|
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On October 06 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5IXHH.png) I am very happy that we have benefited from AC's becoming cheaper and produced in higher quantities, but if you think people having AC is going to change my view on the state of the country your mistaken. Sure, I didn't expect facts to change your world view. Look, I don't care if you want to be a big government liberal who advocates more redistribution of wealth. I have no problem with that, it's a valid position. But when you say things like suggesting we aren't any better off than we were 30 years ago, I have to assume that you are either being terribly disingenuous or are just lacking in common sense. Based on your post I guess I will now assume the former. Why do people find it so hard to say things like, "Yes, I agree that society has been progressing and that the standards of poverty are rising. However, I still think we need to do more to help the poor." That is a sensible and perfectly fine position, and it conforms to reality. When people go to such lengths to suggest the country is a shit hole and everything is terrible and getting worse and poor people are starving to death on the streets, it comes across as either delusional or disingenuous.
There's a difference between looking at the uneven distribution of wealth within the country, and looking at the rise of overall living standards due to technological advances.
Decrying the former does not necessarily mean that you are in ignorance or disputing the existence of the latter.
Incidentally there's a pretty interesting hypothesis here that links a lot of social issues not with the relative wealth of a country, but how it is distributed. It may be something you disagree with but it's an interesting read nonetheless.
The Spirit Level
|
On October 06 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand. I am very happy that we have benefited from AC's becoming cheaper and produced in higher quantities, but if you think people having AC is going to change my view on the state of the country your mistaken. Sure, I didn't expect facts to change your world view. Look, I don't care if you want to be a big government liberal who advocates more redistribution of wealth. I have no problem with that, it's a valid position. But when you say things like suggesting we aren't any better off than we were 30 years ago, I have to assume that you are either being terribly disingenuous or are just lacking in common sense. Based on your post I guess I will now assume the former. Why do people find it so hard to say things like, "Yes, I agree that society has been progressing and that the standards of poverty are rising. However, I still think we need to do more to help the poor." That is a sensible and perfectly fine position, and it conforms to reality. When people go to such lengths to suggest the country is a shit hole and everything is terrible and getting worse and poor people are starving to death on the streets, it comes across as either delusional or disingenuous.
Facts about AC are supposed to change my world view? In some places AC is pretty important and in some places it's just a useless luxury.(I lived in Las Vegas where AC was important. was in every apartment and building and now I live in Portland, no AC in most buildings, apartments and some businesses even).
Basically these numbers mean nothing to me, it's one chart about AC which I honestly just don't care about. Why is it in more houses? Did the rich building owners put them in because their competition was and it was a good business decision? The 20% of poor that don't have AC, do they live where you don't need them or is it not affordable? Did AC become cheaper to manufacture or was it subsidized by the government so they were more affordable for the poor? I honestly know nothing about the history of the AC.
Do we have some comforts we didn't have in the past? Yes, because technology has improved over time, and our manufacturing has improved and made such technology cheaper. Does this mean that the poor is all of a sudden better off and are no longer struggling? Nope.
I must be delusional or disingenuous when I see poor people struggling and the rich getting richer, seriously? Attacking me as delusional does not make me want to have a civil conversation with you, this is the last time I'm responding to you, use your imagination to imagine what I would tell you in my next post.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Just got back, but did I just see you guys try to blast me for comparing the U.S. to Canada, Europe etc. because they aren't "similar enough" when you guys are comparing the U.S. to mother f'ing Bangladesh? My mind is so blown.
|
On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich.
I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day.
Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
economic rent is not really earning anything. much of capital and land ownership is just rent seeking at any and all possible chance.
|
On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context.
Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient.
As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again.
|
On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again.
It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility.
This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end.
As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later.
|
When it comes to the type of arguments "poors are getting poorer" etc.. it usually never goes anywhere when not taking a broader view, because you can always take a different economic indicator to support your initial point. Either look at the % of GDP owned by the top quintile vs bottom, or increase of household debt for middle class families and poors are getting poorer. Or you can look at the various goods and revenues of today's poor vs 30 years ago and say poors are not getting poorer.
It made me think that, aside from the professed ideological preference for libertarianism or progressivism, the big philosophical difference between the 2 sides here is that liberals see growth and technological progress as a mean to an end (people's happiness). While for the other side growth and technology is the end in itself, people being a mean.
