Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
> Einstein wrote:
> I would laugh as Texans owned you.
More later
If by some miracle they were successful with inflicting heavy casualties against my professional forces, then I would just carpet bomb it until they gave up. If that didn't work, I would nuke it.
That said, my point is this. A civilian force with legal firearms can not effectively fight a professional (as opposed to conscript) military.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
Afghanistan is laughing at you right now.>
Afghanistan rebels:
1. Have a lot better weaponry than Texas civilians
2. Enjoy mountainous terrain
3. Political organization is broadly distributed
4. Are funded by other states
5. The people are more intelligent than Texans
So it really doesn't count as a comparison. If they were to fight with legal firearms, they would get pwned. But they are fighting with military weapons, enjoy terrain advantages, and are fighting a guerrilla war.
Cardboard,
For hunting and self-defense. Maybe the latter makes me insecure, but the probability of a break-in is legitimate. Although I don't care for the idea of everyone carrying a gun in public places to stop crimes, I think it's fair to defend your home with a firearm. Although I believe the law should go further by saying that one temporarily forfeits their right to life if they illegally breaking in to a place of residence.
Zarf,
If I were to become the autocrat, and provided I commanded the loyalty of the federal military, I would love to see Texas resist the might of my imperial legions with their... puny firearms.
I don't care if gun laws work or don't. I want to own a gun, and F U if you want to take that right away. The only circumstance under which I would consider a ban on gun ownership is if the homicide rate was intolerable, which it isn't. Comparing 5 homicides per 100,000 people to 2 homicides per 100,000 people (numbers aren't factual, just intended to make a point) is lolz. Whether it is either statistic doesn't matter to me, as long as we have a reasonable chance to live.
Silly people getting lost in the numbers and forgetting the qualitative considerations...
Key,
So you are saying that:
1. Overall, a college degree is over saturated.
2. Even the most reliable IQ and Aptitude tests will grossly fail to measure the economic worth of an individual.
3. There are reasons other than ability that affect academic performance.
4. The mental faculties of some people give them an uneven performance in different academic and vocational subjects.
5. Some, even prominent, people obtain their degrees by cheating.
Assuming I understand your points, then aside from some minor details, it does not appear I am disagreeing with you.
The Republicans will lose if anyone but Romney is nominated. Then I expect Romney to defeat Obama. Obama is an annoying post-modern and cosmopolitan liberal, and that type of liberal is the most hated by conservative and moderate Americans. Romney, on the other hand, is the only pragmatic, socially liberal and economically conservative option, which reflects most moderate and independent voters. Another plus is his experience in business and politics. However, if a socially conservative Republican is nominated, then Obama is guaranteed victory. Most moderates and independents, who decide elections, have had enough with social conservatives and the crackpot concepts of Democratic Peace and American Exceptionalism. They will vote liberal out of fear of another idiot who will compel moral legislation, employ gunboat diplomacy, commit to expensive military adventures, and disrupt the global balance of power.
Nonsense. The more you own, the more and better sexual options you have - which is the meaning of life.
Art majors included. Although, I imagine that the mean would go up if they were excluded 
.
Key,
1. You can not graduate at any accredited United States institution of Higher Education with a D average. Maybe with a 2.0 average, but your options then are limited because many majors won't accept applicants with an average below 2.5.
2. I said education "suggests aptitude." You have raised exceptions, but not demonstrated how education and vocational aptitude are not correlated. With a related concept, IQ, there are examples of college graduates with an IQ below 90. That does not mean that any mentally handicapped individual can graduate from college, nor does it imply that graduates are often mentally handicapped. As a matter of fact, most graduates have an IQ that is superior.
The marketability of a degree depends on the demand for the skills certified by that degree. Degrees in subjects including Accounting, Economics and Engineering will provide abundant vocational opportunities because those fields have a shortage of skilled labor, while degrees in subjects including Art, History and Political Science are LOLz if you are not able to perform at the 90th-99th percentile..
That said, a degree in most subjects suggests aptitude, and will provide a competitive advantage (or sometimes disadvantage) and make vocational mobility a more viable option. Moreover, the college educated have lower unemployment. On the other hand, it's legitimate to argue that the benefits of unmarketable degrees exceed the benefits they offer.
