Personality Cafe banner

201 - 220 of 255 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
TL; DR version:

We are not living the 70s. What worked then may not work now. History alone is not a good enough reason.

Focus on corporate taxes and taxes geared at the corrupted sectors of the economy. Keep them away from hard working doctors, small business owners, and other honest productive Americans who may be in the upper 1%. Realize that taxes do impact people. Maybe just raise taxes for the upper 0.5% only? $8 M net worth is not what it used to be. People with over $100 M can adjust better to taxation. Why not focus on them more?

Capitalism did not cause the financial crisis. Corporatism did. Dismantle corporatism. And prosecute the corrupted government officials to the full extent of the law too. And the rating agency, SEC, etc. They are getting away with murder.

Consider the irony in attacking your corporations for getting rich by spurious means while you defend your country despite it getting rich by spurious means.
The corporations are guilty to bribe politicians into pursuing their interest, they made their profits by exploiting the people so it's not hating the "successful" it's hating the success they have gotten over bankrupting million and millions of people. If they want be successful, be successful for making good competitive products, don't be successful by polluting the environment and tieing a noose around your business for your own personal gains in the next few years.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magnificent Bastard

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Huh? I am gladly looking forward to such work. You attach way too much meaning to the word "criticize". And when was I crying? Tears of joy from proving you misinformed. :D I point out those details not to complain about the work, but to prove a point. Welcome to ENTPs.

I will also delight in pointing out your ad hominem :D
Are you okay?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
The corporations are guilty to bribe politicians into pursuing their interest, they made their profits by exploiting the people so it's not hating the "successful" it's hating the success they have gotten over bankrupting million and millions of people. If they want be successful, be successful for making good competitive products, don't be successful by polluting the environment and tieing a noose around your business for your own personal gains in the next few years.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS
I guess it comes down to who do you blame for a crime. Corporations made bribes, but politicians accepted bribes. They are supposed to be the ones enforcing laws and preventing corruption. Instead, they made it possible. It couldn't have happened without people taking bribes to do unethical things. Should we not prosecute them? I have yet to see one go up for trial.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
I guess it comes down to who do you blame for a crime. Corporations made bribes, but politicians accepted bribes. They are supposed to be the ones enforcing laws and preventing corruption. Instead, they made it possible. It couldn't have happened without people taking bribes to do unethical things. Should we not prosecute them? I have yet to see one go up for trial.
You see I used to blame politicians until I realized that if I was in their position I'd want to win and the only way they can win is by accepting those bribes. If they don't they won't be able to run ads defending the smear campaigns ran against them and they'd have no support. So that's why I'm done blaming the politicians, they're human they have to protect their interest of being elected/re elected and the people have permitted and seem to be ok with that. Now just because some people don't care about that doesn't mean I don't so that is why I think OWS is right to tell big business hey we know what your little game is because that always goes back to politicians who may realize they aren't a cunning as they'd like to think they are.

So our enemies are wall street and wall street sponsored politicians.

It doesn't matter who we elect if the system permits and even encourages the politicians to work with multinational corporations. People who disagree with OWS is because they wish they'd be in Washington D.C. protesting the govt but that's half of the fight, the other half needs to be done in WS. BTW there is also Occupy Washington D.C. it's not as big but it's still there protesting the corrupt politicians that accept bribes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
You could apply the same self-interest argument to Wall Street though. If I ever do get to work there, I would have to do the same thing. You don't have a choice. You want to make money for the company and avoid getting canned. These are just people trying to do their jobs. I've talked to people working for JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, etc. They partake in corrupt practices because the other companies are doing it. And if they don't, they can't compete, and the other companies will take their business and win. So there is no incentive for any one company to stop. If they stopped and no one else did, they'd go out of business. Even CEOs have no choice. They are obliged to make the best profits for their shareholders and their shareholders will be unhappy if competing business is profiting when they are not. And at the individual level, workers are all afraid of getting canned or of someone else beating them up the ladder. They all want to win. The incentives are there. AND people accept the bribes. Consequences aren't there. So they all do it. Same reason why all they all jumped on the MBS bandwagon. No one wanted to lose on the action. But then, everyone loses. Classic Nash Equilibrium in Game Theory again.

It's just people responding to incentive structures. The thing is, as long as those incentive structures exist, people are going to respond to them. Punishing a few CEOs won't stop others from trying similar shenanigans. Regulation will stop the SAME shenanigans from happening, but people will find new ones to pull. Insiders at big investment banks tell me they are typically about 5 years ahead of academia. No government regulators are going to be able to keep up with ways they can find to skirt the system. The best way to remove the incentive for fraud is to discourage politicians from taking those bribes. How? Punish those that took them.

Politicians are public figures entrusted with protecting the public interest. Their goal should be to serve the people, not protect their own interests to get re-elected. Many public figures, politicians or bureaucrats, were directly responsible for regulating the financial industry and preventing fraud and corruption. Instead? They failed at their jobs and enabled it. If you guys are blaming only the corporations, then the politicians are getting away with murder and I guess they are only proving that they really do have your public under mind control via political messaging.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
You could apply the same self-interest argument to Wall Street though. If I ever do get to work there, I would have to do the same thing. You don't have a choice. You want to make money for the company and avoid getting canned. These are just people trying to do their jobs. I've talked to people working for JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, etc. They partake in corrupt practices because the other companies are doing it. And if they don't, they can't compete, and the other companies will take their business and win. So there is no incentive for any one company to stop. If they stopped and no one else did, they'd go out of business. Even CEOs have no choice. They are obliged to make the best profits for their shareholders and their shareholders will be unhappy if competing business is profiting when they are not. And at the individual level, workers are all afraid of getting canned or of someone else beating them up the ladder. They all want to win. The incentives are there. AND people accept the bribes. Consequences aren't there. So they all do it. Same reason why all they all jumped on the MBS bandwagon. No one wanted to lose on the action. But then, everyone loses. Classic Nash Equilibrium in Game Theory again.

