|
|
On October 20 2012 03:41 Kimaker wrote:
In practice Marxists and Anarcho-Capitalists are actually shooting for nearly the same thing. The only difference is that each chooses to focus on an aspect of human nature they perceive to be the more prominent and utilize that as the vehicle for achieving their goals.
It's a methodological difference, not REALLY an ideological one.
This would be accurate if you said Marxists and Anarchists; however, Marxists and pretty much every other strand of Anarchism are very much against Anarcho-Capitalism. I mean, you could say that Socialism and Capitalism are shooting for nearly the same thing, too, and in a real sense they are (at least for the classical liberal conception of Capitalism--look at how easily you could mix up Marx and Smith quotes out of context). Yet they are still totally different and opposed.
|
|
|
On October 20 2012 03:46 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 03:41 Kimaker wrote:
In practice Marxists and Anarcho-Capitalists are actually shooting for nearly the same thing. The only difference is that each chooses to focus on an aspect of human nature they perceive to be the more prominent and utilize that as the vehicle for achieving their goals.
It's a methodological difference, not REALLY an ideological one. This would be accurate if you said Marxists and Anarchists; however, Marxists and pretty much every other strand of Anarchism are very much against Anarcho-Capitalism. I mean, you could say that Socialism and Capitalism are shooting for nearly the same thing, too, and in a real sense they are (at least for the classical liberal conception of Capitalism--look at how easily you could mix up Marx and Smith quotes out of context). Yet they are still totally different and opposed.
I believe that's an ideological construct that's been hammered into us by the Left-Right way of viewing politics. Both (in the case of Marxism and Anarcho-Capitalism) are stateless, voluntary, and exist without coercion. As you said Socialism and Capitalism both shoot for the same thing as well, they just have different ways of getting there. I'm merely extrapolating that notion.
Only major ideology I think that is truly "different" is Fascism. Which even smart well read people quibble over the definition of.
Also, I guess I should have started with this, what is your definition of Anarcho-Capitalism?
Edit: In my mind both Marxists and Anarcho-Capitalists have a plan, albeit a stateless and roughly sketched one, on how to achieve their stateless existence. Anarchists don't. There is no conception of having a plan to reach the existence they desire across the board of those who label themselves "anarchists". That's the distinction I make and why I don't include Anarchists.
|
What's this based on? It disagrees wildly with the 538 spread.
|
North Carolina barely gets nudged into the "likely Romney" territory and now shit is real? What about those drops in unemployment released today, the ones in key battleground states? How real is that shit?
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
looking for further northern conquest of virginia.
|
On October 20 2012 03:58 urashimakt wrote:What's this based on? It disagrees wildly with the 538 spread.
RCP bases their data on a poll of polls. It's basically a collection of the various polls and then extrapolates data through it. It's not super scientific as it doesn't discern polls based on their accuracy, but it's still an interesting and useful tool for a political person.
|
On October 20 2012 03:58 farvacola wrote:North Carolina barely gets nudged into the "likely Romney" territory and now shit is real? What about those drops in unemployment released today, the ones in key battleground states? How real is that shit? Source
Are you kidding me? Obama has been leading by 100 votes all year until now. To completely discount the RCP numbers is to be a little naive.
See the "over time" graph here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html#previous_changes
Obama is still winning a lot of those toss up states. But it shows that Romney is legitimately within striking distance now with regards to the Electoral college, something that I would not have thought possible a few months ago.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rcp's been showing both at around 200 for a week now. you are pretty late to the party (or to the shit?)
|
On October 20 2012 04:01 oneofthem wrote:
rcp's been showing both at around 200 for a week now. you are pretty late to the party (or to the shit?)
Romney leading Obama happened yesterday. MY BAD FOR BEING LATE. Nobody else has noted this in the past day.
|
On October 20 2012 03:58 urashimakt wrote:What's this based on? It disagrees wildly with the 538 spread.
The resuits are actually pretty close to eachother. Only difference is that most of the tossups from the aggregator getting thrown to Obama in the prediction-model.
