Do I really need a cite for the proposition that investing money in a company does more long term good for the economy than, say, spending that same money on booze and hookers? Do you seriously disagree with that proposition?
Yes, yes, I’m audacious, and you, as an admitted 1 percenter, white male, lawyer, hypocrite, hot-tempered, somewhat silly and venal man are disgusted. I’ll write that down, OK?
But you say something I wouldn’t have expected, although only six words our of your last ten posts, I’d like to quote them here:
It is? Really?!? I would love to hear your take on what the problem is, and what you suggest to do about it.
Plus which, you seem like you could use a mental break from playing defense, which is not at all your forte. Don’t forget to close the loopholes, skippy! 
AceOSpades, you are way out of line.
You’re arguments through this whole thread have made no sense at all. You make wild accusations that you cannot back up. Your irrational hatred of what you consider to be “evil” has left you quite blind to reality.
You are also clearly in violation of board rules with your personal attacks.
AceOSpades, you are way out of line.
You’re arguments through this whole thread have made no sense at all. You make wild accusations that you cannot back up. Your irrational hatred of what you consider to be “evil” has left you quite blind to reality.
You are also clearly in violation of board rules with your personal attacks, and jerk-like behavior.
Ace:
I never admitted to being a lawyer.
The problem is a growing gap, and a lack of mobility along the extremes of the economic spectrum, and I think that the primary problem is educational opportunities.
A distant secondary problem is corporate taxation, and employment laws. It needs to be more favorable for corporations to pay out their earnings as dividends, than it is now, and hiring has to become less of a liability.
We need to give the people the opportunity to succeed, knowing at the same time that it’s a trojan gift because it also carries the possibility of failure.
The same quality of education needs to be available at all public schools, and we need to reinstate tracking so that the best students can be challenged.
An education should be a right, but it should also be a privilege one can lose.
I think the scholarship system is a good one, and that it needs to be extended down to the Public/grade school level.
In impovershed areas and inner cities, money, books, better housing need to be available on a competitive basis to serious and committed students. We should spend Federal funds to make it so. Superior grades and scores on such standardized tests should guarrantee a scholarship to higher education.
Private Corporations should be encouraged and recieve benefits from participating in such programs.
We need to rethink the role of public education and dispense with health and socially-oriented curriculum and concentrate on critical thought. Math, Science, English, Literature, Foreign language.
I spent my first few years of my life in the Bronx, and my mother was a schoolteacher in the Bronx. There are children there who want to learn. There are supportive parents that want their children to learn.
They are not getting what they need because the system is responding to the lowest common denominator, maintaining order and attendance and safety.
These things need to be a given, not a goal to be aspired to, and they cannot occur without the ability to remove disruptive and uninterested students from the classroom.
You cannot educate a person against their will, and you cannot force them to be successful. You can only give them the opportunity.
Disruptive and disinterested students take that opportunity away from everybody, and they need to be removed from the same classroom as serious and committed students.
They needed to be removed from the same physical school as serious and committed students. They may be allowed to return, but they have lost the right and would need to earn the privilege in a remedial program.
If you’re referring to DCU’s brief summary of the thread please note the last item for page 5, namely:
“First mention of the UNFPA.”
Which is precisely about the abortion issue which has only recently (this page) been raised. ElJeffe wrote a post in part addressing environmental concerns. As far as I can tell neither you, nor any other “Republicans-are-evil” poster in this thread has mentioned any specific gripe you have with Republican environmental policy. I’m sure the people in this thread would weigh in on any complaint you wish to make in regards to the handling of the environment.
Really, Ace, I see DCU, Scylla, Neurotik, and ElJeffe making an honest effort to present their opinions fairly. This implied accusation of intellectual dishonesty or disenguousness is unwarranted. Does anyone reading this thread (other than Ace) really feel that DCU, Scylla, Neurotik and ElJeffe have been debating dishonestly or misrepresenting facts?
Let’s ignore the fact that you haven’t made a statement any more specific WRT the environment other than “Republican’s are screwing the environment” and address your other claims here. Are you claiming that Bush and his administration are directly responsible for the current slump in the market (in regards to your comment on the worth of your 401k)? If so, don’t you think the fact that dot.com bubble had already begun to burst at the end of Clinton’s presidency, the terrorist attacks within the year and unwise business practices of some large companies (i.e. Enron, Worldcom, etc.) has something to do with America’s current financial situation?
