/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying you can't become a millionaire by running for president every four years
>implying he actually wants to win

because he's batshit insane?

because he's a fundie, pro-life, creationist fucktard disguised as a libertarian

Because he's a natural born citizen of the United States over the age of 35?

because he hates not having the rest of the world kill each other while America sits on the sidelines getting rich.

>>3574784

Well he does seem to be able to dress like a normal human being, so you are probably onto something.

Palin seemed to think she could and she's completely retarded.

what >>3574766 said
ron paul is making millions off donations from gullible people. He knows he wont win but he's making so much money that it's better for him to stay in the race.

>>3574789
birther!

hi guys. I'm unable to think for myself so I just think exactly like my daddy

I don't think that he or his serious supporters actually think he will win, at least not after the Iowa debate. He is mainly "running" to promote his ideas and pave the way for future libertarian candidates. If they can put a little pressure on the rest of the republicans and make them adopt a few of their ideas, then it will be a victory.

>>3574838
Why not after iowa debate. I thought he had a great showing there

>>3574802

ron paul is the only republican candidate with any genuine character.

the whole bunch is otherwise more concerned with being exactly in lock step in expressing whatever views their political advisers tell them to.
For the time being the entire game is being "optimally votable" and not generating any serious interest in new or innovative solutions.

>>3574891

That really is "the nicest guy in prison".

>>3574887
he did. it must be frustrating for him that nobody's talking about how well he did in iowa

>>3574807
pfff, the son is much brighter than the father. open your ears and listen. can you hear the win?

Americans, y u no vote Ron Paul??

>>3574898
Jon Stewart did a thing about how he's being intentionally ignored by most media outlets.

The problem is that his support is starting to become undeniable. If the party were to face facts, Paul is the only candidate that's capable of drawing in a large enough coalition of voters to defeat Obama.

A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket could be viable enough to contend with Obama if the party threw its support behind them. The problem is that the Republican Party has a history of ignoring reality and reason, a history that sadly seems to carry on.

>>3574912
americans like winners

like Rick Motherfuckin' Perry

RP promises to pusue at least 3 important agendas that no one else is willing to touch:

1. Ending the ridiculous War on Drugs
2. Ending the ridiculous War on Everything (non-interventionism)
3. Ending the legal organized criminal enterprise that is really at fault in the ruining of our economy - The Fed

That's what sets him apart, and that's why he's got my vote.

I actually think Mitt Romney is the GOP's best chance to take down Obama. He might not be the best qualified, but in terms of image and appeal he definitely has the most. He comes across as very "presidential".

not science, the lowest that can be tolerated here is a specific point about economics

>>3574913
>Paul is the only candidate that's capable of drawing in a large enough coalition of voters to defeat Obama
I doubt it. He scares off every voter group except for libertarians. He's too non-interventionist and socially liberal for conservatives, too social darwinist for most liberal people and generally too extremist in his views.

>>3574946
"Corporations are people". Another great presidency for corporate America.

But it's true that he doesn't seem like such a huge scumbag like other Republicans. He even gave the people of his state a health care law similar to Obama's. But now the tea party extremists have pushed him far to the right too.

>>3574887
He did fine, but he didn't get enough momentum.
He didn't have a runaway victory in the straw poll.
I agree with all his positions, but I admit that he didn't really appear presidential in the debates, and he came across as kind of a bickering baby. He was legitimately stumped on the question that went something like "how do you pass any of your ideas through a divided senate?"
He's more like an ideological figurehead than an actual candidate for office.

>>3574970
>ideological figurehead
>figurehead
>running for president
>president

:s

>>3574887
According to John Stewart, he really just needs to be under contract with Fox News.

>>3574970
I find him electable because of his inability to get some of the more extreme stuff past congress. He has plenty of power to enforce some of his ideas with the power of the executive branch alone.

anyone else think its wered that Rand looks nothing like Ron

The only thing holding him back is the stubbornness of the republican party, and what he looks like.

I would still much rather he win the primary this time around, simply so that we have medium size douche vs turd sandwich as opposed to giant douche vs turd sandwich.

I like that he said marriage was between 2 people and their religion. Are we finally going to see the removal of marriage in government?

>mfw when fox news doesn't mention him, talk about iowa
>ihavenoface.png

>>3574946
>mormon
idontthinksotim.jpg

Ron Paul would have an interesting advantage over Obama in that he could pull liberal voters away, while rallying all the upset economic conservatives. The problem is that the traditional right-wing would never support him. Rick Perry is somewhat dangerous to Ron Paul's campaign because Perry appears at face-value to be somewhat libertarian, and he could sap Ron Paul's support if he gets enough momentum going, while at the same time he will easily carry the traditional right-wing vote.

I think that Romney appears much too similar to Obama, mostly because of the Romneycare thing. Romney would probably be a good centrist candidate were he not up against Obama. There's no way that Romney could rally all the upset right-wing voters and actually beat Obama.

Assuming that Ron Paul is out of the question, then the best bet is Perry or Bachmann to rally the right while carrying a little of the libertarian vote.

>>3574988
Its the nose and the fat. If rand were 15lbs lighter he would look just like ron did 25 years ago excepting for the nose.

Wait is it excepting or accepting?

>>3574979
>According to John Stewart

Grow a brain and come to your own conclusions. John Stewart is a comedian, and not someone you should turn to for legitimate political advice.

>>3575025
His advice is just as good as what you usually see on television, if not better.

I don't think that Paul will win, but the progress that he has made over the last 8 years alone is great. I think that the libertarian view is becoming more popular, and even if Paul never wins, the next generation of candidates will do much better because of the advances he made.

>>3574970

I don't blame him for stumbling on that question...I mean it is a pretty big problem.

Let's not turn this into a fucking 'biased media' thread.

Anyone else think the 30 second limit for answers, or 1 minute what it was, it stupid? What's the sense is rushing the candidates? I know it's televised and they have to keep it timely but it just seems counter-intuitive.

Mitt who?

>>3575039
>>3575033
I don't refute the fact that other political pundits are awful.

I specified that you should reach your own conclusions, using your own brain.

Blah blah blah all media sucks.

>>3575042
Many candidates + short time period = restrictions

There were a few times when they lwt candidates go over. One time when they even instructed a candidate to go over.

>>3575014

I don't think that is much of a problem. Republicans would still vote for Romney over Obama, and a lot of indies who regret voting for Obama, would also vote for Romney. If Romney loses it won't be because of his religion.

If Romney won't be the candidate, then who will? Newt Gingrich? Romney is really the only person I see that the GOP will put up.

>>3575037
Yea, the question was hard, but still. If he had specific plans that could start working immediately, then a lot more people would probably support him and take him more seriously.

Basically, he did "fine" in the debate, but he probably needed to do better to have a serious chance.

>>3575024
it is "excepting", but that phrase isn't commonly used so it sounds kind of weird anyway.

>>3575082
I could see Rick Perry or perhaps Bachmann.

Romney could carry some moderates, but Obama already does pretty well with them anyway. The other two could really energize the right-wing base while also carrying the more extreme right-wing voters. Romney is not very exciting for republicans, at least not for me.

>>3575106

Bachman? She isn't even batshit insane.

Hurr Durr.. 'Submissive' doesn't mean my husband Dominates me.. and besides, he Teh Gay..... no, I mean he cures Teh Gay.....

Why do people keep saying Ron Paul is the godfather of the Tea Party?

I don't remember him having shit to do with it.

>>3575082
Rick. Motherfuckin'. Perry.

lovin' it

>>3575126
I'm from Texas and fuck that.

>>3575118
my favorite color? me and my 23 adopted foster children all love the color blue.

my favorite author? i read shel silverstein to my 23 adopted foster children.

is my husband a closet homo? my 23 adopted foster children and i aren't sure, but probably.

yeah, batshit insane....but batshit insane ENOUGH???

oh, yeah, that too

>>3575126
You love a christian fundamentalist that knows shit about economics and wants to abolish social programs that most of the country loves? No thanks.

>>3575132
you're part of the problem

we stopped listening to faggots like you a long time ago

up against the wall, buddy, and assume the position

or go back to the country you rightfully belong in, 'cause it ain't America

AMERICA. FUCK YEAH.

>>3575126
>>3575132
I am also from TX and also say fuck that. Give me the better RP.

