It's time to start a legit protest, and ignore this retardation

...to actually remove the idiots from power who voted to pay for the bailouts of these corporations
...and get rid of the people who allowed them to get the trillions they got in the first place



now if only there were a system put in place for their systematic removal and replacement..... hmmm..

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM. Reason : n]

10/26/2011 8:02:27 PM

Quote :

"Goaded by battalions of corporate lobbyists, members of Congress are working to give a select group of U.S. multinational firms like Oracle, Apple and Pfizer a lavish tax break on $1 trillion stashed offshore. A number of trade groups and corporations that would benefit have joined in a coalition called WIN America. New lobbying disclosure reports show that the group and its member firms have spent millions of dollars, and employed dozens of lobbyists, to press for the tax break, according to an analysis by iWatch News. The goal is to generate jobs and investment, but the offshore tax holiday was tried before, in 2004, and the lion’s share of the benefits went not to unemployed workers and their families but to corporate shareholders and executives. Defenders of the tax holiday say bringing money back from overseas will be a net positive, adding an infusion of cash into the economy and creating opportunities for new jobs. The New America Foundation has estimated that the boost to the economy could ultimately lead to the creation of from 1.3 million to 2.5 million jobs. But other estimates say the proposed tax holiday could end up costing the Treasury $40 billion to $80 billion over the next decade, and critics are asking why corporations and their shareholders should get a tax break on overseas profits, especially at a time of high unemployment. The high cost of the measure is one reason that its prospects for passage are mixed. Still, 73 members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have signed up as co-sponsors. And cash-rich corporations are pushing hard for the tax break. The current rules for tax repatriation, as the process is called, are a thorn for U.S. firms that make money overseas. American companies face a 35 percent corporate income tax. Money earned offshore is taxed only by the country of origin until it is “repatriated” to the U.S., at which time an additional tax is levied to make up any difference and bring the rate to 35 percent. The 2004 holiday allowed U.S. firms to bring their offshore profits back and pay a rate of only 5.25 percent. “I want them to pay their taxes like the rest of us,” said Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat from Michigan whose committee compiled a report in response to the push for a new tax holiday. “The rest of us don’t get a tax holiday.” There are 27 million businesses in America, and almost 10,000 have foreign subsidiaries and can qualify for the tax break. But only 843 of these firms took advantage of the bargain tax rates set by the 2004 law, the IRS says. Those 843 companies brought around $362 billion home from overseas. More than half the benefits went to just 15 companies. And just five — Pfizer, Merck, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson and IBM — retrieved $88 billion, a fourth of the funds returned. The countries of incorporation with the largest percentage of repatriated funds under the 2004 law included the Netherlands, Switzerland, Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. In many cases, the money was moved through shell companies, often just mailboxes, which had no employees or physical assets. Many firms used the “repatriated” money to launch stock buyback efforts, boosting the value of their shares and — via stock awards to senior managers — increasing executive compensation, rather than investing the money in new jobs or research and development, as the bill intended. Because of the law’s lax safeguards, firms that took advantage of the tax break in 2004 “did not … significantly increase employment or research and development,” Dhammika Dharmapala, an expert on tax policy, and one of the authors of a National Bureau of Economic Research study of the 2004 holiday, told iWatch News. The language of the law expressly forbade companies from using repatriated funds for stock buybacks or executive compensation. But that did not prevent companies from doing so — the research bureau calculated that from 60 percent to 92 percent of the money repatriated was paid out to shareholders. Drug giant Pfizer, which repatriated the single largest chunk of cash — $37 billion — announced that it was laying off thousands of employees in 2005. Yet from 2004 through 2006, according to the Senate inquiry, Pfizer repurchased more than $17 billion of its stock and awarded its five most highly compensated executives with shares worth $30 million. “If you’re looking for straight-up, direct job creation, the evidence isn’t there,” says Michael Mundaca, until this spring assistant secretary of the Treasury for tax policy in the Obama administration. The financial return for lobbying in the 2004 debate is indicative of why firms have once more embraced the goal. According to one University of Kansas study, companies reaped $220 in tax benefits for every $1 spent on lobbying — a 22,000 percent return. WIN spent the first nine months of this year actively lobbying for a repatriation bill in Congress. It spent $380,000 to target lawmakers with a total of eight lobbyists, including a former congressman and several former congressional staffers with ties to co-sponsors of the bill. • Jim McCrery, a former congressman who represented Louisiana’s 4th District until 2009. • Drew Goesl, who served as chief of staff for Rep. Mike Ross and communications director for Sen. Blanche Lincoln, both Arkansas Democrats; Ross is a co-sponsor of the House bill. • Tucker Shumack, a former legislative assistant for Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), a co-sponsor of the Senate bill. • Dena Battle, a former legislative director for Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has sway over U.S. tax policy. • Jeff Forbes, a former staff director on the Senate Finance Committee. • Libby Greer, a former chief of staff for former Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.). All told, 58 organizations and companies listed “repatriation” on their disclosure forms as an issue on which they were lobbying through the first nine months of 2011. While these companies spent at least $71.2 million on lobbying during this period, because of the way lobbying is disclosed, it is impossible to tell exactly how much was spent on what issue. WIN-affiliated companies such as Pfizer ($7,340,000 overall), Qualcomm ($3,880,000 overall), Microsoft ($3,592,000 overall), Apple ($1,350,000 overall) and Oracle ($1,150,000 overall), among others, spent at least some money to lobby on the issue. The 2004 tax break was advertised and sold as a one-time deal, but the affected firms correctly perceived that after a few years had passed they could demand another round of relief, and they have stockpiled hundreds of billions of dollars overseas in anticipation of the next holiday. Mundaca sees serious dangers in having the repatriation holiday. “I think a holiday every few years is unsustainable,” he told iWatch News. “You can’t have an important part of your tax system subject to the whims of the legislative process.” There are now several tax holiday proposals, embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. The Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act, for example, is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. It would reduce the tax on repatriated earnings to 5.25 or 8.75 percent, depending on the size of a firm’s payroll. Under the Hagan-McCain bill, firms that add workers would be rewarded and those that exploit the holiday and then lay off workers would be penalized — a new wrinkle designed to meet the criticism that several big firms which took advantage of the 2004 holiday proceeded to cut, rather than expand, their workforce. The tax break proposals are predominantly sponsored by Republicans, but three Democrats in the Senate and 10 in the House have signed on as co-sponsors of the two main bills. Among the Democrats who supporting the bill are representatives from districts with high-tech and software industries. Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo, whose districts encompass California’s Silicon Valley, and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for example, support the bill. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66668.html