It's just people responding to incentive structures. The thing is, as long as those incentive structures exist, people are going to respond to them. Punishing a few CEOs won't stop others from trying similar shenanigans. Regulation will stop the SAME shenanigans from happening, but people will find new ones to pull. Insiders at big investment banks tell me they are typically about 5 years ahead of academia. No government regulators are going to be able to keep up with ways they can find to skirt the system. The best way to remove the incentive for fraud is to discourage politicians from taking those bribes. How? Punish those that took them.

Politicians are public figures entrusted with protecting the public interest. Their goal should be to serve the people, not protect their own interests to get re-elected. Many public figures, politicians or bureaucrats, were directly responsible for regulating the financial industry and preventing fraud and corruption. Instead? They failed at their jobs and enabled it. If you guys are blaming only the corporations, then the politicians are getting away with murder and I guess they are only proving that they really do have your public under mind control via political messaging.
well bc all banks participate and none wants to be left out doesn't make it right. Just because they bought politicians to loosen some regulations so they could more effectively exploit it doesn't make it right. Just because politicians knowingly enabled them to make those practices doesn't make it right. What all of this in fact does create is an elite thief group that is above the law and can collectively rob from every working american. So to me they're all thiefs that deserve jail but they placed themselves above the law and OWS the only voice demanding that all of them be tried, well actually the only voice speaking against this injustice. So give me another voice that'll defend my interest until then I'll support OWS and I'm sure so would you if you didn't see an easy pay check in your near future if the system remains this way, no offense, I had the same opportunity but I don't want to rip people off for money, I hate money my whole life I heard about money, fuck money I don't need it to be happy

watch this it's very informative...http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html



Here's the picture of the lobbyists cutting down the "red tape" regulations over their business (banks) that allowed them to make liar's loan, loan's in which people's lie were taken as the truth without any verification, marked them as triple A and sold them off to China. So the people who got the loan lost their homes, the banks paid for houses no one could afford or buy, and we had a financial crisis. Hooray for no regulations! Before people start blaming Obama that was back in 03 during good ol' GWB presidential term.

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
@JohnGalt If professionals from the US and abroad are immigrating to Canada despite the higher taxation rates because they value stability, then it seems that your argument for low taxes for the rich is a bit muddled. Our country would be more stable if the deficit was reduced.

You don't want to unfairly penalize the very small amount of doctors, small business owners etc.. who fall into the same percentile as the robber barons, but yet you're comfortable with allowing a free market to throw an entire country into a depression through fraudulent practices and let the market right itself eventually and theoretically after the fall out? Worse yet, the global economy is on the brink of disaster with a potential domino effect that could cause one default to lead to the next and next etc... because the financial industry had to find a way to squeeze out greater profits for itself based on smoke and mirrors. But the market will take care of it all??? How's this going to happen without millions of people suffering? But you seem comfortable with those people suffering. They're "those" people while the ass busting lawyers are "your" people. Hey, heads up, being a lawyer is not nearly as exhausting as doing physical labor for a living, and many middle class Americans work two jobs so they can pay for the basics. And all sorts of civil servants sacrifice pay to serve their communities/countries. I'm sure you appreciate the fireman/woman who may save your ass and your assets. Don't dismiss him/her as too stupid to have become a lawyer or an investment banker either. It's a matter of personal values and priorities.

And the regulations we had in place would have stopped these very shenanigans but they were repealed. Yes, there should be prosecution for fraud which was rampant, but that's a bit after the fact isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Fair enough. I would never want to be a politician ;-). And just because they face fear of losing their seat for not falling in line, doesn't mean it's ok for them to be bribed out of doing their job! I'd like to see Wall Street and the politicians punished. I just think it would be sad if Washington gets away with it.

LOL. "Liar's Loans". I love the buzzwords used. S&P and Moody's are the ones who gave them triple A stamps, knowing they were garbage, because they took bribes. The market relied on those agencies to protect investors and they failed, intentionally. There is documented evidence of employees writing "this investment is garbage" and then rating them AAA anyway. Punishment should be doled out there as well, and to the SEC who was well aware of what was going on and didn't step in. What on earth are those tax dollars paying for then?

The Black interview? yeah, I've watched it already. Thanks for passing the link on, but it's like the 10th time someone has shown it to me today. Being interested in the industry, I already educated myself about a lot of these issues before and what he is discussing is not news and is a simplified version tailored to fit a political message so it has more appeal. Although I'm glad people in general are hearing about it. If you like that sort of thing, watch "The Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon (lol). Grossly oversimplified for pop culture appeal, and you can pick holes in the logic or find alternate solutions or other people to blame depending on the premises you enter with, but it is interesting for those who want to know more about what went wrong. And there are lots of books out about it.

I can address Black's points one by one and address alternate solutions... and have addressed some on an different thread. But no one's really arguing about that, no need to go there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
@JohnGalt If professionals from the US and abroad are immigrating to Canada despite the higher taxation rates because they value stability, then it seems that your argument for low taxes for the rich is a bit muddled. Our country would be more stable if the deficit was reduced.

You don't want to unfairly penalize the very small amount of doctors, small business owners etc.. who fall into the same percentile as the robber barons, but yet you're comfortable with allowing a free market to throw an entire country into a depression through fraudulent practices and let the market right itself eventually and theoretically after the fall out? Worse yet, the global economy is on the brink of disaster with a potential domino effect that could cause one default to lead to the next and next etc...

And the regulations we had in place would have stopped these very shenanigans but they were repealed. Yes, there could have been and should be prosecution for fraud which was rampant and Which lends more credence to the idea that oversight is indeed necessary if you have a stake in government stability.

