Obama's speech thing

[Spam Elemental]

HOLY CRAP THEY STAND AND CLAP EVERY 20 FUCKING SECONDS FOR LONGER THAT WHAT HE EVEN SAID!!!

America is dumb, lulz

[Psion]

hey guys am I doing it rite if I make fun of other countries?

[mrs_bun]

Yes.

[Fonzy]

MY DAD CAN BEAT UP UR DAD

[Spam Elemental]

MY DAD CAN BEAT UP UR DAD

NUH UH!!!

[mrs_bun]

I call him Spelemental!

[Shadow]

This thread is true because Canadian politics aren't a farce.

[Fonzy]

This thread is true because Canadian politics aren't a farce.

OH NO YOU DI INT

[Tony3]

half his campaign was how bush messed up the economy and the way he was doing it was bad.

whats the first thing he does?

sets a huge stimulus bill. i'm not saying its bad. but there is a difference between looking good on posters and saying "omg i'm young and i'll bring change!!" than actually doing it.

[Tidal Kraken]

half his campaign was how bush messed up the economy and the way he was doing it was bad.

whats the first thing he does?

sets a huge stimulus bill. i'm not saying its bad. but there is a difference between looking good on posters and saying "omg i'm young and i'll bring change!!" than actually doing it.

cool tell me more

[SizzlingStapleCider]

I think Spam kind of wanted us to talk about the speech and/or the stupid stand+clap thing. Not get caught up with the final statement.

[Spam Elemental]

I think Spam kind of wanted us to talk about the speech and/or the stupid stand+clap thing. Not get caught up with the final statement.Translation: I went on SEs computer when he was watching Obamas speech, I then made a post from his account in a rude and offensive way because I wanted to make him look bad. However, I do want to know, why do they find the need to stand up and clap after each thing he says?

[Van]

However, I do want to know, why do they find the need to stand up and clap after each thing he says?Because he's so goddamn amazing :V

Though seriously, isn't it usually like that? People clap after everything during a presidential address. And if it was an excessive amount (I didn't see the speech), then good for fucking us. We actually have some pride in our government. The last time we had this much support for a president it required two planes to crash into New York. At least its blind optimism rather than "HOLY SHIT TERRORISTS"

[SizzlingStapleCider]

I posted for you because you were so upset by it, and that's how I translated it into Internet!

[mrs_bun]

I wish that the democratic party had the nutsack to demand that peons support their president no matter what in the same way that the republican party does.

[Fonzy]

I was thinking last night that it's ironic that the Democrats are the party of paranoid hippy shitheads who should ostensibly want less government and less regulation, but yet it's the Republicans who espouse that ideal.

[mrs_bun]

The democrats want more programs that do things for people, and the republicans wants fewer programs that restrict what you can do.

It is a patently absurd argument with no resolution.

[Kedster]

I was thinking last night that it's ironic that the Democrats are the party of paranoid hippy shitheads who should ostensibly want less government and less regulation, but yet it's the Republicans who espouse that ideal.The democrats want more programs that do things for people, and the republicans wants fewer programs that restrict what you can do.

It is a patently absurd argument with no resolution.
This. But I've also found it that left winged almost anarchists endorse communist-like programs that are actually socialistic implementations that in the end restrict more your economic interests.

Meh. Anarcho-Capitalism is the best.

[Jenius]

half his campaign was how bush messed up the economy and the way he was doing it was bad.

whats the first thing he does?

sets a huge stimulus bill. i'm not saying its bad. but there is a difference between looking good on posters and saying "omg i'm young and i'll bring change!!" than actually doing it.

Not to turn this into too big of a political debate but spending is generally the way to get out of recessions. It seems counterintuitive at first, but historically it's been backed up (the new deal etc).

Granted I'm kinda nervous that too much of the money is going to go to bailouts rather than something designed to cause temporary debt now with the intention of stimulating economy later.

[mrs_bun]

The new deal was terrible for this country.

[SizzlingStapleCider]

I was thinking last night that it's ironic that the Democrats are the party of paranoid hippy shitheads who should ostensibly want less government and less regulation, but yet it's the Republicans who espouse that ideal.

Yeah, like the Patriot Act? :V

[mrs_bun]

The patriot act does not line up with any partisan ideals, it was a response to something else, and it had the perfect president in office when it came up.

[Captain Piano]

The speech mainly made me realize that Obama might be too good for America. The thing I liked about the Bush Administration was that they were as arrogant and corrupt as the American people as a whole. It was somehow fitting. Now that we've got Obama in office we all have to pretend that we actually love our country and that money doesn't rule the world and that our government will function the way we want it to and everything will work out fine.

At the very least, Bush and his cronies were realists. Just a random thought...

[Tidal Kraken]

I was thinking last night that it's ironic that the Democrats are the party of paranoid hippy shitheads who should ostensibly want less government and less regulation, but yet it's the Republicans who espouse that ideal.

They've actually been paying attention to what laissez faire and laissez fair principles have done.

It is funny though that they were against reigning in Fannie and Freddie in like 2003. Granted that wouldn't have done shit to stop this mess but its still funny.

This. But I've also found it that left winged almost anarchists endorse communist-like programs that are actually socialistic implementations that in the end restrict more your economic interests.

It depends on which faction of the left wing you're talking about. Most don't really have a problem with capitalism, they just want some restrictions on what businesses can and can't do

Meh. Anarcho-Capitalism is the best.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

The new deal was terrible for this country.