There was this interesting paper showing that in China from 1990 to 2010, happiness has decreased overall despite enormous growth and the switch to a more capitalist regime (similar to east european countries). In fact the bottom tier got less happy, the top tier slightly more happy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/in-china-growth-outpaces-happiness.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/09/1205672109.full.pdf
|
On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later.
In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire.
Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way.
|
On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later.
Uhh... well they ARE being greedy and taking huge portions of the pie. Just because they are the most productive doesn't mean they should just get all the goddamn pie, dude. They're supposed to get a proportional amount relative to their productivity. That's not what's happening.
Every single study on income equality is showing this.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/
What's happening is that all the extra wages that should be being earned by the middle class for their massively increasing productivity is being shifted up to the upper class. This is what is happening, and it's been happening since the 70s. We need to be more progressive. We need to get money out of politics so we can be more progressive.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later.
What's the point of growth when it all goes to the rich? Over 80% of all income growth in the past three decades went to the top 10%. Do you really believe that the rich are just getting overwhelmingly more richer because they're also getting overwhelmingly more productive? No, of course not. The rich ARE trying to keep as much of that pie to themselves as they can (this is generalizing it and I apologize, I realize not all rich folk are greedy bastards, but there's a big difference between an actor and a banker). Do you think the Koch brothers led the fight for Citizens United and are lobbying to crush unions' collective bargaining rights because they want to help the economy and consequentially the poor out? Get real.
|
On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way.
The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand.
You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes.
|
On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes.
The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged.
Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. If you give me the choice when I buy a computer to remunerate Steve Jobs or his engineers, workers and the scientific institutions who made this possible, I would love it.
|
On October 06 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand. I am very happy that we have benefited from AC's becoming cheaper and produced in higher quantities, but if you think people having AC is going to change my view on the state of the country your mistaken. Sure, I didn't expect facts to change your world view. Look, I don't care if you want to be a big government liberal who advocates more redistribution of wealth. I have no problem with that, it's a valid position. But when you say things like suggesting we aren't any better off than we were 30 years ago, I have to assume that you are either being terribly disingenuous or are just lacking in common sense. Based on your post I guess I will now assume the former. Why do people find it so hard to say things like, "Yes, I agree that society has been progressing and that the standards of poverty are rising. However, I still think we need to do more to help the poor." That is a sensible and perfectly fine position, and it conforms to reality. When people go to such lengths to suggest the country is a shit hole and everything is terrible and getting worse and poor people are starving to death on the streets, it comes across as either delusional or disingenuous.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/US/hunger-children-america-slow-steady-starvation/story?id=14328390#.UG9iGa7-KSo
Reality isn't the same for you as the other 300+ million people living in the country. Weird, huh?
|
On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later.
It's probably best simply to avoid discussion of fairness, which is subjective, altogether, and instead talk about what works best for people's economic well-being. The latter is also subjective, but it's a lot easier to get people to agree on what constitutes well-being for themselves than it is for more abstract value judgements.
|
On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness.
Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works.
The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade.
Well, considering the difficulty Obama had in getting just about anything passed, I really doubt he had the capability, even if the will was there to tackle the systemic problems that exist there. I do agree that the financial sector seemingly getting away scot-free with ridiculous practice is unedifying though. I don't think we want everybody scapegoated, but the people culpable for actual illegal practice to face consequences for that.
I would have though that the financial crisis occurred in the first place somewhat challenges the 'generally the system works' part, but hey I'm no expert on the USA and its financial regulatory bodies.
|
On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade.
On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter.
Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement.
First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being.
|
On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being.
I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions.
But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products).
Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias.
|
On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:On October 06 2012 06:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:30 DoubleReed wrote:
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich. I have an issue with that phrasing because the rich aren't "getting" anything. They get to KEEP more money that they earned or produced in income. The discussion of whether a CEO or professional athlete or banker "deserves" their income is for a different day. Also, your historical argument for taxes on the rich is highly fallacious and subject to historical context. Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient. As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias.
I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do.
But I have some open questions.
Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail.
That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two.
And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded?
A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies.
How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way.
Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