>>3575143
>faggots like you
>on 4chan

I smell a troll

>>3575137
FUCK YEAH.

RUN, RICK, RUN!

slash and burn the libtard welfare state; snatch back the promise of our forefathers; put a wooden stake in the heart of the socialist USSA obamanation

Rick. Fuckin'. Perry.

>>3574934
I do want those 3 things dealt with, but you see, I'm a social democrat . . .

>>3574758
If Prick Fairy wins the White House I may have to kill myself, rather than see anouther term like Bushes

>>3575149
i'm also from texas, and my dog is from texas, and my wife and kids are from texas

wtf are you guys on about?

Rick Motherfuckin' Perry is running for President of the USA, not the President of Texas.

He's already the President of Texas, and Texas is kicking ass and taking names.

like Rick. Fuckin'. Perry.

>>3575158
oh, please, dear Lord, take this man's prayer seriously; we really don't need him around any more

thank you God, and Jesus, and babby Jesus

Why does this woman think she can be president?

Did someone say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obHxrBZfKis
?

It will be fun to watch when you Americans really elect one of the absolutely horrible Republican candidates. I feel bad for the significant number of reasonable Americans that have to live with another horrible president, but at the same time I'm kinda excited.
It's like an experiment where you make a monkey the head of a government. It will be interesting to watch the fail.

>>3575166
'cause she married a homo who doesn't keep her in the kitchen making sammiches, duh

oh, and she's nuts. her and her 23 adopted foster children. crazy eyes don't lie

>>3575173
yes, like the fail of the Soviet Union under Reagan

such delicious fail

>>3575156
L2compromise
we can legalize drugs, end war, end the fed, but we also have to stop all the socialist crap too.

>>3575025
>Hi, I don't like funny. Funny scares me. It hurts me inside, deep down, where the bad man touched me.

>>3575182
That's like saying a dog with AIDS died because it's owner didn't feed him.

The soviet union was doomed from the start.

>>3575185
>Hi, I don't like serious. Serious scares me. It hurts me inside, deep down, where the bad man touched me.

>>3575153
>>3575160
Are you real or just a troll pretending to be a retard? I couldn't explain how people like you ended up on this board.

Some facts about Texas (copied from somewhere):

•Percent of Population Uninsured - 1st
•Percent of Non-Elderly Uninsured - 1st
•Percent of Low Income Population Covered by Medicaid - 49th
•Percent of Population with Employer-Based Health Insurance - 48th
•Per Capita State Spending on Mental Health - 50th
•Per Capita State Spending on Medicaid - 49th
Health Professionals per Capita: •Physicians - 42nd
•Dentists - 39th
•Registered Nurses - 44th

•A 2009 study named Texas' tax system as one of the ten most regressive states in the nation.
•A 2009 study found that Texas requires families in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale to pay more than three-and-a-half times as great a share of their earnings in taxes as the top one percent.
•The poor in Texas pay 12.2 percent of their income in taxes, the fifth highest percentage in the country.

And "socialist" states with healthcare like Massachusetts have a lower unemployment rate.

>>3575196
lolwut

BUT WE CAN DO IT HERE BETTER! VOTE OBAMA!!!

>>3575196
And yet everyone praises socialism nowadays. Admit it, either Reagan was amazing, or socialism is doomed to always fail.

>>3575182
>still thinking the USSR's collapse was in any way because of Reagan

>>3575203
FUCK YEAH! TEXAS! NOT A DRAG ON THE NATION!

oh, but you want cradle-to-grave nanny state?

then FUCK YOU

>>3575206
Are you implying Obama is socialist? He governs like a moderate conservative.

God, you're dumb.

>>3575184
But why? We can do all three of those if we make movements towards a Nordic economic system.

Especially since the fed is unnecessary, as bureaucratic regulation becomes obsolete when risk is properly collectivized, anyways. Also, it deals with stupid revolving door bullshit.

>>3575212
Fuck yeah Texas, where the poor simply die and are no burden! Fuck yeah, Texas isn't doing better than socialist states with healthcare, but fuck yeah, who needs facts?

>>3575211
YES BECAUSE THE SOVIETS IN CHARGE HAVE ADMITTED SUCH

BECAUSE PUTTING A MAN ON THE MOON AND BUILDING A MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD KICKS ASS

LIKE THE USA KICKS ASS1!!

>>3575206
Russia was a backwards shit hole since 1895 (and before), we could do anything better than them by default.

>>3575216
yeah, a man who wants to fundamentally change america into something more european, couldn't possibly be a socialist, what with all of his tax the rich plans....

lol

>>3575122

Because Ron Paul started it decades ago and he gets 10% of the money it generates.

>>3575203
gtfo progressive faggit

Ya'll niggas now postin in a trollthread, more than likely,
>>3575211
>>3575182
>>3575160
>>3575153
>>3575143
and
>>3575126
is samefag

>>3575228
OOPS I MEANT FOR THAT TO BE IN ALL CAPS TOO

If republicans weren't religutards I might be one. Ireally don't like God in my politics

>republicans refuse any tax cuts whatsoever.
>warren buffets explains how taxes for his income group should be much higher
>republicans now think warren buffet is a bad economist

>>3575233
lol nice troll

i'm #2, not #1, didn't bother checking the rest

lrn2samefag

fag

>>3574934
and he's against the north american union. that's why he gets MY vote

>>3575228
>they think i'm trolling dirty
>trolling dirty
>trolling dirty
>i am

>>3575237
warren buffett is an economist now?

not a hedge fund manager?

wow, the world changes quick

>>3575228
Well, Europe isn't socialist in the first place, so your whole post is dumb as fuck. But Obama only implemented health care which was proposed in similar ways years ago by the Heritage foundation and implemented by Mitt Romney. OH GOD REPUBLICANS INFILTRATED BY SOCIALISTS!

And Obama would have happily agreed to cuts to social security and Medicaid and continues much of the conservative Bush policies.

>>3575248
if europe is not socialist,

why germany pay so much?

>1/3 jobs are created in texas
maybe because texas has one the fastest growing populations in the nation, due mainly to mexicans. They also have oil, a free boost to the economy.

>>3575245
>He received a M.S. in Economics from Columbia Business School in 1951. Buffett also attended the New York Institute of Finance

>>3575248
>And Obama would have happily agreed to cuts to social security and Medicaid and continues much of the conservative Bush policies.

confirmed for retard. kids, don't let your cumdumpsters do coke when pregnant. this is the likely result.

warren buffet is a raging fagget. they already have a program setup where you can donate extra money to pay off the usa debt if you want to. he hasn't done that, he just goes around bitching and moaning about how much money he has, but he doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

>>3575258
i r economist nao!

confiscate all of the wealth of the top 5%. all of it. not just the income, all of it.

watch it run out in a month.

fuck.

>>3575245
He's a "job creator" as the Republicans call the rich now. And he said that he would still create jobs (like in, invest) even if his tax rate were higher. By the way, like Buffet points out, those rich people pay even less than the middle class. He paid 17%, his employees have to pay about 36%.

It's amazing how tea party retards vote against their own interest and support the wealthy. A shame that they will never me wealthy.

>>3575248
>Europe isn't socialist

>>3575262
He gives 99% of his wealth to charities you fucking moron.

>>3575264
>We should increase the marginal rate by several points

>OMG YOU'RE CONFISCATING 100% OF ALL MY WEALTH.

>>3575257
Well, the Texas job creation miracle was debunked some time ago already and nobody except for Republicans buys it anymore anyway.

>MFW /co/ is more mature in their politics debates.

>>3575282
We just like being trolled here. Gives us practice for the real world, given Poe's law and all.

>>3575266
you're just mixing up numbers. most of his "wealth" is in capital gains. he doesn't actually pay in a lower percentage income bracket. there's a reason why the government gives breaks for capital gains, it's because someone was actually smart enough to realize that it's good to encourage investment and growth, because this is how you make jobs. it's not like he's rolling in straight cash money.

>>3575268
If you are too uneducated to know what socialism is then that's your problem.

(By the way, quality of life and even the financial and economic situation is far better in the "socialist" northern countries like Sweden. But I guess Americans like to suffer and value unfair societies.)

>>3575276
>omg watch me completely miss the point
>now watch me backpeddle
>now watch me pretend i understood that all of the money of all of the "rich" wouldn't last two months under this obamanation
>mfw obamanation comes after me next

>>3575257
>Talking point #23.