The short summary of the problem with Higher Education is that there are too many suckers to whom the simple concept of supply/demand means nothing. To them, the college degree is the free ticket to upward class mobility, and it's those losers who are driving the cost of education up. Worse, lacking the aptitude to be successful in Higher Education, graduation rate is approximately 50-60%.
As a solution, recommend requiring that everyone attend a community or technical college first, and turn Universities in to two year institutions for those students who have proven their ability to be successful in a community or technical college. That should cut costs, weed out the imbeciles, and distribute financial aid more efficiently. Not that there isn't more that can be done, but that would be a first step with significant results.
WFS,
I suggest you read Aristotle's "Politics." While Athenian democracy may be radically different from our conception, Aristotle's treatment of democracy is more expansive, including some states with elements combining democracy and oligarchy. Some of those options look very similar to Republics. Moreover, Polybius wrote about the importance of checks/balances.
Also, Europe's departure from the Dark Ages academically corresponded with a revival in the Greek intellectual traditions.
ARFeh,
Actually, the western half of the empire always piggybacked off of the eastern half. The eastern half was always the wealthiest, hence why the east survived until 1453.
It's also important to note that the last Byzantine Emperor, Emperor Constantine XI, chose to die defending Constantinople rather than accept the offer of exile.
Not for 2000 years? Not since BC?
The Greeks safeguarded Europe from Muslim armies for hundreds of years. It was only defeated because of the treachery and pride of your feudal elites. The Muslims could have been defeated in Egypt, for example, but your treacherous and stupid feudal lords in the Crusader states... that and don't get me started on the Fourth Crusade.
Yes, bloody Frenchies didn't participate in the Battle of Vienna in 1683, because of their stupid feuds with the HRE. They deserve contempt for that, but their saving grace is the Battle of Tours.
Not only that, but the Greeks continued burning the light that was Rome while Western Europe descended in to the Dark Ages. Although the Muslims deserve credit for preserving Greek and Roman intellectual traditions, Greek contribution here is grossly underrated.
Yes, the US, Australia, and Canada are also indebted. However, it seems the EU is responsible, but I would be agreeable to the US contributing up to 50%. After all, the US is responsible for 40%(?) of the west's GDP.
WFS, not completely sure what you said. I am not fluent in pirate speak. But I think you said that Western civilization has many influences outside of Greece. I'm not disagreeing with that. I didn't mean that Western culture is unchanged or a direct continuation of Greco-Roman civilization. However, at the end of the day, Greek influence is titanic and undeniable. It's hard to look at most aspects of a Western culture without finding fingerprints from Classical Greece.
No. Millionaires pay more taxes than the average joe. The complaint is that they don't pay enough. However, my position is that millionaires should not be taxed heavily, because they keep the upper classes in check. Although, I am willing to agree to heavy taxes of individuals with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, as well as a heavy estate tax on persons with assets valued beyond $50 million or so.
Tax the billionaires not the millionaires.
Hellas is the mother of Western civilization. Yet you non-Greek Euros have inflicted or been complicit with enough injustices suffered by the Greeks already. You are indebted to them beyond what this "bail out" requires. First you injure them in the Crusades. Then you refuse to relieve them at the gates of Constantinople. Then you hesitate in the Greek Revolution. Then, you GUARANTEE that the Greeks fail to retake Constantinople and Anatolia (and the Russians prior). Then you let Turkey occupy northern Cyprus. Then you consider letting Turkey enter the European Union, while ignoring Turkey's genocides. Then you let Macedonia (a country not even geographically located in the ancient Macedonian kingdom of Alexander the Great, whose population is composed of slavs) get away with robbing Greek history. Now, you are complaining about lending a small portion of the money you owe to... your mother?
Know what I think? It's not hard to infer.
There are only two ways to grow an economy
1. Increase inputs
2. Improve efficiency so higher outputs can result from fewer inputs
2 is the best way. But unions get in the way with their stupid clause: "Thou shalt not introduce technology at the sacrifice of a job."
... DIE!
Unions are the enemy. They are traitors and parasites.
There is only one solution. Destroy all unions. There can be no compromise.
