And Time-Warner has already proven they're even less likely to bother helping their customers with... well, anything beyond emptying their wallets.
Time Warner has changed, since I got it. This was a few years ago but when I had problems with my connection they sent a tech to check the system. The cable modem went out and had to be replaced. The tech replaced it and said the new one should be faster, and it was.
The only exception I can think of is unless the cap is so ridiculously high that it doesn't matter to just about everyone, such as the restaurant imposing a caveat saying maximum 15 plates of food when most people can't eat more than 3.
I used to do something like that. Two restaurants I used to go to had Unlimited Buffets and I'd stay there for more than an hour or two, I may stay for 4 or 5.
What I find funny is that everyone is running with the idea that TW is offering an "unlimited" plan at all. They aren't.
When I signed up with my ISP, which used to use TW's Road Runner service but is now ComCast, it was for an "unlimited plan". Reading the contract I was required to sign it said the speed was guaranteed to be up to a certain speed, I don't recall what now, but there was no limit on throughput. These caps precisely limit throughput. The only way they could legally cap throughput is by slowing my connection speed. However they're not doing that. Luckily I don't have to put up with this but if I ever run into it I can switch to DSL.
Actually I'm thinking of seeing how much DSL will cost me, if it's cheaper I may switch. Perhaps what I can do is keep cable and test the two side by side to see which is better.
I only seem to see people complaining about it in America, most of Europe (afaik) has gotten used to having bandwidth caps. For example in England I'm with the ISP wholesaler Entanet, you have your on-peak bandwidth (mon-fri 8:00am to midnight) and then off-peak is free to use as much as you want.
In GB did your IPS sale "unlimited plans"? They did in the USA. A cap is a limit so capping services is a breach of contract.
The reason it annoys me is that everyone is complaining about having their bandwidth shaped, and the cause for that is there is too much bandwidth being used (the companies obviously aren't going to increase their limits as shown by previous experience, and it's unrealistic to expect the ISPs to allow every single person their full bandwidth 24/7 anyway).
In the USA that was their own fault, they sold unlimited access and now they want to limit it. They were also given $200 Billion, with a "B", to build out their infrastructure but instead of doing that they used the money to pad their bottom lines.
perhaps you haven't heard but most of the western world has HUGE subsidies for farmers
While farm subsidies are high not all of the money makes it to the farmers. I don't particularly like farm subsidies but it would be better if the money was given directly to the farmers instead of to huge agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill. Giving the money to farmers would be more efficient than giving it to ADM and Cargill. I don't know how farm subsidies work in Australia, Canada, the EU, or Japan, all of which give large subsidies for agriculture produce.
everyone. For the heavy users, they will know that they won't be kicked off or silently capped since they will be explicitly paying for their heavy usage.
True however many broadband provider sold unlimited plans. Of course the contracts should be read, for instance mine said speed was not guarantied but it didn't say anything about throughput. Legally the only way to limit my throughput is to reduce speed. I'm one of the lucky few though, I have cable access but can switch to DSL.
Capacity is only unlimited if income is unlimited. Even in a monopoly people will only pay so much, so there's a limited income to expand the network - which puts hard physical limits on capacity, and to make any money at all the network has to be contended.
Thing is is here in the USA cablecos and telcos received almost $200 billion to buildout broadband but they did not. All they did was use the money to pad their bottom lines. They also battle attempts by others build out broadband. Some articles and posts on/. have been about this, whither it's telecos trying to block muni wifi or cablecos trying to block cities from installing cable. One example is A Broadband Utopia. Commercial broadband businesses tried to stop it but were unsuccessful. They were successful though having the Utah state government enact a law that requires it to be open, which was planned from the beginning. Because of the network Comcast was forced to offer a $90 bundle.
Free market capitalism becomes corrupt when a few people (or pseudopeople(Corps)) buy up the market.
That is not a freemarket. A freemarket is a "free market". If I wanted to and had the money in a free market I could have cable or fiber optics lain down to provide any and all services it could handle. But there is no free market. Instead the telecos and cablecos try to block competition by blocking access. The radio and TV broadcasters do the same with the airwaves.
Seems like corruption is the natural consequence of capitalism.
Corruption doesn't apply to capitalism any more than it applies to communism and socialism. Anything and everything, including churches, mosques, and temples are susceptible to corruption.
you have to pay SS and medicare on 100% of your income I do believe.