>>3575290
Oh, I'm watching you do all that and more.

>>3575259
Did you even follow the debt ceiling debate? Obama was ready to cut social security. He didn't do it in the end, but he was ready to because he's basically a moderate conservative.

>>3575290
>now watch me pretend i understood that all of the money of all of the "rich" wouldn't last two months under this obamanation
Doesn't matter at all. They pay less than their fair share and their money is needed, even if it doesn't pay for the full deficit.

>>3575277
>nobody except for Republicans buys it anymore anyway.
>nobody except for half the population of the country buys it anymore anyway.
>implying that it's not a partisan issue.

The deficit and economy are entirely because of republicans, bushed shitted everything up real bad.
Obama tries to get rid of bush tax cuts, and spend more stimulus, but republicans have the house and NOMORETAXESNOMORESPENDING him

>and now americans are seriously considering voting for a republican

This is getting off topic

>>3575292
>, it's because someone was actually smart enough to realize that it's good to encourage investment and growth, because this is how you make jobs.
The wealth with trickle down, amiright? That means he should make lots of monies just for investing, right? The rich can make all their income from capital gains, and just laugh at whatever you decide to make the top income tax bracket.

>it's not like he's rolling in straight cash money.
But he is. Warren Buffet himself says he should pay more taxes, and you're arguing with him. WTF is wrong with you?

>>3575309
Good point. Half of the country was also dumb enough to vote for Bush.

>>3575306
Milking the rich dry during a recession is only a short-term solution if anything. After they dry up, then we have no investments for the future. The idea is to ride the debt and cut taxes to have future investments. Eventually, the investments and new jobs will be able to pay back the debt carried from the recession. If you stifle growth now, then you just deepen the recession and solve nothing.

Ron Paul supporting Libertarian here.

Europe isn't "Socialist", it is a "Welfare-State". Learn to differentiate Socialism from Welfarism-Corporatism before starting to argue with Social Democrats.

Socialism means two things:
>Public/State ownership of the means of production - All means of production.
>Democratic management of each mean of production and mean of distribution by it's workers

Most European countries have State-Ownership of the means of production in some sectors such as Healthcare and they do have a lot of Social and wealth redistribution programs, but the economy still has private property and a market, and social programs/welfare although fueled by a Socialist sentiment of economic egalitarianism are NOT "Socialist" in the way actual Socialists want it, it is "Welfarist".

See such an important word and concept in politics have it's meaning butchered is really sad, even when it is an idea you oppose.

>>3575320
>Milking the rich dry
Because that's even whats on the table.

>>3575320
Yes yes. We must kill the people to make them stronger.

>kill, kill the people to make them stronger.

>>3575297
>mfw you think you're more clever than i

>>3575320
>17%
>milked dry

For a math board, that's some pretty bad math brah.

>>3575320
This was the argument back when taxes were cut. It sure turned out great for us, didn't it.

>>3575306
yes, let's kill them. let's kill all the rich.

then we'll be rich!

stay classy, /sci/

>>3575320

>The idea is to ride the debt and cut taxes to have future investments.

Cutting taxes when we have a high deficit is even worse than milking the rich dry, because the high deficit will eat the supply of savings and kill investment even more.

The idea is to radically cut Government spending until we have a surplus and savings begin to build up again, and then cut taxes.

>>3575314
i lol'd

>>3575320
>After they dry up, then we have no investments for the future
They don't dry up if you increase their tax rate a bit you moron. The Bush tax cuts did have no positive effect either, so the whole "jobs" thing is huge bullshit and petty blackmail. Corporate America is sitting on trillions of cash right now, but they don't spend it because there in no demand for their products. But the Republicans think the solution is cutting government spending so that demand is decreased even further.

> If you stifle growth now, then you just deepen the recession and solve nothing
That's true, and that's why government spending shouldn't be cut in a recession. It will stifle growth by as much as 0.25 percent.

By the way, those anti-tax Republicans won't even agree to an extension of the payroll tax cut, which would help the economy. Why? Well, it would actually help smaller businesses and people without much money and not just the rich. Fucking hypocrites.

Trickle-down has failed for years and destroyed the American middle class. Income inequality has no reached third-world levels. Nothing to be proud of.

>>3575315
>But he is. Warren Buffet himself says he should pay more taxes, and you're arguing with him. WTF is wrong with you?
he's just being an idiot and trying to give political points to the left. he could donate his money to taxes if he really wanted to. imagine if one middle-class person said that they wanted to pay more taxes, does that mean we should implement it for all middle-class people?

>The wealth with trickle down, amiright?
How else do you encourage people to start businesses and/or invest? Incentives are the basis for capitalism. The alternative is much worse. The reality is that someone needs to own a business and have more money than other people. To change that basic premise would require a much more radical approach than anything proposed by a libertarian, republican, or otherwise.

>>3575290
>we're not talking about savings, we're talking about income dipshit

>>3575365
>It will stifle growth by as much as 0.25 percent
By the way, that only means the cuts they want to make because of the debt ceiling issue. If they also don't extend the payroll tax it might slow growth my another 0.5%.
But the republicans won't do it because that's Obama's plan and therefore socialist.

>>3575368
Warren Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes, he just knows that he should paying more.

>Arguing with an economic genius
>Republicant

>>3575368
>How else do you encourage people to start businesses and/or invest? Incentives are the basis for capitalism. The alternative is much worse. The reality is that someone needs to own a business and have more money than other people. To change that basic premise would require a much more radical approach than anything proposed by a libertarian, republican, or otherwise.
There is where I just feel that people that argue this way are disconnected from reality. No one ever turned down a sound business plan because of taxes on the profits. If it's worth doing for 100% of the profits, it's worth doing for 100% - (taxes) of the profits. There's never been a businessman who said "I wish I could hire more people - if only I didn't have to pay taxes on the profits they generate!". No matter what percentage of profits go to the state, it does not change when hiring more people will produce more profits.

But there ARE incentives that make a difference. I'm FINE with payroll tax breaks, for instance. THAT is an incentive. But just handing piles of money to the rich? We've tried that, and it was a miserable failure.

>>3575388
Pic related.

>>3575368
Buffet has given billions already and has pledged to give 99% of his wealth for charitable purposes.

>How else do you encourage people to start businesses and/or invest?
No one is speaking of taxes anywhere near a level that would decrease investments significantly. Bush's tax cuts were a total failure just like all the other trickle-down voodoo economics.
By the way, the so called socialist countries like Canada, Sweden or Denmark do quite well. At least much better than the US and their tax revenue is far higher as a share of GDP. And of course the quality of life of their citizens is much better too.
Republican economics is full of shit.

maybe he's going senile, OP?

>>3575396
Oh, don't worry. That wealth will trickle down any time now. Just wait for it.

>>3575396

>>3575365
The are four domestic options to cut the debt
1. Decrease social aid to the poor
2. Increase taxes on the middle class and poor
3. Increase taxes on the rich
4. Devalue the dollar to absolutely nothing.

WUT DO U THINK IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE ECONOMY????

>>3575353
well yes, that would be the best-case scenario. i was just outlining what the current plan seems to be.

to bring back the spirit on Ron Paul to this thread, I present the following moral argument:
even if it is detrimental to society as the left-wing says, trickle-down economics is morally correct. taxation is theft. "steal from the rich, give to the poor" is not a legitimate defense in court. government has no right to redistribute wealth as they see fit. it's just the majority ganging up on the minority.

>>3575372
>yfw the income, savings, and assets of all the american "millionaires and billionaires" won't fuel this debt for two months

>>3575411
>the majority ganging up on the majority
>warren buffet pays less taxes then his receptionist

>>3575372
>mfw i realize you think the rich get a weekly paycheck

>>3575406

>He actually thinks that decreasing social aid to the poor is the ONLY place where we can cut spending!

>>3575405
No wonder everyone loves reagan.

>>3575410
>This rate increase / spending cut alone will not completely solve our deficit problem.
>Therefore, we cannot include it in our solution package.

>>3575406
I mix of all of those measures obviously, with tax increase on the rich being a higher priority than cutting aid to the poor. Any thoughtful person could think of that.

>1. Decrease social aid to the poor
Why is this your only idea to cut government spending anyway? Conservative brains and their simple worldviews. How about cutting that bloated defense budget or stopping paying subsidies to corporations?

