|
Presto posted:Millionaires aren't really rich. Psychologists have studied this phenomenon and determined that this is why, above the poverty level, money doesn't actually make you happy.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Presto posted:Millionaires aren't really rich. You missed the best one. quote:Taxes distort investment decisions. Why throw money into productive assets — corporate securities, a rental property or new employees for a small business — if the income they generate will be taxed away?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
"Taxed away." drat America's 100% corporate tax rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Harry posted:You missed the best one. Except increased taxation supposedly generally causes people to take less money out of their businesses and investments because it will be taxed at a higher rate and instead they reinvest the money in their businesses, which actually helps these rich people in the long run because the reinvestment helps assure long-term productivity and profits while also putting more money into the hands of their employees and other people who would actually buy more of their goods and services, thus assuring demand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
Harry posted:You missed the best one. It galls me how many educated people believe that crap. You don't even need to know much about investments -- it's simple math. If I put my money in stocks, the amount I'll make back and the time it'll take is limited only by how good of an investor I am. If I put my money in CDs or a savings account, I don't have a hope in hell of making more than 5%, and that'll be over the course of several years. If I stick my cash in a mattress, I'll be losing money. So of course people are going to play the stock market. Even if the tax rate is 90%, it's still your only chance of making oodles in interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
quote:Free at last, he blames America first That ungrateful bastard had the nerve to thank Muhammed Ali before our troops! And who's ever heard of torture and murder in American prisons?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
When did Chavez become a dictator anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:When did Chavez become a dictator anyway? He's in this awkward position where the government does kinda dictatorial things (for instance, press freedom isn't really a thing in Venezuela), but the populace as a whole supports him without any blatant gaps in knowledge. Basically, it requires some effort to disprove the assertion that he is a dictator, so it gets traction among people who find it convenient to believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:He's in this awkward position where the government does kinda dictatorial things (for instance, press freedom isn't really a thing in Venezuela), but the populace as a whole supports him without any blatant gaps in knowledge. Basically, it requires some effort to disprove the assertion that he is a dictator, so it gets traction among people who find it convenient to believe. His decree powers aren't any stronger than the US president's executive order powers, and opposing press in leftist countries are CIA front groups like 90% of the time, he's right in curtailing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:His decree powers aren't any stronger than the US president's executive order powers, and opposing press in leftist countries are CIA front groups like 90% of the time, he's right in curtailing them. Oh no, I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just explaining what the thought process is. Remember when that news station literally supported the coup, and everyone got mad when four years later his government didn't renew their broadcasting license?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Oh no, I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just explaining what the thought process is. Remember when that news station literally supported the coup, and everyone got mad when four years later his government didn't renew their broadcasting license? Oh god, I remember that. People were loving insufferable about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:When did Chavez become a dictator anyway? "Well you see called George Bush the devil and an anonymous source just told me that helped Hezbollah build a giant, high tech underground fortress beneath Caracas. Also I don't really know anything about Latin American politics or history, but I did see Clear and Present Danger"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Oh no, I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just explaining what the thought process is. Remember when that news station literally supported the coup, and everyone got mad when four years later his government didn't renew their broadcasting license? Any links for this because it's insane. I'm pretty sure advocating for a coup wouldn't be tolerated in the US either. Rick Perry's sedition in regards to Texas seceding from the US was tolerated because everyone knew that he was just trying to sound like a hard-rear end and didn't really mean it, just like how he railed against Obama's stimulus and then eagerly accepted the stimulus money for Texas to close its budget shortfall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Any links for this because it's insane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt Goatman Sacks wasn't exaggerating even a little bit. It's hard to allow the media to stay privatized when they all team up to overthrow the government. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Let me introduce you to this thing called "Conservative Media In America Ever Since A Black Dude Became President".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
This is a total aside, but as a Venezuelan American I'm very tired of people in the US instantly wanting to talk politics to me as soon as I accidentally mention where I was born. It's either North Korea or Xanadu depending on who's taking. Well, I guess only English speakers view Venezuela that way. Spanish speakers seem to think it's the land of hot babes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Humboldt squid posted:This is a total aside, but as a Venezuelan American I'm very tired of people in the US instantly wanting to talk politics to me as soon as I accidentally mention where I was born. It's either North Korea or Xanadu depending on who's taking. Unopinionated Anglophones think this as well. Australia has the reverse of this, where we tend to give no poo poo about the politics of other countries in our region until we meet a native from there who informs us that our favourite holiday destinations are corrupt hellholes (though there's sometimes a huge element of bias there where the native is a person from a group advantaged by colonialism) Also we have this which is a great little scandal in which one of the more prominent opinion columnists here was sued for being terrible and lost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
