Page 9 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Oct 2012, 3:45 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
education reform with a heavy emphasis on STEM, short & long term tax reform, deregulation and doing away with 25% of the laws on the books, relaxing land-use and urban growth boundaries, and a renewed shift towards export-lead sustainable growth with an emphasis on high skill labor and the vocational training necessary to provide those workers, and tort reform. Pair that with tackling healthcare from the angle of costs to increase coverage instead of Obama's current approach of increasing coverage to bring down costs, and making energy cheap again.

Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.


Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 3:48 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.


Two things have got to go for otherwise this country will be wrecked.

1. Corporate welfare and subsidy. It must be done away with completelyt.

2. And end to the Forever War. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten nations below it in expenditures. It is utterly insane. We spend ten times as much as Red China does on its military.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 3:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.


Two things have got to go for otherwise this country will be wrecked.

1. Corporate welfare and subsidy. It must be done away with completelyt.

2. And end to the Forever War. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten nations below it in expenditures. It is utterly insane. We spend ten times as much as Red China does on its military.

ruveyn


How do you define corporate welfare? Some things such as ITS could be viewed as both a tax issue and a corporate subsidy.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 3:55 pm

TM wrote:

How do you define corporate welfare? Some things such as ITS could be viewed as both a tax issue and a corporate subsidy.


What is ITS?

In any case the revolving door between the mega corps and the government must be sealed shut.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Oct 2012, 3:57 pm

TM wrote:
marshall wrote:

The difference is neoclassical economics is deduced from a bunch of axioms that are just assumed to be true. One pretty ridiculous flaw is pretending that the supply curve is always positive sloping for individual wage earners. This obviously flows from libertarian ideology, not actual behavior analysis. In reality it's pretty easy to get a wage slave to volunteer more hours of work by paying him less. Why? The marginal utility differential between starving and not starving is effectively infinite while the utility differential of the additional work sold to the hiring firm is finite.


The labor supply curve, always going up is somewhat logical considering that it has wage rate as it's veritical axix and hours worked as it's horizontal axis. As nobody can work negative hours, nor be paid a negative salary, it would be hard for it to be negative. You do get the substitution effect where you see the effects of labor supply elasticity in the chart at higher wages (less hours worked at a higher wage).

So long as there isn't a negative wage or negative hours, you could start someone off at a lot of hours at a low wage, and the curve would still be sloping upwards. The person in your argument is also at all times free to decide that the pay isn't satisfying for the hours and find a new job, of course that clashes a bit with your ideology of work being more like a slave contract signed at gunpoint than a voluntary contract.

Now Marshall, what is your preferred school of economic though, I'm dying to find out so I can criticize that.


Nice dodge of my argument. That's exactly what I expected from you, an endorsement of ideology. I can tell by the way you bring up "force". The simplistic econ101 neoclassical wage theory is nothing but a cleverly veiled promotion of free-market ideology, using a bad mathematical slight-of-hand argument to claim wages are set purely by merit.

You know it would be fun to invent my own model where robbery at gunpoint is a valid contract. The victim gains the marginal utility if living another day while the mugger gains the utility of the content of the victims wallet. Both parties have increased their utility so what's all the whining about? I'd say this model is more perfect than traditional neoclassical ideology because it doesn't arbitrarily eliminate certain types of contracts that are deemed morally unacceptable for silly emotional reasons. Robbery at gun point is an extremely efficient market mechanism in my theory.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 3:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
TM wrote:

How do you define corporate welfare? Some things such as ITS could be viewed as both a tax issue and a corporate subsidy.


What is ITS?

In any case the revolving door between the mega corps and the government must be sealed shut.

ruveyn


Interest deductibility for corporations. Meaning that corporations can deduct interest paying from their taxes equal to the corporate tax rate. I.E 100.000 in interest payments at a corporate tax rate of 20% is a 20.000 tax deduction.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 3:59 pm

marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:

The difference is neoclassical economics is deduced from a bunch of axioms that are just assumed to be true. One pretty ridiculous flaw is pretending that the supply curve is always positive sloping for individual wage earners. This obviously flows from libertarian ideology, not actual behavior analysis. In reality it's pretty easy to get a wage slave to volunteer more hours of work by paying him less. Why? The marginal utility differential between starving and not starving is effectively infinite while the utility differential of the additional work sold to the hiring firm is finite.


