Bitcoin Forum

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44142272

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," the 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway [BRK.A  108789.00    1189.00  (+1.11%)   ] said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.

"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income—and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent, and averaged 36 percent," he said.

Conservatives / Libertarians jumping in to repudiate the words of someone 10000 times richer than them in 3...2...1  ::)

LOL  Can't wait.

Buffett is a good guy that's not afraid to tell it like it is.  He may be extremely rich, but he hasn't let it get to his head and he's remained an advocate of NOT raping the middle class to give welfare to the rich.

I'm against welfare for the rich and poor alike. Here's a novel idea. Live off of what you can earn through free trade or receive through charity. No wait, that would require whining parasites to actually fend for themselves. We can't have any personal responsibility. If you want to give your money away then have at it but just because you have some wild hare up your ass doesn't mean you speak for everyone else.

There are more holes in that article than there are in the tax code.  But it really shouldn't come as any surprise that Forbes would be quick to condemn someone of Buffett's stature speaking ill of our current rich-favoring tax code - someone might actually... *gasp!* ...believe him.

Because there isn't a corporation in the country that actually pays the full corporate tax, some even end up with tax CREDITS.  There are so many loopholes in corporate tax that that rate is a useless number.

Even if we pretend that the corporate tax rates are worth the paper they're printed on, the fact that the corporation's profits are taxed before they distribute dividends doesn't mean a goddamn thing for the taxes Buffett pays on his income.  The corporation is its own entity, it needs to pay taxes just like everyone else.  Taxing the corporation on its profits and then taxing shareholders for their income from dividends is NOT double taxation.

That's a highly illogical argument.  There's no reason for him to give money away so that all can benefit while he alone foots the bill.

I don't think you understand the complexity of corporate tax structure.  There is a reason corporations have multiple divisions and organizations within them.  They usually have an intentional loss leader (like GE's GE Capital) that consistantly loses tremendous amounts of money for tax write-off purposes so that the company as a whole comes up tax neutral (or even with the government owing them money).





No, it wasn't.  The COMPANY'S money was already taxed, not my money.  The company is a separate entity.  Shareholders are partial owners of the company, but the company is its own being.  The company pays its taxes and the individual owner must pay his own taxes.  That's not double taxation, that's everyone paying their taxes.

I'm could give a shit about marginal tax rates. I'm not after a little bit of wealth redistribution.
I'm interested in overturning a whole system where one person can be worth as much as entire medium size countries.

Ad hominem fallacy.

Not really. Fallacious appeal to authority? That the phrase you're trying for?


Oh, who gives a fuck what you think, I'm just popping in to say that the more you post on this forum the fewer non-crazy customers you'll get. Just FYI. Enjoy being marginalized.

It's pretty funny how the people on here who think of capitalism as some kind of God-like force that can do no wrong are also the ones who are so bad at business that they see no problem running around calling potential customers "whining parasites". The advertisement for his service in his sig is like some kind of perfect punchline on the end of every post.

Hah, indeed... except replace "funny" with "sad" and I can fully agree with you.

At any rate... kids these days. Sheesh.

Warren Buffet is not rich by being nice to people like you and me.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/stop-coddling-warren-buffett


Im sure Warren Buffet will thank you for voting politicians that make him rich.

Were you going to inherit a large company but can't because of tax? If like most of us you were not then you benefit from today's system in exactly the same way he does, he has just been much better at seeing the opportunities. When he dies a lot of his wealth be up for grabs again for anyone else with enough brains to take advantage of it.

No. Both my parents work for the government.

But you and I are being hurt by those actions even when we wont inherit a company, because it produces a concentration of wealth in fewer hands and reduces competition.

One thing is being clever by respecting and profiting from benefiting your fellow citizens. Its very different profitting from imposing rules by force onto your fellow citizens. The first helps human progress, the later destroys society and hurts the people.

You are the first person I've seen who claims that a system which favors heredity over merit reduces the concentration of wealth. Interesting theory...

I did not claim such a thing. Try again (and if you want an honest debate, stop the trolling attitude).

I just found it interesting when W. B. turned this new leaf as some kind of consumer advocate and adviser to the POTUS soon after the Madoff revelation. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.

New leaf? Dude's been saying this stuff for years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Not directly, but it is the implication of you statement unless you live in some alternative world where people just stop accumulating wealth when they're "rich enough" (by whatever your standards may be).

In a related story, Dick Cheney suggests poor people eat cake in an effort to address the bread shortage.

Neither indirectly or directly. If you keep reading I wrote:

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

He is not being insulting, he is just stating the truth. We can't have a society with no rules because it just doesn't work and it's been proven time and time again. I put these threads up so that people can see that we really are a diverse community with varying opinions and we aren't just stuck to listening to one view and one ideology. Here is something that might fit your view, though I doubt you'll be invited ;).