HAHAHAHAHA what? I mean I know that it wasn't the Easy Button the left sometimes likes to pretend it was but seriously? Seriously?

[mrs_bun]

Most of the things that the New Deal "fixed" only worked because the US went to war, and most of them would have been fixed by the war without the New Deal, and the legacy left by the New Deal is negatively affecting the US economy and social structure--both the actual laws and the way average Americans view economy and society--to this day.

Imo.

[Tidal Kraken]

Most of the things that the New Deal "fixed" only worked because the US went to war, and most of them would have been fixed by the war without the New Deal, and the legacy left by the New Deal is negatively affecting the US economy and social structure--both the actual laws and the way average Americans view economy and society--to this day.

Imo.

True enough about the war doing more to fix the economy than the new deal. I think it did an adequate job of providing relief up until the war. I don't really feel like typing up much more than that because I'd have to go do a shitload of research into each individual aspect of the new deal and this thread will be dead by that time, so I'll leave it at that.

[mrs_bun]

Maybe it is just because I have a weird perspective (born and raised here but parents weren't,) but it seems clear that at the time the New Deal did very little/nothing (started in '33 but economy still sucked up until the war started) and it left us with a ton of programs that have crippled the self sufficiency of the lower class, and added absurd levels of complication to government (I am not against "big government" in principle, but I am against meaningless red tape that serves no purpose and/or generates more problems than it solves.)

[Tidal Kraken]

Maybe it is just because I have a weird perspective (born and raised here but parents weren't,) but it seems clear that at the time the New Deal did very little/nothing (started in '33 but economy still sucked up until the war started) and it left us with a ton of programs that have crippled the self sufficiency of the lower class, and added absurd levels of complication to government (I am not against "big government" in principle, but I am against meaningless red tape that serves no purpose and/or generates more problems than it solves.)

Yeah the economy was shitty but it was also less shitty than before and even reached the highs of the twenties (except unemployment which was still like 13% iirc).

What programs cripple the self sufficiency of the lower class? I'm genuinely curious here. I know Social Security is often lambasted but thats more for sucking up federal money than anything else.

[mrs_bun]

I just think it created a unique caste system. The things that create opportunity for people usually end up just pushing them lower. Basically, I am for most of the existing government programs, but I am against the ones that allow someone to literally live off of the government forever. If that is the goal, it should be a reward for contribution.

[Tony3]

Not to turn this into too big of a political debate but spending is generally the way to get out of recessions. It seems counterintuitive at first, but historically it's been backed up (the new deal etc).

Granted I'm kinda nervous that too much of the money is going to go to bailouts rather than something designed to cause temporary debt now with the intention of stimulating economy later.

oh i think the concept is fine and all. just the way its being handled and the sheer size of it is poorly done imo.

[Kant]

I personally think that, at the very least the GI Bill, which FDR started and Truman ( <3 ) ratified, has brought a massive level of social mobility to this country. It used to be that if you wanted to do better than your parents you would basically work really fucking hard to scrape money together for a high school education. 2 of my grandparents didn't get a HS education until they were in their late 20's. The fact that you can get a free HS education and a cheap (compared to before) higher education really opened up the intelligencia to normal people, and allowed normal people to go into business with more ability.

[mrs_bun]

How did other countries ever do that without the New Deal! :O

That is my point.

[Kant]

How did other countries ever do that without the New Deal! :O

That is my point.

France, Germany, Japan, the USSR, all had pretty big planned economies, and France was the farthest to the left, economically, and did the best until W. Germany got back on it's feet.

Italy similarly did pretty well once the fascists came in. Pretty much every country started running on a Keynsian mixed economy after the Depression started.

[mrs_bun]

The US is really bad at it, though.

[Tidal Kraken]

I just think it created a unique caste system.
What does this mean?


The things that create opportunity for people usually end up just pushing them lower. Basically, I am for most of the existing government programs, but I am against the ones that allow someone to literally live off of the government forever. If that is the goal, it should be a reward for contribution.

Oh. I think you're taking issue with parts of the Great Society, not New Deal.

[mrs_bun]

It creates a system where it is virtually impossible to move out of the lowest economic tier because the systems in place encourage people to be there.

And that is true, partly, but I have a lot of issues with the New Deal's banking "reforms" and work relief. Also, can we lol/wtf at the existence of the FCIC which has over a billion dollars in agricultural insurance claims a year, but somehow manages to also pay farmers not to grow things?

[Fonzy]

They've actually been paying attention to what laissez faire and laissez fair principles have done.

It is funny though that they were against reigning in Fannie and Freddie in like 2003. Granted that wouldn't have done shit to stop this mess but its still funny.

Wait, wait wait, what? You do realize that the current economic shitstorm was pretty much caused by subprime lending, right? I.E., lending loads of money to people "less fortunate", a.k.a., people who couldn't pay back the loans? And not so much a "deregulation" of the mortgage industry, as much as a "reregulation" that forced banks to lend money places they otherwise would not have done? Nothing about what caused the housing bubble to exist, burst, and then send the rest of the economy into the shitter can be said to be "laissez-faire". Barney Frank can go fuck himself.

