Mods, let me begin by saying if this is not the appropriate place for this, just tell me to delete this thread, and I will. Then I will keep this shit out of /sci/. Does /sci/ feel that people get the kind of government they deserve?

File: 104 KB, 654x480, fox news.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:06:01 2011 No.3398804 [Reply] [Original]

Mods, let me begin by saying if this is not the appropriate place for this, just tell me to delete this thread, and I will. Then I will keep this shit out of /sci/.

Does /sci/ feel that people get the kind of government they deserve?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:08:01 2011 No.3398817 Im just crossing my fingers we default.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:10:01 2011 No.3398825

>>3398804
In democracies, yes. In my experience (I am a New Zealander) the NZ governments of late have always been good, whether you agree with their ideology or not. I think the political system has its own way of making sure that dickheads never rise to too much power, and that there are always hard working good people at the top of the food chain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:12:06 2011 No.3398832 File: 169 KB, 400x400, 1295028939721.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw i'll still be on vacation in Canada when this happens and i bet i'll be able to just stay there forever

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:13:01 2011 No.3398839 >>3398804 exactly what happens if we default

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:15:01 2011 No.3398845
File: 35 KB, 517x373, 19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3398825
>I think the political system has its own way of making sure that dickheads never rise to too much power
>there are always hard working good people at the top of the food chain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:15:01 2011 No.3398848 >>3398839 Money doesn't exist anyway.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:16:01 2011 No.3398854

>>3398839
From what I understand countries will stop trading with us and therefore our economy will stutter to a halt when there's no more resources. By the time we are able to create our own resources the economy will be in shambles.

I could be completely wrong though, and probably am. I like to think the second the clock hits midnight everything will blow up and the dead will rise. A man can dream.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:17:01 2011 No.3398863 >>3398839 our economy and status as super power instantly fail. World economy dips for massive depression. Riots, revolution, rape. I imagine it'll be fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:18:01 2011 No.3398866 >>3398854 I just can't wait for the riots

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:18:01 2011 No.3398867 Guys Guys What if Guys listen What if we Bear with me here What if we dismantled the Federal Reserve? What would happen?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:19:01 2011 No.3398874 >>3398867 Another Depression, which will make us wish that we only had a recession.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:19:01 2011 No.3398876 >>3398866 >>3398863 hive mind

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:19:01 2011 No.3398878

>>3398854
I don;t think so? Just USA's ability to pay back debt will be called into question - other countries will be unwilling to lend, and the value of government bonds will plummet. The real issue with a debt ceiling is that the government can't go into any more debt - and will have to drastically cut back on government spending. While I'm for reduced government spending, this would be too extreme.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:20:01 2011 No.3398880 >>3398863 this may be exactly what we need I hope their actually does end up being some type of revolution

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:20:01 2011 No.3398881 >>3398867 >>3398874 basically good shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:22:01 2011 No.3398890 >>3398863 >our status as a super power >and king of the world >and really hot bitches >and technology which is far superior >and superior intellect >fuck we are awesome >what is arrogance

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:22:01 2011 No.3398892 Sounds like I need to buy lots of cigarettes, dip, and toilet paper. People will always want cigs, dip, and toilet paper.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:22:01 2011 No.3398893

>>3398878
I have heard something similar to that too. It seems there are a lot of rumors flying around about what will truly happen. My counter point to you is that countries want money, and therefore will continue to try to trade with the US. We are the largest economy in the world, so countries will want to trade with us. Since at least they will get payment from interest. This statement also has counter points that can be made. Guess we have to just wait and see what will truly happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:23:01 2011 No.3398902 >>3398892 I can't fault your logic. Think I should get to the store...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:23:01 2011 No.3398904 >>3398890 Are you implying that the US isn't a superpower?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:24:01 2011 No.3398909 File: 56 KB, 413x570, 1303552202090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I wonder which social services america will cut before they even consider reducing their military spending.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:24:01 2011 No.3398915 >>3398909 All of them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:24:01 2011 No.3398916 >>3398909 What is "all of them"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:25:01 2011 No.3398921 >>3398909 I'll take all of them for 500 points.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:25:01 2011 No.3398922

>>3398893
Exactly, USA's wealth is built in physical infrastructure and assets. It's not like that disappears overnight. The real harm comes years later, when USA is no longer top of the world. In some ways this is fair, it's just globalization - America should invest more in education and science to keep ahead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:26:01 2011 No.3398928 >Warren Buffet gets his multi-billionaire friends together >They sign a request asking Congress to raise taxes on them And the Tea Baggers can't even object. Problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:26:01 2011 No.3398931 >>3398922 Ah you see, you've made a mistake there. What you said makes to much sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:28:01 2011 No.3398945 >>3398928 You really think this has anything to do with taxes? It's just a symbol for the size and scope of the federal government. Tea Party people want to take a machete and start hacking at everything. "Kill the beast" is the war chant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:29:01 2011 No.3398946 >>3398928 >he thinks warren buffet or any rich faggot would ever do this i dont even know whether to be angry at your statement or to feel bad for you for your naivety

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:34:01 2011 No.3398975 >>3398928 While taxing the rich certainly would help, it is far from solely responsible. A lot of structural work needs to be done. It would be nice if it was that simple.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:34:01 2011 No.3398976 >>3398928 Warren Buffet votes democrat. I don't think he has many multi-million dollar friends. Also, taxing the rich is fine, to an extent, but it's ridiculous to think that tax on the rich will raise enough money to even make a dent in the debt.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:49:01 2011 No.3399062

>It's not like that disappears overnight.
it can happen quite quickly.

example: us mineral mining

pretty much the moment the last significant piece of infrastructure was destroyed/sold off, china raised their prices far above our old prices, lit up a cigar and said 's' just business.'

it's been estimated that it will take over 50 years to rebuild all that infrastructure if we started last year.

of course, earlier this year it was 'leaked' that afghanistan supposedly holds even more rare earth mineral than the us.

perhaps another 1970s oil pact agreement will happen, but this time with lithium. it's pretty much the only way the dollar can keep its value.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 23:56:56 2011 No.3399087 >>3398976 >yfw taxes over a million dollars used to be 90%, but now it's 35%, usually less >yfw IBM paid $0 in taxes one or two years ago.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:01:56 2011 No.3399104 [DELETED]

File: 78 KB, 399x301, christmas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3399087
mfw you try and tax the rich at 90% and they all leave and go and live in dubai and then don't donate money to the rest of america so america gets poorer and the poor suffer and america defaults on it's debt resulting in the rest of the economy collapsing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:06:01 2011 No.3399128 File: 25 KB, 960x720, U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3398909 Well, they do cost more than defense...