The labor supply curve, always going up is somewhat logical considering that it has wage rate as it's veritical axix and hours worked as it's horizontal axis. As nobody can work negative hours, nor be paid a negative salary, it would be hard for it to be negative. You do get the substitution effect where you see the effects of labor supply elasticity in the chart at higher wages (less hours worked at a higher wage).

So long as there isn't a negative wage or negative hours, you could start someone off at a lot of hours at a low wage, and the curve would still be sloping upwards. The person in your argument is also at all times free to decide that the pay isn't satisfying for the hours and find a new job, of course that clashes a bit with your ideology of work being more like a slave contract signed at gunpoint than a voluntary contract.

Now Marshall, what is your preferred school of economic though, I'm dying to find out so I can criticize that.


Nice dodge of my argument. That's exactly what I expected from you, an endorsement of ideology. I can tell by the way you bring up "force". The simplistic econ101 neoclassical wage theory is nothing but a cleverly veiled promotion of free-market ideology, using a bad mathematical slight-of-hand argument to claim wages are set purely by merit.

You know it would be fun to invent my own model where robbery at gunpoint is a valid contract. The victim gains the marginal utility if living another day while the mugger gains the utility of the content of the victims wallet. Both parties have increased their utility so what's all the whining about? I'd say this model is more perfect than traditional neoclassical ideology because it doesn't arbitrarily eliminate certain types of contracts that are deemed morally unacceptable for silly emotional reasons. Robbery at gun point is an extremely efficient market mechanism in my theory.


It's not a dodge, it's simply explaining to you how the chart works since you obviously didn't understand it.

Still waiting for you to tell me the better alternative economic school though.

*P.S wages aren't set purely by merit in a neoclassical model, they are set by supply and demand mechanics.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Oct 2012, 5:25 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
education reform with a heavy emphasis on STEM, short & long term tax reform, deregulation and doing away with 25% of the laws on the books, relaxing land-use and urban growth boundaries, and a renewed shift towards export-lead sustainable growth with an emphasis on high skill labor and the vocational training necessary to provide those workers, and tort reform. Pair that with tackling healthcare from the angle of costs to increase coverage instead of Obama's current approach of increasing coverage to bring down costs, and making energy cheap again.

Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.


Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.


I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Oct 2012, 11:39 pm

TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:

The difference is neoclassical economics is deduced from a bunch of axioms that are just assumed to be true. One pretty ridiculous flaw is pretending that the supply curve is always positive sloping for individual wage earners. This obviously flows from libertarian ideology, not actual behavior analysis. In reality it's pretty easy to get a wage slave to volunteer more hours of work by paying him less. Why? The marginal utility differential between starving and not starving is effectively infinite while the utility differential of the additional work sold to the hiring firm is finite.


The labor supply curve, always going up is somewhat logical considering that it has wage rate as it's veritical axix and hours worked as it's horizontal axis. As nobody can work negative hours, nor be paid a negative salary, it would be hard for it to be negative. You do get the substitution effect where you see the effects of labor supply elasticity in the chart at higher wages (less hours worked at a higher wage).

So long as there isn't a negative wage or negative hours, you could start someone off at a lot of hours at a low wage, and the curve would still be sloping upwards. The person in your argument is also at all times free to decide that the pay isn't satisfying for the hours and find a new job, of course that clashes a bit with your ideology of work being more like a slave contract signed at gunpoint than a voluntary contract.

Now Marshall, what is your preferred school of economic though, I'm dying to find out so I can criticize that.


Nice dodge of my argument. That's exactly what I expected from you, an endorsement of ideology. I can tell by the way you bring up "force". The simplistic econ101 neoclassical wage theory is nothing but a cleverly veiled promotion of free-market ideology, using a bad mathematical slight-of-hand argument to claim wages are set purely by merit.

You know it would be fun to invent my own model where robbery at gunpoint is a valid contract. The victim gains the marginal utility if living another day while the mugger gains the utility of the content of the victims wallet. Both parties have increased their utility so what's all the whining about? I'd say this model is more perfect than traditional neoclassical ideology because it doesn't arbitrarily eliminate certain types of contracts that are deemed morally unacceptable for silly emotional reasons. Robbery at gun point is an extremely efficient market mechanism in my theory.


It's not a dodge, it's simply explaining to you how the chart works since you obviously didn't understand it.

Still waiting for you to tell me the better alternative economic school though.

*P.S wages aren't set purely by merit in a neoclassical model, they are set by supply and demand mechanics.


