Republicans

[heyheybooboo]

Back in the old college days I didn't have a car and had to hitch hike everywhere (it was safe back then). I wanted to take a little break from school and head out to the beach, so I hit my favorite hitching spot out on the highway.

The third car that went past pulled over. As I ran up to the window the driver asked, "Are you a Dem or a Rep?" I said I was a Dem and the car sped off ...

A truck came by a few minutes later; the driver asked the same question, I replied I was a Dem, and he drove off, too.

Five minutes or so after that an Eldorado convertible pulled over. There was this beautiful woman with a thin sun dress driving the Caddy.

I walked up the the car and she asked, "Are you a Dem or a Rep?" I looked at her and said, "I'm a Rep, for sure" and she told me to hop in ....

We took off down the road. The wind was whipping through that convertible and that sun dress was flapping around and clinging to her body. At one point the dress flew up so far I could tell she wasn't wearing any panties, and I was going nuts.

At that point I hollered, "Lady! Lady! Pull off the road, quick!" She pulled off on the shoulder, looked at me and asked, "What's the problem?" I smiled at her and said:

"Sorry. I can't take this anymore. I've only been a Republican for 5 minutes and I already want to screw somebody."




--

 

[Acanthus]

I suggest you try to educate yourself. ALOT. Money is not a fixed supply item. Any high schooler whos taken basic Economics could tell you this. The current supply of money in circulation is VERY EASY to see, as is the expansion of that supply over time. Which is why theres been some concern as of late, the government has been on a printing rampage.

Printing money is inflation.

I'm an economics minor...

Money =/= Wealth

You go on and on about changes in circumstances but that does nothing to address what i am talking about, which is relative wealth and economic mobility.

Sure, you can give everyone on earth twice as much money as they have now, it will do nothing to change their circumstances relative to everyone else. The value of the money simply declines. Economics really is a zero-sum game.

 

[Specop 007]

"Pot, Kettle, Black" Jackass.

I pay a 28% marginal rate to prop up Government Motors. What do you pay?



Nice try. I scrambled for my job and worked my ass off billing 60+ hours a week for the past few years. The market is more than willing to pay for my work.



You've only proven that (1) You think you are some sort of telepath who knows what I think (2) You have no reading comprehension. The recession hasn't knocked me down. "Build yourself up again"? Please.

No wonder this country has gone to the dogs, with all the marginally literate people here.

For someone whos supposedly doing so damn well you have a lot of anger and jealousy over the "Rich". As for your cute snide comments about General Motors you can blame the government for that, not the rich. But I dont want facts to get in the way of a good rich white guy bashing.

Again....Bitter, party of one. Quit being jealous of others success and go make your own.

And to add, the "rich" pay FAR more in taxes than you ever will. So maybe instead of crying over someone whos already paying a higher percentage than you you would be better served to ask why so many pay nothing at all.....

 

[daishi5]

Printing money is inflation.

I'm an economics minor...

Money =/= Wealth

You go on and on about changes in circumstances but that does nothing to address what i am talking about, which is relative wealth and economic mobility.

Sure, you can give everyone on earth twice as much money as they have now, it will do nothing to change their circumstances relative to everyone else. The value of the money simply declines. Economics really is a zero-sum game.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, could you please explain a little more clearly what you mean. Zero-sum game means that only one person can benefit, and the other persons losses must = the winners gains. Or has my sarcasm meter just completely failed?

 

[Specop 007]

Idiot. I do't bother to reply to things that idiotic. How much do I make, since you claim to know? As if it has anything to do with the rightness of the argument?

I have said a number of times I avoid RL info, but I'm curious, if we compare the AGI on our last tax forms, and mine is higher than yours, will you drink 2 cups of refrigerator coffee? How abiout double yours?

This isnt about if I make your than you or less. This is about your rage and jealousy of the "rich". Now whats funny is the classification of "Rich" is always in the eye of the beholder. To some welfare rat "rich" is 50k a year and damn them they should be taxed into oblivion! Now to someone who makes 250k a year the "rich" might be 750k or a million a year income.

