Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

Kad5: I encourage you to learn basic reading comprehension skills.

What is it with conservatives and their inability to properly digest information, especially when it is presented in the form of graphs, charts, tables, numbers, and statistics?

 

[thekad]

Perhaps, but HOW things get done are just as important as the end result.

Both parties in the "sound bites" are missing the point. Revenue MUST increase, and spending must be reduced. Thats not rocket science.

Neither party wants to give in to the other and thus the most sensible of solutions (and the one reached by a bi-partisan committee) will be forever ignored.

Obama proposed a deficit reduction plan that was further to the right than "the most sensible of solutions", Simpson-Bowles, and it was rejected by Republicans.

It raised taxes on the rich - just like Simpson-Bowles.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Kad5: I encourage you to learn basic reading comprehension skills.

What is it with conservatives and their inability to properly digest information, especially when it is presented in the form of graphs, charts, tables, numbers, and statistics?

Bigsicily was an expert in graphs.

 

[Cyan]

Well, rule #1 of accounting is that you book revenues when incurred, and expenses when earned, right?

Prefunding 75 years of pensions ain't GAAP.

Bigsicily was an expert in graphs.

True story!

 

[Zhengi]

Speaking of infrastructure, I wish the government would just announce $200 billion in spending on optic fiber for the entire country. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming, but as long as we're spending, let's spend on something that we need

 

[pigeon]

I encourage you all to read this article on the costs of public income redistribution.

At least for the sake of reading on a different perspective if nothing else.

Some people value material goods more than do others, and consequently work harder to obtain income, so that there must be a strong positive correlation between the personal valuation of marginal dollars of income and the magnitudes of incomes actually earned.2 The very assertion, made so frequently by advocates of compulsory income redistribution, that the rich are “greedy,” constitutes a tacit (if unwitting) admission of this relationship. Given this correlation, there is no reason to suppose that taking a dollar from a higher income person and giving it to a lower income person adds to total utility in society.

So this section is discussing wealth in terms of utility, and says we measure utility by our individual valuation of a dollar as judged by our income -- in other words, the reason we shouldn't tax the rich is that the rich likes money more than the poor, as evidenced by the fact that they're rich, and we're trying to maximize happiness in society.

Putting aside the obvious total lunacy of this position, I want to point out that it also treats wealth purely as a factor of marginal gains. In reality, the majority of people targeted by redistributive efforts need that money to survive -- it is not a marginal benefit but a threshold beyond which they will die or otherwise be removed from productive society. By ignoring this, the study (like so many libertarian position papers) makes its perspective clear as one that exists in a privileged world in which nobody is ever actually poor. In reality, we do not have such luxuries.

 

[AstroNut325]

See folks... the Republicans are always fighting for equality. The democrats are always fighting for inequality.

 

[LosDaddie]

Well, why are Dems holding up tax cuts for everybody by trying to force the job creators to pay more taxes? I thought libs were all about fairness

 

[Cyan]

So this section is discussing wealth in terms of utility, and says we measure utility by our individual valuation of a dollar as judged by our income -- in other words, the reason we shouldn't tax the rich is that the rich likes money more than the poor, as evidenced by the fact that they're rich, and we're trying to maximize happiness in society.

This also bizarrely completely ignores a vast corpus of research showing that the marginal utility of a dollar goes down the more you have. Hell, the marginal utility of anything goes down the more you have.

 

[AntoneM]

I encourage you all to read this article on the costs of public income redistribution.

At least for the sake of reading on a different perspective if nothing else.

"Using government figures" some one calculated that government spends 70% of it's welfare budget on overhead and salaries. But that article never reveals the government figures used, in addition, the source cited is 23 years old.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Prefunding 75 years of pensions ain't GAAP.



True story!

Yes, I know. The saying is actually "revenues when earned, expenses when incurred."

In other words, pensions expenses are supposed to be accounted for when they're paid out under GAAP. Not what the Post Office has been told to do.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Well, why are Dems holding up tax cuts for everybody by trying to force the job creators to pay more taxes? I thought libs were all about fairness

I think you're being sarcastic, but under the democrats' propsal, every married household would get a tax cut on the first $217k of income, but not on the money above that. Graham wants every married household to get a cut on every $.

