Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

The Lady's not returningFollow

#1 Apr 08 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
So Margaret Thatcher died today.




Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first and only woman Prime Minister, died this morning after suffering a stroke, it was announced today.

Baroness Thatcher, who was 87, won three general elections for the Conservatives and shaped UK politics for a generation. At home, she implemented sweeping reforms to trade unions, defeated the miners in a bitter strike and forced the Labour Party to modernise itself. Abroad, she was dubbed “the Iron Lady”, winning an unlikely war in the Falklands and helping to secure the collapse of the Soviet Union.


Mixed emotions from people I know. Mostly people celebrating, but a smattering of indignant postings expressing outrage that people would celebrate the death of a "sick old woman".




Edited, Apr 8th 2013 8:49am by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#2 Apr 08 2013 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,620 posts
There sure is a lot of hate for her, although I don't really see what her death really does for anything, good or bad.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#3 Apr 08 2013 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
43,052 posts
Did she at least save us from a meteor?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Apr 08 2013 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
As a politician I thought she was ruinous on her nation. However, I personally was glad that such a woman became the UK's first female Prime Minister. She proved that female leaders could be as mediocre in policy and as charismatic in carriage as any man. Basically she was no different than any man as a politician, and that was extremely liberating for women. She was no better and no worse than the average man, since I credit her with belief in what she was doing, and being no more and no less a figurehead as any other political leader.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#5 Apr 08 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,453 posts
I can't say I agree with political ideologies, but she forged out a new leadership pathway that wasn't there before her reign. And she wasn't totally evil or anything.

....rip Iron Lady.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#6 Apr 08 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My first thought was "Thatcher was still alive? Huh."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Apr 08 2013 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,919 posts
Jophiel wrote:
My first thought was "Thatcher was still alive? Huh."


Huh, you too then?
____________________________


#8 Apr 08 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,044 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
My first thought was "Thatcher was still alive? Huh."


Huh, you too then?


Me three as well. Heard the news on NPR while I was headed to urgent care for a sinus infection. I was like, "I thought the documentary that came out with Meryl Streep was done cuz she was dead..."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#9 Apr 08 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
May she rest in peace, what a wonderful lady. Love her or hate her, she was great and I was shocked to come home from work today and see the news on the BBC.
#10 Apr 08 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
[youtube=4UbFaJL3B3M#!]
(A)
Because I can't embed for some reason.

Edited, Apr 8th 2013 1:44pm by Peimei [/i



[i]Edited, Apr 8th 2013 2:19pm by Xsarus
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#11 Apr 08 2013 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
JennockFV wrote:
May she rest in peace, what a wonderful lady. Love her or hate her, she was great and I was shocked to come home from work today and see the news on the BBC.


You were shocked? She was almost 90 years old.
#12 Apr 08 2013 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,090 posts
I think the #! is throwing the embed function off.

Edited, Apr 8th 2013 2:40pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Apr 08 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
I think the #! is throwing the embed function off.

Edited, Apr 8th 2013 2:40pm by Shaowstrike

Indeed it is. Ill forget this by the time I post again.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#14 Apr 08 2013 at 3:00 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
Catwho wrote:
Zieveraar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
My first thought was "Thatcher was still alive? Huh."


Huh, you too then?


Me three as well. Heard the news on NPR while I was headed to urgent care for a sinus infection. I was like, "I thought the documentary that came out with Meryl Streep was done cuz she was dead..."


Hell, I wasn't even aware that Annette was still alive either.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Apr 08 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,151 posts
Time to put my tramping boots on.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#16 Apr 08 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
As a politician I thought she was ruinous on her nation.


I'm curious why you think this. My understanding (admittedly biased based on my own political views) is that it's largely because of her actions then that the UK isn't suffering far far worse economically today when compared to many other European nations. But maybe I'm focusing just on the economic angle.

Quote:
However, I personally was glad that such a woman became the UK's first female Prime Minister. She proved that female leaders could be as mediocre in policy and as charismatic in carriage as any man. Basically she was no different than any man as a politician, and that was extremely liberating for women. She was no better and no worse than the average man, since I credit her with belief in what she was doing, and being no more and no less a figurehead as any other political leader.


She was a major political figure of the day for reasons other than her sex IMO. Agree or disagree with her politics, it's hard to reconcile the first part of your post with the latter part. She clearly had a significant impact on the UK, or you'd not have written the first sentence. So hardly "average politician".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Apr 08 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
As a politician I thought she was ruinous on her nation.