I thought supply and demand always set wages to match productivity. Therefore if you're poor it's because you're unproductive.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Oct 2012, 12:25 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


Or they could put tax money to better use and cut other areas. I mean I wonder what most tax money goes to?


_________________
We won't go back.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

15 Oct 2012, 1:14 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


Or they could put tax money to better use and cut other areas. I mean I wonder what most tax money goes to?


Our military spending is problematic, and not because we spend so much... I would even argue we need to spend more because of the current reality that we keep the peace in much of the world. Our military spending is problematic because we don't demand all of those who benefit from the world we have made and maintained to also invest in the international security that keeps the peace. Romney frames it correctly, we should demand that other nations in alliance with us spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending as a condition for American support.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

15 Oct 2012, 1:21 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


Or they could put tax money to better use and cut other areas. I mean I wonder what most tax money goes to?


Look up the Grace commission and it shows what happens with our income tax. 1/3rd is lost to waste and inefficiency, another 1/3rd escapes collection due to the underground economy, and the remaining 1/3rd goes EXCLUSIVELY to servicing the interest on national debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. Zero goes to any of those government services certain people love so much.

Think about that the next time these jokers talk about taxes not being high enough,



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Oct 2012, 1:24 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


Or they could put tax money to better use and cut other areas. I mean I wonder what most tax money goes to?


Our military spending is problematic, and not because we spend so much... I would even argue we need to spend more because of the current reality that we keep the peace in much of the world. Our military spending is problematic because we don't demand all of those who benefit from the world we have made and maintained to also invest in the international security that keeps the peace. Romney frames it correctly, we should demand that other nations in alliance with us spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending as a condition for American support.


Uhh what peace? you mean all the various wars and other terrible things going on around the world?


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Oct 2012, 9:19 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Uhh what peace? you mean all the various wars and other terrible things going on around the world?


1. bad things are happening, indeed, but much worse could happen.

2. there has never been peace on earth in modern times. And if you think it is bad now, contemplate The Hundred Years war and the Thirty Years War. Our wars, dreadful as they may be are generally concluded in under ten years.

ruveyn



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

15 Oct 2012, 8:54 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.

Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.


Or they could put tax money to better use and cut other areas. I mean I wonder what most tax money goes to?


Our military spending is problematic, and not because we spend so much... I would even argue we need to spend more because of the current reality that we keep the peace in much of the world. Our military spending is problematic because we don't demand all of those who benefit from the world we have made and maintained to also invest in the international security that keeps the peace. Romney frames it correctly, we should demand that other nations in alliance with us spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending as a condition for American support.


Uhh what peace? you mean all the various wars and other terrible things going on around the world?


Who does the Middle East turn to when Iran or Iraq is causing problems? Who does Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, and all who share the South China Sea turn to when China or North Korea is misbehaving? Who do the Europeans turn to when a genocide on their own continent is taking up to much newscoverage and they simply wish the massacres away? Who will stand up to Russia when they began to bully one of their many former territories? Everyone knows their role, especially the major powers, because the US will be there in a second if they misbehave.

Our fleets in the Pacific keep the peace in Asia, and Obama has done a swell job of forging relationships with many of the nations there to keep a hold on China. Iraq and Afghanistan withstanding, every Middle Eastern country looks to the US whenever it needs reassurance that there will be someone to back them up if one of their many dictators decides to invade any of the many countries in that part of the world. The Europeans are utterly useless and take no leadership on anything, and so is the UN. Considering the history of humanity, the question isn't why there is war today or other terrible things going on around the world... but why there isn't more of it. I don't know how professors have colored your view of the world, but war is the norm, and that France isn't warring with Spain, Japan isn't warring with the Philippines or South Korea, or America with Canada is relatively new in the history of man. Democracies tend to go to war less with other democracies, and you have America, its military, and its' spread and enforcement of the ideal to thank for that.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Oct 2012, 2:40 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Uhh what peace? you mean all the various wars and other terrible things going on around the world?


1. bad things are happening, indeed, but much worse could happen.

Really? I don't think I ever would have guessed.

2. there has never been peace on earth in modern times. And if you think it is bad now, contemplate The Hundred Years war and the Thirty Years War. Our wars, dreadful as they may be are generally concluded in under ten years.


When did I claim there was? Also how does worse wars in the past make it 'good' now? I just said what peace? there isn't really much of that so how is the U.S keeping the peace if there isn't any.


_________________
We won't go back.