Hell, there's even some pretty good speculation that Alan Greenspan's (who was one of Ayn Rand's butt buddies, btw) meddling in the economy ultimately caused the dot-com bubble to burst in the early part of the decade and that his lowering of interest rates shifted investor focus to the real estate market, thus deflecting the blow and causing it to resurface now, 8 years later. Once again, not laissez-faire, despite the fact that Greenspan has always made the claim he believes in free markets.

My fear with this whole "bailout" deal is that we're just deflecting the blow once again by meddling in economic affairs when the markets will correct themselves, given time and no interference. And the bubbles just keep getting bigger and more potentially dangerous every time they pop. Despite Obama's promise that this cost wouldn't be passed on to future generations, he's still writing a huge check that would bounce if it were issued by anyone but the government. Add this to the fact that social security is going to take a huge shit on everyone in another couple years and I start to feel a little queasy about all this.

Also, I agree with just about everything Bun has said as well, especially this:

It creates a system where it is virtually impossible to move out of the lowest economic tier because the systems in place encourage people to be there.

Although, I would change the part about it being impossible to move out of the tiers, because it's not hard, there's just no incentive to do so.

[Tidal Kraken]

Wait, wait wait, what? You do realize that the current economic shitstorm was pretty much caused by subprime lending, right? I.E., lending loads of money to people "less fortunate", a.k.a., people who couldn't pay back the loans? And not so much a "deregulation" of the mortgage industry, as much as a "reregulation" that forced banks to lend money places they otherwise would not have done? Nothing about what caused the housing bubble to exist, burst, and then send the rest of the economy into the shitter can be said to be "laissez-faire". Barney Frank can go fuck himself.

Before I respond to this, are you referring to the CRA?

Also I'm aware nothing about this crisis can be considered laissez faire what with us not having a laissez faire system of economics, but it could be blamed on laissez faire principles.

Hell, there's even some pretty good speculation that Alan Greenspan's (who was one of Ayn Rand's butt buddies, btw) meddling in the economy ultimately caused the dot-com bubble to burst in the early part of the decade and that his lowering of interest rates shifted investor focus to the real estate market, thus deflecting the blow and causing it to resurface now, 8 years later. Once again, not laissez-faire, despite the fact that Greenspan has always made the claim he believes in free markets.

Yeah I've heard that. I've also heard he is in favor of nationalizing banks like Sweden did. Quite the about face hes made...

[Fonzy]

I could go on for days about the economic bullshit that goes on in this country and how the pervading attitude of entitlement amongst the general population is ruining this country more than any government action ever could. I don't have a problem with welfare and social programs, I just thing they're completely ass-backwards. The G.I. Bill got it right - do something for us, and we give you something back. Not, oh fuck up your life or, in the case of investment bankers, fuck up the lives of the entire country, and we'll bail your ass out. Let those idiots fail. It's a bitter pill for everyone to swallow, but maybe it would remind people in this country that freedom is not free and you can't just sit on your ass and expect Uncle Sam to fix all your problems for you.

[Fonzy]

Before I respond to this, are you referring to the CRA?

Yes, at least partially. But there are other non-legislative factors that led to the subprime boom, like pressure put on banks by organizations like ACORN.

Also I'm aware nothing about this crisis can be considered laissez faire what with us not having a laissez faire system of economics, but it could be blamed on laissez faire principles.

How can the latter statement be true, if the problem was caused by meddling?

[Tidal Kraken]

Yes, at least partially. But there are other non-legislative factors that led to the subprime boom, like pressure put on banks by organizations like ACORN.
Mortgage brokers originated most of the sub-prime loans though. They weren't subject to the CRA.
edit: Also CRA regulated loans tend to be profitable and not terribly risky.

How can the latter statement be true, if the problem was caused by meddling?
Laissez faire is probably the wrong phrase, you're right. What I was saying is that deregulation could be said to cause the problem, which is a step towards a laissez faire system.

[Fonzy]

Mortgage brokers originated most of the sub-prime loans though. They weren't subject to the CRA.
edit: Also CRA regulated loans tend to be profitable and not terribly risky.

Mortgage brokers aren't ultimately reponsible for backing a mortgage loan, though. They connect borrows with lenders. You could make the argument here that shady brokers fudged financial data to get lenders to underwrite loans they might have not otherwise taken on, but that's besides the point I'm trying to get at. Banks/lenders with a poor CRA rating were pressured to improve that rating, which in some cases was a good thing because it helped to eliminate things like red-lining, but it also caused the problem I'm talking about here where lenders loaned money they might not have loaned otherwise.

Laissez faire is probably the wrong phrase, you're right. What I was saying is that deregulation could be said to cause the problem, which is a step towards a laissez faire system.

Is it deregulation, though? They created a new system of ratings for banks and made them step in line with their new vision in lending. It seems to me like the opposite, despite the fact that it masquerades as deregulation in the sense that is seemed to lower lending restrictions, when in fact it was a play to make the banks lend differently than they traditionally had.

[Jenius]

From all that I read the people lending the money were doing it because it was beneficial for them to do so. By lending out money, they'd get a bit of it back before the person faulted and then they'd get the house which was worth more now than it was then, meaning profit. NINA loans weren't the government's doing as far as I know, it was the banks etc.

It was pretty much greedy people exploiting stupid people that caused the whole housing bubble issue, I don't see how that's government interference at all.