I'd have to check with my sister, she's a CPA and started her own accounting firm with some friends of hers. I don't know how the business was setup but she has also bought some rental properties she then transfers ownership to LLCs she also setups up for each property.
At one tyme I did want to start a business and incorporate it, but I think it would be easier to use an LLC.
But solar panels are nasty. I mean really toxic-nasty. You do not want highly dispersed, decentralised energy production based on toxic chemistry. At least, nuclear powerplants are small and localised.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel also generates a lot of toxic chemicals. See the IEEE "Spectrum's" "Nuclear Wasteland".
You really want nuclear powerplants.
You may want it but I don't. I want clean energy and nuclear power is not clean. While there is no real "clean" energy there are sources that are cleaner than nuclear. Nor do I want my tax dollars subsidizing nuclear power, and without government subsidies nuclear power isn't profitable in the US. And don't try to use the argument that that's because all of the regulations and NAMBYs, without government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable in France, India, or Russia either and they don't have the laws and regulations the US does. As the freemarket CATO Institute says in "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business"
"Given all of this, how do France, India, China, and Russia build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Government officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Either these governments build expensive plants and shove them down the market's throat-or they build shoddy plants and hope for the best."
How do we get safely, day in day out for years and years, transport what there is to our new nuclear recycling plant?
This is in part why I don't support nuclear power plants.
I think we need to do both. Once we solve the transport problem, recycle the waste (to reduce the cumulative mass and volume), but also phase out current plants (that aren't absolutly necessary) with solar/solar thermal/wind/hydro/geothermal energy plants.
I'm all for phasing out nuclear, and coal and gas, power plants. About the only thing I can see where we can deal with the nuclear waste we already generated is to build new plants and reprocess the spend fuel. There may be a way to dispose of waste, by drilling holes into tectonic plate subduction zones. But if feasible I have no idea how long it would take before we are capable of it.
Still, I support alternative energy sources such as those you list and others. Biomass, geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind can all be used. A mixture of different energy sources is in my opinion better than the one size fits all of nuclear power.
Yes I know. However Hungary is part of Europe. And nuclear power won't last long there either, "In the late 1980s, estimates of the actual size of the country's uranium deposits were unavailable, but official sources indicated that Hungary had uranium reserves sufficient to supply its domestic needs until about the year 2020. In the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union guaranteed Hungary's future nuclear-fuel needs." I don't know how authoritative it is but the Austrian Energy Agency says the Hungary Renewable Energy Profile is advancing to an open energy market with "very good prospects for biomass energy projects. There are additional opportunities for hydro and geothermal energy development (especially for heat applications). However, opportunities for large scale wind or solar projects appear limited." Where Hungary falls short on electrical needs High-voltage direct current transmission lines can provide electricity from solar and wind where those are feasible. Spain and Germany, who are the third and second largest wind energy generators, could provide some electricity. And Turkey, and again Spain, can provide solar power.
Now as a matter of trade, Hungary would have to produce something these other countries want and I don't know what Hungary produces.
You might want to consider that there is more to taxes than just the Federal Income Tax. For example, most of the very rich get most of their income from capital gains, which is currently taxed at 15%.
That's how Warren Buffet's effective tax rate is less than his secretary's.
By investing Warren Buffet creates jobs, does his secretary? If s/he invests too, yes and then she pays the same tax on capital gains. However, I'll point out I have previously said I'd abolish the person income at the federal level, people should not be taxed for what they work to earn. At the federal level the only income tax I'd have is on corporations. If they want limited liability, which is what corporate charters do, then they have to pay for it.
I've found the 2.6 builds of GIMP work quite well with Mac (and yes, 24-bit colour has been supported for a long time).
I heard GIMP finally got native Mac support, I wish CinePaint came out with it too. However while GINP does work with 24 bit colour depths it does not edit photos in 16 never mind 24 bits. Currently it shouldn't make much of a difference if the software doesn't work with 16 bits unless a high end digital back is used because most digital cameras only use 12 bits per channel, and a few that use 14 bits. But that's still more than GIMP can reliably work with. For professional print work GIMP doesn't work.
