I've done work for them in the plant here. Made pretty penny consulting why they couldn't go any further with their 62.5 MM. Go fuck yourself.
Last edited:
Why don't you get a job at Ford before whining about your lemon?
I've done work for them in the plant here. Made pretty penny consulting why they couldn't go any further with their 62.5 MM. Go fuck yourself.
Good commentary:
A former Louisiana governor intentionally bringing up corruption? Maybe I'll give him a pass and just assume that he's abysmally stupid. Besides, he might have nominally converted to the Republican Party when it became politically necessary, but he's still a Democrat at heart.
Your argument is not persuasive. You are have neither the semblance of impartiality nor the intellectual credentials to back it up.Elizabeth Warren is a hard-line Democrat and her speech not only had several misleading elements in it but it also highlighted her animus towards the free enterprise system. I believe she is the Left's version of Robert Bork, viz. no one can doubt her intellectual credentials but she has no semblance of impartiality. Krugman's feigned surprise that Republicans received her speech poorly isn't particularly persuasive that the 'Wall Street Plutocrats' know the game is up.
You can imagine and suppose a lot of things. Neither your imagination nor suppositions make for a strong argument.I can only imagine his commentary on the Volcker Rule is purposefully vague because he knows that prop trading was not central to the crisis. Indeed, a prohibition on prop trading would not only hurt the affected banks' client but would hurt the liquidity of the markets as a whole. I suppose this doesn't fit his narrative so he disingenuously frames the issue to fit his narrative.
Again, suppositions with no back up.The tax loopholes are the price we pay for having a high corporate tax rate. That's always been the trade-off: you can have high rates and many loopholes or low rates and few loopholes. Maybe that shouldn't be the way the system operate but unless Krugman's contemplating an impractical overhaul substantial governmental processes this seems like mere filler.
Having free speech and having a government that listens to the concerns of its citizens and not just the oligarchy are two different things.I also take exception with the 'get their voices heard'. Maybe that line of reasoning works in totalitarian states where the state controls communication and the media. Last time I checked, however, America has a pretty good record -- even better than Europe -- in promoting and protecting the speech of its citizens. I think it would be much more prudent if they used all the various mediums available to propagate their message instead of invading certain cities and not only inconveniencing the denizens of those cities but, more importantly, leaving the taxpayers for those cities with not insubstantial bills.
You can imagine and suppose a lot of things. Neither your imagination nor suppositions make for a strong argument.
Again, suppositions with no back up.
Welcome to the AnandTech Forums. I, for one, am glad we have another member who is capable of rational, non-antagonistic discourse.http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/30/us-financial-regulation-volcker-idUSTRE62T56420100330
Is Paul Volcker a strong enough source? Or do I also have to link to the testimony of Geithner?
If the proposition I laid out vis-a-vis tax rates isn't true, ask yourself why, over the past 60 years, federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have averaged 18% despite there being a wide fluctuation in the marginal rate schedule and the number and scope of exemptions. Undoubtedly this figure also speaks to how tax policy affects incentives to work and invest but I think it also lends credence to my proposition which you dispute.
As to Ms. Warren, I am unable to discern from your perfunctory response the grounds on which you dispute my comparison. Perhaps matching words with feelings might help enlighten us all. Also, you should probably grab a dictionary and clarify the definition of oligarchy (hint: the government wouldn't have to listen to the oligarchy because the oligarchy would *be* the government)(extra hint: I think you might've gotten the meaning of oligarchy mixed up with plutocracy/plutocrats).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/30/us-financial-regulation-volcker-idUSTRE62T56420100330
Is Paul Volcker a strong enough source? Or do I also have to link to the testimony of Geithner?
If the proposition I laid out vis-a-vis tax rates isn't true, ask yourself why, over the past 60 years, federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have averaged 18% despite there being a wide fluctuation in the marginal rate schedule and the number and scope of exemptions. Undoubtedly this figure also speaks to how tax policy affects incentives to work and invest but I think it also lends credence to my proposition which you dispute.
As to Ms. Warren, I am unable to discern from your perfunctory response the grounds on which you dispute my comparison. Perhaps matching words with feelings might help enlighten us all. Also, you should probably grab a dictionary and clarify the definition of oligarchy (hint: the government wouldn't have to listen to the oligarchy because the oligarchy would *be* the government)(extra hint: I think you might've gotten the meaning of oligarchy mixed up with plutocracy/plutocrats).
Elizabeth Warren is a hard-line Democrat
and her speech not only had several misleading elements in it
but it also highlighted her animus towards the free enterprise system.
