The study's lead author, John Antonakis, a psychologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, suggests leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did. "I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people," Antonakis says, "is to speak in charismatic ways."
Many smart people who are not a psychologist might believe that leaders can contribute much more in ways other than communications and signaling.
Like oh, I don't know, making wise decisions? Organizing people and their work? Fitting people into roles which will best take advantage of their capabilities?
"Speaking in charismatic ways" from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland sounds like the logic which awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for getting himself elected.
You're missing the part where the risk-adjusted returns on investment need to be higher than alternative potential returns in order to attract money for an investment.
Instead of putting your money into a company where 99% of whatever you make will be taxed away, you'd put it into a company in another country doing something else, or invest it in municipal bonds, or loan it to the FED, or keep it in cash (because there is otherwise a risk you will lose your investment instead of making money on it), or just spend it on consumption (because why bother investing it for no return?). At a 99% tax rate on profits, the supply of investment money would vanish and go elsewhere.
So yeah, the economic theory on the matter is pretty clear, tax rates majorly impact investment supply. You're confused by not considering the impacts on supply. You only get supply when it's profitable (compared to other potential investments) for someone to supply something.
What you're still missing is purchasing power parity based on cost of living. You need to have both parts, both income and what that income will buy. There's a reason $50K in income would mean you're poor if you live in NYC while you'd be upper middle class in Mississippi.
Yep, if you look at median income and include purchasing power, which is the best comparison.
Also, if you were to look at various measurements of things like housing size/quality, etc... you see some stark differences in how people actually live across various countries.
Think of how bad the working conditions must be in general for jobs like this to be considered much better than the alternative options in China.
Many Americans don't have a clue how much better they have it compared to most of the rest of the world. Even most Western European countries are only as wealthy as say, Mississippi or Alabama in the U.S.
However, stopping free trade or making it contingent on some other country making laws similar to ours is literally one of the things (To be fair, there are many other reasons) slowing down the process of these countries from catching up and having a better life like in the United States. There is a wealth increase curve where people can afford more and more nicer things. Some of those nicer things include better working conditions and more spending on stuff we take for granted as "normal" in the U.S.
Picture yourself dropped alone into a wilderness. No law is going to improve your working conditions, instead at the wealth level you find yourself in, you have to work hard just to survive. Having someone elsewhere who doesn't have to cope with that level of survival telling you how you shouldn't babysit your fire and look for food more than 8 hours in a day isn't exactly helpful. Instead, as you work hard, eventually you start to be able to increase your wealth (creating traps for fish and animals, making a knife, carving dishes, etc...) Analogize appropriately to this poor person's situation. There's a reason the savings rate is so high in China. The people want to get their family's lives better as quickly as they can.
1. Even then, they aren't "relatively flat" and compared to each other, spending still increases much faster. 2. Using as a percent of GDP makes no sense. There isn't much reason for government spending to increase "as a percent of GDP", government spending is what the "G" in GDP represents. So you want to measure it as in part a percent of itself? Why use such a silly reference when you can just look at it in constant dollars, or do a direct comparison between spending and revenue? The only reason people us percent of GDP is either because they saw someone else do it and didn't stop to think about it, or else they're trying to hide the increases by dividing it by another number which grows.
It makes sense to allow for government to increase as the population it governs increases, you might even stretch and say that as we become wealthier we tend to spend more money on things we didn't before (such as increased government), but that's an attempt at a partial explanation for why we're spending more (and doesn't explain the difference in spending more vs paying more), not something to use to hide the reality that we are in fact spending way more per person in constant dollars.
P.S. The parts of the federal budget with the most growth (Defense and entitlements) aren't pieces which have a direct connection to DP (minus the G), so it's not even a great explanation for reasons behind the increase, either.
Per person just allows for the budget to grow as the number of people the government is supposed to serve grows. That's a better measurement than without taking population growth into account or comparing it to other irrelevant numbers which already include government spending (which some people like to do to try and make spending look better).
Either way, way too much spending. Yes, that includes wars and yes it includes other things besides just old folks. Here's a decent analysis.
The Federal government also just (yet again!) took in record levels of revenue. Of course, it also still spends more than ever. You may notice from those charts the tremendous increase in government revenue per person over time... and the even larger increase in government spending per person over the same time period.
"If we want these things, we have to be willing to spend less on other stuff we don't need."