You are attributing a malicious motive here without evidence. The effectiveness of the Republican party WRT the economic health of it’s citizens is debateable. The motives of said party are entirely separate issues. I contend that conscientious members of the Republican party are proposing different solutions, with the best of intentions, to the same problems.
Cite please.
::sigh:: Another confirmation of the “Pub’s are eeeevil… Dem’s have bad ideas” theme.
I’ll address income inequality in another post.
Grim
This is silly.
Poverty hasn’t been a topic in this thread, except insofar as it relates to taxation. And we’ve certainly discussed the tax issue.
ElJeffe gave a good, reasonable post describing the Republican posture on environmental issues in general. If you want to discuss more specific topics, like ANWR, fine. But the question asked was "what is the Republican’s score on that issue [the environment]? Ask a general question, expect a general answer.
I would hope that Republicans and Democrats would agree that, regardless of how you feel about abortion generally, forcing a woman to have an abortion (as is policy in China) is abhorrent. The Bush policy described above is intended to make it somewhat more difficult for China to carry out its forced-abortion policy. The extent to which defunding the UNFPA will be effective in combating the Chinese policy is debateable, but the administration’s view of forced abortions is not.**
So, to steal Scylla’s point, this is all about hating whitey, eh?**
Why do you find it “stunning” that people aspire to improve their financial situation? Should we instead aspire to poverty?**
First of all, Scylla is right – “top 1 percent of the main quintile” makes no sense.
Second, where has anyone said the top 1% isn’t “well off”? I think we’ve described those at the margin of the top 1% as being comfortable, secure and indeed “well off.” They just aren’t “rich,” at least not in the mansion-owning, yacht-buying sense.**
Cite?
Does my sig count?
I’m off to go Pumpkin Carving, more tomorrow, quick notes:
Debaser: You’re grasp of the board rules is as impressive as you’re grasp of logic and grammar; case in point, the moderators prefer direct notifcation of personal jerkishness over thread posts. Hope dis helps.
DCU: Yes, your “investment” argument is pure bullshit; Yes, you need to provide a cite. Do you really think if we all invested our money in 1% bonds rather than spending most of our paychecks that the economy would be better off? I’ve already asked you for a cite. Kindly provide one or admit your mistake.
Grim_Beaker: I’d agree with El Jeffe and Neurotik being good-faith debaters. I might disagree with their thesis, but their argument follows from their points; I think DCU is on the edge – frequently his points are IMHO disingenuous, his opinions ludicrous, though his analysis is usually ok, and he cites things; Scylla is usually over that edge, though he has a certain bull-headed, thin-skinned style that amuses, though perhaps ill-suited to this forum.
I do cut them all some slack, as it’s no doubt annoying to have a GD thread dedicated to discussing whether your class is Evil, or eeeeevil, as the case may be, though some of them need to toughen up. God forbid we discuss the ways the Republicans are evil in a GD thread dedicated to discussing that. What’d you expect, accolades? Can’t stand the heat, Get the hell out the kitchen.
Who’s last? Scylla, I think your discourse on income inequality has merit, and I’m still thinking it over. My mother was a schoolteacher in Brooklyn – are you familiar with the LCD High School, John Jay? Used to be a vocational high school, but the funds were cut, and they now teach Sex Ed in the automotive garage. How appropriate.
More on Sunday, as Saturday I’ll be in DC for the march … naturally.
-Ace
:rolleyes:
Yes, if we all invested in bonds, even if those bonds pay a low interest rate, the economy would be better off than if we spent all our cash on booze and hookers. Why? Because when a company issues bonds, it is doing so to raise capital, capital that will be used to expand their operations, hire more workers, move into new markets, or otherwise do economically viable stuff. Those things have longer-lasting and more significant impacts on the economy as a whole than what the hookers will do with the money (presumably, buying new shoes and nose candy).
N.B.: I’m not saying that there is no economically stimulative effect from electing hookers over bonds; clearly, Prada and some Columbian drug lords will make some profit, and spend that proft on other goods and services, and the cycle will continue. I’m just saying the stimulative effects from the capital investment the bonds allow are greater than the effects from the hooker’s spending.
