My vote is: 1. Make the corporate tax zero, instead making all corporations pass-through. 2. Get rid of capital gains taxes, instead treating a gain as regular income. 3. Get rid of the "qualified" dividend rate, instead treating dividends as regular income. 4. Abolish "limited liability" for activist owners.
No way there is any impact on healthcare. that's just fucking nuts. lol!!!!!!
No, I was LOL'ing at the teeny tiny little sign that was ostensibly the purpose of the march while having a HUGE banner for the cause they really care about.. If they were marching as "Doctors Against Climate Change" or something, it wouldn't have been funny.
It's not just mass hype. People with completely unrelated causes march with their own banners. I didn't get a chance to walk through this protest, but I lived in New York City when all of those supposed "anti-war" protests were taking place. Sure, there were genuine anti-war protestors there - but you wouldn't believe how much of the mass was some random cause trying to get some sympathetic eyeballs. Animal rights, global warming, anti-corporation... you name it. Some of the pictures I've seen indicate the same thing happening here. I saw a group of people marching in white coats with a huge banner saying "HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT" and a teeny tiny sign being held by one member saying "Global Warming affects Healthcare". LOL, wha?
Perhaps the problem is that you've lost hold of what makes 8-year-olds so delightful? There was a cynical curmudgeon about just about every technological advance throughout human history, and despite that flight is routine and inexpensive. Horseless carriages clog the roads. Skyscrapers crown cities. Nuclear reactors pump out gigawatts of electricity. Ships the size of skyscrapers ply the seas carrying stuff built by robots. We carry some significant percentage of all human knowledge in our pockets. At every step, there were doubters. You are that guy now.
If you want to manufacture stuff in space, you can't just jump right to space foundries and space smelters. Baby steps.
No, the key is not ignoring the sensor failures. The "Tube" is also not without incident, though nothing fatal since 1975 - which is pretty darned good. Nor is the completely-manual (even the doors!) New York subway.
But you can't argue with the fact that we haven't had a food crisis in the US in 70+ years - despite government intrusion. I see your economic literature and raise you historical record.
We're talking about simple, empirically verified economic facts.
Here is where we part ways. While I recognize that economics can use a lot of scientific tools, it is not a science. I've seen some very good analysis done of past events, but I've never seen a model that predicts a future result with any kind of error that wouldn't make a real scientist blush. I have very, very little faith that an economist can proclaim something in the future as being certain. That is, despite your protests to the contrary - this is in fact an ideological discussion. Your arguments are all rock-solid, but start from the assumption that economics is a science... as a discipline it simply does not have that kind of track record.
You are preaching at me like I'm not the converted. I come at you from a base libertarian, market friendly ideology. But it's not a stretch to recognize that reality and ideology don't always align. I could definitely get on board with deregulating the food industry. But whatever system is in place, I want a guarantee that excess food will be produced in 99%+ years. When it comes to food, I'm not willing to put trust in a private system that is inherently non-ideal to follow your theory of what an ideal system would do.
The current, very imperfect system of agriculture has a very good track record in the "not starving" department.
The force is strong with you. I have everything hardwired because I could never get Wifi to work reliably, or with the speeds that I need. It might be related to my needing 2 routers to provide coverage to the entire house.
The reasoning is sound, but I don't think the numbers work out. A $60,000 internet connection (which is probably more than the price of the house) - even if amortized over 10 years - is going to be around $600/month. That's roughly $500 more than the most expensive city plans... are salaries really going to increase by $6000 per household? I mean, it is possible, but I find it more likely that people would just move somewhere that already has internet, phone, and electricity.
You can absolutely work to change the market manipulations to those more in line with your own theories - that is not what I meant.
I'm asserting that those in power will - in aggregate - always look out for their interests. If your interests don't align with the powerful, then you really only have the choice of removing the power or trying to sway them. Good luck with the latter.
Even if such a "sharp rise and fall" were not just fear mongering
What? Starvation is a historical fact, and in fact still continues today. It is not fear mongering, it is what happens when you do not have enough food.
That kind of reasoning applied about 300 years ago.
I'm not talking about famine, a la Irish potato or Ethiopia. I'm talking about broad starvation. Dust bowl, Great Depression, that sort of thing. You don't need famine to destabilize the country.
But sharp rises and falls in food prices are almost always the result of misguided government policies.
Drought? Flood? Pests? Disease?
Between markets, insurance, worldwide production, and modern food storage, these concerns simply do not exist.
They still exist, but the interplay is much more complicated and harder to predict. What would a fuel crisis do to overseas shipping? What about a war? You mention food storage... just who is storing excess food without some subsidy to do so? Where is this excess food shipping capacity that you will tap when domestic production hits a snag?
I am going to store the food, trade options, and/or diversify geographically.
And what happens when prices are high? You sell out your stocks and there is nothing left in inventory should something go wrong.
All of that stabilizes and regulates food production better than any government policy can.
