Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#202 Oct 25 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Well, I should have probably specified studies that are actually concerned with the way things actually work, not their own theories that fail to be supported by any evidence from the actual economy.


But you define the former to be those which agree with you and the latter to be those which disagree.


No, he defines those as the ones that actually talk about what is happening, vs ones concerned about what David Ricardo predicted would happen
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#203 Oct 25 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
NEWSFLASH - it is not the 18th century anymore - and even Adam Smith believed that unequal wealth distribution is an economic problem not an economic goal
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#204 Oct 25 2011 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Honest question gbaji, what purpose would linking an actual source do in a discussion with you? You never admit your errors even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. It's hardly worth investing the effort.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#205 Oct 25 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
6,425 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Except that your arguments are never grounded in any kind of reliable information.

And it's not hard at all to understand why it's absurd.

What stimulates the economy? Spending. Who are the main purchasers of commodities? The lower two classes. How much of their income do they put back into the economy? Almost all of it. Who benefits from this spending? Businesses. A larger market means support for larger business models, which creates more jobs. Which brings more wealth to the lower classes, which leads to more spending. Etc.

The wealthy don't spend. Well, they do. They spend a lot. But the percentage of their income that they spend is vastly lower than what the lower classes do. So each dollar of wealth that the lower classes have is intrinsically more valuable for the economy. The wealthy have a really annoying tendency to let their wealth sit in a bank account, in bonds, annuities, etc. This means that their money goes to banks, insurance companies, etc. And these are the sorts of investments that aren't going to create a large number of jobs or stimulate markets (especially when it comes to annuities).

It's really not all that hard to understand the basic structures that lead to one system's failure compared to the other.


No, it's not hard at all. Knowing this, why does it continue to fail? Who is responsible for this failure?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#206 Oct 25 2011 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Except that your arguments are never grounded in any kind of reliable information.

And it's not hard at all to understand why it's absurd.

What stimulates the economy? Spending. Who are the main purchasers of commodities? The lower two classes. How much of their income do they put back into the economy? Almost all of it. Who benefits from this spending? Businesses. A larger market means support for larger business models, which creates more jobs. Which brings more wealth to the lower classes, which leads to more spending. Etc.

The wealthy don't spend. Well, they do. They spend a lot. But the percentage of their income that they spend is vastly lower than what the lower classes do. So each dollar of wealth that the lower classes have is intrinsically more valuable for the economy. The wealthy have a really annoying tendency to let their wealth sit in a bank account, in bonds, annuities, etc. This means that their money goes to banks, insurance companies, etc. And these are the sorts of investments that aren't going to create a large number of jobs or stimulate markets (especially when it comes to annuities).

It's really not all that hard to understand the basic structures that lead to one system's failure compared to the other.


No, it's not hard at all. Knowing this, why does it continue to fail? Who is responsible for this failure?


I can't say I understand what you are asking.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#207ThiefX, Posted: Oct 25 2011 at 10:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Seriously Idiggory you're still talking? I figured after you ignorantly claimed that someone making $500,000 isn't in the 1% like you did at the beginning of this thread you would have wandered back to the nearest occupy camp for more "learning" and/or a bong hit.
#208 Oct 25 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Well, according to the link Joph provided, someone making 500k technically isn't in the top 1% tax bracket.

But that's neither here nor there--this isn't about tax brackets, it's about the control of wealth. But feel free to continue foaming at the mouth.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#209 Oct 25 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,425 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Except that your arguments are never grounded in any kind of reliable information.

And it's not hard at all to understand why it's absurd.

What stimulates the economy? Spending. Who are the main purchasers of commodities? The lower two classes. How much of their income do they put back into the economy? Almost all of it. Who benefits from this spending? Businesses. A larger market means support for larger business models, which creates more jobs. Which brings more wealth to the lower classes, which leads to more spending. Etc.

The wealthy don't spend. Well, they do. They spend a lot. But the percentage of their income that they spend is vastly lower than what the lower classes do. So each dollar of wealth that the lower classes have is intrinsically more valuable for the economy. The wealthy have a really annoying tendency to let their wealth sit in a bank account, in bonds, annuities, etc. This means that their money goes to banks, insurance companies, etc. And these are the sorts of investments that aren't going to create a large number of jobs or stimulate markets (especially when it comes to annuities).

It's really not all that hard to understand the basic structures that lead to one system's failure compared to the other.


No, it's not hard at all. Knowing this, why does it continue to fail? Who is responsible for this failure?


I can't say I understand what you are asking.


What I'm saying is: Why do we continue practices that are destructive to the economy in the way you stated above? How can some knowingly support and apply this "trickle down" poison into our system? Who are the ones responsible for dreaming up such an atrocity to begin with? Where exactly did it begin?