>>3575406
Welfare and food stamps are bullshit an just enable lazy niggers to be lazier.

>>3575388
you think rich people get their money handed to them

that's your problem. they don't.

>>3575405
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220
>Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show

>>3575368
>How else do you encourage people to start businesses and/or invest? Incentives are the basis for capitalism

Investors still invest even when taxes are high. There is still a profit to be made. When they have a choice between making profits minus taxes or Zero profits, they will choose profits minus taxes.

Unless the tax is 100%, there is still incentive to make profit. In the 70s their capital gains tax and corporate taxes were in the high 30s, low 40s, and they invested just fine.

Buffet is paying 17% taxes and making billions, while his secretaries are paying 25-30%, this is absurd.

Having lower taxes in China might encourage investment since they're all engineers and producers, but in America there is no production, they simply take their savings and invest in derivatives and insurance on derivatives...and we all now how productive that is.

>>3575368
Insomuch as starting new ventures, expanding, or starting a whole new business there is the problem of demand. If nobody wants what you sell, you can't expand without losing money.

The US domestic market is saturated and the world is filled cheaper and (sometimes) better alternatives to US goods. When there's nothing to do with it, you sit on the money.

As a small business owner, I might buy a few newer pieces of equipment if I got a tax cut but I certainly wouldn't hire more people- they'd be dead weight. Demand for my services is pretty stable and it requires growth elsewhere in the economy, which isn't happening.

Honestly, even if my taxes were cut to zero, I wouldn't hire anyone new. As a small businessman, payroll is my greatest expense. After payroll comes required testing to stay compliant with government standards.

New equipment will fill my expansion needs/wants in this economy just fine. I'd rather pay existing employees more for extra work than hire brand new ones.

>>3575438
Please. They just invest a large pile of cash in a diversified portfolio, and enjoy the largest incomes on the planet, no further effort required. Many of them work very hard, certainly, but only to turn their billion-dollar pile of cash into 10 billion.
>>3575439

>>3575411

>>even if it is detrimental to society as the left-wing says, trickle-down economics is morally correct.

>Detrimental

>Morally correct

Cannot into the point of having morals.

>>3575436
Because those are jobs for hardworking people instead of handouts for coons to spend it in liquor and drugs.

>>3575353
>because the high deficit will eat the supply of savings and kill investment even more
No it won't. Do you actually have a clue of what you are talking about? Interest rates on treasuries are extremely low right now. New debt won't hurt the economy at all.

>The idea is to radically cut Government spending until we have a surplus and savings begin to build up again, and then cut taxes.
That's absolutely brilliant! You will drive the country into another recession, but when Ron Paul says that cutting spending does magic then it must be true!

>>3575397
>>3575388
every increase in taxes eradicates certain marginal possibilities of investment or profits. for example, if you increase the tax on oil production, then certain oil deposits that were barely profitable now become entirely non-profitable.
>There is where I just feel that people that argue this way are disconnected from reality.
This is where I just feel that people that argue this way are disconnected from economics 101.

but whatever, it's not like anyone is going to change their views anyway. at least i think that your side means well in their intentions.

>>3575438

taxes have been at an all time low for 10years, how's that American unemployment doing?

thought so.

You know where billionaires invest their savings? In derivatives and hedge funds.
Who do they employ? 3 Phd quants and 2 MBAs.
What do they produce? Bankruptcies and stock crashes.

yep, lets keep those taxes low

Because he is a lunatic with lunatic followers.

>>3575436

>Why is this your only idea to cut government spending anyway? Conservative brains and their simple worldviews. How about cutting that bloated defense budget or stopping paying subsidies to corporations?


>Mfw this is exactly what Ron Paul supports, but Social-Democrats who never heard anything he says think it's not and that he's a conservative.
>Mfw people still don't look further than the "Liberal - Conservative" false dychotomy when arguing politics.

>>3575457
Hard working people digging a hole and filling it in again.

Except replace digging a hole with blowing up urban areas.

>>3575465
Ron Paul has some rare good ideas, but he still wants the majority of the country to be poor and beg for some money by charitable rich people.

Perhaps that's not what he says, but those are the consequences of his policies.

>>3575461
>if you increase the tax on oil production, then certain oil deposits that were barely profitable now become entirely non-profitable.
OHHHHHH

You think we're talking fixed taxes, like property taxes or some shit. We're talking about taxes on profit. No tax rate lower than 100% on corporate profits can ever make a business plan unprofitable.

So how's Econ 101 treating you, since you brought it up?

>lets cut taxes for the rich cuz I'll be rich one day hue hue hue

this is what poor republican /sci/fags actually want

>>3575455
it depends on where you draw the line between personal liberty and social welfare. we could kill you right now and harvest your organs to save ten dying people. killing one to save ten makes sense under your interpretation, but my point is that theft is absolutely bad, even if the theft would benefit more people in the end.

>>3575457
Holy fuck, do you actually believe that? Egoistic piece of shit. Let's hope you get sick and lose your job someday.

I have a comfortable live too, but at least it didn't turn me into a greed bastard without morals like most of the conservatives are.

>>3575484
>You now realise that the opposition is arguing against the worst possible implementation of the worst possible idea.

>>3575484

rape him gently, he's probably just in high school

>>3575484
>more mfw economics gets butt-raped on /sci/

Republican status:
Told: [ ]
Not Told: [ ]
Bill Clintold: [X]

>>3575487
Fucking this. History alone should teach us that trickle-down economic theory is a lie.

>>3575477
The defense budget is a lot more than just giving soldiers in iraq fresh bullets and tomahawks.

It employs MASSIVE amounts of engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, ect.

All the nigger haters stayed home last election believing a nigger will never get into office. This time all the nigger haters will be out in droves

>>3575501
you know what also employs a massive amount of engineers and mathematicians?

infrastructure spending.

>>3575501

Do you really think we can't have a large R&D budget without killing people?

>>3575501
They could still be otherwise employed, even in government programs.

Still, we really need to raise the capital gains rate to non-retarded levels. I'm still can't believe people are claiming ITT that it's OK for Warren Buffet to pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

>>3575480

>Ron Paul has some rare good ideas, but he still wants the majority of the country to be poor and beg for some money by charitable rich people.
>Perhaps that's not what he says, but those are the consequences of his policies.

>Mfw i've read that

This has got to be the most retarded thing i have ever read.

A Welfare-Warfare State enforcing corporatism backed up by a broken monetary system, THAT is what make people starve and depend on the rich and the State.

Because people want 90% of the money they make since they know they're government will squander any extra taxes they take from us.


RON PAUL 2012!

>>3575501
We could spend $1 TRILLION dollars figuring up how to blow up sand people in technologically interesting ways.

For one year.

Or we could fund NASA.

For 40 years.

>>3575492
They always do. That is the ignorant way. It's really just a hold over from the days of yore when trading in goods was greater than currency.

I have some goats and you have a chicken, now how do you suppose we bargain about what an equal exchange is?

>yfw my goats can fill 3 gallons a day

Wow. Every fucking time I come on /b/ I see an anti Ron Paul thread.

Seems like we have a situation on our hands.

You have to admit, Republicans are by far the better politicians. Democrats had control of everything for 2 years and what did they get done?

>>3575490
Yeah, because it's absolutely reasonable to compare killing someone and taking his organs to demanding more of the wealthy who don't have use for all their wealth anyway.
(And that's a fact, established by many studies that have shown that the utility of money decreases the more you have. One billion or two billion don't make a huge difference for a billionaire, but $5000 or $10000 is a huge difference for people without a lot of money).

You are greedy and egoistic, no matter how you rationalize your shitty behavior. And your ideology is very black and white too. Some reasonable people think that there can be a compromise between liberty and equality, even though that's partly a false dichotomy anyway.

Has Obama's approval rating really gone down?

I don't pay much attention to politics.

>>3575484
whatever it's just a simplistic example. even if you still make "profits" it's not as good as "profits - taxes". it still affects viability and incentives, at least on a relative basis.

>>3575512
>>3575518

Well as you have just pointed out, its a lot easier to run R&D on the pretext of defending against your enemy then just spending money for science's sake (not that I think it is a good thing, that's just the world we live in)

>>3575525

Lo, i hardly ever visit /b/ anymore.

I remember when I used to go there Ron Paul was VERY popular.

>>3575501
It's kind of interesting to look to the Israeli example.