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:07:56 2011 No.3399133 [DELETED]

>>3399087
>>3399087

>>yfw IBM paid $0 in taxes one or two years ago.

they paid $0 in taxes in the US.

they paid >$0 taxes in some other country where they are now "located" (tax haven, most likely Ireland).

if the US lowered corporate taxes, it would not cause these big companies to do this.

we can either have high corporate taxes, fuck over small businesses that hire the majority of the people in the US and keep forcing big businesses into tax havens, or LOWER corporate taxes, and keep the big companies paying taxes here in the US, while helping small businesses.

the only people who disagree with this are naive little children who are still in high school, or retarded undergraduate philosophy majors who do not understand economics and simply repeat the "seemingly obvious" liberal line.

if you even think about it for 10 seconds, let alone go out and learn something about economics, you would realize how much of a tool you are to believe that raising taxes is a good idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:10:01 2011 No.3399144 >>3398839 Just look at what happened in Greece. It would be similar here.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:11:01 2011 No.3399156

>>3399104
>>3399133
Do you not realize we can raise taxes on companies located OUTSIDE the US and not the ones INSIDE?

Back in the day we called them tariffs. You use them to make it too expensive for a company outside your area to compete with local business.

Shit like that you learn in 6th grade man, at least in the US.

We can even make taxes on companies based on how much U.S. based workforce they have.

>inb4
"but then they lose money!"

We STOP losing money because that's where our money goes - outside the country. The U.S. is losing over 60 billion dollars in year in exports. So either we start making 60 billion or more in exports, or we control how much our country buys from outside the U.S, stopping our money from leaving the country.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:14:01 2011 No.3399165 >>3399133 It's sad how true that is, but if we let corporations walk all over us then we will be just as fucked

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:18:01 2011 No.3399193 >Thinking that going into more debt is the solution to avoid default This is what Democrats actually believe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:20:01 2011 No.3399204 File: 96 KB, 734x450, obamafsjal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think it would be great if the US defaulted.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:20:56 2011 No.3399203 File: 6 KB, 200x200, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3399156 >2011 >Believing that protectionism makes a nation wealthier I seriously hope you guys don't do this...

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:24:01 2011 No.3399235

>>3399156
Tariffs. Fuck, take a fucking economics course you illiterate twat. Someone once described free trade (no tariffs) as promising to not shoot yourself in the foot if they promise not to shoot themselves in the foot too. You aren't going to fix the economy by making stuff more expensive. All you do is fuck up quality of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:30:01 2011 No.3399275 >>3399156 http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:35:01 2011 No.3399300

>>3399275
>>3399235
>>3399203
And economists are the ones who supported the sub-prime meltdown, George's tax cuts which have created 0 net jobs, and appearantly opposed NAFTA while claiming free trade is better.

Bottom line: people from China aren't buying American goods. Our money is leaving the country. No matter how much you say "this theory shows we're helping the economy" YOU ARE WRONG. 100% FACTUALLY INCORRECT. WE HAVE NOT MADE MORE GOODS. WE ARE NOT MAKING MONEY. YOU HYPOTHESES, THOUGH LOGICALLY SOUND IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCE, HAVE PROVEN FALSE THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION. THE SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:38:01 2011 No.3399311 >>3399300 > And economists are the ones who supported the sub-prime meltdown > implying it wasn't government intrusion that created the meltdown This is what liberals actually believe.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:39:01 2011 No.3399315 >>3399300 Economists aren't perfect, but generally speaking they know more about trade than some idiot on the internet ranting about some vague correlation based on a bunch of false premises.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:40:01 2011 No.3399319 >>3399311 To be fair, many economists support the intervention that led to the GFC.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:44:01 2011 No.3399328

>>3399319
Not to mention they were the ones who told the goddamn business they should do it because there's little to no risk of failure.

>>3399311
>government intrusion
>government didn't insure risky loans
>government permitted businesses to make insurances on risky loans, THEY SPECIFICALLY FUCKING DEREGULATED IT FROM 2002-2004 YOU IDIOT

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:45:01 2011 No.3399330 >>3399311 >Regulation is bad This is what conservatards actually believe.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 00:48:01 2011 No.3399342

>>3398878
If our ability to repay debt is called into question it will cost more for us to borrow. That increase is passed along to everyone, which is effectively the same as tax hikes. But now the money goes to other nations instead of to paying off our own debt.

>>3399133
So you are saying that IBM chose to pay $0 in taxes because they would currently have to pay (an arbitrarily picked tax rate) 10% if they 'officially' conducted business in the states. However, if they only had to pay a 5% reduced rate, you argue, they would choose to pay that versus the $0 they currently pay? I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree; I bet they keep paying $0.

Why not fix the tax loophole and get SOME revenue?
This is the thing that gets me: We didn't suddenly have a debt crisis. We have been in serious deficit mode for decades now. This was not Bush's fault. This is not Obama's fault. This is CONGRESS' fault. Why not ask the long-term delegates from both parties to resign?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:49:01 2011 No.3399351

>>3399328
Nope.jpg
The government encouraged all that behavior by removing any sort of penalty for failure. Only an idiot would be surprised when that sort of system got abused. It was government intrusion that caused this entire mess, and it's government intrusion that's making it worse.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:51:01 2011 No.3399355

>>3399328
>Implying government didn't directly intervene with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac
>Implying the primary cause isn't their interest rate policy
>Implying you can actually point to a single example of "deregulation" and explain how it caused the crisis

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:51:01 2011 No.3399356 >>3399342 Because that would make too much sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:52:01 2011 No.3399361 >>3398867 is that you Ron

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:53:01 2011 No.3399365

>>3399342
> Why not fix the tax loophole and get SOME revenue?

Because raising taxes kills jobs. It gives businesses an incentive to go somewhere else if they can afford to, and the ones that can't afford to go somewhere else can't afford the taxes either, and so they fold. Raising taxes is a fucking terrible idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:54:01 2011 No.3399371 >>3399351 >agree government intrusion caused the failure >yet somehow trying to argue less regulations are better, when they caused the failure neverhaveIseensomeonederpthishard.jpg

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:56:01 2011 No.3399380

>>3399365
You know what happens when large business fail? Supply of those goes down. Other people charge more. Business and competition thrive.

Or maybe you're prefer the government to tell everyone how much to pay for everything for the 3 companies it lets control everything you "capitalist"

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:56:01 2011 No.3399382 >>3399371 "Removing penalties for failure" isn't the same as deregulation. Look up moral hazard.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 00:58:01 2011 No.3399387 >>3399380 >Implying you know the optimal firm size better than the market process does

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:58:01 2011 No.3399389 >>3399371 Uh.... what? Do you think government intrusion caused the failure or do you think less regulations cause the failure? Cause those are opposites.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:59:01 2011 No.3399395

ANYONE IN HERE WHO THINKS THE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS WOULD EVER LET THE COUNTRY DEFAULT IS A FUCKING MORON WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN TROLLED BY THE MEDIA.. think about it .. if the us defaults the credit system goes to shit.. money goes to shit and all the banks that bankrolled the money sucking politicians will be no more.. so before you think that a default is even possible please use ur better judgement.. realize this.. the only question you need to ask is this : WHY ARE THEY LYING TO US? WHY ARE THEY ACTING LIKE THEY WILL NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING.. the govt will never let the us default.. and if any republican or democrat says they will THEY ARE LYING THRU THEIR TEETH.. you and i think its ok for the us to default n the credit system to go to shit.. but thats because we have no money anyway.. but they have worked their whole lives to have their lifestyles.. they dont give a fuck about you and they will do what ever it takes to stay wealthy and away from you MORONS.. please stop being fucking sheep and think .. FUCKERS

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 00:59:01 2011 No.3399399

>>3399355
How is the interest rate policy a cause?
>>3399365
So raising taxes is a bad idea because some assholes refuse to put anything back into this country? I guess cutting revenue is a much better idea for paying off the deficit. Like taking a pay cut to pay off my credit card faster.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:03:01 2011 No.3399407

>>3399365
But if Congressional Republicans don't agree to tax reform/increases, and we default, those businesses will have to pay higher interest rates to borrow capital. Sure IBM will be fine (although they will bitch and moan), but small businesses will be hit hard.

On one hand you can force businesses to pay their taxes (and lets face it, tax loop holes only affect big corporations), which will slow the economy.

On the other hand, we can default which will increase the cost of borrowing (and this will mostly affect small businesses, since they don't have fluid capital on hand) and slow the economy.

Shit sucks doesn't it?
But if we slow things with taxes at least the money stays in the US. Defaulting sends more greenbacks to China.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:04:01 2011 No.3399410 >>3399382 >>3399389 PENALTIES FOR FAILURE IS A REGULATION. REMOVING THAT IS DEREGULATION. God, are you guys that dense.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:06:01 2011 No.3399418

>>3399399
>So raising taxes is a bad idea because some assholes refuse to put anything back into this country?

Um, yes? You can be mad at business for not having the proper civic spirit if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true. Since it is true, raising taxes becomes a bad idea.

>I guess cutting revenue is a much better idea for paying off the deficit. Like taking a pay cut to pay off my credit card faster.
I'm not sure why you bring up "cutting revenue". That's not anyone's idea. The alternative is cutting *spending*. I don't need to make a credit card analogy for it to be obvious how important cutting spending is when you have built up ridiculous debt.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:09:01 2011 No.3399428

>>3399410
Nope.jpg
The market already has a penalty for failure. It's called "you lose the money you invested because it was a fucking stupid idea." Government intervention means that people don't end up losing their money because if they fuck up they can just get a handout from the government. So people end up just pissing all the money away on bad investments and expect the government to clean it up, which it does, with taxpayer money. This is why government intervention in a financial market is always a shit idea.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:10:01 2011 No.3399430

>>3399399
>>I guess cutting revenue is a much better idea for paying off the deficit. Like taking a pay cut to pay off my credit card faster.

Bad example. Taking a pay cut would be like us giving additional tax breaks in this personal-finance-analogy. Spending cuts would be like canceling your health insurance and deciding to eat only ramen noodles form now on.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:11:01 2011 No.3399436

>>3399418
I never ruled out cutting spending. But cutting taxes IS cutting revenue. Congressional Republicans want to cut taxes as much as spending.
And my main problem is with the big corporations and their executives who will let this country go to shit because we expect them to make some fucking sacrifices along with the rest of the nation. I'm sorry if a tax hike on the top 1% means they will only have $8 dollars instead of $10. Greedy fucks.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:11:01 2011 No.3399438

>>3399418
YOU FUCKING MORONS.. 85% of the population owns 10% of the wealth.,. tax 90% of the wealth.. why the fuck not .. are you a moron,, or are you happy with being butt fucked by the rich,.. i am so sick an tired of you dumb fuck poorfags supporting the rich.. YOU FUCKING BITCH! YOU ARE POOR AS FUCK! YOU ARE A SHIT SMEAR IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.. GO KILL YOURSELF.. i cant believe you would actually support the rich over your own.. you fucking STUPID IMBECILE.. GO FUCKING DIE

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:11:01 2011 No.3399439

>>3399410
>PENALTIES FOR FAILURE IS A REGULATION.

No! Have you been living in a cave for the past 4 years? The penalty for failure that was removed was the possibility of default when you put your money in a risky loan. This was removed by the government giving billions of dollars to companies that made such risky loans. It creates a moral hazard where individuals engage in risky behavior because they know they will be bailed out if it turns out poorly, so there's no risk them.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:11:56 2011 No.3399435 [DELETED]

>>3399428
So intervening by removing the laws forbidding them to engage in risky business isn't deregulation? That's what we've been talking about this whole time. No hopping the train mid transit faggot, as I completely agree that giving the business money is wrong, except THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. NO FUCKING STRAWMAN ON THIS SHIT YOU NIGGER

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:14:01 2011 No.3399448 >>3399439 It doesn't matter the sense it used. The government removed the laws protecting people from doing stupid irresponsible things. Removed them. REMOVED THE REGULATIONS.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:14:01 2011 No.3399449

>>3399418
How about we leave taxes alone, but close the loopholes so that large corporations have to pay what they should already be paying. The crazy thing is, it would make it easier for small businesses to compete, because now the little guy pays the same tax rates as the big guy (something and something versus something and nothing)

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:14:01 2011 No.3399451

>>3399430
Cutting taxes is cutting revenue. Unless the government starts issuing a shitload of bonds to cover it's revenue, cutting taxes will make it harder to pay down the deficit.

