prove itJohnG@lt wrote:
It's irrelevant. Crime rates have more to do with societal homogenization than anything else.PureFodder wrote:
It'd be interesting to compare the size of various country's social programmes with the rate of imprisonment.
Obviously the US it one of the least generous rich countries in terms of social security, but has by miles the highest percentage of the populace in prison.
EDIT: The UK is also amongst the less generous social system - high incarceration group
Search
Search results: 2,136 found, showing up to 50
The percentage differences are small and the number of other factors are large. I'd put very, very little faith in these findings.
It'd be interesting to compare the size of various country's social programmes with the rate of imprisonment.
Obviously the US it one of the least generous rich countries in terms of social security, but has by miles the highest percentage of the populace in prison.
EDIT: The UK is also amongst the less generous social system - high incarceration group
Obviously the US it one of the least generous rich countries in terms of social security, but has by miles the highest percentage of the populace in prison.
EDIT: The UK is also amongst the less generous social system - high incarceration group
Isn't the vast majority of the money going towards creating new jobs actually going to get pissed away into the general employment/unemployment cycle?
Something like 4 million people are hired and fired each month in the US. Most of this money will go towards subsidising jobs that would have been created anyway. It's also too small to realistically encourage many businesses that wouldn't hire anyone to change their minds.
The infrastructure bit may be a bit more sensible though.
Something like 4 million people are hired and fired each month in the US. Most of this money will go towards subsidising jobs that would have been created anyway. It's also too small to realistically encourage many businesses that wouldn't hire anyone to change their minds.
The infrastructure bit may be a bit more sensible though.
Imagine how difficult it would be to hit a 1:48 scale fighter.Cybargs wrote:
You mean Die-CastPoseidon wrote:
Iran will use their "superior" Air Force consisting of broken F-14's to take them down.
Fear the fake-plastic airforce!
Unless you can come up with several thousand similar examples, then yes, this would be the exception rather than the rule.JohnG@lt wrote:
Exception rather than the rule, right?
The fact that this is so wildly unusual that it made it into a terrible excuse for a newspaper is good evidence that this is a very unusual event. Generally speaking, in the UK, 'person lives in council house' doesn't make the paper.
There are plenty of stable countries with significantly lower corporate taxes than places like the US and UK, yet companies don't flock there. The reason is that they know what they're getting for their tax money, and what they'd miss out on if they moved.Kmarion wrote:
High corporate taxes encouraging business to stay.. I do believe I've heard it all now. Sudan is a ridiculous example. Of course there needs to be some sustainable infrastructure. That isn't to say that all countries that offer tax breaks for job creators are hell holes.PureFodder wrote:
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.Kmarion wrote:
You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.
Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
Nanny state? More like communism.
I'm not sure why you bring up comminism, I was describing the current nanny state system we have in most rich western countries. Unless you think the US and UK are communist?
Plenty of families on low incomes raise their kids a lot better than rich folk. I know people with doctorates that had parents earning the PPP equivalent of less than the average for Hempstead.
Personally I'm against other people deciding who is and who isn't worthy of having kids.
Personally I'm against other people deciding who is and who isn't worthy of having kids.
What about the ant that works really hard, but due to the fiscal and political power of the stag beatle, the labour market has been hugely distorted leading to almost all the rewards from the ants hard work going to the stag beatle.
The ants eventually give up trying to work hard for so little reward and productivity and development that comes from the usually motivated ants goes down the drain. The economy stagnates as the ants are no longer getting richer from their hard work, meaning they aren't buying more things, preventing the stag beatle from expanding his business, leading to an economy of low growth, low wages and repeated economic booms and busts that gradually degrades the economy.
Stupid insects.
The ants eventually give up trying to work hard for so little reward and productivity and development that comes from the usually motivated ants goes down the drain. The economy stagnates as the ants are no longer getting richer from their hard work, meaning they aren't buying more things, preventing the stag beatle from expanding his business, leading to an economy of low growth, low wages and repeated economic booms and busts that gradually degrades the economy.
Stupid insects.
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.Kmarion wrote:
You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.
Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
Economically it's a huge waste of money that could be used much more productively. You either have to send the military budget up to pay for all the extra recruits or divert money from people who want to be in the military to those who don't.
Because they're well armed and know where you live?Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats the thing about giving low-level operatives the authority to kill people they think could be criminals, often they fuck up.
And since when were suspected drug-smugglers liable to summary execution? Is smuggling drugs a capital offence in Peru?
The CIA shouldn't be able to just kill whoever they like, whether its in Peru, Afghanistan, Iraqn Pakistan or anywhere else.
Why after this kind of thing and the WMD fiasco anyone takes the CIA seriously is beyond me.
If Berlusconi wants Israel to be part of the EU I'm going to assume it's because Israel has some foxy ambassador that he has his eye on.
It's due to The USA's low relative population density vs resources and the existance of a wide range of different pre-existing cultural groups. The US still hasn't reached an equilibrium with Europe in terms of populace v land/resources. Also over half of Euorpeans speak English, so they can go to the US without learing a new language, whereas moving within Europe (or from the US to Europe) typically requires the need to learn a new language, which is a pain in the arse.Kmarion wrote:
Of course there are plenty of other factors.. but it's stupid to ignore obvious things like the amount of people actually coming here to live. Look closely at what I said. I know there are more Europeans than Mexicans. I never claimed otherwise. I've acknowledged things like economic conditions and proximity. (Note the italic "only") However you have failed to explain why there is still such a large amount of Europeans (as a whole) coming to America to live.. please, do tell.PureFodder wrote:
and there are 7 times as many Europeans, making the relative immigration rate from Mexico 7 times higher than that of Europe.Kmarion wrote:
From 1990-2000 (according to the last census) there were 309,175 Mexicans that became naturalized. During that same time there were 291,455 Europeans naturalized. That's not that far off.
It is true that most immigrants come from poorer countries. I was not disputing that. That's common sense that also applies to immigrants migrating to Western Europe. Implying that the proximity and relative economic disparity is the only reason is not entirely accurate neither. We still get a large chunk of immigrants coming from Europe.
I didn't say they were the only factors, I said they were bigger factors. There's also perceived similarity between the migrants home/prefered culture and the place they are going to. Also things like population density relative to resources, fluctuations in economic situations, wars, natural disasters, language, immigration policies, pre-existence of ethnic minority groups in the country, etc.
Overall, you can't look at immigration numbers and make any sort of claim about a country's 'desireability'. There are far too many other factors that need considering.
and there are 7 times as many Europeans, making the relative immigration rate from Mexico 7 times higher than that of Europe.Kmarion wrote:
From 1990-2000 (according to the last census) there were 309,175 Mexicans that became naturalized. During that same time there were 291,455 Europeans naturalized. That's not that far off.Turquoise wrote:
Not really. While it is true that nearly all Americans can trace their origins to immigration and white ethnicities make up most of our population, the majority of modern immigration is from Mexico, South America, South Asia, Africa, and East Asia. Most of the countries of origin are poor, or at least much poorer than the U.S.Kmarion wrote:
Our population is still primarily a Euro-American one. They didn't all get here by walking. European country of origin is still about the same as Mexican country of origin here.
The same is true for most First World nations. The largest immigrant group in the U.K. is Indians. The largest immigrant group in France is North Africans. The largest immigrant group in Canada are South Asians.
Most immigration occurs due to economic interests. Ever since the early 1900s, most immigration to America is focused on economic opportunity in the same way that it is for all other major First World nations. Proximity does play a big part in who chooses to come to your country as well.
It is true that most immigrants come from poorer countries. I was not disputing that. That's common sense that also applies to immigrants migrating to Western Europe. Implying that the proximity and relative economic disparity is the only reason is not entirely accurate neither. We still get a large chunk of immigrants coming from Europe.
I didn't say they were the only factors, I said they were bigger factors. There's also percieved similarity between the migrants home/prefered culture and the place they are going to. Also things like population density relative to resources, fluctuations in economic situations, wars, natural disasters, language, immigration policies, pre-existance of ethnic minority groups in the country, etc.
