User Tag List

First 9101112 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 119

  1. #101
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    I feel like I was a little rash when I first commented in this thread. I'm really a nice guy once you get to know me and, while I don't really think about 99% of people, I do have a handful of people that I care a lot about who I am warm and cuddly with. being an anarchist does not mean you you don't care about people, it means that you think of yourself first and believe that forcing people's decisions is wrong and unproductive
    No, strictly speaking being an anarchist means you believe in an-archy, the abscence of archy, how so ever that is defined.

    There are some anarchists who would suggest that does not mean that your self is paramount and that forcing people's decisions is not illegitimate.

    Even anarchism has its own version of legitimate authority, it can even be more authoritarian than the status quo, whether that's the authority of the rich, simply because they have money and this confers legitimacy upon them, which the capitalist anarchy boils down to, or the public authorities how so ever they are constituted as syndicates, councils, committees, communes or unions, which is what the socialistic anarchy boils down to.

  2. #102
    Junior Member GatoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    No, strictly speaking being an anarchist means you believe in an-archy, the abscence of archy, how so ever that is defined.

  3. #103
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GatoLoco View Post
    Yet central bank monetization from massive trade deficit is killing the US economy slowly over time. Lose-lose.
    You might want to take a look at my previous posts that surround infrastructure rebuild of the manufacturing sector. In doing so, accompanied by other suggestions such as the buy domestic push, head or surcharge taxes for outsourced labour, juggling of line items within the Corporate tax returns, etc., this may help to bring more jobs back onto American soil whereby trade deficits would hopefully be decreased.

    Unfortunately, nothing will work if the gaps between principals and employees remains at such staggering levels with global conglomerates.


    The problem here is what happens to those in China should a large shift or large drop in consumption occur. Such a measurable drop in exports to the US could be effective genocide to unheard of numbers of Chinese who already aren't exactly living in Rodeo Drive conditions.
    Quite frankly, it's not the responsibility of Americans to feed the Chinese, much like it's not the responsibility of the Chinese to not take jobs away by artificially valuing the yuan, to ensure for trade surpluses via the manufacturing sector (cheap labour with less regulatory expenses).

    How many untold thousands of Chinese died from hunger/poverty from the real-estate bubble? A lot of factories shutdown and the shockwaves from that event still are being felt there.
    I'm uncertain why the real estate bubble is relevant considering it's the Chinese government that's deliberately trying to cool real estate speculation, hence causing the bubble to burst.

    Remove all corporate taxes on businesses under $30 million market cap (product based, not service industry; domestic - of course), IMO. Corporate taxes are a funny concept anyways as corporations don't pay taxes: shareholders and consumers pay them as they are just handed down.
    Interesting. But one small problem. How will this address the already staggering income disparity between principals and employees?

    I also believe we can't fix things until we have measured drops in consumption, along with a rise in interest rates. This should reduce consumer debt and instigate savings & investment. The problem here is current government spending habits could never float such a concept, so things will eventually be much, much worse... just later (i.e. kick the can down the road.. at least until the next election).
    Agreed with the drop in consumption. But I do have to challenge interest rate increases, considering the current near (and I believe false) liquidity trap that exists. The banks are currently dissuading depositors and have locked down on lending, housing trillions of excess dollars with the Fed Reserve.

  4. #104
    Junior Member GatoLoco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    You might want to take a look at my previous posts that surround infrastructure rebuild of the manufacturing sector.
    Will do. The good news is at least it seems to be agreed production needs to fast-track to a shift to at least self-sufficiency, with the big picture being an export power-house like we were at one time.

    Quite frankly, it's not the responsibility of Americans to feed the Chinese, much like it's not the responsibility of the Chinese to not take jobs away by artificially valuing the yuan, to ensure for trade surpluses via the manufacturing sector (cheap labour with less regulatory expenses).
    While I agree with you in principle, you have to admit it's an interesting challenge to accomplish the goal without a good slaughter, but instead the means to a potential uprising.

    My understanding from main-landers is they have a new hatred of America as they saw the drop in consumption during the mortgage crisis as a direct attack at them. When large quantities of their factories close overnight, their angst always seems to focus on USA, justifiably so...

    Interesting. But one small problem. How will this address the already staggering income equality differences between the principals and employees?
    I'm not particularly sure why there is anything wrong with that.

    If I create something innovative, put up the capital, take all the risks, etc. etc. I don't see why my payroll (and those of my trusted, innovative, top brass) shouldn't be several factors larger than the 20-something liberal arts degree lady who answers the phone and can't seem to order paper clips often enough so as we're always out of them. If they do not like this, they are more than welcome to set-up shop next door and try to compete with me. What IS important is to ensure we have a fair environment where everyone has that same option.

    Agreed with the drop in consumption. But I do have to challenge interest rate increases, considering the current near (and I believe false) liquidity trap that exists. The banks are currently dissuading depositors and have locked down on lending, housing trillions of excess dollars with the Fed Reserve.
    The lock-down is unfortunately ending as lenders are starting to unfreeze credit. I'm watching the same patterns here in California I saw back in 2001-2003 with lower income brackets now gobbling up homes that fell to 1/5th their values and buying multiple new cars to fill that driveway once again. The only real difference now is they want something down.

    While the Fed needs to be dealt with, fear of falling back into the same old patterns seems to cry out for stark rises in interest rates to counter.