It is something that has bothered me for a long time. There has to be another reason other than the ******** they feed to the public about how it creates jobs out of thin air.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#210 Oct 25 2011 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Last I checked, every single US representative in the highest tiers of gov't was in the top 1% of taxpayers (and some are wealthy enough to be members of the 1% that Occupy concerns themselves with). Furthermore, corporations and banks constitute the bulk of wealth controllers in the nation, which allows them to become some of the strongest lobbyists.

But one might hope not all of our politicians are so corrupt. The problem is that there's also a heavy anti-socialist feeling in the US (which has been standard since the 19th century). But it is so aggressive that it even has negative ramifications for safety net programs, which are frankly necessary.

There is also a fair amount of stigma associated with the lower classes--as if they are to blame for their current situation, which absolves the higher classes of the guilt of putting them in their state. Which, frankly, is the case--being rich necessitates many others being poor. But if you can convince yourself that they are all lower class because they are lazy SOBs, then it's easy to ignore that.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#211 Oct 26 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's a pretty absurd exaggeration.

Isn't this your mantra?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#212 Oct 26 2011 at 5:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Last I checked, every single US representative in the highest tiers of gov't was in the top 1% of taxpayers (and some are wealthy enough to be members of the 1% that Occupy concerns themselves with).

What do you consider the "highest tiers of government"? Stock Congresscritters make $174k a year, party leaders in Congress make 193k and the Speaker of the House (third in line to the presidency) makes a cool $223k. The top tax bracket is $379,150+.

Admittedly, many of those people have alternate forms of income but I wouldn't just assume they're all in the top 1% of anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#213 Oct 26 2011 at 6:02 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Admittedly, many of those people have alternate forms of income but I wouldn't just assume they're all in the top 1% of anything.
More than a few live off of their government salary and that's it. Well maybe just a few. We should also bear in mind that these people pretty much have to maintain two homes, and you can't really expect a lawmaker to rent an apartment in a slum in DC.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#214 Oct 26 2011 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Pro tip
Ahaha.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#215 Oct 26 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Last I checked, every single US representative in the highest tiers of gov't was in the top 1% of taxpayers (and some are wealthy enough to be members of the 1% that Occupy concerns themselves with).

What do you consider the "highest tiers of government"? Stock Congresscritters make $174k a year, party leaders in Congress make 193k and the Speaker of the House (third in line to the presidency) makes a cool $223k. The top tax bracket is $379,150+.

Admittedly, many of those people have alternate forms of income but I wouldn't just assume they're all in the top 1% of anything.


I believe my source was including the benefits in calculating their income, which brought the low-end of the scale to $284k. And almost all of congressional members do have alternate forms of income as well, either by actually owning businesses or by being heavy investors (which is far more common).

I can't find any source that shows the actual income of congress members, though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#216 Oct 26 2011 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I believe my source was including the benefits in calculating their income, which brought the low-end of the scale to $284k.

That's not calculated into their tax rate though. If we're just talking "wealth", we need to raise the bar to the $500k number.

Quote:
And almost all of congressional members do have alternate forms of income as well, either by actually owning businesses or by being heavy investors (which is far more common).

Probably less than a few cycles ago, given the number of relative nobodies who've won in recent cycles. I'm just saying I wouldn't make any blanket statements.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Oct 26 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
And almost all of congressional members do have alternate forms of income as well, either by actually owning businesses or by being heavy investors (which is far more common).

Probably less than a few cycles ago, given the number of relative nobodies who've won in recent cycles. I'm just saying I wouldn't make any blanket statements.[/quote]
Fair.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#218 Oct 26 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Honest question gbaji, what purpose would linking an actual source do in a discussion with you? You never admit your errors even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. It's hardly worth investing the effort.


If the source has actual data and facts, I'll address them. The problem is that far too many people think that linking to a site expressing opinions which match their own constitutes "proof" of their position. It doesn't. And when someone on the interwebs holds a different position that I do, you equate that to some kind of error on my part. If I get something factually wrong, I admit it. But what most of the posters here call errors on my part really is just them disagreeing with me.

And "irrefutable evidence" as used on this forum is also often just a label applied to "something I agree with". Provide facts and figures and we can discuss any issue intelligently. Post a link to a guy saying "I think it's this way", you haven't really done anything. I can also find links of people saying the exact opposite thing. Playing "dueling experts" is pretty much an exercise in futility, don't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Oct 26 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Honest question gbaji, what purpose would linking an actual source do in a discussion with you? You never admit your errors even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. It's hardly worth investing the effort.
The problem is that far too many people think that linking to a site expressing opinions which match their own constitutes "proof" of their position. It doesn't.


<insert obvious joke here>
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#220 Oct 26 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
What I'm saying is: Why do we continue practices that are destructive to the economy in the way you stated above?


You're putting your cart ahead of your horse. You need to first show that a practice is destructive. No one here has done that despite my continual requests for someone to explain how someone making more money makes someone else poorer. It's *not* a zero sum game, remember?

Quote:
How can some knowingly support and apply this "trickle down" poison into our system?