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

Nobody has ever advocated this. If anything, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding in what we wish to achieve.

In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through a system that effectively addresses all individual desires and that is -- unremorsefully -- free market capitalism.

Im really fed up with the empty rethoric. Have you ever trying saying something?


Nobody has proposed a society with no rules.

etc... you guys keep repeating talking points, using empty rethoric and isulting people. Lets see where it gets you.


And btw, congratullations on completely derailing the thread with stupid rethoric. You seem incapable of being rational.

He thinks he's higher than us. He believes he can make it just on a supposed moral high ground along with his supporting few.

Which is why you'll keep getting called delusional by non-delusional people.

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

"In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through having a system that can effectively addresses all individual desires."

Is the problem that YOUR candidate won't win? I assume you are a Ron Paul guy or for some other non main-stream candidate. If your picks never win it's not because there is some conspiracy against your ideology, or everyone is just too stupid to care. It's simply because not enough people think that your Ideology is best for the entire country, becuase Atlas you have to step back for a second and understand that not everyone thinks like you do.

You are advocating "effective order established by many" yet you continue to rally for restrictions imposed by few through literal economic terrorism. Ron Paul is WRONG when he thinks he can take the entire country back to the gold standard without having any negative effects on the entire economy. Ron Paul is WRONG when he says he can cut all social programs and people will be able to find their own way, Ron Paul is not only wrong but is irresponsible when he says that we don't need to enforce revenues on rich people and that we should let the free market manage itself.  I cannot believe that some people think these are good ideas. I honestly feel like I am wasting my time even debating these ideas which is why the Mainstream Media ignores him and all his supporters. Don't get me wrong I like some of Dr. Pauls ideas alot, but some are just so off base, and so wrong I don't even know where to start.

You fight for rich people every single day Atlas by fighting for policy's that have no chance of ever making it to law, so you turn the debate so far to the right, that all of a sudden "Right" is the new middle. Being blind to ideology is just as bad as fighting for the rich.

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.


Most people don't think. They have a free vote that is worth nothing. They can mandate and admonish whoever they wish because most people have no stake in our democracy. That's one of the main issues. A true democracy is not one of free votes. Such is slavery.

In a nutshell, you think it is wrong for a man to be entitled to his property and his own life when most organisms on this planet sustain on the concept of property. I think it is WRONG to deny man his birth right. I think it is wrong for man to be admonished by the whims who do not contribute nor having nothing at stake by their vote.


Look in the mirror.

So your solution is to give all the power over to the corporations directly, saving them the effort of proxying it through a government.

Yea that'll work perfectly!





A republic is a form of democracy, brosef.  Educate yourself.

The only one fighting for rich people like Warren Buffet is you. Progressivism is just corporatism with a nice smile.

But let me use a language you will understand: You are delusional, you dont see the truth, ary ary, blablabla... Better that way?

For the hundred-thousandth time, powerful corporations are nothing without the government. They are no longer persons but held liable by the very people that run them. They will no longer have an exclusive access to force. You ignore this fact.

hahahahahahahahahha *deep breath* hahahahahhhahahha


I guess that's why powerful corporations consistanty lobby for less government and are the backers of the movements like the Teabaggers.  They must just want to destroy themselves.

The thing is they don't. All the pharmaceutical corporations made sure Obamacare was passed. The companies that vouch for the Tea Party today are still for corporate welfare. The Tea Party in its current is very much for corporatism. If you look at the true principles The Tea Party once stood for, the lobbyists have nothing for it.

Look at Ron Paul, the founder, he doesn't have a single corporate sponsor. Big media doesn't even want anything to do with him. He's a threat to big companies.

The truth hurts

Warren Buffet pays 17% and he's the third richest person in the world. I am pretty sure Bill Gates isn't to far away from that number either.

How can you guys possibly think this is ok? What is wrong with you?

In Germany for example the top income bracket pays 56% with the average paying 29%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

We are the lowest taxed industrialized country on Earth and you guys are still fighting for less even though 46% of the population in America already pays 0 income tax.

How can you think it is okay that you pay 20% in taxes and fictional persons called corporations (that have the most income) pay less than 2%? Why are we not concerned about a government that only engineers a regime that creates bigger and more coercive companies? We're worried about the wrong thing. It's all a distraction.

Let me help you out here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


If there's voting going on, it's a democracy.  A republic is a subset of democracy in which the populace elects (that's the democratic part) politicians to represent them.

And what's funny is that these same people want to return to the "good old days" when the country was growing strong because there were no taxes on the rich... oh wait..

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PbxCaWvtgw/TWK_kYU-scI/AAAAAAAABL8/jxtCLs46_1U/s1600/Top+marginal+rate.jpg

More rethoric. Are you capable of using a rational argument?


