/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 76 KB, 750x600, 1281251106490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:39:55 2010 No.2208591 [Reply] [Original]

Alright /sci/, since i figured this is political science, it might be suitable to this board. I also figured since this is one of the more intellectual boards on 4chan, you guys might be the best option.
My Politics teacher was bitching about the tax breaks that congress just passed. She's incredibly liberal, and during "discussion" she kept droning on about how the taxes ought to be higher on the wealthy. She kept saying, "the billionaires will still be billionaires, and the millionaires will still be millionaires." I consider myself to be fairly moderate, but i just feel so strongly that her arguments for more help to the poor and higher taxation on the rich is a cop out and just arent grounded in economic reasoning. So i need some intellectually based arguments to combat her douchey liberalness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:41:55 2010 No.2208602 >>2208591 >political science >>>/new/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:42:55 2010 No.2208606 >>2208602 ah alright. ill try them. just thought i'd consult /sci/ and see what they had to say.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:43:55 2010 No.2208614

She may offer some poor arguments and generally seems like a bitch, but it doesn't mean the whole idea is garbage just because of that, fucking falacies, do you know what they are?

I also see absolutely no good reasons not to tax more the rich in this country. It's not the answer to everything, but they sure fucking deserve it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:46:55 2010 No.2208624 >>2208614 Right. I'd say some higher tax rates would be alright. But just the way she presents her arguments makes her seem so economically inept. I'd like to be able to at least make her arguments seem invalid, rather than what she is arguing for.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:47:55 2010 No.2208629 >>2208614 And i have heard of fallacies. =P I just wanna make HER seem like an idiot, not the policies that she's supporting.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:50:55 2010 No.2208647

OP, you have to realise that the US is far to the right of the rest of the world (except maybe china), and even its own past. In places like the UK they are demonstrating because their government has to cut back on paying tuition and they have to do it themselves.

But as for economics; giving tax breaks to the rich will never stimulate the economy. It is not the same as injecting capital; because there is no guarantee the money will become capital, instead of being spent on luxuries.

What is needed is for increased demand for goods from consumers, it is this which powers economies. To do this, you need to spread the wealth around so the poor and middle classes are able to buy food, pay for education etc, and then use disposable income on mass entertainment. Rich people will just save their money, poor people will spend it and it will go back into the economy, keeping sales up and jobs intact.

That's how you stop a recession, in fact; stimulate the economy by giving the poorest citizens spending money.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:51:47 2010 No.2208649 [DELETED]

ACTUALLY OP, YOU ARE WRONG.

Obama is a failure, who can't negotiate worth shit.

Do you realize that a person billionaire real estate investor, who sells buys a property for $100 million 2 years ago and sells it for $300 million today will be taxed according to the long-term capital gains tax rate, of only 15%?

in short: billionaire investors pay a lower tax rate than your parents.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:53:55 2010 No.2208656

But the problem is this will never happen. Over in the US you have the republicans holding the country hostage to the interests of their client corporations and CEOs. Over half the country has bought into their bullshit, even after free marketeering ruined their own economy, and that of many other nations. America is on the self-delusional path to slumland.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:53:55 2010 No.2208660

>>2208647
Right. And while that's all well and good, don't the rich have a right to their personal property though? It seems a bit... communistic to just take money away from the rich and give it directly to the poor. The rich people earned that money and have a right to their own property. It seems like there must be another way to spur economic growth without just flat out re-distributing the wealth.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:53:55 2010 No.2208664

ACTUALLY OP, YOU ARE WRONG.

Do you realize that a billionaire real estate investor, who buys a property for $100 million 2 years ago and sells it for $300 million today will be taxed according to the long-term capital gains tax rate, of only 15%?

in short: billionaire investors pay a lower tax rate than your parents.

Obama is a faliure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfqE1OpHrnc

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:54:55 2010 No.2208665

You're being intellectually dishonest. You don't use economic arguments to reinforce your own bias, you're supposed to develop an understanding based on economic principles.

She's right according to Keynes. Progressive taxation is necessary to increase overall consumption, which drives economic growth (the rising tide etc etc).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:55:55 2010 No.2208677 >>2208660 >It seems like there must be another way to spur economic growth without just flat out re-distributing the wealth. you don't know shit about the economy or taxes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:57:55 2010 No.2208682 >he believes in a flat tax

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 22:58:55 2010 No.2208687

>>2208665
hm, good point. I've honestly read so much supporting both sides of the economic argument, that i just dont know what i believe anymore. I read recently that a good way to spur economic expansion is deflation. Deflation causes the cost of goods to shrink and people can buy more. Plus a dollar saved today will be worth more than a dollar tomorrow, essentially growing the wealth. in fact, there was steady deflation in the american economy from its founding right up until the creation of the federal reserve. I always thought deflation was the devil, but...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:00:55 2010 No.2208702 you faggots are still ignoring the main point which is that BILLIONAIRES who make their money through investments get taxed according to the capital gains tax rate of 15% >15%

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:00:55 2010 No.2208705

>>2208660
Could everyone stop talking about what feels right? This is a science board, not a board for emotional appeals.

