Conservatives

[DiveCon]

spoken like a true idiot

Moron, you expose your vast economic ignorance for us every day...do you really want to pretend otherwise?

i dont expect an asshole like you to ever understand

 

[Agnapostate]

i dont expect an asshole like you to ever understand

*yawn*

 

[DiveCon]

i dont expect an asshole like you to ever understand

*yawn*

that feeling is mutual, asshole

 

[Agnapostate]

that feeling is mutual, asshole

Actually, no, you don't feel the discontent at seeing widespread economic ignorance that I do.

 

[Paulie]

Agna you're right that a lot of people tend to be confused about exactly how a specific socialist system is utilized by a state, myself included sometimes when I make sweeping generalizations. But you're not going to get very far arguing those kinds of semantics with conservatives. Most of us don't agree with ANY kind of socialism, whether its state-controlled, or private collectivist communes.

 

[DiveCon]

Agna you're right that a lot of people tend to be confused about exactly how a specific socialist system is utilized by a state, myself included sometimes when I make sweeping generalizations. But you're not going to get very far arguing those kinds of semantics with conservatives. Most of us don't agree with ANY kind of socialism, whether its state-controlled, or private collectivist communes.

thats why agna is a fucking idiot
hes young and thinks he knows everything
he has a lot of growing up to do

 

[Agnapostate]

Agna you're right that a lot of people tend to be confused about exactly how a specific socialist system is utilized by a state, myself included sometimes when I make sweeping generalizations. But you're not going to get very far arguing those kinds of semantics with conservatives. Most of us don't agree with ANY kind of socialism, whether its state-controlled, or private collectivist communes.

Of course, but a good deal of that is dependent on ignorance of what socialism entails, such as, for instance, your misidentification of state capitalism as "socialism" and your conflation of collectivism and communism, as well as your odd reference to privatization. We could also refer to a previously inaccurate assertion that a socialist economy lacks incentive. In reality, socialism merely ensures that wage norms are adjusted to adequately reflect supply and demand criteria. That isn't a possibility in a capitalist economy due to a prevalence of asymmetric information, which is the basis behind payment of efficiency wages above market clearing prices.

thats why agna is a fucking idiot
hes young and thinks he knows everything
he has a lot of growing up to do

All right, you've worn my patience thin enough. Let's conduct a little test of your economic knowledge, buddy! I've posed this one to a few ever anti-socialists as a test of their knowledge...and lo and behold, the results were not especially...substantive.

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

 

[GHook93]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

This is utter and senseless liberal communist propaganda! Nothing more!

 

[Agnapostate]

This is utter and senseless liberal communist propaganda! Nothing more!

And I thought my eyes couldn't burn any worse...

 

[Paulie]

Agna you're right that a lot of people tend to be confused about exactly how a specific socialist system is utilized by a state, myself included sometimes when I make sweeping generalizations. But you're not going to get very far arguing those kinds of semantics with conservatives. Most of us don't agree with ANY kind of socialism, whether its state-controlled, or private collectivist communes.

Of course, but a good deal of that is dependent on ignorance of what socialism entails, such as, for instance, your misidentification of state capitalism as "socialism" and your conflation of collectivism and communism, as well as your odd reference to privatization. We could also refer to a previously inaccurate assertion that a socialist economy lacks incentive. In reality, socialism merely ensures that wage norms are adjusted to adequately reflect supply and demand criteria. That isn't a possibility in a capitalist economy due to a prevalence of asymmetric information, which is the basis behind payment of efficiency wages above market clearing prices.

I made no reference to privatization. The word private was simply meant as seperate from the state government. You read too far into it to try and "catch" me on something that wasn't there. You have a habit of knee jerk reactions to try and convey how well read you are on a subject, at the expense of someone else. Maybe it's an ego thing, who knows. I appreciate that you read and learn, but it's not necessary to throw it in every single person's face that you have dialogue with. That act gets tired after a while, dude. Your reading material isn't the only game in town, you know.

And what is this "your misidentification of state capitalism as socialism" crap? You'll have to provide me with some kind of source of my "misidentification" before I can discuss that with you, because I'm at a loss for understanding where you're getting that from. Perhaps it's something you YOURSELF were confused about?

