April Economics, Politics, Religion, and Healthcare Thread

[lpereira]

And yet not one comment on that absolutely fabulous comment that was intellectually vacuous twatwaffle. I am still so proud of that one I almost want a birth certificate and social security number for it.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by lpereira

And yet not one comment on that absolutely fabulous comment that was intellectually vacuous twatwaffle. I am still so proud of that one I almost want a birth certificate and social security number for it.

I'm personally deeply offended by the insult paid to waffles.

You gotta enjoy True Believers (and to be honest, I've never met someone more able to live in a self-fabricated reality than a South Carolinian).

I Googled the radio guy you mentioned - I'm surprised he doesn't have a website of his rantings, just a blog (shows up on 2nd page of Google search) with video snippets of his stuff that I had no patience to play.

Of course, people like him (on right or left) are so far out in lala land that they don't get on my radar screen. I can't imagine I thinking person taking him seriously. He certainly adds zero to the conversation.

Dirk

[lpereira]

Originally Posted by carolina_yankee

I'm personally deeply offended by the insult paid to waffles.

You gotta enjoy True Believers (and to be honest, I've never met someone more able to live in a self-fabricated reality than a South Carolinian).

I Googled the radio guy you mentioned - I'm surprised he doesn't have a website of his rantings, just a blog (shows up on 2nd page of Google search) with video snippets of his stuff that I had no patience to play.

Of course, people like him (on right or left) are so far out in lala land that they don't get on my radar screen. I can't imagine I thinking person taking him seriously. He certainly adds zero to the conversation.

Dirk

Which is why Todd Kincannon on his radio show was so freaking funny. He basically mocked him the entire show.

[henrycpa91]

Spain Debt rating down graded another 2 notches and now even Germany is being scrutinized... But nothing here to look at, keep moving....

European model does not work guys...

[Eric]

Originally Posted by henrycpa91

European model does not work guys...

Yeah, because our debt never gets downgraded.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by henrycpa91

Spain Debt rating down graded another 2 notches and now even Germany is being scrutinized... But nothing here to look at, keep moving....

European model does not work guys...

Jamie!

A) There is no European Model (singular).
B) There are European countries doing very well (perhaps just not in the EU - Oh, wait, Sweden is in the EU!)
C) Norway, not in the EU, is also running a budget surplus and has a more massive welfare state than Sweden.

Dirk

[salmoneous]

Originally Posted by henrycpa91

European model does not work guys...

There is no such thing as a European model. As long as you think there is one, you can't possibly understand what is going on in Europe or the world economy.

[OttawaWendy]

Originally Posted by Eric

If Peter Thiel Thinks Students Should Drop Out of School, Why Is He Teaching at Stanford?

"Do as I say, not as I do".

I challenge this guy to offer severence to everyone in his company who has a university degree. Or, if he feels too responsible as an employer, to at least never hire again anyone who has a university degree. No more accountants, engineers, lawyers, or business admin grads. How does your business work now dude?

I hate this kind of thinking.

Dude, just because you were successful without school, or feel that it did you no good, doesn't mean you can apply that finding to the whole damn world. Actual knowledge is imparted in universities, and actual analytical skills are developed.

Originally Posted by henrycpa91

Spain Debt rating down graded another 2 notches and now even Germany is being scrutinized... But nothing here to look at, keep moving....

European model does not work guys...

Europe is a continent. Please stop doing this Jamie. It is like the marginal tax rate - every few months you talk about the marginal tax rate as if it is the total tax rate and we have to have a page or two of discussion on what the difference is. It wastes time and prevents us from having debate on the issues where we actually disagree.

A few days ago someone put up a link to the 20 largest debt:GDP ratios.

To note: Canada not in that list, but has higher taxes and a larger social safety net than the US.

To note: Other countries (including ones in Europe!) who have higher taxes and a larger social safety net than the US, were also not in that list.

To note: There were countries (in fact I think 19 of them) who have a worse debt:GDP ratio than the US, as well as having higher taxes and a larger social safety net than the US (and most of them were in Europe too)

Conclusion: It probably isn't a linear relationship. There is no automatic "if we spend less, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we tax less, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we spend more, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we tax more, our financial problems will go away" relationship.

Countries can get themselves into deep trouble using any of several models, and can be OK using any of several models. It is the application of the model that seems to be more important. Solving these problems is going to require a more complex analysis than "taxes=bad".

Honestly, I think the vast majority of senior politicians have got to be smart enough to know the difference between a slogan and analysis, and know that it is more complex than "taxes=bad". But they dumb it down to the level of a slogan to get votes, and that does a disservice to everyone. I'm not excluding the left in this rant either. "Oil=bad" is no more complex.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Wendy

Conclusion: It probably isn't a linear relationship. There is no automatic "if we spend less, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we tax less, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we spend more, our financial problems will go away" relationship. There is no automatic "if we tax more, our financial problems will go away" relationship.

Countries can get themselves into deep trouble using any of several models, and can be OK using any of several models. It is the application of the model that seems to be more important. Solving these problems is going to require a more complex analysis than "taxes=bad".

Honestly, I think the vast majority of senior politicians have got to be smart enough to know the difference between a slogan and analysis, and know that it is more complex than "taxes=bad". But they dumb it down to the level of a slogan to get votes, and that does a disservice to everyone. I'm not excluding the left in this rant either. "Oil=bad" is no more complex.

Obviously I agree with you, but I think the point that's trying to be argued is "You can't have my money to pay for your things." Therefore, necessarily "taxes = bad." Add to that, "I'm barely hanging on financially and your taking my very last penny. Give it back! I need it more than some lazy person on welfare or under-worked government bureaucrat whose getting 2-3 pensions."

It's a very individualistic view towards things, but one that is typical for Americans - the land that idolizes the myth of the rugged individual.

It's interesting reading about the countries with high taxes, generous social safety-nets, and a fairly successful economy. The citizenry really aren't opposed to paying taxes for those things. They may grumble a bit, but the conversation ends in pride at what they've been able to accomplish as a country.

The meme in operation is that Americans simply don't want to pay taxes and don't want others to get the benefit of the taxes they do pay, but aren't really willing to relinquish any of the benefits they themselves receive.

Since Romney is the clear nominee and is likely to move towards the middle, I'll be curious to see what level of anger surfaces if he's elected and doesn't do the whole "taxes=bad, I'm gonna get the government out of your Medicare" thing.

Dirk

[salmoneous]

Originally Posted by carolina_yankee

Since Romney is the clear nominee and is likely to move towards the middle, I'll be curious to see what level of anger surfaces if he's elected and doesn't do the whole "taxes=bad, I'm gonna get the government out of your Medicare" thing.

Pfft. Romney is going to promise massive tax cuts, big increases in defense spending and "spending cuts" to magically balance the budget. People will love that.

What he will not do is explain that those spending cuts are. Theoretical spending cuts are *very* popular. Actual spending cuts aren't. However, it's very easy to run for office in the US and not give specifics for what you want to do. He can promise phantom spending cuts and almost nobody will call him on it.

Most of the media is much more interested in whether or not candidates should appear on SNL, Jimmy Kimmel, etc. than on getting into the details of what candidates will do... or even to realize that there are no details. And if there is a small portion of the media that does care about the details, the candidate can just ignore them.