Personal property is only enforceable within a state, it's not an absolute. Capitalism presupposes the primacy of state (i.e. rule of law), and the most efficient form of capitalism requires state involvement in order to most effectively produce (adjust for externalities, fix information asymmetries, etc).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:02:55 2010 No.2208711 >>2208660 Fuck that. They can keep their personal belongings, but the capital and means of production have to be owned communally, by government or trade union.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:03:55 2010 No.2208722

>>2208687

>Plus a dollar saved today will be worth more than a dollar tomorrow, essentially growing the wealth.
>a good way to spur economic expansion is deflation.

HUR DUR, IF PEOPLE KNOW $100 WILL BE WORTH $120 A YEAR FROM NOW, THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SPEND THEIR MONEY TODAY HUR DDURUU

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:04:55 2010 No.2208727

>>2208687
Whoever wrote that is ignoring expectations, which is an enormous part of economic theory. Essentially, in a deflationary environment, lenders would naturally expect a future deflationary environment and would be less likely to lend (i.e. charge more for capital). The harder it is to come by capital, the more difficult it is for new projects to begin (less investment), which retards growth for the country's economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:05:55 2010 No.2208729 >>2208687 No, deflation is terrible. People hang on to their money, demand falls and people are laid off. Inflation is far less damaging.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:05:55 2010 No.2208731

Most countries in the world do tax the rich at a higher rate. Wealthier people are affected much less by the higher tax because of the law of marginal returns i.e. Money is more valuable to poor people than to the rich. Millionaires tend to not to use large portions of their income and invest it. If governments want to run large projects, like maintaining infastructure and education systems, it makes sense for them to harness some of these investments. There are a number of well-founded reasons for progressive taxation. Talk to an economics professor at your school, or go on Wikipedia for some more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:05:55 2010 No.2208732 >>2208722 This guy, he nose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:07:55 2010 No.2208739 >>2208731 marginal propensity to consume.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:10:55 2010 No.2208759 >>2208647 >stimulate the economy by giving the poorest citizens spending money This seems like it works a lot better in theory than in application.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:11:55 2010 No.2208762 >>2208759 How do we know the poor wouldnt just save it just like the wealthy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:12:55 2010 No.2208765 >>2208759 [citation needed] Have you no idea of the economic history of the world? Social democracy led the the golden age of capitalism right up to the oil shock. Free marketeering led to the current mess.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:13:55 2010 No.2208768 >>2208762 a) they need to buy food b) they are less likely to be content with what they have

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:13:55 2010 No.2208771 >>2208762 Basic keynes. Read a fucking book

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:15:55 2010 No.2208777 File: 10 KB, 345x311, 1256329428033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2208762 >How do we know the poor wouldnt just save it The poor are usually forced to spend nearly all of their income just to survive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:15:55 2010 No.2208779 Production creates wealth. Consumption consumes it. Taking wealth from producers and giving it to consumers doesnt GROW the economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:16:55 2010 No.2208782 >>2208779 >he thinks capitalists produce stuff

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:18:55 2010 No.2208785
File: 63 KB, 250x268, Coke-junk-food-Bouquet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2208762
the poor WILL spend the money. on useless nigger shit like $2000 rims for their Civic and $300 nigger shoes and shitloads of spicy nacho doritos, and pay-per view porn (poor people are too dumb to use the internets) and WWE novelty t-shirts.

giving money to the poor is fail, you need to take the money from the rich and give it to scientists to do research. unfortunatley funding for scientific research is always one of the first things to be cut.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:22:55 2010 No.2208795 >>2208785 Wealth is increased by the borrowing and repaying of money (i.e. exploiting the value of time). Production is a cause for the borrowing of money. Consumption is a cause for production. >>2208782 They do, read a Wealth of nations dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:22:55 2010 No.2208798 >>2208785 This. The United States is operating near to capital saturation. The only way for the economy to grow is scientific progress. The most effective way to obtain scientific results is to give scientists a blank cheque to go nuts with.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:24:55 2010 No.2208801
File: 235 KB, 800x1200, 1289288833108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2208591
>>aren't grounded in reasoning
and your reasoning?
the rich should be taxed much more heavily than the poor because the cost of living is not proportional. However, much of our problems could also be solved by simply investing less money in frivolous pursuits such as spending over half our budget on the military. to give some perspective, the USA is something like 40% of the worlds military spending and the war in iraq costed untold ammounts of money for little pay back, that is to say even if you count the reduction in whatever oil trading deals we where able to get if any, the money could have been also spent to build clean Nuclear reactors by the dozen.

Times like this make me wish I was a Piano.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:25:55 2010 No.2208802

>>2208785
Money on scientists is good, it increases the technology base and provides for growth (especially useful for those economies at equilibrium capital levels).
Money on "nigger shit" is good, it allows the economy as a whole to employ individuals in a productive capacity and grow the base of wealth through further investment (producers of "nigger shit").

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:25:55 2010 No.2208805 >>2208798 citation needed

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:28:55 2010 No.2208809 >>2208801 Shut.the.fuck.up. Money spent by the government on army shit drives R&D and provides employment.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:28:55 2010 No.2208812
File: 33 KB, 201x288, oldsagan.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2208798
>>I dont understand how scientific funding works
Social programs to help the less fortunate are a better use of much of the money spent, Science could certainly use some hard cash for the more expensive things like fusion nuclear technology and space, but by far the best use of scientific tax dollars is on many low budget disciplines that are widely dispersed, Many great discoveries have resulted by researchers studying something less important.