So why haven't you started a company to compete in some industry and given your employees a 20 hour work week? If you actually believed your statement, that'd destroy the "capitalist oppression to enslave the worker", right? You'd get all the best employees flocking to your company to get the reduced hours and since they could still do their jobs, you'd compete just fine.
Wow, I cite the NY Times (not exactly a right-wing haven) talking about a scholarly book based on actual voting records and your refutation of all that evidence is... well, nothing at all.
You're the one who needs to learn some history. A couple of points: First, the Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act. The Democrats in Congress were the ones trying to stop it. Why would that make racists turn away from the Democrats to the Republicans? Makes no sense. Second, the South turned Republican starting with the least racist States and people rather than the most. The KKK was affiliated with the Democratic Party. The Republicans were predominantly the non-racists who moved into the area and the younger people who grew up later.
The whole "Southern Strategy" theory is a mostly a myth. The Republicans in general have stayed the party of non-racism and color-blindness and the Democratic Party has stuck with the idea of dividing everyone by "race", they've just changed which races they want to privilege at different times.
So how do you reconcile Trump's attitude as the cause when rate of the people leaving the NSA as described started in 2015, peaked in 2016 and then went down once Trump was elected?
I guess you could blame Obama instead, but back in the non-politically-motivated reality you seem to have missed, less than 1% turnover in a few years is still lower than most government agencies and certainly most companies. It's probably just people noticing they can make more money in the private sector because security analysts are in higher demand over the last few years.
But hey, keep posting your fact-free opinions and interpretations and I'll keep agreeing with your signature.
Ah, the old mandatory voting canard. Did it ever occur to you that having the people who don't care enough to vote go ahead and cast a vote anyway decreases the quality of the decision making?
It's already bad enough with most people voting not even knowing the names of some of the candidates before they enter the polling booth. No need to make that worse by forcing everyone to vote whether they want to or not.
That seems like an odd question to ask of someone who pointed out the Electoral College vote is the vote for president and the other votes are for who is going to be voting in the electoral college.
No, Hillary lost the Presidential vote by 77 votes. That's 25% less votes than Trump got, which is a pretty decent majority. (The 2016 Presidential election was 304-227.)
So like when Obama ignored the protestors in Iran and finally came up with the "solution" of giving the Iranian government Billions in cash and ignoring their drug dealing? That kind of "not sticking our heads in" which did nothing but hurt the protestors last time around?
In terms of percentages, people earning $1M or higher pay 19.3% of taxes under the old law and 19.8% of taxes under the new tax law. If you look across all income categories, they pretty much either stay the same or become more progressive (i.e. the poorer pay less of a percentage of total income taxes), but don't let the facts interrupt your diatribe. (By talking only about tax rates, you're leaving out the impact of marginal rates as well as the other changes contained in the law, such as higher standard deductions and lower deductions for state taxes paid by richer people).
We get it, you're jealous of other people's work and success and you want some government guys with guns to go take stuff from them and give you and your friends some after they take their cut. That's what your "arguments" all boil down to, despite their inaccuracy of fact (for example, you apparently don't even understand marginal tax rates).
It's just too bad that governing philosophy ends up the same each time, like Venezuela.
Good thing that's not what the American people voted for in the last few elections. I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and do some work yourself, huh?
The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying revenue levels is why the debt is being added to is ridiculous. The government is borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.
So yeah, let's reduce the debt by cutting spending back to say, per capita inflation adjusted levels of just 12 years ago and we can reduce the debt by a couple of Trillion dollars every year, but whining about a mouse of tax cuts when the elephant in the room is spending just discredits your position.
The expiration of some of the tax cuts is a budget rules gimmick to be able to use reconciliation in 2017. No one expects them to actually expire because there is bipartisan support for renewing them. That already played out once with the Bush tax cuts and Obama. The people reporting otherwise are those trying to come up with partisan talking points. It makes it pretty obvious where you get your opinions from.
The top 1% already pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90% pay. If you're going to cut Federal income taxes, without a lot of contortions (some of which they did include in this bill for that very purpose), the people who actually pay the majority of taxes are likely to pay less taxes.
The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying "we are borrowing money to give it away to the ultra rich" is ridiculous. We're borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.
P.S. Your personal attacks are completely off the mark and appear to be mostly projection on your part....
Obviously, they should have used their vaunted "Time Machine" to go into the past and make different choices, like user-replaceable parts and full disclosure on how they were fixing the battery power related crashing issue.