I agree with many of your points rega
Good points. But I think with the US-Canada thing you are not looking at the whole picture. They moved South to the US from Canada for the past 20 years because of lower taxes and higher salaries. They only started moving back North in the last year since the money is starting to dry up down there. Their incentive to go to the US is $$. As that opportunity for money is taken away, they return here for quality of life. Tax hikes will scare them away more. They are not coming here for more economic stability. They are coming here for our far superior public health care, education, pensions and social security. Those are completely separate issues and they aren't going to be addressed by your tax hikes. And before you say that's an argument to raise taxes even more and create a welfare state, consider that these same people LEFT Canada in the first place because they prefer making money in the US to living in a welfare state. But if there's less money to be made, why stay? And that's a lot of talent moving... doctors, medical researchers, silicon valley prodigies, entrepreneurs..

Deficit can be reduced by reducing spending too. A balance sheet goes both ways. Your deficit is not just a result of tax cuts, but also your pointless wars. That cost a lot!

Where do I say I want a free market to throw us into a depression? I am not saying remove government, or let the markets crash. It's not one of the other, "regulate" or "depression". There are alternative solutions. As an ENFP, I'm sure you can relate to this metaphor I keep using. As a parent, how effective is it to tell a child not to do something bad? Children resent authority. They will find ways around it, something else bad to do. The best way to get a kid to do what you want is the nurturing approach. Positive reinforcement. Create incentives to do the right thing.

Regulators are behind industry. They do not have the resources to keep up. They cannot effectively stop every new scheme that comes out of Wall Street. In this case, there were regulations in place that would have foiled the MBS-schemes. But those are not the first frauds committed by Wall Street, and it is quite likely they would find other elaborate ways to cheat the system. Enron did. Removing the incentive for cheating and creating incentives for honest business practice seems more productive than trying to ban every bad thing you can think of (which is invariably incomplete) or grounding them, only to have them sneak out the window to go to the school dance with "Jed the Edge" on his motorcycle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
Fair enough. I would never want to be a politician ;-). And just because they face fear of losing their seat for not falling in line, doesn't mean it's ok for them to be bribed out of doing their job! I'd like to see Wall Street and the politicians punished. I just think it would be sad if Washington gets away with it.

LOL. "Liar's Loans". I love the buzzwords used. S&P and Moody's are the ones who gave them triple A stamps, knowing they were garbage, because they took bribes. The market relied on those agencies to protect investors and they failed, intentionally. There is documented evidence of employees writing "this investment is garbage" and then rating them AAA anyway. Punishment should be doled out there as well, and to the SEC who was well aware of what was going on and didn't step in. What on earth are those tax dollars paying for then?

The Black interview? yeah, I've watched it already. Thanks for passing the link on, but it's like the 10th time someone has shown it to me today. Being interested in the industry, I already educated myself about a lot of these issues before and what he is discussing is not news and is a simplified version tailored to fit a political message so it has more appeal. Although I'm glad people in general are hearing about it. If you like that sort of thing, watch "The Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon (lol). Grossly oversimplified for pop culture appeal, and you can pick holes in the logic or find alternate solutions or other people to blame depending on the premises you enter with, but it is interesting for those who want to know more about what went wrong. And there are lots of books out about it.

I can address Black's points one by one and address alternate solutions... and have addressed some on an different thread. But no one's really arguing about that, no need to go there.
i'm sure you can, the banks have paid many people to address those points and most of them use buzzwords like socialism, communism, regulate to death, kill the free market, etc. Buzzwords work but looking back in retrospect you have to admit they were accepting liar's loan or as they'd call it in the banks "sell this loan as soon as you can to the chinese" loan because they viewed those as the most profitable. (which still puzzles the crap out of me)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
You're not looking at the whole picture. They moved South to the US from Canada for the past 20 years because of lower taxes and higher salaries. They only started moving back North in the last year since we are rebounding from the crisis and you guys are looking increasingly unstable. Their incentive to go to the US is $$. As that opportunity for money is taken away, they return here for quality of life. Tax hikes will scare them away more. They are not coming here for more economic stability. They are coming here for our far superior public health care, education, pensions and social security. Those are completely separate issues and they aren't going to be addressed by your tax hikes. And before you say that's an argument to raise taxes even more and create a welfare state, consider that these same people LEFT Canada in the first place because they prefer making money in the US. But if there's no money to be made, why stay? And that's a lot of talent moving... doctors, medical researchers, silicon valley prodigies, entrepreneurs..

Deficit can be reduced by reducing spending too. A balance sheet goes both ways. Your deficit is not just a result of tax cuts, but also your pointless wars. That cost a lot!

Where do I say I want a free market to throw us into a depression? I am not saying remove government, or let the markets crash. It's not one of the other, "regulate" or "depression". There are alternative solutions. As an ENFP, I'm sure you can relate to this metaphor I keep using. As a parent, how effective is it to tell a child not to do something bad? Children resent authority. They will find ways around it, something else bad to do. The best way to get a kid to do what you want is the nurturing approach. Positive reinforcement. Create incentives to do the right thing.

Regulators are behind industry. They do not have the resources to keep up. They cannot effectively stop every new scheme that comes out of Wall Street. In this case, there were regulations in place that would have foiled the MBS-schemes. But those are not the first frauds committed by Wall Street, and it is quite likely they would find other elaborate ways to cheat the system. Enron did. Removing the incentive for cheating and creating incentives for honest business practice seems more productive than trying to ban every bad thing you can think of (which is invariably incomplete) or grounding them, only to have them sneak out the window to go to the school dance with "Jed the Edge" on his motorcycle.
O.k., that post was not finished, hit submit instead of preview. But I'm going to bed and will read more tomorrow.

Edit: Yes, I'm an ENFP. And please don't talk to me like I'm a child or a dumbass. I disagree with you in terms of a whether the market needs regulations. So do other ENTPs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
i'm sure you can, the banks have paid many people to address those points and most of them use buzzwords like socialism, communism, regulate to death, kill the free market, etc. Buzzwords work but looking back in retrospect you have to admit they were accepting liar's loan or as they'd call it in the banks "sell this loan as soon as you can to the chinese" loan because they viewed those as the most profitable. (which still puzzles the crap out of me)
Hmm banks should pay me to do that then. I might as well get paid for blabbing about this LOL. All I mean is that there are alternative solutions. He addresses some real problems with the system. I believe there are better ways to fix them, and these are ideas I conclude on my own through analyzing the arguments, not arguments copied from Republican media.