As a matter of interest, what's your problem with X11? It should "just work" once you have installed it off your OS X DVD.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not X I have trouble with, it's CinePaint. When I click on the icon or try to open a photo with CinePaint, by right clicking er ctrl clicking the photo and choosing "open with" it does not display. I get the CinePaint menu on top but that's it. I googled for a tutorial for CinePaint but didn't find one. Heck, CinePaint's online tutorial doesn't go over how to use it.
2) nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
I'll oppose nuclear power until it can be proven to be environmentally friendly, which I doubt will ever happen, but by reprocessing nuclear waste into more fuel the amount of waste and the length of tyme needed to store it can be significantly reduced.
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
Yes. And used responsibly that can be a good thing. We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Citation needed.
More nuclear power plants are not needed. Alternative energy sources can generate plenty of electricity, even for electric vehicles. According to the article "A Solar Grant Plan" in SciAm by 2050 solar electricity can provide 69% of the US's energy. And the wind potential in the Rockies is enough to provide the 48 continuous states with electricity as well. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details by region the wind potential of the US. And for a baseload geothermal can be used, though the SciAm article also goes over energy storage.
The main thing the state should tax is productivity
By taxing productivity you penalize productivity and make it more expensive to create jobs.
As a bonus, you can also do it progressivly (with 80-90% at the top margin bracket)
And discourage job creation by taxing those who create jobs.
History shows that high top bracket margin taxes aren't bad for the economy and instead generally seems to be positive.
Citation needed.
To complement income taxes you should also have some lower property taxes.
You've got it backwards. Those who own property create the need for infrastructure and protection so they should pay for it. On the other hand by taxing income you're penalizing those who work for a living.
I have yet to see a real good reason for sales taxes except from the usual bullshitters. Sales taxes are messy, regressive and attacks the weakest link in the economy, which is that production doesn't work unless you have buyers.
Sales taxes are regressive and attack the weakest links? It's those who have high income that will pay more in sales taxes than those who are low income when only nonessential items are taxed. Other than clothing, food, medicine, and shelter; which should be sales tax free, what do the poor need? On the other hand higher income earners will be buying new stuff to fill their McMansions and will pay more in tax. That or they will invest and create more jobs.
So now FDR was responsible for the stock market crash?
What? Do you really think stocks can remain high when businesses can't make sales, or have their sales cut? If you think that you really don't know anything about economics.
I have read the god damn essay, and nowhere in it is there a mention of this so called 7 year prolonging. Of course, I don't expect you to have read the essay.
Another/. mindreader. Where do they all come from? And as usually this one's wrong. I did read it when I first heard of it last year or the year before.
Interestingly enough, most people who link to that article, use it to critize the Obama stimulus package
At least you didn't say I did. I don't support Obama's plan, or the bank bailout under Bush. But not because I think they lengthen to tyme before the economy improves. I don't support them because I believe in personal responsibility and don't believe tax payers who didn't make bad financial decisions should be bailing out those who did. There were banks that didn't go out on a limb and made bad loans If bad banks had been allowed or forced to declare bankruptcy those banks that made good decisions would still be around.
The essay mainly focused on wagefixing combined with private trusts/monopolies being bad.
You say the essay didn't say anything about FDR's stimulus being bad. Well the above is what was bad. Price and wage fixing, you left out price fixing, and trusts/monopolies. FDR pushed for these.
But I would still be heavily wary of trusting the theoretical model of Cole and Ohanian too much.
And I'd be wary of what Galbraith says. No, I prefer science, specifically in this case peer reviews. Cole and Ohanian wrote a study other economists can review. Galbraith wrote a book. While it can be reviewed what's the reviewer going to write, another book?
When FDR came to office in 1933, the unemployment was very high.
Unemployment peaked, er troughed, in 1933 too. Even then though it only got to 20% (which is something that bothers me about what people are saying today, that the economy and unemployment is as bad or close to as bad, as it was during the Great Depression. We're nowhere near as bad.)
In hindsight, he should of course only have choosen the things that worked well like stimulus, social security and high top bracket margin taxes.
I agree and disagree. Like with Social Security. It was meant to be a safety net, and during the depression worked somewhat. However now people don't bother to save and invest enough for retirement, "Why should I, I'll just collect Social Security." Too many people live paycheck to paycheck. They say those who go to church should give a tithe of 10% of their income to the chruch, well I basically say the same for saving and investing, people should try to put 10% of their income aside. After putting about 12 months living expenses in savings accounts, CDs, and money market accounts they should put the rest in longer term investments. Depending on age they can invest of growth, income, value, or a combination of these stocks.
