12 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, but I've read enough Michael Lewis to know what he's going to say.
BS. Goldman Sachs screwed with the housing market on purpose leading directly to the housing crash. Did you watch the Michael Lewis stuff I linked before?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/60-minutes-michael-lewis-the-big-short/
Goldman Sachs did what was most profitable to them based on existing federal legislation. You can't blame someone for trying to make money legally. You blame the government for a poor regulatory effort, if anything.
12 Apr 11
4 edits
Originally posted by sh76OK. Clearly, we need more government involvement in our economy. Is that what you're suggesting? That it's the fault of these "less government" representatives the Right champions who were responsible for reigning in the rich folks?
No, but I've read enough Michael Lewis to know what he's going to say.
Goldman Sachs did what was most profitable to them based on existing federal legislation. You can't blame someone for trying to make money legally. You blame the government for a poor regulatory effort, if anything.
You can't blame someone for trying to make money legally. You blame the government for a poor regulatory effort, if anything.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game. Well, like I have said before, we need to use government to patch the game.
These financial people are like viruses. The quality of life of the host (the economy) isn't important to them.
12 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not a matter of more government or less government; it's a matter of smart government.
OK. Clearly, we need more government involvement in our economy. Is that what you're suggesting? That it's the fault of these "less government" representatives the Right champions who were responsible for reigning in the rich folks?
You can't blame someone for trying to make money legally. You blame the government for a poor regulatory effort, ...[text shortened]... like viruses. The quality of life of the host (the economy) isn't important to them.
12 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Oh, you're talking computers.
Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg and people of their ilk are top talent; politics did nothing to help get them where they are.
I'm talking finance and capitalism.
EDIT - They don't work for anybody do they? They're at the top of their business totem pole.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76Good points.
That simple, huh?
Well, it's actually not that simple.
First, if that's the answer - tax the rich - then when you do tax the rich, the people and politicians simply demand more and more handouts with all this newfound plunder from the rich. Unless you also freeze or cut spending, taxing more does nothing.
Second, you really don't want to get on the ot ...[text shortened]... be taxed more than they are now, certainly. But that's only part of the solution, at best.
I''ll add . . .
Four, unless you soak the rich (and restrict them from moving), there just isn't enough money among them to fix our deficits problem.
13 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDepends on who you talk to. There's was a fun article I read a while back that asked economists and politicians where the peak of the Laffer curve was. Most of the economists (left, center, or right) put it somewhere between 50% and 80% (for the record, I'd guess 70% ). The politicians were hilarious. Liberals had it up in the 90's and the conservatives were in the 20's and and 10's. Honestly, I was a bit shocked that not one right-wing loon said 0.
Where's the other side of the Laffer curve?
🙂
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's typical for the "rich" now to be high wage earners. This stands in stark contrast to the early part of the 20th century when the rich lived almost exclusively off capital income.
When I talk about taxing the rich I mean rich people who don't need a wage because they're rich.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76I will add that I would only advocate a proportional tax increase of the rich until such time as the deficit got below pre Bush levels. Freezing overall spending would be the best strategy. Any shortfall in spending in the areas of education and social security should come out of the defence budget.
That simple, huh?
Well, it's actually not that simple.
I do agree that increasing revenue while not putting a lid on spending is a recipe for disaster.
I found this article by Joseph E. Stiglitz in the current issue of Vanity Fair most enlightening.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
"Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret."
13 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere's no inherent distinction between computers and finance. Finance finances tech companies. Facebook was able to blossom because they got a $500k capital investment at its outset, etc. etc.
Oh, you're talking computers.
I'm talking finance and capitalism.
EDIT - They don't work for anybody do they? They're at the top of their business totem pole.
The great tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Ebay all spent years not making a dime (even losing big money). They were able to make it and blossom into the brilliant consumer-oriented tours de force that they are now at least partially due to finance and capitalism.
Of course regulations can be improved and the system can be tweaked. But I'll take the system capable of producing an Apple and a Google and an Amazon and a Facebook; you can have your system that produces the Citizenship and Immigration Service, the TSA and the 10-12 week passport renewal turnaround times; thank you.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh7610-12 weeks? Hand-crafted by a monk?
There's no inherent distinction between computers and finance. Finance finances tech companies. Facebook was able to blossom because they got a $500k capital investment at its outset, etc. etc.
The great tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Ebay all spent years not making a dime (even losing big money). They were able to make it and blossom into ...[text shortened]... Immigration Service, the TSA and the 10-12 week passport renewal turnaround times; thank you.
13 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMaybe as little as 6-8, depending on the time of year and whether they're backed up. The 4-6 weeks they post on their site is either overly optimistic of plain BS; at least in my experience.
10-12 weeks? Hand-crafted by a monk?
Of course, if you fork over some extra dough, you can get expedited service. Also of course, if the bureaucrats would work more than 10-4 with a 90 minute lunch break, it would be a few days...
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76Who's going to pay them for the extra hours?
Maybe as little as 6-8, depending on the time of year and whether they're backed up. The 4-6 weeks they post on their site is either overly optimistic of plain BS; at least in my experience.
Of course, if you fork over some extra dough, you can get expedited service. Also of course, if the bureaucrats would work more than 10-4 with a 90 minute lunch break, it would be a few days...