Have you seen "The Inside Job?" I think you would like it.

Securities are not all bad. Most people don't understand the "financial wizardry" and people tend to fear things they don't understand. Admittedly, stochastic calculus and autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models are not for everyone. But securities perform a lot of market-stabilizing functions, hedging people against all sorts of risks. Speculators treat them as bets, but these bets are also used as insurance schemes to protect against losses and market instability. Futures markets are integral to farming, for example. Swaps protect the energy industry. Exotic FOREX options are huge for the stability of companies operating overseas. There is a lot of value, and creating new instruments allows for a lot of legit business opportunities that benefit people.

A few of them were disastrous, but the opportunity to create those arose because government agencies were guaranteeing these high-risk housing loans to promote the American vision of home ownership for all. Good motives, but the existence of these things warps the market. How can you guarantee any form of loan to a NINJA (no income, no jobs or assets)? Seems dangerous. But tax dollars backed it. And of course Wall Street exploited the opportunities to profit off them.

Yeah, I completely agree those MBS and CDS packages were bogus. My friends and I were talking about them way back when the market was first tanking a few years ago, and we were shocked they managed to pull it off. Why did the Chinese buy? Investors placed too much trust in the ratings. Foreign investors never asked for transparency. They didn't want to know where the investment was coming from, and they had no clue they were repackaged high-risk housing loans or bets on people defaulting on payments. It was all bundled and repackaged. All they knew was that the short-term payoffs on these investments was high (due to the nature of the loans). Investors ALSO had no clue how overleveraged the banks were, underestimating the bank's risk of default. I can't imagine why any investor would not ask questions about those basic facts, but people just valued that AAA rating so highly. Hopefully that comes into question now and investors know to ask more questions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,706 Posts
@JohnGalt my point being is that this type of information was only available to the top and they chose to remain ignoring and practicing it by maybe not grasping the economic meltdown it'd lead to or by shortsightedness over short term profits. Just because they paid to have that happen by sponsoring candidates that owed them "favors" and relaxing regulation they ended up exacerbating a fragile system in which everyone paid into to save their asses. So I do believe they should be held accountable and as far as i am concerned OWS is in the right place demanding an answer from the right people, no matter how anti capitalist and pro socialist they might appear to be they're doing what the 20 somethings should have done in 2004. I'm proud of my generation for taking matter into their own hands and demanding the answers to the questions our fathers and others failed to ask..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
541 Posts
TL; DR version:

We are not living the 70s. What worked then may not work now. History alone is not a good enough reason.
History alone is not a good enough reason? Then what the fuck is? You're personal opinion on the subject that is not only not based on history or anything else? Lowering taxes on the rich was a separation from history and introduced trickle down economics. That didn't work. What do you even mean that the economy is different; of course it is. It's gone down the tubes due to these manufactured wars that line the pockets of these corporate oil interests and these retarded tax cuts on the wealthy that occurred at the same time that didn't do anything to help the economy and in fact cost the treasury 11.6 million dollars every hour. But for some reason you're standing here defending them telling me not to look at history to determine something that only history and knowledge is suited to ultimately determine?

Focus on corporate taxes and taxes geared at the corrupted sectors of the economy. Keep them away from hard working doctors, small business owners, and other honest productive Americans who may be in the upper 1%. Realize that taxes do impact people. Maybe just raise taxes for the upper 0.5% only? $8 M net worth is not what it used to be. People with over $100 M can adjust better to taxation. Why not focus on them more?
What are you even saying??? Taxing the wealthy at higher rates is simply the correct way to go about reducing the deficit. You don't seem to realize how much these low tax rates on the wealthy have cost the treasury and a majority of Americans. Nothing is punishing the 'hard-working doctors' and business owners about returning their tax rates to a sustainable level. Hard working doctors and small business owners payed higher tax rates for the past 70 or so years, the ones in this generation will survive it. 0.5%? Isn't that the same sensationalizing that you accuse people who promote the 1% statistic of doing? Are you implying that one who makes over 100 million dollars couldn't possibly have worked hard for their money? All of their taxes are too low, it's that simple. The fundamental mechanism behind trickle down economics is that if you don't tax the wealthy they'll spend it and the wealth will trickle down, but what we've seen is that they just save their money and it increases their wealth while the middle class end up paying a disproportionate percentage of their income in taxes.

Capitalism did not cause the financial crisis. Corporatism did. Dismantle corporatism. And prosecute the corrupted government officials to the full extent of the law too. And the rating agency, SEC, etc. They are getting away with murder.

Consider the irony in attacking your corporations for getting rich by spurious means while you defend your country despite it getting rich by spurious means.
The fundamental mechanism behind capitalism is to profit regardless of the environmental and social costs. There needs to be regulation in place to protect the social and environmental costs of capitalism. The only capitalism I'm condemning is unregulated capitalism. It's that simple. America is on a steady decline. Don't talk shit about my country getting rich by spurious means, the past is the past. I don't necessarily excuse it but I understand that going over things that are long forgotten does nothing to help the current situation.

It's pretty basic economic theory that a marginal tax change will impact incentives and marginal costs/benefits for individuals to be in the workforce, and the impact on those individuals is going to depend on their situtation - it won't be uniform for everyone getting the tax hike. Do you get that? Yes/no? Do you agree to that? Or do you think everyone getting the hike will be equally affected?
Is it ethical to institute a tax hike that has a bigger impact on people who are not offenders than on people who are? That will be the outcome. Forget "punishment" and "demonizing". Do you see how raising taxes can affect some individual workers who are not all greedy system-abusers? Yes/no?
The offenders and criminals need to be indicted not simply taxes, while the tax rates on the wealthy need to increase regardless of anything. Like I said before, American infrastructure is suffering due to these tax decreases which we now know were actually tax spending that the wealthy got under Bush. It doesn't matter how the wealthy whose taxes go up are affected, their decrease in taxes had a major effect on majority of Americans and drove up the national debt.