I'm curious why you think this. My understanding (admittedly biased based on my own political views) is that it's largely because of her actions then that the UK isn't suffering far far worse economically today when compared to many other European nations. But maybe I'm focusing just on the economic angle.

I think this is exactly why. I've heard her being called an English Ronald Reagan. So if you are somebody who thinks that Reagan was horrible for the economy loltrickledown (which you personally don't) then that could explain the view of her being ruinous to the nation.
#18 Apr 08 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,477 posts
Lot's of music about her: Link
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#19 Apr 08 2013 at 8:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
xantav wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
As a politician I thought she was ruinous on her nation.


I'm curious why you think this. My understanding (admittedly biased based on my own political views) is that it's largely because of her actions then that the UK isn't suffering far far worse economically today when compared to many other European nations. But maybe I'm focusing just on the economic angle.

I think this is exactly why. I've heard her being called an English Ronald Reagan. So if you are somebody who thinks that Reagan was horrible for the economy loltrickledown (which you personally don't) then that could explain the view of her being ruinous to the nation.


It explains why people might speculate and/or fear that said economic policies would be ruinous (future tense) if implemented, but not why someone would say (past tense) that they were ruinous. Was the UK economy (again assuming that the original comments were about economics) actually ruined? I don't recall the UK spiraling into disaster economically speaking during or immediately after she was running things. Which makes one think this kind of comment is less about what the actual effects of any given economic policies *are* and more about eternally trying to convince oneself and others that an opposed policy is to be avoided by sheer repetition of "this is bad"/"this was bad" language even when the facts don't match.


I guess (and I'll fully admit I'm biased here), I find it really strange to hear people say "trickle down cant work", complete with dire predictions of what will happen, then it's tried and it works and none of the dire predictions happen, but for the next 3 decades all we hear is "trickle down didn't work" and "it was a disaster", and (in this case) "it was ruinous". It just smacks of repeating the assumption and hoping people don't notice that it doesn't match reality.

Edited, Apr 8th 2013 7:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Apr 08 2013 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,151 posts
Quote:
Was the UK economy (again assuming that the original comments were about economics) actually ruined?


Yes.

Quote:
I don't recall the UK spiraling into disaster economically speaking during or immediately after she was running things.


Your memory is sh*t or you weren't playing attention.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#21 Apr 08 2013 at 11:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
To gbaji:

I think NO system is empirically able to perfectly address all problems. There are always going to be pros and cons, and thus it becomes a question of finding a system where the desirability of the pros outweigh the cons. Cons which are real cons, but are put up with in order for long term gain. For example, take the normal economic growth and recession cycle. I think it is desirable for governments to run a surplus in growth years, and run a deficit in recession years. There are people/politicians in Australia who think government should never ever run a deficit. During a recession, I think a deficit should be run, focussing on infrastructure, especially on educational, health, transportation and military infrastructure.

Leaving aside the Thatcherite butchering of the unions and gutting of healthcare, she, like Reagen, was madly into de-regulation for de-regulation's sake. I think her de-regulation went way too far, as the banking and economic collapse of 2009, which we are still suffering the outcomes of, would not have been possible in the UK if some prudent regulations remained in place. And yes, of course political actions taken 20 years ago can have massive effects in the present.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#22 Apr 09 2013 at 6:46 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,135 posts
It explains why people might speculate and/or fear that said economic policies would be ruinous (future tense) if implemented, but not why someone would say (past tense) that they were ruinous. Was the UK economy (again assuming that the original comments were about economics) actually ruined?

It wasn't ruined, but the reason it wasn't had a lot to do with the North Sea turning out to be a large ceramic container for some of the largest reserves of light sweet crude in the world, the price of which tripled as she took office. Even hitting the natural resource lottery in a big way didn't prevent 21% inflation and literally the highest unemployment rate in Brittan's modern (the last 500 years say) history. She kept taxes relatively low by privatizing national companies that we unlikely to bring in much income by selling them to her friends. Little anachronisms like BP which pulls in about £1M an hour in profits. That influx of cash was enough to lead to a few years of booming 2% GDP growth. She also pegged the Pound to the Mark letting the technically elegant, but not great for the Bank of England Black Wednesday occur a few years after she had left office. On balance it's almost impossible to argue she was good for Brittan, unless the theatrical quality of a Grandma Dominatrix is very important to you. Obviously she's still popular among a certain set of brits.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Apr 09 2013 at 7:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,135 posts
I guess (and I'll fully admit I'm biased here), I find it really strange to hear people say "trickle down cant work", complete with dire predictions of what will happen, then it's tried and it works and none of the dire predictions happen,