Also, if the bush tax cuts expire, the rate increase in the bottom marginal brackets are higher than those at the top. The higheset jump is that the 10% bracket jumps to 15%. That's highest in nominal and relative terms. (5% of earnings, but a 50% jump in taxes paid)

 

[Cyan]

Yes, I know. The saying is actually "revenues when earned, expenses when incurred."

Ha! Totally didn't catch that.

 

[Kad5]

Kad5: I encourage you to learn basic reading comprehension skills.

What is it with conservatives and their inability to properly digest information, especially when it is presented in the form of graphs, charts, tables, numbers, and statistics?

You do realize i'm not a conservative right? I'm actually very liberal.

 

[Kad5]

So this section is discussing wealth in terms of utility, and says we measure utility by our individual valuation of a dollar as judged by our income -- in other words, the reason we shouldn't tax the rich is that the rich likes money more than the poor, as evidenced by the fact that they're rich, and we're trying to maximize happiness in society.

Putting aside the obvious total lunacy of this position, I want to point out that it also treats wealth purely as a factor of marginal gains. In reality, the majority of people targeted by redistributive efforts need that money to survive -- it is not a marginal benefit but a threshold beyond which they will die or otherwise be removed from productive society. By ignoring this, the study (like so many libertarian position papers) makes its perspective clear as one that exists in a privileged world in which nobody is ever actually poor. In reality, we do not have such luxuries.

Have you ever heard of a mutual aid society?

 

[pigeon]

Have you ever heard of a mutual aid society?

They are fraternal organizations of which I am aware, yes.

 

[Kad5]

They are fraternal organizations of which I am aware, yes.

You might find this interesting.


Note that i'm not trying to piss anyone off i'm just trying to provide a different perspective.

 

[Phoenix]

Most likely Democrats will cave and keep all of the Bush cuts in place before they let taxes go up on lower and middle class incomes. They know that they can try to spin it as Republicans caused it, but lots of people back home would see it as them not doing enough to prevent it.

*Ding* and this is why the republicans keep winning the marketing war.

 

[Horns]

Don't agree with this article at all. This is almost the blaze level of reporting for the left. It totally misconstrues Graham's position. He clearly states he doesn't want taxes going up for anyone, especially the middle class, and wants a longer term solution. He is clearly advocating for a further extension of the Bush tax cuts in order to pass something like Simpson-Bowles later. For those that don't know, the Simpson-Bowles was a bipartisan commission to address the deficit. It was a more liberal plan than the one Obama was going to offer Boehner during the debt ceiling crisis. These are two policies that the President has given support to in the past when he extend the tax cuts in 2010 and making the Simpson-Bowles commission himself.

Now this could be Graham blowing smoke up my ass, and what he really wants to change is the timing on certain things. Currently the tax cuts expire before another debt ceiling argument and extending them would remove the leverage the Democrats currently enjoy. He also might not have any intention in supporting Simpson-Bowles if it came up for a vote.

What I would get mad at Graham for is advocating that defense contracts start giving out pink slips now before the sequester happens: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/30/13037718-sen-graham-contractors-should-issue-layoff-notices-before-election.

Great post. I kept rewatching the video and rereading the quoted text, and I couldn't figure out how this blog came to this conclusion. My second thought was this is the same shit theblaze.com does. Which makes sense because this story came from a blog and the blaze is nothing more than a blog.

The timing of these sequesters also concerns me.

 

[Phoenix]

Government spending is the slowest in decades

The debt/deficit "problem" is a tax problem. Taxes themselves are at all time lows because of the Bush Tax Cuts, and along with that revenue is down because it's a recession, so people are unemployed and can't pay into the system, etc.

That CAN'T be true. Republicans are for smaller government and less spending!

 

[empty vessel]

You do realize i'm not a conservative right? I'm actually very liberal.

Not any more. You're an authoritarian capitalist. You do realize you linked to mises.org and Cato, right?

Revenue MUST increase, and spending must be reduced.

Why? Can you articulate why?

 

[Zabka]

Why? Can you articulate why?

TV said so.

 

[Cyan]

Why? Can you articulate why?

Imagine a household, right? And the household brings in $60k a year, but spends $100k a year by putting stuff on credit cards.

Also, there's a printing press in the basement that prints money.

 

[Kad5]

Not any more. You're an authoritarian capitalist. You do realize you linked to mises.org and Cato, right?

There is nothing authoritarian about my philosophy. I'm a voluntarist.

 

[empty vessel]

There is nothing authoritarian about my philosophy. I'm a voluntarist.

