On October 31 2012 06:55 TheTenthDoc wrote: I do want to mention that Obama losing on the 6th does not mean Nate Silver will "fall" unless some really bizarre stuff happens. If an outcome occurs that has between a 1/3 and 1/4 chance of happening, it doesn't really discredit your statistical model.
I mean, the Red Sox threw what models had shown to be a statistically unlosable lead last season, so those models were wrong. That's not going to be the case in politics (well, unless you count post-Convention when Obama was given a >90% chance by Silver's model, then it would have made him "fall").
Thinking about it more, I wonder to what extent it even matters. Silver's previous results have been strong enough that his fans will be willing to give him another chance. And his detractors are already discrediting his model even without it having been wrong yet.
How likely is it that the model will do so exceedingly well that even people who don't like it will admit it works, or so poorly that people will lose all confidence in him overnight?
These days everything is totally politicized. People will change their opinions of Silver when he starts predicting things they don't (or do) like.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you explain?
Right now we need to ramp up the progressiveness of our tax code. The middle class is painfully stagnant and has been for the last 30 years. Not to mention the massive deficit we have and the wealth disparity that's increasing. We need to ramp up the highest tax rate to like 50%+ and try to lower it on the middle class imo.
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
Why would a higher top tax rate create an incentive to invest more? Seems to me the opposite would be true. A higher tax rate would make fewer investments worth it and so the money would be spent on consumption instead.
50% seems pretty extreme too. We already have a very progressive tax system.
If you're investing the money it isn't income, so you have more incentive to invest and "hide" it. It's pretty basic logic, don't know how you're missing it.
((Not saying I agree, just pointing out the obvious))
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
I've suggested that a flat tax with a Negative Income Tax could be viable.
Sorry, I don't get it. Could you explain?
Right now we need to ramp up the progressiveness of our tax code. The middle class is painfully stagnant and has been for the last 30 years. Not to mention the massive deficit we have and the wealth disparity that's increasing. We need to ramp up the highest tax rate to like 50%+ and try to lower it on the middle class imo.
High income tax would also help job growth because it incentivizes the rich to invest more rather than take home income.
Why would a higher top tax rate create an incentive to invest more? Seems to me the opposite would be true. A higher tax rate would make fewer investments worth it and so the money would be spent on consumption instead.
50% seems pretty extreme too. We already have a very progressive tax system.
Funny, this economy could use a little more consumption to get it back on track at the moment haha... And then wouldn't that increased consumption lead to more growth which then gives incentive to invest again? Not to mention I think Buffett has said numerous times that the tax rate is one of the most minor things most investors take into consideration.
On October 31 2012 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: can somebody give me argument for flat tax besides something that sounds like a five year old's conception of "fairness."
The flat tax is good because it is very simple, which has several benefits. It makes the system very easy to understand so tax adjustments have a more complete and immediate effect. The simplicity also makes it harder to play games or hide tax-motivated actions. And it reduces tax-related costs such as lawyers, accountants, bureaucrats, etc.
But it's not going to happen. The United States tax code has way too much history and way too much utility to make it worth scrapping it in favor of a super simple flat tax. It has some plausible theoretical benefits but there's no reason to do it in the absence of a crisis.
I disagree. 10 Percent (or any number) for a single mom or working poor family is a hell of a lot more hurtful than 10 percent to the Gates or Buffetts of this world. Progressive is good. Payroll taxes, capital gains, and the like should be progressive as well. The working class creates the wealth in this country, and such should see its benefits.
When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!" The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?" Confucius said, "Enrich them." The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?" Confucius said, "Educate them."
On October 31 2012 07:08 sam!zdat wrote: when you have a crisis of overaccumulation the last thing you need is more investment
Edit: And why is investment the last thing needed when sitting on vast stockpiles?
If you already have vast stockpiles why the fuck are you investing? Take a break and read a fucking book and ask yourself what the point of having vast stockpiles is in the first place.
On October 31 2012 02:36 Defacer wrote: Christie going rogue this morning across all the major news shows.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
I know we're all jaded and assume that Gov. Christie has ulterior motives, but isn't the most direct answer to all of this speculation about why he said what he said (on multiple networks) is that he's being honest? He hasn't "gone rogue" and isn't throwing Romney under the bus but he's doing his fucking job. Something that frankly I wish all of our politicians spent more time doing instead of posturing, looking for ways to "get" the other side, and all using the same talking points.