N.B. part 2: I’m also not saying that everyone should save every last penny. At the end of the day companies have to sell goods and services to end-consumers, so consumer spending is important to the health of the economy. But neither do we want to be a nation of debtors, in hock to our eyeballs to Mastercard, Discover and Visa. Financial independence = freedom, and the government should encourage saving and investment on that ground alone. The estate tax acts as a disincentive to that kind of savings.**
Hie thee to a reading comprehension class. The OP did not ask “in what ways are Republicans evil,” it asked “Are Republicans evil.” IOW, the OP does not presume Republican evilness, as you apparently do.
You are a very irritating person to discuss things with, Ace, for several reasons:
-
In this and other threads, you’ve repeatedly displayed your ignorance on any number of simple factual matters (Harken financing arrangements, cost basis step-up) and ignored attempts to explain those matters to you.
-
You dismiss what I and other conservative posters say as “hand-waving,” even when we are discussing concrete points with specific examples, yet you almost never state your complaints in anything but the broadest of terms – how many times in this thread alone have I crafted a point-by-point response to your posts, only to have it returned with a one-paragraph dismissal?
-
And most annoying of all, you constantly change the target – we can be merrily discussing the estate tax, and once it’s become clear that you’re out of your depth, you say “well why haven’t you guys said anything about poverty/the environment/Jimmy Hoffa/space aliens from Mars?”, and then try to make it out to be some kind of failing that we didn’t have crystal balls to anticipate the next topic you wanted to throw at us.
You say my points are “disingenuous.” I’d like to see an example. Pick one, quote me (with a link if referring to another thread), and then explain why my point is disingenuous. And don’t try to take me out of context: I will fact-check your ass. And don’t try any sneaky paraphrasing, either: I want to see a direct quote.
You say my opinions are “ludicrous.” I can’t think of one thing I’ve expressed here that would be outside the range of ordinary political thought. My views skew to the right, and certainly my opinions are debatable, and certainly others can and will disagree with them in good faith, but I’m hardly a John Bircher. Nothing I’ve said here has been especially strange or bizarre or beyond the comprehension of sane individuals. So again, and in accord with the guidelines set out above, please give an example of one of my so-called “ludicrous” opinions.
You argue in bad faith, Ace. At the end of the day, all you’ve got is knee-jerk hatred of conservatism, Republicans and wealth, with some residual reverse-racism thrown in for good measure. And really, at the end of the day, do you think that’s worth anything at all?
I disagree here. Well, sort of. Not really that bonds are better than booze and hookers, but that making investing easier has more of an effect on the economy than increasing consumption.
Here’s why: At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much investment capital you accumulate, if there is no market, nothing can be done with it. If there is a stable market, then the investment will come no matter what (well, assuming taxes and things are set at a reasonable level).
Let me give a semi-hypothetical example. I own a shoe factory and make a nice little profit. Suddenly, a recession hits and people don’t have as much spare cash to go buy shoes as often. Naturally, this causes me to cut some jobs, etc. Now, how will increasing my investment capital help me? I’m not going to bother expanding my business when there aren’t enough people buying shoes to support the amount I produce now. When the recession lifts and people start buying shoes again, and I need to expand my operations, well, the capital will be available to me through loans or what not, with or without estate taxes.
This is why I support “demand side” economics. Give large tax breaks to the poor and middle class because they will be most likely to spend it and help boost consumption. Consumption will help the overall economy because increased purchasing of manufactured goods will lead to increased purchasing of raw materials to make those goods and so on and so forth.
Obviously, this is a little simplified, but I hope you get my drift.
Improvements in transportation and agreements to facilitate international trade have made “demand side” economics less and less effective. The local poor and middle class are apt to buy lots of imported goods. So, a substantial portion of tax break money given to this group will leave the local economy and will benefit manufacturers and suppliers in other places.
Scylla, your support for education as an aid to a level playing field is commendable, of course. But, ultimately, it is short sighted.
Of course, it extends more opportunity to the bright and ambitious, and that is as it should be. But if everyone is a doctor, lawyer or tax professional, who will pick up the garbage? Who will provide day care? Think of the Aspen phenomenon: as the “upper class” (for want of a better term) invaded the ski areas of Colorado, the property values and rents shot up beyond the abilities of the “working class” (for want, etc.) to pay. The result: you can’t find anyone to work in the trendy shops, serve the coffee, etc.
The American system values labor as a marketable item, and values the people who provide that labor the same way. No doubt, such persons whose skills are highly compensated regard this with sanquine complacency. It is seldom difficult to convince someone that the system that favors him is a valid one.