[Fonzy]

From all that I read the people lending the money were doing it because it was beneficial for them to do so. By lending out money, they'd get a bit of it back before the person faulted and then they'd get the house which was worth more now than it was then, meaning profit. NINA loans weren't the government's doing as far as I know, it was the banks etc.

Exactly, everyone was just passing the buck and getting rich in the process, despite the fact that at least some of what they were passing on was a ticking time bomb.

It was pretty much greedy people exploiting stupid people that caused the whole housing bubble issue, I don't see how that's government interference at all.

There's two ways of looking at it - 1) The government deregulated lending, which allowed greed to take hold of the mortgage industry and you wind up in a situation where brokers will push mortgages on people who can't afford them to make more commissions, banks will back those mortgages and sell them at a profit to other banks, investors will buy the debt for an expected return and so on, with everyone passing the bag to the next sucker in line until the payments stop coming in on the mortgages and the whole system collapses for everyone along the line. 2) The government lowered lending restrictions, but at the same time, "encouraged" lenders to take advantage of those lowered restrictions by rating them according to their supposed compliance with the deregulation, which forced them to lend more, and so on and so forth.

I suppose it's a problem of perspective and who you place the blame on.

[mrs_bun]

Aww, <3 Fonz. :o

It was pretty much greedy people exploiting stupid people that caused the whole housing bubble issue, I don't see how that's government interference at all.

The government dictates every single parameter in the financial sector? Are you serious?

Even if you don't agree with this, please also realize that the bailout is obviously government interference in a huge way. Certain businesses are irresponsible in ways they would never be because they know they have their "get out of bankruptcy free" cards.

If the government is as anti-monopoly as they claim to be (like with Bell quite a while ago and Microsoft more recently,) they would not have to bail out airlines or financial institutions or lenders or anyone else.

For instance, how many house builders were in danger with the most recent "crisis?" None that I know of. Stop wasting money on the middle man. I don't think the government should bail out non-essential (like absolutely essential) businesses by investing in them--not giving a handout.

Basically, if a business or person can get by on their own but they choose to fuck up over and over again just because they know someone will bail them out, do we really want them to continue to exist?

The concentric bubbles Fonzy mentioned are totally right on. We stop them from popping in such a way that eventually we are jsut going to have a million popping at once.

[Tony3]

http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?sport=nfl&id=nyj&tid=4331682&lid=7

[Jenius]

@Bun: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the people lending out money were overly greedy and caused a tragedy of commons-esque disaster. The only way you can blame the government for this is saying that they should have regulated the lenders more strictly to prevent them from doing this.

I mean I guess I can sorta see your argument that because the business can somewhat expect bailouts that they can afford to take risks, but at the same time that's kinda bullshit. WaMu (I think it was WaMu, the bank you know) didn't get a bailout, they got bought out. People higher up got fired, lots of people lost jobs, it's not riskless at all. They gambled and lost really fucking badly.

[mrs_bun]

That's even worse, though; the government gets to just pick and choose who gets bailed out? Sooo not good. Bad, even. Def pro-monopoly.

The government having restrictions for a long time and then removing those restrictions and encouraging people to abuse them is the government meddling. I'm not saying they should have regulated lenders more, but having already done so, they shouldn't have just pulled the rug out from under them--and then having done that, they bail them out! It defies logic.

[Jenius]

Of course the government is pro monopoly. Monopolies are what allows medical technology to advance and what made national utilities possible. Did you go through college without a single econ course? Monopolies used sparingly and properly regulated are good. A perfectly competitive market is actually a fairly terrible one to live in.

Look, the government prolly shouldn't have removed the restrictions, but it's not the governments fault that people shot themselves in the foot when the safety was off. If anything it's just the perfect example of a 21st century tragedy of commons and why unregulated capitalism fails.

[Fonzy]

The FDIC can take steps to change how banks with low CRA ratings do business. This isn't a simple matter of private greed filling a vacuum created by deregulation. Banks have to carry high CRA ratings or suffer consequences. In essence, they must lower their lending standards.

[mrs_bun]

It wasn't unregulated, though! People went for loans assuming that they wouldn't get approved for one if they couldn't handle it because people have been living under the regulations for so long!

It is not an example of why unregulated capitalism fails, it is an example of how people need to be more educated on things like this in school.

Also, please. Monopolies do not allow medical technology to advance, and national utilities are made possible by the government. Please also tell me how many perfectly competitive markets you've lived in. And yes, I've never taken an econ course. That is the only way I could possibly disagree with you, by being uneducated.

[Fonzy]

It wasn't unregulated, though! People went for loans assuming that they wouldn't get approved for one if they couldn't handle it because people have been living under the regulations for so long!

This is true. When I applied for my mortgage, I got approved by a number of lenders making about $10k less a year than I make now. I knew damn well I had no chance of making those payments myself, but at the time, my girlfriend was also living with me and she was working full-time, so I knew by running the numbers that the mortgage payment was easily feasible. However, if I hadn't been so diligent about making sure I could make the payments and just relied on the bank and lender to tell me whether or not I could afford it, well then, I'd be on skid row right now with all the other poor, out-of-luck bastards.

[Jenius]

Also, please. Monopolies do not allow medical technology to advance, and national utilities are made possible by the government. Please also tell me how many perfectly competitive markets you've lived in. And yes, I've never taken an econ course. That is the only way I could possibly disagree with you, by being uneducated.
Developing various medicines and such isn't worth it without a patent, a patent is a temporary monopoly. It's a trade off to allow monopolies over what people develop for x years to make it worth developing.