If you want a good example, just look at the human genome project.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:28:55 2010 No.2208816

>>2208802
You are a retard and don't understand the economy at all.

Money is just paper. Paper and useless goods changing hands doesn't improve anyone's quality of life, you faggot.

Getting rid of the nigger shit means investments will be made for things which actually will improve quality of life.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:31:55 2010 No.2208824

>>2208816

The idea is that they spend the money, thus keeping people they pay in their jobs. In china this doesn't happen, they sell all their shit to the US. If the US goes under, china's economy will collapse because their own people (by the design of their economy) are too poor to afford what they make.

So, china is basically capitalist beyond the dreams of capitalists.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:32:55 2010 No.2208826

>>2208809
Provides employment to what? I would hardly find a problem with letting people go when they are employed to waste our resources on pointless international dick waving. the research and development that has come out of the army is utterly pitiful compared to the dollars sunk into it (which is no surprise, As i just said, if you want fast R&D Less is more) and the money spent far exceeds what's necessary to protect our way of life. Indeed, our frivolous spending on pointless military endeavorers is fast becoming a threat unto itself.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:32:55 2010 No.2208828

>>2208809
it also drives the ridiculously out of control military-industrial complex that we have

the defense budget is the elephant in the room. no one wants to cut it because as soon as you do you get "WHY DOESN'T CONGRESSMAN X SUPPORT THE TROOPS?" ads on the next election cycle.

sure, R&D from the military benefits us in many ways, but do we really need to spend 6.5x more than china (our nearest "competitor") on our defense?

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:33:55 2010 No.2208830

>>2208816
Hey, dipshit, we have these things called fiat currencies. That "paper" serves to store value, which represents labor-hours that it can potentially purchase. Useless shit changing hands (and the investment that accompanies it) leads to an increase in the amount of labor-hours the economy is capable of supporting, and thus the increase of the quality of life for all. People are free to consume whatever they can afford, not what you tell them.

P.S. your mother is a whore, you're a bitch

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:33:55 2010 No.2208831
File: 22 KB, 373x376, Solow_growth_model1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2208805

Standard exogenous growth. Support for the capital saturation of industrial economies comes from the fact that despite having ridiculously high savings, Japan is not growing any faster than the United States, whereas if the countries operated below saturation Japan would blow us away.

>>2208812

And how do you expect to fund researchers working on things less important if we continue the tendency of only awarding grants to projects yielding monetary results? We must allocate a slab of funding to science and let the scientists decide what to do with it.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:36:55 2010 No.2208844

>>2208831

For the ultimate keynesian stimulus, I propose that we fund interstellar travel and employ all capable unemployed for construction of the facilities.

The labour of millions could be soaked up this way, and ultimately pave the way to the stars.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:37:55 2010 No.2208856

>>2208830
>People are free to consume whatever they can afford, not what you tell them.

and thats the fucking problem, you useless sack of human garbage. people spend 8 hours a day making junk food so they can spend the other 4 hours eating junk food and watching WWE.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:39:55 2010 No.2208868

>>2208828
>>2208826

More R&D than you would think. Look at aerodynamics for example, avionics, rocketry, etc.

It's not just international dick waving either. US spends a larger portion of its GDP on defense because of the joint nature of military operations in the present day (other govts can rely on our forces).

Secondarily, defense of state is as necessary as the police are.

Either way, economically, more markets are better than fewer markets. Production does not discriminate, any use of funds that puts people to work creates an increase in wealth (return on invested capital).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:41:55 2010 No.2208878 >>2208856 Fucking puritan; you think it would be sweet if you just told everyone what to do, don't you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:42:55 2010 No.2208882 >>2208831 I'm familiar with solow-swan, but I have to admit it's been a couple of years. That said, I thought the example you mentioned was a case of Japan's saturation and not our own.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:43:55 2010 No.2208885

>>2208831
See >>2208844
This is why I am rejecting the idea of handing these people a blank check, the money needs to be dispersed more evenly then that. weather the people are doing an adequate job of that at the moment is irrelevant. Political reform would be necessary to extract the needed resources out of the military budget anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:44:55 2010 No.2208892 >>2208878 Don't listen to him, his mother is a whore. He dropped it in rebuttal, which is a tacit acceptance. Same for him being a bitch. Simple logic states that his opinions are meaningless due to his whoreson/bitch nature.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:45:55 2010 No.2208898

>>2208868

I got a good taste of some of the R&D from military funding. You wouldn't believe some of the quackery that gets funded through the military because the PI's can convince the Air Force or what have you that what they research can give soldiers "superhuman" abilities.

I'm not saying its all bad or that funding through the NIH or NSF doesn't have its share of quacks, but holy shit is there a higher frequency from military funding.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:46:55 2010 No.2208899

The private sector lost jobs and we went into a recession despite the fact that the Bush tax cuts were in effect.

There is no evidence that further extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy will help the economy.