Overall, you can't look at immigration numbers and make any sort of claim about a country's 'desireability'. There are far too many other factors that need considering.
Shitness of original country and ability to get to new country are probably bigger factors. Crappy countries near to total hell-holes would likely have higher immigration per capita than nice places that are surrounded by other nice places.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying that total immigration numbers determine the desirability of a place to immigrate to?Kmarion wrote:
Space vs population isn't even close when compared to the US. I don't see why per capita makes more sense. Maybe you're trying to get at a point I'm not? The bottom line is what it is.
That's why immigration per capita is a very bad way to measure desirability of a country. You get wierd results like Iceland and Scandinavia being very undesireable, but Saudia Arabia being one of the most desirable places in the world.
He was supposed to cause the panic and deflate the bubble as soon as he saw it. That's the job. If you are FED chairman and you see a rising bubble you can either pop it now or wait for it to pop later, when it's bigger and more harmful.JohnG@lt wrote:
The Fed chairman is quite limited in what he can talk about publicly because if he says too much it starts panics. Even mentioning the housing market at all meant that it was a serious issue. Yes, I think it's stupid myself, but the Fed has to wrap their message in about fifty layers of misdirecting words so that it doesn't scare people who don't have a comprehension of economics. The more opaque the message, the better, because it keeps Joe the Plumber from panicking and selling off all his assetsPureFodder wrote:
Assuming he was compitent, he picked it up in 2002-03 when the good economist did. At this point he would have been writing articles and papers about the bubble and how it had to be burst before it could do serious harm.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, he didn't ignore it, and he didn't miss it. There just wasn't a whole lot that he could do about it. He doesn't have regulatory powers beyond setting the discount window rate. The Fed honestly doesn't do a whole lot but it's a bogeyman to a lot of people because of it's perceived mythical powers.
He actually wrote articles, and gave advice to congress about how the housing market wasn't really much to be concerned with.
He's not a good economist.
and if you're a short term investor you may care. The day to day fluctuations on these kinds of trivial matters have little effect on mid-long term invesment in shares.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, you could look at it that way. I'm not wrong in the slightest though. If they block his confirmation the stock market will take a big hit. They'll see it as a sign of impending massive intrusion and regulation.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you're taking a snippet of information and going into a panic, just like the plumber you ridicule.
Assuming he was compitent, he picked it up in 2002-03 when the good economist did. At this point he would have been writing articles and papers about the bubble and how it had to be burst before it could do serious harm.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, he didn't ignore it, and he didn't miss it. There just wasn't a whole lot that he could do about it. He doesn't have regulatory powers beyond setting the discount window rate. The Fed honestly doesn't do a whole lot but it's a bogeyman to a lot of people because of it's perceived mythical powers.PureFodder wrote:
So they guy either missed the housing bubble or chose to do nothing about it. He didn't talk about it before he became FED chair, or after it. Presumably he therefore didn't care about it if he had seen it before getting the position. Generally speaking, the guy did a crappy job as an economist. Why anyone would want him as FED chair is beyond me.
He actually wrote articles, and gave advice to congress about how the housing market wasn't really much to be concerned with.
He's not a good economist.
So they guy either missed the housing bubble or chose to do nothing about it. He didn't talk about it before he became FED chair, or after it. Presumably he therefore didn't care about it if he had seen it before getting the position. Generally speaking, the guy did a crappy job as an economist. Why anyone would want him as FED chair is beyond me.
So if they vote in Bernanke, a guy so bad at his job he didn't even notice an $8 trillion housing bubble, then future investments are likely to be fine. If they replace him with someone who can compitently do the job, this is bad!?
Explain how that makes sense?
Explain how that makes sense?
Isn't it primarily in oil sands, which are hugely polluting and costs a crap load to refine in comparison to Saudi oil?
It's as bad as the Brits selling divining rods to Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world … nsors.html
A huge waste of money in a situation where that money could have done a whole lot of good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world … nsors.html
A huge waste of money in a situation where that money could have done a whole lot of good.