 

[DiveCon]

thats why agna is a fucking idiot
hes young and thinks he knows everything
he has a lot of growing up to do

All right, you've worn my patience thin enough. Let's conduct a little test of your economic knowledge, buddy! I've posed this one to a few ever anti-socialists as a test of their knowledge...and lo and behold, the results were not especially...substantive.

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of "impossibility") economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

soirry, i'm not interested in playing your little games

 

[Sinatra]

The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?[/url]

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

And how would this rate change if we made taxes more "equitible"? The rich instead of supporting a fire dept. or police dept. for all ... would instead have private guards and armies surrounding their estates to protect themselves from the unwashed masses with private hospitals,schools and their own malls. They would still be spending as much ... but you would not get any benefit ... you would be left to your own devices.

I don't know which of us is more at blame for the misunderstanding, but I'll take the blame and try to articulate better: I didn't make any claim that there should be a more "equitable" tax rate.

That is not the point of my post.

The question I posed is "what is fair?" As a conservative, I believe that data should inform policy, so I have tried to provide accurate data. The rich pay a higher % of taxes than they make as earned income. And the per centage actually increased as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Well, you failed miserably! CON$ervative "data" is always deliberately deceptive. Earned income does not include unrealized capital gains so the income of the wealthy is deliberately underestimated. Also your data doesn't include regressive taxes like payroll taxes so the tax burden of the wealthy is deliberately overestimated. Wage earners do pay a greater % of their income than they earn as wages, but the "rich" don't earn the bulk of their their income as wages, so the "rich" don't pay a higher % of taxes than the wealth they accumulate each year. Get it???

The top 50% of income earners pay almost all of the taxes.

But the top 50% of wage earners are not the top 50% of capital wealth. The top 50% of wealth pay almost no taxes of any kind, income, payroll, inheritance, etc.
Is it fair that the people who benefit the most from the government protecting their right to private ownership of capital assets pay the least for that protection???

I love your lectures...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EviVliwAzk&feature=related]YouTube - Stoned Teacher (Very Funny)[/ame]

 

[Agnapostate]

I made no reference to privatization. The word private was simply meant as seperate from the state government.

That's a poor definition based on a misunderstanding of the relevant political economy. Public ownership can manifest itself separately from centralization.

You read too far into it to try and "catch" me on something that wasn't there. You have a habit of knee jerk reactions to try and convey how well read you are on a subject, at the expense of someone else. Maybe it's an ego thing, who knows. I appreciate that you read and learn, but it's not necessary to throw it in every single person's face that you have dialogue with. That act gets tired after a while, dude. Your reading material isn't the only game in town, you know.

Well, my "material," as you call it, is effectively based on empirical evidence, as opposed to the "indisputable axioms" touted by a certain heterodox school of marginal importance. If anything, I give some people here too much credit in assuming that they'll be able to address what I consider to be fairly elementary issues...I've come to realize that few of the rightists here even understand the nature of "monopsony power" or "dynamic comparative advantage," and I wasn't using formal economic terminology in an attempt to be obfuscatory.

And what is this "your misidentification of state capitalism as socialism" crap? You'll have to provide me with some kind of source of my "misidentification" before I can discuss that with you, because I'm at a loss for understanding where you're getting that from. Perhaps it's something you YOURSELF were confused about?

For instance, misidentification of Soviet state capitalism and the economic practices of similarly authoritarian regimes as "socialism." Such practices were state capitalist inasmuch as legitimate ownership (managerial control, effectively), was consolidated in the hands of a party elite rather than networks or federations of decentralized soviets. An examination of the history of the USSR will reveal a deep hostility to socialism on the part of the Bolsheviks and their descendants. For instance, you might consider the Red Army's brutal repression of the Kronstadt Rebellion or the betrayal of Nestor Makhno and the Black Army. Such a system of state capitalism is not "socialist" in any legitimate sense of the word.

 

[Agnapostate]

soirry, i'm not interested in playing your little games

Is that so? Not interested in presenting your superior economic knowledge?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

You used a source that refuted your own point by referring to a "reduction in gaps."