Yes, let's indict the symptom but not the disease. Do you really think only a handful of bad apples are to blame? Or were they responding to incentives created by the system? As long as corporations are "persons", CEOs will make decisions that are for short-term profits without regard to long-term consequences. As long as rating agencies can be bribed, people will try to sell fradulent securities. As long as politicians can be bribed to turn a blind eye to REPORTED instances of fraud on Wall Street, people will keep trying. As long as federal instutions manipulate the market by guaranteeing sub-prime loans that should never exist, buyers are going to be misled about the costs of home ownership and buy when they can't afford, and banks are going to exploit that to make a buck. As long as the Fed manipulates interest rates and tries to control the economy with bailouts, the markets will fail to punish wrongdoing and abuses will occur.

Should we indict all the bribed federal employees responsible for letting this happen too? Some senators? The Fed? The SEC? Academics consultants who were bribed to OK these practices? Rating agencies that accepted bribes to allow the defrauding to occur? These people are all criminals. Don't just focus on Wall Street CEOs because they have money. By all means prosecute the CEOs, but then indict these other crooks too.
I agree, indict them all. Seize all of their money and assets. They all fucked the country over.

Currently, your country is stealing Canada's best doctors, economists and computer programmers because they make more money and get taxed little down there. We call it a "brain drain". But as taxes increase, these hardworking talented people have less reason to stay in your country. Already, economic instability has cause many to move back up North to the comforts of Canadian government. Many talented Americans are actually starting to move up here too. I've met a couple. People that would have gone to Silicon Valley are clustering here instead because of the stability. Foreign workers are starting to make the same choice. Hitting this sector with taxes will just cause you to lose more talent. This was not an issue in the 70s. The "Brain Drain" has happened since then. "Free trade" also didn't exist back then. "Outsourcing" wasn't an issue then. Now it is easier to move operations out of the US if the costs aren't favorable anymore. You do need to try to retain your talent to remain a world leader in all areas and to foster economic growth.
Even if we DID raise taxes for the wealthy, they would still likely be lower than anywhere else in the civilized world. Though once again it's worth mentioning that 65% of millionaires would support a tax increase on themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
@JohnGalt my point being is that this type of information was only available to the top and they chose to remain ignoring and practicing it by maybe not grasping the economic meltdown it'd lead to or by shortsightedness over short term profits. Just because they paid to have that happen by sponsoring candidates that owed them "favors" and relaxing regulation they ended up exacerbating a fragile system in which everyone paid into to save their asses. So I do believe they should be held accountable and as far as i am concerned OWS is in the right place demanding an answer from the right people, no matter how anti capitalist and pro socialist they might appear to be they're doing what the 20 somethings should have done in 2004. I'm proud of my generation for taking matter into their own hands and demanding the answers to the questions our fathers and others failed to ask..
Huh? I am saying blame Wall Street AND politicians, and the rating agencies, SEC, and cronies in the Fed. They are all crooks. I am not saying not to blame Wall Street. Prosecute them too! Don't assume I am defending their actions just because I express interest in the industry. I think we are in agreement here... I would like to see all guilty parties prosecuted!

They grasped the flaws. Everyone knew the investments were crap. Why would they sell it? Incentive structures. CEOs in corporatism have 0 reason to care about anything other than short term profits. Business owners, on the other hand, care about long term growth. Huge difference. So disband the corporation!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Dude, calm down.

LOLOLOL. You don't read the long version, reply to the short version, then complain I didn't explain anything or give complete arguments because you didn't actually read them in the long version. LOLOLOLOLOL.

History alone is not a good enough reason? Then what the fuck is?
Please read the longer version of the other post, explaining in detail why solutions from the 70s aren't applicable now. I already explained it. Don't listen to opinion. Listen to a rational argument and decide for yourself whether those reasons make sense. If you disagree, dispute the reasons, not the fact that it's my opinion. "Go with history" is really just your opinion, it's not objective truth. Your justification? "It's all we have". I gave you WAY more justification than that. Actually read it first.

In a nut shell: globalization, free trade, outsourcing, competition from other emerging markets (China). These factors were not present in the 70s. These factors all make it more likely for people to move operations overseas if they aren't happy with tax changes in the US. They weren't at play in the 70s. They are now. Saffron and I have also been discussing a "reverse brain drain" where American talent is moving north to Canada. FYI, this is all based on history and actual events. Isn't it reasonable to conclude people are more likely now than in the 70s to take up a leave the US in response to tax hikes?

The high tax pre-deregulation period of the 70s is your idea of economic stability? This era of the 70s also saw skyrocketing inflation, soaring interest rates, a major energy crisis, a stock market crash, slow growth in productivity, and just general economic slowdown compared to the 60s. It was considered a period of "conservatism", especially during the oil crisis. The economy was far from perfect, even with the rich being taxed. This is based on history. They weren't managing things that amazingly back then either.

There are other periods of US history where the economy thrived more and income disparity was less. Periods of the 1800s during the Industrial Revolution? The 20s? This was a period of tax cuts and protectionist policies. One could argue that history shows low taxes and high tarriffs benefit the economy, as these tarriffs protected American business interests and paid off national debt from the war. But there was also a bubble. So you could try to replicate the 60s? Policies of the 60s saw both economic prosperity and progessive social movements. The 60s were full of tax cuts, although taxes were probably higher than they are now. Business thrived and America was prosperous. And the income disparity was nothing like today. But social spending was still strong - the creation of Medicaid - and labour unions were very strong, favouring worker conditions. Would that be a better reference point?