They are a small country with a limited population, meaning limited numbers of scientists and engineers. They cancelled the Lavi (a joint program with the US to develop an indigenous jet fighter) project and the Israeli tech boom followed.

Why?

Because massive numbers of scientists and engineers were suddenly free to apply their talents elsewhere.

It'd be difficult at first, but we just might be able to build an insanely awesome sector for high-quality export goods. We can still make and export weapons, but we'd also have a robust sector of the economy that isn't wholly dependent on government spending and doesn't exactly profit from warfare.

>>3575529
that's the thinga bout american politics; republicans act like children and dont budge on anything whilst the democrats uselessly argue with eachother and compromise on everything.
It's a ridiculous system and they are both, generally, as contemptable.

>>3575513
As you can see, the welfare state is working out quite well in other countries.

And while I can imagine that Ron Paul thinks that he's a noble guy, the libertarian utopia doesn't need equality or anything like it. And it is common knowledge among mainstream economists that the market is far from perfect, so Paul's free market won't lead to a better world for the majority of the population either.

The free market can very well exist with an impoverished majority and few extremely wealthy. And Ron Paul wants the freest market possible. No way I could support something like that, no matter how nice Ron Paul is (at least as opposed to the rest of the Republican scumbags).

>>3575436
what are you talking about? I am a socialist, I'm using that extreme example to show that option number 3 is the best? You though I was implying that we should let the poor starve? What sick monster do you take me for?

>And this is domestic spending, dipshit

When I played with toy soldiers as a kid, I had my soldiers protecting my base, not policing enemy territory in hopes of preventing an attack.

Ron Paul's foreign policy seems legit.

>>3575532
approve 39, disapprove 53

and that's generous

>>3575529
nothing. But what do republicans get done in less than two years of controlling the house?

>AA+

>>3575555
There was a running joke between 2000-2008 that the democratic party was dying, and it would have already if american politics weren't a race to the bottom.

Ron Paul suffers the same fate as Ross Perot and for the same reasons; shallow and stupid Americans.

>>3575572
Ron Paul's foreign policy seems
>childish

>>3575560

The United States in a Welfare-State, it's not "in other countries". What we are having not just in the US but also in the other countries is a global debt problem and dangerous financial situation, the whole world monetary system we currently have may fail altogether.

Ron Paul doesn't believe the market is perfect. Austrian economists don't believe the market is perfect. Monetarists, Libertarians, Rothbardians and etc don't either. They simply believe that Government is much worse, and also immoral.

Free-Markets mean simply free, voluntary exchange. Oligarchies like you describe love to form with the forceful support from the State, and they benefit from the policies that you think will take them down. A Free-Market would only exist like that if society demanded it that way, and we all know it wouldn't.

>>3575598
>can't refute what he said
>call him childish

typical

>>3575607
Seems very naive or at least it seems to endorse social darwinism. And let's not get started on Austrian "economics". It's not widely accepted among economists for a reason.

The moral argument is a bit ridiculous too, because there is absolutely no indication that a free market will take care of the poorest people in society. It's also a very anti-social approach, because libertarians basically want to be left alone by everyone. Human cooperation needs compromise, at every level for every number of humans.

alright i've been making a number of the pro trickle-down arguments here.

1. i don't know that much about economics, but taxation is morally wrong. theft is never justified. as a practical matter, it should be minimized.

2. you progressive liberal democrats probably know more about economics than i do, but you don't explain your case well at all. you just use a ton of obscure terms without defining anything. i think that you actually mean well, but your point is completely lost to me. i don't understand any of your arguments against supply-side economics. merely ostracising my viewpoint accomplishes nothing, except for creating the possibility for radical demagogues. if your arguments are as true as you say they are, then explain how it works in simple terms. if that's not possible, then i fear for you in the next election.

Why should mortgages be tax deductible when rent isnt?

>>3575657
Is this from Yahoo comments? I get the feeling it is.

>>3575607

No such thing as 'free market' is possible, not any more than a 'perfect sphere' or a 'perfect void'. Libertarian belief that monopolies cannot form or are short-lived is something between wishful thinking and religion.

>>3575657
The problem with supply side economica is that there is no need for the money to be spent on anything. If 100 people had 100 dollars. They would probably buy 100pairs of shoes. If 1 person had 10000 dollars he would only buy 2 or 3 pairs of shoes.

>>3575645

>Seems very naive or at least it seems to endorse social darwinism.

Social darwinism? Not really. It does support competition, but also voluntary cooperation.

>And let's not get started on Austrian "economics". It's not widely accepted among economists for a reason.

It is just a school of economics, which is also divided into even more categories. There are several ideas by them that are integrated into the mainstram ( Time-preference theory, some parts of capital theory, lots of monetary concepts, ECP, etc), some that are widely debated ( Business cycles) and some ideas that are rejected ( Praxeology). They are apart from the mainstream these days as they reject several aspects of Keynesian Macro and methodology, but they really as just a school of economics with some good and some bad ideas.

>because there is absolutely no indication that a free market will take care of the poorest people in society.

Poor people can be taken care of through Fraternal Societies, Worker Cooperatives and other forms of charities/cooperatives. Those used to be pretty popular in the early 20th Century but government slowly destroyed them in favour of it's own wasteful version of charity. Libertarians also believe free markets would make everyone richer, bringing down profits and bringing up wages.

>It's also a very anti-social approach, because libertarians basically want to be left alone by everyone.

... you've never actually read anything by Libertarians, have you?

>>3575690
Then we just steal that 1 persons shoes every 6 days.

>problem solved.

>>3575707
April 22 1992 there was a riot on the streets.

Many broken windows and stolen shoes

>>3575658
to promote home ownership, thus promoting a more stable society

society has the right to exist, protect itself, and promote what it wants

despite what the left and fags say

>>3575657
>1. i don't know that much about economics, but taxation is morally wrong.

all my fucken rage
10/10

>mfw people mad about the defense budget when they fail to realize some of the greatest innovations came out of defense funding (ie, the Internet)

>>3575755
In my experience the right makes a much bigger effort to destroy society.

He has a right to think that way. Economics relies on morality, but it doesnt tell us what that morality is.

>>3576383
you silly man seem to always miss the object of your semantics.

Economics relies on value, but is retarded.

You mean like... monetary value?

I agree, that as a science its looking at value. But at some point you have to ask whether its morally better for value to be allocated one way or another.

>>3576377
i see your point

the right wants to tear down the society that the left has created, and return to our roots; i.e., fierce individualism, limited federal gov't, strong state gov't.

which, by view of the right, would make for a better society (i.e., one without massive leeching)

>>3576421
economics relies on utility, and the inherent grasp of each person in a collective to maximize their utility

econ 101, day 1

>>3576421
>>3576443

I meant to reply to that. But for some reason the numbers didnt go in

>>3576513

The rich are the real leeches. They suck endless amounts of money from the system and provide little to no investment/innovation in return.

Everyone with half a brain realizes that entrepeneurship, innovation, and new ideas almost entirely come from the MIDDLE CLASS. Why? Because starting new business, making new ideas, are all risky. The rich do not take risks, they hoard their money.

ALL forms of taxes should be LOWERED for anyone making less than 250,000 dollars, and raised above. Capital gains need to be taxed much higher.

>>3576546
in the words of the immortal Mr. Burns, "I'd give it all away, for just a little more."

rich people go broke erry day. erry day. how? trying to get richer.

who's "rich enough"?

nobody

>>3576546
and what, pray tell, do the people with intact brains think?

stumped, my little half-brained fellow, hmmmm?

>>3576546

I think you are making a lot of contradictory statements. Like, the rich hoard their money, the rich dont invest money. But then you say its important to raise to raise the capital gains tax. Which I think implies you think the rich invest their money

Anyway, I dont know what "hoard" means in this context. Assuming you arent physically running around with your riches, its being invested by a bank.

>>3576562

But they don't invest in America, or else they just put it into the stock market which is really rather inefficient for providing capital for startups, and useless for small businesses.

First time entrepeneurs are guaranteed to create stable american jobs that stay in America, if they succeed. First time entrepeneurs are pretty much all middle class.

But they don't have huge amounts of money already, so they can't buy congressmen. Why are we rewarding people who are already rich when we can create a society of innovation instead? Low taxes on the rich only benefits the rich.