Selling labor is coerced. I do it because, lacking capital, I have no other means of obtaining subsistence. You also presumably believe that, once that labor is sold, the person who sold it is at the complete mercy of the person to whom it was sold (on pain of being deprived of subsistence).

 

[Kad5]

Selling labor is coerced. I do it because, lacking capital, I have no other means of obtaining subsistence. You also presumably believe that, once that labor is sold, the person who sold it is at the complete mercy of the person to whom it was sold (on pain of being deprived of subsistence).

My philosophy is that people shouldn't violate the non-aggression principle, commit fraud, and commit coercion.

You can willingly sell your labor for a profit to a business if you want.


Your argument implies that you can't willingly engage in BDSM because of your same argument of "coercion".

 

[The Technomancer]

Your argument implies that you can't willingly engage in BDSM because of your same argument of "coercion".

If the choice is between who ties you up and not weather you get tied or not then yes, its coercive. Labor is a buyers market, you can't just "sit on" on your labor until a good offer comes along (without welfare)

 

[pigeon]

My philosophy is that people shouldn't violate the non-aggression principle, commit fraud, and commit coercion.

Empty vessel's point is that controlling the means of subsistence is de facto coercion.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

That CAN'T be true. Republicans are for smaller government and less spending!

It's actually not true and has been debunkened in several places - including the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-obama-part-3/2012/06/05/gJQAY9YhGV_blog.html
3 pinocchios

 

[Kad5]

If the choice is between who ties you up and not weather you get tied or not then yes, its coercive. Labor is a buyers market, you can't just "sit on" on your labor until a good offer comes along (without welfare)

My point is that a worker existing within such a 'hierarchy' (answerable to management, bosses, etc.) should be free at all times to abandon this voluntary 'hierarchy' and (1) create an organization within which he/she is at (or somewhere near) the top of the 'hierarchy' (entrepreneurship), (2) join an existing 'hierarchy' (wherein he/she will likely be lower in the scheme of things), or (3) abandon these hierarchies altogether and join/form a non-hierarchical association such as a cooperative, commune, etc.


The thing i'm arguing against is the claim that you can't voluntarily be a part of a hierarchy. You can as long as you have freedom of choice and opportunity which our current corporatist system simply does not allow in many cases.

And of course if people wish to form collectivist institutions they should be free to do so as long as it's VOLUNTARY.

For example, State universities SHOULD be seized by the students and faculty under the homestead principle. Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.

Some people seem to be under the impression that i'm against collectivist systems.

 

[Gotchaye]

And of course if people wish to form collectivist institutions they should be free to do so as long as it's VOLUNTARY.

I think this is where you're losing people. It's not very clear what you actually mean by "voluntary", and your linking to Cato and mises.org suggests to many that you're using the weird libertarian definition of the word.

Though I'm also not sure how far you take this labor-mixing thing. If someone hires me to work in a factory building cars, do I get to claim ownership of the cars I build? If not, why can't whoever owns universities include in the contract that students and faculty agree to whatever magic words make it impossible for them to also claim ownership?

 

[Kad5]

I think this is where you're losing people. It's not very clear what you actually mean by "voluntary", and your linking to Cato and mises.org suggests to many that you're using the weird libertarian definition of the word.

What i'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be coercion. Our current society is filled with it and is often supported by our government in conjunction with corporate interests. Corporations simply use our government for their own interests which in turn fucks up the market.

As for your question if you sell your labor to a business then no the cars you make aren't yours. However, if the business is a cooperative that might be a slightly different story.

If you made a car all by yourself then obviously that car is yours.

Also, a university is supposed to be an educational institution not necessarily a business. Universities are usually run by faculty and in many cases student volunteers. With expenses paid with tuition.

 

[Gotchaye]

What i'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be coercion. Our current society is filled with it and is often supported by our government in conjunction with corporate interests. Corporations simply use our government for their own interests which in turn fucks up the market.

Yes, but you're again using these words where most people have one definition in mind and libertarians typically have another. Define "coercion".

Edit: Universities are typically run by non-faculty administrators. Faculty are paid employees. Many are non-profit, and many are owned by the government, but I'm not really seeing why that gives faculty and students the right to seize them but factory workers don't have the right to seize the factory.

 

[Kad5]

Yes, but you're again using these words where most people have one definition in mind and libertarians typically have another. Define "coercion".

"Physical force or threat of such against persons or property."

