|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Hey hey hey now
Richard Yuengling Jr. of D.G. Yuengling & Son (# 371) at $1.4 billion.
I'm okay with this. In fact I'm going to go cry a tear and buy a beer in honor of their top 400 achievement.
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_M54XLqjBLNg/TLxTeJFt3PI/AAAAAAAABrU/HPaZvaQXLHc/s1600/yuengling_eagle.jpeg)
AMERICA!
But honestly, the overall wealth of the top 400 increased by 16% in one year. The idea that rich people can't stand to pay more taxes is ridiculous.
|
we have an army don't we?
use it to pay off that debt you're always bitching about
|
On September 17 2013 11:26 sam!zdat wrote:
we have an army don't we?
use it to pay off that debt you're always bitching about
The Saudis offered to pay us to invade Syria and depose Assad. If the price was high enough, I'd do it.
|
the worlds largest merc army
|
On September 17 2013 11:26 sam!zdat wrote:
we have an army don't we?
use it to pay off that debt you're always bitching about
I assume you mean the US government's debt? I can't remember the last time I've bitched about it...
Anyways, you need cash to pay back the debt. So you'd have to sell the assets to someone else to get the cash. ... foreigners?
|
whatever. Just take it. Nobody should have that much wealth it's just a new feudalism. Do we need to bust out the guillotine?
|
On September 17 2013 06:59 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake It's easy to be a critic. It's harder to provide working alternatives. Commies haven't been too impressive with their alternatives so far, have they? Not really. Here, I'll have a go: While jobs have historically followed the model of Say's law, modern technology which exponentially increases the per worker productivity has shifted the balance towards job stagnation. BAM
I was reading about the over saturation of jobs in this thread a day or so ago, and came to a similar conclusion, that if menial tasks continue to be replaced by robots and programs then socialism starts to seem more viable.
The thing is, I do like the way that Capitalism motivates people to try harder to succeed, but I don't like the way that there is no limit on success and the more success few people have the more many seem to suffer.
So what if we has a combination (I know Western civilisation already takes pieces from both Capitalist and Socialist ideas but bear with me), where some percentage, lets say fifty percent of large companies were owned by the people and the profits were distributed with the remaining fifty percent being privately/publicly available. This way everyone would benefit directly by the economy doing well, the wealth disparity would either shrink or at least the minimum line would raise, and assuming there is not enough revenue from %50 of large companies for everyone to live comfortably, everyone would still have incentive to succeed.
I don't consider myself well versed in economics, so if anyone who is could let me know why this is a horrible idea (just the general idea, the specifics on percentages and what kinds of companies would all be flexible) and wouldn't work please do so. If I could get a Capitalist and a Communist perspective that would be great.
|
On September 17 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:
whatever. Just take it. Nobody should have that much wealth it's just a new feudalism. Do we need to bust out the guillotine?
Sorry, I'm just wondering what the plan is.
Step 1: We'll have the military seize a bunch of property
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit
I'd just like some more details before we send the military all underpants gnome across the country.
|
On September 17 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +A Victory in the Battle To Make Banks Boring
If you like your banks boring, well capitalized and also contributing to the real economy, you will be cheered by yesterday's quarterly review from the Bank for International Settlements, which contains a special feature on "How have banks adjusted to higher capital requirements?" That's a much-discussed question with at least two possible bad answers. The banks argue against higher capital requirements by saying it would force them to cut back on lending. I wonder whether higher (risk-weighted) capital requirements will lead banks to just monkey with the models for their risk-weighted assets.
But the BIS's answer is pretty solidly the good answer: Banks have increased capital ratios by retaining more earnings, without cutting back on lending or monkeying too much with the models ... LinkThis is an example of what I would consider a good, workable fix. Well capitalized banks may not be as fun for bankers, but it's good for pretty much everyone else.
I applaud that article for a very tasteful use of irony in the title. Sometimes I wonder if those on the left have a secret hankering for more interesting economies, ones more characterized by their boomsbubbles and busts. The economy's too boring, let's get with some more progressives to spice things up!
|
On September 17 2013 11:45 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 06:59 Jormundr wrote:On September 17 2013 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake It's easy to be a critic. It's harder to provide working alternatives. Commies haven't been too impressive with their alternatives so far, have they? Not really. Here, I'll have a go: While jobs have historically followed the model of Say's law, modern technology which exponentially increases the per worker productivity has shifted the balance towards job stagnation. BAM I was reading about the over saturation of jobs in this thread a day or so ago, and came to a similar conclusion, that if menial tasks continue to be replaced by robots and programs then socialism starts to seem more viable. The thing is, I do like the way that Capitalism motivates people to try harder to succeed, but I don't like the way that there is no limit on success and the more success few people have the more many seem to suffer. So what if we has a combination (I know Western civilisation already takes pieces from both Capitalist and Socialist ideas but bear with me), where some percentage, lets say fifty percent of large companies were owned by the people and the profits were distributed with the remaining fifty percent being privately/publicly available. This way everyone would benefit directly by the economy doing well, the wealth disparity would either shrink or at least the minimum line would raise, and assuming there is not enough revenue from %50 of large companies for everyone to live comfortably, everyone would still have incentive to succeed. I don't consider myself well versed in economics, so if anyone who is could let me know why this is a horrible idea (just the general idea, the specifics on percentages and what kinds of companies would all be flexible) and wouldn't work please do so. If I could get a Capitalist and a Communist perspective that would be great.