What I'm saying is, picking the 70s is arbitrary. Yes, deregulation and systematic tax cuts started with Reaganomics, but there's plenty of history before that too. There are plenty of points in history when the American economy was stronger and the income disparity was smaller. And depending on where you look, different economic policies were in place. Idealizing the 70s and saying that is the model we should copy seems somewhat ignorant, especially given the economic instability of the 70s. And trying to apply economic policy from then may be misguided when so many factors are different now, as discussed. People are far more likely to take up and leave now. Head to China, Canada, elsewhere. It has already started happening and Americans are already losing jobs. The more it costs to do business here, the less business will take place here.

And this is based on history, as you should see. You can research and confirm facts if you disagree.


Lowering taxes on the rich was a separation from history and introduced trickle down economics.
But for some reason you're standing here defending them telling me not to look at history
When did I ever say we should lower taxes? Or defend those tax cuts? Or when did I ever use "trickle down economics" as a justification? Not once. You assumed that because I said something against tax hikes and you didn't understand what. Stop painting everything black and white. You're not even arguing with my points. You see a few words, assume I am arguing the same thing as Fox News, and are just refuting Fox News points instead. Stop lumping people in categories.

What I am saying is that, while those tax cuts may have been bad, you can't fix things by going back in time. We need new solutions. Taxes have to go up, but the problem is more complex than just using the taxation system of the 70s. The 70s kind of sucked, dude.

What are you even saying??? Taxing the wealthy at higher rates is simply the correct way to go about reducing the deficit. You don't seem to realize how much these low tax rates on the wealthy have cost the treasury and a majority of Americans.
I am in favour of taxing wealthy people. Please go back and count the number of times I have suggested doing so and ways to do so. It is a lot. I have suggested ALTERNATE taxation schemes, but they all involve raising taxes among rich people. Happy?

What really cost your treasury? Low taxes or your hyper-expensive war? The real issue was increasing spending (war) WHILE decreasing taxes. Doing both is terrible book-balancing. Now you guys need to both cut spending and raise taxes to fix it.


Nothing is punishing the 'hard-working doctors' and business owners about returning their tax rates to a sustainable level. Hard working doctors and small business owners payed higher tax rates for the past 70 or so years, the ones in this generation will survive it.
No one is being punished. Please stop using the word "punish". You don't see why people would be incentivized to leave the country if taxes increase? Global market. Easier to move now. And it has nothing to do with the "sustainable level" of taxes being a negative thing. People don't care about that. It has to do with change. People respond to change, not absolutes. If I increase your rent to a "sustainable level", you will be mad because rent is going up. Whether or not the end result is better for society on the macro scale, what you are going to notice in your microcosm is your rent going up. You won't be pleased. Esp if you are already working 14 hour days. Especially if you could move somewhere else where rent was about the same but you didn't have to work nearly as hard (Canada :D). People respond to changes and incentives.

0.5%? Isn't that the same sensationalizing that you accuse people who promote the 1% statistic of doing? Are you implying that one who makes over 100 million dollars couldn't possibly have worked hard for their money?
You completely misunderstood my argument about the malleability of statistics then. Please enroll in one of my stats courses, LOL. No, the 1% stat is sensationalized because it is the only one considered. No one looks at splitting up the income pie in any other way. Someone did an analysis a long time ago that looked at top 1% because it made sense at time time, and now everyone uses it as the golden standard. Even though income distribution is continuous, and dynamic over time. A more telling statistic is "where is the median"? I.e. what percentage of people own 50% of the wealth? This number will change over time. And it's a better question, because what we really want to know is "where is all our wealth"? "How few people are holding it?". "Is that wealth concentrating into fewer hands or spreading into more?" Those are relevant policy questions. Those are answered by asking the median question. Asking "what is happening to the top 1%" is arbitrary, because asking the question presupposes that there is something significant in being in the top 1%. There's not. It implies an artificial class distinction, which the masses have eaten up. What is significant is who is controlling the wealth, which is a different question. The 1% thing is poor analysis and any statistician not on payroll will back that up. Don't take my word for it. Go ask one, please.

To fight the sensationalizing, we should consider looking at other groups of the "rich" too. What would happen if we raised taxes for the top 0.5% by 2X instead of raising taxes for the top 1% by X? What would that accomplish? (well for one the country would get more tax dollars!!) What if tax burden is applied more to investment income than salary income? If the wealthy saving is what is screwing over trickle-down economics, then maybe tax their savings more? Initiatives like this. Tax policies that worked in the 70s won't work now, so we need to ask how to apply them now. Instead of just blindly taxing the top 1%, where can we apply taxes to the wealthy that minimize economic impact while still producing the same total number of tax dollars? These are questions that should be in discourse. Because, whether you realize it or not, these are questions used to make tax policy decisions (along with bribes). So it would help to, you know, campaign for tax hikes based on the actual decisions that will need to be made.


The fundamental mechanism behind capitalism is to profit regardless of the environmental and social costs.
Supply and demand respond to both profit and costs. The problem is when the costs are costs to the commons and never reach the business. The easy fix is for the government to transfer the costs over (e.g. C02 cap and trade) so business does pay.

Small business owners care about environmental and social costs because they care about image, they care about their customers, and they care about long-term costs because they want company longevity. This is all consistent with capitalism. And ask any small business owner. The ones who don't care about the costs are big corporations. That's corporatism, not capitalism.

It doesn't matter how the wealthy whose taxes go up are affected, their decrease in taxes had a major effect on majority of Americans and drove up the national debt.
You sure it wasn't the war that drove up national debt too? How much of that spending was necessary?
And you don't care how these people are affected at all? Well some people do, you know, care what happens to people. So it's a good thing you're not making policy ;-)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
541 Posts
Please read the longer version of the post, explaining in detail why solutions from the 70s aren't applicable now. Don't listen to opinion. Listen to a rational argument and decide for yourself whether those reasons make sense. If you disagree, dispute the reasons, not the fact that it's my opinion. "Go with history" is really just your opinion, it's not objective truth. Your justification? "It's all we have". I gave you WAY more justification than that. Actually read it first.

