• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:10
CEST 02:10
KST 09:10
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?6FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event13Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster14Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week4
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview
Tourneys
HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29) WardiTV Mondays SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $200 Biweekly - StarCraft Evolution League #1
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest ASL20 Preliminary Maps Unit and Spell Similarities
Tourneys
[BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague LB Final - Saturday 20:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Blog #2
tankgirl
Game Sound vs. Music: The Im…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 620 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 196

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 194 195 196 197 198 1504 Next
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.

The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
July 20 2012 17:30 GMT
#3901
As a general note, you don't want to have TOO much faith in the free market. You can't just say idle workers should hold their breath and wait for a genius entrepreneur to come up with an idea that requires their services.

On the other hand, since 2008 we've seen the limits of what the government can do to help the economy. The government can mitigate suffering through social programs and it should, but it can't generate growth on its own.

The Great Depression programs are a little bit different because people were willing to make a lot of sacrifices for World War II. The government widened the tax base and started collecting them directly from paychecks, it conscripted a generation of young men and sent many off to their deaths, and it took away all kinds of civil rights. But if the choice is "accept this or we're going to lose the war", then people will put up with it.

Today the choices are not quite so obvious.
Lightwip
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5497 Posts
July 20 2012 17:35 GMT
#3902
On July 21 2012 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 21 2012 00:56 SayGen wrote:
On July 21 2012 00:49 Lightwip wrote:
The market sure solved itself into the current economic downturn.


Do some research about the business cycle and how it works.
Things get built, destroyed, and rebuilt stronger. The market works- but don't ever expect cloud free days everyday.
It has to rain for grass to grow.

Nice try though


Is that why recessions are happening faster and faster and more severe? Sure is getting stronger.


THIS recession is more severe. But post WW2 the trend was for recessions to be less frequent and less severe.

I'd say the Federal Reserve has a lot to do with that. They've made a few mini-recessions to avoid a financial collapse.
They just goofed with this one. They decided to help with the dotcom bubble for way too long.
If you are not Bisu, chances are I hate you.
TurpinOS
Profile Joined February 2010
Canada1223 Posts
July 20 2012 18:08 GMT
#3903
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:
Link to BO's text

The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort.

It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state.

Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that.

But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”.

More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right”
“it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful.

Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before.

Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss.

Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on.
Show nested quote +
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9



Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.

Obamas speech, for reference, bolding my own.
+ Show Spoiler +
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

http://eve.znaor.hr/pimpmydomi/
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 18:27:18
July 20 2012 18:26 GMT
#3904
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.

Pretty soft support for free markets IMO. I don't think it's weird that someone who makes a million dollars a year might pay a smaller % in income taxes than someone who makes $100k. It really depends on how they made their money and what kinds of risks they took.

A person making $100k in a secure, stable position can afford to pay a high % in income taxes because they benefit strongly from society providing the stability of their position. A person who makes $1M in a high-risk venture may have taken significantly more risk and didn't benefit very much from the existing structure.

What it comes down to is whether you want to create the incentive for taking certain big risks by reducing the taxes on those types of ventures. Over the last 20 years, we've reaped many benefits of taking big risks, particularly in technology. But we've now seen the downsides of taking big risks and it's time to re-assess whether the incentives are still good.

If you're a real supporter of free markets, you don't want the government thinking it can guide these kinds of incentives at all, you just support people doing what they want in commerce with the government only enforcing enough limits to prevent abuse (editorial note: the government has done a HORRIBLE job here, both Bush and Obama). To take a principled stand, you can't take the position of "I support free markets when they create jobs and growth, I don't support them when companies lose money".
Kaitlin
Profile Joined December 2010
United States2958 Posts
July 20 2012 18:46 GMT
#3905
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.


If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
July 20 2012 18:49 GMT
#3906
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.
Kaitlin
Profile Joined December 2010
United States2958 Posts
July 20 2012 19:05 GMT
#3907
On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.


Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
July 20 2012 19:32 GMT
#3908
On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.


If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.

You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place.
TurpinOS
Profile Joined February 2010
Canada1223 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 20:48:42
July 20 2012 20:45 GMT
#3909
On July 21 2012 04:05 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.


Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic.


You dont see anything odd in the fact that theres a system that taxes people increasingly based on how much money they make, yet the person that makes a million dollar will give back the same amount as the person who has made 200K ? Or at least understand how some people could think that something seems wrong with that ?

On July 21 2012 03:26 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.

A person making $100k in a secure, stable position can afford to pay a high % in income taxes because they benefit strongly from society providing the stability of their position. A person who makes $1M in a high-risk venture may have taken significantly more risk and didn't benefit very much from the existing structure.


If I made $1M this year and you have made $100K, I am definately able to afford a bigger amount of taxes.

