Printable View
SL to Havakasha recently:
"Candidly and truthfully, I cannot understand why you are so concerned with CEO pay. I really don't get it. It's like you're bitter and jealous or something. To me, someone achieved. Good for them. I'm stuck selling plastic because I couldn't acheive any higher."
Maybe this is why...
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...ing-twenties-1
Evil forces did not conspire against me. It's on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atypical
I had a great day today. My youngest had her first soccer game in the morning. She did great. Then the older had her 2nd game, and I help coach that team. 6 goals to their 0 with my daughter adding the last. Man did these kids come around. I've been with them for 4 years now. It is wonderful to watch them progress season after season. I came home to investigate why my riding lawnmower didn't ride any more, and found that I had a cracked transaxle - no need to fix, gotta get a new one. It's the equivalent to a bad transmission. That sucks. For 17 years, it served me well. I researched riding mowers on consumer reports, and will get either a John Deere or another Craftsman. I like Craftsman because spare parts are pretty easy to acquire. Then I watch my alma matter battle to a pretty boring win 22 -13. Now I'm stuck on this site because my kids are watching Hanna Montana.... Tomorrow, I will see if there are tomatoes to can, and will likely watch football and check my fantasy team - in first for now. Oh yeah, I will buy a new lawn mower. Fall is here, and the leafs do not pick themselves up.
I'm sorry. This thread was supposed to be about the disparity in wealth. I digress.
Powerful stuff Atypical. Sorry if some people dont quite understand what has been happening in America as far as income ineguality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atypical
Drowning in Carrot Juice
by Mark Sumner
Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 06:00:03 AM PDT
Wall Street is upset. Sure, they were handed a trillion dollars. Sure, their industry was pulled from the toilet, propped up, dried off, and allowed to return to its never-ending party. Sure, they're looking forward to what may be the biggest bonus year ever while the rest of us are dealing with a little thing called a recession. But hey, they are upset that people have been talking mean about them. They don't like that. They don't like that so much that they're pouring record levels of money into Republican campaigns, just to make sure that Democrats get the point.
After all, being "too big to fail" means never having to say you're sorry. Heck, it means never having to face up to the fact that you failed at all. It certainly means that guys wearing Alexander Amosu suits don't have to say thank you to the people digging ditches, flipping burgers, or sweating out a stint of unemployment. You know, the people who chipped in so that the Wall Streeters could keep their jobs. Being too big to fail means being able to go on pretending that you're a tough, take care of yourself, fiscal conservative and that this little bump never happened. It certainly means that you don't have to be the least bit contrite, or demonstrate any sense of either guilt or gratitude.
And I absolutely agree. They don't. There's only one thing I want from these guys -- I want to tax the holy crap out of them.
I'm not suggesting this because it would be satisfying (though it would), but because it would be a good thing to do. The right thing to do. Not just to start repairing the hole these guys drove through the federal budget, but good for the whole economy. Even good for Wall Street.
Over the last four decades, we've become a nation where the Laffer Curve is hardwired in our brains. A nation that believes in always carrots, never sticks. Republicans have pushed the idea that reducing taxes is an universally effective way of growing the economy. No matter what the problem, there's bound to be a tax cut to solve it.
The problem is, that's nonsense. Always has been nonsense. Continues to be nonsense. The truth is that cutting taxes is the least efficient way of addressing economic issues.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest "bang for the buck," because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
Not only is extending the Bush tax cut an unfathomably stupid idea, the tax cuts that President Obama has proposed for business? Also a bad idea.
Corporate lobbyists have been seeking these tax cuts, because corporations are investing in automated equipment and software. These investments are designed to boost profits by permanently replacing workers and cutting payrolls. The tax cuts Obama is proposing would, therefore, make such investments all the more profitable.
Get that? The exact tax cuts Obama is proposing would make it easier for businesses to permanantly get rid of employees. Not only that...
Obama's whopping proposed corporate tax cuts help legitimize the supply-side dogma that the economy's biggest obstacle to growth is the cost of capital, rather than the plight of ordinary working people.
Tax cuts are not the solution. In fact (if you're a conservative you may need to sit down for this) tax cuts are the problem.
The current structure of our tax system exerts so little incentive on wealthy individuals and corporations to do anything with their wealth other than roll in it, that we've gestated a nation peppered with Smaugs, each of them perched atop their private hordes and ready to defend every jeweled goblet. The amount of wealth held by the top 1% of individuals is at record levels. The amount of money that corporations are sitting on is at record levels. So tell me, how will reducing taxes so they can made another Scooge McDuck dive into the gold pool help things? The inequality that now exists is harmful in multiple ways, but we're still nodding along with the same nonsense that put us in this spot.
The idea that sending money to the wealthy is helpful was once recognized as idiocy even inside the Republican Party. George Bush -- sans 'W' -- knew "voodoo economics" when he saw it. But along with the sanctification of Ronald Reagan we seem to have absorbed this conservative fairy tale so throughly that leaders both 'left' (at least what passes for left in Washington) and right can recite it in their sleep: if you start taxing someone so much because he's wealthy, he'll stop trying to make more money.
You know what? I believe that idea. I also believe that's a very, very good thing.
When someone is looking for a spot to park the third Ferrari, allowing them to take home more of their money should be the least of our concerns. In periods when there were higher taxes (including top rates that exceeded 90%) the incentive was there for CEOs and company owners to stop padding their own paychecks and turn more of the funds back to expanding their companies and rewarding their employees. That incentive is long gone.