If you really believe this you are even more naive than you seem.


Who says we are ok with it? You progressives are guilty of this situation.


And in the USA corporations pay higher tax rate than in Germany. If you like Germany I guess you support lowering taxes for corporations in the USA right? Or this Germany things is just another of your stupid talking points?


The USA has the highest corporate rate in the industrialized world. Germany and all the northen european countries have lower corporate rates. Is that the model you are defending?

There was a time in this country where there wasn't a federally mandated income tax. Those were the good old days we refer to and it worked out well considering the federal programs we have today are pure waste.

Do you ever find it ironic that YOU are the one that goes around and responds with flip one liners and never cites or backs up anything that you say?

Im still waiting yo respond at any point on keynesian economics. When the discussion got serious and just a bit technical you chicken out and disappeared.

They were republics... which is a form of representative democracy.  ::)

I can only take so many flip one liners.  I tire of your rhetoric and shit rather quickly.

We need to close all tax loopholes, we need to raise corporate tax rates, we need to reform the entire tax code, and we need to implement a progressive tax system that is structured to peoples current economic status, we need to get rid of all Bush era tax cuts. Of course there are huge problems right now with the current tax law, but what you have to understand is that we don't need to go back to the gold standard to fix these problems! You have President Obama who wants all these reforms, but there is another faction in this country who wants to see him fail no matter what the price is. And guess what Atlas? People like you who facilitate this weird fantasy world where economic collapse is imminent only make that vision more true by your dismissal to see the true reality today. While you are right that corporations rig this game, you are wrong in thinking that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing...

I don't know what the hell you're rambling about, but you are a LIAR.

THE UNITED STATES CORPORATE RATE IS 2'ND TO LOWEST IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE MANY LOOPHOLES.
http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/freeloaders-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-among-the-lowest-in-the-world/14623
http://i.bnet.com/blogs/corptaxchart1.png

Learn your facts please, everything else you said was completely useless and irrelevant if you just begin your tirade with LIES.

That isn't actually the tax rate, that's a representation of the taxes paid.  The US does have one of the highest corporate tax rates, but there are so many loopholes that we have nearly the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world (which is what that chart shows).

Your point still stands - idiots going around jabbering about the highest corporate tax rate in the world are either being dishonest or have no idea what they're talking about.

I said corporate tax rate. Then you change it to corporate tax rate income to GDP and call me a lier. You corporatists are just incredible.

Ayeyo, I gave you a full critique of keynesian economics and you completely chicken out and disaperared.

Can we please stay on topic ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Democracy

The corporate tax rate means nothing if no one actually pays it.




Yea, your 250 word dissertation that completely debunked Keynesian economics.  I wonder why I didn't bother responding...

You imply sir that our corporations are heavily taxed which is far from the truth. Regardless of the specifics, the fact of the matter is they are getting away without paying trillions while the middle class suffers with deeper and deeper spending cuts. You advocate for their tax cuts/loopholes.

If Democrats and Republicans weren't the same, then why do they have the same supporters?

http://oi55.tinypic.com/rrrw2a.jpg

This shows that they are heavily under-taxed...

You are spinning the graph, when the issues are so obviously in front of us.

I think we would be better off lowering individual tax rates to the same amount corporations currently pay. It will level the playing field and encourage a more diverse set of small businesses.

...but it won't happen. It's all rigged, gentlemen. There will never be change from within. We need a revolution.

Yea, it's obviously impossible to make corporations pay their fair share.  That's why the US and it's piddle corporate taxes were right at the top of the chart... oh wait...

It is customary for the biggest company's to donate to all the candidates. Mostly they do it for publicity to show that they care about the American system. The difference is that Democrats get the majority of their money from individuals and non profit organizations, and Republicans get most of their money from wealthy beneficiaries like the Koch Brothers and other corporatist.

So it's theft to help your own country now huh?

God Obama is going to win so bad in 2012... You guys are just giving this election away lol.

...and allow me to mention that over 95% of Ron Paul's contributions come from the American people.

Ron Paul 2012

Is it really helping your best friend when you give him money to feed himself and he spends 90% of it on weed? Because that's what it's like to give money to the government. Most of it is wasted on bureaucracy.

I said what I said, and it was correct. You call me a lier for it. You can now claim to read my mind and pretend I was implying whatever you want.

You dont even know my political positions but it has not stopped accusing me of a bunch of stuff. Regarding what you are saying, its the fault of progressives. You justify the polticians having more control and produce the corporate system we have now where corporations fight and lobby politicians for tax regulations (f.e. Warren Buffet) while diluted people play their game and ever cheer them.


You corporatists will justify anything.

Then what were you implying?  Were you not implying that corporations are too heavily taxed?  What point were you making with your statement?