Obviously, if there are gaps, there is not equality.

 

[edthecynic]

And how would this rate change if we made taxes more "equitible"? The rich instead of supporting a fire dept. or police dept. for all ... would instead have private guards and armies surrounding their estates to protect themselves from the unwashed masses with private hospitals,schools and their own malls. They would still be spending as much ... but you would not get any benefit ... you would be left to your own devices.

Well, you failed miserably! CON$ervative "data" is always deliberately deceptive. Earned income does not include unrealized capital gains so the income of the wealthy is deliberately underestimated. Also your data doesn't include regressive taxes like payroll taxes so the tax burden of the wealthy is deliberately overestimated. Wage earners do pay a greater % of their income than they earn as wages, but the "rich" don't earn the bulk of their their income as wages, so the "rich" don't pay a higher % of taxes than the wealth they accumulate each year. Get it???

The top 50% of income earners pay almost all of the taxes.

But the top 50% of wage earners are not the top 50% of capital wealth. The top 50% of wealth pay almost no taxes of any kind, income, payroll, inheritance, etc.
Is it fair that the people who benefit the most from the government protecting their right to private ownership of capital assets pay the least for that protection???

I love your lectures...
]

You have to love them, you can't rebut them, you can only mock them.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

I guess this means that you will have to give back your GED.

Check this out: ...In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %....

Essentially, you've just tried to tell someone who was in Chicago on Wednesday, flew to LA on Thursday, then returned to Chicago on Friday that, because she was in Chicago on Wednesday and also there Friday, she never went anywhere else.

The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Obviously, a rate of 17% a few years later represents a reduction in the unemployment rate when compared properly to the rate the year FDR took office.
Next time, try to post about some subject you actually know something about.

I don't need to comment on that line, now, do I?

I knew this would happen once they stopped teaching logic.

Where's the logic in your attacking me because you used publicly available information incorrectly?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

Of course your attempted point is not supported by your quote. If a Black Woman's wages go from $1.00 to $1.79, her increase in wages is a whopping 79%. Whooppee! If a White male's incomes rises from $1,000,000.00 to $1,090,000.00 his gain in income is only 9%. Poor disadvantaged white male! How come nobody loves him. Boo hoo - better give him another 8 figure bonus so he doesn't go home sad and mournful.

Without specific figures you are merely blowing very smelly smoke out of your sphincter. Kudos to the WSJ for helping you in your self-deception! You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here.

Ah, among many weaknesses, you have exposed the inability to separate mathematics from politics.

Certainly the post proves my point, as indicated by the anger you evince.

As a Conservative, I believe that data should inform policy. As a liberal you need instant gratification, and results.

Imagine what you would say if the data showed the opposite case, as a drop in the income of the indicated groups.

Let's try a tutorial:
Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society. Liberals like nothing better than making the good the enemy of the perfect. And, of course, you are a case in point.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century. And while mouthing the demand for equality for the poor among us, you liberals eschew charity, and, while earning more than Conservatives, give far less to the poor.

The article in question shows data that proves that the system works.

And your "You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here" is a transparent escape-clause so that you can skulk away, tail between you legs, when you read this post.

Wise up.

You can't just insist that you're correct after having been proved wrong.

The onus is now on you to either disprove the evidence that you are wrong or find other proof that your point is correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't need to comment on that line, now, do I?

I knew this would happen once they stopped teaching logic.

Where's the logic in your attacking me because you used publicly available information incorrectly?

OK, let's try again. Unemployment was 17.4% under Hoover. It was called the Great Depression. With me so far?

FDR instituted huge publicly funded programs, such that we would call a Stimulus Plan today. He increased the government's portion of GDP from 2 % to 9 %. He increased it by 360%! The result: no perceptible improvement: unemployment, seven years later, was - guess what- 17.4%.

There is no import to the point that it grew to 24% while he was was "correcting" the unemployment."

Does unemployment represent an important factor in deciding if the New Deal was effective? Let FDR decide:
March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Get it?

I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

 

[Agnapostate]

Another day, another inaccurate conception of the New Deal as "Keynesian"...or worse, "socialist."