How is someone supposed to pay a high property tax (think 5% of the asset value) if they temporarily don't have income?
High taxes? Why should taxes be high? In the US the first income tax was to fund the Civil War. For those making more than $10,000 the tax was 5%. From $600 to just below $10,000 it was 3%. People were upset but accepted it when the tax was raised to 5% for income between $600 and $5,000, and 5% "on the excess" over $5,000.
Simply by reducing the size of the federal government, so it's within the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA, and having a sales or consumption tax the federal income tax can be eliminated. Then states could raise their own taxes. Let each state experiment to find what works for them.
High property taxes will make people want to spend all their income as soon as possible since saving it for later will cost more than the interest, or they will simply keep it as cash.
How in the fucking world do you come up with that?
if the GP is ALWAYS against taxes, how does he expect to pay for the most basic of public infrastructure? Police, the military, schools, etc.
I can't answer for the GGP but I'm not against paying taxes, just against paying income taxes. Why should I be forced at the point of a gun to pay tax on what I work to earn? It's easy to pay for some of what you list though. I not sure what public infrastructure is but if it's roads then tax miles driven. Education and schools should be paid for with property tax as should the fire department and police. A sales tax can help. Before paying for the military, first reduce it's size. Then have sales tax. The only things I believe should pay an income tax are corporations, that's because they have limited liability. If you want limited liability you pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
And Time-Warner has already proven they're even less likely to bother helping their customers with... well, anything beyond emptying their wallets.
Time Warner has changed, since I got it. This was a few years ago but when I had problems with my connection they sent a tech to check the system. The cable modem went out and had to be replaced. The tech replaced it and said the new one should be faster, and it was.
Falcon
Basically each customer has an exclusive connection to the central office
True, but FYI DSL is an exclusive connection but cable, which is what Time Warner offers, is a shared connection.
Falcon
The only exception I can think of is unless the cap is so ridiculously high that it doesn't matter to just about everyone, such as the restaurant imposing a caveat saying maximum 15 plates of food when most people can't eat more than 3.
I used to do something like that. Two restaurants I used to go to had Unlimited Buffets and I'd stay there for more than an hour or two, I may stay for 4 or 5.
Falcon
What I find funny is that everyone is running with the idea that TW is offering an "unlimited" plan at all. They aren't.
When I signed up with my ISP, which used to use TW's Road Runner service but is now ComCast, it was for an "unlimited plan". Reading the contract I was required to sign it said the speed was guaranteed to be up to a certain speed, I don't recall what now, but there was no limit on throughput. These caps precisely limit throughput. The only way they could legally cap throughput is by slowing my connection speed. However they're not doing that. Luckily I don't have to put up with this but if I ever run into it I can switch to DSL.
Actually I'm thinking of seeing how much DSL will cost me, if it's cheaper I may switch. Perhaps what I can do is keep cable and test the two side by side to see which is better.
Falcon
I only seem to see people complaining about it in America, most of Europe (afaik) has gotten used to having bandwidth caps. For example in England I'm with the ISP wholesaler Entanet, you have your on-peak bandwidth (mon-fri 8:00am to midnight) and then off-peak is free to use as much as you want.
In GB did your IPS sale "unlimited plans"? They did in the USA. A cap is a limit so capping services is a breach of contract.
The reason it annoys me is that everyone is complaining about having their bandwidth shaped, and the cause for that is there is too much bandwidth being used (the companies obviously aren't going to increase their limits as shown by previous experience, and it's unrealistic to expect the ISPs to allow every single person their full bandwidth 24/7 anyway).
In the USA that was their own fault, they sold unlimited access and now they want to limit it. They were also given $200 Billion, with a "B", to build out their infrastructure but instead of doing that they used the money to pad their bottom lines.
Falcon
perhaps you haven't heard but most of the western world has HUGE subsidies for farmers
While farm subsidies are high not all of the money makes it to the farmers. I don't particularly like farm subsidies but it would be better if the money was given directly to the farmers instead of to huge agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill. Giving the money to farmers would be more efficient than giving it to ADM and Cargill. I don't know how farm subsidies work in Australia, Canada, the EU, or Japan, all of which give large subsidies for agriculture produce.
