Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why leftist hate economics so much?

Page 10 of 16 [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Nov 2010, 3:37 pm

number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Unfortunately, the wealthy now create jobs in Indonesia and Mexico with their untaxed incomes, and buy goods from China. American workers never see a penny of it.


Well maybe they wouldn't move everything to those countries if we didn't have the 2nd highest Corporate Taxes in the world. Along with penalties for manufacturing items etc.


Nonsense, corporations don't outsource to avoid taxes, they do so for cheap labor. If by "penalties for manufacturing items etc." you mean more regulation with regards to pollution, then surely you aren't proposing we should allow factories to dump their crap in our water supply, are you? (Not that they don't already :? )


That explains why Germany has a better manufacturing base than we do? By your argument Germany should be in as bad of shape as we are if not worse.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Nov 2010, 3:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Unfortunately, the wealthy now create jobs in Indonesia and Mexico with their untaxed incomes, and buy goods from China. American workers never see a penny of it.


Well maybe they wouldn't move everything to those countries if we didn't have the 2nd highest Corporate Taxes in the world. Along with penalties for manufacturing items etc.

What a load of crap. Plenty of US corporations pay zero, or even negative, tax. Those that do pay taxes pay at a laughably low rate. I paid higher taxes on my earnings from a summer job than General Electric pays on the profits from its multinational commercial empire. In what universe is that a "fair" tax system?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Nov 2010, 3:53 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
Unfortunately, the wealthy now create jobs in Indonesia and Mexico with their untaxed incomes, and buy goods from China. American workers never see a penny of it.


Well maybe they wouldn't move everything to those countries if we didn't have the 2nd highest Corporate Taxes in the world. Along with penalties for manufacturing items etc.

What a load of crap. Plenty of US corporations pay zero, or even negative, tax. Those that do pay taxes pay at a laughably low rate. I paid higher taxes on my earnings from a summer job than General Electric pays on the profits from its multinational commercial empire. In what universe is that a "fair" tax system?


I'm not saying that many corporations have not figured out all the loopholes in the tax code (I could argue many of which were probably put in place deliberately). Though you are correct in that they don't pay taxes, it isn't for the reason you think.

They pass the tax expense on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Raising taxes on corporations just causes them to raise prices on their goods.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Nov 2010, 4:11 pm

No, Inuyasha, you are wrong. When I say they don't pay taxes, I don't mean "they pass the cost on to the customer." I mean they quite literally do not pay taxes.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Nov 2010, 4:19 pm

Orwell wrote:
No, Inuyasha, you are wrong. When I say they don't pay taxes, I don't mean "they pass the cost on to the customer." I mean they quite literally do not pay taxes.


And you are using one of the most dishonest companies in the world as an example...

Seriously, GE got caught using one of their subsidiaries to do business with Iran despite the sanctions.

Also:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 33,00.html
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_50/b3711013.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/03/busin ... andal.html



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Nov 2010, 4:26 pm

It's not just GE. Almost all the recognizable names among US corporate giants pay absurdly low (or zero, or even negative) tax rates.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

09 Nov 2010, 4:55 pm

peterd wrote:
A lifetime of playing the game and winding up the loser has educated me in what it takes to be a non-solitary human. Not that I've graduated yet, but I'm still studying.

What it takes to be a no-solitary human is dedication to some variation of the greatest good for the greatest number concept. Or a properly functioning theory of mind perhaps, I don't know.

What it takes is the realization is "greatest good for the greatest number", when said by a neurotypical, is lip service that actually means "greatest good for me, while letting me keep my self delusion that I'm not selfish".

Once you realize that, you can do things in ways that result in mutual benefit while allowing the neurotypicals to keep their illusions of being "nice people".



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

09 Nov 2010, 5:08 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Okay, the argument for the so-called 'Rightist economics' is that when people are able to keep more of their income, they are inclined to spend it on new toys or invest in some new product. Someone has to build said toy (whether it be a new private jet, a new car, etc.), which means employees whom get paid and of course spend money on something else. Which creates a need or want in another area that has to be filled. Contrary to what some people believe, rich people don't just sit there and like to horde cash.

I can throw you back your argument... By favorising a more even distribution of incomes you create a middle class who can buy things with their income, thus favorising production. And really, if cutting tax favorise society wealth, WHERE IS THAT WEALTH!! !!???, shoulnd't USA popualtion be super wealthy now, with Bush tax cuts.

Orwell wrote:
It's not just GE. Almost all the recognizable names among US corporate giants pay absurdly low (or zero, or even negative) tax rates.