Edit: Greece also needs an independent press to expose corruption. And the reason why unions must die is because unions are barriers to efficiency. Your economy stagnates when productivity can not be increased because workers can not be sacrificed in favor of new technology, which is one of the most serious problems Europeans have. Thus the only solution for economic growth is immigration. Personally, I prefer economic growth from increased outputs from technology, and a free education system that redistributes labor efficiently.
LoLz at people objecting to government spending as a way to close the GDP gap. The government's options are fiscal and monetary policy. With fiscal policy, they can provide an injection in the economy by either lowering taxes or government spending. I personally prefer lowering taxes, but that means more debt or a cut in public services (which can lead to laying off public employees and have the opposite of the intended effect). People may also choose to just save their extra money, in which case it doesn't help any.
In our case, lowering taxes is not much of an option unless we dramatically cut military spending. And our monetary policy has frankly been ineffective, because banks are hesitant to lend domestically (but perfectly happy to invest overseas). The fact is that we are in a liquidity trap (The effects of the Federal Reserve are largely ineffective). Usually liquidity traps are caused by supply shocks, and although there was the Arab Spring, I am concerned a large part of it is overseas investment.
Out of Obama's traditional options, government spending is all he has available. However, it's time to rethink past legislation. We need to reverse the reforms that limited bank mergers and allowed them to offer other financial services, and outright ban them from investing and receiving deposits from foreign countries. That way banks will be forced to invest domestically and monetary/fiscal policy will be effective again. Without doing that, Obama's spending is just going to raise inflation.
Zarf,
True enough. That is the largest barrier atm, and I feel slightly uneasy about what the long-term consequences would be. On the other hand, a lot of our financial transactions are increasingly digitalized, making digital currency more of a possibility in the future.
In lines with the OP, I was thinking of one possibility where currency would become largely irrelevant. Suppose humanity invented a non energy intensive device that could turn energy in to matter, and that this device can create an android of sufficient intelligence to provide nearly any desired service. Then humanity would nearly enjoy perfect abundance. However, I cautiously use "nearly." I'm having a hard time ruling out all goods and services, such as some artistic goods and many basic public services provided by the government.. Although, I imagine the government could be a lot smaller.
Currency might become digital though.
> The Yell wrote:
There is no way to make $100 million work like $100,000>
Now you are beginning to understand. Although 25% taxes will handicap the investment potential of both individuals, the one earning $100,000 is handicapped more. The reason is that the person earning $100,000 spends a greater percentage of their disposable income on consumer goods, unless the person earning $100 million is frivolous to the extreme. Assuming the person earning $100 million is a frivolous spender, spending $20 million a year, their disposable income for investment would be 55%. For the person earning $100,000, they would have to cut their spending to $20,000 to use 55% of their disposable income on investment. While $20,000 is doable with considerable sacrifices the elite won't need to make, it illustrates just how the current tax system adds to the inherent investment advantages the elite enjoy.
Without a tax system that taxes the elite more, wealth concentrates in the hands of a few. When that happens, Republics evolve in to overt Oligarchies. The highest income earners then use their power to buy politicians to give them additional legal market advantages, and they get away with it. The bottom line is that money is power. If you want power to be broadly distributed (not equally, broadly), then the elite have to be taxed at higher rates.
As a Legal Positivist, I logically reject your claim that such taxation is theft. But for simplicity, I will tell you I don't care if it's "theft" or not. What matters is that there is no Plutocratic Oligarchy, and if "theft" is necessary to prevent such an evil then so be it. The ends justify the means.
Yell,
No duh. But it gives the elite a competitive advantage because someone who pays a tax rate of 25% of 100 million in taxes is harmed less than someone who pays 25% of $100,000. The latter may live better than most, but the tax rate effectively puts them at a disadvantage for buying assets. Thus the elite can readily accumulate wealth while their competition has little disposable income. Thus the elite need to be taxed more, and the upper middle class taxed less. That way assets become broadly distributed and do not concentrate in the hands of the few. That is how you have social mobility. Otherwise you have an aristocratic class, like we do now.
They may say they want a tax hike at the top. But the tax proposals effectively treat small business owners and professionals as "rich." Thus they get taxed the same as the elite.