What both sides need to realize is that money=debt. Having a deficit isn't the problem. It's all the other shit we're doing that costs us a fuckton of money. Cutting taxes when we have two major foreign wars going on is fucking retarded.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:14:01 2011 No.3399452

>>3399395
Defaulting and not raising the debt ceiling are two totally seperate issues, and it annoys me to no end how the two have become confused.

>>3399399
>How is the interest rate policy a cause?
Rates were too low in the wake of the DotCom burst, which eventually led to malinvestments throughout the economy. As rates rose back up these investments were realised for the unsustainable ventures they were.

>>3399407
>But if Congressional Republicans don't agree to tax reform/increases, and we default, those businesses will have to pay higher interest rates to borrow capital.
Rates will only rise if there is a reduction in loanable funds or the risk is viewed to be higher. The former won't be effected by a default and the latter will only impact the entity that has shown itself to be risky i.e. the US government.

>>3399410
>PENALTIES FOR FAILURE IS A REGULATION.
We're talking economic penalties as in "make bad business decisions and you have to deal with it yourself. Penalties and incentives do exist independant of government policy.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:16:01 2011 No.3399457

> But cutting taxes IS cutting revenue.

Nope.jpg

Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue. Lower taxes means more money for people and businesses to spend, leading to more spending, more employment, more paychecks, and thus more money collected through taxes.

Lower tax rates = better economy = more jobs/spending = more revenue.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:16:56 2011 No.3399459 [DELETED]

File: 131 KB, 500x333, 3368425688_49d0b8cf0c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3399438
>fags get enraged when the poor don't want to steal from others
>mfw

In addition, I always find it strange when people claim that poor in the US (or any free market country) are getting screwed over. Would you rather be poor in China, North Korea, or the USSR back in the 80s? It's always nicer to be richer rather than not, but if you've got to be poor, I'd rather be poor in a free market country.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:19:01 2011 No.3399467

The United States federal government cannot default as an entity to outside sources:
"[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
14th amendment motherfuckers. After reconstruction there were fears that the south would gain a majority in Congress and actually force the government to default. A provision was put in place mandating that the federal government cannot default on foreign debt.

As far as money owed by the fed to it's citizens is a different story. Social Security and the like are obvious chopping blocks.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:20:01 2011 No.3399468

>>3399430
>Spending cuts would be like canceling your health insurance and deciding to eat only ramen noodles form now on.
Hardly. With the amount of spending and taxing going on, a more appropriate analogy would be:

Tax increases = getting a second job on top of your current 80 hour a week job to pay off your credit card debt

Spending cuts: Cutting back on your gambling, hookers and blow habit.

>>3399435
>So intervening by removing the laws forbidding them to engage in risky business isn't deregulation?
What laws?

>>3399448
>The government removed the laws protecting people from doing stupid irresponsible things. Removed them. REMOVED THE REGULATIONS.
What laws? What regulations?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:20:01 2011 No.3399469

>>3399449
Fucking this. Stop giving the oil companies subsidies. If they can't be profitable without government handouts, they should fucking fail. Make them pay their taxes, and then direct that tax revenue into alternative energy research.
Make mother fucking Bank of America pay some taxes. I know they make money, because they keep raping my grandma's checking account.
Close that corporate jet loophole people keep talking about. If you can't afford a private jet, you don't fucking get one. I can't afford a private jet, so I don't have one. I'd also like to know how the CEO of a corporation that had to crawl on its knees to the government for help to keep their business from becoming insolvent deserves a fucking bonus.
"Here's your reward for nearly bankrupting your business, and raiding your employee's pension funds to keep your yacht fueled."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:21:01 2011 No.3399471 >>3399451 2 foreign wars? Where the fuck have I been? What's the 2 nd one

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:21:01 2011 No.3399474 >>3399459 >It's worse somewhere else, so your problems don't matter! Nice fallacy, bro.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:22:01 2011 No.3399476
File: 17 KB, 470x292, head_explode-470x327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3399452
>>Rates will only rise if [...] the risk is viewed to be higher. [...] will only impact the entity that has shown itself to be risky i.e. the US government.

And the US government paying higher rates =/= the US PEOPLE/COMPANIES paying higher rates?

Pic related: it's me, just right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:22:01 2011 No.3399478 >>3399471 Iraq AND Afganistan.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:22:01 2011 No.3399479

>>3399457
>Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue. Lower taxes means more money for people and businesses to spend, leading to more spending, more employment, more paychecks, and thus more money collected through taxes.
Technically, that depends on what side of the laffer curve you're on, althought the laffer curve is flawed in the sense that it doesn't analyse effects over time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:25:01 2011 No.3399486 >>3399478 those don't fall under the same war? (Sorry if that's poorly worded I suck with words)

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:26:01 2011 No.3399488 >>3399476 >And the US government paying higher rates =/= the US PEOPLE/COMPANIES paying higher rates? No. People and companies, generally speaking, borrow via private financial institutions, not the government.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:26:01 2011 No.3399490

>>3399468
Oh my fucking god:

"The penalty for failure that was removed was the possibility of default when you put your money in a risky loan. This was removed by the government giving billions of dollars to companies that made such risky loans. It creates a moral hazard where individuals engage in risky behavior because they know they will be bailed out if it turns out poorly, so there's no risk them."

YOU JUST FUCKING SAID THAT CHRIST. THAT WAS THE DEREGULATION. IT WAS ILLEGAL TO DO SO BEFORE. THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T SAY "HEY WE'LL BACK YOUR RISKY LOANS", THEY SAID "MAKE THE RISKY LOANS, WE GIVE YOU THE OPTION NOW"

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:26:01 2011 No.3399491

>>3399469
> Stop giving the oil companies subsidies.
We don't. It's bullshit the environmentalists cooked up to try to get people mad so that they don't think straight, because if people actually took two seconds to think they'd realize that the greens are all full of shit.

> Make them pay their taxes
Raising taxes on businesses is a fucking terrible idea. Try learning economics before you start spouting liberal shit.