trandorian posted:Let me introduce you to this thing called "Conservative Media In America Ever Since A Black Dude Became President". I know the right-wing media has been pretty awful since Obama was elected but it's nowhere near as bad as that of the Venezuelan media as cited in that wiki link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
trandorian posted:Let me introduce you to this thing called "Conservative Media In America Ever Since A Black Dude Became President". That's an exaggeration if I've ever heard of one. The most right-winged media would only get even close to those Venezuelan stations if Obama was actually remotely leftist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
LP97S posted:That's an exaggeration if I've ever heard of one. The most right-winged media would only get even close to those Venezuelan stations if Obama was actually remotely leftist. They've basically been skirting around the whole "Obama is bad and you should kill him" concept for three years now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I know the right-wing media has been pretty awful since Obama was elected but it's nowhere near as bad as that of the Venezuelan media as cited in that wiki link. It's still incredibly stupid to shut down tv stations for being mean to you. TV reporters didn't execute any coups, they just fuckin reported on them. Pope Guilty posted:They've basically been skirting around the whole "Obama is bad and you should kill him" concept for three years now. Yeah talking about second amendment remedies for government officials you don't like is pretty clear. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
trandorian posted:It's still incredibly stupid to shut down tv stations for being mean to you. The Venezuelan TV stations were literally telling their viewers to rise up and violently overthrow Chavez. That is not hyperbole. They were literally openly inciting violent revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:The Venezuelan TV stations were literally telling their viewers to rise up and violently overthrow Chavez. That is not hyperbole. They were literally openly inciting violent revolution. And your point is? It was wrong when America shut down anarchist and communist media outlets throughout the past century or more for advocating revolution, it was wrong when Venezuela did it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
trandorian posted:And your point is? It was wrong when America shut down anarchist and communist media outlets throughout the past century or more for advocating revolution, it was wrong when Venezuela did it. There's a difference between "Revolution is necessary, let's build to the point where we can rise up" and "right now grab whatever you can find at hand and go downtown and kill some folks".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
trandorian posted:And your point is? It was wrong when America shut down anarchist and communist media outlets throughout the past century or more for advocating revolution, it was wrong when Venezuela did it. No, it would be more like a coup occurs, the President of the Chamber of Commerce is sworn in, and they dissolve the Supreme Court and Congress. During this, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN support the coup, have been egging on supporters before the coup for a few weeks and edit footage to make anti-coup supporters are ambushing peaceful protesters instead of general brawl. I can understand why Chavez and supporters would be a bit upset, then again Chavez tried a coup when he was in the military and, in my opinion, has been squandering his options with pointless international posturing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:41
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:There's a difference between "Revolution is necessary, let's build to the point where we can rise up" and "right now grab whatever you can find at hand and go downtown and kill some folks". Exactly. It's a continuum of media corruption. What happened in Venezuela was far worse than what we've ever had in the US but it still pales in comparison to what has happened in other countries, like those radio stations in Rwanda commanding and directing Hutus to kill Tutsis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
It wasn't "let's go genocide!" but it was certainly "head downtown and kill the government".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
Can we just agree that the worst part was when Fidel "Communism means I get whatever I want" Castro jumped to the defense of democracy while US officials talked about how Chavez had it coming for being so leftist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
I think the US endorsing a coup d'etat against leaders for ideological reasons would probably be the worst bit, Castro being hypocritical (though I'd disagree with you characterising him as a profiteer of somekind however bad the conditions in Cuba) isn't exactly fragrant but in the scope of things he's never overthrown anyone except Batista, America's got a huge lead on him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 12:04
|
|
|
trandorian posted:It's still incredibly stupid to shut down tv stations for being mean to you. TV reporters didn't execute any coups, they just fuckin reported on them. Actually they were an integral part of the coup. Selective reporting about events both before the coup (about who was shooting at whom) and during the coup (who controlled the palace, Chavez not having resigned), was a large factor in the initial succes of the coup. On top that they were generally in bed with the conspirators of the coup, all of this makes them complicit in the deaths caused by that coup, as well as the subversion of the democratic process and constitution of Venezuela. They didn't "just report on things", they manipulated and created the news, orders of magnitude more than even Fox News or similar do in the US. Seriously watch The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