>>3576575

I meant that their investments don't really create jobs IN AMERICA, sorry. The corporations have long since stopped caring about creating jobs in the USA and instead offload everything to cheaper countries as soon as they are able.

This is why we need to build a new industrial/economic base from the ground up by encouraging middle class entrepeneurship rather than hoping our rotting system led by the already rich will decide to invest money here in the USA.

>>3576589

I dont necessarily agree that rich-people investments are more or less capable of creating jobs. Jobs itself being vague, I dont believe a "job" is an inherently good thing.

But anyway, I shouldnt highlight our differences. It is true that the number or temporary and part time positions in America has been growing in the last 30 years. And the duration of employment at those low level jobs has grown too. While production has shifted over seas to where cheap labor is. So has American labor cheapened.

During the reagan administration a lot of the anti-trust laws were revoked, and the copyright laws extended. The first and most obvious solution would be to reinstate those.

WHY DON*T YOU JUST GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY SHOW THEY CREATED JOBS?

>>3576589

Just don't make another neoliberal mistake and try to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes to the rich.

Growth is driven by demand, which is driven by the money of the working and middle class.

>>3576649
YEAH WE WOULDN'T WANT TO USE WHAT WORKED BEFORE

LET'S KEEP FAILING GUYZ

lol

>>3576620

That's the problem, though. All the new "jobs" lately are demeaning retail work, part time, temporary crap which you can't do much more than survive on. And since people have less money to spend, that weakens the economy further, and so not only do corporations not like to hire Americans, they also notice that they make less and less sales in America, too. It's not long before America seriously declines in economic relevance to the big corporations.

This is why we need to say FUCK the corporations and build a new, permanent economy to replace the old one while thinking of ways to limit the inevitable capital flight which is coming no matter what policies Washington enacts.

>>3576649

Did you read my post? I basically said the rich are leech cunts. The only way we're going to have a strong economy again that actually benefits the PEOPLE is through abandoning all hope that the rich "job creators" will come through for us, and focusing on making the educated middle class into the entrepeneur class. Government tools can be established to make forming cooperative businesses and partnerships in industries of actual substance, easier. No socialization of risk, but government assistance in the form of loans to small business owners and such.

>>3576659
What? Cutting taxes to the rich are a large part of what caused this mess. Exactly BECAUSE of historical experience we should know that trickle-down economics doesn't work, and go back to the era of prosperity where there were higher taxes on the rich.

>>3576661

> And since people have less money to spend, that weakens the economy further

As long as we are measuring economic growth in terms of shear spending. We should acknowledge that spending is spending whether its by a corporation, a rich guy, or a poor guy. The money doesnt disappear when the middle class doesnt have it.

>This is why we need to say FUCK the corporations and build a new, permanent economy to replace the old one while thinking of ways to limit the inevitable capital flight which is coming no matter what policies Washington enacts.

I dont know what you mean. You cant have two economies. That would imply these two have absolutely no contact with each other.

I dont think there is anything wrong with the notion of a corporation. The problem is just giving corporations whatever they want. They behave unethically because we let them.

>>3576680

The poorer you are the more you spend relative to your income. I think that's what he was trying to say.

ITT: SOMEONE SAYS SYSTEM "A" WORKS AND "B" DOESN'T WORK. SOMEONE REPLIES AND SAYS "B" WORKS AND "A" DOESN'T WORK.

>>3575657
here

Woah, the thread actually improved since I left.
>implying i was the cancer
whatever.

>>3575484
The basic stuff that I have learned from econ 101 should still apply to more complicated matters. I don't understand your argument. I assume that we are both reasonably intelligent, so the fact that this doesn't make sense to me means that it probably doesn't make sense to at least half the population. I'd like to learn more about this matter.

>>3575690
this is partly correct, but it only considers the consumer side. the man with $10,000 needs that money so he can create a shoe factory which allows the entire process to exist in the first place. if no one had more than $100, then no one could create a big investment like the shoe factory to advance society.

>>3576383
this is the most truthful statement in the entire thread. if one economic viewpoint were obviously correct, then it would have been adopted by everyone without conflict. different people have different values, and it is reflected by their preferred economic policies. the issue is in weighing overall social efficiency vs. individual liberty.

>>3576647
Why do we just give praise to the god(s) who can actually show they created us?

>>3576678
the era of prosperity in my lifetime was when Ronald Wilson Reagan lowered the top marginal federal tax rate from like 78% to about 35%

prosperity, prosperity errywhere

you don't like him? fine. JFK did the same math. $7 from 2 people is more than $12 from one person. rising tide lifts all boats, that sort of thing.

rich people hire people to make them richer.

if you tell them they can't get any richer than they are already, they take their ball and go home.

disincintivizing rich people is the stupidest thing a capitalist system can possibly do, other than listening to poor people's solutions on how to make people rich

>>3576693

Aw thanks. I personally believe the role of government should be to protect individuals from society. And I think all my political opinions come from that moral root.

>this is partly correct, but it only considers the consumer side. the man with $10,000 needs that money so he can create a shoe factory which allows the entire process to exist in the first place. if no one had more than $100, then no one could create a big investment like the shoe factory to advance society.

If you have, lets say, 100 people who each have $100 in the bank then the bank would be capable of loaning out the money for the shoe factory. Actually, if I know my banking, then you wouldnt only need 10 people with $100 for qualify a bank to make a $10000 loan. Which is crazy to think about.

>>3576709
some of us do

>>3576687
And the more religious and criminal you are. How weird.

>>3576680

>I dont know what you mean. You cant have two economies. That would imply these two have absolutely no contact with each other.

I was being rhetorical. What I'm saying is we need to reduce the economic relevance of the big multinationals to our economy by creating new indigenous industry and encouraging lower and middle class investment in these businesses so that profits are shared amongst a larger section of the economy.

>I dont think there is anything wrong with the notion of a corporation. The problem is just giving corporations whatever they want. They behave unethically because we let them.

I don't either, I just think the one's we've got are siphoning the life out of our democracy and our economy and we need to purge them while encouraging new, fresh blood.

Oh, and they behave unethically because they're required to maximize profit.

>>3576691
ITT: SOMEONE SAYS "A" EXISTS AND "B" IS USELESS. SOMEONE REPLIED AND SAYS "B" IS USEFUL AND "A" SUCKS BALLS.

>mfw atheists and theists are just another brand of ideologues.

One of the big problems that I see is that people frequently blame problems like corporatism and oligarchies/monopolies on free-market capitalism. The realities is that most of the oligarchies would go away if it weren't for useless regulations and subsidies which raise the barrier to entry for new businesses. Naturally, if an oligarchy exists, the remedy is to have new people start their own businesses which should be profitable since they can offer a fair price compared to the oligarchies. As more and more people enter the industry, the prices are driven down and the oligarchies are dissolved. However, lobbyists convince politicians (or they are just misguided) to enact tons of regulations that only the big companies can afford to cater to. Also, subsidies can help these big corporations because "if they go out of business, tons of people will lose their jobs" or "it promotes American business". These things sound good but it just further enforces oligarchies. The most ironic part is that the existence of the oligarchies causes people to dislike and distrust corporations, which encourages even more government regulations, which just further entrenches us in corporatism.

>>3576710

The rich create jobs in Indonesia, buddy.

And lol, so if we tax the rich more they're going to take all their money out of the banks and put it in the mattress? No.

You know who creates jobs in America? Small businesses and startups.

>>3576710
Did you just say 7$ > 12$?

That sounds like what you actually know, which is a fallacy, unwrapped from your disassociation with reality.

In other words, you just freuded your stupidity.

>>3576740

He meant 2*7 > 12

Because he is unaware of the pre-requisit screening by the NWO to become president. He doesn't know that he has to unquestionably bang the zionist drum of capitalism. Such a shame, he seems like a nice guy.

Inb4 his car crashes in to a lake on election day.

>>3576711

And besides, those people can come together and form a cooperative or something. If the objective is to spread as much wealth around as possible using a free market, surely having businesses with multiple owners is ideal. Not talking corporations here, they're a special case.

>>3576711
well, in both situations it's possible to have a functioning society with a shoe factory. my main contention is that given a situation where one person starts with more money, is it morally right to tax it away and redistribute it when you could end up with someone owning a shoe factory in either case anyway? also, you lose out overall due to dead weight loss and bureaucratic inefficiency. isn't it better to intervene as little as possible?