> then direct that tax revenue into alternative energy research.
Alternative energy is probably one of the biggest cons in American history. If there was anything to it, the free market would have been all over that years ago, and in a much more efficient way than the shit government job we've been seeing. Alternative energy is a fucking terrible place to put tax revenue.

>>	Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:27:01 2011 No.3399492 >>3399478 And, to a lesser extent: Korea (Good ol' Kimmie), Pakistan (drones, commando raids), Mexico and South America (drug wars), 'advisory' and coalition forces in Libya, Syria, Egypt...

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:27:01 2011 No.3399493

>>3399474
Cool misrepresentation bro, but consider this:
>the free market gives the best outcomes for the poor out of any system in the world, therefore its the best.

Maybe the poor are getting "screwed over" compared to some imaginary system that doesn't exist anywhere currently. But of all the systems that do exist, the free market is the one that is empirically and historically best for the poor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:29:01 2011 No.3399498 Guys... Guys... What if... What if... Guys... What if we increase the income tax to 70%?

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:30:01 2011 No.3399499

>>3399490
This is just becoming pointless unless you're willing to cite exactly what regulations were removed and how this caused the crisis. I've already requested this of you several times. Screaming DEREGULATION in all caps on the internet doesn't mean that it happened.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:31:01 2011 No.3399501

>>3399492
don't forget the maintenance of the vast US empires excessive military bases on every motherfucking continent. And or massive spending on things like AIRCRAFT.

The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force
The second largest is the US Navy.

Not a fucking joke. Also The US Army has its own air force and its own Navy. Why the fuck do you need so much military? Most of which isn't used for defense or for our current wars? IT MAKES ME MAD

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:31:56 2011 No.3399500 >>3399491 >yfw nuclear energy required 25 billion in government spending to come to fruition, let alone the billions dumped into nuclear science and all that jazz

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:32:01 2011 No.3399503

>>3399493
> compared to some imaginary system that doesn't exist anywhere currently.

And your free market isn't one of those? Name a country with a truly free market. Like a truly communist country, there isn't one. It's simply impossible to be purely a free market or communist or what have you. The real questions are where along the giant spectrum of mixed markets do you sit, where do you want to be, and where is the best place to be.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:34:01 2011 No.3399506

>>3399490
>>THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T SAY "HEY WE'LL BACK YOUR RISKY LOANS", THEY SAID "MAKE THE RISKY LOANS, WE GIVE YOU THE OPTION NOW"

Um, I hate to be rude, but you're just ignorant. The risky loans in question, the that caused the crisis, subprime mortgages, were never illegal. Give me a link that says they were (you won't be able to) or kindly slink away from this thread in shame at the realization that you don't know anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:34:01 2011 No.3399508 >>3399500 > implying that isn't because of the crippling government regulations on nuclear energy > implying it's not the result of environazis spouting bullshit propaganda that leads sheeple to demand those regulations

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:34:01 2011 No.3399510

>>3399503
>Like a truly communist country, there isn't one.
Unless you want to take into consideration black markets, there have indeed been nations that have essentially banned all private economic activity.

>It's simply impossible to be purely a free market
[Citation needed]

>The real questions are where along the giant spectrum of mixed markets do you sit, where do you want to be, and where is the best place to be.
And not only theoretically, but empirically speaking, the further towards the free market idea the better.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:35:01 2011 No.3399511

>>3399491
Research your facts much?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/oil-and-gas-company-tax-breaks/
>>Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas
>>A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

>>Raising taxes on businesses is a fucking terrible idea. Try learning economics before you start spouting liberal shit.
Not raising, just enforcing the already existing laws.

>
>
>
>
>

Once again, we did not create this debt over night, so we won't solve it over night either. We have to raise income (fix tax holes) and cut spending (fewer hookers and drugs, as Walkman pointed out).

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:35:01 2011 No.3399513

>economists say...
You know what? Fuck economists. Fuck their theories and fuck their models shit doesn't work.
We need to get rid of our preconceptions and come up with a better and completely new economic system because the one we have is simply no good. Even in "good" years its the rich getting richer the poor getting nothing and the middle class doing all the fucking work.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:36:01 2011 No.3399517

>>3399491
The day corporates make any progress in energy is the day I eat my fucking foot.

There is no solid foundation for the idea that business will invest in anything but the most incremental, basic research possible. Tell me of an example and I will believe you.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:36:01 2011 No.3399518

>>3399457
Cutting taxes does cut direct revenue.

To state that people who would actually benefit from these tax increases are going to actually spend it is foolish.

Many of these people live paycheck to paycheck and are probably either going to put it in the bank or put it towards their mortgage.

>HURR MORE MONEY TO THE BANKS IS A GOOD THING

No it isn't. Although it increases their capital, it doesn't mean that more people are going to be taking out loans when they are incapable of paying them back in the first place.

Yes, interest rates are at rock bottom and now is a good time to borrow some dosh, but that doesnt mean the average home owner is going to renegotiate their mortgage or take out a long term loan in order to buy shit they don't need.

They will save their money for a rainy day, as per usual when the good times have long stopped rolling.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:37:01 2011 No.3399521

>>3399503
Hey, that's cool if you want to call what exists in the west something other than a "free market". Maybe it's a "mixed" economy or "western" economy or "purple" economy.

I'll leave it up to you because I don't know or care. But what I do know is that whatever this economy type it is, it is the best for the poor in both the world and all of history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:37:01 2011 No.3399524 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act For one

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:39:01 2011 No.3399527 >>3399517 There is no solid foundation for the idea that business won't invest in anything but the most incremental, basic research possible. Tell me of an example and I will believe you.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:40:01 2011 No.3399532

>>3399518
>people saving
>people living on paycheck to paycheck are going to save money
>they are going to save money somehow when tax breaks are only given to the richest Americans so they can promise to pay people more
wat

Anyway, cutting taxes cuts direct revenue because it's less money you're getting. Period. No amount of private re-investment will be more useful than actually paying for shit we're doing, like educating people or policing the country.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:41:01 2011 No.3399538

>>3399517
>>Tell me of an example and I will believe you.