Its one or the other here, either you ask for a free market and accept that you might crash and burn, or you ask for help from your governement but give back more if you actually manage to make it. Theres something wrong in a system that heavily rewards people who made it instead of rewarding people who try to make it, if youve made it you already got your reward which is more money than others.
http://eve.znaor.hr/pimpmydomi/
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 20:59:26
July 20 2012 20:56 GMT
#3910
On July 21 2012 05:45 TurpinOS wrote:
If I made $1M this year and you have made $100K, I am definately able to afford a bigger amount of taxes.

Its one or the other here, either you ask for a free market and accept that you might crash and burn, or you ask for help from your governement but give back more if you actually manage to make it. Theres something wrong in a system that heavily rewards people who made it instead of rewarding people who try to make it, if youve made it you already got your reward which is more money than others.

The fairness of the tax system is not simply about what you can afford but what you did to earn your income.

However, I do agree with you strongly that there's something rotten about the system if people who take big risks are able to keep large portions of their income when they make gains but they can get government bailouts if they suffer losses.

The ultimate point is that the currency of modern finance is trust. When someone like Ron Paul wants to fall back to the gold standard, it's implicitly a criticism that he doesn't trust the government to do the right thing when push comes to shove, whether that means enforcing property rights or protecting society from abuse. If you support more taxes and more regulations, then you are trusting the government to use revenues efficiently and to properly oversee that the free market is indeed free from manipulation and exploitation.

Personally, when I see things like the $25 billion settlement from banks to avoid any criminal liability for mortgage fraud or that the Fed and Treasury knew about Libor manipulation since 2008 but didn't do anything about it, I become very skeptical that the government deserves my trust.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
July 20 2012 21:08 GMT
#3911
On July 21 2012 05:45 TurpinOS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 04:05 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.


Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic.


You dont see anything odd in the fact that theres a system that taxes people increasingly based on how much money they make, yet the person that makes a million dollar will give back the same amount as the person who has made 200K ? Or at least understand how some people could think that something seems wrong with that ?


But they don't. The person making a million will pay more.
Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
July 20 2012 21:24 GMT
#3912
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:
Link to BO's text

The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort.

It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state.

Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that.

But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”.

More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right”
“it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful.

Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before.

Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss.

Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on.
Show nested quote +
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9


His point wasn't that a person couldn't theoretically be successful without government, or that an anarchy couldn't be equally or more successful. His point was that that isn't the world we actually live in. In our current system, pretty much everybody has used some type of government service. Few if any people got to where they are today independently of the government. People saying they're self-made or that they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps are ignoring the vast system of public services - the rule of law, roads and national infrastructure, public schools (even if they went to a private school, what about their employees?), etc - that benefit everybody.

Now some people might not like that and believe we'd be better off without any government at all. Ok fine we've all got opinions. An American businessman today, however, has enjoyed many services that come through gov't/shared sacrifice.
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
July 20 2012 21:35 GMT
#3913
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:
Link to BO's text

The context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort.

It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state.

Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that.

But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”.

More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right”
“it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful.

Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before.

Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss.

Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on.
Show nested quote +
“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9



Barack Obama is not a socialist, he is not a communist, he is not a fascist, he is not a Muslim, he is not an atheist, he is not a Kenyan, he is not reptilian, etc. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for without making things up.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
Shady Sands
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4021 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 21:44:53
July 20 2012 21:42 GMT
#3914
On July 21 2012 04:32 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.


If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.

You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place.


So what you're basically saying is that the public should be the one who gets benefits off any investment, regardless of whether the capital is private or public.

This is one of those good intentions that ends up killing entire countries. Whenever you create a system where all capital, private and public, is directed to improve the public welfare, inevitably that means putting the capital under the control of the government--either via soft incentives, like tax policy, or harder incentives, like restrictions on which banks you can put your money in.

What then happens is that the capital gets redirected to benefit those with political power, and instead being redirected to benefit people, it gets redirected to benefit politicians. Don't believe me? There was a country in Asia which did this on a massive scale--not China, but Japan.

Japan through the 1960s to 1980s did quite well, by forcing capital through a handful of zaibatsu banks that ostensibly were there to not only make money, but also channel investment to sectors favored by the almighty Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI, and no, that acronym is not a joke--they were fucking big and scary back in the day.)

Eventually what happens, though, is that benefits began to accrue to those with connections to the teat of public capital--financing uneconomic bridges to nowhere and golf courses with endless amounts of free or low-interest rate loans--while costs were socialized onto the borrower (the entire country). Every economic decision-maker got a huge case of "it's someone else's money, why bother." And what ends up happening is that once the easy fruit is gone--once Japan hit a point where it could no longer develop by copying models or technologies abroad (around 1987 or so)--it had to rabidly step up the public capital spending because there was no organic growth left possible in the old model.

Then what happened is that the whole set-up ran out of gas. Some pretty funny things happened along the way: the Nikkei hit a level nearly the size of the entire NYSE, when the Japanese economy was only 50% of the size of America's; land prices in Tokyo hit a point where the real estate of Tokyo was worth more than the entire states of California, Oregon, and Washington; and Japan four times as many golf courses per capita as the next highest country. In case you think those are good things, think again: those all represented failed investments with public money, or better put, the savings of an entire country, blown on investments which won't actually create any economic return. This was the end product of a system whose original intention was to put cash in the right place, but which ended up creating structural bubbles that dwarf the 2007 subprime mortgage mess, much as a hurricane dwarfs a tornado.

