How can anyone with AS be a conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

You can't. That's why you spout out right-wing talking points instead of thinking. It's embarrassing to me that we're both critical of Buffett's argument. I wish you would kindly agree with Buffett, so that way I can feel better about myself.

AG: Increasing tax rates, or making the tax system more progressive, never turns a financial profit into a financial loss. You are correct that it may turn an economic profit into an economic loss, thus leading a perfectly rational investor to change their behavior. But there are a few important practical points that weaken your objections here. First, whether or not increased marginal tax rates cause some activity to be an economic loss depends on opportunity costs, which are subjective, mostly unmeasurable, and different for each person. It is difficult or impossible to justify basing tax policy on guesses on that front. Second, humans are not perfectly economically rational. Investors see a chance to make money; they will typically go for it and worry about the taxes later- again, there is no risk under our tax system that they will actually have less money for themselves whenever they make more money, so the only change is the magnitude of the benefit they stand to gain.

Orwell, the same criticism you make of economic profits and losses can be made towards human welfare. If human welfare is disregarded as proper for policy though, then the entire field of political ideologies reduces into an ejaculation-fest. Whether marginal tax rates cause economic activities to change is NOT immeasurable though, as the focus for a supply-demand model is aggregate change. If the aggregate changes from a certain policy choice are undoubtedly going to be negative, then that is reason, all else equal, to not make that choice. The aggregate change resulting from an action like this, which would negatively impact investment, investment being something that the US really needs more of, is negative. After all, your analysis fails to take into account, the marginal investor. Marginal investor are the ones who will be first to not invest when costs increase, and the existence of marginal investors is part of a supply and demand curve.

As for your point on "irrationality". It's stupid. 1) You can't make that statement AFTER you've made the statement on the unknowability of human economic losses. If the basis for rational economic decision-making are unknown across investors, what makes you so confident on IRRATIONAL behavior? Rational behavior at least has to follow some predictable rules, but people can vary in rationality. Even further, given that we're dealing with aggregates, you'd have to assume that NOBODY actually reacts to information, an assumption questionable by how much you and I will likely claim to react to information, and because there are lots of intelligent people thinking about finance. Even an alteration in investment choices, which would likely HAVE TO HAPPEN because all financial experts are taught about the impacts of taxes, could actually be harmful and pointlessly so.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU[/youtube]

Who claimed that he was referring to stealing from people, you dumb poop?

Perhaps you misread my post?

None of what I said is "American Mythology." America was not founded by a bunch of people who wanted government to provide everything for them. If that was so, the Constitution would mirror such a society in how it was drafted.

I'm not glorifying the "good old days." I'm pointing out the reality that you can't expect other people to provide for you. By the rules of nature, that is not so, and it is a dangerous place to be to become dependent on others in that you cannot do for yourself. In as much as it is possible, every person should strive to be as independent as they can.




And there is no shame for being on SSI if you want to work, can work, but nobody will hire you because they won't look past your disability. The important part is that YOU want to be a contributing member to society, not one of the many who deliberately want to let others support them.

Yes, it was. It had to be, in order to justify your slander of calling anyone who disagrees with your radical politics "anti-American."


Setting aside your straw man of the liberal standpoint, was Thomas Paine not considered to be among the Founding Fathers?


The Constitution gives only a rough framework, and even at that was filled with compromises. The authors of the Federalist papers certainly expressed support for very few limits on government's ability to levy taxes.


Don't invoke the "rules of nature" when you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't dare try to justify your radical beliefs with pseudo-scientific nonsense like social darwinism.


We are all dependent on others, whether we like to admit it or not. That is the nature of human society.

The one thing I admire about ruveyn. He doesn't always twist the truth in the name of an ideology. He'll at least admit to an uncomfortable reality while sticking to his guns. No fairy-tale "just world", not utopian socialism (Karl Marx) nor utopian capitalism (Ayn Rand), bears a resemblance to the actual world.

The one thing I admire about ruveyn. He doesn't always twist the truth in the name of an ideology. He'll at least admit to an uncomfortable reality while sticking to his guns. No fairy-tale "just world", not utopian socialism (Karl Marx) nor utopian capitalism (Ayn Rand), bears a resemblance to the actual world.[/quote]

I don't think I am espousing Communist Ideology. I am recognizing what I believe to be facts. I am anti-collectivist. Man is a social animal, not a hive animal like bees, wasps and ants.

In any case too many of us are becoming rich without being productive and that is a situation that bodes no good for our society. I think the productive among us should gain as much as the market permits from their contributions and productions. It is the productive people who make the rest of us prosperous and comfortable.

ruveyn

[quote="Orwell]
Don't invoke the "rules of nature" when you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't dare try to justify your radical beliefs with pseudo-scientific nonsense like social darwinism.[/quote]
It's sad when simple, basic common sense is termed radical.

Often "common sense" =/= truth.

When America was founded, there wasn't anyplace where people didn't have to struggle on their own to survive. That was the nature of the world back then. Rather, people came to America in order to be able to say what they wanted, and do (within reason) what they wanted. America was freedom. It was hardly a case where people were flocking to this country in order to escape "socialistic collectivism" - a political and social philosophy which didn't even exist yet.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

True but why not put self-reliance first and getting help from others second?

Your description of the relationship between labor and management could be taken directly out of Marx. If I saw anyone else saying such things, I would assume they were a hard-core Communist- and you know I am very hesitant to apply that label.

Depending on the context, doing so is probably inefficient. For instance, I do not need to be "self-reliant" in growing my own food. I do not own land, and it is unlikely I will ever own a large enough chunk of arable land to do subsistence farming. Even if I did, it would be a waste of time, since an individual farming for their own food is practically a full-time job to barely eke out a living, whereas I can happily rely on other people to grow grain and raise cattle which will be shipped to the grocery store and sold to me.

There is no shame in asking or accepting help from others. No man is an island.

Besides which, the specialization of labor and the relatively free exchange of information is mankind's secret of success. We are a race of blabber-mouths and busy people.

ruveyn