|
On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet
He said he was trying ot simply the problem by providing an easier analogy, ala, removing all the additional backdoors you could postulate that could be going on.
|
5003 Posts
On July 19 2011 09:37 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet Dun dun dun. To be fair, it's an analogy, so by "king" he may be referring not to the president but to the collective body that's assumed to be capable of making the decision/change.
except power is never that collective in a republic which is what he tried to make an analogy too
us government makes bad economic decisions cause they always have to compromise or risk being paralyzed not because they dont know what they're doing 
|
5003 Posts
On July 19 2011 09:38 ch33psh33p wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet He said he was trying ot simply the problem by providing an easier analogy, ala, removing all the additional backdoors you could postulate that could be going on.
But when you simplify it it isn't the same problem
|
On July 19 2011 09:38 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 09:37 Z3kk wrote:On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet Dun dun dun. To be fair, it's an analogy, so by "king" he may be referring not to the president but to the collective body that's assumed to be capable of making the decision/change. except power is never that collective in a republic which is what he tried to make an analogy too us government makes bad economic decisions cause they always have to compromise or risk being paralyzed not because they dont know what they're doing
Yeah, I guess the entire situation is somewhat misrepresented. I suppose you're suggesting by corollary that if we were to discuss this, we might as well not use an analogy at all? Otherwise it would essentially be refined into the actual situation, so an analogy in this case isn't pariticularly useful in the first place...aha.
|
Canada331 Posts
Press Start -> New Game.
I figure this post should be allowed because nobody said anything about smoking weed and pressing the reset button.
|
On July 19 2011 09:40 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 09:38 ch33psh33p wrote:On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet He said he was trying ot simply the problem by providing an easier analogy, ala, removing all the additional backdoors you could postulate that could be going on. But when you simplify it it isn't the same problem
Just because the king has multiple personality disorder doesn't affect the underlying problem. It could be a new king every year. If the problem is that the rules are constantly changing then that is a problem by itself and needs to be resolved, but even if that problem is resolved, the system itself appears unsustainable. No matter how good the king is, the underlying monetary problem still exists. Its a little oversimplified, but often when trying to solve a problem, its best to cut out the unimportant details that people get so hung up on.
|
5003 Posts
On July 19 2011 09:59 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 09:40 Milkis wrote:On July 19 2011 09:38 ch33psh33p wrote:On July 19 2011 09:16 Milkis wrote:
your scenario fails when you assume that the king has any power
it's really the various ministers who are fighting with each other to make decisions that will satisfy their party and refusing to compromise
the king is a puppet He said he was trying ot simply the problem by providing an easier analogy, ala, removing all the additional backdoors you could postulate that could be going on. But when you simplify it it isn't the same problem Just because the king has multiple personality disorder doesn't affect the underlying problem. It could be a new king every year. If the problem is that the rules are constantly changing then that is a problem by itself and needs to be resolved, but even if that problem is resolved, the system itself appears unsustainable. No matter how good the king is, the underlying monetary problem still exists. Its a little oversimplified, but often when trying to solve a problem, its best to cut out the unimportant details that people get so hung up on.
Except in reality, the problem comes directly from the fact that the "king has multiple personality disorder" ~_~
methinks you need to understand how economics are applied in a democratic system some more before trying to nail down where the problem came from.
|
Economics nerd battle!
|
Milkis: are you an econ major @ U Chicago?
|
5003 Posts
On July 19 2011 10:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:Economics nerd battle!
this is more ideology and less economics :D
|
On July 19 2011 10:16 Froadac wrote:
Milkis: are you an econ major @ U Chicago?
Also IMO attendee or something along those lines, I think. I know flamewheel had something to do with IMO.
|
On July 19 2011 10:17 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2011 10:16 Froadac wrote:
Milkis: are you an econ major @ U Chicago? Also IMO attendee or something along those lines, I think. I know flamewheel had something to do with IMO.
Really? I thought it was flamewheel and ]343[ that were big into IMO. Or is it Milkis as well?
|
Er, never mind, I believe I'm mistaken; flamewheel and ]343[ come to mind but I randomly thought of Milkis...
|
raise the taxes on the highest earning peons, as they need the money the least, and also cut spending on unnecessary things.
|
On July 19 2011 10:36 Tatum26 wrote:
raise the taxes on the highest earning peons, as they need the money the least, and also cut spending on unnecessary things.
This mentality perturbs me.
Sure bill gates may need less money than you to live, but it doesn't mean that he should gift money to the government.
He won't if he has a say in it.
In another way I could say the middle class doesn't really need money because they have adequate food and shelter.
So tax the middle class damnit.
|
If you can afford a 25 million dollar yacht that you use maybe twice a year, you can afford a 5% tax hike. The fact that anyone but the uber rich themselves protects them from higher taxes when there are starving poor all over the place makes me sad.
Edit: I don't have an economics degree or anything, so if that is a dumb policy that is one thing, I just find it morally reprehensible.
|
On July 19 2011 10:50 Lemonwalrus wrote:
If you can afford a 25 million dollar yacht that you use maybe twice a year, you can afford a 5% tax hike. The fact that anyone but the uber rich themselves protects them from higher taxes when there are starving poor all over the place makes me sad.
Edit: I don't have an economics degree or anything, so if that is a dumb policy that is one thing, I just find it morally reprehensible.
I think he meant that both the high-earners and the middle class should be taxed.
I also think he got semi-trolled by his quoted comment :x
|
http://factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/
The word peons pissed me off >.>
The issue is the top 1% is ALREADY paying almost thirty percent of taxes. Sure, they make a lot of money, but they don't make as much money on net as the middle class.
I'm just saying that it may be popular to say "ohhh, just cut stupid tax breaks and tax the wealthy more" and that can be part of the problem, I suppose. But the heart of them atter is that you could make income tax 100% for the top 1% and it wouldn't fix it.
It also perturbs me that the middle class is like NO MOAR MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKES, when it is only a point or two, but they don't care if they raise taxes on the rich by 5-10 percent because "they can afford it"
|
On July 19 2011 12:44 Froadac wrote:
I'm just saying that it may be popular to say "ohhh, just cut stupid tax breaks and tax the wealthy more" and that can be part of the problem, I suppose. But the heart of them atter is that you could make income tax 100% for the top 1% and it wouldn't fix it.
Actually this would increase revenue by ~2 trillion a year and would basically fix everything in 5 years time. I think the reason so many people want to continue to tax the rich is because that was what was working for the 8 years before bush came into office but obviously we should tax across the board. It's just that increases scale up the higher you are on the income bracket and its the most powerful among us that lobby the hardest to stop tax increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