Its always a moving target depending on where you are. So really direct comparisons of income mean little. the simple fact is you use your own success, or lack thereof, as the baseline and anyone doing better than you becomes the target of your anger and jealousy.

The rich arent rich because they have some supernatural powers of theft and boot wielding. They are rich because they are driven, intelligent and savvy in the world of business.

Why do you think so many can come from a life of little and become "rich", whereas most lottery winners file bankruptcy within 5 years. Ever see the kind of person buying lottery tickets?

 

[Acanthus]

I disagree, but it is mainly on technicalities. Money is zero sum in transactions, but only if you ignore the value of the goods relative to the benefit they provide to the parties in the transaction. You can evaluate transactions that way, but I don't see why you would do this. The total sum of resources at any given time is zero sum, but the "value" to each person is different. Therefore, even though the resources do not increase, transactions are not zero sum, because two people can make a trade, and both can benefit, the total value everyone receives increases, so even without increasing the total resources it is not zero sum. For example, farmer buys fertilizer, to him it is more valuable than the money he spent (or he would not have spent the money), and to the company selling the money is more valuable than the fertilizer (or they would not have sold).

Edit: Also, "wealth" as being defined by the total sum of "money" such as dollars or gold is an outdated definition that I believe was abandoned with mercantilism. I won't say it is wrong, but I think it is much better to refer to wealth as the sum of possessions and services one has and receives plus the total of wealth and services that could be acquired with current capital. The total possessions being actual wealth, and the capital being potential wealth that has not been realized.

Honestly, before I started writing this I had forgotten how vague the definition of "wealth" is, and now that the rusty gears are turning I am remembering and going way off track.

Ahh now we are getting somewhere. Opportunity cost.

The land of trading away thousands of square miles of land for beads and such.

 

[Acanthus]

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, could you please explain a little more clearly what you mean. Zero-sum game means that only one person can benefit, and the other persons losses must = the winners gains. Or has my sarcasm meter just completely failed?

I am talking on a macroeconomic scale, this discussion was related to my earlier proposal to tax the fuck out of nations we trade with that exploit their people.

In that context, when i say zero-sum, i mean that in order for us to get a "great deal" on a plasma tv from china, their labor pool has to be exploited and their lands polluted into oblivion to do so.

Here is the game, we "trade" them loads of raw materials. They make it into stuff we want. They then "trade" us said stuff for a low price. The low price is reached because of the exploited labor pool.

The chinese man/woman working there has no real alternative, work for a couple of dollars a day or starve. So they do so, and are exploited by their nation.

This problem is so widespread right now that 10% of our jobs have been sent overseas (the last statistic i saw). 10% more minimum wage factory jobs would go a long way in the US... even if the cost of goods increased as a result.

 

[daishi5]

I am talking on a macroeconomic scale, this discussion was related to my earlier proposal to tax the fuck out of nations we trade with that exploit their people.

In that context, when i say zero-sum, i mean that in order for us to get a "great deal" on a plasma tv from china, their labor pool has to be exploited and their lands polluted into oblivion to do so.

Here is the game, we "trade" them loads of raw materials. They make it into stuff we want. They then "trade" us said stuff for a low price. The low price is reached because of the exploited labor pool.

The chinese man/woman working there has no real alternative, work for a couple of dollars a day or starve. So they do so, and are exploited by their nation.

This problem is so widespread right now that 10% of our jobs have been sent overseas (the last statistic i saw). 10% more minimum wage factory jobs would go a long way in the US... even if the cost of goods increased as a result.

I don't see how that is exploitation. You said it yourself, they have two choices, work to make us cheap crap or starve. If we remove the "work to make us cheap crap" option, they only have one option: starve. We can't pretend that these people have the option of working for American level pay, they don't have the infrastructure to produce American level output.

Furthermore, trade is not zero-sum. We already covered the fact that trade is giving them an option other than "starve." I think we can agree that options other than starve are better, so the chinese are better off. The americans get the cheap crap, for a reduced monetary cost, so we get more stuff, which means we get more through trade.