It's never worked, not once. Why? Oh right, fucking math. If the math worked and the ideology sucked, I'd support it. I support lots of things that have unfortunate ideological implications. I think "the bailout" math only worked one way, while at the same time finding supporting the failure of an industry controlled by the super wealthy with middle class tax dollars morally repugnant. The math though, matters. The math behind "trickle down" leads to less tax revenue, a hollowed out middle class and movement of wealth to the already wealthy. Which is the point, of course, but the argument that it leads to broad economic growth is thoroughly disproved at any sort of serious intellectual level, leading to comic slogans like "it's never good for the economy to raise taxes" instead of an actual economic argument. Because there isn't one.

The good news, for you, is that the vast majority of people don't understand the math (you know how that is, eh?) so the fact that it's not a viable economic model won't stop policy based on the idea. The good news for me is that the Fed can do the math, so we're on our third round of quantitative easing, likely rescuing us from the crushing depression we'd have experienced if austerity hawks had been able to accomplish anything they claim to believe in.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Apr 09 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,052 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think NO system is empirically able to perfectly address all problems.
Except Republican.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Apr 09 2013 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think NO system is empirically able to perfectly address all problems.
Except Republican.

Smiley: lol I c wut u did ther.

A system that is empirically able to perfectly effect all problems!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#26gbaji, Posted: Apr 09 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So basically, she's bad because you believe that socialism is good and she opposed it. Kinda circular, isn't it?
#27 Apr 09 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,187 posts
gbaji wrote:
When we start defining the end as being higher quality of life, low unemployment, high productivity, high GDP rate, low inflation, and all the other usual economic measurements, we find that the conservative "small government" approach actually works very well.


The facts say otherwise.

Also, given that at least in America/Canada Conservatives are HUGE spenders - what the hell do you mean by small government?

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 5:02pm by Olorinus
____________________________
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.

clicky
#28 Apr 09 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When we start defining the end as being higher quality of life, low unemployment, high productivity, high GDP rate, low inflation, and all the other usual economic measurements, we find that the conservative "small government" approach actually works very well.


The facts say otherwise.


Then show them to me. I mean, everyone insists that "trickle down doesn't work", yet never seem to produce any data to support their claim. First, perhaps defining what policies we're talking about would help. Then some kind of empirical analysis of the effects would be great too.

Quote:
Also, given that at least in America/Canada Conservatives are HUGE spenders - what the hell do you mean by small government?


Um... Relatively low taxes and social spending. A government that is "small" both in dollars, but more importantly in scope (meaning what it involves itself in directly). Go read up on "fiscal conservatism" if you're unsure what I'm talking about (although the wiki page appears to have been written by a liberal who got the priorities completely wrong, but that's to be expected. Go look up Edmund Burke if you want a more clear idea). We're talking about an economic policy, not a political party.


Ironically, "trickle down" isn't really an economic position at all, but a predicted behavior that is one tiny part of fiscal conservatism. Specifically, it answers the criticism that without government social programs to help lift the working classes up, they'll become more and more poor and the rich will become more and more rich. The counter argument is that the wealth effects "trickle down", meaning that if the business owner earns more money, this results in more and better job opportunities in his business, which helps the poor get jobs. Similarly, more middle class jobs open up when there are more successful big businesses, thus allowing a larger percentage of a population to rise to middle class status. Additionally, the wealth effect in a less regulated economy allows for those in the middle class to invest in ventures and become "rich" themselves.


The false counter to that from the left often involves claiming that trickle down just means that if your boss makes more money, you'll get a raise. That's a ridiculously oversimplified (and easily attacked) interpretation though. What trickles down isn't direct cash, but positive economic effects of all kinds. Better quality products brought to market for a lower cost benefit those in the lowest income ranges, often far more than a slightly larger piece of the direct economic pie would. The positive effects of technologies like computers and cell phones are great examples of "trickle down" economics in action. If we'd enacted a tax policy designed to eliminate undo/excessive profits by companies, it's a good bet that those technologies would not be nearly as available, cheap, and advanced as they are today. Only because we allow companies to retain and reinvest profits instead of taxing them away to pay for benefits to the people that the greedy owners wont pay directly do we see this kind of beneficial economic effect. The reason it's easy to attack trickle down as a process is that it's easy to see the immediate effect taxing those dollars and spending them on direct social programs would have, but it's harder to see (looking forward at least) how letting those rich owners/investors keep all that wealth helps out the poor and the working class.