Your gross generalization of anyone who is receiving help is disturbing.

Is this how you really look at other people who are taking help from the government right now to survive?

The person who you know has her own problems to deal with and her free ride will be over with time. However, how can you relate Warren Buffet only paying 17% in taxes to your (I assume poor) free loading friend who probably barley has enough to feed her kids she has now.

How is it that you can justify in your mind giving Billionaires like Buffet huge tax cuts while normal people (like your friend) have to justify having another kid just to make rent with the welfare check...

It's an amazing time we are living in people...

What's your yearly income?

My service is targeted towards libertarians and anarchists. You're still welcome to use my service if you change your mind but I really won't miss you if you don't.

Because I want to know if you are actually paying your fair share or whether you're a moocher just like your sister.  The people that spend the most time railing against the welfare "parasites" typically aren't making enough income to actually be paying their fair share either.  Just because you pay a few bucks in taxes every year doesn't mean you're actually covering the costs of the services provided to you.  It'd be a bit hypocritical of you to condemn moochers while mooching yourself, don't you think?

Just FYI, at last calculation (government budget amount / number of adult citizens = "fair share"), the break-even income point for paying your fair share was ~$150,000/year.  Everyone that makes less than that amount is being subsidized by everyone that makes more than that amount.  I'll take 1,000:1 odds on you making WAY less than that amount, thus making you a mooch as well.

The welfare queens are nothing compared to corporate bailouts. There's bigger fish to fry.

[citation needed]

And obviously you're going to fry these fish by handing them the pan and hopping in it.

I already told you how to compute it.  I guess you aren't capable of grade school math.

US budget 2010: $3.55 tril
US adult population: ~228,182,000

The US unemployment rate in 2010 averaged about 9.75%, so let's get rid of those people... that gives us 207,910,706 taxpayers.

$3.55 tril / 207,910,706 tax payers = ~$17,075 per year, per person

How much would you have to earn to pay $17,075 to the federal government in taxes?  Let's use our handy dandy US tax calculator.




http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Using 2010 figures because that's what year the budget was for, we can plug in some numbers and see what we get...


vipermoron probably makes well under $150,000/year.  Let's say he makes $30,000/year.

Damn, that's only $3,903/year.  Guess he's going to have to step his game up to not be a moocher.


Looks like $90,000/year will put him just over the break-even at $17,348.  Obviously that's with NO write offs, including kids (~22% of American couples have children, most more than one).  Do the math to factor in all the write offs and you'll be just shy of $150,000/year using up to date numbers.  I'll let you do that part yourself.



Cliffs: viperidiot is a mooch

Therein lies your problem.  You think that the government has to be sending you a check in order for you to be receiving a benefit.  Unfortuantely that's not how it works.

I've posted this before, but I think you'll benefit greatly from it.

That says absolutely nothing about how much I actually use. I really don't need or want social security, medicaid, foreign wars, etc, etc. Your numbers are worthless just like the posts you make.

3)  I don't buy cable television, or satellite or broadcast, I do listen to the radio so I'll give you partial credit.

This is your biggest problem here. You have no Cable so your stuck at home listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all day so you get this serious distaste for anything Liberal/Progressive. You can't point to why your ideology is superior.

I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense. Other than that, you can do whatever you want. Everything else is immoral.

So you're starting off with a subset of a niche market (bitcoins, people who want to buy them with cash and trust some random guy to send money through the mail), but you're going even further by declaring you only want a subset of a subset of a niche? I don't know why I ever complained. This business plan is brilliant, and you're sure to have upwards of five or six customers in no time.


And if you don't keep your hands off other people, get ready to feel the wrath of a completely powerless government with absolutely no ability to punish you!

I still can't get over that argument and how central it is to the beliefs of people like you. It's like this weird fantasy world where the businessman can do no wrong and if he does do wrong, it was totally the government's fault somehow. Every damn time. Regulations made him do it! Limited liability made him do it! That's the best one because it makes some amount of sense, but the proposed solution to that problem is an environment with no way to hold anyone with any power liable for anything.

It's a broken, ridiculous ideology because it goes way too far in assuming the average person is rational and will work with the benefit of mankind always in mind. And for every historical example of people clearly not ever doing that, there's always a government to blame somehow, right?

Ironically, the people who believe this stuff are so blinded by their ideology that they don't see how irrational it is to believe that most people are rational. I mean goddamn, the evidence is all around you.

Such a freaking hypocrite, yes I called Warren Buffett a hypocrite. Why?

Sure he, Gates and others who are sitting on Billions can afford more tax however most of the super rich have offshored their wealth and any tax increases on the millionaire crowd is not a tax on the Buffett's and Gates' type but a tax on those working the hardest and likely generating most of the income tax the Feds take from the various millionaires.