Likewise in a purely competitive market, utilities struggled because expanding them wasn't really worth it. The government solved this by turning it into a government regulated monopoly.

Perfectly competitive markets are bad because by definition, all companies etc make 0 profit, that is to say in a perfectly competitive market, no firm makes any money (well they make revenue, but I mean overall profit). What's the point of making a firm then? Hint: there isn't one. Monopolistic competition (an oxymoron of a name I realize) is a far better situation and it's the one we use.

[mrs_bun]

I'm thinking of starting a pentition for monopolies.

Look, a temporary monopoly is not the same thing as a "real" monopoly. I think you know what I mean.

And what I am saying is that the government shouldn't have the power to break up some monopolies but not others. And government regulated monopolies are still stupid--they should should jsut be owned by the government outright, and other companies should still be able to compete if they want.

[Jenius]

Look, a temporary monopoly is not the same thing as a "real" monopoly. I think you know what I mean.

Uh, why not? It's a monopoly for a decent amount of time, and that's plenty of time for them to milk all the money they can out of it in any way they can. It's one of the reasons medical care involving relatively new stuff is ridiculously expensive.

[mrs_bun]

No, the problem with a "real" monopoly is that one person being in control of a certain thing leads to extorting the population and/or government. I patent is a just concession for a contribution to society.

I'm more of a fan of the ransom model when it comes to intellectual property, though.

[Shadow]

I like monopolies. Just because I think the people who control them randomly hand out hundred dollar bills to you though. D:

[Zerg]

inb4 lolnigger

or maybe in after

don't care enough to read thread

[mrs_bun]

I made a similar post in Magic General jsut now in the minorities thread. :V

[Jenius]

No, the problem with a "real" monopoly is that one person being in control of a certain thing leads to extorting the population and/or government. I patent is a just concession for a contribution to society.

I'm more of a fan of the ransom model when it comes to intellectual property, though.
A monopoly is a monopoly. You can't just say it's not because it doesn't last forever :V.

[mrs_bun]

Okay then, sorry. The danger in monopolies is one person or group extorting everyone else; patents bypass this danger, for the most part, but still encourage people to invent.

[Jenius]

I agree, that's why I said the use of monopolies sparingly and properly regulated was a good thing. My entire point in the first place was that monopolies weren't inherently terrible, you just had to be careful with them.

A bit of fire can keep you warm, a lot of fire can burn down your house etc.

[mrs_bun]

I think "proper regulation" should not include "hay we give you money to stay afloat" or "we will bust up your competition for you."

Example: microsoft antitrust. Microsoft has done an amazing amount for the world, so if monopolies are so good for utilities, why screw the newest utility for helping the world?

[Fonzy]

http://www.amnesta.net/other/monopoly/MonopolyMan.jpg

Approves.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

Developing various medicines and such isn't worth it without a patent, a patent is a temporary monopoly. It's a trade off to allow monopolies over what people develop for x years to make it worth developing.

Likewise in a purely competitive market, utilities struggled because expanding them wasn't really worth it. The government solved this by turning it into a government regulated monopoly.

Perfectly competitive markets are bad because by definition, all companies etc make 0 profit, that is to say in a perfectly competitive market, no firm makes any money (well they make revenue, but I mean overall profit). What's the point of making a firm then? Hint: there isn't one. Monopolistic competition (an oxymoron of a name I realize) is a far better situation and it's the one we use.
The analogy with medical patents is not a very good one because the laws are so far behind the science.

I'm not sure what you mean, "a perfectly competitive market." In a competitive market, the worst companies will fail, the better companies will make more money.

Anyway, the stimulus bill is a bunch of crap, it's just communist redistribution of wealth that takes away all incentive to work. Obama's speech was just a bunch of demagogue rhetoric that had no connection to reality (I'll post more details later when I have more time, but honestly, it is physically impossible to tax a corporation. They will just pass the cost on to consumers).

[Fonzy]

Also:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/thefonz37/untitled-1.jpg

[Kant]

Anyway, the stimulus bill is a bunch of crap, it's just communist redistribution of wealth that takes away all incentive to work. Obama's speech was just a bunch of demagogue rhetoric that had no connection to reality (I'll post more details later when I have more time, but honestly, it is physically impossible to tax a corporation. They will just pass the cost on to consumers).

Gentlemen, FOX news network.

edit-No, it is not impossible to tax a corporation without having it pass it's cost to consumers. In areas where there is a small profit margin, say, a supermarket, yeah, then they have to increase the costs.

In a corporation that has a large profit margin, then yes, you can tax them.

[Van]

Gentlemen, FOX news network.

edit-No, it is not impossible to tax a corporation without having it pass it's cost to consumers. In areas where there is a small profit margin, say, a supermarket, yeah, then they have to increase the costs.

In a corporation that has a large profit margin, then yes, you can tax them.

:V What I learned in ECON 201 this week:
Yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely. The good has to be incredibly elastic for the corporation to have any incentive not to have the consumer share the burden. Most goods that are elastic anyhow are luxury items, and the first to go when a person experiences economic troubles. And in the cases where the corporation does shelter all of the burden, it destroys any competition that does not have the same large profit margin as the big guys.