But is it? Why should we reward the lawyer above the fireman? What value is offered to society at large by a tax expert who’s primary skill is in counseling the rich how to stay that way? To oversimplify, what possible value could a person have that would justify a personal income of a million dollars a year? Is shrewd business acumen really so valuable to humanity? Why?
Its all very well to stoutly defend equality of opportunity, but it is simply not possible to have a functioning society made up entirely of entreprenuers. Somebody has to do the “grunt work”. And what of those who are not so endowed? Are their lives less valid, thier children less worthy?
Until we value people as people rather than as economic units, the improvements you rightly approve of are mere tweaks, tinkering with a system that, by its very nature, cannot be just.
Intelligence is not a virtue, Scylla Compassion is a virtue, patience is a virtue. Intelligence is merely a characteristic. Only rats win rat races, only a rat would want to.
Neurotik: I don’t disagree with you. I hit on this a little bit in my last post, but let me elaborate.
As a country, we save an appallingly paltry sum; lately, we’ve actually had a negative savings rate, and our savings rate has, in the long term, been in a perpetual state of decline. We are not a frugal nation; we are inclined to consume. We really don’t need much in the way of encouragement to do so. There is not a shortage of consumers here.
Obviously, we need a good mix of investment and consumer spending. But we’re tilted radically towards the latter. A solid pro-growth agenda will favor policies that encourage savings (and thus investment, and thus capital expenditures).
Additionally, we need to look at the context of what Ace and I were discussing: the estate tax. Ace was saying that we should favor spending over the exemption amount for its stimulative effects. In that context – spending patterns of high net worth individuals – you’re not talking about the kinds of purchases that drive the consumer economy. Really, what has a bigger impact, the thousands of GM cars sold to average people, or the handful of Bentleys sold to the very wealthy? If I’m a rich guy, and I have half a million dollars to do with as I wish, is it better for the economy for me to buy ten BMWs, or to invest in GM, allowing them to expand a plant that will make (and hopefully sell) an additional 1,000 cars per year?
The consumer end of things is driven more by the millions of small purchases made everyday than it is by the few extravagant purchases of the very wealthy. I think a policy of encouraging savings and investment over the exemption amount is better than a policy that encourages using those funds for consumer spending.
Debaser:
Of course, I can’t speak for others like AOS, but let me just point out that feeling that rich people should not be getting further tax breaks at a time when inequality is going through the roof is not synonomous with hating rich people. I am much closer to being rich than poor myself (well, in the sense of where I fall in the percentiles) and, in fact, I generally do not support tax cuts that I directed at people of my income level. When people are making many, many times what I am making, such cuts seem even more unjustifiable to me.
By the way, if you want to see real venom directed at rich people, I’ll be happy to post lots of links to Responsible Wealth. When I did that one time on these Boards, the venom directed at these rich people with liberal views on economic policy that came from some conservatives on this Board was really quite stunning.
This is really a subject that I simply do not have time to get into at the moment. But, just to give you a few headlines: Bush’s policy to address global warming (or lack thereoff). Bush’s “Clear Sky Initiative” where he apparently had to seriously doctor the figures for what the EPA Clean Air Act “business as usual” case would yield (as presented to the power industry just a few months earlier) in order to make the new cap-and-trade policy look a little better [ http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22240&PROACTIVE_ID=cecfcfcccdcdcfccc9c5cecfcfcfc5cecfc6c7c9c8c9c8cfc6c5cf ]. (I’m not against cap-and-trade in principle; the problem is where you set the cap!) Bush’s new policy on forest fires. Bush’s revoking (or at least suspension) of Clinton’s roadless forests policy. The drill-andburn energy policy (in ANWR and elsewhere) and the lack of strengthening of CAFE standards.
I could go on but you get the picture.
Here, from Krugman, are the statistics on those up in those highest reaches, along with some additional commentary. (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html?pagewanted=3&ei=1&en=18449504d20bd065&ex=1036345863)
Ooooooooooooh…yes, I see your point now, Dewey. I wasn’t thinking in terms of the estate tax, I was thinking more in terms of income tax.
My point was more along the lines of investing in GM so they can expand a plant to make more cars will do no good if there is no one with the disposable income to buy the cars.