You've got the super rich Hollywood types like Depp who backend their deals with the studios so they are paid directly from foreign accounts into foreign accounts thus never pay income tax on those earnings. Much of their earnings come from royality checks from the distributor of the film, the DVD, the merchandise, etc and the Disti in the EU doesn't send a check to Depp's bank in California it goes right into an account probably in Ireland then who knows. You think these guys just move to some island because they like the weather?

Then you have the Gates and Buffetts who earn tons strictly from investment earnings and yes it is taxed at the lower 15% but I am willing to bet Bill Gates long ago moved as much as he could into foreign exchanges which deposit into foreign banks, not the local bank down the road in Redmond. Buffett has stated in the past he has accounts all over the world, as long as that money doesn't come home he isn't going to get hit with some major tax increase that hurts.

Who does it hurt? It hurts those high tech Silicon Valley types that are doing pretty well in Bubble 2.0. It hurts the family who worked their ass off from the 50's onward and were smart enough to invest in say an Apple or Microsoft in the 1980's. It hurts the owner/operator of lumber operations in the Pacific Northwest that if and when they can get the freaking Forest Service out of their way can actually cut down some trees and not only employ dozens but also buy big ticket items like skidders. These and others that are "millionaires" work for a freaking living, when they can work.

So sure let's tax the super rich and let's start right in D.C. by stopping ALL subsidies to ALL industry. No more corn, sugar, oil tax credits which in the case of corn is killing us and in the case of sugar killed south Florida's wetlands. I don't think anyone would stick up for oil companies at this point I hope. Ok next let's go after the military complex with it's $350 MILLION per F-22 or the $350 BILLION spent on a handful of F-35's both of which are now grounded. Am I saying we don't need a defense, hell no, but come on we have all heard the stories of $300 hammers and know full well once a Gov't contract goes out these guys soak it for all it's worth and make sure no Senator would kill it by putting production facilities in as many states as possible. Then we have the Navy with it's fleet of 11 Aircraft Carriers and two more being built at projected cost of $8 Billion each, yeah right that will hold, USS George Bush ran over $6 Billion and that was in 2001. Don't forget deploying sailors on all those ships cost over a Billion per Carrier per year and that's not counting the pilots or deployment cost such as fuel and food!

While staying in D.C. let's look at other fraud and abuse. Who thinks we need another entire military force deployed inside the US? WEll maybe we can get rid of or put major caps on TSA employment. Do we need Federal workers with Federal benefits standing around picking their nose or maybe we could deploy skilled managers to oversee outsourced security? Then we have the ATF, FBI, Federal Marshals, Forest Service, Park Rangers, Customs Agents, and the list goes on and on, all Federal Dorks with Badges and Guns. Could we maybe cut some of that spending out or do we need billion dollar FBI Agents storming a house in south Florida to return some kid to Cuba?

Finally to the sacred cow, Social Services. If you do not think there is huge fraud in Medicare, Medicaid then dudes just turn on the TV. While Dr's actually do get screwed with reduced billing you have an outfit on TV being so bold to say upfront, "you lazy Americans don't need to walk, get a powered wheelchair and we guarantee Medicare will cover it!" Do you know why that outfit shows you using your new scooter indoors and how easy it can move around the house? It's because you only have to have some quack say you need it to move around the house and TADA guess who picks up that bill? Yes sure some need these devices but come on people. If they are as bold as to advertise on TV do you have a clue what is going on behind closed doors? I won't even go into the hundreds of various social programs that do nothing but spend money. From food stamps abuse to Gov't provided Cell Phones these programs are so various, deep and entrenched nobody in D.C. is even willing to start looking at the waste for fear they will tick off some voting group.

So sure let's tax the rich more because the super rich certainly won't figure out how to not pay while in the meantime we continue sending trillions right out the front door with no accounting.

Newsflash: I'm not doing this to get wealthy. Bitcoin is free market money. I'm here to support that. I'm also covering my costs so I'm satisfied with that. I'm sure you're one of those ignorant morons that thinks "free market equals selfishness" but charity and activism are part of the free market.



Herp derp!

More like, get ready to feel the wrath of my shotgun or if I don't catch you, my private security firm will. Most people on this planet understand that theft is wrong when it comes to one-on-one interactions. It's only when they are fooled into thinking of themselves as worker ants, bees or cogs in this great machine called "society" that they abandon simple ideas such as "keep your hands to yourself". No, no, let's rob each other in order to protect ourselves from robbery!


All you have to understand is that free trades, i.e. trades where I don't say "accept or I'll kill you" are beneficial. Why? Let's say that I want to trade my watch for your sandwich. If we both accept the trade then necessarily, I must want your sandwich more than my watch, and necessarily, you must want my watch more than your sandwich, after the trade, we both end up with something we want more. Otherwise, why the fuck would either of us agree to the trade?! It's pretty damned simple. All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place. Convince me that's incorrect and I'll submit to whatever dumbfuck collectivist ideology you support.