Capitalist perspective here:
I don't think there's anything inherently inefficient with companies of any size being owned more broadly. Transaction costs used to make that an issue, but we have the inerwebs and mutual funds now.
The only technical complaint I have with the idea is that profits are not the same thing is free cash flow that can easily go to owners. Also, there's usually a need for even the free cash flow to get invested into something else. So in other words, you probably wouldn't want it all to get used for consumption.
The only other question would be how you go about the redistribution (OK, this is a big question).
Farv posted a few pages back an article on "inclusive capitalism". You could also check out ideas like a guaranteed minimum income and wage subsidies.
|
jonny I think we have this thing called taxation where you just say 'hey asshole! Give us your money!' and the military never really has to get involved
|
On September 17 2013 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:
Unreasoned and stupid dissent is useful too, actually. It forces people to ask the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" which is the fundamental question of rationality. People like Holocaust Denialists, who are patently ridiculous, can serve as a good motivator for a rational mind.
And where has it been shown that the question itself is what is important and not the eventual answer? Why do I believe what I believe? If I am to trust no answer and believe nothing said by anyone then asking that question is useless. I believe because I want to believe. And what then? A self-examination? What does that self-examination bring other than confusion or apathy?
This is the problem with this idolization of mindless dissent. It creates nothing but confusion for the average person. They are told to question everything and believe nothing and so they reject even trying. They perceive the world of politics and economics as a realm too murky for them to understand and cast everything in that light. By asking for more dissent you have created a society filled with much less true dissent because the majority of the population is so apathetic and disillusioned with the process that they could care less about changing the process or truly protesting against it. They are much more easily controlled by demagogues and cheap slogans, I'll give you that. But if your goal is to create an analytical population, then asking for mindless, irrational, cheap dissent only serves to create a far more obedient subject. They will obey the first person who comes along offering cheap, easy solutions because they know nothing else.
A person who has no firm ground to stand upon should not attempt to run, so why would you ask a person with no strong moral foundation to leap into making examinations about their lives and society? Forge within your citizens a strong moral and philosophical foundation, and then allow them to ask the questions they want to ask, not force them to ask the questions you want to ask.
|
^poor poor stupid common people
|
No one is idolizing "mindless dissent", and methinks you have a very odd take on education if you think that building a foundation requires nothing but swallowing.
Edit: Actually, that would explain a lot.
|
On September 17 2013 12:01 sam!zdat wrote:
jonny I think we have this thing called taxation where you just say 'hey asshole! Give us your money!' and the military never really has to get involved
OK, that sounds a bit moar sane 
Can we focus on people and not companies too? i.e. keep businesses profitable but have their profits owned more broadly. I'd find that rather palpable, especially if we eased into it.
|
yes I've been convinced that corporate taxes are not that great of an idea (but I forget why). We should implement a wealth tax and also institute a maximum inheritance estate tax. And otherwise tax the fuck out of rich people. But corproate taxes I'm willing to concede
and abolish all sales tax. And institute carbon tax
|
I've never understood why corporate taxes exist, then again I'm not that knowledgeable about taxes...If you tax people, why do you need the extra tax on this 'abstract entity'? It'd be like holding the nation/state of a country accountable for a crime, but never persecuting a person. How does a corporation itself make money...? I feel like these are dumb but important questions
|
On September 17 2013 12:13 sam!zdat wrote:
yes I've been convinced that corporate taxes are not that great of an idea. We should implement a wealth tax and also institute a maximum inheritance estate tax. And otherwise tax the fuck out of rich people. But corproate taxes I'm willing to concede
and abolish all sales tax. And institute carbon tax
I'd rather raise sales taxes (on non essentials), also institute a carbon tax and abolish wage taxes (FICA).
No comment on the rest, I'm getting exhausted! Glad to see some area of agreement
Edit: Sales taxes are pretty cool because you can nab criminal and foreign tourist income. You'd also nab domestic wage and capital income, but the elimination of FICA could net it out for the wages.
Edit 2: My real concern with taxing the rich is that they do all the saving and investing ('job creators'). So if you tax the shit out of them I want something to replace their saving and investing, meaning the middle and lower class will have to pick up the slack somehow.
|
On September 17 2013 12:01 sam!zdat wrote:
jonny I think we have this thing called taxation where you just say 'hey asshole! Give us your money!' and the military never really has to get involved
Where are Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men when you need them?
We need a cyber-Robin who is capable of mass transfer of cyber wealth. Take from the Waltons and give to the slums.
|
On September 17 2013 12:19 Roe wrote:
I've never understood why corporate taxes exist, then again I'm not that knowledgeable about taxes...If you tax people, why do you need the extra tax on this 'abstract entity'? It'd be like holding the nation/state of a country accountable for a crime, but never persecuting a person. How does a corporation itself make money...? I feel like these are dumb but important questions
Convenience. If you taxed corporate earnings as a flow through partnership you'd have some investors who would have difficulty paying the taxes. Just because the corporation owes taxes doesn't mean that the shareholder received any cash, which can be a problem for smaller investors.
It can also be an administrative pain when filing your taxes. Filling out a K-2 sucks! ... and so grandma would need to hire a high priced tax professional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