Any sane government would have arrested all the executives, tried them for treason, and scattered the employees to the winds. Just letting their broadcasting license expire was an act of supreme mercy all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
Bradylama posted:Any sane government would have arrested all the executives, tried them for treason, and scattered the employees to the winds. Just letting their broadcasting license expire was an act of supreme mercy all things considered. Oh no, they only let one station's broadcasting license expire. The rest, including the one in which the coup was plotted, weren't punished at all (except by being forced to comply with new regulations).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
New regulations? Those monsters! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Bradylama posted:New regulations? Those monsters! I don't think you understand how Orwellian it is. They can't show heavy violence before 10 PM, they have to interrupt programming for Presidential announcements, and they're required to broadcast political campaigns!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
This guy has always had an incredibly childish and simplistic outlook on life in all his writing but today's took the cake:quote:For centuries, the Forest had prospered. Every creature knew its job, from the aardvark to the zebra, and they all took pride in doing those jobs well. drat "hyenas" and "sloths" used to know their goddamned place in society. And what of the poor Young Lion. He was so well meaning...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
An eagle is a bird of prey. Recognizing the equality of others is the last thing that a predator would do. Oddly loving appropriate that the symbology of Rome, Russia, Nazi Germany, Mexico, and the United States, would revolve around something like the eagle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
CrushedB posted:This guy has always had an incredibly childish and simplistic outlook on life in all his writing but today's took the cake: Most of those are savannah animals! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Jon Kyl posted:It's time to abandon Keynesian Economics Keynesianism: it works in practice, but the real question is does it work in theory?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Keynesianism: it works in practice, but the real question is does it work in theory? This bugs the poo poo out of me as well. I studied economics at school. They taught us Keynesian economics as a method of stimulating the economy. I checked Harvard's program, Yale's, NYU's, and Stamford's. They all teach Keynesian economics. I'd be surprised if there was a business school in the country that taught supply-side economics. Hasn't this rear end in a top hat ever heard of the velocity of money? Also, the Bush tax cuts were based on Keynesian economics? News to me. edit: For those that are wondering why supply-side doesn't work, it's because it has no reason to. Imagine if you own a factory producing widgets. The economy dips, and you lose half your customers. Half your employees are now standing around the widget factory doing nothing, so you fire them. If your taxes are cut, are you now going to rehire those employees, to stand around and do nothing? This is why companies are sitting on so much cash: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/29/business/la-fi-apple-cash-20110730 They aren't re-investing back into the company (tax-free, mind you), because there isn't demand for new goods/services. How do we create demand/customers? Give money to people that will spend it, people living paycheck to paycheck. A food stamp will only be spent at a local market. That local market now has to hire cashiers, etc, to keep up with the demand. Now those cashiers can spend their money. It's trickle up. It's always been trickle up. particle409 fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
particle409 posted:This bugs the poo poo out of me as well. I studied economics at school. They taught us Keynesian economics as a method of stimulating the economy. I checked Harvard's program, Yale's, NYU's, and Stamford's. They all teach Keynesian economics. I'd be surprised if there was a business school in the country that taught supply-side economics. Hasn't this rear end in a top hat ever heard of the velocity of money? Exactly. Supply-side economics don't work because it gives more money to people who already have an excess of money. They already have more money than they can reasonably spend through personal consumption and they will not reinvest in their own or other people's businesses if there is not demand to support it. All that will happen is that the rich people and wealthy corporations will just hold onto to the cash and the country will have "lost" money that would have otherwise been working its way through the economy. If you give more money to the poor and middle class, they will spend most or all of the money because they are generally living paycheck to paycheck already, so more money for them would mean greater consumption and aggregate demand. Jon Kyl is also blatantly wrong about many other things in that editorial, most notably crediting Reagan with the economic recovery during his first term. The end of the late 1970s stagflation and the subsequent economic recovery were entirely due to the actions of the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker. The Reagan Administration actually ousted Volcker because he was against much of the administration's deregulation efforts, which are what led to the S&L crisis and the later recession during George H.W. Bush's presidential term. This is a classic example of Republicans just completely rewriting the history of the 1980s to make Reagan out to be some kind of ubermensch, when he was actually a pretty lovely president, e.g. Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to an entire nuclear disarmament, but Reagan hosed the deal by insisting on his stupid Star Wars program. Bradylama posted:An eagle is a bird of prey. Recognizing the equality of others is the last thing that a predator would do. Oddly loving appropriate that the symbology of Rome, Russia, Nazi Germany, Mexico, and the United States, would revolve around something like the eagle. Actually, there was a debate over the national bird among the Founders, with some of them like Benjamin Franklin wanting the national bird to be the wild turkey. The most interesting part of this is a letter Franklin wrote to his daughter about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_turkey#Benjamin_Franklin_and_the_US_national_bird Ben Franklin posted:For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 06:04
|
|