EPTHow do foreigners view US politics? - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On November 05 2010 11:14 kzn wrote: This thread in general, and this post in particular, is an amazing example of how people have somehow reversed the burden of proof with regards to wealth distribution. It is not necessary for me to establish that the 80% of the people who control 7% of the wealth "deserve" to control only that much. That is a wealth distribution that demonstrably arose from voluntary transactions. If you think that for some reason that 80% deserve a different proportion of the wealth, the burden of proof is on you to show why. The 20% of people who control (apparently) 93% of the wealth are invariably: 1) In possession of a very rare skill (or combination of skills) that is in high demand 2) Lucky as all fuck 3) Both of the above 4) Descended from someone who was one of the above With the exception of 2), you really cant justify wealth redistribution on ethical grounds, and trying to identify who got lucky is pretty ridiculous. This is not an argument. It is completely irrelevant that he would have paid more before to the question of whether its analogous to slavery. In fact, income taxation is almost precisely identical to forced labor (whether you want to call that slavery or not is a different matter, I guess) - the market sets the value for your labor, you perform your labor, and the government takes some of that labor-generated value by force. In part, this can actually be justified (vaguely, at least) on practical grounds, if not on ethical grounds - but its pretty much no longer a point of contention that the analogy holds. "Poor people are poor because they are stupid." This line of reasoning is so absurdly wrong. Capital gain is all about risk. This is an undeniable fact. Wall Street stocks are nothing but officiated gambling rings, and all monetary gains are literally premised on the idea of speculative future gains at an initial cost. With every risk-dependent venture, luck is incredibly huge. The fundamental "rags-to-riches" tale is that of business, but that's almost wholly dictated by luck. No matter how talented you are, you aren't going to be a prophet who can predict the future. The "forced labor" reference is an absurd antique from ultra-liberal Rousseau-based thought. It doesn't make sense because A) labor cannot be "divided" in the same way money can, ie it is a binary of all-or-nothing and cannot be translated into monetary terms ["dollars per hour" don't make sense when you cannot claim that say the first 1/5 fraction of your hours is being appropriated to taxes as that would be an arbitrary delineation] and B) the whole "the product of my labor is an extension of my body" link is based on a concept of property that is incredibly weak. If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Capital gain is all about risk. This is an undeniable fact. Wall Street stocks are nothing but officiated gambling rings, and all monetary gains are literally premised on the idea of speculative future gains at an initial cost. With every risk-dependent venture, luck is incredibly huge. The fundamental "rags-to-riches" tale is that of business, but that's almost wholly dictated by luck. No matter how talented you are, you aren't going to be a prophet who can predict the future. No, this is incredibly simplified and incorrect. It may look like luck to you and me, but comparing stocks to gambling rings is not fair at all. "Speculative future gains" is not gambling. It's speculative future gains. You can make close-to-accurate predictions about what's going to happen. It is not random. 1. "The House always wins" doesn't apply to stocks 2. If anything the stocks are stacked in your favor (as long as you have accurate information) 3. It provides necessary funds and allocation to real-world companies and products 4. Stock markets make money more efficient and the economy stronger in general This is not an argument. It is completely irrelevant that he would have paid more before to the question of whether its analogous to slavery. In fact, income taxation is almost precisely identical to forced labor (whether you want to call that slavery or not is a different matter, I guess) - the market sets the value for your labor, you perform your labor, and the government takes some of that labor-generated value by force. In part, this can actually be justified (vaguely, at least) on practical grounds, if not on ethical grounds - but its pretty much no longer a point of contention that the analogy holds. Are you serious? I have to ask honestly. Are you really comparing taxation to slavery? Seriously? That's so hyperbolic I could fit an ideal triangle inside that argument. I would even call that trolling. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On November 05 2010 13:16 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: "Poor people are poor because they are stupid." This line of reasoning is so absurdly wrong. Fortunately, that wasn't my line of reasoning. Capital gain is all about risk. This is an undeniable fact. Wall Street stocks are nothing but officiated gambling rings, and all monetary gains are literally premised on the idea of speculative future gains at an initial cost. With every risk-dependent venture, luck is incredibly huge. I don't think you understand why Wall Street works. If it was actually just gambling, nobody would ever make a return on investment - yet everyone does, unless they are tremendously unlucky. The gambling aspect of Wall Street is the speculative aspect, but that doesn't encompass all of Wall Street. The fundamental "rags-to-riches" tale is that of business, but that's almost wholly dictated by luck. No matter how talented you are, you aren't going to be a prophet who can predict the future. The existence of a number of individual investors (and, indeed, mutual funds) that have beat the market over the long term suggests otherwise. The "forced labor" reference is an absurd antique from ultra-liberal Rousseau-based thought. It doesn't make sense because A) labor cannot be "divided" in the same way money can, ie it is a binary of all-or-nothing and cannot be translated into monetary terms ["dollars per hour" don't make sense when you cannot claim that say the first 1/5 fraction of your hours is being appropriated to taxes as that would be an arbitrary delineation] This is completely nonsensical. If labor was binary wages wouldn't be paid in hourly increments (or, for that matter, monthly or yearly increments). If labor was binary you could either make something or make zero progress towards making something, which is not the case. and B) the whole "the product of my labor is an extension of my body" link is based on a concept of property that is incredibly weak. If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work. This only makes sense if you subscribe to laughable Marxian views of labor. Nobody is paid for the end product they put out, unless they perform the entire production process themselves. They are paid for value added, which is precisely what their labor produces. | ||
|
lundril
Germany12 Posts
On November 04 2010 14:54 skurj wrote: As an American with crazy right-wing leanings, perhaps I can explain our mentality and the source of the right wing surge in America. Great post because it gives a lot of insight without sounding stupid. Thanks (totally earnest!). There is a large contingent of people in America and abroad that think America should be more like Sweden and offer more social benefits. I just yesterday found some numbers. What made me goggle: The US was like Sweden (at least income tax wise)! Look at this Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954 The US had a max income tax of 91%. When I read this I was totally baffled! This is higher than any income tax I ever heard of. Then came Reagen and lowered it first to 50% (dropped already to 70% before) and then to 38.5%. Now to me it seems pretty obvious that the effect of this is two fold: - People with a high income get richer more quickly. - Government increases its deficit even faster. Interestingly most people seem to deny that effect. The conservative economy theory goes like this: Decreased taxes == automatic miracolous growth == increased income for government == less deficit. Even more interestingly this formula never worked (at least not in the last step; the deficit never got less). So why do people still believe that myth ? ... In many ways the budget crisis in California mirrors the budget crisis happening in many European countries. This makes sense because California politics is basically European when you look at its left lean and strong union influence. Actually this sounds pretty wrong. Ireland certainly had no left wing politics economy wise and still is in trouble. The UK definitely had no left wing politics economy wise and still is in trouble. I don't know if Greece is left wing but compared to California it certainly has no big High Tech industry or other multi-billion dollar industry, so a big part of Greeces trouble probably comes from a not so strong industry. Germany in contrast was blamed to have some left wing economics and is deemed to be in less trouble than other countries (I as a German also feel not exactly happy about our deficit, but then Germans are often a little bit pessimistic in general). Many Americans see California, and for that matter Greece, France, and Great Britain, and we worry that the Democratic Party will lead the entire country into a debt crisis. ... Well Greece and France might be leftist (not too sure about that), but Great Britain certainly is not. Not since Thatcher... Then I guess you realize that the only president in the last 30 years which actually started to decrease the deficit was Clinton (a democrat) ? See here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-726447-146823.html In America, many of us are quite amazed at the extent of the left-wing in Europe. We see that the French government raised the retirement age by 2 years because they had to, otherwise the country would go bankrupt, and French citizens riot in the street and demand their handouts! Demanding handouts is very unAmerican. We believe that a person should take responsibility for himself and only seek help if he falls on hard times. Many people on the right-wing believe that socialism corrupts