The US makes lots of new drugs and medical advances due to it's crazily inefficient patenting system that hugely overcompensates anyone who does any medical research. It has absolutely nothing to do with being single payer or not.Phrozenbot wrote:
If the rest of the world didn't have us to free-ride on our medical technology and drugs that are developed primarily here in the states, the rest of you would hurt.PureFodder wrote:
Because the rest of the first world managed it and I don't think Americans are somehow less capable than the rest of the first world.
Haven't looked at all the universal health care systems, but the only one I've seen show some level of success is France's. Then again, taxes are high there.
This isn't a single payer issue at all. The US could greatly reduce doctor's salaries and increase their numbers whatever the medical system if any kind of serious market competition were introduced. The current protectionist measures are plainly harming everyone who isn't a US doctor.Phrozenbot wrote:
Medical boards have been preventing this.PureFodder wrote:
Open up US doctor's jobs to free market competition. There's an absolute crapload of highly skilled doctors around the world who'd jump at the chance to undercut US doctor's salaries.
It certainly IS a human right. Number 25 to be precise.Phrozenbot wrote:
I don't agree that health care is a human right, if we are talking natural law here. It's the government's duty to protect your liberties and punish those who infringe on them or your life, but it's not the duty of the government to provide health care for you.PureFodder wrote:
For those who can afford it, it won't improve. For those who can't afford it, gaining access to it will improve their healthcare. Incidentally, healthcare IS a human right.
Certainly the outcomes of single payer sytems are at least the same as the US system, and come with half the price tag. The current system (assuming the Obama reforms don't solve things) is unsustainable as it costs twice as much and is increasing at approximately double the rate of all the single payer systems. Any comparison between the US system and single payer systems must carry the footnote that in reality the US must choose between a single payer system and a greatly cutdown version of it's current system or face economic collapse.Phrozenbot wrote:
The quality of care is also less. One issue with UHC I've seen is lack of capacity. Canadians come to the states all the time, and their government even pays for their care so that American doctors can treat them. Heart attack patients in the UK are sometimes held in ambulances as long as legally possible before being let into ER. Access is guaranteed to everyone, yet quite a bit of people have issue receiving that care in a timely matter, or at all.PureFodder wrote:
Single payer systems don't have to advertise and benefit from economies of scale, central planning and huge purchasing power to drive down costs.
Also, all single payer healthcare systems ARE less expensive.
I would love to see everyone have access to affordable, quality health care. With our hybrid private/government health care system here in the US, I don't see that possible.
The US is one of the main outsourcers of medical treatments, not places like Canada. The medical tourism industry is booming in the US.
Because the rest of the first world managed it and I don't think Americans are somehow less capable than the rest of the first world.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why do you feel the government would do a good job running a single payer system?
Open up US doctor's jobs to free market competition. There's an absolute crapload of highly skilled doctors around the world who'd jump at the chance to undercut US doctor's salaries.JohnG@lt wrote:
What would you suggest they do to fix the current doctor shortage that would be exacerbated by thousands of doctors retiring the day a single payer was implemented?
For those who can afford it, it won't improve. For those who can't afford it, gaining access to it will improve their healthcare. Incidentally, healthcare IS a human right.JohnG@lt wrote:
How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?
Single payer systems don't have to advertise and benefit from economies of scale, central planning and huge purchasing power to drive down costs.JohnG@lt wrote:
Medical insurance purchased by the individual would be a lot less expensive than the end cost after it's run through a government bureaucracy. Refute this.
Also, all single payer healthcare systems ARE less expensive.
Surely it takes even less effort to agree with the 'everything is fine, nothing humanity does effects anything, just do what you want and ignore any possible consequences'-people.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.Diesel_dyk wrote:
everyone is used to central air and heat with a constant temperature between 68 and 70F/ 20 and 21C... so whenever the fat lazy retards put down the Wii or XBox and poke their heads out the door, the weather outside is going to be relatively extreme.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
Punishments should be equally deterent whatever your financial situation.
Community service or fines based on income are the obvious ways to ensure this. Otherwise you can be rich enough to disregard the law.
Community service or fines based on income are the obvious ways to ensure this. Otherwise you can be rich enough to disregard the law.