video description of text -- watch this: http://youtu.be/PD1C-buv9o8



tl;dr version. We tried this in 2004, it didn't work, and in fact cost more jobs than it created, and we're considering doing it again, mostly because $1 in lobbying yields a $220 return for top executives. Yep.



[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 8:10:43 PM

yep tldr

10/26/2011 8:20:45 PM

On a lighter note:

http://www.jest.com/video/52363/where-occupy-wall-street-headlines-come-from

10/27/2011 12:06:32 AM

Quote :

"aaranburo fighting for the govt to come in and regulate church barbecues."

when a church barbecue lasts for a month and a half, wouldn't YOU want it regulated? it's funny how you are all for big government, except when it comes to your little piddly aimless protestors

Quote :

"We tried this in 2004, it didn't work, and in fact cost more jobs than it created"

how do you figure it "cost jobs"? I don't think any company said "hey, let's get rid of people now that we can bring some money back without getting assraped on taxes!" The layoffs were concurrent and were going to occur no matter what happened. Now, you might rightfully argue that it didn't create jobs, and you'd be right. But to say it "cost jobs" is aburd.

But, hey, would you rather that money just sit offshore doing nothing, or would you like to at least try to entice some of it back?

Quote :

"The language of the law expressly forbade companies from using repatriated funds for stock buybacks or executive compensation."

sounds like nobody decided to enforce the law. or, the law was shitty...