LOLOLOL. You don't read the long version, reply to the short version, then complain I didn't explain anything or give complete arguments because you didn't actually read them in the long version. LOLOLOLOLOL.
"Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it."

And stop acting childish, you don't see my response to points in your long-winded version of your argument? I assumed that the TL;DR version of it was created by you in order to limit the unnecessary points I had to respond to, but if not why even create such a post?

In a nut shell: globalization, free trade, outsourcing, competition from other emerging markets (China). These factors were not present in the 70s. These factors all make it more likely for people to move operations overseas if they aren't happy with tax changes in the US. They weren't at play in the 70s. They are now. Saffron and I have also been discussing a "reverse brain drain" where American talent is moving north to Canada. FYI, this is all based on history and actual events. Isn't it reasonable to conclude people are more likely now than in the 70s to take up a leave the US in response to tax hikes?
Moving to Canada due to the unstableness of the market. If their primary reasoning for moving was due to tax increases as you claim wouldn't they stay in the US for the simple fact that tax rates for the wealthy are lower here than any other first-world nation. A lot of things are different, but much is the same. If they leave the US where would they go? To some fledgling second world nation? I doubt there would be as many people leaving the US as you claim if marginal tax rates increased.

The high tax pre-deregulation period of the 70s is your idea of economic stability? This era of the 70s also saw skyrocketing inflation, soaring interest rates, a major energy crisis, a stock market crash, slow growth in productivity, and just general economic slowdown compared to the 60s. It was considered a period of "conservatism", especially during the oil crisis. The economy was far from perfect, even with the rich being taxed. This is based on history. They weren't managing things that amazingly back then either.
I'm referring more the the 90's and even the 80's where there were tax increases. I'm talking about returning tax rates to what they were during the Clinton era. Also, the financial crisis of 2008 was worse than anything since the great depression, the economy now and since 2008 is worse than anything you're referencing.

There are other periods of US history where the economy thrived more and income disparity was less. Periods of the 1800s during the Industrial Revolution? The 20s? This was a period of tax cuts and protectionist policies. One could argue that history shows low taxes and high tarriffs benefit the economy, as these tarriffs protected American business interests and paid off national debt from the war. But there was also a bubble. So you could try to replicate the 60s? Policies of the 60s saw both economic prosperity and progessive social movements. The 60s were full of tax cuts, although taxes were probably higher than they are now. Business thrived and America was prosperous. And the income disparity was nothing like today. But social spending was still strong - the creation of Medicaid - and labour unions were very strong, favouring worker conditions. Would that be a better reference point?
The 1800's? You mean during slavery? The 1920's? You mean the bubble right before the Great Depression? One could not argue that low taxes benefit the economy because if that was the case we would currently be experiencing an economic boom.

Taxes in the 60's were not 'probably' higher than they are now. That is a dishonest claim. They were certainly much higher than they are now. The income disparity in the 60's was lower than today because like I keep saying, the Bush era tax cuts redistribute wealth upwards.

What I'm saying is, picking the 70s is arbitrary. Yes, deregulation and systematic tax cuts started with Reaganomics, but there's plenty of history before that too. There are plenty of points in history when the American economy was stronger and the income disparity was smaller. And depending on where you look, different economic policies were in place. Idealizing the 70s and saying that is the model we should copy seems somewhat ignorant, especially given the economic instability of the 70s. And trying to apply economic policy from then may be misguided when so many factors are different now, as discussed. People are far more likely to take up and leave now. Head to China, Canada, elsewhere. It has already started happening and Americans are already losing jobs. The more it costs to do business here, the less business will take place here.
When did I idealize the 70's? Even your points about the 60's apply here. Also, the economic instability in the 70's pales in comparison to what is going on right now. You really can't even compare the two. Head to Canada? Where there is universal healthcare and higher taxes? I doubt it. I guess China and other 2nd world countries are a decent alternative, but the civil unrest they would potentially deal with there would pale in comparison to what's going on right now. I highly doubt all the rich people would just pack up and leave because they're being asked to pay slightly more than the minuscule percentage of their income that they're already paying here.

And this is based on history, as you should see. You can research and confirm facts if you disagree.

When did I ever say we should lower taxes? Or defend those tax cuts? Or when did I ever use "trickle down economics" as a justification? Not once. You assumed that because I said something against tax hikes and you didn't understand what. Stop painting everything black and white. You're not even arguing with my points. You see a few words, assume I am arguing the same thing as Fox News, and are just refuting Fox News points instead. Stop lumping people in categories. I could give a fuck what Fox News says or wants. They're morons, as is anyone who can't tell my position is quite different.
But I thought history wasn't an effective tool in measuring what should be done today ;-).

Trickle down economics has been the primary justification in lowering taxes on the top earners. If you aren't promoting that then what exactly are you promoting? You are in a lot of ways arguing Fox News talking points, but I think I've been effectively refuting all of your points. You're position is similar in that you regard a tax increase on the wealthy to be a punishment just like Fox News promotes, but that is simply ignorant.

What I am saying is that, while those tax cuts may have been bad, you can't fix things by going back in time. We need new solutions. Taxes have to go up, but the problem is more complex than just using the taxation system of the 70s. The 70s kind of sucked, dude.

I am in favour of taxing wealthy people. Please go back and count the number of times I have suggested doing so and ways to do so. It is a lot. I have suggested ALTERNATE taxation schemes, but they all involve raising taxes among rich people. Happy?
What you are calling 'going back in time' I call correcting bad policy. That is not going back in time. Even if the 70's 'kinda sucked dude' compared to now it was still a time of economic prosperity. What about the 90's?