However, it is plain that these cuts will reduce the income of the Federal government, and contribute to the national deficit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:46:55 2010 No.2208900 >>2208882 It's certainly a possibility, I don't have any numbers on hand to refute that, I just don't think Japan is all that more hi-tech than the United States, given their lower GDP/capita and all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:46:55 2010 No.2208901 >>2208844 Doesn't work like that. Any project has to lead to profit, otherwise there is no return on invested capital and wealth is destroyed, not created.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:46:55 2010 No.2208902

>>2208878
Well, yeah. duh, everyone who is logical would. If I had complete control of the economy, 85% of the economy would be focused on building artificial intelligence, quantum computing, nanotechnology, and biotechnology.

within 30 years humans would have complete control over their environment. we would all be gods.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:48:55 2010 No.2208907 >>2208885 I'm willing to wager >>2208844 does not represent the scientific community. We understand well enough the necessity of dispersing funding, much more than Eric Cantor, at the very least.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:49:55 2010 No.2208909 >>2208901 Roads. Police. Militaries.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:50:55 2010 No.2208911 >>2208902 They'd be slaves to your preferences, asshole.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:51:55 2010 No.2208914

>>2208868
>>look at all this R&D stuff
what nonsense are you spewing out now, We already have a dedicated organization that far outstriped the military in experiemnts and development for those things, it's called the National Aeronatics and Space Administration.

I am not concerned about What other militarily can rely on the united states for joint ventures, the fact of the mater is nothing economically substantial ever comes out of those ventures in the present day. If other governments have an immense desire to be protected by the united states they should apply to become a state.

the fact remains, 60% of the budget on military endevours is absurd, the budget is out of control, gives little back, and the united states economy is in dire straights, the easiest way to deal with social issues is to reduce this kind of worthless spending.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:54:55 2010 No.2208924

>>2208911

There is no a priori reason to suggest that is a bad thing. We on /sci/ support democracy for the robustness of distributed computing, not for some airy fairy conception of morality. If someone claims they can improve on that with a centralised system, it's worth hearing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:56:55 2010 No.2208931 >>2208909 All produce profits (increase in tax base) for the government. e.g. better infrastructure, less corruption, more certainty wrt future safety of capital.

Anonymous Wed Dec 15 23:59:55 2010 No.2208944

>>2208924
In all maner of speaking, United states is in dire need of a monarch or enlightened dictator. The fact is democracy and authoritarian governments have strengths and weaknesses, and when the masses are at their fattest and stupidest, Democracy is a failure, I wouldn't be against dismantling of true federal government in order to re-establish a temporary authoritarian government that can provide funding and legislation for raising a new generation of children who are knowledgable and capable of functioning in a democratic society, however the one caveat of this system is selecting a leader who possesses the qualities to bring this about and who can gain the support of the people. that Issue basically makes this approach useless unless the government devolves into anarchy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:08:55 2010 No.2208972 >legalize marijuana >25% government tax >??? >profit

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:10:55 2010 No.2208980 >>2208924 It's called freedom of thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:11:55 2010 No.2208985 >>2208931 Dem externalities

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:13:55 2010 No.2208997 >>2208980 Well why don't you use your "freedom of thought" to figure out why it's no rebuttal at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:17:55 2010 No.2209010 >>2208902 No, actually No one would have enough food, power, or other essential services and the economy would collapse on itself. No more tax revenue

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:19:55 2010 No.2209023

>>2208997

This is how dystopias are formed. Some idiot decides to emulate god, be a douche and put himself above everyone else, decide what their needs and wants are and label anyone who disagrees insane.

Have you seen what goes on in North Korea or Saudi Arabia? Have you read 1984?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:25:55 2010 No.2209044

>>2208914

Youre clearly retarded.... We defend South Korea from North Korea - South korea is one of the biggest exporting countries to the US, North korea also has it out for Japan because of the "manchurian days"... Japan is the single largest holder of US Debt. You damn right we will defend both of them.

China has it out for Taiwan, The US has stated clearly Taiwan is its own separate entity and will not be assimilated into China unwillingly. I don't think I have to regurgitate that Taiwan is another huge exporter of goods to the U.S.

The fact remains that our economy has moved totally from an multifaceted economy to a purely service base. This means we practically have to import everything we intend to utilize here in the U.S. from other countries like China, S. Korea, Taiwan, India; Who we can exploit economically in order to make a profit.

So please get your head out of your ass when you say nothing good comes from protecting these people; Whether you like it or not... its a global economy, when one of the big players starts to go down, everyone feels it simultaneously. In the case of the U.S. everyone is feeling it much harder.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:27:55 2010 No.2209062 >>2208914 You obviously have no clue how politics and the world in general works.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:33:55 2010 No.2209080

>>2209044
The fact remains that 60% of the military budget is not a requirement to defend our way of life, I already mentioned this. Your post has not broached any undressed point. plenty of other countries that run similarly to the united states get by without requiring the spending America pisses away into the military. over half of the tax dollars all on the military on an economically wobbling country is a waste. there's no wiggle room here.
>>2209062
I reserve responses for people that can address arguements not spew assertions.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:33:55 2010 No.2209082

>>2208944

Your point is interesting for a number of reasons, and I agree with some of your sentiments. Americans by and large have been herded into these little fear mongering cattle that eat nothing but processed foods and die of bad cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But the country itself was never founded in this way for a reason. Adams/Jefferson wrote in the confederalist papers that it is passions that drive the existence of our members. What they mean to say exactly is that the bureaucracy that is our government is intended as a safety check against one group of individuals controlling another in all facets of government. Unfortunately, the greedy have seeped their teeth into all levels of politics now and what seemingly was a left and right debate now seems to have dissolved into a Right very moderately right debate (democrats). Whereas Republicans are staunch and never compromise and Democrats are weening themselves to cock by always compromising.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:37:55 2010 No.2209107

>>2209080
Lets say we don't develop that stealth bomber that is practically invisible. The need arises to actually defend ourselves in a legitimate conflict. Our enemy has the most up to date military tech. Stealth bombers, super suits, super radar, APCs that can withstand small nuclear attacks. Our tech is (to be generous) 15 years behind the current state of technology. We get our asses handed to us. Without commenting on the validity of current wars, I think it's better to stay on top of the curve in that department if only for the sake of having the capability to defend ourselves should the need arise.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:38:55 2010 No.2209109

>>2209080

Im not sure your figures are accurate in terms of budget allocations. I would like to see your sources as to where you derived 60% of the budget for Military.

