• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:00
CEST 18:00
KST 01:00
  • 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
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou7Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80
StarCraft 2
General
RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close" DreamHack Open 2013 revealed The New Patch Killed Mech! Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
Is there anyway to get a private coach? The Lose More Card BW General Discussion BSL Season 21 OGN to release AI-upscaled StarLeague from Feb 24
Tourneys
300$ 3D!Community Brood War Super Cup #4 [ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
[I] TvZ Strategies and Builds [I] TvP Strategies and Build Roaring Currents ASL final Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
The Chess Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
MLB/Baseball 2023 2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Certified Crazy
Hildegard
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1135 users

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 678

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 676 677 678 679 680 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
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
October 05 2012 00:13 GMT
#13541
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.

Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
October 05 2012 00:16 GMT
#13542
On October 05 2012 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.

Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.


Do you have any thoughts on or analysis of this phenomenon? I would be interested to hear.
shikata ga nai
Leporello
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2845 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:19:14
October 05 2012 00:17 GMT
#13543
On October 05 2012 08:57 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 08:55 Leporello wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:19 HowitZer wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.


The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.


That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.


How do you figure?


The idea of wages being regulated, to such a degree that productivity would be directly tied to a person's worth, is surely a Socialist idea.

Part of the allure and driving force of Capitalism is that your time can become worth more than others, based on whatever skills, talents or ideas you provide. It's sometimes fair, sometimes not, and while it does encourage people to come up with better ideas, products and services, it certainly isn't fair when it comes to the simple matter of productivity leading to a "bigger slice of the pie". Some of the hardest working people in a Capitalist society will be paid the worst, because the skills they provide are simply more easily replaced and less valued.

Arguing for the merits of Capitalism as a driving force for a good economy is well warranted. When people talk about Capitalism as if it's perfectly fair in terms of productivity -- that's just missing the mark. We need consumer protection and worker protection in spite of Capitalism.
Big water
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:21:32
October 05 2012 00:21 GMT
#13544
On October 05 2012 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 05:07 kwizach wrote:
On October 05 2012 04:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.

Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently.

Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you.

Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math

I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.

Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?

It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.

Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.

Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.

EZPZ

The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.

You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.


No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.

Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.

OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.

I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.



The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.

Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?

I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.

What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?

Guess we can't vote for either then...


Oh, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy ... which is why I'm actually not sure.

Is principle and ideology enough to qualify for president?

Obama's current plans are more detailed than Romney explicit admission he has no plans.





jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:27:54
October 05 2012 00:25 GMT
#13545
Defacer why do your posts have all these unnecessary spaces? So they stand out more or something?


Here's a link for people to see the debate schedule, since so many people were asking about foreign policy etc.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
October 05 2012 00:27 GMT
#13546
xDaunt, I agree the media has been easy on Obama.

But I don't fault the media as much as I fault Obama's campaign and advisors. There's more than enough tape of Romney and his ability to control a debate and shift positions. And Obama can defend his policy -- in a drawn out conversation or monologue. He should have been far better prepared to defend his own policy and his team should have anticipated the kind of criticism that Romney levelled.

Romney is not 'quick witted'. Great salemanship is a product of rehearsal and practice. Him and his team did their homework. Obama and his team fell asleep at the wheel.

Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:34:43
October 05 2012 00:33 GMT
#13547
On October 05 2012 09:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Defacer why do your posts have all these unnecessary spaces? So they stand out more or something?


Here's a link for people to see the debate schedule, since so many people were asking about foreign policy etc.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/


Laziness. Sometimes I'll write a whole paragraph, realize it's long-winded, and delete it with out removing the returns. Sorry bout that.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18835 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:35:01
October 05 2012 00:33 GMT
#13548
On October 05 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote:
xDaunt, I agree the media has been easy on Obama.

But I don't fault the media as much as I fault Obama's campaign and advisors. There's more than enough tape of Romney and his ability to control a debate and shift positions. And Obama can defend his policy -- in a drawn out conversation or monologue. He should have been far better prepared to defend his own policy and his team should have anticipated the kind of criticism that Romney levelled.

Romney is not 'quick witted'. Great salemanship is a product of rehearsal and practice. Him and his team did their homework. Obama and his team fell asleep at the wheel.