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

EDIT: On second thought, nevermind, I don't feel like getting drug into this.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

Gentlemen, FOX news network.

edit-No, it is not impossible to tax a corporation without having it pass it's cost to consumers. In areas where there is a small profit margin, say, a supermarket, yeah, then they have to increase the costs.

In a corporation that has a large profit margin, then yes, you can tax them.

If attacking the speaker is what you bring to a debate, you've already lost it.

Also, a "large" profit margin is only about 20%, so a few percent more in taxes is a lot of that lost.

[Kant]

If attacking the speaker is what you bring to a debate, you've already lost it.

Also, a "large" profit margin is only about 20%, so a few percent more in taxes is a lot of that lost.

Attacking the speaker isn't really a part of my point, I'm just pointing out that your mother gives terrible head, as a seperate point from this argument.

Personally, and I doubt that there's a good way to go about this, I think that there is too much incentive to become a businessman. For the past 20 years, the best and brightest have gone into business because that's the best paying job, leaving the guys who go into the sciences, teaching, and various other fields as the fields getting the second best.

This isn't true anymore, due to overcompetition for young businessmen and the lucrativeness of information technology, but the problem is one we're facing in the guys who are old enough to own the companies.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

Attacking the speaker isn't really a part of my point, I'm just pointing out that your mother gives terrible head, as a seperate point from this argument.

This is utterly retarded bullshit, why are you even trying to take part in intelligent discussion?

Personally, and I doubt that there's a good way to go about this, I think that there is too much incentive to become a businessman. For the past 20 years, the best and brightest have gone into business because that's the best paying job, leaving the guys who go into the sciences, teaching, and various other fields as the fields getting the second best.

This isn't true anymore, due to overcompetition for young businessmen and the lucrativeness of information technology, but the problem is one we're facing in the guys who are old enough to own the companies.

I'm not really sure your point. Yes, there is an incentive for economic growth, unlike in say, Cuba. Capitalism is indeed working. There are still plenty of brilliant people going into teaching and "other fields." The supply may wax and wane, but as fewer and fewer people go to a profession, the amount it is worth goes up; as more and more go into it, the value goes down. Basic supply and demand.

[Jenius]

The analogy with medical patents is not a very good one because the laws are so far behind the science.

I'm not sure what you mean, "a perfectly competitive market." In a competitive market, the worst companies will fail, the better companies will make more money.


And here we have yet another person who want's to talk about economics with no background in economy (I have no clue why engineers need it but god I'm so glad I had it now). Perfect competition is a definition, it has nothing to do with a weird social Darwinism thing going on in the companies. You're wrong.

Also no, medical patents are the perfect example because without them, technology simply wouldn't develop. You do not make enough money on something like that without having a monopoly on it for a bit to turn a profit.

Also goddamnit people talking about passing taxes around when you have no idea what you're talking about (other than Van). Assuming close to perfect competition (or most derivatives of it like monopolistic competition) the burden of tax is split between the business and the consumer whether you tax the business directly or the consumer directly it (usually, there are some exceptions varying on elasticity as van pointed out) does not matter whether the consumer or the producer is getting the tax/tax cut, the market equilibrium will determine who benefits/get's hurt the most and it'le be the same any way you go about it.

Basically people shut the fuck up about what you think is going on unless you actually have any experience/education in the subject matter, shit like this is why democracy is a terrible system oftentimes. People who are completely ignorant like to pretend their opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.

[Kant]

I'm not really sure your point. Yes, there is an incentive for economic growth, unlike in say, Cuba. Capitalism is indeed working. There are still plenty of brilliant people going into teaching and "other fields." The supply may wax and wane, but as fewer and fewer people go to a profession, the amount it is worth goes up; as more and more go into it, the value goes down. Basic supply and demand.

Cuba has a higher average lifespan, a better healthcare system, and more doctors per person than the United States.

That there is an incentive to do something that doesn't benefit society is the problem I was referring to. While execs have been making more, the average worker has been making the same amount every year, while everything gets more expensive.

Which is why loaning became so common, because it was nessesary for the common man to continue having their current standard of living.

Which is why we're in this mess.

[mrs_bun]

EDIT: On second thought, nevermind, I don't feel like getting drug into this.

:V

[Van]

Cuba has a higher average lifespan, a better healthcare system, and more doctors per person than the United States.Yeah, but the average citizen is so goddamn poor that they have to fry up discarded orange rinds. :V

[Shadow]

Yeah, but the average citizen is so goddamn poor that they have to fry up discarded orange rinds. :V

Have you had Cuban food before? They turn nothing into something and that something is damn tasty.

[Kant]

Yeah, but the average citizen is so goddamn poor that they have to fry up discarded orange rinds. :V

The point I'm making is that, yeah, there's an incentive to become a stockbroker and get rich.

When you do that, and become 'just rich', you need to keep on working to get more money. You're not really contributing that much, compared to a scientist or a doctor or a teacher.

And yet there is incentive to become a stockbroker, which then brings the best and brightest to the job. Yes, many smart people become teachers, but the incentive of getting shitloads of money is larger than the incentive of feeling good at the end of the week.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

The point I'm making is that, yeah, there's an incentive to become a stockbroker and get rich.

When you do that, and become 'just rich', you need to keep on working to get more money. You're not really contributing that much, compared to a scientist or a doctor or a teacher.
When someone makes money, that money is not simply money that no one else can have now. Wealth is created, and investments are a vital part of that process.