Because they suckle at the teat of the graduated federal system.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right. Ok. Then why don't state governments collapse since they provide the vast majority of services and all but a few have a flat tax?PureFodder wrote:
If you have a flat tax system one of these three things almost certainly must happen:
1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.
There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.
If you have a flat tax system one of these three things almost certainly must happen:
1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.
There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.
1. The taxes on the poor remain the same, the tax rates for the rich are reduced. This will entirely cripple public spending and pretty much end the military, R&D, education, policing, firefighting and all the other things that will be fucked by the vast reductions in public spending.
2. The flat tax rate is set so that public spending is kept the same, this shifts a huge tax burden from the richest people onto the poorest. Widespread social collapse is sitting at the end of this route.
3. The middle ground in which the poor pay loads more tax and public spending is hugely reduced. Everyone get's screwed in this case.
There's a reason people don't go for flat tax systems in rich countries.
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has the effect of increasing the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
2. Humanity has taken an lots of carbon that wasn't in the atmospheric carbon cycle, and put it into it.
Unless 1. or 2. can be shown to be false, the only real question left is how much hotter have we made it?
So far climate change skepticts have remained remarkably quiet on this issue.....
2. Humanity has taken an lots of carbon that wasn't in the atmospheric carbon cycle, and put it into it.
Unless 1. or 2. can be shown to be false, the only real question left is how much hotter have we made it?
So far climate change skepticts have remained remarkably quiet on this issue.....
If you have an additional $50k per year just sitting around after taxes, living expenses and money for whatever you enjoy doing in life, then by all means invest it. The point is that the majority don't earn that in the first place, let alone factoring in tax and living expense. Then there are further issues around why bother just getting by and saving money till your old when you can spend it having fun while you're fit and healthy? If you can enjoy life and have $50k left over to invest and have the time to do the research needed to do it well, then it's a good idea.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, I know that inflation, taxes and fees will eat into it. What's your point? Should I just spend all my money now, say 'fuck it, it's not worth investing' and depend on the government for my retirement?
Putting some money into a relatively secure pension scheme is obviously a decent plan though. It removes a lot of the time and risk from it.
How many people earn $50k more than they need to live on after taxes and can get 10% per year on investments every year without loosing a whole crapload in stock crashes and recessions?
Just for reference the median US household income is about $50k per year before tax.
Just for reference the median US household income is about $50k per year before tax.
Look at the latest bubble. If the regualtions that kept the practices of regular and investment banks seperate had been kept it would have been a whole lot better for everyone. Sadly the desire to de-regulate overcame sense.JohnG@lt wrote:
False. Every first world country has government regulation and central government planning because of the Institutional Imperative. It also came to pass because politicians happen to be people that covet power for themselves and have enough of a god complex to think that they can actually run something as infinitely complex as a first world economy. Add in the fact that politicians are a bunch of hacks who steal each others ideas and it's how we end up with stupidity like the Climate Exchange. Some politician saw it in Spain and said 'Hey, we should do that too'.PureFodder wrote:
You're asking for a wild boom/bust economy that it ultimately extremely harmful to a country. Take for example fishing. If you don't regulate fishing someone will eventually decide to trawl the fish to extinction for short term gains, with the plan to get out of the market when the fish stocks collapse. At this point you can't go back, the fish are gone and you've lost the resource.
Without regulation someone will eventually decide to screw any system over for short term gains, quite possibly in an entirely legal way. It's very harmful to the economy.
Also without the relative stability created by regualtion in markets it is almost imposible to engage in long term planning as you have no idea what the conditions will be like in a year or a decade.
There's a good reason why every first world country has government regulation and central government planning, it's what actually works.
Regulation does NOT smooth out the boom and bust cycle. What it does is make the booms and busts bigger when they occur. But hey, that works for those who like regulations because then when the big busts come they can consolidate more power unto themselves while using bastardized Keynesian economics to 'dig us out' of the mess that they created in the first place.
Any attempt to defend against the rest of the points?
On another note, can you not see any issues around removing regulations on essential services such as electricity and water? When they fuck up, as they inevitably will under unregulated free-market economics, the devastation they can have both economically and socially are huge. These activities require huge amounts of investment capital for long term development and maintainance. Without the stability of a regulated market the incentive to invest in utilities vanishes (low returns, but far safer than average investments due the the strong regulations). Without a strong regulatory framework, investing money in utilities becomes fiscal idiocy. The money leaves, the systems fall appart and when they do, so does the rest of the economy. To make it even worse, restoring things like gas and water supply networks is massively expensive and very time consuming.
You're asking for a wild boom/bust economy that it ultimately extremely harmful to a country. Take for example fishing. If you don't regulate fishing someone will eventually decide to trawl the fish to extinction for short term gains, with the plan to get out of the market when the fish stocks collapse. At this point you can't go back, the fish are gone and you've lost the resource.
Without regulation someone will eventually decide to screw any system over for short term gains, quite possibly in an entirely legal way. It's very harmful to the economy.
Also without the relative stability created by regualtion in markets it is almost imposible to engage in long term planning as you have no idea what the conditions will be like in a year or a decade.
There's a good reason why every first world country has government regulation and central government planning, it's what actually works.
Without regulation someone will eventually decide to screw any system over for short term gains, quite possibly in an entirely legal way. It's very harmful to the economy.
Also without the relative stability created by regualtion in markets it is almost imposible to engage in long term planning as you have no idea what the conditions will be like in a year or a decade.
There's a good reason why every first world country has government regulation and central government planning, it's what actually works.
Yes, resisting the change to a public healthcare system is going to cripple the US economy. It'a a pity that the short term profits of insurance companies/doctors/drug companies etc. were seen as being more important than the long term financial security of the US.
Healthcare was predicted to cripple the economy before the Obama reforms, it still is. Social security has little if anything to do with the issue (healthcare will cripple the economy on it's own, social security certainly will not), it just gets lumped in there because it predominantly benefits the majority as opposed to the top few percent, therefore it's bad and has to be destroyed.
Healthcare was predicted to cripple the economy before the Obama reforms, it still is. Social security has little if anything to do with the issue (healthcare will cripple the economy on it's own, social security certainly will not), it just gets lumped in there because it predominantly benefits the majority as opposed to the top few percent, therefore it's bad and has to be destroyed.
They managed to forcable move Americans from trains and trams to cars, there's no particualr reason why they can't do the same in reverse.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't know anybody that would rather sit on a train for 2-6 hours vs driving a car and having a means of transportation at the destination. Not going to change American car culture just because you build more rail lines. It's too late.PureFodder wrote:
Weren't all the investments going to be on medium haul train distances. The US is so large that cross country trips are not going to be well served by trains, but the investments were aimed at upgrading/installing rail connections that were on the scale of 2-6 hrs. This way it's typically cheaper and more convenient than flying, but further than many people would want to drive/go by bus.
Just because you don't know anyone who'd happily take a train, doesn't meant the 300,000,000 Americans you don't know don't want to. Train travel on those time scales is popular everywhere else in the developed and developing world, so there's no particular reason why the US couldn't do it.
Weren't all the investments going to be on medium haul train distances. The US is so large that cross country trips are not going to be well served by trains, but the investments were aimed at upgrading/installing rail connections that were on the scale of 2-6 hrs. This way it's typically cheaper and more convenient than flying, but further than many people would want to drive/go by bus.
The UK has a 0.5% tax on share trades, society failed to collapse.
It just reduces speculation whilst having no appreciable impact on long term investments which are what actually create jobs.
0.5% tax on anything other then very short term speculation is trivial for almost all investors.
It just reduces speculation whilst having no appreciable impact on long term investments which are what actually create jobs.
0.5% tax on anything other then very short term speculation is trivial for almost all investors.
and the moral of this story is.........
quit moaning about taxes and just get on with it. Even with all the taxes going around it's still perfectly possible to earn a whole crap load of money. Past generations put up with much higher taxes without crying about it at every opportunity, now stfu and get back to work.
quit moaning about taxes and just get on with it. Even with all the taxes going around it's still perfectly possible to earn a whole crap load of money. Past generations put up with much higher taxes without crying about it at every opportunity, now stfu and get back to work.