Obama and his campaign may be seeing themselves as driving a very different sort of car than that of Romney. Granted, not one that can go driverless.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Leporello
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2845 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:50:57
October 05 2012 00:35 GMT
#13549
And I just have to vent -- after that debate, to hell with Obama. I honestly don't care anymore. If the man cared like I care and like his supporters care, he'd say some things. He'd take offense at Mitt's blatant double-talk. He'd get mad, as anyone does when they're confronted with something they perceive as false. I'm tired of "fact-checking" being some afterthought. Taking your opponent to task for being misleading or for not being consistent in his positions is part of your job as a presidential candidate. You don't have to be mean about it -- and we all know Obama is great at playing nice -- but what I saw yesterday was someone without conviction.

Complacency is the last thing I wanted to see from Obama, and that's all I got. For once, I understand people who don't vote. I still want Obama to win over Romney, but, at this point, meh.

The dog and pony show that is our elections has so much money invested in it (thanks Supreme Court, for turning our Republic into an auction), that I honestly don't wonder if there isn't some degree of collusion on Obama's part to keep this contest from being a non-event. So now the GOP can enjoy some rhetorical victory, gain some imaginary numbers, and things are "interesting" again. But I can't remember being less interested.

Maybe this was his PR peoples' idea, to be a doormat. But PR people are idiots. Obama needs to show some conviction next debate, or I'm going entirely Green Party.

edit: Not to say the election doesn't matter. It matters greatly, and I want Obama to win simply because this Republican Supreme Court has been a complete nightmare. With "Citizens United" and "Bush v. Gore", both 5-4 partisan decisions with immeasurable consequences, the Supreme Court has actually had a lot of control over the elections themselves. It's so... fucked. Okay, no more ranting.
Big water
NeMeSiS3
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
Canada2972 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:55:32
October 05 2012 00:52 GMT
#13550
explaining obamacare ^^ it's not to bad, khan academy ^^
FoTG fighting!
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
October 05 2012 00:55 GMT
#13551
On October 05 2012 09:16 sam!zdat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.

Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.


Do you have any thoughts on or analysis of this phenomenon? I would be interested to hear.


I'm more or less speaking from my own general knowledge, but I found this NBER working paper on the interwebs.

Link

Two principal measurement mistakes have led some analysts to conclude that the rise in labor income has not kept up with the growth in productivity. The first of these is a focus on wages rather than total compensation. Because of the
rise in fringe benefits and other noncash payments, wages have not risen as rapidly as total compensation. It is important therefore to compare the productivity rise with the increase of total compensation rather than with the increase of the
narrower measure of just wages and salaries.
DanceSC
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States751 Posts
October 05 2012 00:57 GMT
#13552
On October 05 2012 09:35 Leporello wrote:
And I just have to vent -- after that debate, to hell with Obama. I honestly don't care anymore. If the man cared like I care and like his supporters care, he'd say some things. He'd take offense at Mitt's blatant double-talk. He'd get mad, as anyone does when they're confronted with something they perceive as false. I'm tired of "fact-checking" being some afterthought. Taking your opponent to task for being misleading or for not being consistent in his positions is part of your job as a presidential candidate. You don't have to be mean about it -- and we all know Obama is great at playing nice -- but what I saw yesterday was someone without conviction.

Complacency is the last thing I wanted to see from Obama, and that's all I got. For once, I understand people who don't vote. I still want Obama to win over Romney, but, at this point, meh.

The dog and pony show that is our elections has so much money invested in it (thanks Supreme Court, for turning our Republic into an auction), that I honestly don't wonder if there isn't some degree of collusion on Obama's part to keep this contest from being a non-event. So now the GOP can enjoy some rhetorical victory, gain some imaginary numbers, and things are "interesting" again. But I can't remember being less interested.

Maybe this was his PR peoples' idea, to be a doormat. But PR people are idiots. Obama needs to show some conviction next debate, or I'm going entirely Green Party.

I noticed the same thing, and what infuriates me is how many people will simply vote for someone because of the party they are under without knowing exactly where they stand or how much they care. I thought he handled himself like an ass, and come to think of it, couple years pass and I still don't know where he stands.
I dont care for either candidate but it seems like the less people know about that person, the more likely they are to vote for them :/ imo this country is just screwing itself over with dumb asses, its not even worth giving a shit
Dance.943 || "I think he's just going to lose. There's only so many ways you can lose. And he's going to make some kind of units. And I'm going to attack him, and then all his stuff is going to die. That's about the best prediction that I can make" - NonY
CajunMan
Profile Joined July 2010
United States823 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 00:58:18
October 05 2012 00:58 GMT
#13553
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 07:30 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote:
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)


I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.


The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.


I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
October 05 2012 01:02 GMT
#13554
On October 05 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:57 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:55 Leporello wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:19 HowitZer wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.