If you're in favor of ending the Bush era tax cuts and increasing taxes on the wealthy than what are we even arguing about? Not happy, just right. Like always :rolleyes:

D
What really cost your treasury? Low taxes or your hyper-expensive war? The real issue was increasing spending (war) WHILE decreasing taxes. Doing both is terrible book-balancing. Now you guys need to both cut spending and raise taxes to fix it.
The combination of both, but the decrease in taxing is the only thing that cost the treasury 11.6 million an hour. The combination of that with the pointless wars cost the treasury much, much more than that.
No one is being punished. Please stop using the word "punish". You don't see why people would be incentivized to leave the country if taxes increase? Global market. Easier to move now. And it has nothing to do with the "sustainable level" of taxes being a negative thing. People don't care about that. It has to do with change. People respond to change, not absolutes. If I increase your rent to a "sustainable level", you will be mad because rent is going up. Whether or not the end result is better for society on the macro scale, what you are going to notice in your microcosm is your rent going up. You won't be pleased. Esp if you are already working 14 hour days. Especially if you could move somewhere else where rent was about the same but you didn't have to work nearly as hard (Canada :D). People respond to changes and incentives.
No, I don't see why they would be given incentive to leave if taxes are still lower than any other first world nation. They didn't leave before they amassed huge fortunes due to a tax policy written completely in their favor. Canada has higher marginal tax rates than the US, so what are you talking about? Taxes have not been this low for the wealthy until recently, and combined with the fact that many support a tax increase, I doubt they will flock out of the country like you claim. It's simply a bluff.

You completely misunderstood my argument about the malleability of statistics then. Please enroll in one of my stats courses, LOL. No, the 1% stat is sensationalized because it is the only one considered. No one looks at splitting up the income pie in any other way. Someone did an analysis a long time ago that looked at top 1% because it made sense at time time, and now everyone uses it as the golden standard. Even though income distribution is continuous, and dynamic over time. A more telling statistic is "where is the median"? I.e. what percentage of people own 50% of the wealth? This number will change over time. And it's a better question, because what we really want to know is "where is all our wealth"? "How few people are holding it?". "Is that wealth concentrating into fewer hands or spreading into more?" Those are relevant policy questions. Those are answered by asking the median question. Asking "what is happening to the top 1%" is arbitrary, because asking the question presupposes that there is something significant in being in the top 1%. There's not. It implies an artificial class distinction, which the masses have eaten up. What is significant is who is controlling the wealth, which is a different question. The 1% thing is poor analysis and any statistician not on payroll will back that up. Don't take my word for it. Go ask one, please.
Majority of the wealth is owned by the top 1% of income earners. This concept isn't that hard to understand. Yes, they could do .5% or .88% but the statistic still stands that the top 1% of Income earners in the US own 42% of the wealth. Worldwide the top 1% of income earners have 50% of global wealth. Regardless of whether or not you personally enjoy the statistic it doesn't refute the validity of it. Only recently in the US has the top 1% acquired this much wealth compared to the population at large, and income disparity was not this large in the US until recently.

To fight the sensationalizing, we should consider looking at other groups of the "rich" too. What would happen if we raised taxes for the top 0.5% by 2X instead of raising taxes for the top 1% by X? What would that accomplish? (well for one the country would get more tax dollars!!) What if tax burden is applied more to investment income than salary income? If the wealthy saving is what is screwing over trickle-down economics, then maybe tax their savings more? Initiatives like this. Tax policies that worked in the 70s won't work now, so we need to ask how to apply them now. Instead of just blindly taxing the top 1%, where can we apply taxes to the wealthy that minimize economic impact while still producing the same total number of tax dollars? These are questions that should be in discourse. Because, whether you realize it or not, these are questions used to make tax policy decisions (along with bribes). So it would help to, you know, campaign for tax hikes based on the actual decisions that will need to be made.
If we only heavily taxed the top .5% of income earners the fact would still stand that many top income earners would be being taxed disproportionately low compared to most others. Look at this graph:




Why is Capital Gains so low? Does it seem strange that the income of billionaire hedge fund managers are taxed at a lower rate than people who actually work for a living and produce something of value. What a disgrace. Capital gains and dividend taxes should also be more progressive. Why should someone who earns $100,000/yr in capital gains pay the same rate (15%) as a hedge fund manager who earned $1 billion in capital gains? Hedge fund managers are paying tax rates at 15%. If you don't consider that to be an absurdity, I don't know what is.

Supply and demand respond to both profit and costs. The problem is when the costs are costs to the commons and never reach the business. The easy fix is for the government to transfer the costs over (e.g. C02 cap and trade) so business does pay.

Small business owners care about environmental and social costs because they care about image, they care about their customers, and they care about long-term costs because they want company longevity. This is all consistent with capitalism. And ask any small business owner. The ones who don't care about the costs are big corporations. That's corporatism, not capitalism.
You truly believe that if corporations didn't have to they wouldn't get rid of minimum wage, weekends, health benefits, child labor laws, costly regulations about dumping waste and disposing of trash? Really? If I was a CEO and didn't have to do any of that shit I certainly wouldn't. Especially when the alternative is to turn massive profits. Look no further than the way our corporations treat our employees overseas to see evidence of their lack of ethics when not being forced to look at things from an ethical perspective by those pesky regulations libertarians and republicans seem to hate.

You sure it wasn't the war that drove up national debt too? How much of that spending was necessary?
And you don't care how these people are affected at all? Well some people do, you know, care what happens to people. So it's a good thing you're not making policy ;-)
The statistic I brought up was only about the impact the tax cuts had on the US economy, but the wars(plural) also had terrible effects on the economy.

I don't care how who is effected exactly? The wealthy who should be paying more taxes? Me suggesting that top top 1% of income earners in the US should be paying more taxes=not caring what happens to people? You should be proud of that point. It's like I'm talking to Glenn Beck himself. :proud:
 
201 - 220 of 255 Posts
Top