|
On July 26 2011 22:51 BestZergOnEast wrote:
WHat's the matter, are your ideas not strong enough; scared of the fight?
I posted more than enough in this thread and everyone with a half a brain sees trough this neoliberal bullshit. But I really hope that you, one day have to work a shitty job way under your classifications because your company laid you off because they moved to bangladesh. And when you work construction, you fall down, break your legs three times and can't move anymore. Then you can't work and the only thing you can do is, lying in the streets and ask people for change. Maybe then you understand why your "economics", which you're crying about that no one except you understands them, fucking suck. Maybe you even have to rely on "evil marxists" to give out food in open kitchens. Congratulation on your perfect society.
|
Your characterization of the industrial revolution is inaccurate. Workers of course got paid (else why would they work). They didn't get paid much compared to modern times, perhaps, but we've also had hundreds of years of economic development since then. Workers actually prospered greatly during the industrial revolution. You have to understand working 10 hours in a factory sucks, but working 14 hours scratching a living out of the dirt is even worse. You couldn't have HAD safety nets or the welfare state during the industrial revolution. Where is the wealth going to come from? There wasn't enough to steal.
America's current prosperity comes from one factor - the economic freedom in which that country existed from 1776-1914. The laissez-faire approach to the economy lead to massive accumulations of wealth. Taxes AREN'T low for big business in America, The american government is spending 5 trillion dollars this year. You think that means low taxes?
The real safety net is a good economy. The trillions of dollars government spends on social programs does not make average people richer. A good job makes you richer. All the taxes to pay for this 5 trillion in speding makes everyone else, who doesn't work for the government, who isn't a net tax recipient, poorer. And since poor people typically don't wield a lot of influence in government, they get shafted.
The incrementalism of the left must be opposed. It's not just a "tiny tax hike on the rich". YOu have been hiking up taxes for a hundred years... a little bit here, a little bit there, and now the marginal tax rate is approaching 70%. YET STILL YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE OF MY MONEY.
Well I have one word for you pal -
No.
|
On July 26 2011 20:36 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 20:32 shell wrote:
What many americans don't get is that without state social politics comes crime, drug abuse, big problems that cost way more to solve after then exist! That's why you have the biggest criminal population, biggest crime % in the western world, worse medical care in the western world, etc..
It's way less expensive to spend millions on food programs against obesity then to fight it later in the hospital where you will lose lives and pay up for the medical care! etc..
So actually your quality of life decreases without social policies.. That's why smaller and weaker countrys are in fact better countrys to live then USA, like sweden, denmark, norway, finland and Canada! But of course almost all EU countrys have a better life standart then in USA even if you guys have all the money!
americans value their freedom to do what the fuck they like even if it isnt good for them and creates more problems. Thats just how it is ...
yea, if only there was some kind of mastermind who knew what is good for everyone and what isn't. Oh wait, there used to be these masterminds in the past, they were called central planners.
|
On July 26 2011 23:01 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Your characterization of the industrial revolution is inaccurate. Workers of course got paid (else why would they work). They didn't get paid much compared to modern times, perhaps, but we've also had hundreds of years of economic development since then. Workers actually prospered greatly during the industrial revolution. You have to understand working 10 hours in a factory sucks, but working 14 hours scratching a living out of the dirt is even worse. You couldn't have HAD safety nets or the welfare state during the industrial revolution. Where is the wealth going to come from? There wasn't enough to steal.
America's current prosperity comes from one factor - the economic freedom in which that country existed from 1776-1914. The laissez-faire approach to the economy lead to massive accumulations of wealth. Taxes AREN'T low for big business in America, The american government is spending 5 trillion dollars this year. You think that means low taxes?
The real safety net is a good economy. The trillions of dollars government spends on social programs does not make average people richer. A good job makes you richer. All the taxes to pay for this 5 trillion in speding makes everyone else, who doesn't work for the government, who isn't a net tax recipient, poorer. And since poor people typically don't wield a lot of influence in government, they get shafted.
The incrementalism of the left must be opposed. It's not just a "tiny tax hike on the rich". YOu have been hiking up taxes for a hundred years... a little bit here, a little bit there, and now the marginal tax rate is approaching 70%. YET STILL YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE OF MY MONEY.
Well I have one word for you pal -
No.