> The Yell wrote:
<Nope, those are two separate things and we have less class mobility when there is less income equality. Income Inequality was BETTER during the Carter Administration, whiich was a time of great suck.
When it costs more and more to go from being a self-employed guy with no employees, to a boss, to a franchisor, then the schmucks who would have started out as clockpunchers are denied the opportunity to get in on a management track.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. The tax system eliminates competition for the elite by preventing people from being self-employed or starting a small business. It happens because the Republicans (Democrats too, but the neo-cons were first) are bought by the elite. This is why Gates and Buffet praise higher taxes on "the rich," when really they mean preventing the professional or small business owner from competing against them, and preventing lower classes from entering the upper middle class or lower rich. It also explains why political donations to politicians have become increasingly generous and overt.
Before, the elite paid more taxes than working professionals or small business owners. Now elites pay the same and ensured that the highest tax rate applied to the upper middle class. And when democrats say "lets tax the rich," they really mean "lets tax professionals and small business owners so the elite enjoy a competitive advantage for the trade of assets and maintain their monopolies."
Again. Taxation under Carter was less than preceding decades. Carter was also incompetent and suffered from an oil-supply shock, which raised prices and left consumers with less disposable income.
Taxes for the highest bracket were at their highest towards the end of World War II (94% for incomes above $5 million, worth $75 million today). The highest bracket in the 1970s was between 70%-70.75%. Moreover, there used to be many more brackets and they extended in to the elites. Beginning with Reagan, the number of brackets went from 15 (in the 1970s) to 5, and the highest bracket applied to the upper middle class. While the top bracket went up and down, as did the rates, it wasn't until Reagan that it applied to the upper middle class.
In short, the Republican party serve the elite, and this is why class mobility has gone down, evidenced by increasing income inequality. When there were more brackets, the highest bracket was high, and it applied to the elite, there was more social mobility. And I repeat, the 1970s were economically poor because of a supply-shock and Carter's incompetence, and it had nothing to do because the rich were taxed more. In fact, they were taxed less than preceding decades.
But I agree with Flint's idea.
Yell,
That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Imagine a guy $100 in income and a hundred people with $2.00 in income. If the tax rate is 50%, ofc the top earner is going to pay 50% of the taxes! But is that income fair or healthy for the economy? Most certainly not.
One fact check for you. The economy of the 1970s resulted from a supply-shock, not from high taxes on the super rich.
Adrius,
It's unfair to look at wealth by top percentage of income. For example, if you had a population of 1,101 people where:
1 person earns $10,000.00 = $10,000 by class
100 people earn $100 = $10,000 by class
1,000 people earn $10 = 10,000 total by class
Although the total income of that population is $30,000 and each class is responsible for 1/3 of the society's wealth, this society is hardly healthy. Although the second class lives decently and makes 10x as much as the third class, it is foolish to call them "rich." Look at the #1 person who makes 100x as much as they do! He is also the one who exercises the real power and can oppress the second class by hiring members of the other 1,000 as thugs!
But in the US, the top 1% of household income makes $1 million a year, and the 50th percentile of household income is 44,389. For simplicity, we'll say the latter is $50,000. The households earning $1 million a year earn roughly 20x as much as those in the 50th percentile. But a person earning $1 million a year may own a small business employing 10-20 people. That millionaire may also enjoy more power than the average person, but its unlikely to even touch the iceberg of power brokers in Washington D.C. On the other hand, those individuals with real influence on power - those with hundreds of millions and billions in assets - have a lot more than 20x the wealth and income of your small-time millionaire.
So when politicians say "lets tax the rich," I am suspicious that what they really mean is "lets tax the people with 6 figures incomes and small business owners while we eliminate competition for the elite because the tax brackets stop at $357,701! That, and we made tax loopholes that only we and they know about!"
I believe that "the rich" should pay more taxes, but not substantially more. They are also responsible for the majority of employment opportunities, and small companies are ofc more efficient. On the other hand, I have no problem if the tax brackets expand to include members of the elite, and the top bracket pays 80-90% in taxes. It would certainly strike a blow to plutocracy and possibly prevent another one from developing.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.