|
On October 20 2012 03:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2012 03:21 farvacola wrote:On October 20 2012 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2012 02:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 20 2012 02:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 19 2012 23:37 DoubleReed wrote:
No one actually pays the corporate tax. The largest companies pay an effective tax rate of less than 5%. The 40% number is just a facade. + Show Spoiler +SourceData should be for 2009 - so all rates are a bit lower because of the economy, though none in this set hit the nominal 35% rate. It varies a lot by industry. Some of the low rates are legitimate, past losses are being used to offset current gains, or the company has a legitimate operation overseas in a lower tax country. Too much of it is loophole exploitation and tax expenditures that act as backdoor industrial policy. We also spend $60 billion subsidizing oil.I'm all in favor of corporate tax decrease if it makes sense. I just want honesty here. In general I think a high income tax + low corporate tax encourages people to invest in their businesses. No we don't. Oil and gas get ~$3B / year in subsidies. To get to $60B you need to count things like depreciation which isn't a subsidy. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdfEdit: see table ES2 on page xiii Those numbers do not include annual subsidies nor state and local breaks. Consequently, they are highly misleading. I don't know what 'annual subsidies' you are referring to. While it doesn't include state and local breaks, those breaks tend to be much smaller than federal subsides. Depending on the state they often favor renewable as well. When I say "annual" subsidies I'm referring to general fund, non-specific subsidies that can be applied for based on unique financial status. From the Dept. of Energy brief provided, Show nested quote +The tax code allows a foreign tax credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries. If a multinational company is subject to a foreign country's levy, and it also receives a specific economic benefit from that foreign country, it is classified as a “dual-capacity taxpayer.” Dual-capacity taxpayers cannot claim a credit for any part of the foreign levy unless it is established that the amount paid under a distinct element of the foreign levy is a tax, rather than a compulsory payment for some direct or indirect economic benefit. Major oil companies are significant beneficiaries of this provision. However, this tax provision is also available to non-energy industries.
The tax code also provides special treatment for some publicly-traded partnerships (PTP). Section 7704 of the Code generally treats a publicly-traded partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. For this purpose, a PTP is any partnership that is traded on an established securities market or secondary market. However, a notable exception to Section 7704 occurs if 90 percent of the gross income of a PTP is passive-type income, such as interest, dividends, real property rents, gains from the disposition of real property, and similar income or gains. This would include gains from natural resource sales. In these cases, the PTP is exempt from corporate level taxation, thus allowing it to claim pass-through status for tax purposes.4 As with many other tax provisions, the tax treatment of PTPs is not exclusive to the energy sector. To summarize the text above, there are a host of subsidies available to companies and partnerships that fulfill certain criteria; criteria that, while explicitly labeled as non-energy specific, frequently benefits the sprawling and multilateral oil industry.
Those issues are important when discussing the corporate tax code as a whole, not when discussing a specific industry. If you were to replace the oil industry with another one (such as solar) those tax provisions still apply so they aren't worth addressing in an industry-specific context.
Those issues are also very 'squishy' in terms of whether or not they should be considered a subsidy. Often things such as foreign tax credits and pass-through status are enacted to prevent multiple layers of taxation that would result in an absurdly high tax rate, not to offer a subsidy.
|
The problem with RCP is its pretty conservative in what it decides as a "tossup". I wouldn't consider Michigan or Pennsylvania tossups myself. If you scroll down to what is considered a tossup, excluding FL and CO, all of them are currently for Obama. Of course the race has tightened from an overwhelming win for Obama to a Romney win is not inconceivable, so that is something to consider.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Romney needs to win Ohio. Without OH he has almost 0 chance of winning so state polls of OH are more important than national polls.
|
The change in the RCP poll isn't a big deal. A poll showing Romney leading by 4 in Pennsylvania is another thing. Even more telling are the new polls showing that Romney has overcome Obama's likability rating.
I've been predicting a Romney landslide for months. It's finally starting to show up in the polls (which I still don't think are fully reflective of where this election is going to end up).
|
On October 20 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:The change in the RCP poll isn't a big deal. A poll showing Romney leading by 4 in Pennsylvania is another thing. Even more telling are the new polls showing that Romney has overcome Obama's likability rating. I've been predicting a Romney landslide for months. It's finally starting to show up in the polls (which I still don't think are fully reflective of where this election is going to end up).
So we should ignore the multiple polls that show Obama up by at least 4 and instead tout the one poll that is an outlier? Come on man...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
susquehanna isn't that good.
|
On October 20 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:The change in the RCP poll isn't a big deal. A poll showing Romney leading by 4 in Pennsylvania is another thing. Even more telling are the new polls showing that Romney has overcome Obama's likability rating. I've been predicting a Romney landslide for months. It's finally starting to show up in the polls (which I still don't think are fully reflective of where this election is going to end up).
Actually a single outlier is not as big a deal as an aggregation. Look at the data on RCP about Pennsylvania. +4 for Romney is far away from the pack!
|
It seems like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida are the three states that really matter at this point.
If either candidate takes all 3, they win.
|
Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
|
On October 20 2012 04:26 xDaunt wrote:
Let me make a prediction about these polls and where they'll eventually end up. Take the average of any set of polls for a battleground state (or nationally for that matter), add all of the "undecideds" to Romney's column, and then move another 2 points from Obama to Romney, and you'll have something fairly close to where I believe we'll be election day.
This prediction is subject to some major gaffe or other election-rocking event occurring over the next two weeks.
I predict that Romney will be caught fisting his dancing horse and the above will happen in reverse.
-_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/27/business/economy/27economix-tax/27economix-tax-articleInline.jpg)