What good is a time machine if you can't use it to fix past mistakes?
Letting people keep a few thousand dollars more each year that they would otherwise have to fork over to the government in taxes is "taking advantage" of them?
Then please take advantage of me in that way more and more....
Some people will go to extreme lengths to push a partisan agenda, including calling things the opposite of what they are.
Want to really blow your mind? In addition to the direct tax reductions 80% of Americans get as a result of the bill, economists estimate that most of the corporate tax cut will go to consumers and employees in the form of lower prices and higher wages. So that makes it even better!
Good thing your comment doesn't just consist of flamebait because you're frustrated by losing the debate.
"what your ISP is willing to give you" See, I don't rely on what someone is willing to "give" me, I contract for what I want and pay for it and not for what I don't want. It's called being a responsible adult instead of a whiny ward of the State.
Also, page 7 doesn't contain "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access". In fact, your contention is nowhere to be found in the entire document. I guess you also fail basic reading comprehension.
Yeah, Comcast is generally a lame company, but to say an official announcement by the decision maker about the reasons for a particular decision equals "no evidence" is quite a biased stretch, especially when the counter evidence is a guess by someone who wasn't involved in the decision.
So sure, Comcast was going to spend some money on infrastructure anyway. The article stretches to get $48 Billion and the press release says "spend well in excess of $50 billion" with more announcements coming in their January earnings report, so even at the most generous, there is still a gap there. The part of the same press release they skipped over of course was that Comcast also announced "special $1,000 bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees." in the same press release. If you read the press release, that's the part most specifically attributed to the tax cuts and the FCC rule change. The infrastructure plans read as an add-on, so this is mostly much ado about nothing. But hey, these "reporters" will do just about anything to be able to publish something they can cast into an anti-Trump narrative of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Many smart people who are not a psychologist might believe that leaders can contribute much more in ways other than communications and signaling.
Like oh, I don't know, making wise decisions? Organizing people and their work? Fitting people into roles which will best take advantage of their capabilities?
"Speaking in charismatic ways" from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland sounds like the logic which awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for getting himself elected.
You're missing the part where the risk-adjusted returns on investment need to be higher than alternative potential returns in order to attract money for an investment.
Instead of putting your money into a company where 99% of whatever you make will be taxed away, you'd put it into a company in another country doing something else, or invest it in municipal bonds, or loan it to the FED, or keep it in cash (because there is otherwise a risk you will lose your investment instead of making money on it), or just spend it on consumption (because why bother investing it for no return?). At a 99% tax rate on profits, the supply of investment money would vanish and go elsewhere.
So yeah, the economic theory on the matter is pretty clear, tax rates majorly impact investment supply. You're confused by not considering the impacts on supply. You only get supply when it's profitable (compared to other potential investments) for someone to supply something.
What you're still missing is purchasing power parity based on cost of living. You need to have both parts, both income and what that income will buy. There's a reason $50K in income would mean you're poor if you live in NYC while you'd be upper middle class in Mississippi.
Using JesseMcDonald's helpful reference, the countries you're comparing are lower once you compare PPP of the income.
Yep, if you look at median income and include purchasing power, which is the best comparison.
Also, if you were to look at various measurements of things like housing size/quality, etc... you see some stark differences in how people actually live across various countries.
Think of how bad the working conditions must be in general for jobs like this to be considered much better than the alternative options in China.
Many Americans don't have a clue how much better they have it compared to most of the rest of the world. Even most Western European countries are only as wealthy as say, Mississippi or Alabama in the U.S.
However, stopping free trade or making it contingent on some other country making laws similar to ours is literally one of the things (To be fair, there are many other reasons) slowing down the process of these countries from catching up and having a better life like in the United States. There is a wealth increase curve where people can afford more and more nicer things. Some of those nicer things include better working conditions and more spending on stuff we take for granted as "normal" in the U.S.
Picture yourself dropped alone into a wilderness. No law is going to improve your working conditions, instead at the wealth level you find yourself in, you have to work hard just to survive. Having someone elsewhere who doesn't have to cope with that level of survival telling you how you shouldn't babysit your fire and look for food more than 8 hours in a day isn't exactly helpful. Instead, as you work hard, eventually you start to be able to increase your wealth (creating traps for fish and animals, making a knife, carving dishes, etc...) Analogize appropriately to this poor person's situation. There's a reason the savings rate is so high in China. The people want to get their family's lives better as quickly as they can.