From my understanding when I took economics in 04-05 the US has a fluctuating door on its military spending generally ranging from 12% to 18% if its GDP towards military funding. I will agree with you wholeheartedly... We spend more than every other country in the world... Combined. But we do it for our own self interests and for the interests of our foreign partners.

But like I stated, I'd like to see where you got 60%... personally I think that is ludicrous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:43:55 2010 No.2209137 ITT: BAWWWW YOU MAEK TOO MUCH MONIES GIVE THE GUVERNMUNT MONEIS SO THEY CAN GIVE IT TO NIGGERS THAT WAY THE NIGGERS AND MEXICANTS WONT ROB OR STEEL AS MUCH BAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:45:55 2010 No.2209144

GDP = consumer spending + government spending + investments + net trade
easiest way to increase gdp (grow the economy) is to invest, spend more, or give people money
poor people are more likely to save the little money they have, middle income tend to spend and emulate upper class, rich people spend a lot but save so much more.

tax cuts for the middle class, tax increases for the rich, increased spending (social services and government projects) and investments (paying for tuition) increase the gdp. combined with fiscal responsibility (fuck deficits), this is the solution to economic growth and stability.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:47:55 2010 No.2209154 >>2209144 You've got that wrong; the poorer you are the more you spend. There's no jump in spending when you hit the middle class.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:47:55 2010 No.2209156 >>2209107 Again, we spend 40% of the worlds military budget, we do not need to maintain 60% of our budget to be competitive, it is a waste, Just like north korea is wasting their own prosperity on their military budget.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:48:55 2010 No.2209160
File: 30 KB, 600x433, My fist Bump it..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2209144

I agree - But good luck getting that passed in the south. Where all the hicks think they are gonna be millionaires by watching princess Palin on dancing with the stars. Republicans in general will never go for something like that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:49:55 2010 No.2209164 >>2209154 as a percent of your income, yes poor people spend more. but spending 90% of $30000 is not the same as spending 60% of $100000 think logically

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:50:55 2010 No.2209167 >>2209023 So to show that democracy is a priori a good thing you give me a posteriori evidence of failed non democracies? Yeah, you do that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:51:55 2010 No.2209173 >>2209164 NO U. If you give the poor person money, by your figures they'll spend 90% as opposed to 60%. That's why stimulus needs to target the lowest income brackets.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:52:55 2010 No.2209177
File: 575 KB, 1838x974, us-budget.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2209109
This is often posted in /sci/ in information threads, It is not the only source I ever saw, but it's probably the only one I'll be able to reproduce, the other one i remember was a bunch of squares measuring the money required to buy things, like food for everyone for a day, iraq war, different countries military budgets etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:52:55 2010 No.2209178 >>2209167 Ever hear about the feudal system?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:54:55 2010 No.2209185 >>2209109 I'm sure he meant 60% of the budget, as opposed to GDP. And I thought the figure was closer to 8% of GDP? Or is that simply a matter of which industries we choose to include in our statistics?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:55:55 2010 No.2209186

>>2209164

Which is exactly why the rich need to be taxed more to provide more opportunities to the poor. Look, I have never been a proponent of handouts, I know they are needed sometimes (including right now) but everyone knows you teach your young to hunt so they can fend for themselves later in life. Right now we face a serious issue in disenfranchised and lower income communities, people who were moderately progressing in their lives have been laid-off or what have you and are taking minimum wage jobs to maintain stability. This places a huge amount of stagnation in the lower levels/entry level employment force since competition is so fierce now in this market. Poor people are basically being told to fight it out for a livelihood... For a country built upon decadence and wealth it disturbs me to see things like this in a modern era... When food is collected on massive levels and when buildings can be erected seemingly overnight!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:56:55 2010 No.2209188 >>2209178 More a posteriori evidence? I don't think you quite get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:59:55 2010 No.2209199 >>2209188 >thinks its possible to have evidence of things that haven't happened yet Take a history class, bro. Seriously. You find trends that repeat themselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 00:59:55 2010 No.2209200 I'd be fine with how much we spend on the military if it was more of an oldschool military industrial complex. But its really not. Its more about maintenance.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:00:55 2010 No.2209202

>>2209177

well im sorry to burst your bubble. But you read it wrong... you see that 13+ 17% next to 1.421 trillion?

Thats the percentage we use on defense. The allocation graph you are demonstrating is the entire defense budget. ~63% is on our military while the rest is for internal national defense.