We have to look backwards to see the effects over time. But when we do that, they're really quite significant. Nearly every thing we have today that is "better" than what was available at some point in the past exists because of profits retained by businesses (the rich folks). Take that away, and we could feed everyone, and house everyone, and educate everyone, and provide everyone with the latest in health care and entertainment. But those things would never improve over time, or would improve more slowly in direct relation to how completely we tax away wealth. Put another way, improvements to our lives over time can be argued to be in direct relation to the amount of wealth retained by the "rich" within our economy. That may fly in the face of liberal doctrine and rhetoric, but it absolutely does follow from both theory and practice once one understands what conservatives are really talking about with regard to small government.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Apr 09 2013 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Personally, I think Maggie Thatcher and Annette Funicello were the same person. Did you ever see them in the same room together...? And they died on the same day...?

Hmmm.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#30 Apr 10 2013 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,135 posts
When we start defining the end as being higher quality of life, low unemployment, high productivity, high GDP rate, low inflation, and all the other usual economic measurements, we find that the conservative "small government" approach actually works very well

No, it doesn't.

This is easy to establish, however. Choose 10 economic metrics, then we'll compare periods of time when conservatives controlled economic policy and times when they didn't. Then you'll make many excuses and forget the thread exists, I assume. Just kidding, we both know you can't come up with ten economic metrics.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Apr 10 2013 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,135 posts
Then show them to me. I mean, everyone insists that "trickle down doesn't work", yet never seem to produce any data to support their claim.

Well, liberal policies have the momentum, so it'll be close, but they'll win. Because, you know, momentum. Unless that Obama Birth Certificate SCOTUS case causes problems.

Hahaha data. Oh, YOU.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Apr 10 2013 at 5:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,135 posts
We have to look backwards to see the effects over time. But when we do that, they're really quite significant. Nearly every thing we have today that is "better" than what was available at some point in the past exists because of profits retained by businesses (the rich folks)

Right, like the Human Genome project. Without the profits...oh wait. Like the internet? Oh wait. Like roads and transportation infrastructure? Oh wait. Like Railroads? Oh wait. Like the Polio vaccine? Oh, wait. Like Nuclear power? Oh wait. Like...um...the snuggie! You're right, without profits we might not have the snuggie! Or, pork rhinds! Ok, I see where you are going with this now!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Apr 10 2013 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
******
43,052 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Because, you know, momentum.
Worked for Romney.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Apr 10 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,620 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The counter argument is that the wealth effects "trickle down", meaning that if the business owner earns more money, this results in more and better job opportunities in his business, which helps the poor get jobs.
Which is ridiculous since it's basically saying that more supply creates more demand. Business owners aren't going to create more jobs because they have more money, they're going to create more jobs because they can sell more and they can sell more when more people have the means to buy their products.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#35 Apr 10 2013 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
Business owners aren't going to create more jobs because they have more money


This. It's been my experience that business owners tend to start cutting costs as they accumulate more wealth. My current boss for example, now brings home over 500k/year. She is cutting costs, cutting hours, and cutting staff, and trying to find every loophole in the labour laws to get out of paying us what we're owed. When she was making considerably less when she first took over, she was incredibly generous. This isn't the first place I've worked where this has happened. Trickle down fails when the people with the money realize they can divert the stream to themselves and their own interests.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#36 Apr 10 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Put another way, improvements to our lives over time can be argued to be in direct relation to the amount of wealth retained by the "rich" within our economy


Smiley: laugh

Keep telling yourself that
#37 Apr 10 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
****
9,258 posts
Quote:
Put another way, improvements to our lives over time can be argued to be in direct relation to the amount of wealth retained by the "rich" within our economy


Would you mind explaining what makes you think that this is true? I really would love to know. I mean, I can't even fathom the logic behind this statement.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#38 Apr 10 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Business owners aren't going to create more jobs because they have more money


This. It's been my experience that business owners tend to start cutting costs as they accumulate more wealth. My current boss for example, now brings home over 500k/year. She is cutting costs, cutting hours, and cutting staff, and trying to find every loophole in the labour laws to get out of paying us what we're owed. When she was making considerably less when she first took over, she was incredibly generous. This isn't the first place I've worked where this has happened. Trickle down fails when the people with the money realize they can divert the stream to themselves and their own interests.