>>3576757
I know what he meant, but I was just using what he said (because it is likely what the truth is, which he wishes to ignore) as evidence that he's just meaningfully deluding himself.

It's rare tto see the vivid delusions.

>If the objective is to spread as much wealth around as possible using a free market
that's not really the objective, no. at least not in my opinion. it's possible to have a flourishing and productive society without rampant redistribution of wealth. everyone can simply gain money over time through productive work. if you already have money, then it's your right to keep most of it if not all of it.

>>3576710
When people do anything purely for the sake of profit, everyone suffers. The less opportunities for profit that are available, the better off the world will be in the long run.

>>3576774

>If the objective is to spread as much wealth around as possible using a free market, surely having businesses with multiple owners is ideal.

It is? How?

>mfw

I am confused.

>>3576779

>also, you lose out overall due to dead weight loss and bureaucratic inefficiency. isn't it better to intervene as little as possible?

What bureacratic inefficiency? What are you refering to?

>>3576825
>What bureacratic inefficiency? What are you refering to?
due to taxes, or whatever process is used to evenly distribute the wealth in the first place.

the original thought experiment compared a society with an even distribution of wealth vs. one with a lopsided concentration. presumably, the even society is achieved through some kind of taxation.

>>3576740
aye, they're the rich

the people you see on tv are the famous

it would behoove you to discern between them

>>3576743
or, you are retarded, and didn't see the twice $7 is more than $12

i pick retard waterhead babby

>>3576774
yes, committees run things so efficiently

lol wtf

trolling used to be an art. now you just point and laugh at all the idiots

>>3576788
LULZ I KNU WHAT HE MEANT AND HE'S DELSZIONAL

>>3576834

These are two possible realities I believe can exist

1. We have no regulation, no regulating government. Corporations are extremely powerful and more than capable of making profitable business decision at the cost of society as a whole.

Extremely unequal distribution of wealth

2. We have some amount of regulation. Regulation that explains the boundaries of various companys and makes them responsible for their actions. Corporations exist, but their are laws that promote competition, and anti trust laws that prevent vertical monopolies.

Distribution of wealth is more equal, and taxes are higher.

I would prefer reality #2

>>3576851
Obviously you lack reading comprehension skills.

>$7 from 2 people is more than $12 from one person.

Unless you're doing some troll math.

>>3576862
I really do wonder if you're retarded or just feel like no one would pay attention to you unless you act like a retard.

You intrigue me, sir.

>>3576872
Your first step is to admit you have a problem.

You are easily trolled.

>>3576734
and
>>3576834
here


>>3576864
i mean, complete laissez-faire isn't really realistic anyway. i agree with your #2 case, but it's still a far cry from what we have now. i think that even a right-wing politician would still be far from the #2 ideal, but at least it would be a step in the right direction compared to what the democrats are doing.

I WANT to read the 260 comments. But:

Has anyone mentioned that they'd vote for a pile of dog shit if they genuinely thought the dog shit would end our wars?

WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN? It's the longest war in US history b/c we don't want those men's deaths to be in vain. I'm sorry, but they always were.

>>3576877
i admit i'm fascinating; it's awesome to see so much fail in a ron paul thread. it's like, well, it's like a tribute to the man. constant fail, with flashes of brilliance.

>>3576879
The second step is to admit that when faced with irrefutable truth, you claim to just be trolling.

Once upon a time, this really, really rich guy started a couple wars. They were expensive as fuck, amounting to almost $4trillion dollars in under a decade. Much of the money was given to friends of the Prez/Vice Prez. Halliburton shares exploded. A few UK companies were guaranteed rights to oil in one of those countries. Basic infrastructure spending was ignored, economic growth during this period was largely fueled by borrowing massive quantities of resources. People were happy, completely ignorant of the systematic rot that was taking place. Then over a period of a year it began to crumble. People's life savings halved in what seemed to them as overnight. Many of them were about to retire. The whole banking system of which the entire country is dependent on for growth was about to collapse. Then a bunch of rich people wanted their companies saved. So this guy came about and said "sure, we can save you. But you're going to have to pay it back. And for the damage done over the past ten years were going to have to raise taxes in order to help pay for it." And so the "bailout" began. More than 16 trillion dollars given away to corporations. The status quo remained unchanged.

But you know, God forbid we raise taxes. Because that would be theft.

>>3576887

Oh yeah, I absolutely believe that we arent close to #2. I believe republicans and democrats arent capable of bringing us to #2

>>3576920
what truth? that you can't figure out twice 7? or that you can't figure out twice 7 is greater than 12?

i grasped that concept when you thought that 7 was smaller than 12. i realized right then the level of genius i was dealing with.

to paraphrase brian, i leave more personality than you in tightly coiled parcels on the lawn

>>3576899
i figure ron paul is our best chance to end the wars. he has a long track record which backs up his views. he actually voted against the war resolutions and the funding bills. the mainstream candidates are career politicians that just say whatever it takes to get elected like obama. ron paul has been in politics for a long time, but he actually has had a real job too. you can tell that he just says (and would do) what he actually believes in, even if it means he won't get elected. just look at how he responded to the iran nuclear weapons question in the iowa debate. he says he would allow iran to develop nuclear weapons! no career politician would ever say that if they desperately wanted to get elected.

>>3576922
>end stage bush derangement syndrome.

>>3576924
wtf country do you live in? the US is absolutely in #2

deep, deep in #2

>>3576933
pssst: he hates joos

>>3576941
stupid term. The Bush Administration was crony capitalism at its worst. Well, the current congress might be taking that mantel now.

fraud shouldn't be regulated,

Alan greenspan was the head of the Fed and he 100% agreed that fraud shouldn't be regulated at all, because the markets will adjust accordingly and fraud like monopolies will only be a transient phenomena

why can't libs understand this sort of reasoning? oh ya cuz they can't into logic.

>>3576922
that's a separate issue. spending without any foreseeable way to pay it off is obviously a huge problem. if you simply increase taxes every time you need money, then you aren't solving the root of the problem.

we probably do need to raise taxes to pay back everything that we've done, but having high taxes and high spending is not a desirable long-term solution.

if you cut down taxes, then it will eventually prevent rampant spending, either through responsible politicians who won't spend more than they have, or through our credit being further downgraded to the point where we won't be able to take out the loans in the first place, or through printing so much of our own money that it loses value.

>>3576965
>implying crony capitalism is a 21st century invention.

>>3576952

No we have departed from number two.

Like for example, in the 50s 60s and 70s we had laws that said broadcasters can only broadcast and producers can only produce. Such a law forced CBS to sell of its production department Viacom. The idea is that there should be producers competing with each other to please broadcasters, and broadcasters competing with each other to buy TV shows. After those laws were repealed in the 80s Viacom purchased CBS along with a number of other media companies. Likewise Disney owns ABC. General Electric owns NBC. Broadcasters and producers arent companys in themselves, but now are branches of super corporations.

That comes with its own problems.

Likewise oil companies can destroy the the gulf of mexico, pollute the air, destroy and deplete the ground water. They arent held accountable for their actions.

>>3576970
because it encourages fraud when people who make off with billions by tricking others aren't arrested or serve prison terms.

Bernie Madoff was a scapegoat. There are tens of thousands who should be in prison now.

ITT: people who don't pay a fucking nickel in federal taxes screaming for higher federal taxes

>mfw

>>3576986
dude, any C4 with over 75% gets an anal probe

and i want some of your valium. or ludes. or whatever you're on right now

>>3576991

Whats a C4?

>>3576952
it's closer to 2 than 1, but it has massive subsidies and too much regulation such that oligarchies are allowed to exist. the point is to trim down regulations until it has just the bare minimum without getting rid of everything.

>>3576970
i don't understand what this post is trying to say.

>>3576987
it would be a better deterrant to murder the white collar criminal, instead of housing him in a luxury prison with a slap on the wrist.

steal $100 from a liquor store, go to prison

steal $1.5Million from the housing bubble, no problem-fresh start for you

>>3576996
concentration of the highest four companies in an industry

or a plastic explosive

or a really bad bingo reader

Obama came in, said he would do shit...and he STILL hasn't closed guantanamo.

He said he'd do that ON THE FIRST DAY.

Obama believes his shit. He is simply too incompetent to do it.