Sequencing of the Human Genome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celera_Genomics
>Celera sequenced the human genome at a fraction of the cost of the public project, approximately $3 billion of taxpayer dollars versus about $300 million of private funding. However, it must be noted that a significant portion of the human genome had already been sequenced when Celera entered the field, and thus Celera did not incur any costs with obtaining the existing data, which was freely available to the public from GenBank. Celera's use of the shotgun strategy spurred the public HGP to change its own strategy, leading to a rapid acceleration of the public effort.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:41:01 2011 No.3399539 >>3399518 Eh. So we shouldn't pay for the shit we bought. Good idea. I'll inform civilization that money, trade and exchange are all meaningless cause "people don't benefit from tax increases"

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:41:01 2011 No.3399540

>>3399521
You do realize that "the west" isn't exactly monolithic when it comes to economic policies, right? There's variation in terms of the amount of government intervention in the market. Hell, it isn't even constant in a single country, it varies from decade to decade. If you want to take all of that, with all of it's variation, and just label it the free market and call it a day, that's great. But understand that it's like refusing to differentiate between Earth and Mars when you're talking about the solar system.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:42:01 2011 No.3399542

>>3399524
"For one"? You mean "the only one I could find on google/wikipedia as I rushed to find justification for the deregulation line I've been parroting"?

So how did that cause the crisis? Note that in the wake of the crisis, several takeovers of financial institutions which would otherwise have collapsed occured only because Glass-Steagal was no longer preventing them.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:44:01 2011 No.3399545

>>3399532
Why are we policing the country? That can be totally cut on a federal level, or at least cut back by a large degree. For instance the fucking US MARSHALS These guys have a mini air force, snipers, special ops units, and intelligence agents. The US marshals are more prepared and combat ready than the fucking army, and its been tested. Its fucking unconstitutional anyway.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:44:01 2011 No.3399546

Guys, I feel that we are getting side tracked arguing the same circular logic trains.

New questions:
If tax cuts create jobs, where are the jobs that should have been created during the Bush Era? Where are the jobs from the Obama-Bush extensions and Stimulus packages?
Fox Cites that the income gap widened in this time frame:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/28/recessions-impact-census-shows-growing-income-gap-young-adults-
children-big/
As does a liberal source:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-09-28-census-income-gap_N.htm

It seems that giving tax breaks increases profits for the corporations/stock holders, but does not create job growth.

>

Why are we not trying to hold our representatives accountable for getting us into this mess? This is not a controlling-party or presidential thing. This is a decades long raping of our generation by our parents.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:45:01 2011 No.3399550

>>3399527
Tesla Roadster. Already a car on the road, gets around ~244mpc, goes from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, can produce up to 285 horsepower, and is less than $100k.

No other company has ever even come CLOSE, let alone even TRIED to use the same parts, or even better ones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:46:01 2011 No.3399552 >>3399542 Exactly, they should've collapsed. Deregulation let them make horrible risks, and not suffer for it. Less competition on the market. Direct loss of profit and taxes. From the stuff you advocate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:46:01 2011 No.3399554 >>3399550 Because it's preposterously expensive, uncompetitive, inefficient, and requires infrastructure that doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:47:01 2011 No.3399558 >>3399552 > Deregulation let them make horrible risks, and not suffer for it. No, government bailouts let them do that.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:48:01 2011 No.3399561 >>3399550 Wait, so your example of the fact that business won't create revolutionary products is an example of a business creating a revolutionary product?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:49:01 2011 No.3399562

>>3399527
When a privately owned company develops a brand new technology that has 0% knowable probability of being profitable (computers and nuclear power being examples of public projects), then I will eat my own corn filled shit.

Until then, corporate science, tech and research will continue having the stereotype of being shady, shitty and a joke.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:49:01 2011 No.3399565 >>3399558 Government never said they would bail them out in advance. Ever. There were no laws preventing the government from bailing them out.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:50:01 2011 No.3399571 >>3399552 They did suffer. They went broke. Thankfully the few productive resources they did have were allowed to be bought out by other companies, largely because the government no longer stopped them from doing so.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:51:01 2011 No.3399572

>>3399546
I think you need to familiarize yourself with a lot of the terminology. Nothing you presented had anything to do with job creation. The "income gap" is the ratio of income of the poor to the rich. So if everyone gets more income, but the poor get 1% more while the rich get 2% more, then the income gap increases. Also, the tax cuts were in effect in both 2008, 2009, and 2010. So you wouldn't expect the tax cuts to increase employment in 2010 relative to 2008, since it existed in *both* periods. And comparing it to the 1960s is silly as well because a million things have changed in the US economy since then besides the Bush tax cuts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:52:01 2011 No.3399576 >>3399561 That wasn't a large business. It really even wasn't a BUSINESS until they had the opportunity to sell a car. GE never invests in the shit they did, Mobil didn't, nobody does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:53:01 2011 No.3399578 look at em scamper

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:53:30 2011 No.3399577 [DELETED]

>>3399561
No, it means only 1 out of every 1 million companies will try. Because they're run by a bottom-line, and not by people that will have money regardless, aka the government.

It's easier to dedicate billions of dollars to something when that money will continue to come regardless where it's spent.

And I wouldn't call the Tesla car revolutionary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:54:01 2011 No.3399580 File: 28 KB, 720x571, meanhouseholdincome1967to2009.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3399572 Keep eating that shit faggot. The rich have more money, the rest of us don't.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:54:01 2011 No.3399581

>>3399562
>When a privately owned company develops a brand new technology that has 0% knowable probability of being profitable
The private sector won't invest in projects that have no potential of being worth more than what they cost (how a profit is made). This isn't a bad thing and this is an incredibly retarded criteria to apply.

>>3399565
>Government never said they would bail them out in advance.
The fact that bailouts have occured regularly in recent history, combined with the direct intervention of government in affected markets like housing, made this an incredibly strong implication.

>>	Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 01:55:01 2011 No.3399584 >>3399572 Except that the tax cuts and stimulus packages are supposed to encourage businesses to hire more people, which causes more money to 'trickle down', which should prevent the income gap from widening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:57:01 2011 No.3399589 >>3399581 >implying implications

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 01:58:01 2011 No.3399594

>>3399576
>That wasn't a large business.
So? Maybe small businesses are better at revolutionary research. If so this isn't a bad thing.

>It really even wasn't a BUSINESS until they had the opportunity to sell a car.
PROTIP: Businesses generally make investments before they sell products. Trying to define the period prior to selling products as "not a business" is pants-on-head retarded.