Sorry.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:02:55 2010 No.2209207

>>2209173
given a generic country of 50 million households
5% are rich ($500000/a)
65% are middle income ($100000/a)
30% are poor ($30000/a)
if the poor spend 90%, rich spend 60% and middle emulate rich...
2500000 * 60%$500000=$750,000,000,000
32500000 * 60%100000=$1,950,000,000,000
15000000 * 90%30000=$405,000,000,000
the middle account for 1.95 trillion of a 3.105 trillion economy
giving the poor 10% more increases it 0.0405 trillion
giving the rich 10% more increases it 0.075 trillion
giving the middle 10% increases it 0.195 trillion
thus, tax breaks for the middle

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:02:55 2010 No.2209208

>>2209185

Not its like i stated in the revolving door or valve principle - fluctuating anywhere from 12%to 18% and is pretty consistent still considering I learned it in 2004. But then again this principle was derived post WWII and will continue to be our economic base model for years to come.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:05:55 2010 No.2209220

>>2209207

Tax breaks? Why tax breaks?

Just send money in the mail as a one time thing. Tax breaks won't do shit because people negotiate for wages after tax, meaning it will revert in a few years.

See http://www.truth-out.org/roll-back-reagan-tax-cuts65332

With the rich, however, their income is not tied to direct employment, and tax breaks on THEM give them more disposable income. Hence why they campaign for it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:06:55 2010 No.2209224 SCREW TAX BREAKS OF ANY KIND. FLAT TAX MOTHERFUCKERS!

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:06:55 2010 No.2209226

>>2209207

Im glad you busted out the math dude, But most of the things we're arguing are pretty basic keynes models... We're not even beginning to scratch the surface really. Budget/Tax allocations aside theres always the debate of how much should go to all the programs/research fields we want to promote.

Thats when the slope gets slippery.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:06:55 2010 No.2209227 >>2209220 where does the money come from?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:07:55 2010 No.2209236 >>2209202 going to have to call bullshit on that, department of transportation, agriculture? how are these internal national defense?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:08:55 2010 No.2209240

>>2209226
for that i'd advocate fiscal responsibility, spending money you don't have only leads to trouble
at first there will be some uproar over service and funding cuts, but without government borrowing out smaller corporations, it'll encourage smaller companies to form

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:09:55 2010 No.2209251 >>2209220 Direct injection should only really be used in conjunction with a larger scheme. Providing too much money flat-out like that creates unnecessary inflation on a national scale. I don't need to tell you too much inflation is a very bad thing.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:13:55 2010 No.2209271

>>2209236

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Read Son.

Those are developed to feed our troops and/or other defense members. We employ a lot of 3rd party security to defend our CONUS bases. This allows us to send our troops elsewhere. Logistics (transportation) and Nutrition (agricultural spending) has to be accounted for on all scales. We provide everything for our troops and we provide almost everything for our 3rd party contractors.

I also dont have to mention that many military installations have Commissaries (supermarkets). Which can rival a wal-mart.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:15:55 2010 No.2209279

>>2209240

You always have to spend money you dont have. Its one of the principles of economics. When Hamilton established the treasury it was intended to be in a constant state of debt (ideally 10%). This ensured the constituency had a goal in its day to day routines for overall government relations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:17:55 2010 No.2209288 >>2209279 chretien government in canada of the 90s focused on cutting the deficit they did this without cutting too many services and created a strong banking system that has been able to weather the most recent recession

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:20:55 2010 No.2209301

>>2209288

Canada isnt the U.S. though =\

Hamilton didnt establish their banking system either. After we wiped our deficit in the Clinton administration we quickly regained it, the cycle always maintains robust growth when you can borrow on a larger scale, pay it back whole and reestablish the borrowing trend for future endeavors.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:22:55 2010 No.2209310

Here's how to solve our problems.

1. Mandatory Drug testing for all welfare recipients
2. To receive government aid you must be actively employed or be actively seeking employment
3. Pull out of Iraq, begin to pull out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden is not there anymore, and was never involved with Iraq
4. Increase the tariffs on foreign goods, give incentives for domestic manufacturing.
5. Flat tax for everyone.
6. Legalize marijuana, then restrict the sale to say 21 and up, and apply a tax similar to tobacco.
7. Create an agency that focuses on roadway repair (as an example), hire able-bodied unemployed individuals.
8. No more affirmative action

Your results may very. There is no guarantee on the success these methods may or may not provide.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:23:55 2010 No.2209321 >>2209310 Flat tax? No. Get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:23:55 2010 No.2209322 >>2209301 hm iunno the american system seems iffy i don't think you should spend money you don't have, that's what poor people do and middle class middle class especially

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:27:55 2010 No.2209339

>>2209199

Maybe you should take that up with /his/tory. The argument was on whether or not there is a priori reason to believe democracy is a good thing, and all you've done is busted out examples of poor non-democracies, which, even if you WERE to prove, would only serve to prove that authoritarian implies bad, not democracy implies good.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:27:55 2010 No.2209341

>>2209322

Lending and borrowing is the very basis of economics. As another person stated before if lending doesn't occur, projects cant take place for capital to grow in other sectors. This applies to governments as much as it does to small businesses.