Ah yes, and if you can't afford a private security firm? Even better, if you can't afford one and the guy who wants to rob you can? Taken to its logical extent, we'd have companies with full mercenary armies going to war with each other all the time.


Is that really what you think? If that's the case, why are so many of our greatest criminals not the cogs or worker bees, but rather the people who run the machine? And how would any of this be different under libertarianism anyway? You still have workers, you still have a society.


Mutually beneficial doesn't mean fair or moral or non-coercive. If I'm dying of thirst in the desert and you sell me a glass of water for $10 million, I guess you could say that's beneficial for me in that I get to stay alive, but it doesn't mean you didn't just rip me off.

It also ignores the fact that what may seem beneficial at the outset to one party may be just the opposite in reality. But I guess that's the fault of the person who got screwed, right? Should have been more of a rational actor?

War costs. Peace doesn't. The companies that go to war with each other will be out-competed by the ones that don't.


It's the difference between seduction and rape.


It's not our job to enforce morality on each other with violence. We shun people that do things like that but we don't hold a gun to their head and tell them to stop. That's why we don't lock people up for cheating on their partner or calling their grandmother a cunt.


I didn't ignore it at all, that's why I specifically said "All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place." If you change your mind, decide you don't like the color, the flavor or whatever, you're goddamned right that's your fault. Next time, be more careful. As long as there was no fraud involved, it's definitely your fault.

Or, you know, they'll be seen as easy targets by the companies that do have armies and will be promptly and violently taken over. Really now. I love that the people complaining about regulations creating barriers to entry for small businesses are the same ones who are advocating for a society where those businesses will need to hire private armies to fend off bigger businesses.


What the hell? Mind elaborating on this, because I really don't see what this is supposed to mean.


Based on the history of what modern corporations have been able to get away with and face little or no outcry or boycott, we apparently don't shun people who do things like that. This also assumes that the newspapers that would have reported those misdeeds wouldn't just be a different division of the same company that comitted them. Or making ad money from them. Or anything else that gives them financial incentive to cover it up.

Hahaha, you live in a fucking bizarre fantasy world that never takes actual human nature into account. This quote is exactly the best way to describe your beliefs:

I keep asking why do you come to this community to insult people. Have you tried using reason instead of dealing with politics as black and white and insults to people?

I propose a debate about economics to FlipPro (and anyone else). You and me only, no "OMG LOL You are diluded WTF", speaking like adults, replying honestly to what the other person is saying, not cheapshots, etc...

If you accept well open a new thread and will debate.

I will debate you on all political matters and common sense social issues, but not via text. I will only do it if we can go head to head live via video with a fair moderator.

I'm serious.

edit: And yes Jeffk is a troll, even though he has valid points at times, it's important that we not forget who he is. I do admire the fact that he has kept his name even though everyone knows that he is from the SA forum, and here to just bug the hell out of people. Either way maybe he's changed but regardless he doesn't seem to like dealing with nonsense the same way I do.

Little dicks?  Ugly wives and loud children?



Kidding, kidding.  A debate would be cool.

Why not a debate through text, any specific reason?  It seems like it will be easier for people to follow a text debate.

The problem with this is that I am not american and english is not my first language. I would have problems debating you live in english. Why not do it in text? Whats the problem? You seem to have no problem writing here.

Ill let you choose the topic in economics you want to debate about.

I think it would be a much more fruitful debate if I am able to articulate my points across at a rapid fire pace, instead of the prewritten baloney you will see from typing.

This seems like a pretty good platform http://www.debateitlive.com/index.php

We are debating here now in text. :)

Make your points and I will try to take them all seriously. 

This shouldn't be a problem.  We'll just let you choose the language.  Dutch?  French?   ;)

Choose any topic on economics, the one you feel more confident, and open I will open a new thread.


Catalan and spanish.

Nice.  For some reason I thought you were Dutch or Belgian.  Now I get to practice my Spanish with you....   ;)

I don't give a half shit what you want, because we all want to pay nothing at all.  However, we're all responsible for paying for the federal budget.  If you don't want to have such high spending, get off your ass and vote in someone that won't spend as much.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH

AyeYo you are an asshole. You are the perfect example why this forum has been derailed. Its impossible to have an honest debate with assholes like you around.

How do progressives like this one pass as loving and caring human beings?

It's fairly simple. As long as the number of people that want to use aggression to achieve their goals are outnumbered by the people that don't, we'll win. If not, we're fucked no matter how society is organized.