And then theres the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmess famous dictum that Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, youd think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a collectivist agenda, that she believes that individualism is a chimera. And Rush Limbaugh called her a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.
I believe she is the Left's version of Robert Bork, viz. no one can doubt her intellectual credentials but she has no semblance of impartiality.
Krugman's feigned surprise that Republicans received her speech poorly isn't particularly persuasive that the 'Wall Street Plutocrats' know the game is up.
I can only imagine his commentary on the Volcker Rule is purposefully vague because he knows that prop trading was not central to the crisis. Indeed, a prohibition on prop trading would not only hurt the affected banks' client but would hurt the liquidity of the markets as a whole. I suppose this doesn't fit his narrative so he disingenuously frames the issue to fit his narrative.
The tax loopholes are the price we pay for having a high corporate tax rate. That's always been the trade-off: you can have high rates and many loopholes or low rates and few loopholes. Maybe that shouldn't be the way the system operate but unless Krugman's contemplating an impractical overhaul substantial governmental processes this seems like mere filler.
I also take exception with the 'get their voices heard'.
Maybe that line of reasoning works in totalitarian states where the state controls communication and the media.
Last time I checked, however, America has a pretty good record -- even better than Europe -- in promoting and protecting the speech of its citizens.
I think it would be much more prudent if they used all the various mediums available to propagate their message instead of invading certain cities and not only inconveniencing the denizens of those cities but, more importantly, leaving the taxpayers for those cities with not insubstantial bills.
So then why are you whining about Ford? I thought working for the institution would fix things?
Craig, that is a great piece by Krugman. It is amazing how much of a difference it makes when you have a media sponsor/promoter like the Tea Party did with Fox News. It legitimized the Tea Party in the eyes of the other media outlets.
Why don't you get a job at Ford before whining about your lemon?
So then why are you whining about Ford? I thought working for the institution would fix things?
Craig, that is a great piece by Krugman. It is amazing how much of a difference it makes when you have a media sponsor/promoter like the Tea Party did with Fox News. It legitimized the Tea Party in the eyes of the other media outlets.
The kurgman piece is totally expected. They guy is a hard core leftists that thinks goverment is the answer and solution to all of the worlds problems.
more I read about the occupy crowds. They more I see a jealous greedy bunch of kids who were told everything was going to be easy for them in life, everything would be given to them on a silver platter all they had to do was show up
Really I thought Krugman was extreme Right Wing backer of Austerity? Starve the Beast!
I think it is more like people who have given up on our Government to level the playing field for all Americans and to get the money (corruption) out of Politics.
then what are unions doing there? They spend millions on politics.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
Krugmans opinion page is called the "conscience of a ilberal"
You have to give Roemer some credit. Even he was a one term governor, at least he was not in prison as "Fast Eddie" Edwin Edwards.
I think it is more like people who have given up on our Government to level the playing field for all Americans and to get the money (corruption) out of Politics.
Translation: you are a rabid ideologue, and so you look for a label to discount her because you can't actually use any argument to defeat her.
It's pathetic.
Which you can't bother to show, but even if right, you don't show her main message wrong at all. Because she's right.
You're lying.
It did no such thing. You are taking her speech which argued for good reforms to improve the 'free enterprise system' and misrepresenting it.
Clue: corporations used to pay a far, far higher share of the income taxes.
Yes, the only tyranny is the state - NEVER private concentrated wealth.
Go stand on a corner and talk. You have that freedom - but the government won't listen.
I'd say you are clueless about the issue, including what's needed to bring about any change to the corruption.
Waste of my time. I'll read one sentence if you choose to reply. It it's the same ideological waste of time, you get the last word because I don't plan to bother further.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to keep the government and powerful scared of the people, saying perhaps every 20 years the 'tree of liberty needed to be watered with the blood of patriots' to keep the corruption from taking hold. Maybe we can not go quite as far as he suggested, as you whine about 'inconveniencing some people' after decades of a historic grab of wealth shifting massive sums - trillions and trillions - wiping out the middle class for the rich to do better than ever, more than doubling their share of income at the same time.
Excellent post. Good luck with Craig though; anyone not 100% in lock step with his rabid ideology is branded a rabid ideologue and promptly ignored. He has zero tolerance for dissent - or for reality.Her vision of the world is one in which the government not only protects individuals from unscrupulous behavior of other market participants but also one one in which the government protects the individual from their own cognitive shortcomings and biases. I have no problem with the former, but I do oppose the latter, viz. I think her effort to make sure that consumers have greater information about the transaction into which they are entering or the terms of a particular arrangement or account is laudatory. Reducing informational asymmetries leads to more efficient markets which, in turn, leads to a more optimal use of resources.