After "acquisition" comes "consolidation" and "control". Money, power, politics; it's all the same. Smile and lie your way to the top, then laugh at the people and eliminate opposition and dissidence.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#39 Apr 10 2013 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,151 posts
As some German once said, the true limit to capitalism is capital itself.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#42 Apr 11 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,052 posts
JennockFV wrote:
Keep telling yourself that
Now now, he's not wrong in that it can be argued that way. Anything can be argued, that doesn't necessarily mean the argument makes sense, or is realistic, or convincing, or anything really.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Apr 11 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Put another way, improvements to our lives over time can be argued to be in direct relation to the amount of wealth retained by the "rich" within our economy


Would you mind explaining what makes you think that this is true? I really would love to know.


Because (at least in a reasonably "free" economy), the same things which result in greater wealth for "the rich" also result in greater improvements to the lives of all those within the same economy (statistically speaking at least). Put in the most direct and simple way: If the guy who owns the TV store is getting richer, it's because he's selling more TVs. Which means that people are buying more TVs. Which means that the people both have more TVs *and* the money to buy them in the first place. Which means that their quality of life (in at least a couple different metrics, and assuming that owning a TV versus not owning one is "good") are better. Not *because* the rich man got richer, but as a side consequence of the same factors that make him richer.


Quote:
I mean, I can't even fathom the logic behind this statement.


Because too many people think in terms of cause/effect, but in this case you have to think in terms of parallel effects. While wealth growth may (does!) occur unevenly, it very very rarely occurs in opposite directions. Meaning that people at all level of the economic spectrum tend to do better or worse at the same time and for the same larger economic reasons. During the same time period that hundreds of billions of dollars were lost in the market (mostly owned by "the rich"), and several large corporations went bankrupt, millions of less rich people lost their jobs. We can argue how these bad times affect people relatively speaking, but they still tend to be 'bad times' for everyone across the board. Same thing happens in reverse. When times are good, and the rich folks are making tons of money, times tend to also be good for everyone else. Trend wise, at least, this is a pretty clear pattern.


I guess what I can't fathom is why people have such a hard time seeing the logic behind this. Simple observation of economic trends should tell you this. You just have to step outside of the paradigm of relative outcomes between different economic groups, and start looking at relative outcomes within those groups compared to external events over time. When you do that, you'll see that all economic groups tend to do better and worse at the same time. What makes the rich person rich, makes the poor person a little less poor, and the working class person a bit more comfortable, and makes it just a bit easier to become middle class. When the rich aren't making as much money, the poor are more poor, the working class more uncomfortable, and it becomes harder to become middle class.


Once you recognize that trend, you start to wonder why anyone would think that hurting the rich to help the poor makes any sense at all. It's self defeating.

Edited, Apr 11th 2013 3:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Apr 11 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
In the Real World, though, the TV store owner is getting richer because he's cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#45 Apr 11 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Debalic wrote:
In the Real World, though, the TV store owner is getting richer because he's cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.


You're missing the macro economic angle though. If all the TV store owners and all the businesses are getting richer overall, then there must be more money in the hands of those buying their products. This cannot be true if they are all cutting wages, benefits, and/or staff. On a single example, you can find cases where one store owner increases his profits by cutting costs/wages/whatever. But that sort of zero sum math cannot work economy wide. If ownerA is paying his staff less, then they have less money to buy things from ownerB.

If the set of "wealthy people" is increasing their average net wealth over time, then it's a near guarantee that the sets which make up the rest of the economy are also doing better as well. Again, this assumes a reasonably free market economy, but basically unless you have a government (or some other authoritarian mechanism) that's taking money from one group and giving it to another, the zero sum assumption doesn't work on a macro-economic scale. It can't. Seriously. Spend 30 seconds thinking about it and you should be able to see why.

Rich people don't get rich because they have more dollars. They get rich (and stay rich) because the things they do with their money is valued by others in the economy sufficiently enough for them to spend their own dollars on them (trading their labors for what he's produced). This requires both creating things people want *and* a pool of people who have the means to buy the things you've created. The kind of robber baron operation that some seem to assume not only doesn't make sense, it doesn't even work. I mean, it can work for that one guy, but it can't work for all of them. So if "the rich" as a group are doing better, it must also follow that the whole economy and everyone in it is doing better.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Apr 11 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,477 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
In the Real World, though, the TV store owner is getting richer because he's cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.