If you want to read more on this, you might want to read up on David Ricardo and the Law of Comparative Advantage.

 

[werepossum]

I disagree, but it is mainly on technicalities. Money is zero sum in transactions, but only if you ignore the value of the goods relative to the benefit they provide to the parties in the transaction. You can evaluate transactions that way, but I don't see why you would do this. The total sum of resources at any given time is zero sum, but the "value" to each person is different. Therefore, even though the resources do not increase, transactions are not zero sum, because two people can make a trade, and both can benefit, the total value everyone receives increases, so even without increasing the total resources it is not zero sum. For example, farmer buys fertilizer, to him it is more valuable than the money he spent (or he would not have spent the money), and to the company selling the money is more valuable than the fertilizer (or they would not have sold).

Edit: Also, "wealth" as being defined by the total sum of "money" such as dollars or gold is an outdated definition that I believe was abandoned with mercantilism. I won't say it is wrong, but I think it is much better to refer to wealth as the sum of possessions and services one has and receives plus the total of wealth and services that could be acquired with current capital. The total possessions being actual wealth, and the capital being potential wealth that has not been realized.

Honestly, before I started writing this I had forgotten how vague the definition of "wealth" is, and now that the rusty gears are turning I am remembering and going way off track.

Wealth, being anything of value, is continually being created and consumed; its value is not finite (even if one does not count services) due to farming, mining, and manufacturing which are all creators of wealth in that they create something of more wealth than the sum of its constituent parts. Even the quantity of money continually fluctuates due to credit, as our modern credit system creates money by allowing the bank to loan more money than it possesses. Also, within the free market, all transactions involve a perceived increase in value to both parties, else they would not occur. When I fork over five bucks for a hamburger, it's because I value the hamburger more than my five bucks, whereas the seller values my five bucks more than his hamburger. By creating the hamburger and establishing a pleasant and convenience place for me to purchase it, the seller has with his labor and capital created wealth, else I would have purchased the pieces and made my own hamburger. There is no zero sum game in anything approaching a free market. Even a pure communist economy such as North Korea involves the creation of wealth, even though the objects its government chooses to acquire (military hardware) and its limited means of production leaves the society ever poorer.

 

[Acanthus]

Wealth, being anything of value, is continually being created and consumed; its value is not finite (even if one does not count services) due to farming, mining, and manufacturing which are all creators of wealth in that they create something of more wealth than the sum of its constituent parts. Even the quantity of money continually fluctuates due to credit, as our modern credit system creates money by allowing the bank to loan more money than it possesses. Also, within the free market, all transactions involve a perceived increase in value to both parties, else they would not occur. When I fork over five bucks for a hamburger, it's because I value the hamburger more than my five bucks, whereas the seller values my five bucks more than his hamburger. By creating the hamburger and establishing a pleasant and convenience place for me to purchase it, the seller has with his labor and capital created wealth, else I would have purchased the pieces and made my own hamburger. There is no zero sum game in anything approaching a free market. Even a pure communist economy such as North Korea involves the creation of wealth, even though the objects its government chooses to acquire (military hardware) and its limited means of production leaves the society ever poorer.

The question we seem to be at ends with is "if a hungry man trades me a 9lb diamond for a hamburger, it is a fair trade?".

I would of course say no, as in different circumstances the hungry man would be able to buy all of the beef on earth with said diamond. You if i am not mistaken would say yes, because we have a mutual trade in which both parties are at least partially satisfied.

 

[daishi5]

The question we seem to be at ends with is "if a hungry man trades me a 9lb diamond for a hamburger, it is a fair trade?".

I would of course say no, as in different circumstances the hungry man would be able to buy all of the beef on earth with said diamond. You if i am not mistaken would say yes, because we have a mutual trade in which both parties are at least partially satisfied.