And this hits at the root of things: when a capitalist-capitalist country gets a bubble, individuals are wiped out. Companies are wiped out. But the public balance sheet is not badly affected. The size of the bubble is smaller, because only a percentage of national capital goes into the failed projects. But when a crony-capitalist country gets a bubble, its is bigger--because more and more money gets sucked into it, forced by the government.

And really--not just Japan--every single Asian country that did this model eventually hit the wall. As MightyAtom will tell you, 1997 was a very un-fun time for any East Asian economy, due in no small part to folks like George Soros recognizing the weaknesses of this model and exploiting them very, very painfully.

Put simply, putting capital under the command of a centralized authority can generate huge gains in a short period of time, but only if you're playing catch-up--because even if your people have an incentive to behaving irrationally, they're copying the rational behavior of people under a market-driven system.

But once you get to the top, you can't use that system any longer because there isn't any playbook for the elites to follow. So then they do what their incentives tell them to do: borrow public cash, invest it in something that looks good and is really visible (golf courses, airports, MOAR HIGHWAYS durr) and hope that it pays off.

The US is one of the most highly developed economies on Earth. We have no one left to copy. So if we adopt such a model, what happens is that we don't even get the benefits of rapid growth--we head straight into the crony capitalism phase. Do we really want that?
Что?
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-20 22:10:24
July 20 2012 22:09 GMT
#3915
On July 21 2012 06:42 Shady Sands wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2012 04:32 aksfjh wrote:
On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.

Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.


If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.

You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place.

The US is one of the most highly developed economies on Earth. We have no one left to copy. So if we adopt such a model, what happens is that we don't even get the benefits of rapid growth--we head straight into the crony capitalism phase. Do we really want that?


In what reality has the U.S. already not been headed into crony capitalism far beyond any other First World social democracy (if you even count the U.S. as a social democracy in the first place) for decades?
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
July 20 2012 22:11 GMT
#3916
Your post about Japan slightly mischaracterizes the situation but it might just be semantics.

But the thing about Japan and the other Asian countries is that their societies developed by finding the 100 smartest people in the country and putting them in charge of everything. The underlying justification is that society isn't developed enough to let the people decide what's best for the country.

And for the early stages of modern development, the system can work brilliantly, as it has in Asia. The 100 smartest people in Japan, a country of 125 million people, are pretty fucking smart.

The big problem you're talking about is what happens when the economy gets too big, society closes the knowledge gap, and the elite start making mistakes. The problem with an elite-dominated system is that the elite can be very reluctant to admit they've made an error and the problem with a more developed, better educated society is that people are quicker to realize when mistakes have been made. This is when you get lots of friction where the elite can either make concessions and society moves forward with a more empowered society or the elite simply learn to manipulate the system and stay on top, often at the expense of the rest of society.

Japan is currently in the strange phase where they kind of have both. Their political system is one of the ugliest and most broken in the OECD, but the Japanese people are also too proud to admit they're watching the world pass them by. The Japanese economy is 25% bigger today than it was in 1992. America's is 4x bigger. China's is 9x bigger. Korea's is 6x bigger.

The US is currently at the crossroads where we decide whether we should put more trust in elites to know what's best for us or more trust in the people and say majority elections provide a strong mandate.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-21 00:19:54
July 21 2012 00:18 GMT
#3917
Hahaha, I may not be conservative, but I think this meme is pretty hilarious...
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
[image loading]
Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
July 21 2012 00:45 GMT
#3918
Some of those memes have been pretty good, I gotta agree.
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
July 21 2012 02:24 GMT
#3919
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?

cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that."
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
July 21 2012 02:31 GMT
#3920
On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?

cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that."


No, he was saying collective society enabled and supported you to build things yourself. He wasn't talking about what government has done for you. I'm not quite sure where people are getting that from, considering he was referring to teachers and other inspirations.

He was talking about what we all do for each other. You didn't get there on your own. People helped you and inspired you. It's really not that hard to understand...
Prev 1 194 195 196 197 198 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
DH Dallas | TheStC Showmatch
CranKy Ducklings18
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft529
SteadfastSC 188
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 1420
Artosis 514
firebathero 81
League of Legends
Grubby3519
Counter-Strike
summit1g9818
taco 1006
sgares279
Other Games
shahzam478
JimRising 467
Maynarde172
Pyrionflax138
Mew2King67
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1477
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 64
• davetesta61
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• Ler48
League of Legends
• masondota2813
• Stunt213
Other Games
• imaqtpie1244
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
10h 50m
PiGosaur Monday
23h 50m
The PondCast
1d 9h
Replay Cast
1d 23h
RSL Revival
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
WardiTV European League
3 days
FEL
3 days
[ Show More ]
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
BSL: ProLeague
5 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.