Your take on history is in reality not valid, because people worked less and under much better conditions in agrarian times than after the industrial revolution. You don't seem to understand that the world is a complex thing, and we don't live in a single issue society. I won't argue with you anymore.
|
|
|
Then why did people choose to work in factories as opposed to staying on their agrarian paradises? There have always been luddites that oppose progress because of irrational fear but we shoudn't let them hold us back.
|
On July 26 2011 23:01 BestZergOnEast wrote:
The incrementalism of the left must be opposed. It's not just a "tiny tax hike on the rich". YOu have been hiking up taxes for a hundred years... a little bit here, a little bit there, and now the marginal tax rate is approaching 70%. YET STILL YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE OF MY MONEY.
Well I have one word for you pal -
No.
It was my impression that taxes for the rich have been at a historical low. A quick google search reveals this:
Tax rates 1960-2011
Source http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/us-tax-rates-for-the-rich-then-and-now/
According to this, in 2011 the 1 mil plus earners pay almost half as much as back in 1960.
|
You are looking at one tax specifically. I am talking about the over all tax burden.
And yes, that's true.... the top rate was 70% I believe (JUST FOR INCOME) at one point. So Reagan cut that tax and then replaced it with pay roll taxes. It's all just a shell game, the only number that matters if you are concerned about taxes is aggregate government spending since money borrowed or printed costs the public just as much as money directly taxed.
|
On July 26 2011 22:38 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 22:19 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Anyone who rails against tax cuts has no justification in even using the word economics. Anyone who is so closed minded and/or chooses to remain so against any benefit outside their immediate benefit, could never become an economist on any level other than a personal accountant.
this is a silly argument. did you know that there is more to tax cuts than rich getting richer?
its pretty crazy that no one knows whats going to happen yet the markets havent seem to have priced in the associated risks.
Anyone who is so ignorant and/or chooses to remain so against any idea outside their own beliefs, could never become a professional on any level other than a professional amateur.
|
On July 26 2011 22:46 BestZergOnEast wrote:
The fact of the matter is economics is a science. It has been in development for well over 3000 years. Slowly but surely individuals have contributed to this science. Aristotled noted that private property was superior to public property. Aquinas worked to abolish this notion of a 'just price'. Turgot got pretty much everything right. The spanish scholastics systemized and expanded on his work. Then you have the insights of the Austrians.
You cannot just remain blindly ignorant of 3000 + years of economic theory and just think you can come up with your own ideas without first understanding and refuting these ideas.
And it's FINE to be ignorant of economics. I am ignorant on many subjects. But on these subjects I stay silent. Because it is not only foolish, it is morally reprehensible to hold and express opinions on this subject if you are ignorant because ideas have consequences and the ideas of marxism have made slaves of hundreds of millions and I will not suffer it gladly.
Anybody who was really knowledgable about the subject would be the first to concede that there actually is an ongoing debate between economists about the right way to go in a fiscal crisis with good arguments on either side. Then again you constantly do refer to economics as a science (and compare it to physics and biology in another post), but at the same time praise the insights of the Austrian school, somehow ignoring that it was the Austrians who challenged the idea of economics being a science and instead using a priori knowledge to argue for their claims. To me this demonstrates a sufficient level of ignorance on the subject, so I would not mind if you took your standards seriously and would just stay silent ... just saying ...
|
On July 26 2011 23:07 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Then why did people choose to work in factories as opposed to staying on their agrarian paradises? There have always been luddites that oppose progress because of irrational fear but we shoudn't let them hold us back.
Because they were forced to, because older production methods weren't able to compete. You obviously don't care about history, when it doesn't fit into your way you see things.
You are completly disregarding everything social sciences ever found out about the way economy, society and politics interact with each other and then talk like you're the big man who knows everything. Not even I have an attitude like this.
|
On July 26 2011 23:07 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Then why did people choose to work in factories as opposed to staying on their agrarian paradises? There have always been luddites that oppose progress because of irrational fear but we shoudn't let them hold us back.
I don't know what's scarier to believe: that you wrote this sincerely or that you're taking the piss and that it so sincerely resembles the actual, crazy counterpoint that I just can't see it.