That really depends, did the man willingly give up the 9lb diamond without coercion? Was the man allowed to trade with anyone else (not a monopoly situation)? Was the man free to refuse the trade or alternatively try to make his own food? Was the man allowed to trade anything other than the diamond. Was the man of sound mind when he made the trade?

If the answer to those is yes, then yes it was a fair trade. This was a contrived example however, I doubt you would be able to say yes to all those conditions, and still have this example, unless there was something very very special about that hamburger to that man.

 

[Specop 007]

Printing money is inflation.

I'm an economics minor...

Money =/= Wealth

You go on and on about changes in circumstances but that does nothing to address what i am talking about, which is relative wealth and economic mobility.

Sure, you can give everyone on earth twice as much money as they have now, it will do nothing to change their circumstances relative to everyone else. The value of the money simply declines. Economics really is a zero-sum game.

Look, argue economic theory with your professor. Out here in the real world its not zero sum.

So if you want to teach classes you'll do great. If you want to run businesses you'll fail. Well, succeed perhaps as the government will come bail you out..... But thats another matter.

 

[ebaycj]

No kidding, the Republicans haven't followed free market in ages.

Republican definition of free market: "more money for me".

 

[ebaycj]

+1

I see it Specop's way as well -- that it has historically been Democrats and Liberals that have supported policies that promote, directly or indirectly, equality of outcome. This is the primary reason why I am a conservative (note that I did not say Republican).

You guys are too over the top.

Find me one democrat who says that a highschool dropout should have the same salary / benefits / responsibilities as a highly educated neurosurgeon. You can't because that person doesn't exist.

Democrats are more concerned with the *DEGREE* of disparity in the distribution of wealth, rather than the disparity itself. For example, why does the average Fortune 500 CEO's make approximately 300x the average worker's salary now, when back in the 1970's and 1980's, they made 30x the average worker's salary? What changed about the position in the last 30-40 years to make it so much more valuable than it was? (numbers may not be 100% accurate, but are ballpark numbers. it's the proportion that matters anyway.)

Too high of a degree of concentration of wealth limits society's total utility of that wealth, and thereby makes the economy inefficient. This is where we are today, and is undesirable. Too low a degree of concentration of wealth limits peoples' motivation. This is most conservatives' biggest marxist nightmare, and is also undesirable. A happy median needs to be reached.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You guys are too over the top.

Find me one democrat who says that a highschool dropout should have the same salary / benefits / responsibilities as a highly educated neurosurgeon. You can't because that person doesn't exist.

Democrats are more concerned with the *DEGREE* of disparity in the distribution of wealth, rather than the disparity itself. For example, why does the average Fortune 500 CEO's make approximately 300x the average worker's salary now, when back in the 1970's and 1980's, they made 30x the average worker's salary? What changed about the position in the last 30-40 years to make it so much more valuable than it was? (numbers may not be 100% accurate, but are ballpark numbers. it's the proportion that matters anyway.)

Too high of a degree of concentration of wealth limits society's total utility of that wealth, and thereby makes the economy inefficient. This is where we are today, and is undesirable. Too low a degree of concentration of wealth limits peoples' motivation. This is most conservatives' biggest marxist nightmare, and is also undesirable. A happy median needs to be reached.

The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States is $140,350. FYI...members of Congress are paid $165,000.

The median annual earnings for a person over 25 yrs old in the United States is $32,140.

CEO median income is 4.37x...not even close to 30x or 300x. Yes some of the CEOs for some of the largest corporations make some decent coin...but get real...we aren't talking about a huge number of people here. Feel better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States

 

[palehorse]

The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States is $140,350. FYI...members of Congress are paid $165,000.

The median annual earnings for a person over 25 yrs old in the United States is $32,140.

CEO median income is 4.37x...not even close to 30x or 300x. Yes some of the CEOs for some of the largest corporations make some decent coin...but get real...we aren't talking about a huge number of people here. Feel better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States

shhh, stop presenting facts in what was otherwise an emotional debate based on grand exaggerations and generalities used to paint CEOs into the evil corner where they belong!

 

[JS80]

Printing money is inflation.

