agrees? (What if I lie about it? Lying isn't a crime. So how would you prevent this?)
Basically, while the strict libertarian position has nice internal consistency, there's really no way we're getting there from here. So it can't work as the basis of an argument for gay marriage.
I don't think there's a good parallel here, but just for the sake of argument let's say you're right. I still would prefer not to force a major change to the culture just hoping that it doesn't become the camel's nose under the tent. We're not starting from a position of trying to figure out the best definition of marriage. We're starting from one in which we have a long-standing cultural idea of marriage. It has gone through various adjustments over time, but one constant has been that it's between one man and one woman. Wars have been fought over this standard. (I ignore here the edge cases of Guinean tribes or whatever with different standards. That's fine, but it isn't Western culture and we're under no obligation to accommodate it.) So I think the burden of proof is entirely on those arguing for the change.
Pretty funny saying that since the parent of my post did exactly that.
Wow. I was about to use this as a reductio ad absurdum, then you went ahead and did it for me. Do you know why people want marriage rights? Because they bring with them other rights, like insurance, social security benefits, health care powers, etc. Do you seriously think that setting up a system where a goat receives social security benefits when its human "husband" dies would not hurt you? Use your imagination a tiny bit and imagine the possible abuse.
As for gay marriage specifically, you've hit on exactly the problem. Once you concede that, what principle prevents any old arrangement - marrying your sister, marrying a goat, marrying a group of people, whatever? All the arguments used in support of gay marriage could be used to support any of these arrangements.
Lots of people who oppose gay marriage don't think the world will end if it's allowed. You're just choosing that language to make them sound like raving lunatics. But if the cost/benefit of a policy (taking justice and fairness into account as a benefit, of course) adds up to a net cost, rational opposition is possible.
Incidentally, I'm not sure where I personally stand on this. I guess my own cost/benefit calculations comes out very close to zero.
As another aside, there are raving lunatics on both sides of this debate. Lately I've been hearing that Prop 8 opponents have been creating maps highlighting locations of homes of Prop 8 supporters, together with thinly veiled personal threats against their safety. I sure wouldn't want to associate myself with that crowd.
This idea was disproved in 1887. Time to get into 20th century thinking, dude!
Does "dismantel" mean "take something off the mantel"? I'm going to dismantel my Christmas cards around New Year's Day.
There's no shortage of health care? I thought millions of people who want it don't have it? Am I missing something?
What I've been reading from people who've actually been there is that Iraqis badly want us to leave. And greatly fear the prospect of us leaving. It isn't that they are cheering our presence wholeheartedly, but they know we're a big factor keeping the peace (such as it is) right now. While it would definitely be expedient for us to leave right away, it might not be prudent. It's a tough situation, one that I'd prefer we were not in. But we are.
I'm not against regulation to prevent this. We have similar regulations in many other industries. If you go to a hospital, for instance, they have to treat you, even if you can't pay.
According to the IRS, in 2006 the top 2.9% of tax returns earned 31% of the income and paid 53% of the taxes. See my earlier post for more details.
Look, you can make exactly the same theoretical argument for why Wal-Mart's prices should be the highest in town. But they're the lowest. Think about why that is and you might see the flaw in your reasoning. If insurance prices are high and out of whack now, by and large it's because of various regulations*, not because "insurance companies are big and powerful".
* Note that I don't support complete deregulation. Just better regulation.
Fascinating, but irrelevant.
Serious question: why do we care how much the top 0.01% of the population makes? This number is guaranteed by its nature to be tied very closely to the stock market, and thus to be mostly a measure of paper wealth, rather than have any real meaning. Your graphs really serve to prove the supply-siders point: low marginal tax rates expand business activity and job creation, thus lifting the stock market and the wealth of the very wealthiest people. It also, by the way, brings big benefits for poorer people - maybe not so great as for those really wealthy folks, but still big.
Besides, shouldn't our goal be to help as many people as possible make a decent living, rather than to bring down the wealthiest 0.01%? (Note: I am not even close to the wealthiest 0.01%. Nor the wealthiest 1.0%.) During the Great Depression, your graph shows a big improvement in income equality. Surely that's not a goal to aspire to.
Most of these households are students (getting help from their parents) or retirees (living off savings or social security), and for most of the rest you are undercounting income (not including unemployment benefits, for example). You're simply distorting the facts.
Regardless of the specific numbers of these households (which I claim you overstate by at least a factor of four and possibly more), obviously I don't want to make their lives any more difficult. However, I do want most people to have a stake - however small - in our tax code. Something like 40% of American households pay no taxes already. They do vote, though. I think it is very dangerous to have large blocs of the public not paying any taxes at all, because then they have no incentive to keep taxes on the rest of us low.
Wow - I've seen some whoppers in my time, but that takes the cake.
People always reverse causality on college tuition. They think "higher tuitions mean that I need tuition subsidies". However, most of the evidence points the other way, i.e. "tuition subsidies lead to higher tuitions." You see, while college education is a public good, it is also a private good, and people really are willing to pay for it.
You see the vicious circle this creates? One hand washes the other, right? Surely you can see that this pattern is unsustainable.
Furthermore, you are incorrect: most schools are not federally funded, but locally funded (with some state and a little federal help, but the bulk is local, and going back 10+ years, when most of us were in school, the local percentage was higher). Public college education is subsidized, but by the state, not the feds. You are correct about federal tuition tax credits, however.
What on earth makes you think that water, sewer, energy, airports, and seaports are free for public use? There may be some subsidization, but users pay for these things. As for highways and public transit: sure, but it's basically current taxpayers who are footing the bill. You make it sound like taxpayers from years ago made a big one-time investment that we're all just living large off of now, which is a complete distortion of the truth. Years ago we started spending federal money on these projects, and your taxes now continue to pay for them.
That's extremely rare, not something that happens "often". Most wealthy people make more and spend more than you do. I guess this depends on what you mean by "wealthy", of course. I, for example, would not consider myself wealthy, but I'm comfortable and relatively frugal. Still, there is a definite difference between my lifestyle today versus 10 years ago, when I was fairly new to the workforce. I spend less now as a percentage of my total income, but a lot more in total.