There is one thing though, and please correct me if I am mistaken. The wealthy will probably not invest in bonds and will more likely invest in stocks, which tend to get a higher rate of return. Stocks, except for the initial offering, do nothing to increase the capital base of the corporation. So even cutting the estate tax and encouraging investment is inadequate to help GM expand a plant. I also believe that if the market is there and GM decides that it can make a nice profit by increasing production by 1,000 cars, they will not be relying on wealthy individuals. Rather, they will take out a loan from a bank to finance their expansion.
december, that argument can be used against supply side as well. Increasingly, businesses are moving their manufacturing plants overseas (or across a border) and so supply side will also do little to stimulate the local economy. Demand-side, however, will provide more retail and service opportunities that need to be in the local area.
Elucidator:
Well said. Very well said. I understand and agree with the spirit of what you said. It’s true that I’m offering only tweaks to an unjust system, but you have offered a problem without a solution.
Life is not fair, and neither you nor I can change that. This is not a problem of society, or the system it is a problem of the inherent nature of man that he will take unfair advantage of his fellow man. There has never been the society where it hasn’t been so.
I think that in this country the failure to educate is criminal. Education is power. Knowledge evens the field, and mitigates the ability of one man to take advantage of another.
Their is some justice. The educated garbageman forms a union and earns a living wage and benefits that ensure his future, labor becomes a premium in Vale, and the law of supply and demand takes over. Their are little justices.
Salary bears no relation to human worth. Nor does it represent the value to society. Salaries are set by the laws of supply and demand and the principle of scarcity. A good salesmen isn’t worth more than a good fireman. He’s just harder to find
Salaries are different because skills are different. If all jobs paid 150k would you choose to be an accountant? Fuck no! I’d be the fireman! Or a fishing boat Captain, or an author. If you get paid just as much money being a lifeguard as being an estate lawyer, are you going to want to spend all that time in Law school and the rest of your life peering at columns of figures, and reading tomes of tax law? Or, are you going to be a lifeguard and watch the girls in their bikinis?
It’s not worth, it’s scarcity.
Who’s talking about the rat race? I’m talking about a person’s right to control their own destiny. Intelligence is an overvalued commodity. You don’t need much of it if you have commitment. It’s commitment that I’m talking about, desire, discipline, the will to power, whatever you want to call it. That has to be given a chance. It has to be given hope.
I run the rat race. I do a job I don’t like or care about, with little social value. I do it only because it is a difficult job, that few want and fewer can do well, and hence I get paid a lot for it.
I would rather be a poet, or an author, or a cowbody.
But, I made a choice for the security and comfort of myself and my family, and because it enables me to do the things my life is about.
If I’m a rat, it’s by choice.
I’m not getting your point, Neurotik. ISTM that the opportunity to move plants overseas makes supply-side all the more important. Steps taken to improve the local business climate will tend to keep local businesses from moving and tend to encourage overseas businesses to move to your locality. And, it will tend to encourage new businesses to start up in your locality rather than someplace else.
What am I missing?
A higher rate of return, yes, but also higher risk. Whether a wealthy person will invest in stocks or bonds will depend on their individual tolerance for risk, their investing time horizon, and the overall composition of their portfolio.**
True, but participation in the secondary market is what makes the primary market work. If you couldn’t sell your stocks (or bonds; they can be bought and sold as well) readily, you would probably be disinclined to buy them in the initial offering.**
Well, that depends on the amount of money they need to raise and the cost of capital of the many alternatives. A bank loan is one way. An offering of bonds (which are just loans made by the investing public to GM) are another. A stock offering is yet another, and there are hybrid securities that fit in between.
For example, if GM needs to raise a big hunk of money, it may be the case that they can market bonds to the investing public at a lower interest rate than a bank will charge. Thus, bonds would be favored. Or they may prefer to issue stock, which does not have a fixed recurring cost in the way of bond interest payments (though paying dividends, particularly for an established company like GM, is a de facto fixed recurring cost), but would be done at the expense of diluting the shares of existing shareholders and is more subject to vagaries in the market (more than one IPO has been called off because in a declining market, the number of shares issued would not raise enough capital).
Anyway, Ace was trying to say that capital investment was less good for the economy based on the rate of return to the individual investor. That’s patently not true. It might not be great for the individual investor, but the capital investment is good for the company, and thus the economy. Indeed, if a company could manage to market 1% bonds, they’d love it – that’s an extraordinarily low cost of capital! The company would thus have to spend less on interest payments and would have more on hand to spend on improving its plants, paying its workers, etc, etc.
No, check the facts. Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Americans support capital punishment. (I don’t, BTW.)
Sources:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=48
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/PR-DPICYREND2001.html