By reducing the top tax rate we have driven a philosophy of short term profit, disregard for product quality, mistreatment of employees, and disdain for community relationships. We have directly rewarded the worst possible behavior. There's not one shred of evidence low top tax rates have ever been beneficial, and there's every indicator that they have proven a long term disaster.
The low tax rates on the wealthy are directly responsible for the rapid concentration of wealth, the stagnation of the median income, and the decline of the middle class. It's not something mysterious. It's not something that's being inflicted on us. It's something we are doing to ourselves.
The problem is that we've forgotten something -- you can't run a country on carrots alone. Every situation can't be addressed by giving someone a prize. Sometimes you have to reach for a stick. When the nation was founded, Washington and Hamilton were faced with deficits at the federal level and a group of states on the brink of bankruptcy. Their reaction was not "gee, maybe we give wealthy planters more money and hope they use it to buy extra wigs and waistcoats." Instead, they raised both taxes and tariffs. We seem to have forgotten that such an option even exists.
In the case of Wall Street in 2008, there was little choice but to rescue these "captains of industry" from their own sinking ships. They don't have to be grateful, but we aren't required to be stupid. If we don't start structuring our tax system in such a way that some of the gold gets dragged out of the hoards, we'll soon find ourselves in an even bigger dilemma -- one that we won't be able to repair, no matter how many working class people cough up.
In the meantime, how about trying one of the ideas to stimulate the economy that wasn't rated worst on the list. If you want to increase employment, hire people. Government jobs are no less real, no less honorable, and no less necessary than those created by private industry. No matter what Republicans may say.
Havakasha
That post by Mark Sumner lays out extremely well the truth, contrary to the myths, regarding "good economic policy". Unfortunately, those who believe propaganda will probably not change their beliefs, or read the link I posted, which as you said is powerful (and true).
“The weakness of the man who, when his theory works out into a flagrant contradiction of the facts, concludes ‘So much the worse for the facts: let them be altered’, instead of ‘So much the worse for my theory’”. George Bernard Shaw
Thanks for giving us a chance to see it.
SL
You have said that you have not seen the benefits of the stimulus. Please read page 52 in the September 20 issue of the New Yorker by their economics/financial writer. It will explain things.
By the way, your smarmy response to my post avoided the main point. To be clear it was not meant as a rebuke in any way of your position, income or success. The point was much larger - that income disparity is huge, growing and destructive and was addressed to your indifference to it. Anyone who looks at things other than their own personal conditions can see it clearly. There is extensive objective detail available as I, and others, have shown.
If you would only read...
You can concern yourself with income ineguality. I will concern myself with what is important to me and my family. I know, personal responsibilty is a talking point to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
It is important to be mindful of the priority of your family's security and well-being. No one responsible would dispute that.
But that tells you little of what is going on elsewhere and therefore what is also good for others. Unless you don'r give a shit about others! By restricting your view you can also be misled easily. And if that is the case you certainly cannot claim to know anything important about anything. Only by understanding the whole picture can you see where you fit in and and how you're doing compared to the overall situation. Perspective is critical, essential, no mandatory to be really knowledgeable.
You apparenrly feel having personal responsibility trumps all, so you need not concern yourself with other details (and others). They're not even appropriately important to you.
You have claimed a connection to libertarianism and mentioned Paul.
That philosophy has little to no concern for others and exults "personal responsibility" as the ultimate virtue.
Based on your comment re pr I'm not surprised at your attitude and your attraction for libertarianism. But to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of demeaning personal responsibilty by referring to it as a "talking point" is a flailing, grotesque and obscene tactic.
It becomes even clearer now; they and you just don't give a shit!
Boy, that Mark Sumner is one vindictive guy. I'll have to google Alexander Amosu suits. And the desire to tax the crap out of them because it's "satisfying".
I will say that I am disgusted about their bailout, but you've admitted that it was necessary, and I agree, it was. All the loans that have been defaulted, and years of social engineering so everyone can have a house, came home to roost, and in a big way. You know this to be true - those big Wall Steet banks go, and we go with them. It's funny that you blame them when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac invented MBS's. But alas..........
The democratic propaganda machine is in high gear now energizing (aggetating) the ignorant masses to vote for them. The rich are bad. Wall Street is bad. Anyone who makes money is bad. I'll stick up for you, just vote for me...... It's the ulitmate corruption of power - manipulating the weak and stupid to vote for them to gain political power. That's what your party is doing my friend. The only problem is that the opponent is too stupid to see it and call it what it is.
As far as tax cuts go - the more I take home, the more I save and the more I spend. Both are good things. The government taxes me on interest income, and sales tax. That's good too, right?
As for "stimulus", I am a working man. My company has not seen one iota of benefit, nor have any of my customers. Sorry, it is an observation. Yes, it is said that the stimulus has been beneficial. I will have to accept it regardless of my observation. I'm fine with it; though not fine with its legacy.
On the other hand, if everyone kept their own backyards nice, wouldn't the whole neighborhood be nice, and by extension, everything.....? What is wrong with that belief other than some DON'T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atypical
I'm not even going to address "giving a shit about others". It's simply inflammatory.
Did you read the link re wealth disparity and the page in the New Yorker?
Inflammatory?
Just using your political beliefs, indifferent comments about subjects outside of your world and lack of concern for what others are having to live with compliments of others that exploit them.
Have you read The Big Short (Michael Lewis) about the real causes of the meltdown?
Do all that (it really won't take long) and I'll buy the drinks.
S&L. You read the Big Short while i read the book you recommended. I will hunt for it online.