Falcon
One of the reasons for enforced monopolies is that for an infrastructure service that is considered "crucial", like electricity, phone and water
That infrastructure has already been built and paid for though. Because it been paid for keeping the monopoly is nothing more than greed.
Oh, and that infrastructure was paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Falcon
everyone. For the heavy users, they will know that they won't be kicked off or silently capped since they will be explicitly paying for their heavy usage.
True however many broadband provider sold unlimited plans. Of course the contracts should be read, for instance mine said speed was not guarantied but it didn't say anything about throughput. Legally the only way to limit my throughput is to reduce speed. I'm one of the lucky few though, I have cable access but can switch to DSL.
Falcon
Capacity is only unlimited if income is unlimited. Even in a monopoly people will only pay so much, so there's a limited income to expand the network - which puts hard physical limits on capacity, and to make any money at all the network has to be contended.
Thing is is here in the USA cablecos and telcos received almost $200 billion to buildout broadband but they did not. All they did was use the money to pad their bottom lines. They also battle attempts by others build out broadband. Some articles and posts on /. have been about this, whither it's telecos trying to block muni wifi or cablecos trying to block cities from installing cable. One example is A Broadband Utopia. Commercial broadband businesses tried to stop it but were unsuccessful. They were successful though having the Utah state government enact a law that requires it to be open, which was planned from the beginning. Because of the network Comcast was forced to offer a $90 bundle.
Falcon
Free market capitalism becomes corrupt when a few people (or pseudopeople(Corps)) buy up the market.
That is not a freemarket. A freemarket is a "free market". If I wanted to and had the money in a free market I could have cable or fiber optics lain down to provide any and all services it could handle. But there is no free market. Instead the telecos and cablecos try to block competition by blocking access. The radio and TV broadcasters do the same with the airwaves.
Seems like corruption is the natural consequence of capitalism.
Corruption doesn't apply to capitalism any more than it applies to communism and socialism. Anything and everything, including churches, mosques, and temples are susceptible to corruption.
Falcon
you have to pay SS and medicare on 100% of your income I do believe.
I'd have to check with my sister, she's a CPA and started her own accounting firm with some friends of hers. I don't know how the business was setup but she has also bought some rental properties she then transfers ownership to LLCs she also setups up for each property.
At one tyme I did want to start a business and incorporate it, but I think it would be easier to use an LLC.
Falcon
Can you prove any type of power plant to be environmentally friendly?
There are none, but some are cleaner than others. Such as solar and wind.
Falcon
But solar panels are nasty. I mean really toxic-nasty. You do not want highly dispersed, decentralised energy production based on toxic chemistry. At least, nuclear powerplants are small and localised.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel also generates a lot of toxic chemicals. See the IEEE "Spectrum's" "Nuclear Wasteland".
You really want nuclear powerplants.
You may want it but I don't. I want clean energy and nuclear power is not clean. While there is no real "clean" energy there are sources that are cleaner than nuclear. Nor do I want my tax dollars subsidizing nuclear power, and without government subsidies nuclear power isn't profitable in the US. And don't try to use the argument that that's because all of the regulations and NAMBYs, without government subsidies nuclear power is not profitable in France, India, or Russia either and they don't have the laws and regulations the US does. As the freemarket CATO Institute says in "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business"
"Given all of this, how do France, India, China, and Russia build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Government officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Either these governments build expensive plants and shove them down the market's throat-or they build shoddy plants and hope for the best."
Falcon
How do we get safely, day in day out for years and years, transport what there is to our new nuclear recycling plant?
This is in part why I don't support nuclear power plants.
I think we need to do both. Once we solve the transport problem, recycle the waste (to reduce the cumulative mass and volume), but also phase out current plants (that aren't absolutly necessary) with solar/solar thermal/wind/hydro/geothermal energy plants.
I'm all for phasing out nuclear, and coal and gas, power plants. About the only thing I can see where we can deal with the nuclear waste we already generated is to build new plants and reprocess the spend fuel. There may be a way to dispose of waste, by drilling holes into tectonic plate subduction zones. But if feasible I have no idea how long it would take before we are capable of it.
Still, I support alternative energy sources such as those you list and others. Biomass, geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind can all be used. A mixture of different energy sources is in my opinion better than the one size fits all of nuclear power.