I'm not suggesting central planning or anything of the sort. I'm suggesting subsidizing food production. You are absolutely right - it will ruin the efficiency of the markets. However, I contend that paying a little extra is worth the insurance.
Let's say that you're argument has won the day and that a pure market approach will keep us all fed and happy. Is it not fair for me to point out that it is impossible to achieve a pure market approach? That corruption and crime will always exist? Couldn't corruption or fraud undermine the market system when a stressful event occurs? Why shouldn't we accept that as fact and build in some safeguards, even if it spoils the efficiency a bit?
True food security is being able to grow and raise your own food.
That works great until you are hit with a flood, drought, disease, etc. Then it's back to the store for you.
Food security is simply having enough food to feed the population. You have to grow excess food 99.9% of the time so that you have a very low chance of ever falling short.
I think it would be good for our democracy to stop both farming and rural subsidies
With most things I would agree with you. Food is different. We absolutely, positively cannot be subject to the sharp rise and fall of capital markets where it concerns food. A stock market crash causes a lot of trouble, but no one seriously suggests abandoning it. If there was a shortage of food, things would be very different. All of our libertarian ideals go by the wayside when starving is involved.
Food markets can't be very efficient anyway. The lag between an uptick in demand and, well, a whole growing season is simply too long. People can't wait 6 months to eat. The solution is to always produce more than you need and then throw away or store the extra. The private market can't do this because the extra would appear on the market and depress prices below the cost of production.
Ban corn syrup. Ban ethanol. Reduce corn production. These are tax subsidised scams that actively harm us.
Ban ban ban. Two sides of the same coin. You can't complain about other people's choice of market manipulation and then suggest substituting for your own. It doesn't work that way. If you are pro regulation and you don't like the regulation that results - well, tough shit... that's what happens when you give the powerful more power.
Slashdot Mirror
My vote is:
1. Make the corporate tax zero, instead making all corporations pass-through.
2. Get rid of capital gains taxes, instead treating a gain as regular income.
3. Get rid of the "qualified" dividend rate, instead treating dividends as regular income.
4. Abolish "limited liability" for activist owners.
No way there is any impact on healthcare. that's just fucking nuts. lol!!!!!!
No, I was LOL'ing at the teeny tiny little sign that was ostensibly the purpose of the march while having a HUGE banner for the cause they really care about.. If they were marching as "Doctors Against Climate Change" or something, it wouldn't have been funny.
Here's the specific image I am referring to:
http://tinypic.com/r/2mqu44o/8
Mass hype was harder back then.
It's not just mass hype. People with completely unrelated causes march with their own banners. I didn't get a chance to walk through this protest, but I lived in New York City when all of those supposed "anti-war" protests were taking place. Sure, there were genuine anti-war protestors there - but you wouldn't believe how much of the mass was some random cause trying to get some sympathetic eyeballs. Animal rights, global warming, anti-corporation... you name it. Some of the pictures I've seen indicate the same thing happening here. I saw a group of people marching in white coats with a huge banner saying "HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT" and a teeny tiny sign being held by one member saying "Global Warming affects Healthcare". LOL, wha?
I'm hoping we don't get to a point where a corporation has such a right. It's bad enough that they get to choose a religion.
I'd expect that from eight year olds, not adults.
Perhaps the problem is that you've lost hold of what makes 8-year-olds so delightful? There was a cynical curmudgeon about just about every technological advance throughout human history, and despite that flight is routine and inexpensive. Horseless carriages clog the roads. Skyscrapers crown cities. Nuclear reactors pump out gigawatts of electricity. Ships the size of skyscrapers ply the seas carrying stuff built by robots. We carry some significant percentage of all human knowledge in our pockets. At every step, there were doubters. You are that guy now.
If you want to manufacture stuff in space, you can't just jump right to space foundries and space smelters. Baby steps.
No, the key is not ignoring the sensor failures. The "Tube" is also not without incident, though nothing fatal since 1975 - which is pretty darned good. Nor is the completely-manual (even the doors!) New York subway.
Using 30 year old technology and corrupt maintenance supervision.
But you can't argue with the fact that we haven't had a food crisis in the US in 70+ years - despite government intrusion. I see your economic literature and raise you historical record.
you will not be able to view the content.
Sounds like a challenge!
(Not a very hard one, but a challenge nonetheless)
I think "Russia is acting like it is 1934" is fairly accurate.
Thanks for spoiling my joke, such as it was.
There is no theoretical foundation for that proposition and no empirical evidence.
70+ years of success in the US is a hard measure to surpass theoretically. Not one food crisis since the Great Depression.
I'm sorry, but your economic arguments are really quite like the arguments creationists use.
Except that creationists can't point to a single success.
The proposition that markets stabilize prices, on the other hand, is something you can personally verify,
I would counter that you can personally verify that markets crash as well.
There is a subset of audiophiles who also are dog people. Gotta keep your purebred happy, too - and that means supporting high frequency.
(Though as I make this joke, I find out that even dogs can only hear up to 60kHz...)