10/27/2011 6:40:36 AM

Ahahah burro you're such a fucking waste of space

I was just trying to think of a single worthwhile thing you could do with yourself given your current capabilities; maybe you could accidentally get in the way of a bullet meant for a worthwhile human, and at the same time donate your organs to charity. I can't think of a single other thing you're capable of doing that'd bring about an ounce of good

enriching some capitalist as his loving butt-boy houseslave doesn't count

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 7:41 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 7:41:05 AM

Quote :

"mostly because $1 in lobbying yields a $220 return for top executives. Yep. "

And you want Washington to control even more of the economy? Just so they can give it away cheap?

10/27/2011 9:18:38 AM

10/27/2011 9:52:40 AM

I love the way they talk about corporate shareholders like it doesn't include average Joes. Anybody with a 401(k) would likely benefit from this move. If this law isn't passed then there's no change. Corporations will continue to hold funds overseas in country's with more favorable corporate tax rates. If it is passed they may bring some back and simply put it into US banks (leading to the possibility of more credit being issued) or they may actually use it for things like increased hiring, R&D expenditure, facilities upgrades, etc.

How is this a bad idea again? I have a hard time seeing how passing this bill could actually have negative economic impacts in the US.

10/27/2011 10:40:12 AM

It won't have positive effects. All it would do is slightly appreciate the dollar on currency markets and transfer more income from the government to a small cadre of the rich.

10/27/2011 10:56:15 AM

I never said it would be definitively positive, just not negative like some folks seem to be arguing. Worst case scenario the government gets 5.25% of whatever they transfer back.

How would it transfer money from the government to a small cadre of the rich? Please explain.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM. Reason : asdfs]

10/27/2011 11:01:32 AM

Don't you see, guys, rich people didn't hold such power until the government existed to give it to them. If we get rid of government, how will the rich ever manage to transform money into power???

10/27/2011 12:15:34 PM

Probably by convincing idiots like you that government was necessary, when in reality they knew that you'd be an obedient, cheerleading rube while they plundered the treasury in darkness.

Look at the most powerful MNCs in the world. They have the full support of multiple governments, and in most if not all cases, have had a major hand in crafting regulation. No, corporations would not be able to get so powerful if we took a principled stand against centralized power.

10/27/2011 12:21:11 PM

Quote :

"Probably by convincing idiots like you that government was necessary, when in reality they knew that you'd be an obedient, cheerleading rube while they plundered the treasury in darkness."

The wealthy were the first to form governments. They accumulated wealth to the point of local and regional monopolies, and used that position to pay mercenary forces which maintained their control over the land. Eventually their rule was reinforced by religious indoctrination (God-Kings) that they enforced, and the mercernaries became known as "Law and Order". It was only in the past few hundred years that people began seizing these institutions from those who set them up using wealth and violence and executing them Democratically. Seriously this was the first few thousand years of human history, how are you completely ignorant to this?

Quote :

"They have the full support of multiple governments, and in most if not all cases, have had a major hand in crafting regulation. No, corporations would not be able to get so powerful if we took a principled stand against centralized power."

How do you think they got powerful enough to manipulate governments? Are you even familiar with pre-New Deal history?

Quote :

"No, corporations would not be able to get so powerful if we took a principled stand against centralized power."

Corporations are the epitome of centralized power. That's why as time has gone on they've only combined into larger and larger bodies. You aren't advocating against centralized power in general, just democratically controlled centralized power. You are more than willing to let private forces amass as much centralized power as they can. Really you're like a plantation slave joining in a States Rights protest.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 12:33:18 PM

Destroyer, I liked you better before you ripped off my rhetoric. (It's less effective when you actually don't have a fucking clue, BTW.)

10/27/2011 12:36:49 PM

YOU SAY ONE WORD NOW HERE THEY COME WITH THE WORD, TRYINA FLIP IT AND BOUNCE IT
ON SOME BULLSHIT

NOT SOUNDIN RIGHT FIRST OF ALL

10/27/2011 12:41:30 PM

Quote :

"The wealthy were the first to form governments. They accumulated wealth to the point of local and regional monopolies, and used that position to pay mercenary forces which maintained their control over the land. Eventually their rule was reinforced by religious indoctrination (God-Kings) that they enforced, and the mercernaries became known as "Law and Order". It was only in the past few hundred years that people began seizing these institutions from those who set them up using wealth and violence and executing them Democratically. Seriously this was the first few thousand years of human history, how are you completely ignorant to this? "

That's the entire fucking point! You hold out hope that one day, we'll have a government that isn't run by the wealthy, and it will never fucking happen. When the "people" take over the government, they soon realize that they can be the wealthy and influential class now, and they run with it. People are not altruistic. They will abuse power.