Both seduction and rape can look exactly alike with the same results. There can be penetration, fluids exchanged, smacking around, etc but one is moral and the other is immoral. Why? Because seduction is consensual. If you and a sexual partner agree to smack each other around, I may find it obscene, perverse, whatever, but it's still voluntary so even though the observable consequences are the same, it's a very different situation. The fact that we would have we still have workers and society under libertarianism is not an issue because it will be voluntary, in the sense that it won't be perpetuated by physical aggression or fraud.


Then what's the issue? If we're not prepared to shun people like that then how can we insist we have a huge problem with it? I may hate that gas costs the current price it does but I still pay for it because considering the alternatives, I value the gas more than the dollar amount. If I had the converse evaluation, say if gas as $1,000 a gallon, I'd keep my money and buy a bike.


Newspapers are businesses just like any other. Different ones cater to different interests. If the demand for tabloid celebrity gossip is high, there will be more of those. If the demand for "just tell me what I want to hear" is high you'll get heavily biased news sources. There's nobody else to blame but ourselves. However, there are companies like Consumer Reports and if we have a high enough demand for it, they could expand or similar sources could enter the market.

Also, I noticed that you didn't respond to:


Does that mean you agree?

Most statists are immoral/idiots, otherwise they would have stopped or will soon stop being one.

A bunch of personal attacks, but no one bothers to address the contradiction of his posts.  But you think I'm the one making it impossible to have an honest debate.  ::)

+1

The good old days when there was a middle class.  The good old days when wealth was not concentrated into fewer and fewer peoples hands. 

I am not advocating huge taxes on the rich.  Just taxes that are fair, and have proven to work well for the economy. 

When middle class people have money, they spend MOST of it and this creates more economic activity.  When poor people have money, they spend ALL of it creating more economic activity.  When rich people have money, they hoard it, slowing economic activity. 

Such a simple concept but so few here seem to grasp it.

Things like 'common sense' and 'facts' mean little in any argument with posters like bitcoin2cash or Immanuel, so there is little to do besides try to get a rise out of them for shits and giggles. If they won't listen to more established and generally reasonable posters like FlipPro they won't listen to anyone.

Frankly, I love JeffK and AyeYo as much as any other human being. They might be arrogant, presumptous... Heck, I have my fair share of impatience but they often present a good argument. I appreciate their presence.

I like all of you to  ;D.

No point in hating when there is already so much hate on this planet.

This is something we should all agree on. : )

I genuinely love all of you guys. I think being human and even being on this forum is quite a trait to admire.

I want the best for them but I also think their presence on this forum adds absolutely nothing at all. They are loudmouthed douche bags and I hope they get bored with trolling soon.


I'm glad to see there is at least one statist on this forum that has some honor. I look forward to debating you without exchanging insults. I've given up on everyone else though. If I'm going to be called a libtard, etc, I plan on showing these people the same disrespect.

What is to really gain from fighting back? In the end, holding disrespect as a notable quantity is to hold reverence to living your life solely on acceptance by your peers. Hold your own ground. Your esteem should not be provisioned. Appreciate your fellow man as-is and their virtues; not by the virtues by which they respect you. You should already love yourself in the same way. Don't be irrationally selfish.

A man should be appreciated mainly on who they are. Consider the whole person before you consider what they directly give you.

Does one appreciate a painting because it caresses their ego and bids them good day? Hell no. We appreciate it because it's beautiful in its own right. Treat people like art I say because they can be that inherently valuable.

I choose to ignore the insults and the lack of value that a person may hold towards me. I will love them just the same as my greatest lover.

In summary, I love humanity so damn much. There is beauty in the darkest of corners and the greatest of thieves. Don't deny yourself the pleasure.

I'm hoping that once they see how they don't like to be constantly insulted they'll understand why they should stop. Thanks for the advice but it's unwanted and unneeded.

Fair enough.

Well, it's not directed mainly at you. Consider it a personal monologue for my own introspective purposes.

lol at pseudo philisophical post about love and happiness that still manages to make a bunch of digs at people.  ::)

Good guy.....  lol....  That's rich.....   Oh wait....  That's funny too!!!  L O L

Absolutely shocking.  ::)

Im shocked, I tell you, shocked!.

Newsmax is the only media outlet reporting this at the moment.

Regardless check this out,

http://www.e-wisdom.com/news/banking/money-market/report-record-amount-of-money-sitting-in-savings-accounts-110210026/

Everyone's hoarding there money.

Define "hoarding".  Do you simply mean "amass money or valued objects and store away", and is it bad?

Corporations are hoarding their record profits. Collectivity they have enough money to invest and bring the unemployment rate down to 5%...

That is the truth..

You know why this is happening? Yes, in the back of your mind you guess it right (even when you wont admit it ;) ): government regulations.