Falcon
Yes I know. However Hungary is part of Europe. And nuclear power won't last long there either, "In the late 1980s, estimates of the actual size of the country's uranium deposits were unavailable, but official sources indicated that Hungary had uranium reserves sufficient to supply its domestic needs until about the year 2020. In the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union guaranteed Hungary's future nuclear-fuel needs." I don't know how authoritative it is but the Austrian Energy Agency says the Hungary Renewable Energy Profile is advancing to an open energy market with "very good prospects for biomass energy projects. There are additional opportunities for hydro and geothermal energy development (especially for heat applications). However, opportunities for large scale wind or solar projects appear limited." Where Hungary falls short on electrical needs High-voltage direct current transmission lines can provide electricity from solar and wind where those are feasible. Spain and Germany, who are the third and second largest wind energy generators, could provide some electricity. And Turkey, and again Spain, can provide solar power.
Now as a matter of trade, Hungary would have to produce something these other countries want and I don't know what Hungary produces.
Falcon
You might want to consider that there is more to taxes than just the Federal Income Tax. For example, most of the very rich get most of their income from capital gains, which is currently taxed at 15%.
Capital gains, long term, are 15%, for the "individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets".
That's how Warren Buffet's effective tax rate is less than his secretary's.
By investing Warren Buffet creates jobs, does his secretary? If s/he invests too, yes and then she pays the same tax on capital gains. However, I'll point out I have previously said I'd abolish the person income at the federal level, people should not be taxed for what they work to earn. At the federal level the only income tax I'd have is on corporations. If they want limited liability, which is what corporate charters do, then they have to pay for it.
Falcon
I've found the 2.6 builds of GIMP work quite well with Mac (and yes, 24-bit colour has been supported for a long time).
I heard GIMP finally got native Mac support, I wish CinePaint came out with it too. However while GINP does work with 24 bit colour depths it does not edit photos in 16 never mind 24 bits. Currently it shouldn't make much of a difference if the software doesn't work with 16 bits unless a high end digital back is used because most digital cameras only use 12 bits per channel, and a few that use 14 bits. But that's still more than GIMP can reliably work with. For professional print work GIMP doesn't work.
As a matter of interest, what's your problem with X11? It should "just work" once you have installed it off your OS X DVD.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not X I have trouble with, it's CinePaint. When I click on the icon or try to open a photo with CinePaint, by right clicking er ctrl clicking the photo and choosing "open with" it does not display. I get the CinePaint menu on top but that's it. I googled for a tutorial for CinePaint but didn't find one. Heck, CinePaint's online tutorial doesn't go over how to use it.
Falcon
2) nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
I'll oppose nuclear power until it can be proven to be environmentally friendly, which I doubt will ever happen, but by reprocessing nuclear waste into more fuel the amount of waste and the length of tyme needed to store it can be significantly reduced.
Falcon
economy. Hydrogen bomb test in the middle of the pacific.
And can do something about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Falcon
Joking
Al Gore has made many millions of dollars off of fearmongering.
Al Gore has also made a lot from oil. He has had a long relationship and been an investor in Occidental Petroleum.
Falcon
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
Yes. And used responsibly that can be a good thing. We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Citation needed.
More nuclear power plants are not needed. Alternative energy sources can generate plenty of electricity, even for electric vehicles. According to the article "A Solar Grant Plan" in SciAm by 2050 solar electricity can provide 69% of the US's energy. And the wind potential in the Rockies is enough to provide the 48 continuous states with electricity as well. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details by region the wind potential of the US. And for a baseload geothermal can be used, though the SciAm article also goes over energy storage.
Falcon
Those who consume, use, and pollute.
The main thing the state should tax is productivity
By taxing productivity you penalize productivity and make it more expensive to create jobs.
As a bonus, you can also do it progressivly (with 80-90% at the top margin bracket)
And discourage job creation by taxing those who create jobs.
History shows that high top bracket margin taxes aren't bad for the economy and instead generally seems to be positive.
Citation needed.
To complement income taxes you should also have some lower property taxes.
You've got it backwards. Those who own property create the need for infrastructure and protection so they should pay for it. On the other hand by taxing income you're penalizing those who work for a living.