Also, I was mostly referring to State universities. Public institutions like universities should be handed to faculty and students for direct control.


This is starting to turn off-topic so i'll probably just stop answering questions. Gaf has one opinion and I have another.

 

[pigeon]

What i'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be coercion. Our current society is filled with it and is often supported by our government in conjunction with corporate interests. Corporations simply use our government for their own interests which in turn fucks up the market.

Let's say that I want to eat. (Not an unreasonable assumption.) Since, according to you, one gains ownership of land by mixing one's labor with it, there is no land available for me to farm -- it has all become owned by various farmer-entrepreneurs and farming collectives. Similarly, all the available resources that I might harvest or use for production have come under the ownership of various organizations. However, for some reason I don't want to work for any of these entrepreneurs or collectives -- for the sake of argument, let's assume they're all racist. How do you propose I eat?

 

[Gotchaye]

"Physical force or threat of such against persons or property."

Right. And this is basically why your position was labeled as "authoritarian". That seems to give people with lots of property a great deal of power over everyone else, and someone who manages to collect all the property at some point is thereby the ruler of the world, able to extract arbitrarily high rents in exchange for allowing people to use land to grow food (for example).

Unless you want to say that people living on land, even with the understanding that they're paying rent to the owner for the privilege, can legitimately claim ownership of the land and stop paying rent.

Edit: I didn't mean to trigger a huge discussion. You seemed honestly unaware that you were using unusual definitions of words like "coercion" and "voluntary" such that the rules you were describing tend towards, and at least allow, something that fits the usual definition of "authoritarian".

 

[KHarvey16]

"Physical force or threat of such against persons or property."

Coercion certainly doesn't require physical force or the threat of physical force.

 

[Cyan]

It's actually not true and has been debunkened in several places - including the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-obama-part-3/2012/06/05/gJQAY9YhGV_blog.html
3 pinocchios

Not exactly. The sources they cite say this:

Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.

Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True.

All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

All the sources also mention the potential problems due to the stimulus, but the fact remains that spending growth under Obama has been quite low.

You can make other claims, if you like; there are plenty of potential ones (such as "Obama would've spent more if Congress hadn't stopped him." Note that "but the stimulus made baseline spending much higher" isn't actually that good--even if we measure from FY 2008, spending increases only amount to 5%). With this particular one, the facts are on Obama's side.

 

[Kad5]

Let's say that I want to eat. (Not an unreasonable assumption.) Since, according to you, one gains ownership of land by mixing one's labor with it, there is no land available for me to farm -- it has all become owned by various farmer-entrepreneurs and farming collectives. Similarly, all the available resources that I might harvest or use for production have come under the ownership of various organizations. However, for some reason I don't want to work for any of these entrepreneurs or collectives -- for the sake of argument, let's assume they're all racist. How do you propose I eat?

Well many pieces of owned land have actually been stolen.

There are few (if any) parcels of land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time obtained in violation of the homestead principle, through seizure by the state or put in private hands with the assistance of a state institution.

For example, in the case of slavery, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed. Slaves (and perhaps their descendants) rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the "homestead principle".

Much of the private property you know of today was more than likely actually stolen at one point in time through coercion.

And of course people will always be willing to sell land at specific points of time.


Maybe that answers your question?

 

[pigeon]

For example, in the case of slavery, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed. Slaves (and perhaps their descendants) rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the "homestead principle".

Seems pretty unfair to the Cherokee Nation.

Much of the private property you know of today was more than likely actually stolen at one point in time through coercion.

And of course people will always be willing to sell land at specific points of time.


Maybe that answers your question?

Actually it completely avoids it, since your answer is to say that "maybe there would be land available for you to farm." But let's say there ISN'T. I mean, a generation or two into this system, there wouldn't be, even if we did go through a lengthy (and, frankly, necessarily coercive and violent) period of land repatriation. And since I have no capital yet, I have no ability to buy land. So how do I eat?

 

[Gotchaye]

Maybe that answers your question?

It doesn't, really. So suppose we actually do figure out who "really owns" every parcel of land and then issue shares in the land to all of the rightful owners. Or suppose we decide that the whole system is rotten and the issue can't be resolved, so we just issue equal shares in all land to all people. Presumably that helps a whole lot for a generation or two.