the morality and spirit of a people, it makes them soft and dependent, infantilized. We see the riots in France and this confirms our negative views of socialism. What I do not understand about that "a person should take responsibility for himself": This only makes sense if the chances are at least somewhat fair. I really have to make a StarCraft comparison here: If Flash beats all other ProGamers in StarCraft for sure you don't cry about the losers because you grant that Flash achieved that by simply training a lot and the losers take responsibility (in interviews) by simply conceding the fact that Flash trained harder or was just better or wanted it more. Now change the game: Give Flash opponents 500 Minerals as seed money right when the game starts. Now suddenly Flash looses all the time. As a conservative you would really stand up and say that Flash should "take responsibilty" for his losses and stop whining about seed money ? So if Flash complains about the difference in seed money you would call him a "socialist" and that he has a corrupt morality ? This really sounds weird... Back to reality: Since the parents of children have got a vastly different financial background, I simply cannot see how that "responsibility" can apply to children. Children of rich people in general get a superb education and have no problems (financial wise) to get a college degree and on top they inheret lots and lots of seed money for kick starting their life as an adult. Now how can you compare the "responsibility" of these children to the "responsibility" of children who had poor parents, in consequence a bad education, no colledge degree and no seed money (instead these children might have some moral fiber and help their parents to survive, so you could argue their seed money is negative). The only entity that might be able to bring at least some kind of balance into this "game of life" is Government as far as I can tell. So as long as it comes to the education of children and the environment in which children are raised I simply do not understand at all how someone can seriously believe that Government should stay out of it. Back to taxes and deficits. I think the trend which Reagan started - lowering max income taxes - was copied world wide. Here in Germany even the social-democratic party of Germany (SPD) continued this trend in the 21st century. For some strange reason nobody seems to connect these steady decreases in maximum tax with the ever rising increase in deficit. Why ? | ||
|
Hansel
Germany311 Posts
For the tax cutbacks: people will always vote for those who give out the most freebies. Inherent flaw of democracy i guess. Look at the FDP and Merkels talk about "more netto from brutto". As for the economic situation in greece: The system is highly corrupt and there is no substantial industry besides poorly managed tourism. Plus they have a rather high military budget (to keep the turks at bay :-)). I guess someone is getting some really good cash out of it. On topic: Besides Palin and other rather laughables figures or fundamentalists of various colours i dont think american policy is widely regarded as stupid. At least not from those who actually try to understand the matters. | ||
|
piratekaybear
United States50 Posts
On November 05 2010 13:16 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: "Poor people are poor because they are stupid." This line of reasoning is so absurdly wrong. Capital gain is all about risk. This is an undeniable fact. Wall Street stocks are nothing but officiated gambling rings, and all monetary gains are literally premised on the idea of speculative future gains at an initial cost. With every risk-dependent venture, luck is incredibly huge. The fundamental "rags-to-riches" tale is that of business, but that's almost wholly dictated by luck. No matter how talented you are, you aren't going to be a prophet who can predict the future. The "forced labor" reference is an absurd antique from ultra-liberal Rousseau-based thought. It doesn't make sense because A) labor cannot be "divided" in the same way money can, ie it is a binary of all-or-nothing and cannot be translated into monetary terms ["dollars per hour" don't make sense when you cannot claim that say the first 1/5 fraction of your hours is being appropriated to taxes as that would be an arbitrary delineation] and B) the whole "the product of my labor is an extension of my body" link is based on a concept of property that is incredibly weak. If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work. omg i laughed so hard at this last part, "If you entirely own a can of soup, and you pour that can of soup into the ocean, you do not own that ocean. Neither does your labor directly translate into the end-product you pour it into, ie the official employment you have and whatever specific tasks that takes, and the monetary product of that work." Abstract: I think your mind is a funny place If I asked 'the man who poured that can of soup into the ocean', (call him K), why it is the case that he decided to pour his legally obtained can of soup into the ocean, would he tell me that he was of the mind to obtain the ocean; in just the same manner as when