"If we do not make an effort, we cannot put an end to this scourge"
-
That is so depressing because it means that policy comes second to the leaders charisma. Does this mean that an extreme-left or extreme-right party could end up in power because their leader looks good on TV or is a better public speaker than any of the opposition? Scary if true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Scary if true. Then be scared, because it's been true for a while now. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
I think that would turn most people off. You should instead go with the old stand-by "Why lie, I need a beer". I believe that I can get you one of these signs from the smelly gentleman on the corner of 14th & Techwood on my way home today... :) -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
"The fight against poverty is a moral obligation for those who govern all the countries in the world," the Brazilian president and former trade unionist told journalists. "I would like us to have the strength to guarantee a percentage of all money circulating in the world," he added.[^]
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
Possibly the biggest fallacy in all wealth redistribution schemes is the assumption that if the wealth of the world were evenly distributed, everyone would have a quality life. The first problem with this is that the average income in the world is very near starvation level. No matter how you cut it, the result of equal distribution of wealth would leave a world where no one had the means to do more than just survive. The second biggest fallacy is the tacit assumption that it is the duty of governments to do this "for us", coupled with the assumption that govenments would not cheat and just keep a little bigger share for their own, to insure there own continued power... All that the proposed tax would create is more wealth for tax accountants, lawyers, civil servants and the creation of yet another criminal enterprise devoted to avoiding the tax. Economies are much like thermodynamic systems, they depend to a large degree on "temperature differences", and like them reaching a state of maximum entropy is not a particularly desirable outcome. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". :-D ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Brit wrote: If I ever become homeless, I'm going to stand on the corner with a sign that reads, "The fight against poverty is a moral obligation". One would think you might be better off seeking gainful employment, so that you could cease to be homeless. Standing around with moralizing signs is does not pay very well... Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
John Carson wrote: When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). Never heard about the Marshall Plan, I suppose? Helping the poor countries to reach a new level of developement is the best way to boost the world economy in a gigantic way. 3/4 of the humanity is out of the game, why don't you see the interest to make them in?
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
Poverty is the best tool to cut down costs for the rich. Why take that away? Best for all isn't, by a longshot, best for those who have money. -- He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich.
-
I think that would turn most people off. You should instead go with the old stand-by "Why lie, I need a beer". I believe that I can get you one of these signs from the smelly gentleman on the corner of 14th & Techwood on my way home today... :) -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: "Why lie, I need a beer" I gave 5 bucks to a guy in SF for wearing a sign like that. He was very pleased. :) -- He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich.
-
The "Great Society" didn't fail miserably. Everybody forgets the grinding, crushing, poverty in the rural south in the years before the mid-60s. Things have improved since then. That doesn't mean that there aren't still poor people... but there is no comparison between today's por people and those from the early 60s and before.
John McIlroy wrote: The "Great Society" didn't fail miserably. Wrong. Now you have big city ghettos populated by single parent familes, breeding like rats, because each child brought in more dollars. So, we dismantled personal responsibility and created inner city breeding farms - because the "Great Society" got what it paid for through welfare targeted to help those poor folk. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. High taxation stifles growth and creates generation after generation of people who think it's their birthright to sit around doint sweet FA ("the government won't let us starve"). When I was younger I flirted with the ideals of Socialism ("tax the rich! redistribute the wealth") but with age comes wisdom (or pragmatism at least) I guess. Tellingly, when the UK had its mosr left-wing government (the Labour goverment of the late 70s) it was also the worst time for this country since WWII. Taxation at 99% (yep - that's why all our rock stars left us!), the unions in charge, lowest productivity in the West, etc. etc. I can't believe that people are being forced the same pill by the current government - and they are falling for it! What's worse is that now, in the noughties, taxation is by the back door - at least previous Labour governments were honest about wanting all your wages! Give it a few years and we'll have to give ALL out money to the chancellor who in turn will give us fucking pocket money.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. That is precisely the point. People spend the money they have worked for more productively than the government spends money it has confiscated. Free people buy what they need, then they buy what they want, then they save or invest the rest, which gets used as a collective communal asset for generating even more wealth by becoming invested in ever larger projects, each of which goes on to become wealth generating operations. The more money the government syphons off from that process, at any point (wealthy or middle class), to buy votes for themselves from people who have decided that they simply don't want the responsibility of taking care of themselves, the less efficiently that process functions, and the poorer a overall society becomes. As the society becomes poorer, the less capable it is of caring for the needs of those at the bottom. Conservatives are not hard hearted towards the poor, we simply believe the best way to care for the poor is to maximize their opportunity to care for themselves by keeping the economy functioning as efficiently as possible. That means fewer taxes up and down the economic spectrum. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. That is precisely the point. People spend the money they have worked for more productively than the government spends money it has confiscated. Free people buy what they need, then they buy what they want, then they save or invest the rest, which gets used as a collective communal asset for generating even more wealth by becoming invested in ever larger projects, each of which goes on to become wealth generating operations. The more money the government syphons off from that process, at any point (wealthy or middle class), to buy votes for themselves from people who have decided that they simply don't want the responsibility of taking care of themselves, the less efficiently that process functions, and the poorer a overall society becomes. As the society becomes poorer, the less capable it is of caring for the needs of those at the bottom. Conservatives are not hard hearted towards the poor, we simply believe the best way to care for the poor is to maximize their opportunity to care for themselves by keeping the economy functioning as efficiently as possible. That means fewer taxes up and down the economic spectrum. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Extraordinarily well said, Stan.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true... -
John Carson wrote: When people start arguing that you should be altruistic because it is in your self interest, then defeat has been conceded (the argument is 90% rubbish anyway since altruism toward people remote from you is rarely in your self interest). Never heard about the Marshall Plan, I suppose? Helping the poor countries to reach a new level of developement is the best way to boost the world economy in a gigantic way. 3/4 of the humanity is out of the game, why don't you see the interest to make them in?
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
KaЯl wrote: Never heard about the Marshall Plan, I suppose? Helping the poor countries to reach a new level of developement is the best way to boost the world economy in a gigantic way. 3/4 of the humanity is out of the game, why don't you see the interest to make them in? I don't dispute that it is sometimes in a person's self interest to be altruistic toward people who are remotely connected to them. I dispute that this is normally the case. People in poor countries are gradually being brought "into the game" as a source of cheap labour. Nike is the most notorious example of this, but there are countless other examples. South-East Asia has undergone extensive development as a result, leading to higher wages, and some firms are now starting to look away from South-East Asia to less developed countries for cheap labour. No doubt you are also aware of the growth of the software industry in India. These developments have been in the interests of Western firms and, up to a point, the interests of the workers in poor countries. They have generally been against the interests of at least unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the rich countries. None of the above has involved significant altruistic behaviour. Western companies in poor countries are generally run along fairly rapacious capitalist lines, with wages kept as low as possible and health, safety and environmental considerations largely ignored. So we come back to the question of whether and to what extent it is in the interests of people in the rich countries to actually donate money/resources to people in poor countries. I think that, from the point of view of firms, their self interest is generally in investing wherever it is most profitable and on the most favourable terms that they are able to secure, not in giving away money. Firms, which generally have a fairly keen understanding of their self interest, seem to agree with me. There is an argument (valid in principle) that what is individually rational need not be collectively rational: what may not be in the interests of any single firm (or individual) acting alone, may be in the interests of all firms (or individuals) acting together. If one firm, say, were to donate money, then the benefits may be received by many firms "free riding" on the first firm's donation. Because the first firm does not capture all of the benefits, it may lack an incentive to make the donation. Yet the aggregate of benefits received by all firms may exceed the cost of the d
-
I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. High taxation stifles growth and creates generation after generation of people who think it's their birthright to sit around doint sweet FA ("the government won't let us starve"). When I was younger I flirted with the ideals of Socialism ("tax the rich! redistribute the wealth") but with age comes wisdom (or pragmatism at least) I guess. Tellingly, when the UK had its mosr left-wing government (the Labour goverment of the late 70s) it was also the worst time for this country since WWII. Taxation at 99% (yep - that's why all our rock stars left us!), the unions in charge, lowest productivity in the West, etc. etc. I can't believe that people are being forced the same pill by the current government - and they are falling for it! What's worse is that now, in the noughties, taxation is by the back door - at least previous Labour governments were honest about wanting all your wages! Give it a few years and we'll have to give ALL out money to the chancellor who in turn will give us fucking pocket money.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. There are valid arguments about the benefits of low taxes, but this isn't one of them. Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent. If the government spends all the money or if a welfare recipient spends it (welfare recipients have lower saving rates than the rest of the population) then demand is stimulated. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I am convinced that the less tax you pay then the more you spend on good and services that, in turn, generates wealth and helps everyone else. There are valid arguments about the benefits of low taxes, but this isn't one of them. Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent. If the government spends all the money or if a welfare recipient spends it (welfare recipients have lower saving rates than the rest of the population) then demand is stimulated. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. And that is an entirely ludicrous assumption. You are giving money to people who did not earn it. That means they did not produce any thing, they did not generate any thing for the economy, thus they did nothing to increase the overall worth of the economy. The people who earned the money in the first place did that. When you take money from those who are productive and give it to those who are non-productive you are harming the economy, causing it to function less efficiently, and ultimately making those at the bottom more dependent, less able to care for themselves while at the same time deminishing the incentives of the producers and increasing the probability that them themselves will ultimately need to be cared for by the government. (But than, that is really the plan, isn't it? Not to help the poor, but to increase dependency, hence the power of those supplying the dependency.) John Carson wrote: This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent And what do you think happens to money that gets saved? You think it sets in some basket down in the bank's basement? No, it gets invested. It goes into projects which build the economy - giving the poor the opportunity to obtain work to care for their own needs, freeing them from dependency upon government, thus decreasing the power of government (can't have that now can we?) The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
John Carson wrote: Tax revenue is either directly spent by government or else redistributed to people (as welfare payments etc.) who spend it. The general presumption is that higher taxes that are used in this way will raise the level of demand for goods and services, not lower it. And that is an entirely ludicrous assumption. You are giving money to people who did not earn it. That means they did not produce any thing, they did not generate any thing for the economy, thus they did nothing to increase the overall worth of the economy. The people who earned the money in the first place did that. When you take money from those who are productive and give it to those who are non-productive you are harming the economy, causing it to function less efficiently, and ultimately making those at the bottom more dependent, less able to care for themselves while at the same time deminishing the incentives of the producers and increasing the probability that them themselves will ultimately need to be cared for by the government. (But than, that is really the plan, isn't it? Not to help the poor, but to increase dependency, hence the power of those supplying the dependency.) John Carson wrote: This is because, had the money been left in the hands of the taxpayer, part of it would have been saved, not spent And what do you think happens to money that gets saved? You think it sets in some basket down in the bank's basement? No, it gets invested. It goes into projects which build the economy - giving the poor the opportunity to obtain work to care for their own needs, freeing them from dependency upon government, thus decreasing the power of government (can't have that now can we?) The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Most of your argument is irrrelevant to the point I was making. I was responding to an argument which said that low taxes confer a benefit because of the spending that is thereby made possible. My point, which was and remains completely valid, was that the increased government spending associated with the increased taxes was likely to lead to an even higher demand for consumption goods. There is a logically valid argument that high taxes have bad incentive effects (though the practical importance of this effect can be debated). But that is a quite separate argument from the "stimulus from consumer demand" argument to which I was responding. Not for the first time, you tend to embrace any argument that points in your preferred direction, independently of whether that particular argument has merit. As for your "savings are actually good" argument, that is an argument against Robert's premise that increased consumer demand is a good thing; I was simply accepting that premise for the sake of argument. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
"The fight against poverty is a moral obligation for those who govern all the countries in the world," the Brazilian president and former trade unionist told journalists. "I would like us to have the strength to guarantee a percentage of all money circulating in the world," he added.[^]
In amongst the statues Stare at nothing in The garden moves...
I used to like Lula, now I'm beginning to think he's a dangerous fool. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
How about the "share" concept (from "A Short History of the Future" ). You take the worlds wealth (or a region of the world, say Europe for example) as a whole and divide it by the number of adults - this gives you the "share" per-head. People unwilling to work only get a half-share, and people with exceptional skills get a share and a half. Communism basically - but we'd all feel good inside right? Anyone know the total wealth of the planet? It is right to say that the only way to fight poverty right now is to redistribute wealth - and this is always going to upset those who will have their wealth taken away. You would never get the world to agree on an international tax, no matter how noble the aims.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How about the "share" concept (from "A Short History of the Future" ). You take the worlds wealth (or a region of the world, say Europe for example) as a whole and divide it by the number of adults - this gives you the "share" per-head. People unwilling to work only get a half-share, and people with exceptional skills get a share and a half. Who defines "exceptional skills"? Let's see. I can bust my hump 12 hours a day and get a share. Or, I can drag my sorry ass into work, clock exactly 8 hours and collect my full share while doing my best to stay awake at work. Or, I could hang out with all of the other people who decide "fuck it! I can work zero percent of what I was working and still get 50% of what I was making!" I wonder how many CEOs, scientists, programmers, etc. etc. etc. would work as hard if no matter what they did they would only get a "share". You are talking about the biggest depression the world has ever seen.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!