>>3399577
>No, it means only 1 out of every 1 million companies will try. Because they're run by a bottom-line, and not by people that will have money regardless, aka the government.
>It's easier to dedicate billions of dollars to something when that money will continue to come regardless where it's spent.
So your argument against corporate investment is that they won't do it unless there is a payoff at the end? This isn't a bad thing.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 01:58:01 2011 No.3399595

>>3399581
If we left it up to companies, we would have never developed computers, cellphones or even the fucking car.

Companies can do NOTHING but improve on that which makes them money. They are there to provide a living for those who run them, not as a public service or a wartime protector. Only the most dedicated and the richest have any reason to invest in untested research, such as Tesla or Bill Gates.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:00:01 2011 No.3399606

>>3399501
So, running 3 wars, escalating 1, saying you're stopping one and not doing so (you thought we were out of Iraq because he said so?), means Obama is really working for that Nobel Peace Prize, right? 'Cuz you can't have peace if you don't have war first?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:00:01 2011 No.3399607

>>3399580
I'm sorry, I thought I was a person, not a household.
>In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quarter of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household demographics, median household income rose relatively slowly despite an ever-increasing female labor force and a considerable increase in the percentage of college graduates.
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

But what does the census bureau (the source of your graph) know.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:01:01 2011 No.3399608

>>3399594
Walkman, I think his point is that giving lots of government funding to businesses to encourage 'research', when history shows that they will not do the research unless there is a high probability of profit at the end (which there basically never is) is mostly pointless. Which it is.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 02:01:01 2011 No.3399611

>>3399595
>If we left it up to companies, we would have never developed computers, cellphones or even the fucking car.
[Citation needed]

>Companies can do NOTHING but improve on that which makes them money.
They make money by producing things of value. The fact that government investment doesn't have this constraint isn't a good thing.

>Only the most dedicated and the richest have any reason to invest in untested research, such as Tesla or Bill Gates.
Who apparently are defined out of the private sector in your model.
>YEAH ALL THESE PEOPLE MADE INVESTMENTS BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST WHY DONT FREE MARKETS HAVE EVERYONE MAKING REVOLUTIONARY INVESTMENTS

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:02:01 2011 No.3399623

>>3399594
>So? Maybe small businesses are better at revolutionary research. If so this isn't a bad thing.
Then small business get taxes and research brakes.

>PROTIP: Businesses generally make investments before they sell products. Trying to define the period prior to selling products as "not a business" is pants-on-head retarded.
Except this company DID NOT EXIST before the Tesla Roadster. IT IS THE SOUL PURPOSE OF IT'S EXISTENCE.

>>3399595
Haha, Tesla is actually one of the best examples of anti-corporate behavior. Edison tried to fuck him over on patents after redesigning all the dynamos to be more efficient, and Edison ran a sweat shop of developers which he used to publish "his" inventions, because he owned their productions. Tesla ran to Westinghouse with AC and they royally reamed Edison. In conservafags view, Edision should've been allowed to sue Tesla for his shit because he developed it while under Edison and they should've owned it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:04:01 2011 No.3399630

>>3399584
It's sounds like you're more confused than argumentative to I'll try to explain as well as I can.

Rich people have jobs too. If hiring due to the tax cuts creates both jobs for rich and poor people but creates slightly "more" high paying jobs than low, the income of the rich will increase relative to the income of the poor, even though in absolute terms, both their incomes are increasing.

Tax cuts will only lower the income gap if they create "more" poor jobs than they create rich jobs.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:05:01 2011 No.3399635

>>3399611
Tesla was screwed over by a company man, Thomas Edison. Thomas Edison is the typical businessman who focuses on power and money before progress.

Bill Gates was a businessman before he was a philanthropist dedicated to research. Why? Because he has so much fucking money he has nothing left to do with himself. He could sit in his living room waiting to die or he could do something with all that money. In his case, he chose the 1 in a million path of trying to eradicate polio.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:07:01 2011 No.3399640

>>3399630
I always though the income gap was about how rich people have such a vastly larger yearly income than poor people, and I always believed the argument inherent to the topic is why there's so little job growth even though the primary job creators have more money than ever.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:07:01 2011 No.3399641

ITT: fags who don't know how to Laffer curve

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Also, some people don't seem to realize that there are a number of rates tied directly to the Government's treasury rates, like certain mortgages and certain credit cards. If the gubment has to pay more interest on their debts, everyone who has a rate tied to the government's rate will have to pay more as well. Also, securities like these are the ways corporations and governments handle very short operations providing them with cash. If a corporation or government needs cash quick they go to the bond markets. If the government no longer as this ability, then they will not be able to manage short term operations in an efficient manner.

We need an econ board or at least an politicos board.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 02:09:01 2011 No.3399646

>>3399608
This might sound revolutionary because most people talk of "profit" in a vague sense where it means little more than "oh some evil shit that rich people get", but high probability of profit merely means that there is a high probability that the investment will create more value than it takes. This isn't a bad constraint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:12:01 2011 No.3399653 >>3399641 We actually have a politics board but it's text only so therefore no one goes there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:13:01 2011 No.3399656 Texas Ranger, should taxes on people over 100k/year be 0%? How rich should you be before you don't pay taxes because you can profit more than taxes.

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:13:01 2011 No.3399663

>>3399630
Condescension aside, that is one model that would result in a widening income gap.

Another is this: If the wealthy business owners accept the stimulus funds but retain them rather than expanding their operations (which is how jobs are created), citing instability in the markets and other fears, and then pay bonuses to themselves for good job performances, the gap would also widen.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 02:15:01 2011 No.3399666

>>3399623
>Then small business get taxes and research brakes.
How about we just treat businesses equally and those that are most efficient at making good investments will succeed, as opposed to those that some random dude on the internet assumes will be more efficient at making good investments succeeding?

>Except this company DID NOT EXIST before the Tesla Roadster. IT IS THE SOUL PURPOSE OF IT'S EXISTENCE.
So startups are just defined out of the business world in your little model?
>huurr duurr without it's products a business wouldn't exist so it's not really a business

>Haha, Tesla is actually one of the best examples of anti-corporate behavior. Edison tried to fuck him over on patents
Not all advocates of free markets believe in patents, so I don't see your point here either.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:17:01 2011 No.3399673

>>3399663
>Condescension aside

I wasn't trying to be condescending, and if I was I apologize.