1. Even then, they aren't "relatively flat" and compared to each other, spending still increases much faster.
2. Using as a percent of GDP makes no sense. There isn't much reason for government spending to increase "as a percent of GDP", government spending is what the "G" in GDP represents. So you want to measure it as in part a percent of itself? Why use such a silly reference when you can just look at it in constant dollars, or do a direct comparison between spending and revenue? The only reason people us percent of GDP is either because they saw someone else do it and didn't stop to think about it, or else they're trying to hide the increases by dividing it by another number which grows.
It makes sense to allow for government to increase as the population it governs increases, you might even stretch and say that as we become wealthier we tend to spend more money on things we didn't before (such as increased government), but that's an attempt at a partial explanation for why we're spending more (and doesn't explain the difference in spending more vs paying more), not something to use to hide the reality that we are in fact spending way more per person in constant dollars.
P.S. The parts of the federal budget with the most growth (Defense and entitlements) aren't pieces which have a direct connection to DP (minus the G), so it's not even a great explanation for reasons behind the increase, either.
Per person just allows for the budget to grow as the number of people the government is supposed to serve grows. That's a better measurement than without taking population growth into account or comparing it to other irrelevant numbers which already include government spending (which some people like to do to try and make spending look better).
Either way, way too much spending. Yes, that includes wars and yes it includes other things besides just old folks. Here's a decent analysis.
The Federal government also just (yet again!) took in record levels of revenue. Of course, it also still spends more than ever. You may notice from those charts the tremendous increase in government revenue per person over time... and the even larger increase in government spending per person over the same time period.
"If we want these things, we have to be willing to spend less on other stuff we don't need."
How does telling someone who isn't worth an employer paying a "living wage" that it's illegal for them to get a job help?
Minimum wage laws are the economics equivalent of legislating that the law of gravity will no longer apply to manufacturing.
So why haven't you started a company to compete in some industry and given your employees a 20 hour work week? If you actually believed your statement, that'd destroy the "capitalist oppression to enslave the worker", right? You'd get all the best employees flocking to your company to get the reduced hours and since they could still do their jobs, you'd compete just fine.
Wow, I cite the NY Times (not exactly a right-wing haven) talking about a scholarly book based on actual voting records and your refutation of all that evidence is... well, nothing at all.
Apparently the point is proven.
You're the one who needs to learn some history. A couple of points:
First, the Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act. The Democrats in Congress were the ones trying to stop it. Why would that make racists turn away from the Democrats to the Republicans? Makes no sense.
Second, the South turned Republican starting with the least racist States and people rather than the most. The KKK was affiliated with the Democratic Party. The Republicans were predominantly the non-racists who moved into the area and the younger people who grew up later.
The whole "Southern Strategy" theory is a mostly a myth. The Republicans in general have stayed the party of non-racism and color-blindness and the Democratic Party has stuck with the idea of dividing everyone by "race", they've just changed which races they want to privilege at different times.
So how do you reconcile Trump's attitude as the cause when rate of the people leaving the NSA as described started in 2015, peaked in 2016 and then went down once Trump was elected?
I guess you could blame Obama instead, but back in the non-politically-motivated reality you seem to have missed, less than 1% turnover in a few years is still lower than most government agencies and certainly most companies. It's probably just people noticing they can make more money in the private sector because security analysts are in higher demand over the last few years.
But hey, keep posting your fact-free opinions and interpretations and I'll keep agreeing with your signature.
Ah, the old mandatory voting canard. Did it ever occur to you that having the people who don't care enough to vote go ahead and cast a vote anyway decreases the quality of the decision making?
It's already bad enough with most people voting not even knowing the names of some of the candidates before they enter the polling booth. No need to make that worse by forcing everyone to vote whether they want to or not.
That seems like an odd question to ask of someone who pointed out the Electoral College vote is the vote for president and the other votes are for who is going to be voting in the electoral college.
Did you not understand the post?
No, Hillary lost the Presidential vote by 77 votes. That's 25% less votes than Trump got, which is a pretty decent majority. (The 2016 Presidential election was 304-227.)
So like when Obama ignored the protestors in Iran and finally came up with the "solution" of giving the Iranian government Billions in cash and ignoring their drug dealing? That kind of "not sticking our heads in" which did nothing but hurt the protestors last time around?