By the way, love the selective edit on the Governor's comment on Romney going to New Jersey to tour the damage. The video has it as:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.
Full quote:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power. I’ve got devastation on the shore. I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.
I like how your full quote is missing the statements prior to the sentence. Nice try.
What are you talking about? That's the full quote from the Governor. If you're referring to the reporter's question, then it's on the video why does it need to be quoted again?
On October 31 2012 07:13 sam!zdat wrote: When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!" The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?" Confucius said, "Enrich them." The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?" Confucius said, "Educate them."
That is obtuse and irrelevant. Good to know you ground your opinions in this thread with reason.
On October 31 2012 07:13 sam!zdat wrote: When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!" The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?" Confucius said, "Enrich them." The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?" Confucius said, "Educate them."
That is obtuse and irrelevant. Good to know you ground your opinions in this thread with reason.
That is actually somewhat to be expected. Chris Christie sees himself as a favourite in 2016 for presidential election. If Romney wins the upcoming election, he will not have that possibility. For his own political carrier, it would be far better if Obama is elected. 2020 is far too far away for him to keep the momentum up. 8 years of politilcs is a very long time and a lot of newcomers can threaten his favourability ratings in that time. Especially after he has started to move his opinions to better align with the socially conservative.
I know we're all jaded and assume that Gov. Christie has ulterior motives, but isn't the most direct answer to all of this speculation about why he said what he said (on multiple networks) is that he's being honest? He hasn't "gone rogue" and isn't throwing Romney under the bus but he's doing his fucking job. Something that frankly I wish all of our politicians spent more time doing instead of posturing, looking for ways to "get" the other side, and all using the same talking points.
By the way, love the selective edit on the Governor's comment on Romney going to New Jersey to tour the damage. The video has it as:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested.
Full quote:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do. I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power. I’ve got devastation on the shore. I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.
I like how your full quote is missing the statements prior to the sentence. Nice try.
What are you talking about? That's the full quote from the Governor. If you're referring to the reporter's question, then it's on the video why does it need to be quoted again?
You make it seem in your post like the quote is out of context. Don't try and be a weasel next time?
It isn't out of context in the slightest. Christie was clearly saying Romney is irrelevant to his problems at the moment. He continues that presidential politics are irrelevant to his problems right now.
On October 31 2012 07:08 sam!zdat wrote: when you have a crisis of overaccumulation the last thing you need is more investment
I know you read Marx, but I am losing the plot here. What exactly is your vision of an ideal society even? Everyone just sitting around reading?
no, that's the first step. you read books so that you can have a vision of what you want society to be. We just chase wealth for wealth's sake and we have a vulgar, debased culture because of it
On October 31 2012 07:13 sam!zdat wrote: When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!" The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?" Confucius said, "Enrich them." The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?" Confucius said, "Educate them."
That is obtuse and irrelevant. Good to know you ground your opinions in this thread with reason.
um. what's your beef with confucius?
I have no problem with Confucius. I have a problem with jackasses coming in this thread and trying to be indirect so they don't have to actually give their opinions. You don't want to look like an idiot, I get that. Next time just don't say anything.
On October 31 2012 07:08 sam!zdat wrote: when you have a crisis of overaccumulation the last thing you need is more investment
I know you read Marx, but I am losing the plot here. What exactly is your vision of an ideal society even? Everyone just sitting around reading?
no, that's the first step. you read books so that you can have a vision of what you want society to be. We just chase wealth for wealth's sake and we have a vulgar, debased culture because of it
On October 31 2012 07:13 sam!zdat wrote: When Confucius went to the state of Wei, he said to a disciple, "How the population has grown!" The disciple asked, "Since they have a large population, what is there to add?" Confucius said, "Enrich them." The disciple asked, "Once they are rich, what else is there to add?" Confucius said, "Educate them."
That is obtuse and irrelevant. Good to know you ground your opinions in this thread with reason.
um. what's your beef with confucius?
I have no problem with Confucius. I have a problem with jackasses coming in this thread and trying to be indirect so they don't have to actually give their opinions. You don't want to look like an idiot, I get that. Next time just don't say anything.
Jesus. What do you want, a political philosophical treatise? I'll write you one as soon as I finish this grad school application.
EPT