You're missing the macro economic angle though. If all the TV store owners and all the businesses are getting richer overall, then there must be more money in the hands of those buying their products.


Unless, of course, it is because he is able to sell more TV's by lowering the price on the TV's and still make a profit from cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#47 Apr 11 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
In the Real World, though, the TV store owner is getting richer because he's cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.


You're missing the macro economic angle though. If all the TV store owners and all the businesses are getting richer overall, then there must be more money in the hands of those buying their products. This cannot be true if they are all cutting wages, benefits, and/or staff. On a single example, you can find cases where one store owner increases his profits by cutting costs/wages/whatever. But that sort of zero sum math cannot work economy wide. If ownerA is paying his staff less, then they have less money to buy things from ownerB.

But are *all* of the TV store owners getting richer overall? Or are some of them suffering and going out of business because they are being undercut by somebody who can sell more TVs cheaper because they abuse their worker base?
Quote:

If the set of "wealthy people" is increasing their average net wealth over time, then it's a near guarantee that the sets which make up the rest of the economy are also doing better as well. Again, this assumes a reasonably free market economy, but basically unless you have a government (or some other authoritarian mechanism) that's taking money from one group and giving it to another, the zero sum assumption doesn't work on a macro-economic scale. It can't. Seriously. Spend 30 seconds thinking about it and you should be able to see why.

But what if the government/authoritarian mechanism is made up of the rich people, who are the ones actively taking money from the lower castes and rewarding themselves?

Quote:
Rich people don't get rich because they have more dollars. They get rich (and stay rich) because the things they do with their money is valued by others in the economy sufficiently enough for them to spend their own dollars on them (trading their labors for what he's produced). This requires both creating things people want *and* a pool of people who have the means to buy the things you've created. The kind of robber baron operation that some seem to assume not only doesn't make sense, it doesn't even work. I mean, it can work for that one guy, but it can't work for all of them. So if "the rich" as a group are doing better, it must also follow that the whole economy and everyone in it is doing better.

Or at least, it'll work until the entire economy implodes, but the rich won't care as long as they can run off somewhere with their hoards.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#48 Apr 11 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,052 posts
gbaji wrote:
Put in the most direct and simple way: If the guy who owns the TV store is getting richer, it's because he's selling more TVs.
Wow. That's such an erroneous and simplified look at how profit works that it amazes me your day job isn't running a sidewalk lemonade stand. The most successful way to increase profits isn't increasing sales but by decreasing overhead. If the owner of your TV store sold a hundred televisions and had five employees, his profit would still be lower than the guy who sold ninety-five televisions but had four employees.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Apr 11 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,187 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
In the Real World, though, the TV store owner is getting richer because he's cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.


You're missing the macro economic angle though. If all the TV store owners and all the businesses are getting richer overall, then there must be more money in the hands of those buying their products.


Unless, of course, it is because he is able to sell more TV's by lowering the price on the TV's and still make a profit from cutting wages, benefits and/or staff.


Or if the people buying them are "buying" them with debt
____________________________
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.

clicky
#50 Apr 11 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
Meh, debt's not an issue We'll our children will pay it off when we're dead.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#51 Apr 11 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,351 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess what I can't fathom is why people have such a hard time seeing the logic behind this. Simple observation of economic trends should tell you this. You just have to step outside of the paradigm of relative outcomes between different economic groups, and start looking at relative outcomes within those groups compared to external events over time. When you do that, you'll see that all economic groups tend to do better and worse at the same time. What makes the rich person rich, makes the poor person a little less poor, and the working class person a bit more comfortable, and makes it just a bit easier to become middle class. When the rich aren't making as much money, the poor are more poor, the working class more uncomfortable, and it becomes harder to become middle class.

Once you recognize that trend, you start to wonder why anyone would think that hurting the rich to help the poor makes any sense at all.

You're trying to convince a person that the best way to help them is to give tax cuts to someone else. Regardless of whether or not that's the best way to do it, it's a pretty tough sell. People already don't trust politicians, and when the other side is arguing that the best way is to give the tax cuts to you directly... well are we really surprised by the outcome?

We could always ask a Sociologist to explain it... Smiley: clown

Edited, Apr 11th 2013 6:23pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Technogeek, Anonymous Guests (49)