The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.


That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.


How do you figure?
labor product = worker wage.


His idea of communism probably involves equal redistribution of all wealth


I read Animal Farm :D
NeMeSiS3
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
Canada2972 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 01:05:41
October 05 2012 01:03 GMT
#13555
On October 05 2012 09:58 CajunMan wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:30 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote:
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8


I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTc5vBgJsM

The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.


I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson

nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.

Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.
FoTG fighting!
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
October 05 2012 01:07 GMT
#13556
On October 05 2012 10:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:58 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:30 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote:
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8


I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTc5vBgJsM

The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.


I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson

nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.

Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.


I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.
rogzardo
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
610 Posts
October 05 2012 01:18 GMT
#13557
On October 05 2012 10:07 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 10:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On October 05 2012 09:58 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:30 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote:
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8


I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTc5vBgJsM

The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.


I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson

nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.

Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked.


I'm broke, I'm still not voting for fiscal irresponsibility.


Voting for the candidate with no fiscal plan is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
TheRabidDeer
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
United States3806 Posts
October 05 2012 01:18 GMT
#13558
The deficit isnt the only problem


It is actually kind of funny that tackling just the deficit is such a huge deal when we pay so much on debt as it is. And we are paying minimally on debt because the government is keeping interest rates so low.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
October 05 2012 01:40 GMT
#13559
On October 05 2012 10:02 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:10 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 05 2012 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:57 kmillz wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:55 Leporello wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:19 HowitZer wrote:
On October 05 2012 08:04 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:01 Zaqwert wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote:
Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms

"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"

"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"

and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.

You say what you need to to get elected.


All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.

People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.

The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.

Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.

Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.

People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.

Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.


It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.


It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.

To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)

Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)

Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.

A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.

He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.

To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.


Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.


The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.


That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.


How do you figure?
labor product = worker wage.


His idea of communism probably involves equal redistribution of all wealth


I read Animal Farm :D


Written by a fellow traveler, you realize
shikata ga nai
CajunMan
Profile Joined July 2010
United States823 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-05 01:56:08
October 05 2012 01:55 GMT
#13560
On October 05 2012 10:03 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2012 09:58 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 09:00 Silidons wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:30 CajunMan wrote:
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote:
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8


I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTc5vBgJsM

The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.


I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson

nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.

Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.


Your defiantly about to get fucked when all the new taxes come into law at the beginning of the year. Jackson's point was one made in ignorance and he knows it. Obama is NOT intellectually superior and his plan is crap there is a reason his budgets have gotten 0 votes. Please your saying the community organizer who needs a teleprompter to speak properly is smarter than the multimillionaire multi successful business owner. I'll give Obama he is smart but to compare the two I don't think its close.
Prev 1 676 677 678 679 680 1504 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Wardi Open
14:30
October Qualifier #2
WardiTV1100
IndyStarCraft 246
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 246
LamboSC2 201
Codebar 37
sas.Sziky 17
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 43445
Calm 4856
Rain 2518
Jaedong 1571
Horang2 1253
Bisu 1035
EffOrt 571
Mini 528
Light 508
firebathero 496
[ Show more ]
Larva 480
Soma 413
Shuttle 391
ZerO 309
Stork 247
Snow 232
actioN 211
Free 155
Pusan 134
Soulkey 120
PianO 98
Hyun 96
Rush 90
ggaemo 75
sSak 73
TY 72
Killer 69
Shine 36
sorry 34
Shinee 29
Movie 24
Terrorterran 20
Bale 17
Sacsri 17
scan(afreeca) 16
HiyA 13
Hm[arnc] 5
Noble 4
Mong 1
Dota 2
Gorgc6150
qojqva4017
Dendi1093
BananaSlamJamma280
Fuzer 252
syndereN204
canceldota48
Counter-Strike
byalli313
markeloff237
edward47
FunKaTv 36
fl0m1
Other Games
singsing2455
hiko824
FrodaN484
Lowko373
ceh9345
Sick191
Liquid`VortiX188
Hui .130
ArmadaUGS116
Skadoodle114
KnowMe74
QueenE64
Mew2King55
Trikslyr38
ZerO(Twitch)17
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL439
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• Noizen37
League of Legends
• Jankos3268
• TFBlade932
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Monday
8h 1m
Replay Cast
18h 1m
OSC
1d
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 7h
The PondCast
1d 18h
OSC
1d 20h
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Online Event
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
CrankTV Team League
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
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.