I'm an economics minor...

Money =/= Wealth

You go on and on about changes in circumstances but that does nothing to address what i am talking about, which is relative wealth and economic mobility.

Sure, you can give everyone on earth twice as much money as they have now, it will do nothing to change their circumstances relative to everyone else. The value of the money simply declines. Economics really is a zero-sum game.

Holy crap. Fail post is fail.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The inflation-adjusted pay of the average worker in the United States has been stagnant for over 20 years. Twenty years ago, the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker pay was approximately 10:1. The ratio in 2006 is now a whopping 282:1.

 

[blackangst1]

Printing money is inflation.

I'm an economics minor...

Money =/= Wealth

You go on and on about changes in circumstances but that does nothing to address what i am talking about, which is relative wealth and economic mobility.

Sure, you can give everyone on earth twice as much money as they have now, it will do nothing to change their circumstances relative to everyone else. The value of the money simply declines. Economics really is a zero-sum game.

Bingo. Thats what so many bleeding heart types dont seem to get. Lets say we raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Lets say we have an assistance program so the lowest level of income is now $30,000/yr.

Now what? Inflation will drive prices higher so their new incomes dont purchase anything more than they did before. Its all reletive.

 

[blackangst1]

Holy crap. Fail post is fail.

No, its not. Its 100% on.

 

[JS80]

No, its not. Its 100% on.

Economics is not a zero sum game. That would mean in caveman times everyone was riach biach!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The inflation-adjusted pay of the average worker in the United States has been stagnant for over 20 years. Twenty years ago, the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker pay was approximately 10:1. The ratio in 2006 is now a whopping 282:1.

Holy shit....2500 CEO's and top execs from some of the most successful corporations in the world are making too much money compared to the average Joe. We got to do something about this! /s

 

[Specop 007]

Bingo. Thats what so many bleeding heart types dont seem to get. Lets say we raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Lets say we have an assistance program so the lowest level of income is now $30,000/yr.

Now what? Inflation will drive prices higher so their new incomes dont purchase anything more than they did before. Its all reletive.

I think you like using catchy phrases and words that you really dont understand.

Wealth can be created. It is not a zero sum game. Such idiotic statements only work in classrooms for purposes of discussions. Since you seem fixated upon theoretical discussions that have no basis in real world applications I'll leave you be.

 

[Hacp]

I think you like using catchy phrases and words that you really dont understand.

Wealth can be created. It is not a zero sum game. Such idiotic statements only work in classrooms for purposes of discussions. Since you seem fixated upon theoretical discussions that have no basis in real world applications I'll leave you be.

But who will be creating that wealth? With all our factories shipped to China, the only thing we can do is advise others how to spend their money and I don't think they would want our advice; look how our economy turned out when we followed it.

 

[werepossum]

That really depends, did the man willingly give up the 9lb diamond without coercion? Was the man allowed to trade with anyone else (not a monopoly situation)? Was the man free to refuse the trade or alternatively try to make his own food? Was the man allowed to trade anything other than the diamond. Was the man of sound mind when he made the trade?

If the answer to those is yes, then yes it was a fair trade. This was a contrived example however, I doubt you would be able to say yes to all those conditions, and still have this example, unless there was something very very special about that hamburger to that man.

Exactly right. In a free market, a man of sound mind would trade his 9 pound diamond for a hamburger only if that were the only food available, in which case it certainly would be a fair trade, or if the 9 pound diamond were suitable only for use as diamond dust for coating drill bits, or possibly if there was something else very special about the circumstances; perhaps the man is George Soros-wealthy and the hamburger is being served deli style on Halle Berry's naked, writhing body. If you're an old white multi-billionaire, that experience might well be worth a 9 pound diamond to you.

Generally speaking, monopolies are granted and enforced by governments for their own benefits, not as a result of free market activity. In those rare cases where monopolies arise in a free market, we have government to restrict them. But having government as the arbiter of all value is simply asking to be legislated into an USSR-equivalent economy.