First off, labeling it "poison" makes it hard to take your post seriously. Secondly, it's not about supporting and applying it. What you call "trickle down" (most likely anyway) isn't something we create and apply. It's the natural way economics works. We have to intervene to *not* use it.

Quote:
Who are the ones responsible for dreaming up such an atrocity to begin with? Where exactly did it begin?


It began with the first guy realizing that if he produced more than he personally needed to consume, he could sell/barter/whatever that extra to someone else for the excess of whatever they produce. The result is that both of them realize gains from producing "more". The "trickle down" effect of this is natural. If everyone in society produces only exactly what they need to survive, then there's no margin of error. You get sick and can't gather coconuts today and you go hungry and die. But if you've gathered extra coconuts and traded them for extra goods (or currency later on), you can then use that savings to support yourself until you get better.

Some people then realized that if they had a lot of extra stuff saved up, they could lend that stuff to other people to help them start up their own productive enterprises. And thus "banking" was born. I could continue through history explaining how every little piece of the puzzle appeared over time, but I hope you get the point. No one sat down and thought about how to construct and economic system. It happened as a natural result of people in society doing what generated the best results.


What those who argue against these systems are doing is trying to have it both ways. They want the wealth generated by the existing system, but they want to take that wealth and use it for things which aren't productive. They believe that this is better for society as a whole, but have a hard time convincing people that it's worth it. Thus, those people have to convince people (like you) that the natural economic systems don't work and that wealth accumulation, rather than being the one thing that has historically helped people get out of poverty and become productive and happy, is really some evil thing which should be opposed. They demonize the extremely rich and play on most people's ignorance of how economic systems work to try to convince them to attack the very things that make their lives better every single day.


Quote:
It is something that has bothered me for a long time. There has to be another reason other than the bullsh*t they feed to the public about how it creates jobs out of thin air.


Honestly, when I read stuff like this, I just have to shake my head. It's not about trying to do things, it's about what results from your actions. You honestly can't see that in the process of building a huge corporate empire, the head of said empire will end up creating jobs for a whole lot of people? And he'll have to create some set of products which are valuable enough to the people for them to want to buy? You zero in on the individual rich people, but don't look at what their money is doing. Overwhelmingly, businesses make money because they provide a good or service to the public which the public feels is worth exchanging their own money for. And along the way, they create the jobs which gives people the money they use to buy those things (that's the whole "trading the fruits of your labors" bit).


The owner of said company doesn't have to start out with altruistic motives. But the results of his actions will create opportunity and wealth for others along the way to making him wealthy. It's nearly impossible for a wealthy person to become wealthy without doing this. Certainly, economy wide, this factor is absolutely huge and contributes to massive benefits for the entire population.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#221 Oct 26 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
So Gbaji, if the executives in a company get 10-20% annual pay raises, and the regular employees get 0-1%, is that good for the economy? Is it just?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#222 Oct 26 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Technogeek wrote:
So Gbaji, if the executives in a company get 10-20% annual pay raises, and the regular employees get 0-1%, is that good for the economy? Is it just?


If the company produces products that people are willing to buy, it's good for the economy. The make up of pay within the company has zero impact on the overall economic impact of the company's actions.


But since you asked, the make up of pay will be based on what the company thinks will allow it to most efficiently generate a profit. If paying their executives more will generate more profit in excess of the increased payroll expense, they will do it. If it wont, they wont. Same deal with how much they pay their rank and file employees. If paying them 20% more will increase revenue by more than the payroll cost increase, they will do it.


I'm not sure why you think one of those things has anything at all to do with the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#223 Oct 26 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Gotcha, stifling the middle class is all good for you. Must be nice to have your head so far up corporate *** you can't see.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#224 Oct 26 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Gotcha, stifling the middle class is all good for you. Must be nice to have your head so far up corporate *** you can't see.


Your problem is that you're viewing it in terms of an intent to help or hurt a given group. That's not my motivation, nor is it how I'm judging the issue. I believe that by the company acting in ways which best produce profits, even if the distribution of wealth that results isn't equal, the total effect for everyone involved is beneficial.

What's the alternative? We force companies to structure their compensation in ways which produce fewer profits? Then what? The company makes less money, and thus has a smaller pool to use to develop new/better products, and even to provide future compensation increases for its employees. I guess I just don't understand what problem you think you're solving with that.

I'd rather have a middle class that doesn't earn as much as the rich executives they work for then not have a middle class at all (or even just have a smaller one). If you had the choice between working a minimum wage job at a small business where the owner also isn't making that much money, or making $50k/year at a big corporation where the fat cat executives pull down a million or more a year, would you honestly choose to continue working for minimum wage? Aren't you still better off working for $50k/year?


I think so. And I honestly don't understand the argument that there's something wrong because "the rich" make so much more. Why does this matter? As long as there are opportunities for me to improve my life, why should I care that others are doing even better?

Edited, Oct 26th 2011 5:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#225 Oct 26 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#226 Oct 26 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.

I think I'm going to just Smiley: grin and Smiley: nod from now on.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 83 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (83)