What that article is not telling you is that most USA corporations have big piles of cash... but outside the USA. And why they dont bring the money back to the USA and invest? Because if they want to bring the money back to the USA they have to pay a tax. Because in most cases its not worth it they keep the money outside the USA and investment does not happen.


Btw, this is a distraction of the main topic. The fact that Warren Buffet profits from rising certain taxes and that he refuses to pay others, shows how hypocrite he is and how easy the progressives can be diluded into supporting personal agendas.

Again, please define what you mean by "hoard". How is it different an saving?

So you think when over 20% of the population is out of work (counting underemployed), and everything is at the cheapest it has been in over 50 years, your advice is to SAVE?

No, my advice is to invest.  Do you think SPENDING will fix everything?  Are you going to answer the question about how you define hoarding?

That's EXACTLY what the President want's to do! The President has said tirelessly that he wants a new bill that would fund trillions in new high tech infrastructure projects. You know how many jobs could be created with just one bill of this magnitude? I will give you a brief example and peg it to this forum since it's an IT oriented community. If the President is able to get an investment bill through the Republican congress (doubtful unless we rise together), that would mean tons of brand new state of the art schools will be built. These schools will all heavily revolve around technology, and they will need tech guys like us at all levels to wire/connect/repair/diagnose these brand new schools, the will be good paying jobs for us. Our classrooms are crowded, kids are being stuffed into rooms like chickens in cages, and not only that, the schools are crumbling right underneath them. This is just one sector of the economy that an investment bill would positively affect. But we need to be realistic, the money isn't going to fall from the sky, and we can't keep cutting till there's no social security or medicare left.  There needs to be progressive change, but Republicans won't allow it, and people like you facilitate them by being completely unrealistic to the situations around us.

We need to close tax loop wholes for corporations. That alone will solve massive problems.

But Republicans? They won't even accept 10-1 cuts to revenue increases.

http://soullfire.xanga.com/754006530/republican-prez-candidates-reject-101-spending-cuts-to-tax-increase-ratio/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc&feature=player_embedded

You are talking about spending not investing.  Remember, if we are to believe Keynes: saving = investment.  It's in his little equation thing on page 29 of General Theory.  If you're not a Keynsian, that's fine.  I think most economists would agree with this, even the Austrians.

Creating jobs is very easy to do, any fool with a few trillions of dollars can employ massive amounts of people (I'm not calling Obama a fool).  But where does the money come from?  We're 14 trillion dollars in debt with 61 trillion in unfunded liabilities, how can you seriously think that massive amounts of more spending is going to fix things?  Isn't this what we have been doing for the past few decades?  Or is simply a matter of spending "in the right places"?

What needs to happen is to actually grow the economy.  This won't happen by moving money from one part of the economy to another and assuming that more government spending will magically fix things, but by saving capital so entrepreneurs can have money to start new businesses that will then employ and grow the economy.  We need less consumer debt and more business debt.  

Also, at this point am I to assume you have no idea what "hoarding" means and are just using the word because it creates FUD validating your position?  I'm not trying to be harsh, but I've asked you politely three times to define this term you are using because I am genuinely trying to understand your concern.  If you can't or won't that's your prerogative but at least answer me.

Edit: P.S. If you respond to this I may not get a chance to reply for a few days as I will be out of town.  Don't think it's because I got scared off.  ;)

This is what your typical economist believes, or more accurately, is his only solution to prosperity, although it is flawed at the most fundamental level.

+1
Eternal growth is simply not compatible with sustainable development.
Only bankers need indefinite growth because without it interest rates would eat up all available capital.

This is a fallacy on how you understand growth (growth can be consuming less resources) and in what you say about interest rates (you dont need growth to return interest rates, its just the present system that produces that effect).

Feel free to cite some white papers which demonstrate a well thought out economic model illustrating your beliefs. In the mean time, I'll point you here: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

I dont discuss with trolls, AyeYo.

That's the third time you've accused me of being AyeYo, despite being corrected on your delusion each time. And you usually throw in an insult along the way, such as using the term troll. That makes you one of the biggest trolls that ever slumbered through this forum, and a hypocrite to boot.

I cited an article related to your claim about growth. I in turn requested the same from you.

lol

So I should have said "develop" the economy.  Is this where jgraham shows up and begins to spew autistic arguments on semantics?

Let's not argue semantics. The point of my post is to demonstrate that conventional economic theory uses a mathematical model that does not account for the limitations as dictated by physics, ecology, etc.

Fair enough.  This is a valid point.  I'll add it to my list of topics to research.

Excellent. Keywords are "Steady state economics" and "Ecological economics".

Now you will explain what you mean by hoarding? Or will you change the subject again?

I don't mean anything by hoarding, as I never mentioned it or referenced it, nor do I have much interest in discussing it. Sorry.

Sorry. I confused you with FlipPro as you jumped in right where he left off.