Essentially we stopped using the gold backed system and developed a monetary system that is based on trade (which is why there is inflation). If we stayed with a gold backed system we would never fully progress because we would always be economically capped.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:31:55 2010 No.2209360 >>2209341 mhm, but i mean that the us borrows money, then prints money and gives it to the bank who gives it to the government there is no actual growth

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:32:55 2010 No.2209366 File: 26 KB, 400x400, WTF Am I reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2209310 wow.... Theres so much wrong. Pic related.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:33:55 2010 No.2209372

>>2209271
>>bullshit
sorry, I'm not accepting that without a source, youre going to have to work if you want to convince me every tax dollar the government spends on agriculture transportation and other departments exist solely to prop up the military. Although if you did convince me of such a thing, I'm not sure how this will be a point in your favor for the overall arguement.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:33:55 2010 No.2209375

>>2209360

Why would the bank give the money to the Government? I guess you never heard of Home or Auto loans?

Are you really that dense? Im sorry for insulting you but if the premise is beyond you just let me know and I'll try and explain it more thoroughly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:35:55 2010 No.2209383 >>2209321 You can't tax a specific group more than the rest of the country. It's in the 14th amendment. And while I agree a flat tax is bad, you're pushing the envelope by taxing higher earners more.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:37:55 2010 No.2209396

>>2209375
i don't know much of the american methods of economics or how their government spending and loans work
so it probably doesn't matter if you explain it to me i'm the wrong person to discuss it with
i was slowly getting in over my head until failure
it happens

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:39:55 2010 No.2209409

>>2209372

The graph you present is only a small portion of the actual government spending taking place. This is governmental DISCRETIONARY budget. As in they can do with it whatever the hell they want to and they don't have to tell you the details. KEY WORD DISCRETION.... in the CIA Fact book you will note our 2009 GDP was 14 TRILLION dollars. If the US budget suddenly dropped 12 TRILLION in a year I THINK WE WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING AWARE OF IT....

Don't be so naive dude. Our government isn't writing off 7-8 trillion dollars for the military that's fucking ABSURD. But like I said, Historically since WWII the US has spent approximately the same during war times and during peace times simultaneously.

I already said you had a valid argument on most accounts, just that your numbers overall are shaky and you should check your sources with other references before you cite them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:39:55 2010 No.2209410 >>2209383 no it doesn't fuck you and they tax the rich less than the middle and poor

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:40:55 2010 No.2209417 >>2209383 LOL why? Are you even aware of the discrepancy in earnings in this country?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:41:55 2010 No.2209424 >>2209396 I highly encourage you to learn more... When you let other people play with your money, you usually end up not having any of it in the end... :(

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:42:55 2010 No.2209427 >>2209409 >Implying the Federal Budget = GDP

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:42:55 2010 No.2209429 >>2209424 i'm canadian it's okay

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:47:55 2010 No.2209450 >>2209208 According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html the figure was 4.06% in 2005. Wikipedia has it at 4.3% in 2008. Where are you getting your stats from?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:49:55 2010 No.2209461 >>2209427 I apologize if thats how its coming out, thats not correct. But look at your graph carefully... Both circles are for natl security... You're telling me the federal government dosent have ANYTHING else to spend its money on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:49:55 2010 No.2209463 This is a politics thread on a science board. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for posting in it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:50:55 2010 No.2209466 >>2209429 -Sigh- Sometimes I wish I was Canadian... Every country has its good and bad, but Canada just seems to have more good than bad =\

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:51:55 2010 No.2209471 File: 58 KB, 469x428, Trollin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2209463 You mad?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:51:55 2010 No.2209472

I'm a net millionaire, I don't care about the income tax. They should just raise it. It's a fraction of what I already pay to capital gains and local property taxes anyways.

health care is a far greater worry, and honestly we employers get sick of picking up the tab. Raise our taxes and get everybody insured, it'll save us millions, some of us will save billions. Get ready to start buying your own insurance...

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:51:55 2010 No.2209474 >>2209463 who better than scientists to discuss how to use everyone's money? fuck you >>2209466 it's fucking cold

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 01:54:55 2010 No.2209487 >>2209474 I live in New England... Its pretty cold here too lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:01:55 2010 No.2209527 >>2209487 12 farenheit? it gets far colder anyways and you have conservatives coming up here and messing things up

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:03:55 2010 No.2209539 >>2209471 Very. /sci/ is getting trolled hard today. >>2209474 >scientists >on /sci/ Having a degree in biology doesn't make you a scientist, kid. Being uncut and graduating top of your Math 55 class is the real measure of a scientist!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:06:55 2010 No.2209557 >>2209539 there's a word in latin for guys like you "fuckhead" i define a scientist as one who uses the scientific method to explain the world around him

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:07:55 2010 No.2209560 File: 35 KB, 149x126, robutnik.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2209539 >mth55

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:08:55 2010 No.2209566 >>2209557 >Didn't take Math 55 Wow, what a loser. By the way, a bachelor's degree from Germany makes you a scientist. You know the Germans make good stuff.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:08:55 2010 No.2209568 shut eyes continue to suck adam smith's invisible dick repeat

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:09:55 2010 No.2209572 >>2209527 Yeah man it was 14degrees today! I got a bit of frostnip on my hands... caught me totally off guard! I didnt expect it to be so cold...