No one ever looks out for your rights better than you do. That's why I reject the necessity of a state and encourage many smaller-scale governments if they must exist.

Quote :

"How do you think they got powerful enough to manipulate governments? Are you even familiar with pre-New Deal history?"

Dude...pre-New Deal history in the U.S. is dominated by the proliferation of banking interests. The banking cartel was created in 1913 after the "panics" that came before where banks stood to lose big. That's why my big issue is dismantling the banking cartel. Oddly enough, the anti-corporate left turns a blind eye to central banking. I don't get it.

Quote :

"Corporations are the epitome of centralized power. That's why as time has gone on they've only combined into larger and larger bodies. You aren't advocating against centralized power in general, just democratically controlled centralized power. You are more than willing to let private forces amass as much centralized power as they can. Really you're like a plantation slave joining in a States Rights protest."

No, they really fucking aren't. Governments are the epitome of centralized power. You know why? Because they control the god damn military. A paper towel factory has no reason to spend trillions on nukes and tanks, and in fact, it could not do so and stay competitive.

Quote :

"Destroyer, I liked you better before you ripped off my rhetoric. (It's less effective when you actually don't have a fucking clue, BTW.)"

You mad again, bro.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2011 12:41:35 PM

Quote :

"You mad again, bro."

About as mad as I'd be at a 2-year old for dribbling applesauce onto his chin.

Quote :

"That's the entire fucking point! You hold out hope that one day, we'll have a government that isn't run by the wealthy, and it will never fucking happen"

Certainly not if there's a bunch of obtuse idiots like you standing in the way

Quote :

" No, they really fucking aren't. Governments are the epitome of centralized power. You know why? Because they control the god damn military. A paper towel factory has no reason to spend trillions on nukes and tanks, and in fact, it could not do so and stay competitive."

A great reason to allow totalitarian private institutions to take over what could be democratically controlled


[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 12:45:03 PM

Quote :

" Dude...pre-New Deal history in the U.S. is dominated by the proliferation of banking interests. The banking cartel was created in 1913 after the "panics" that came before where banks stood to lose big. That's why my big issue is dismantling the banking cartel. Oddly enough, the anti-corporate left turns a blind eye to central banking. I don't get it."

Lmao the fact that you put "panics" in quotation marks once again shows how fucking ignorant you are.

Quote :

" That's the entire fucking point! You hold out hope that one day, we'll have a government that isn't run by the wealthy, and it will never fucking happen. "

Because boot-lickers like you fight back against actually empowering our democratic institutions and cutting down those based around wealth accumulation.

Quote :

" When the "people" take over the government, they soon realize that they can be the wealthy and influential class now, and they run with it. People are not altruistic. They will abuse power. "

And yet you are all in favor of completely cutting the chains on Capitalism, the biggest power-centralizer in all of fucking history.

10/27/2011 12:46:41 PM

Quote :

" No, they really fucking aren't. Governments are the epitome of centralized power. "

As I pointed out, governments were the outcome of wealth centralization in the past.

Quote :

"You know why? Because they control the god damn military. "

Once again, in the past, this was because the very wealthy paid for the service of mercernaries to enforce their rule.

How many other threads have I seen you advocating privatizing defense and police forces? Lol.

Quote :

"A paper towel factory has no reason to spend trillions on nukes and tanks, and in fact, it could not do so and stay competitive."

They would if they could, and they (not paper towel factories obviously) in the past did exactly that. What makes you think the CEO of a paper towel factory is any different in his motivations than a politician?

Your ideology isn't innovative or progressive or liberating, it's just a desire for modern Feudalism.

10/27/2011 12:49:49 PM

I mean, you guys are assholes and cynics through and through, but somehow, you hold out hope that the whole of humanity, or even just the country, will get "on your level". They're not going to. When you die, most of humanity will still be very ignorant.