If Scotland gets an even larger share of the tax pot than it already does
I don't know nuthin about nuthing, but my impression was that they were going to let the Scots tax themselves.
Scotch! The tape and the liquor.
We're talking about simple, empirically verified economic facts.
Here is where we part ways. While I recognize that economics can use a lot of scientific tools, it is not a science. I've seen some very good analysis done of past events, but I've never seen a model that predicts a future result with any kind of error that wouldn't make a real scientist blush. I have very, very little faith that an economist can proclaim something in the future as being certain. That is, despite your protests to the contrary - this is in fact an ideological discussion. Your arguments are all rock-solid, but start from the assumption that economics is a science... as a discipline it simply does not have that kind of track record.
You are preaching at me like I'm not the converted. I come at you from a base libertarian, market friendly ideology. But it's not a stretch to recognize that reality and ideology don't always align. I could definitely get on board with deregulating the food industry. But whatever system is in place, I want a guarantee that excess food will be produced in 99%+ years. When it comes to food, I'm not willing to put trust in a private system that is inherently non-ideal to follow your theory of what an ideal system would do.
The current, very imperfect system of agriculture has a very good track record in the "not starving" department.
The force is strong with you. I have everything hardwired because I could never get Wifi to work reliably, or with the speeds that I need. It might be related to my needing 2 routers to provide coverage to the entire house.
The reasoning is sound, but I don't think the numbers work out. A $60,000 internet connection (which is probably more than the price of the house) - even if amortized over 10 years - is going to be around $600/month. That's roughly $500 more than the most expensive city plans... are salaries really going to increase by $6000 per household? I mean, it is possible, but I find it more likely that people would just move somewhere that already has internet, phone, and electricity.
You can absolutely work to change the market manipulations to those more in line with your own theories - that is not what I meant.
I'm asserting that those in power will - in aggregate - always look out for their interests. If your interests don't align with the powerful, then you really only have the choice of removing the power or trying to sway them. Good luck with the latter.
Even if such a "sharp rise and fall" were not just fear mongering
What? Starvation is a historical fact, and in fact still continues today. It is not fear mongering, it is what happens when you do not have enough food.
That kind of reasoning applied about 300 years ago.
I'm not talking about famine, a la Irish potato or Ethiopia. I'm talking about broad starvation. Dust bowl, Great Depression, that sort of thing. You don't need famine to destabilize the country.
But sharp rises and falls in food prices are almost always the result of misguided government policies.
Drought? Flood? Pests? Disease?
Between markets, insurance, worldwide production, and modern food storage, these concerns simply do not exist.
They still exist, but the interplay is much more complicated and harder to predict. What would a fuel crisis do to overseas shipping? What about a war? You mention food storage... just who is storing excess food without some subsidy to do so? Where is this excess food shipping capacity that you will tap when domestic production hits a snag?
I am going to store the food, trade options, and/or diversify geographically.
And what happens when prices are high? You sell out your stocks and there is nothing left in inventory should something go wrong.
All of that stabilizes and regulates food production better than any government policy can.
I'm not suggesting central planning or anything of the sort. I'm suggesting subsidizing food production. You are absolutely right - it will ruin the efficiency of the markets. However, I contend that paying a little extra is worth the insurance.
Let's say that you're argument has won the day and that a pure market approach will keep us all fed and happy. Is it not fair for me to point out that it is impossible to achieve a pure market approach? That corruption and crime will always exist? Couldn't corruption or fraud undermine the market system when a stressful event occurs? Why shouldn't we accept that as fact and build in some safeguards, even if it spoils the efficiency a bit?
True food security is being able to grow and raise your own food.
That works great until you are hit with a flood, drought, disease, etc. Then it's back to the store for you.
Food security is simply having enough food to feed the population. You have to grow excess food 99.9% of the time so that you have a very low chance of ever falling short.
I think it would be good for our democracy to stop both farming and rural subsidies
With most things I would agree with you. Food is different. We absolutely, positively cannot be subject to the sharp rise and fall of capital markets where it concerns food. A stock market crash causes a lot of trouble, but no one seriously suggests abandoning it. If there was a shortage of food, things would be very different. All of our libertarian ideals go by the wayside when starving is involved.
Food markets can't be very efficient anyway. The lag between an uptick in demand and, well, a whole growing season is simply too long. People can't wait 6 months to eat. The solution is to always produce more than you need and then throw away or store the extra. The private market can't do this because the extra would appear on the market and depress prices below the cost of production.
In salt water boating, we replace those regularly :)
Obesity is a poverty disease.
So is starvation, and I know which one I choose.
Ban corn syrup. Ban ethanol. Reduce corn production. These are tax subsidised scams that actively harm us.
Ban ban ban. Two sides of the same coin. You can't complain about other people's choice of market manipulation and then suggest substituting for your own. It doesn't work that way. If you are pro regulation and you don't like the regulation that results - well, tough shit... that's what happens when you give the powerful more power.