I have yet to see a real good reason for sales taxes except from the usual bullshitters. Sales taxes are messy, regressive and attacks the weakest link in the economy, which is that production doesn't work unless you have buyers.
Sales taxes are regressive and attack the weakest links? It's those who have high income that will pay more in sales taxes than those who are low income when only nonessential items are taxed. Other than clothing, food, medicine, and shelter; which should be sales tax free, what do the poor need? On the other hand higher income earners will be buying new stuff to fill their McMansions and will pay more in tax. That or they will invest and create more jobs.
Falcon
So now FDR was responsible for the stock market crash?
What? Do you really think stocks can remain high when businesses can't make sales, or have their sales cut? If you think that you really don't know anything about economics.
I have read the god damn essay, and nowhere in it is there a mention of this so called 7 year prolonging. Of course, I don't expect you to have read the essay.
Another /. mindreader. Where do they all come from? And as usually this one's wrong. I did read it when I first heard of it last year or the year before.
Interestingly enough, most people who link to that article, use it to critize the Obama stimulus package
At least you didn't say I did. I don't support Obama's plan, or the bank bailout under Bush. But not because I think they lengthen to tyme before the economy improves. I don't support them because I believe in personal responsibility and don't believe tax payers who didn't make bad financial decisions should be bailing out those who did. There were banks that didn't go out on a limb and made bad loans If bad banks had been allowed or forced to declare bankruptcy those banks that made good decisions would still be around.
The essay mainly focused on wagefixing combined with private trusts/monopolies being bad.
You say the essay didn't say anything about FDR's stimulus being bad. Well the above is what was bad. Price and wage fixing, you left out price fixing, and trusts/monopolies. FDR pushed for these.
But I would still be heavily wary of trusting the theoretical model of Cole and Ohanian too much.
And I'd be wary of what Galbraith says. No, I prefer science, specifically in this case peer reviews. Cole and Ohanian wrote a study other economists can review. Galbraith wrote a book. While it can be reviewed what's the reviewer going to write, another book?
When FDR came to office in 1933, the unemployment was very high.
Unemployment peaked, er troughed, in 1933 too. Even then though it only got to 20% (which is something that bothers me about what people are saying today, that the economy and unemployment is as bad or close to as bad, as it was during the Great Depression. We're nowhere near as bad.)
In hindsight, he should of course only have choosen the things that worked well like stimulus, social security and high top bracket margin taxes.
I agree and disagree. Like with Social Security. It was meant to be a safety net, and during the depression worked somewhat. However now people don't bother to save and invest enough for retirement, "Why should I, I'll just collect Social Security." Too many people live paycheck to paycheck. They say those who go to church should give a tithe of 10% of their income to the chruch, well I basically say the same for saving and investing, people should try to put 10% of their income aside. After putting about 12 months living expenses in savings accounts, CDs, and money market accounts they should put the rest in longer term investments. Depending on age they can invest of growth, income, value, or a combination of these stocks.
Falcon
How is someone supposed to pay a high property tax (think 5% of the asset value) if they temporarily don't have income?
High taxes? Why should taxes be high? In the US the first income tax was to fund the Civil War. For those making more than $10,000 the tax was 5%. From $600 to just below $10,000 it was 3%. People were upset but accepted it when the tax was raised to 5% for income between $600 and $5,000, and 5% "on the excess" over $5,000.
Simply by reducing the size of the federal government, so it's within the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA, and having a sales or consumption tax the federal income tax can be eliminated. Then states could raise their own taxes. Let each state experiment to find what works for them.
High property taxes will make people want to spend all their income as soon as possible since saving it for later will cost more than the interest, or they will simply keep it as cash.
How in the fucking world do you come up with that?
Falcon
if the GP is ALWAYS against taxes, how does he expect to pay for the most basic of public infrastructure? Police, the military, schools, etc.
I can't answer for the GGP but I'm not against paying taxes, just against paying income taxes. Why should I be forced at the point of a gun to pay tax on what I work to earn? It's easy to pay for some of what you list though. I not sure what public infrastructure is but if it's roads then tax miles driven. Education and schools should be paid for with property tax as should the fire department and police. A sales tax can help. Before paying for the military, first reduce it's size. Then have sales tax. The only things I believe should pay an income tax are corporations, that's because they have limited liability. If you want limited liability you pay for it.
Falcon