As to the latter, leaving aside my general unease with the government assuming a paternalistic role in the lives of individuals, I think the principal problem with such schemes is that they often produce unintended consequences. Take, for example, the CARD Act's prohibition on credit card issuers from raising interest rates. Although this is great for the person whose rates would have been raised, the flat prohibition overlooks that the extension of credit -- especially unsecured credit -- is risky and interest rates are a principal means by which creditor can accurately price the risk posed by his individuals debtors. Denying the creditor the means to accurately price risk means that the cost of the increased credit risk are passed on to: a) existing customers (through annual fees or the like); b) new customers (who find it harder to get a credit card or pay higher interest rate generally). The same can be said for the crackdown on payday lenders: yes, they charge high rates of interest but they provide credit that people need. Would it be better that people: a) Don't get money they have a pressing need for; b) worse still, turn to loan sharks or criminal organizations?
In effect, some of the reforms she advances -- mostly those related to increased disclosure -- I support. I reject, however, her more expansive and intrusive reforms not only because they stifle individual liberty but, more importantly, they raise costs and will likely have the unintended consequence of driving the most vulnerable members of society out of the financial services sector and into the underground entirely. This paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1649647) does a good job highlighting some of the unintended consequences associated with increased consumer protection.
Here are my problems with her speech:
1) Fire, police and the like are paid for by the states so it's misleading to suggest that the factory-owners federal tax dollars are used to protect the factory from roaming bands of ruffians.
2) Given the progressive nature of the US tax code, nearly 47% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax. Thus, her suggesting that the 'rest of us' benefit the factory owner by paying taxes for the roads and other infrastructure is slightly disingenuous (unless she is tacitly endorsing expanding the tax base which is the only scenario under which her proposition would be true). Moreover, the CBO indicates that in 2007 -- the latest year for which figures were available -- the top 1% of earners paid 28% of all tax collected by the federal government (income, payroll and the like). I think it strange to imply that the rich aren't paying their fair share when they pay a higher proportion of overall revenue collected by the federal government (the 28%) and also pay a higher average rate for income tax purposes (23.3%) than those making less than 50k (7.2%) or those making 50-100k (8.9%).
3) She overlooks that the efforts of the factory owner does not only benefit the factory but also enriches the lives of 'ordinary' people in that we have the opportunity to purchase the products the factory owner is producing. Or, for an example befitting this forum, Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made a lot of money from their creation of Google; furthermore, no one is suggesting that taxes shouldn't be imposed on them for their earnings. To the average person, however, the principal benefit of Google's creation is not that it provided tax revenues for the government but that it created Google.
That's really the argument in a nutshell. Warren endorses a vision of the world in which the existence of private enterprise is tolerated because it provides money for the government to operate. Critically, however, she implies that government is the entity that is most likely to improve the lot of the ordinary individual. I, however, think that private enterprise enriches the lives of individuals far more than any bureaucrat could hope to and that limiting government intervention will not only increase each individual's liberty but will improve the lot of the ordinary individual.
You do realize that corporations don't pay any income tax, right? Even if assume you meant corporations paid a higher percentage of overall tax receipts, this is most likely a function of globalization, viz. a greater share of American corporation have operations that are taxed in the foreign jurisdiction in which they operate. Indeed, the fact that America has the second highest corporate tax rate in developed world might have encouraged this flight.
Perhaps government wouldn't be so beholden to the 'concentrated private wealth' if it didn't derive nearly 30% of its income from the concentrated private wealth.
The neat thing about America is that if the government isn't listening you can get together with other like-minded citizens and vote to have the government changed. If you can't find enough like-minded citizens that's probably more an indictment of you and your world-view than the government.
Talking about 'the corruption' without reference to actual examples makes you sound like some two-bit crackpot.
Oh man, you only tell me know. I wish your reply came with a disclaimer at the top.
Yeah, well, Jefferson also authored some extremely racist writings and also wnated to prohibit banks and have everyone be farmers (also, he probably wouldn't have endorsed the many entitlement programs of which you seem so fond). So if you have a hankering to be a racist subsistence farmer then quote Jefferson away. Otherwise let's leave him under his tree of liberty.
I do, however, have a question for you: Assuming I agree with all of the above (about the rich raping and pillaging the rest of us) would you rather be alive in 1960 or 2011? I think you seriously underestimate the benefits afforded to the rest of us by the rich and there was nothing about the world of 1960 that guaranteed the future would have higher living standards.
Excellent post. Good luck with Craig though; anyone not 100% in lock step with his rabid ideology is branded a rabid ideologue and promptly ignored. He has zero tolerance for dissent - or for reality.