|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:21 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote:On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. We live in a big world. No reason to think the rich at higher tax brackets would keep that money here or taxable. Nor do they already.
quite a lot of public goods/externalities they are taking advantage of already, should at least collect tax with that leverage. i doubt the rich will all renounce u.s. citizenship if the rate is set at the correct levels.
but yea international political will is required to capture the leaky balloon of global capital. states that exist solely for the purpose of tax havens should not be able to do that.
|
like if it matters. both shit in my opinion.
|
On November 08 2012 07:24 bailando wrote:
like if it matters. both shit in my opinion.
It does matter to USA.Not like Europe should care, but Asia on the other hand...
|
On November 08 2012 07:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:21 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote:On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. We live in a big world. No reason to think the rich at higher tax brackets would keep that money here or taxable. Nor do they already. quite a lot of public goods/externalities they are taking advantage of already, should at least collect tax with that leverage. but yea international political will is required to capture the leaky balloon of global capital.
That's why I like a consumption tax over a personal income tax. Obviously tiered for luxury items and services over basic neccessities of course.
|
On November 08 2012 07:22 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:20 Antyee wrote:On November 08 2012 07:18 ImAbstracT wrote:On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote:On November 08 2012 07:06 leveller wrote:On November 08 2012 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote:
Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!? It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing. So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth... if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? There is risks associated with GMO food. Many studies have found this. All of those studies being terribly done and written. There have been quite some topics about this. Noone knows whether they are harmful or not. thus the term "risk".
You can choke and die by consuming any food.
There's a limit of being paranoid.
Guess this risk isn't worth the possible impact on agriculture.
Risks are naturally part of our lives, we don't really need any reminder of that.
|
tree.hugger independent doesn't have an a in it 
|
On November 08 2012 07:21 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote:On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. We live in a big world. No reason to think the rich at higher tax brackets would keep that money here or taxable. Nor do they already. Cute maybe if the USA wasn't one of the largest economies in the world the idea would be applicable but just due to size and resources the USA will always be an attractive place to do business, you think rich peoples feelings will be hurt if they only make a couple million, making money is making money as long as they can turn a profit they will stay.
|
well here's to paying more taxes for a while -
|
Glad Obama won but the simple question is whether Congressional Republicans will decide that it's better for them to compromise - which has been the opposite of their rallying cries - or whether to continue the same obstructionist strategy that results in the decline of the American economy with the hope of proposing another Republican who will surely use the religion of tax cuts and de-regulation as the answer to any and all problems.
You can guess my answer. Nothing will change until the younger generation takes over which will likely result in the direction of more social welfare and liberal policies.
I think the idea that the Republicans have will *not* win out our younger voters. Ie that because we cannot compete with China - we need to become *like* China economically. This will lose out in favor of the more progressive idea that instead of being *like* China - lower/no minimum wage, less environmental restrictions, more income disparity etc, that we should try to become a higher skilled populace to obtain better jobs in the world economy.
However we need more trade universities and our private sector has thus far (surprise!) provided more scam schools than worthwhile trade universities.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:18 PrinceXizor wrote:
SO it's unethical to require you label your food accurately but it's ethical to make a food-product and not tell anyone what it is?
accuracy itself does not justify a label. there has to be some kind of relevant public interest served by that label. there would be little sense to force a label for whether a female worker harvested the food or a male.
labels also carry official epistemic authority. it's a guide on what is dangerous and what is not to the public. misleading people into thinking GM is a dangerous thing is pretty unproductive.
|
On November 08 2012 07:28 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:21 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote:On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. We live in a big world. No reason to think the rich at higher tax brackets would keep that money here or taxable. Nor do they already. Cute maybe if the USA wasn't one of the largest economies in the world the idea would be applicable but just due to size and resources the USA will always be an attractive place to do business, you think rich peoples feelings will be hurt if they only make a couple million over millions, making money is making money as long as they can turn a profit they will stay.
Hi, I was simply talking about taxable income, not where they make their money, thanks for reading closely. Somehow making it impossible for them to tax dodge would be a nice start, and maybe then it wouldn't even be neccessary to raise their taxes. Let's start by looking at a consumption tax.
|
On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:06 leveller wrote:On November 08 2012 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote:
Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!? It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing. So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth... if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
no because it has bigger consequences than just health. its also environment, and simply about the ability to make an informed decision. If they are making profit this way, they should at least have the decency to say so.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:18 PrinceXizor wrote:
SO it's unethical to require you label your food accurately but it's ethical to make a food-product and not tell anyone what it is? accuracy itself does not justify a label. there has to be some kind of relevant public interest served by that label. there would be little sense to force a label for whether a female worker harvested the food or a male. labels also carry official epistemic authority. it's a guide on what is dangerous and what is not to the public. misleading people into thinking GM is a dangerous thing is pretty unproductive.
A label is not misleading anyone. It merely says, "This product is a GMO." If public opinion is shaped it's due to another factor. Regardless, it's beside the point. People deserve to know what they put in their bodies. Just because it may affect some company negatively that does not justify keeping people in the dark.
|
On November 08 2012 07:24 bailando wrote:
like if it matters. both shit in my opinion.
They both have a lot of problems, and there are a lot of things that I've been unhappy with Obama and the Democrats in many ways, but there is a great difference between the two and the choice is much more meaningful than that nonsense "oh, you're just choosing between one corporate colour and another." That's just jaded bullshit that is nothing more than a really bad excuse yourself from making a decision.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i am all for affecting monsanto negatively. but there are many scientists working on gm technology hoping that it will offer solutions to helping africa and global starvation/water problems that don't need to be condemned by this labeling.
i think there are better ways to go about fucking over monsanto
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:36 oneofthem wrote:
i am all for affecting monsanto negatively. but there are many scientists working on gm technology hoping that it will offer solutions to helping africa and global starvation/water problems that don't need to be condemned by this labeling.
If people condemn those scientists then they're idiots.
However, people have the freedom to construct their own opinions.
And really it's not about screwing over Monsanto. It's about giving the people the opportunity to educate themselves on what goes into their bodies. Obviously some people won't care, but what's important is that people know and have the opportunity to know.
|
Proud Minnesotan to vote No!!!!!
|
wow mad spoilers in the thread title
|
On November 08 2012 07:34 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:24 bailando wrote:
like if it matters. both shit in my opinion. They both have a lot of problems, and there are a lot of things that I've been unhappy with Obama and the Democrats in many ways, but there is a great difference between the two and the choice is much more meaningful than that nonsense "oh, you're just choosing between one corporate colour and another." That's just jaded bullshit that is nothing more than a really bad excuse yourself from making a decision.
I would tell you my opinion, but this article does it better than I could methinks:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/14028/obama-vs-romney-polls-5-reasons-why-mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-are-exactly-the-same
|
also its a funny argument that it might hurt the company in sales when these companies paid more than 40 million USD to campaign against this labeling. They could afford that at least :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