Yeah, us Europeans had far more to do with creating the problem in the first place, the US has just been making an existing problem worse.Spark wrote:
I would say that european nations are more to blame tbh for colonialism which started this whole mess.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thank you USA for creating this problem.lowing wrote:
lowing wrote:
1. It is a world wide problem
2. everyone is vulnerable
3. the potential of massive death and destruction is high
4. they are crazy enough to actually fuckin' do it.
5. they are organized, and have sleeper cells all over the world
6. there cause is the death of western society, not stopping aboortion in Florida.
7. They have the means and desire to carry out their attacks.
8. Their attacks affects world economies
9. They are backed by soverign nations
The guy shot people on a military base. It was a horrible horrible act, but it wasn't terrorism. As far as I'm aware there was no ideological goal and he was on a military base, murdering (mostly) soldiers.
It was appauling mass murder, but it wasn't terrorism.
It was appauling mass murder, but it wasn't terrorism.
Exactly. I think that most people will agree that mechanisms that distribute wealth upwards can have be better than not having them at all. For example government spending on research which almost exclusively ends up in the hands of the wealthy, despite being paid for at public expense. To balance these upwards redistributions of wealth, it's necessary to have mechanisms to redress this imbalance by sending some of the wealth back down again.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Fodder seems to be arguing against the upwards redistribution rather than for downward redistribution. From what I've read his argument is that downards redistribution is necessary to try to balance the upwards. If there was no upwards redistribution I don't think he'd be advocating downwards redistribution.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
If you can eliminate upwards redistribution of wealth without completely ruining your economy then by all means remove the downwards redistribution too. If you don't want to eliminate redistribution upwards then it's imoral to advocate removal of downwards redistribution. Then you'd just be advocating a policy of 'lets screw over the poor'.
Actually I gave a whole list of mechanisms that redistribute wealth upwards, you are the one that picked up on this one only.JohnG@lt wrote:
You're picking out one item and declaring the entire philosophy invalid because of it. What do you believe in? I bet I could drive semi-trucks through the holes in your ideas. Yes, patents are a holdover from Mercantalism rather than a product of pure Capitalistic beliefs. Yes, they are protectionist to an extent but I see no reason to toss them out. As I've repeatedly states they are one of the few ways that a poor man can become wealthy in a single lifetime. Have a great idea, patent it, profit.PureFodder wrote:
So you think that government needs to stay out of private business, period and also that without massive government interference into private business in the form of patents, society would collapse into anarchy?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am just as, if not more so, against those forms of handouts as I am of redistribution to the poor. I think government needs to stay out of private business period.
I feel the role of government in business should strictly be a role of providing Justice within business. Prosecuting fraud, theft and collusion. I also believe in environmental laws to a certain extent because outright dumping in rivers or smokestacks spewing clouds of acrid smoke are not good for anyone. Do I think people are going too far with their environmental protection ideas? Yes, very much so. I think we've found a happy medium right now and don't need things like cap and trade or carbon taxes or any other such nonsense. Smokestack filters good, banning smokestacks bad. Get it? Business in general needs just a very light, delicate touch from government, not the heavy-handed measures and regulations that people seem to want out of fear or jealousy or outright hatred.
I think that we should have a system not too unlike the present one, but actually admit that there are strong mechanisms in place that redistribute wealth upwards, hence the need for a mechanism to redistribute wealth downwards to even the playing field somewhat.
So you think that government needs to stay out of private business, period and also that without massive government interference into private business in the form of patents, society would collapse into anarchy?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am just as, if not more so, against those forms of handouts as I am of redistribution to the poor. I think government needs to stay out of private business period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What do you call companies/individuals lobbying for government contracts? What do you call bailouts?
Sure, social welfare in the form of cash handouts are a quantifiable redistribution and corporate welfare isn't, but the end result is the same - taxpayer money leaving my pocket and going into someone elses. Justifying or providing reasons why that should be so doesn't change that fact.