  5. #105
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GatoLoco View Post
    Will do. The good news is at least it seems to be agreed production needs to fast-track to a shift to at least self-sufficiency, with the big picture being an export power-house like we were at one time.
    Yes. If you consider how the U.S. was shaped by globalisation, what was supposed to happen was that developed countries provided services and technology, whereby the rest provided manufacturing labour or commodities. People were educated to take on roles within this service and tech based society.

    Unfortunately for the U.S., the developing nations decided to also educate a subset of their citizens and offered up a cheaper white collar labour pool to global conglomerates who snapped up the cost savings and outsourced. You'll also note that domestic employees of these companies who chose to outsource divisions, didn't get a piece of any of these cost savings since the upper echelons took most of it, dispersing some to shareholders.

    So now, the U.S. has a relatively educated labour base with an insufficient number of jobs or future, with substantial debt from school loans.
    While I agree with you in principle, you have to admit it's an interesting challenge to accomplish the goal without a good slaughter, but instead the means to a potential uprising.

    My understanding from main-landers is they have a new hatred of America as they saw the drop in consumption during the mortgage crisis as a direct attack at them. When large quantities of their factories close overnight, their angst always seems to focus on USA, justifiably so...
    Can't blame them since the U.S. is an easy target for the Chinese government to point anger towards, rather than their own monetary policies and attempts to reduce real estate speculation.

    I'm not particularly sure why there is anything wrong with that.

    If I create something innovative, put up the capital, take all the risks, etc. etc. I don't see why my payroll (and those of my trusted, innovative, top brass) shouldn't be several factors larger than the 20-something liberal arts degree lady who answers the phone and can't seem to order paper clips often enough so as we're always out of them. If they do not like this, they are more than welcome to set-up shop next door and try to compete with me. What IS important is to ensure we have a fair environment where everyone has that same option.
    I'm not suggesting that disparity of any kind is unreasonable. But when you have disparities of 1100 times median wages as compared to CEO salaries, this is ridiculous greed.

    This is why the suggested adjustment to the line item of principal salaries and compensations be dropped below the taxable income line for corporate tax filings. It's a top down squeeze since the name of the game in corporate tax filings is how to reduce taxable income to as little as possible, to avoid paying the IRS while still maintaining sufficient to pay out shareholders post taxes deducted.

    Assuming this change is made, corporations will be looking for ways to reduce taxable income and conveniently, employee salaries and compensations are above the taxable income line...hence...an easy way to disperse income to avoid the tax man while engendering good will and loyalty from employees.

    As well, if you consider public companies, when shareholders are forced to shoulder the entire burden of principals salaries and compensations, they might get a little annoyed if the principals start taking chunks out of their fair share. And since shareholders elect the board of governors, who select the CEO, etc., the shareholders ultimately have the power to indirectly fire one that's not performing.

    Oh and finally, the monies will be double taxed, once at corporate level and another at the principals level ensuring for further income disparity relief on a general level. Gini's way too high at around 45.

    The lock-down is unfortunately ending as lenders are starting to unfreeze credit. I'm watching the same patterns here in California I saw back in 2001-2003 with lower income brackets now gobbling up homes that fell to 1/5th their values and buying multiple new cars to fill that driveway once again. The only real difference now is they want something down.

    While the Fed needs to be dealt with, fear of falling back into the same old patterns seems to cry out for stark rises in interest rates to counter.
    Interesting observation since it conflicts with what's being held at the Fed Reserve. Let's see if this expands beyond the real estate sector in Cali.

  6. #106
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GatoLoco View Post
    The smart aleck is wrong.

  7. #107
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    This is the same thing as promoting authoritarianism. Via type perspective, To decide for someone else's property and/or businesses reminds me of extroverted thinking. But what of those people who would exploit and disregard the collective rules, that is introverted thinking? This idea is blind to the reality that there are people, in government or in the business sector, who do not act nor manage collective resources according to a supposed external criteria simply because they are not pressured and are naturally apathetic to said collective contracts. No, just having government to maintain personal rights is enough constraint and the only viable constraint...in the long run.

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    No, just having government to maintain personal rights is enough constraint and the only viable constraint...in the long run.
    If the wealthy expects commoners to defend their property "rights", why is it bad for the commoners to demand equitable compensation?

  9. #109
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    If the wealthy expects commoners to defend their property "rights", why is it bad for the commoners to demand equitable compensation?
    It's not a matter of good or bad, it just doesn't work if you look at society's natural tendencies. Society is not a linear charitable animal nor is it a linear selfish machine. Forced equity ignores the latter, it has been tested, it has not work, and it won't work , in the long run.

  10. #110
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    It's not a matter of good or bad, it just doesn't work if you look at society's natural tendencies. Society is not a linear charitable animal nor is it a linear selfish machine. Forced equity ignores the latter, it has been tested, it has not work, and it won't work , in the long run.
    I think you're wrong about that. Because wealth aggregates pretty much by default you have to take pro-active measures against that to keep the economy a bit more even, because if it becomes too uneven it becomes unstable and unproductive.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. The Emerging Church - Thoughts on Postmodern Christianity
    By Apollonian in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 09:23 AM
  2. Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??
    By ladypinkington in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 06:13 AM
  3. Thoughts on Hybrid MBTI/Keirsey Types?
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2007, 03:52 PM
  4. My thoughts on the I phone
    By Opivy1980 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 06:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO