Social Security payments are alleged to be indexed to cost of living. However, in recent years the government has been severely fudging the numbers by excluding things which have increased in price more, namely fuel (over 100% in a decade) and food (about 30% in the last 3 years.)
In essence, there is only one alternative to the free market, and that is slavery.
I'll try to keep in mind that you favor slavery when i read your future posts.
Historically normal levels of tax on both dividends and capital gains will increase revenues enough...
I agree completely. We should return to the historically normal levels of tax on both dividends and capital gains in effect for hundreds of years before 1900.
The Iraq war is in no way commensurate with WWII. WWII was an all-out effort that deeply affected everybody in the US. Iraq could have gone unnoticed if a person didn't follow the news. WWII devastated much of the productive ability of Europe and Japan, leaving the US with a dominant industrial base. For a number of years, the US was the dominant supplier of goods, and in that period the US economy did very well. Iraq had no significant effect on the worldwide production capability.
The severity of a depression depends strongly on how the government responds to it and how big a pustule the government had allowed to develop in the first place. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan responded properly and the economy recovered and boomed. Hoover/FDR and Obama did the wrong thing and disaster has followed. Carter and Bush Jr/Congress allowed a bad situation to fester. Wilson created a bad situation.
The government regulates the price of milk via marketing order regulations. If this were not done, no dairy farmer could afford to keep their cows.
That's just stupid, and there are two flaws in the statement. One is the idea that people will always buy milk based on price. I can go into any local supermarket and see gallons of milk side-by-side selling for $2.50 to $4.00, and the expensive stuff isn't sitting there until it expires and being thrown out. The second is that all milk suppliers have the same costs, and that all will go out of business if price supports are removed. To the contrary, if supports are removed, some suppliers will go out of business and either slaughter their cattle or sell out to a more efficient supplier. The glut in supply being removed by the business failures, scarcity will cause prices to rise to the roughly the price they were before supports were removed, but probably a bit lower because more competent suppliers are active. There are many benefits to this: consumers get slightly lower prices, there are fewer people lobbying the government to distort the market, and incompetent suppliers are removed from their area of incompetence and forced to look for work where they are more effective. (Tough on them, but they're no longer stealing from the public at large.)
It looks like the cuts are pretty selective. They're being made against people who can't fight back effectively and people whose yelling will attract the press in a manner favorable to Fuhrer Obama.
So there'll be the inevitable food poisoning outbreak
And this is different than how things have been?
This is where insurance companies start to earn the money they've been ripping off from their customers in the food processing industry. They notify their customers: "You are not covered against damages caused by failure to do due diligence in making your foods safe. Oh, and by the way, if you poison people, we will encourage the appropriate law officials to start criminal prosecution."
The Fed sets the short term rates that they will loan at. Borrowing rates and long term rates are determined by the market (influenced by the Fed's short term rate), unless the Fed severely messes with the market, as it is doing now, by buying up US government bonds that can't be honestly sold on the free market.
All of this is beside the point however. US workers have less vacation/break time than anyone else on the planet, in a time where it is increasingly recognized that giving more breaks to workers results in more productivity
Production line workers aren't noticeably affected by rest, they move with the line. Most other workers can pretty much fake it, resting while appearing to work.
If a person is worthless and intends to remain that way, he deserves what he's worth. It is injustice to pay a person more than he is worth, and it is criminal to force me to pay someone more than he is worth.
The CEOs I've known closely (sample size 2) worked 10 to 12 hours a day. They pretty much put their life on the line for their company, and behaved accordingly.
Most heart attacks come about for people who mistreat their bodies, mostly with poor nutrition and lack of exercise. Your prediction of early death from hard work is just malice on your part, nothing else.
The Americans who are poor as dirt and voting against their own self interest are voting for leftists. The physical and financial well-being of Americans comes about from living in a free economy, and that's capitalism.
The brutal suppression of the union murderers and extortionists was probably more influential than the individualist culture. But then if you grew up with the US education system you wouldn't know about that redacted part of your history.
The number one reason the quality of life is better for workers today is because they are educated.
And the best educations are in private schools.
Workers are capital
This widely held belief is a result of warping the definition to fit preconceived notions. Capital is owned by someone, and a worker in a capitalist economy is owned by nobody but himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Social Security payments are alleged to be indexed to cost of living. However, in recent years the government has been severely fudging the numbers by excluding things which have increased in price more, namely fuel (over 100% in a decade) and food (about 30% in the last 3 years.)
Interest or not, the "social security trust fund" is nothing but an accounting entry. There are neither dollars nor material assets backing it up.
In essence, there is only one alternative to the free market, and that is slavery.
I'll try to keep in mind that you favor slavery when i read your future posts.
I agree completely. We should return to the historically normal levels of tax on both dividends and capital gains in effect for hundreds of years before 1900.
The Iraq war is in no way commensurate with WWII. WWII was an all-out effort that deeply affected everybody in the US. Iraq could have gone unnoticed if a person didn't follow the news. WWII devastated much of the productive ability of Europe and Japan, leaving the US with a dominant industrial base. For a number of years, the US was the dominant supplier of goods, and in that period the US economy did very well. Iraq had no significant effect on the worldwide production capability.
The severity of a depression depends strongly on how the government responds to it and how big a pustule the government had allowed to develop in the first place. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan responded properly and the economy recovered and boomed. Hoover/FDR and Obama did the wrong thing and disaster has followed. Carter and Bush Jr/Congress allowed a bad situation to fester. Wilson created a bad situation.
Research topics need to be examined. There's a lot of BS research going on that should be eliminated.
Year 2000 was the end of 8 years of Clinton crippling the military.
That's just stupid, and there are two flaws in the statement. One is the idea that people will always buy milk based on price. I can go into any local supermarket and see gallons of milk side-by-side selling for $2.50 to $4.00, and the expensive stuff isn't sitting there until it expires and being thrown out. The second is that all milk suppliers have the same costs, and that all will go out of business if price supports are removed. To the contrary, if supports are removed, some suppliers will go out of business and either slaughter their cattle or sell out to a more efficient supplier. The glut in supply being removed by the business failures, scarcity will cause prices to rise to the roughly the price they were before supports were removed, but probably a bit lower because more competent suppliers are active. There are many benefits to this: consumers get slightly lower prices, there are fewer people lobbying the government to distort the market, and incompetent suppliers are removed from their area of incompetence and forced to look for work where they are more effective. (Tough on them, but they're no longer stealing from the public at large.)
Deflation scares debtors, inflation scares savers who depend on their savings.
It looks like the cuts are pretty selective. They're being made against people who can't fight back effectively and people whose yelling will attract the press in a manner favorable to Fuhrer Obama.
And this is different than how things have been?
This is where insurance companies start to earn the money they've been ripping off from their customers in the food processing industry. They notify their customers: "You are not covered against damages caused by failure to do due diligence in making your foods safe. Oh, and by the way, if you poison people, we will encourage the appropriate law officials to start criminal prosecution."
The Fed sets the short term rates that they will loan at. Borrowing rates and long term rates are determined by the market (influenced by the Fed's short term rate), unless the Fed severely messes with the market, as it is doing now, by buying up US government bonds that can't be honestly sold on the free market.
One reason to have a factory close to headquarters is quality control. Others are better communication, fast response to change orders.
More government workers perform a disservice than provide a service. They support the worthless, impede and attack the productive.
Production line workers aren't noticeably affected by rest, they move with the line. Most other workers can pretty much fake it, resting while appearing to work.
Spoken as someone with little interest in the company he works for, and no recognition of his own self-interest.
If a person is worthless and intends to remain that way, he deserves what he's worth. It is injustice to pay a person more than he is worth, and it is criminal to force me to pay someone more than he is worth.
The CEOs I've known closely (sample size 2) worked 10 to 12 hours a day. They pretty much put their life on the line for their company, and behaved accordingly.
That doesn't say anything good about the law.
Most heart attacks come about for people who mistreat their bodies, mostly with poor nutrition and lack of exercise. Your prediction of early death from hard work is just malice on your part, nothing else.
The Americans who are poor as dirt and voting against their own self interest are voting for leftists. The physical and financial well-being of Americans comes about from living in a free economy, and that's capitalism.
The brutal suppression of the union murderers and extortionists was probably more influential than the individualist culture. But then if you grew up with the US education system you wouldn't know about that redacted part of your history.
FTFY
The government should pay off its debt, and it takes more than 15% of the current tax rate to just take care of the interest.
And the best educations are in private schools.
This widely held belief is a result of warping the definition to fit preconceived notions. Capital is owned by someone, and a worker in a capitalist economy is owned by nobody but himself.
That lie is very boring. Can't you come up with some creative new lie, like teachers do?