Of course! They need this money to pay the insane income of their PDGs, no matter how incompetent they are. :wink:


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Nov 2010, 7:57 pm

psychohist wrote:
What it takes is the realization is "greatest good for the greatest number", when said by a neurotypical, is lip service that actually means "greatest good for me, while letting me keep my self delusion that I'm not selfish".

.


Cynical, but probably true.

ruveyhn



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

22 Nov 2010, 4:31 pm

LibertarianAS wrote:
LKL wrote:
Ever heard of Keynes? <-link

Heard the phrase, "We're all Keynesians now" since the collapse?


Keynas,like Marx, was wrong in basically EVERYTHING

the only true form of economics is AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

Read Von Mises
Read Hayek


All hail the mighty school of Austrian Economics, the true messiah!



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

22 Nov 2010, 4:32 pm

psychohist wrote:
peterd wrote:
A lifetime of playing the game and winding up the loser has educated me in what it takes to be a non-solitary human. Not that I've graduated yet, but I'm still studying.

What it takes to be a no-solitary human is dedication to some variation of the greatest good for the greatest number concept. Or a properly functioning theory of mind perhaps, I don't know.

What it takes is the realization is "greatest good for the greatest number", when said by a neurotypical, is lip service that actually means "greatest good for me, while letting me keep my self delusion that I'm not selfish".

Once you realize that, you can do things in ways that result in mutual benefit while allowing the neurotypicals to keep their illusions of being "nice people".


...or you are just one cynical mofo who likes to generalize people too much.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Nov 2010, 1:04 pm

JNathanK wrote:
psychohist wrote:
peterd wrote:
A lifetime of playing the game and winding up the loser has educated me in what it takes to be a non-solitary human. Not that I've graduated yet, but I'm still studying.

What it takes to be a no-solitary human is dedication to some variation of the greatest good for the greatest number concept. Or a properly functioning theory of mind perhaps, I don't know.

What it takes is the realization is "greatest good for the greatest number", when said by a neurotypical, is lip service that actually means "greatest good for me, while letting me keep my self delusion that I'm not selfish".

Once you realize that, you can do things in ways that result in mutual benefit while allowing the neurotypicals to keep their illusions of being "nice people".


...or you are just one cynical mofo who likes to generalize people too much.


Actually, psychohist is being realistic, if you study history like I do, you would see numerous examples of what he is saying.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Nov 2010, 2:25 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, psychohist is being realistic, if you study history like I do, you would see numerous examples of what he is saying.


It seems to me that your study of history (and politics and economics, for that matter) is selective, subjective and dismissive of examples that fail to conform to your preconceived notions.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Nov 2010, 2:29 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, psychohist is being realistic, if you study history like I do, you would see numerous examples of what he is saying.


It seems to me that your study of history (and politics and economics, for that matter) is selective, subjective and dismissive of examples that fail to conform to your preconceived notions.


Ever stop and consider the possibility that I may have arrived at my notions from actual research, or is it the fact I don't agree with your worldview the reason why you're claiming that I'm closeminded?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Nov 2010, 3:46 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Ever stop and consider the possibility that I may have arrived at my notions from actual research, or is it the fact I don't agree with your worldview the reason why you're claiming that I'm closeminded?


Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Unlike you, I don't pretend that my opinions--even those that come from years of education and reading, are perfect, complete or sufficient for anyone's use but my own.

However, a review of your posting history has provided me with no evidence to suggest that your, "notions," are based on anything other than research that is intended to reinforce your bias. If you had even once demonstrated an openness to ideas other than your own I would have posted other than as I did.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Nov 2010, 3:59 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Ever stop and consider the possibility that I may have arrived at my notions from actual research, or is it the fact I don't agree with your worldview the reason why you're claiming that I'm closeminded?


Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Unlike you, I don't pretend that my opinions--even those that come from years of education and reading, are perfect, complete or sufficient for anyone's use but my own.

However, a review of your posting history has provided me with no evidence to suggest that your, "notions," are based on anything other than research that is intended to reinforce your bias. If you had even once demonstrated an openness to ideas other than your own I would have posted other than as I did.


The fact that I have the diplomatic tact of a freight train, does not mean that I have no clue what I'm talking about. Are there certain places I will dismiss out of hand, yes and I have legit reasons as to why I don't consider them to be valid sources.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/polit ... -coverage/

Wait there is more:


In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/docum ... ah-wright/

A lot of these "reporters" were not fired, so tell me why should I trust them to be valid sources?