one proclaims that the ocean is his own property? What would that mean he was implying? Not anything intelligible. Basically, who the fuck fills the ocean with cans of soup? Get it K? Who the fuck are you? Any normal person could be expected to have the following answer about why it is that they would buy a can of soup: that they like the taste of the soupy contents of the can, that the can is of aesthetic or artistic value, maybe they just have the cash and thought it would be a good deal, etc. And now I ask you, how is pouring a can of soup into the ocean going to even remotely fulfill any meaningful task? Furthermore, should we assume that K was in fact attempting to possess the ocean by dumping the can of soup into the ocean we might intuitively refer to our belief that the ocean stands as a symbol in our lives, and as a major ecological adaptive entity that we all contend with; oceans and the activity of people as concerns beaches and more mysterious contentious events if you can imagine. If our concept of 'ocean' is anything like what oceans really are like, then the soup might as well have been dropped on the ground instead, or on my dog Shelley, or over a Picasso painting...What I mean to say is that one cannot ever succeed at owning the ocean in any manner a would be economist would ever speak the word 'property' to be. Even supposing that we all just decide to agree that your 'can' metaphor is in some form useful, I must confess I do not believe that your ability to describe the actual value that a human life possesses is anything at all to what this powerful notion, correctly considered, actually means. And if you don't know the value of human life, or cannot think up a definition that you have the nerve to propose (esp. considering the nature of the subject matter), maybe you should quit trying to run your own equations; until you get that right, take the human 'variables' out of your economic theorems. If you must know how one may 'correctly consider', read this: you must consider what value you prescribe for yourself, and understand 'the how' of the poorest citizens of your community. The rest will follow from there. tl;dr Thought experiments should never be used like a whore. Treat them with respect, and you will grow in the process; especially if you ween off of the cliches ;D | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
- Both countries are highly corrupt, I would bet my money that at least 90% of all representatives and congressman are plain flat dirty. - American people are WAY more politically conscious than around here. You complain a lot about your people, but at least they're trying to do something. The masses are stupid anywhere in the globe and vote for stupid stuff anywhere in the globe. But average Americans understand politics much better than the average brazilians and are mostly worried about it and trying to change something. Around here, we just had elections to choose our representatives last month, and the most voted guy was a clown (literally) whose campaign slogan was "vote on the clown because it can't get any worse than this". Not joking. - On the other hand Americans are WAY more blind towards corruption. The average American has this illusion that politicians care about them and work for them. When in fact, they're working out of self interest. Frauds, bribery and embezzlement run freely but most americans fail to understand this. While most of the people in my country don't understand politics as well, they're at least conscious about corruption. Which, I think is because of: - US justice system is WAAY more efficient than in most other places. It might have many flaws, but justice does have flaws everywhere around the world. At least your justice system is fast. Here we watch all the time in the news obvious dirty politicians caught on tape literally stealing people's money and hiding it in their underwear. And those usually go unpunished and often get reelected. Not joking, nor exaggerating. Because of your more efficient justice, politicians had do adapt, à la Darwinism, and hide their frauds much better. Which is what causes americans to be more blind of corruption. - The fact that you only have two major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) is really bad for democracy. Both parties are very similar and only pretend to be different for populist reasons. I would love to see americans voting differently more often even if it's only to give them a message. - It's jaw dropping how some americans are still concerned about "communism" and have this illusion that left vs right still exists in this day. Around here, being "leftist" is so popular that even the most "right-wing" candidates try to market themselves as socialists just to get votes. - It's also jaw dropping to watch all that money embezzled into the military, while your country is desperately looking for solutions for economic problems. And most americans just seem completely blind that the number 1 reason why you make wars is embezzlement. All that money that could be helping your economy is being wasted for no other reason than the self-interest of very few. Of course I'm more accurate about this here, where I've met many of them in person. All I know about US politics is what I conclude from watching the news. Though I do watch news often and from varied sources. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