Ima strong liberal, and even I am looking for someone to vote for. Paul is nuts, but I think we need someone batshit if we're going to actually hit something genuinely central after it gets past the batshits in control of congress.

TL;DR please give me a convincing argument to vote for Obama

>>3576979
agreed. Raising taxes is not a great long-term solution.

Your second paragraph blew though. Bush cut taxes and spending increased faster.

The problem is career politicians who use earmarks for themsleves and constituents. The problem is money in politics. Taxes need to be raised now. I think a 10-1 solution would be key. The problem is that the right is so heavily stuck to ideology (or pretending to be so while they serve their constituency) that they refuse to help solve the budget crisis in a reasonable manner.

>>3576983
I didn't imply that at all. You're just copying an "implying" meme you think makes your point, which doesn't.

>>3576998
the other poster was only partially incredibly wrong

the thing that doesn't matter, if left unregulated, and with equal opportunity, is bribes

bribes, bribes errywhere. AARP bribes, VFW bribes, UAW bribes, PETA bribes, bribes errywhere

just so long as everyone can offer bribes, the system stays intact. it is only when the select few are allowed to bribe that corruption occurs, and quickly.

>>3576991

I dont want to equate regulation with what I want. I think we could get by with a lot less regulation. I am just saying it should be purposeful. Like the federal department which regulates what people can say on TV? completely pointless to have such regulation.

>>3577002
vote for Rick Motherfuckin' Perry.

vote for a winner

then you'll be 1 for 2

>>3577007
10 to 1 still doesn't work.

the 1 gets taxed right away, and collected by men with guns.

the 10 in spending cuts never happen. they were never cuts to begin with

lrn2politics math
1>10

I'm from Britain and i break the mold by paying attention to what goes on in american politics. Ron Paul seems to talk sence, unlike obama.

Whats the matter sci? You abortionists like sense dont you? Right? Right?

>>3576986
the problem with media companies is that the government dictates who is allowed to broadcast. if anyone was allowed to start their own broadcasting company, then there would be fair competition. for example, where i live, there is only one cable tv/internet provider. the government can try to regulate them a ton so that they aren't allowed to just completely screw me over, but it's an uphill battle.

the main problem lies in the fact that it's kind of hard to set low barriers to entry for media companies. for example, if one company owns all the underground cable wires, it's not fair for the government to let every company use them. but at the same time, those companies get huge subsidies in the first place which allow them to build those cables.

>>3577014
howard stern! howard stern! bababooey! bababooey! howard stern's penis!

enjoy this last place where freedom of speech is allowed, while it lasts

>>3577016
Rick Perry talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

Texas currently has one of the worst budget problems in the nation. The only reason they're creating job is because what should be tax money is instead federal stimulus (and it's an energy state). Perry also attended a bilderberg meeting. What now?

>>3577022
trolling used to mean something

babby's first troll, i presume?

>>3577021
stop believing everything you read in the media.

>>3577028
nope.jpg

USA

Alexander, Keith B., Commander, USCYBERCOM; Director, National Security Agency
Altman, Roger C., Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
Bezos, Jeff, Founder and CEO, Amazon.com
Collins, Timothy C., CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
Feldstein, Martin S., George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Hoffman, Reid, Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
Hughes, Chris R., Co-founder, Facebook
Jacobs, Kenneth M., Chairman & CEO, Lazard
Johnson, James A., Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
Jordan, Jr., Vernon E., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
Keane, John M., Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired
Kissinger, Henry A., Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kleinfeld, Klaus, Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
Kravis, Henry R., Co-Chairman and co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis, Roberts & Co.
Kravis, Marie-Josée, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
Li, Cheng, Senior Fellow and Director of Research, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
Mundie, Craig J., Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
Orszag, Peter R., Vice Chairman, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
Perle, Richard N., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Rockefeller, David, Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank
Rose, Charlie, Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
Rubin, Robert E., Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
Schmidt, Eric, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
Steinberg, James B., Deputy Secretary of State
Thiel, Peter A., President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
Varney, Christine A., Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
Vaupel, James W., Founding Director, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
Warsh, Kevin, Former Governor, Federal Reserve Board
Wolfensohn, James D., Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC

>>3577025

I think there is still something the government can do. For instance, make it difficult for companys to become big, while encouraging companies to come into existence. But even if its difficult, or not feasible to encourage that kind of industry, it wouldnt be so bad if we only had 5 broadcasters if that meant there were 5 production companies, etc etc. The problem is massive conglomeration.

>>3577034

>>3577007
OK the central problem?

Corporations are not the same as small business.

What was good for GM used to be good for the country. That is no longer true. Apple, for example, adds $1.9 billion to the trade deficit because everything's made in China.

Growth in corporations -does not benefit- the US. If anything, we're subsidizing other countries.

>>3577034
my friend, i stopped that 20 years ago.

going from $14Trillion to $23Trillion instead of $27Trillion is a Washington D.C. "cut"

it's always been that way. that's why they stress "real" cuts when they mean actually decreasing the expenditure, usually hysterically, and usually over old people freezing to death and children starving at schools with no roofs.

>>3577038
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/perry_bilderberg_271.html

www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/

yuss.

>>3577046

>>3577058

>>3577046
irrelevant

>>3577055
nope, not that year either:

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada);

>>3577007
i'm on the right-wing of this issue, and while i see your point, my problem is that i don't want to have my taxes raised just to clean up a mess that was created by bush and obama if there's no guarantee that it won't just happen again. i like the idea of the balanced budget amendment, and i wish that Boehner would have pushed for that.

my point in the second paragraph was that the only way spending will stop is if:
1. politicians are actually responsible
2. credit is seriously downgraded to the point where we can't get loans
3. monetary inflation wrecks us
4. balanced budget amendment

since #1 obviously can't be trusted as evidenced by the past 10 years, the least destructive solution would be to have a balanced budget amendment to force politicians to pay as they go.

>>3577067

>>3577058

Who put the headline "Profits growing faster than Production"?

GDP is essentially calculated by adding up all the dollars spent. That just suggests of all the dollars spent, corporations are spending a larger percentage of them.

>>3577002
He also HAS NOT REPEALED THE PATRIOT ACT and in fact he has ACTUALLY EXTENDED MANY PARTS OF IT

*cough cough*

>>3577076

>>3577052
>>he's using numbers instead of percentage of GDP.

>>3577007
it was designed to make you realize that so-called "crony capitalism" is as old as the barter system, and practiced by, well, erryone.

the richest man in the world is a mexican who owns all of mexico's telecoms...given permission to buy them all for pesos on the dollar by...his brother.

the richest man in the world is a mexican

lol

>>3577083
yeah, dollars. real dollars. even if your tiny mind can't imagine $27,000,000,000,000, we're still going to owe it to the rest of the world, thanks to this fucking kenyan in office

>>3577071
right, crony capitalism is old. so what? Has nothing to do with Bush being crony. And his entire administration for that matter. And the fact that nobody wants to raise taxes simply because "they earned it" by being crony. Honestly, they should all be in prison.

>>3577082

>>3577100

>>3577100
i call bullshit; japan should be much higher than they are represented there. "gifts" are bribes, too.

>>3577103
>yup, another sad case of bush derangement syndrome.

>>3577111
>>you're still using that phrase as if it's supposed to mean something

just posting graphs isn't going to convince anyone. you can pick and choose whichever statistics you want to make your case, it doesn't prove cause and effect.

>>3577101
yes, and if 27 trillion is less than the GDP then it doesn't matter, fucktard. If it were, say 70% of the gdp, then it would be about equal what is is now, wouldn't it? What if it were 20% of gdp? Then it would be what the government (on average over the past 30 years) collects in taxes. Percentages are far more important than numbers.

Obama couldn't repeal the Patriot Act, he's 100% out
Rick Perry? He's just talking big, I don't think he has the balls to do anything important.

Ron Paul? His thinking is unusual/unique, sure, and he's got fucking balls of steel. Pre-empted everybody on everything. Regularly predicts problems months in advance and has solid solutions for them. Probably the only candidate who would actually take all possible steps to make sure the Patriot Act is fully repealed. Has a couple inane beliefs about religious matters which will not get in the way of doing a good job in the White House.

Yeah, pretty sure I know who I'm voting for.

<span class="math"> <div class="math"> a * 0 = 0 </div> <div class="math"> b*0 = 0 </div> [/spoiler]