Your best bet is to move to a place where there are people like you. You're not going to force your values on the entire continent. Sorry, it won't happen. You want to believe that one day, we'll have a expansive (but truly democratic) government where people's interests are represented. It's impossible. It is actually impossible.

10/27/2011 12:52:08 PM

Quote :

"I mean, you guys are assholes and cynics through and through, but somehow, you hold out hope that the whole of humanity, or even just the country, will get "on your level". They're not going to. When you die, most of humanity will still be very ignorant."

This is textbook psychological projection. Unlike you, I don't want to rush magically and instantly to my favored system (as I don't believe the general state of education is high enough for it). I differ very little from reasonable liberals on most practical points of policy at the moment, and want our society to return to a legitimate, meritocratic, equitable form of capitalism.

To implement literally any of your ideas without returning us instantly to feudalism would require flashing everybody's BIOS to think like you (and it's not even clear, far from demonstrated or argued-for, that this would work in today's setting). So save the criticism for yourself. None of the things I want to do requires people to spend the time I do studying these issues. Allowing people access to a basic, quality education is dealing with a level of market failure you are ideologically blind to.

Quote :

"Your best bet is to move to a place where there are people like you. You're not going to force your values on the entire continent. Sorry, it won't happen. You want to believe that one day, we'll have a expansive (but truly democratic) government where people's interests are represented. It's impossible. It is actually impossible."

I'm not trying to force everybody into being a council socialist. I'm trying to advocate for a reasonable system of capitalism. Is this really so hard to understand?

10/27/2011 12:57:19 PM

Lmao the guy, who believes that 6 billion hairless apes just blathering about feeding their whims and wants with no large scale oversight or coordination will manifestly yield an emergent economic order that is just and meritocratic and provident, is calling me a dreamer.

10/27/2011 1:00:15 PM

Literally your philosophy boils down to "Things will just work themselves out if we let them!" and you are accusing me of having unrealistic expectations of the human race.

10/27/2011 1:01:18 PM

Quote :

"It's impossible. It is actually impossible."

No bro, going to the moon was impossible. Improving our government, economic and social infrastructure to the standard of, I dunno, that big giant country to the north of us that's also massive and filled with a diverse group of individuals is a pretty attainable goal.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM. Reason : :]

10/27/2011 1:05:02 PM

Destroyer you are not as stupid as your ideology. Rethink your conclusions carefully, give yourself more credit.

10/27/2011 1:06:41 PM

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

Quote :

"A recent CBS poll found that 43% of Americans agree with the views of Occupy Wall Street, with only 27% disagreeing. (Other polls have found similar sentiments.) But what do these numbers mean? Here’s some historical context: In 1959, five years after Brown v. Board of Ed, a 53-37 majority of Americans thought the decision had “caused a lot more trouble than it was worth.” In 1961, Americans believed by a 57-28 margin that civil rights demonstrations were doing more harm than good to the cause of integration. In October 1964, some 57% of Americans thought racial integration was moving “too fast,” and only 18% thought it wasn’t moving fast enough. In 1971, a national poll found only 39% percent of Americans “sympathetic … with efforts of the women’s liberation groups,” with 47% unsympathetic."

I can't really speak for the source, but if accurate, it kinda flys in the face of the people who keep saying this is just a bunch of fringe hippie bongo drummers who don't represent Americans (let alone humanity) as a whole.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM. Reason : :]

10/27/2011 1:12:11 PM

Quote :

"Lmao the fact that you put "panics" in quotation marks once again shows how fucking ignorant you are."

I think you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote :

"This is textbook psychological projection. Unlike you, I don't want to rush magically and instantly to my favored system (as I don't believe the general state of education is high enough for it). I differ very little from reasonable liberals on most practical points of policy at the moment, and want our society to return to a legitimate, meritocratic, equitable form of capitalism."

I don't want to rush magically and instantly to my favored system either. It's like you haven't read anything I've posted, ever.

I support gradual elimination of monopolies on force. I don't think there is ever an instance where we are better off when a single entity gets a monopoly on force. In other words, I want the state to do less. Competition is good. Competition brings higher quality and lower prices.