You model is an example of jobs not being created when the income gap widens (although it seems like if the rich spend their bonuses on buying stuff, that new stuff has to be made by someone, which would cause job creation). But in any case, my point is that the income gap is not logically related to job creation. I was trying to counter that point because that argument was made in:
>>3399546

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:19:01 2011 No.3399675

>>3399646

I'm not saying that it is a bad thing; I agree with you. Not spending money unless you have a chance at a return is solid policy.

I'm saying that investing federal dollars into vague 'research' blocks, in an attempt to create jobs, is inefficient, since most businesses are not out to invent new stuff.

A better 'investment' would be in infrastructure or manufacturing, stuff where we can have reasonable expectations of the returns.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 02:20:01 2011 No.3399681 >>3399656 >because you can profit more than taxes. What the fuck does this even mean?

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 02:24:01 2011 No.3399686

>>3399675
>I'm saying that investing federal dollars into vague 'research' blocks, in an attempt to create jobs, is inefficient, since most businesses are not out to invent new stuff.
But I'm not saying the government should subsidise private investments?

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:24:01 2011 No.3399688

>>3399673

I think we just misunderstood each other, sorry for misreading your post. Lets set an example for our congressional reps, accept each other's apologies, and move on with a discussion :)

In >>3399546 I was suggesting that the widening gap could be an indicator that the business owners (wealthy) are 'holding' the stimulus funds (for various market or personal reasons) and therefore not creating the jobs that funding was intended to create.

It is directed as a criticism at our congressional leaders who continue to try ineffective methods to 'jump start our economy'.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:24:01 2011 No.3399689

>>3399641

Nice quote from the comments section

>There is a useful chart at http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf of top tax rates from 1916 when the income tax came in (as a substitute for the revenue that would be lost if Prohibition succeded, thus making it more likely) to the present. The top income rates have varied from 15% to 94%. The Kennedy tax cut lowered the top rate from 91% to 70% and is said to have stimulated growth and thus more revenue. The first Reagan tax cut slashed top rates from 70% to 50%, where they stayed until the comprehensive tax reform of 1986 lowered them to 38.5% with the expectation that this rate would actually be the rate people paid (which the others weren't, given all the loopholes).

>Even assuming the first Reagan tax cut stimulated growth (the evidence is that it reduced revenue) it should be obvious that the law of diminishing returns sets in below the 38.5% level, and probably above it as well.

>One observation that needs to be emphasized was made by James Galbraith in "The Predator State": Above 50% it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a corporation to have high executive compensation, since over half will go to the gov't. So corps retained earnings and plowed them back into the corp. But when rates dropped to 50% and then 38.5% a large amount of corporate wealth began to be paid out in compensation to top management. I'd call this "redistributionist" myself. It coincides with the stagnation of income for the bottom 90%, something which has led us to the current collapse in consumer demand that Ezra has written so much about.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:25:01 2011 No.3399692

>>3399666
>those that are most efficient at making good investments will succeed
Define most efficient. The ones that make the most money, the ones that produce the most unknown information, the ones with the most widespread effect, etc.

A "startup" is a business when it actually does something. They weren't a business before they were doing anything. Large companies, with hundreds of times the investment capital, never came near the same productiveness. Your argument that companies with more money will inherently be more productive and should be taxed less to promote this is invalid.

Patents are an outgrowth of the free market. A company has the option to say whether or not someone else gets to use their method or product without licensing.

All you people who argue free market never seem to understand the difference between a copyright and a copyleft. Basically "free market" in conservative terms has all copyrights, and no copylefts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:25:01 2011 No.3399693 >>3399686 >implying tax breaks and subsidies aren't the same

>>	Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:28:01 2011 No.3399696 >>3399686 But Washington is: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/458/invest-in-all-types-of-alterna tive-energy/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 02:31:01 2011 No.3399701 >>3399696 The government should stop that. It's business's responsibility to create a cheaper and better world, no matter the millions funneled into 5000+sq ft homes and 300 cars and 5 wives

Anonamoose Sat Jul 16 02:35:01 2011 No.3399713

>>3399701
I get the feeling you are sarcastically being critical of the idea that government investments in unproven technology is a bad form of stimulus.

I believe the government should subsidize research. Just not when they are trying to create jobs. Research jobs help a small number of college graduates per unit of cash.

Infrastructure and manufacturing tend to create more jobs for people with lower educations levels.

When you are staring at a 10% unemployment rate, you need more than just white collar job growth.

Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Sat Jul 16 03:28:01 2011 No.3399875

>>3399692
>Define most efficient. The ones that make the most money
In a competitive market, this means the one that created the most value, so yes.

>
A "startup" is a business when it actually does something. They weren't a business before they were doing anything. Large companies, with hundreds of times the investment capital, never came near the same productiveness. Your argument that companies with more money will inherently be more productive and should be taxed less to promote this is invalid.
I'm not saying big businesses should be subsidised relative to small.

>Patents are an outgrowth of the free market.
Patents are a government-granted monopoly on a non-rivalrous good.

anonymous !Inoac9aXuY Sat Jul 16 10:22:01 2011 No.3400808

For the love of...

America, Look. Its time to stop taking politics at face value, this is "Pro Wrestling" for adults. Its ALL A GAME, we have a proto-centrally planned economy with private owners. We had a "deal" for this debt "problem" that isn't even real before it even started. Entitlements will get some heavy cuts because the Baby Boomers are about to retire which IS a real issue. The overall tax rate will remain stagnant and we will be getting owned by (controlled) inflation.

Baby boomers retiring = REAL economic collapse and thus they need to destroy (that's too harsh of a word...how about neuter) entitlement programs and safety nets, raise the cost of living (IE. food, petrol,health care, housing) while keeping consumer goods CHEAP.

If you are a baby boomer, you aren't retiring unless you have a huge cash buffer. Period. The second Great Depression which they wallpaper as a "Recession" was timed and planned in advance. The plunge protection team, "Fat Finger" market crash, oil (and related supply line) grabbing, green energy legislation, etc etc.

Republicans get to take shots at G.W Obama
Democrats champion populist ideals
George W. Obama sits there like the puppet punching bag he is.
The economy is let down easier (its still going to crash due to boomers, just mitigated)
Rich people keep their chess pieces and pilfer the markets.
Wage slaves feel like they have someone fighting for them in Washington (they don't.)

everybody gets raped, good times.

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 ]

/sci/ - Science & Math