And here we have yet another person who want's to talk about economics with no background in economy (I have no clue why engineers need it but god I'm so glad I had it now). Perfect competition is a definition, it has nothing to do with a weird social Darwinism thing going on in the companies. You're wrong.
"a weird Social Darwinism thing?" Are you implying companies don't fail, or that they fail randomly and it has nothing to do how well they are run? And how exactly is a perfectly competitive market relevant to the actual United States economy?

Also no, medical patents are the perfect example because without them, technology simply wouldn't develop. You do not make enough money on something like that without having a monopoly on it for a bit to turn a profit.

They do need a good patent system.
The current patent system is mediocre at best, and encourages as much gaming the system as real innovation.

Also goddamnit people talking about passing taxes around when you have no idea what you're talking about (other than Van). Assuming close to perfect competition (or most derivatives of it like monopolistic competition) the burden of tax is split between the business and the consumer whether you tax the business directly or the consumer directly it (usually, there are some exceptions varying on elasticity as van pointed out) does not matter whether the consumer or the producer is getting the tax/tax cut, the market equilibrium will determine who benefits/get's hurt the most and it'le be the same any way you go about it.

All I was saying was that most people don't understand the scales are ratios at which most businesses operate. Nice rant, though.

[Jenius]

"a weird Social Darwinism thing?" Are you implying companies don't fail, or that they fail randomly and it has nothing to do how well they are run? And how exactly is a perfectly competitive market relevant to the actual United States economy?

What I'm saying is that perfect competition is a phrase with a strict and proper definition and the one you're trying to use isn't it.

And it isn't relevant at all, we don't try to have a perfect competition system. That's why people who misuse the term irritate me.

Also on the whole money vs valuable job argument, I don't think Kant is trying to say people who make oodles off of stocks are bad, he's just saying that there's shortages of underpaid jobs like teachers and this is a problem.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

What I'm saying is that perfect competition is a phrase with a strict and proper definition and the one you're trying to use isn't it.

And it isn't relevant at all, we don't try to have a perfect competition system. That's why people who misuse the term irritate me.

That's what I said when it was first brought up. I wasn't the first one to use it.


Also on the whole money vs valuable job argument, I don't think Kant is trying to say people who make oodles off of stocks are bad, he's just saying that there's shortages of underpaid jobs like teachers and this is a problem.
Do you mean higher education (ie professors)? Because most public school teachers are more than compensated. Part of the reason very few people like to become teachers is because the public school system sucks and private schools don't pay nearly as well.

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

guys could we please pick this discussion back up i have the feeling that arguing in this thread could turn our whole economy around

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

Are you honestly fucking kidding me. I googled this to show you that you're a retard:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm



Granted, they work for about nine months, so realistically they could make around $60,000 if they taught at summer school or something like that. Honestly, that's still next to nothing.

Well, I guess that's still middle class but ugh. Seriously? "More than adequately compensated" suggests that these people actually make cushy salaries given the amount of work they put in (read: quite a fucking bit even if they're bad teachers, and more if they are good), which is just crazy.

"According to the AFT?" Yeah, definitely unbiased data there.

Nothing suggests these are only public school teachers (which is what I was referring to) used in this data.

Public school teachers also generally get medical coverage, plenty of vacation even not including summer, and job security.

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

Nothing suggests these are only public school teachers (which is what I was referring to) used in this data.
How does this matter? This would only make the data worse for you; if I had to assume, private school teachers make significantly more money than public school teachers.

Public school teachers also generally get medical coverage
whoops dee doo if you have any career you generally get medical coverage

plenty of vacation even not including summer
Huh? The only time I recall a teacher taking a large amount of personal leave time during the school year was when one of my English teachers left on maternal leave, which is completely different.

and job security.
If you're tenured, sure. If you're not, well...

16 people at my old high school lost their jobs recently because the school needed to cut back on spending. Florida has been cutting the education budget pretty tightly, so I'd imagine something like that is fairly common throughout the state.

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

This is, surprisingly, wrong.
The fuck. How does that make sense?

[Jenius]

That's what I said when it was first brought up. I wasn't the first one to use it.


No, what you said is:

I'm not sure what you mean, "a perfectly competitive market." In a competitive market, the worst companies will fail, the better companies will make more money.


Perfect competition has absolutely nothing to do with failing or poor management or some shit like that. Let me repeat: perfect competition is not about social Darwinism in the business world. If anything, social Darwinism in the business world falls incredibly far off perfect competition, because the strong survive and the weak fall off mentality is the type of things that leads to monopolies and such, perfect competition by definition has everyone on equal footing (more or less), there's no weak or strong. You basically have no fucking idea what you're talking about and it irritates me that you run your mouth and spout phrases on the subject matter anyways.

Basically perfect competition is something economist use to figure stuff out and it's not some that applicable in real life (it can be kinda used to model things but very few markets get even close to it's requirements) and it shouldn't be a phrase you just fling around like you know what's what. If you wanna talk about capitalism then say capitalism, but our market isn't close nor likely every will be close to perfect competition and frankly it's not a very efficient system (for the producers) to begin with. The great American capitalist dream strays quiiiiiitttteeee far from perfect competition.

Also I totally did a double take at private school teachers making less than public. I wonder what the motive for going private is?

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

How does this matter? This would only make the data worse for you; if I had to assume, private school teachers make significantly more money than public school teachers.