When you suggest that we hand over entire functions (schools, basic rights-protecting functions, healthcare), you are actually suggesting that we eliminate competition. Why do you think we have such shitty police and teachers? Because the market isn't allowed to work. Wages aren't allowed to adjust as they should, which means that higher wages are paid to shitty workers, or lower wages prevent otherwise qualified individuals from entering the workforce at all.

Quote :

"No bro, going to the moon was impossible. Improving our government, economic and social infrastructure to the standard of, I dunno, that big giant country to the north of us that's also massive and filled with a diverse group of individuals is a pretty attainable goal."

Do you care at all that large sections of the population don't want you want?

If you don't care, then just get hit by a bus or something. Not everyone wants want you want. You think you know what is best for everyone, but you don't even know what's best for yourself. You truly don't. You're a cheerleader for U.S. politicians on a daily basis. You have no clue how much worse off you are because of the policies you support.

10/27/2011 1:30:39 PM

Quote :

"Do you care at all that large sections of the population don't want you want?"

No, actually I don't fucking care what the "large sections of the population" that want to return us to the pre-1960s era of social inequality want. They should be totally purged from our society and government. I want what the MAJORITY of Americans want, which is free health care, affordable education, and higher standard of living for ALL.

10/27/2011 1:51:14 PM

So you want to purge everyone that disagrees. Sounds great, man. I think we're done.

10/27/2011 1:54:37 PM

So how many of you actually went to the occupied square of your town/city and try to prove your point outside of the intrawebz?

10/27/2011 2:27:53 PM

Quote :

"I want what the MAJORITY of Americans want, which is free health care, affordable education, and higher standard of living for ALL."

and an even more gargantuan central government to make sure it all runs smoothly whilst simultaneously serving as the object of your ire

amiright?

10/27/2011 2:34:33 PM

Nah, I showered, ironed my clothes and went to work.

Then went out and spent my money on booze and food.

10/27/2011 2:41:53 PM

yeah but you also didn't add much to this discussion

10/27/2011 2:59:37 PM

Quote :

"I don't want to rush magically and instantly to my favored system either. It's like you haven't read anything I've posted, ever. I support gradual elimination of monopolies on force. I don't think there is ever an instance where we are better off when a single entity gets a monopoly on force. In other words, I want the state to do less. Competition is good. Competition brings higher quality and lower prices. When you suggest that we hand over entire functions (schools, basic rights-protecting functions, healthcare), you are actually suggesting that we eliminate competition. Why do you think we have such shitty police and teachers? Because the market isn't allowed to work. Wages aren't allowed to adjust as they should, which means that higher wages are paid to shitty workers, or lower wages prevent otherwise qualified individuals from entering the workforce at all."

lmao are you claiming the reason our school are shit is because we pay teachers too much

markets won't work for education, at least not if you want a meritocratic society where everybody gets a shot at success. sorry. market failure. i know you're much too large of an idiot at the moment to recognize any market failure ever, but one day if you manage to ever mature even an inch you'll look back on this and chuckle (or probably rub your forehead).

I used to think stupid shit like this too until I started picking up books

Quote :

"So how many of you actually went to the occupied square of your town/city and try to prove your point outside of the intrawebz?"

<====

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 3:14:52 PM

and what do you do for a living that makes you so fucked?

or were you just there to comfort your poor disheveled brothers and sisters?

10/27/2011 3:29:42 PM

Quote :

"and what do you do for a living that makes you so fucked? or were you just there to comfort your poor disheveled brothers and sisters?"

I'm doing fine personally, but I don't allow this fact to cloud my judgment of the facts or to sway my personal sense of ethics. That may be hard for you to understand.

10/27/2011 3:33:42 PM

must see pic

10/27/2011 3:41:18 PM

^So the answer is to increase income. A family of 4 making 21k is below the poverty level.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ...]

10/27/2011 3:45:57 PM

Quote :

"Competition is good. Competition brings higher quality and lower prices. "

It's not all its cracked up to be. What you fail to mention is that competition also forces employees to compete by producing the most value for the least amount of compensation. There's 7 billion people in the world, and a lot of them are in China. I don't know what you do for a living, but I bet there's a Chinaman out there who's more than willing to do the same task for pennies on the dollar while inhaling toxins that are going to cut his life expectancy in half.

