05 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't care if Tepper speculates with his money -- but he is not welcome to mine.
No, speculation in the financial markets hasn't damaged the economy at all in the last few years.
As for using government money (partly mine) to bail out Tepper -- I also vote 'No.'
A lot of speculators eventually lose their shirts. Keeps them honest.
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358Speculation damages the economy which does affect you.
I don't care if Tepper speculates with his money -- but he is not welcome to mine.
As for using government money (partly mine) to bail out Tepper -- I also vote 'No.'
A lot of speculators eventually lose their shirts. Keeps them honest.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSpeculation may affect me but so do hurricanes. Although both may be undesirable, neither involves injustice. With speculation and bad weather, I just need to adjust my personal exposure to the point where I am comfortable, e.g. build inland; buy insurance.
Speculation damages the economy which does affect you.
The fact that China won't allow their currency float and that Israel continues to mistreat Palestinians affects me, too, but those situations involve injustice, and I support doing something about them.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358The damage by both hurricanes and speculation can potentially be diminished using the right policies. You can build dams and you can regulate the financial markets better. In the latter case you must be careful to not discourage genuine long-term investments, however. So the "right" policy must strike a balance between encouraging constructive long-term investment while discouraging harmful short-term speculation.
Speculation may affect me but so do hurricanes. Although both may be undesirable, neither involves injustice. With speculation and bad weather, I just need to adjust my personal exposure to the point where I am comfortable, e.g. build inland; buy insurance.
The fact that China won't allow their currency float and that Israel continues to mistreat Pal ...[text shortened]... ects me, too, but those situations involve injustice, and I support doing something about them.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe government's record for protecting against hurricanes is not viewed as stellar at the moment.
The damage by both hurricanes and speculation can potentially be diminished using the right policies. You can build dams and you can regulate the financial markets better. In the latter case you must be careful to not discourage genuine long-term investments, however. So the "right" policy must strike a balance between encouraging constructive long-term investment while discouraging harmful short-term speculation.
Better to encourage individuals to take responsibility for themselves, rather than lull them into a false sense of security.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I see you've opened a nice can of blame-the-victim. I'm sure the families of those who died in the Katrina disaster - most preventable deaths - agree with you that it was their own fault.
The government's record for protecting against hurricanes is not viewed as stellar at the moment.
Better to encourage individuals to take responsibility for themselves, rather than lull them into a false sense of security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDon't mis-characterize what I said. You said government can protect us from hurricanes. I pointed out the latest failure of government to protect us from hurricanes.
I see you've opened a nice can of blame-the-victim. I'm sure the families of those who died in the Katrina disaster - most preventable deaths - agree with you that it was their own fault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
You want to reward government's failure by giving them more power and responsibility. I'm saying there are many cases where individuals can more efficiently protect themselves -- and getting government out of the way will help that.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358So you're saying the government stopped people from building the water defense works in New Orleans that they planned to build?
Don't mis-characterize what I said. You said government can protect us from hurricanes. I pointed out the latest failure of government to protect us from hurricanes.
You want to reward government's failure by giving them more power and responsibility. I'm saying there are many cases where individuals can more efficiently protect themselves -- and getting government out of the way will help that.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo. I said that the government built dikes and people trusted that they were adequate because the government represented them as such. Only they weren't.
So you're saying the government stopped people from building the water defense works in New Orleans that they planned to build?
So to claim that this is evidence that government should be entrusted with greater responsibility is perverse.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358But your claim appears to be that if the government wouldn't have built those dikes, people would have constructed better dikes themselves. Now my question is: why haven't they?
No. I said that the government built dikes and people trusted that they were adequate because the government represented them as such. Only they weren't.
So to claim that this is evidence that government should be entrusted with greater responsibility is perverse.
"Government did not do job X perfectly. Therefore government should not be responsible for job X."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI didn't commit that fallacy because I didn't generalize.
But your claim appears to be that if the government wouldn't have built those dikes, people would have constructed better dikes themselves. Now my question is: why haven't they?
"Government did not do job X perfectly. Therefore government should not be responsible for job X."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
You are committing the fallacy of assuming what you wish to prove, i.e. "government is good at protecting us from hurricanes".
I presented a counter-example where government clearly did not protect us from hurricanes. So now you need to prove your statement in the face of my counter-example to win the argument.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I wouldn't say that "government is good at protecting us from hurricanes", but rather that "government is the only thing protecting us from hurricanes [using large-scale defenses]". So the question of whether or not the protection is "good" is meaningless since you can't compare it to anything - the only meaningful comparison would be between an effective government and a relatively ineffective one.
I didn't commit that fallacy because I didn't generalize.
You are committing the fallacy of assuming what you wish to prove, i.e. "government is good at protecting us from hurricanes".
I presented a counter-example where government clearly did not protect us from hurricanes. So now you need to prove your statement in the face of my counter-example to win the argument.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI've never fully understood why the tax code generally treats many types of unearned income more favorably than earned income (except for the EIC, of course). Odd, indeed.
Apparently Tepper and people like him get to treat their earnings as capital gains and pay a lower rate of taxes:
To add insult to injury, some hedge fund managers and, more commonly, private equity fund managers are able to pay a much lower rate of tax than the typical working professional.
The tax disparity results from an outdated rule that let ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04sun2.html
Gotta love our tax code.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76Because those types of unearned income go disproportionately to the people who either write the tax code or have the most influence over those who do.
I've never fully understood why the tax code generally treats many types of unearned income more favorably than earned income (except for the EIC, of course). Odd, indeed.