Ah, Canadian. That explains a lot.
In terms of percentages, people earning $1M or higher pay 19.3% of taxes under the old law and 19.8% of taxes under the new tax law. If you look across all income categories, they pretty much either stay the same or become more progressive (i.e. the poorer pay less of a percentage of total income taxes), but don't let the facts interrupt your diatribe. (By talking only about tax rates, you're leaving out the impact of marginal rates as well as the other changes contained in the law, such as higher standard deductions and lower deductions for state taxes paid by richer people).
We get it, you're jealous of other people's work and success and you want some government guys with guns to go take stuff from them and give you and your friends some after they take their cut. That's what your "arguments" all boil down to, despite their inaccuracy of fact (for example, you apparently don't even understand marginal tax rates).
It's just too bad that governing philosophy ends up the same each time, like Venezuela.
Good thing that's not what the American people voted for in the last few elections. I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and do some work yourself, huh?
In terms of borrowing money, Federal government spending per capita in constant dollars has increased by 4x over the last 60 years. During the same time, federal government income per capita in constant dollars has increased by 3.5x.
The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying revenue levels is why the debt is being added to is ridiculous. The government is borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.
So yeah, let's reduce the debt by cutting spending back to say, per capita inflation adjusted levels of just 12 years ago and we can reduce the debt by a couple of Trillion dollars every year, but whining about a mouse of tax cuts when the elephant in the room is spending just discredits your position.
The expiration of some of the tax cuts is a budget rules gimmick to be able to use reconciliation in 2017. No one expects them to actually expire because there is bipartisan support for renewing them. That already played out once with the Bush tax cuts and Obama. The people reporting otherwise are those trying to come up with partisan talking points. It makes it pretty obvious where you get your opinions from.
The top 1% already pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90% pay. If you're going to cut Federal income taxes, without a lot of contortions (some of which they did include in this bill for that very purpose), the people who actually pay the majority of taxes are likely to pay less taxes.
In terms of borrowing money, Federal government spending per capita in constant dollars has increased by 4x over the last 60 years. During the same time, federal government income per capita in constant dollars has increased by 3.5x.
The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying "we are borrowing money to give it away to the ultra rich" is ridiculous. We're borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.
P.S. Your personal attacks are completely off the mark and appear to be mostly projection on your part....
Obviously, they should have used their vaunted "Time Machine" to go into the past and make different choices, like user-replaceable parts and full disclosure on how they were fixing the battery power related crashing issue.
What good is a time machine if you can't use it to fix past mistakes?
Letting people keep a few thousand dollars more each year that they would otherwise have to fork over to the government in taxes is "taking advantage" of them?
Then please take advantage of me in that way more and more....
Some people will go to extreme lengths to push a partisan agenda, including calling things the opposite of what they are.
Want to really blow your mind? In addition to the direct tax reductions 80% of Americans get as a result of the bill, economists estimate that most of the corporate tax cut will go to consumers and employees in the form of lower prices and higher wages. So that makes it even better!
Good thing your comment doesn't just consist of flamebait because you're frustrated by losing the debate.
"what your ISP is willing to give you" See, I don't rely on what someone is willing to "give" me, I contract for what I want and pay for it and not for what I don't want. It's called being a responsible adult instead of a whiny ward of the State.
Also, page 7 doesn't contain "Don't fuck with your customers' internet access". In fact, your contention is nowhere to be found in the entire document. I guess you also fail basic reading comprehension.
Yeah, Comcast is generally a lame company, but to say an official announcement by the decision maker about the reasons for a particular decision equals "no evidence" is quite a biased stretch, especially when the counter evidence is a guess by someone who wasn't involved in the decision.
So sure, Comcast was going to spend some money on infrastructure anyway. The article stretches to get $48 Billion and the press release says "spend well in excess of $50 billion" with more announcements coming in their January earnings report, so even at the most generous, there is still a gap there. The part of the same press release they skipped over of course was that Comcast also announced "special $1,000 bonuses to more than one hundred thousand eligible frontline and non-executive employees." in the same press release. If you read the press release, that's the part most specifically attributed to the tax cuts and the FCC rule change. The infrastructure plans read as an add-on, so this is mostly much ado about nothing. But hey, these "reporters" will do just about anything to be able to publish something they can cast into an anti-Trump narrative of some sort.