Nobody actually believes economics has been honed as or into a monological science for 3000 years. That's impossible.
|
The Austrians never challenged the idea that economics was a science; we simply claim it is a deductive science. You begin with a single axiom (a statement which is prima facie true) and can from there deduce the totality of praxeology (the science of human action). The axiom in this case is 'man acts purposefully' which no one can dispute.
As far as conceding that the establishment hack economists have valid arguments - no thank you. Objective rights and wrongs exist. This isn't preschool. Everyone's opinion doesn't count. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Ideas have consequences, and if you are wrong it means things are dramatically worse for a lot of people. You concede you do not know which side is right and which side is wrong; perhaps you should defer to someone who does.
People weren't forced into factories (aside from in states which took marxism seriously, like the soviet union or china). They chose to work in factories because it was a better way to support their family. You demean these people by implying that you knew more about their condition and how they should have lived their lives and taken care of their family then they themselves did. Such fatal conceit.
and jon if you just want to make ad-hom attacks could you plz do so in a PM to me so it doesn't clutter up the thread? thanks brah.
|
On July 26 2011 23:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
People weren't forced into factories (aside from in states which took marxism seriously, like the soviet union or china). They chose to work in factories because it was a better way to support their family. You demean these people by implying that you knew more about their condition and how they should have lived their lives and taken care of their family then they themselves did. Such fatal conceit.
Obviously no one was standing with a gun in their back. They were forced by economic reasons (which is a force in itself). It wasn't better, but the only way to make enough money to eat because they were forced out of business. You are seemingly the most ignorant person I've ever "met". Glenn Beck is more open minded than you.
|
On July 26 2011 23:08 BestZergOnEast wrote:
You are looking at one tax specifically. I am talking about the over all tax burden.
And the rest of the tax burden (VAT, property tax) is... Non-progressive.
|
On July 26 2011 23:35 BestZergOnEast wrote:
The Austrians never challenged the idea that economics was a science; we simply claim it is a deductive science. You begin with a single axiom (a statement which is prima facie true) and can from there deduce the totality of praxeology (the science of human action). The axiom in this case is 'man acts purposefully' which no one can dispute.
As far as conceding that the establishment hack economists have valid arguments - no thank you. Objective rights and wrongs exist. This isn't preschool. Everyone's opinion doesn't count. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Ideas have consequences, and if you are wrong it means things are dramatically worse for a lot of people. You concede you do not know which side is right and which side is wrong; perhaps you should defer to someone who does.
"We"? So you consider yourself an Austrian Economist? May I enquire how many scholarly articles you have written on the subject? Just out of curiousity. The whole idea of a "purely deductive science" has been thoroughly critiqued (or shall I say destroyed) by enlightenment and Hayek's approach to immunize his ideas from empirical criticism has been mostly disregarded.
The fact that objective rights and wrongs also exist in economics does not make YOU right, however. And any sane man can see that if there is one person, who most likely has no access to objective truth then it is somebody who refers to mainstream researchers as "establishment hacks" and feels fully comfortable in the "woo-woo" fringe of dogmatism. So the only remaining question is: Can you see that, too?
|
On July 26 2011 22:50 BlackFlag wrote:
Is it actually possible to put posters on ignore? This is a serious question.
What a silly and childish thing to say in a serious thread.
|
So their agrarian lifestyle didn't provide enough food? Is that your claim?
Nightfall :
Yes that's true. So what? Why should we penalize someone for working hard? that seems stupid.
I do not consider myself of the same stature as Mises, if that is what you are asking. I am an austrian because I have read the arguments of the Austrian school and I agree with them. Hayek was not a member of the Austrian school, although he was a student of Mises.
MiraMax, the argument you have presented is what Chomsky dubbs the 'propaganda model'. There is only a very narrow band of debate allowed in the media in western society . Everything else is ignored, attacked, marginalized.
If I am wrong about anything, I would be indebted to you for proving me wrong; but an argument based on the popularity of a view is not very compelling.
|
On July 26 2011 23:56 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 22:50 BlackFlag wrote:
Is it actually possible to put posters on ignore? This is a serious question. What a silly and childish thing to say in a serious thread.
Reread BestZergOnEast's Super Genius™ posts in this thread.
|
Again, please stop trolling this thread with personal attacks on me because you disagree with my political beliefs. Anyway, it is evident I am only an ordinary genius, 160 IQ tops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