For us it's interesting, how citizens of a country that already severly lacks concerning social services, health care etc. steadily show such widespread support for ultra-conservative, libertarian streams. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:07 sleepingdog wrote: As of now, many people in Austria wonder how US-citizens who have an IQ above 100 and are no religious fundamentalists can vote for the Tea Party - especially after the disastrous "regime" of Bush the 2nd. For us it's interesting, how citizens of a country that already severly lacks concerning social services, health care etc. steadily show such widespread support for ultra-conservative, libertarian streams. I know. Isn't it sad that Americans are against things like healthcare for all people? | ||
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:10 Ferrose wrote: I know. Isn't it sad that Americans are against things like healthcare for all people? Apparently, personal responsibility isn't dead yet. How sad. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10776 Posts
Seriously, just have a look at the swiss healthcare system. I think it would fit the US really well. It's still handled by insurance companies, there are mandatory and not mandatory parts.... I don't think it's a particulary good/outstanding system, buti think it would go well with the "spirit" of the US  | ||
|
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
In Europe people want the state to help the poor/handicapped and creat an equal society.. In America everyone stands for himself, and is fine with corporations/the wealthy fuck with the poor. (I lol'd hard when i heard that healtcare insurance companys could kick you out of insurance when u got sick... Obama changed it ... but i guess >50% of americans want to be fucked by corporations and repeal that "Obamacare") | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On November 05 2010 11:14 kzn wrote: It is not necessary for me to establish that the 80% of the people who control 7% of the wealth "deserve" to control only that much. That is a wealth distribution that demonstrably arose from voluntary transactions. If you think that for some reason that 80% deserve a different proportion of the wealth, the burden of proof is on you to show why. Your reasoning requires a lot of premises. You have to prove that the capitalist system we use today with all it's complicated rules, all it's regulation and lack of regulation, laws for property rights etc are all in some way natural, correct or moral. In fact they are not. The capitalist system we have created with all it's rules is just that, a construct, a game created by humans. If that game doesn't give maximum benefit to society we can change the rules at any time. You can't derive who deserves or doesn't deserve something from the outcome of a game we created ourselves | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:33 Gaga wrote: I Guess thats the main difference between americans and europeans.. In Europe people want the state to help the poor/handicapped and creat an equal society.. In America everyone stands for himself, and is fine with corporations/the wealthy fuck with the poor. (I lol'd hard when i heard that healtcare insurance companys could kick you out of insurance when u got sick... Obama changed it ... but i guess >50% of americans want to be fucked by corporations and repeal that "Obamacare") That's because with Obamacare, they will have death panels to execute old people, because they're "too expensive." And that is just the start. Pretty soon we'll have to use the government's TV and internet. Then the government will control every aspect of our lives so that we're all slaves to the governement, and Obama can rule the world like the evil dictator he is. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10776 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:46 Velr wrote: Somewhere in there you forgot to use the words muslim, nazi and communism :p People are still claiming that he's Muslim. It's sad. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On November 05 2010 02:49 Rashia wrote: 4. Your president has to believe in the Christian god (or never be elected), which makes you as good as Israel or Palestine. I believe that the current US president is an atheist, but pays lips service. | ||
|
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
On November 05 2010 22:38 Ferrose wrote: That's because with Obamacare, they will have death panels to execute old people, because they're "too expensive." And that is just the start. Pretty soon we'll have to use the government's TV and internet. Then the government will control every aspect of our lives so that we're all slaves to the governement, and Obama can rule the world like the evil dictator he is. i guess it's not a good sign that when i read this from an american, i don't know if you are sarcarstic or not :> | ||
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
| ||
| ||