HAHAHAHA fail.


Huh? The only time I recall a teacher taking a large amount of personal leave time during the school year was when one of my English teachers left on maternal leave, which is completely different.

2 weeks at Christmas, week in february, week in April school is closed

If you're tenured, sure. If you're not, well...

If you have a union, you mean. And if you are in a public school, you likely have a union.

16 people at my old high school lost their jobs recently because the school needed to cut back on spending. Florida has been cutting the education budget pretty tightly, so I'd imagine something like that is fairly common throughout the state.
So has everyone else. Seen the economy lately?
Also, peanuts? The average worker makes just over 30,000$ a year. I don't know where you live, but the cost of living is not that high in every part of the country. The link you posted does not seem to support your point that they are paid peanuts.


erfect competition has absolutely nothing to do with failing or poor management or some shit like that. Let me repeat: perfect competition is not about social Darwinism in the business world. If anything, social Darwinism in the business world falls incredibly far off perfect competition, because the strong survive and the weak fall off mentality is the type of things that leads to monopolies and such, perfect competition by definition has everyone on equal footing (more or less), there's no weak or strong. You basically have no fucking idea what you're talking about and it irritates me that you run your mouth and spout phrases on the subject matter anyways.

Basically perfect competition is something economist use to figure stuff out and it's not some that applicable in real life (it can be kinda used to model things but very few markets get even close to it's requirements) and it shouldn't be a phrase you just fling around like you know what's what. If you wanna talk about capitalism then say capitalism, but our market isn't close nor likely every will be close to perfect competition and frankly it's not a very efficient system (for the producers) to begin with. The great American capitalist dream strays quiiiiiitttteeee far from perfect competition.

I know it has nothing to do with failing companies. That's why I was so confused when you brought it up. Since it seemed to not have any impact on the overall discussion, I figured you must have mistook it for something else. Maybe I just missed something in the previous posts, but I still don't know why you even brought it up in the first place, and all I did was try and understand WHY... you just admitted that it is not very applicable.

Also I totally did a double take at private school teachers making less than public. I wonder what the motive for going private is?

Simply put, the students are generally better (my dad teaches at a Japanese boarding school in Westchester and the students speak better English than the students he had at the public school).

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

2 weeks at Christmas, week in february, week in April school is closed
Week in February? I can't think of anything in Feb. Also, most teachers I know of work over Spring Break.

If you exclude summer, that's still only a month, which is about what you'd find at any other job. I guess logically you can't, but that's also a period where they're not getting paid.

Regardless, vacation time is a retarded tangent to the original claim.

If you have a union, you mean. And if you are in a public school, you likely have a union.
wat

So has everyone else. Seen the economy lately?
:rolleyes:

Wow, what an argument. Teachers have a lot of job security except when the economy goes bad and job security actually becomes a serious issue!

Simply put, the students are generally better (my dad teaches at a Japanese boarding school in Westchester and the students speak better English than the students he had at the public school).
That's still pretty ridiculous. It just goes to show you that teachers really are pretty shit upon.

Considering the amount of work teachers have to do, they're severely underpaid.

[Kant]

Private includes religious schools, which is probably why that percentage is there.

[Jenius]

I know it has nothing to do with failing companies. That's why I was so confused when you brought it up. Since it seemed to not have any impact on the overall discussion, I figured you must have mistook it for something else. Maybe I just missed something in the previous posts, but I still don't know why you even brought it up in the first place, and all I did was try and understand WHY... you just admitted that it is not very applicable.

Now you're just trying to cover your ass, you repeatedly (and in quotes) used the wrong definition of the word :/. Don't try to pretend that you weren't being retarded now.

The reason I brought it up in the first place was pretty clear in the post where I brought it up. Someone brought up monopolies, and my statement was that monopolies could be good and that perfect competition was overrated (perfect competition being more or less a polar opposite of monopolies and monopsonies), which is fairly topical.

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

Now you're just trying to cover your ass, you repeatedly (and in quotes) used the wrong definition of the word :/. Don't try to pretend that you weren't being retarded now.

The reason I brought it up in the first place was pretty clear in the post where I brought it up. Someone brought up monopolies, and my statement was that monopolies could be good and that perfect competition was overrated (perfect competition being more or less a polar opposite of monopolies and monopsonies), which is fairly topical.

Or, I missed reading part of the thread, and was so confused that I was wondering if you had misused the term...

And why did you change my name in your quote?

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

Or, I missed reading part of the thread, and was so confused that I was wondering if you had misused the term...

And why did you change my name in your quote?
hahahaha

You win this naming round, TK.

[Dr. Faustroll, pataphysician]

That was all me :mad:
oh

[Lord Caldera Forty-Three]

That was all me :mad:

What the hell.

[Tidal Kraken]

That was all me :mad:

lol


I need to get around to responding to that whole CRA thing. Since I'm at work and have absolutely nothing to do I'll find some shit on that. Gimme a little while.

[Captain Piano]

The fuck. How does that make sense?

I actually asked my mom this, who is somewhat of an expert on education, and she said that public school teachers have more certification requirements (college degrees, etc.) and more contractual obligations, thus public school teachers have rallied together and unionized. Private school teachers don't have any central organization of the sort.

[Kant]

Yeah, for a long period of time my mom was a private school culinary arts teacher, and though she's a pretty well known freelance caterer, she was a college dropout.