Now suppose that everyone actually follows your rules. Inequalities of wealth will naturally develop. Some people will sell their shares in land to others. This will tend to concentrate ownership of land in the hands of a few, especially if the wealthy decide to adopt something like the old system of primogeniture in order to keep the family wealth concentrated.

Are you saying that it is flat-out impossible for the large majority of land to be owned by a small number of people after a few generations, even with nobody "coercing" anyone else? If it's not impossible, what happens if the people at the top decide to extract arbitrarily high rents partially designed to keep everyone else down?

 

[Kad5]

Seems pretty unfair to the Cherokee Nation.



Actually it completely avoids it, since your answer is to say that "maybe there would be land available for you to farm." But let's say there ISN'T. I mean, a generation or two into this system, there wouldn't be, even if we did go through a lengthy (and, frankly, necessarily coercive and violent) period of land repatriation. And since I have no capital yet, I have no ability to buy land. So how do I eat?

Well this assumes that 100% of the land is occupied. The number is like...5-10% currently? Somewhere around that. To think that 100% of the land would be taken by racist farmers is an absurd idea to posit. So it's sort of hard to answer a question that has no basis in reality.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well this assumes that 100% of the land is occupied. The number is like...5-10% currently? Somewhere around that. To think that 100% of the land would be taken by racist farmers is an absurd idea to posit. So it's sort of hard to answer a question that has no basis in reality.

It doesn't at all assume that 100% of land is occupied. It assumes that 100% of land is owned. You don't seem to have an objection to an absentee owner renting land to a tenant, so I don't see why occupation matters now. You seem to be jumping between different ideas as necessary to keep this thing going.

Edit: Of course, you also made the wildly unrealistic assumption that we might actually try to make substantial reparations for slavery, or do anything else that would take huge amounts of wealth from current owners and distribute it according to who has some sort of ill-defined historic right to it. So it's also not very fair to say that pigeon is being "absurd".

 

[The Technomancer]

What i'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be coercion. Our current society is filled with it and is often supported by our government in conjunction with corporate interests. Corporations simply use our government for their own interests which in turn fucks up the market.

As long as there are people with significant amounts of capital and people without enough capital to be self sustaining there will implicitly be a coercive relationship between them.

 

[Kad5]

It doesn't at all assume that 100% of land is occupied. It assumes that 100% of land is owned. You don't seem to have an objection to an absentee owner renting land to a tenant, so I don't see why occupation matters now. You seem to be jumping between different ideas as necessary to keep this thing going.

My point is that 100% of land isn't even close to being owned.

 

[Cyan]

My point is that 100% of land isn't even close to being owned.

Ok, well let's extrapolate out a bit. I mean, if your policy is only good until land is 100% occupied, something's going to have to change when we hit that point, yes?

So what happens at 100% occupancy? Change policies? Get our asses to Mars?

 

[Kad5]

Ok, well let's extrapolate out a bit. I mean, if your policy is only good until land is 100% occupied, something's going to have to change when we hit that point, yes?

So what happens at 100% occupancy? Change policies? Get our asses to Mars?

Well if 100 years from now 100% of land is supposedly owned (whether it's private or communal) then there's plenty of room for ideas such as seasteading or even yes space colonization.

These assumptions are starting to get odd though. I can argue for example:

What if America gains enough military might to essentially directly or even indirectly control who uses what land? (i.e. empire)

^ That actually sounds slightly more plausible.

Also, there are other ways of feeding yourself besides building a farm from scratch.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ok, well let's extrapolate out a bit. I mean, if your policy is only good until land is 100% occupied, something's going to have to change when we hit that point, yes?

I think the more pressing concern is "what happens when 100% of farmable land is owned"

 

[Cyan]

What if America gains enough military might to essentially directly or even indirectly control who uses what land? (i.e. empire)

^ That actually sounds slightly more plausible.

Ok? What would you be arguing?

 

[Gotchaye]

My point is that 100% of land isn't even close to being owned.

Actually, it pretty much is. A lot is publicly-owned, but you can't go out and build a house somewhere in Wyoming and then expect to be recognized as the owner of that land. You might say that we should declare what we now consider publicly-owned land to be unowned, but you haven't made this suggestion yet.

Regardless, in a modern economy, if you say that there's a bunch of un-owned land out there that people can come to own by mixing their labor with it, it's a no-brainer for some rich guy to hire a bunch of unemployed people to go out and mix their labor with as much land as possible in the rich guy's name. I'm betting the land would go pretty fast, except for the most useless pieces.