10/27/2011 3:53:12 PM

only remove 7 0s then.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM. Reason : s]

10/27/2011 3:57:46 PM

Quote :

"lmao are you claiming the reason our school are shit is because we pay teachers too much"

Nope. I'm saying that prices (wages) aren't allowed to adjust based on the market. There are bad teachers that get paid too much. There are good teachers that are paid too little. In general, the problem is that the teaching profession does not attract the "cream of the crop". In order to do so, it would need to be clear that great teachers will be rewarded with additional wages, while bad teachers are fired or paid less. There's really nothing worse than, "if you get hired you're in for life, unless you do something really terrible" if you want quality education. If you know a single thing about how businesses grow, you'll know that incentives for top notch performance are necessary. Employees also have to know that they can get fired if they don't work hard.

We do not have merit-based pay in the public school system today, or even in the university system. It's primarily a seniority-based pay scale, which is total bullshit. Some of my worst teachers were ones that had been doing it for 30 years. If you look at any other government profession, it's pretty much the same. The hard workers don't stay in what is considered the "bitch" position (teacher, street cop) because the high paying jobs are administrative.

This is a problem inherent to government jobs. The necessary market feedback is missing, and no bureaucrat knows how much any given position is worth. In the private sector, you only have a job for as long as there is work to do or as long as your superiors want to keep you around. In the public sector, you create work for yourself. Your "work" will expand to fill the time allotted to complete it.

Quote :

"markets won't work for education, at least not if you want a meritocratic society where everybody gets a shot at success. sorry. market failure. i know you're much too large of an idiot at the moment to recognize any market failure ever, but one day if you manage to ever mature even an inch you'll look back on this and chuckle (or probably rub your forehead)."

You're right, at least that markets won't work for universal education. You know why? Because not everyone wants to be educated, and we can't even agree on what counts as education and what counts as indoctrination. I don't consider that a market failure.

While you insist on pumping endless amounts of money into an education system that has failed, I suggest something radically different. With technology and the internet, education should be easier and cheaper than ever, but not if we cling to the obsolete K-12 public school model.

Quote :

"I used to think stupid shit like this too until I started picking up books"

It's not even clear that you fully understand my arguments, so no, I don't think you thought any of this. You must be picking up the wrong books.

10/27/2011 3:58:56 PM

i bet these bums are hating the wall street rally today.

10/27/2011 4:02:27 PM

Yo destroyer: join the conversation. It's not about 100% support of the status quo versus whatever visionary insights you happen to have

10/27/2011 4:18:42 PM

Was this posted, yet:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vZr9c1zYaOE

10/27/2011 6:00:25 PM

Quote :

"I want what the MAJORITY of Americans want, which is free health care, affordable education, and higher standard of living for ALL."

Actually, the majority of Americans just want free shit for themselves at someone else's expense. Sure you can get most people to agree to foot a small chunk of the bill, so long as you promise them that someone else is footing a larger chunk, but most people just want to be subsidized. It's perfectly natural, but to pretend it's some higher level altruism is stupid.

10/27/2011 6:39:13 PM

Quote :

"Actually, the majority of Americans just want free shit for themselves at someone else's expense."

hmm yes they are called the rich

unless you really think the poor are driving consumption out of control in this country when they have none of the money

10/27/2011 6:52:45 PM

the greatest trick Ronald Reagan ever pulled was convincing the working class that poor people are ruining America.

10/27/2011 6:56:01 PM

^^ Are the you arguing that the rich are the majority of americans or that the majority of americans want free shit at the expense of the rich? Either way, I'm not sure how you invalidate my statement.

10/27/2011 7:05:09 PM

Quote :

"Actually, the majority of Americans just want free shit for themselves at someone else's expense. Sure you can get most people to agree to foot a small chunk of the bill, so long as you promise them that someone else is footing a larger chunk, but most people just want to be subsidized. It's perfectly natural, but to pretend it's some higher level altruism is stupid. "

I agree that this is true for majority of Americans, and many other people around the world, especially as long as that "someone else" is out of sight and out of mind. It is part of human nature. However, when the standard of living and education reaches a certain level, people tend to become more willing (and able) to share the burden.

10/27/2011 7:17:09 PM