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:11:55 2010 No.2209582

>>2209566
i don't give a fuck if i didn't take math55, does it make me a better person?
academia=/=real world success
struggling through math55 proves that you're willing to spend the rest of your life in a room doing math
why not do something more useful?
not to say pure math is useless, but discovering shit in pure math is half the battle, using it to explain stuff is the half /sci/ forgot. a scientist must endeavour to improve the world around them, not be the most prestigeous

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:12:55 2010 No.2209585 >>2209572 okay it's pretty cold where you are if you love canada so much move here but not to alberta. albertans are fuckers

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:13:55 2010 No.2209589 >>2209582 don't let the assburgers get to you, they dominate the board, but should be pitied rather than respected.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:16:55 2010 No.2209603 >>2209585 too broke dude =\ im barely surviving in the economy! lol being a grad student kinda sucks. But hopefully I can move up there. It costs a bit to migrate there and paying all those fees for citizenship sucks =[

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:18:55 2010 No.2209610

There is no argument in the world that can convince me that a flat tax isn't superior. You earn more, you pay more, simple as that. If you earn too little money to survive then after you've paid your taxes the government can send you aid.

Income tax didn't even exist until the New Deal era and everything worked fine. There is no reason why a person must pay out a higher percentage of their earning just because they earn more money. Everyone should pay the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:22:55 2010 No.2209630 >>2209610 Good Luck getting that back on board... It did work for a while. Especially during the eras you stated... Dont know if it can really work now though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:23:55 2010 No.2209633 >>2209610 flat tax is awesome! wealthy people pay less than now, middle class pays more, and poor people starve! atlas shrugs...

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:24:55 2010 No.2209635

>>2209603
damn that sucks
brave it until you can i guess
>>2209610
given a flat tax of 20%
$30000 gives you $24000 left over
$100000 gives you $80000 left over
$500000 gives you $400000 left over
total of 126000 collected
given progressive 15,17,28
$30000-->$25500
$100000-->$83000
$500000-->$360000
total of 161500 collected

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:32:55 2010 No.2209668

>>2209610

Flat tax is extremely regressive. I could explain why it is regressive, if you would understand, but clearly you don't care about anything except your ideology because "no argument in the world" is going to change your mind.

Fuck poor people, right?

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:34:55 2010 No.2209674

Yes, extend the bush tax cuts because bushonomic policies didn't contribute to market failure and bush didn't blow the rich at ever turn (obama does too, dont worry).

*Looks around at US*

Yep. Rich poor gap, poverty line, health statistics, everything looks arlight to me. I'll enjoy my slightly colder slightly hockey-ier paradise to the north

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:40:55 2010 No.2209697

Worht mentioning -

when millionares get taxed 10% and non millionares get taxed 5% it works like this

I earn 2 million dollars. The first million is taxed at 10%, the 2nd is taxed at 5, so I pay 150thou in tax.

I earn a million and one dollars. I pay 50thou and 10 cents.

getit?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:41:55 2010 No.2209701 >>2209697 >worth mentioning Not really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 02:47:55 2010 No.2209719 "everything worked fine until the new deal" the depression seems to have slipped your mind eh?

Arguements for Tax breaks 4 Rich Anonymous Thu Dec 16 03:01:55 2010 No.2209786

The really fundamental argument as to why rich people ought to get tax breaks has to do with incentives...
If you tax rich people less, the rich people have more money. Now that rich person is going to do one of two things with that extra money:
1.) Spend it. Nothing too exciting here. If the rich person didn't spend it the government would have spent it anyway. Net economic gain= 0.
2.) Invest. When rich people aren't spending their money, they're using it to make more money. They invest in stocks, bonds and variety of other assets (like subprime mortgage CDOs, but I wouldn't mention that one in your arguement). When they invest that money it allows other people and corporations to carry out economic activity and fuel that fire. For instance a corporation will buy a new machine to make computers at less cost, which means that consumers can buy them for less which means more computers will be sold etc.
Invest II: The Return of the Rich When you tax the living shit out of the rich, they wake up on January 1st, after swilling champagne and caviar all night to this sad realization: "From today until August, every minute of every day I work, I will be working for Uncle Sam. He will take away all that money I earn, and only after August will I be really working for myself." That is a shitty way to wake up in the morning and a huge disincentive to go out and work hard. Why create some new business if you're just going to see it all get taxed away. Even worse is the scenario where the rich guy realizes he has an awesome business idea but can't afford to put it into action because uncle Sam took too much of the monies. Employees and capital (ie machines) are not expensive like a Mercedes Benz is expensive. They're order of magnitude more expensive.

I'm an econ major. Please comment if you like, this is the only practical use I have ever gotten out of my major.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 03:26:55 2010 No.2209875

>>2209786
Simple: Because your a citizen of a greater nation. In order to benefit from the privileges of the society you prescribe to, you must pay taxes to maintain said society.
Put simply: Citizenship isn't free, pay your damn taxes, quit bitching when your earning more money AFTER taxes per-year then most do in a lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 16 03:35:55 2010 No.2209900 >>2208591 Unfortunately you're wrong, as is Ayn Rand, and a majority of the Republican party. PS: I'm also against welfare when it just gives out money with little to no incentive for them to get a job.

Anonymous Thu Dec 16 03:41:55 2010 No.2209914

>>2209786
You are assuming a capitalist environment. With such high costs to entry as there is, and such little competition in key market sectors, we can't blindly apply Adam Smith style capitalism.

Maybe if all of our important products had more than 10 actual producers, preferably more.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]