ashw_justin Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 So anyways, what percentage of California's budget deficit is related to downward readjustments of property taxes? (Assuming that they are actually doing this faithfully) Quote
JayB Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Your entire argument falls apart when you jettison the premise that the problems of drug use are confined to the users body and the immediate ping-pong ball-shaped Hobbesian force field that surrounds it. But then I can't imagine that you see many communities that are dealing with those problems from the heli-window. The same is true of smoking, drinking, promiscuity, pornography, obesity, gambling, etc. It's possible to mitigate the social costs of all of the above, and discourage destructive excesses associated with them, without outlawing or criminalizing them. In fact, in just about every case, criminalizing them exacerbates the costs to both the individual and society, rather than reducing it. The fact that there are people who abuse personal freedoms doesn't constitute a sufficient argument for granting the state power to eliminate them. Sorry. Don't be sorry, I agree that in some cases there are better uses of resources to combat the problems associated with drug use than criminalization. Chiba, yes. Something that might induce you to throw a severed head out of a car doing 90 or turn one into a jibbering vegetable robbing the neighbors at steak-knife point, no. Not sure why this is a problem... This is why we have laws against doing 90, severing heads, and robbing neighbors at knife point. The assumption that prohibition effectively combats any of the above is a tenuous one, at best. The crime, violence, etc that it spawns are abundantly clear. Quote
JayB Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 So anyways, what percentage of California's budget deficit is related to downward readjustments of property taxes? (Assuming that they are actually doing this faithfully) Think that's more of a city/county issue, but maybe someone from California could chime in if that's not correct. Quote
prole Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) This is why we have laws against doing 90, severing heads, and robbing neighbors at knife point. The assumption that prohibition effectively combats any of the above is a tenuous one, at best. The crime, violence, etc that it spawns are abundantly clear. By all means, take your meth-legalization plan to the next Yakima, Darrington, Twin Falls, Bend, Chilliwack, or Butte town council meetings. I'm sure some of the family members of meth users could astonish you with stories of "amazing transformations". Edited January 22, 2009 by prole Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 47% of all drug convictions are for marijuana, so it's probably helpful to start any drug policy discussion with that low hanging fruit. About a 3rd of Washington voters will not accept any form of decriminalization, about a 3rd don't think the War on Drugs is working but don't know what to do about it, and about a 3rd think pot should be completely legal. Washington has already passed a medicinal marijuana law, but use and possession remains a criminal offense with mandatory day in jail. Clearly, processing and jailing marijuana users is not cost effective, particularly in times of severe budget deficit. On mid step that may be acceptable to Washinton voters would be to reduce possession to a class 2 infraction, with a maximum $100 fine payable by ticket. Regarding the harder drugs, the question is whether society wishes to return to the high addiction rates of the 1920's and the associated social costs and outlays for increased treatment in exchange for a less expensive criminal justice system and the social costs of incarceration. Surely, the goverment must regulate the sale and marketing of harmful substances; poisons, carcinogens, prescription drugs, so presumably it also enjoys the right to regulate drugs such as cocaine and heroin. It would seem workable if government would decriminalize possession of the harder drugs and maintain complete control of their sale. Users would have to get their drugs at treatment centers, where they'd be afforded a safe environment to use while being coaxed into treatment. This approach has been successful in other western countries, including our neighbor to the north. The Moralists hate it, but the end results for everyone are more attractive. Quote
j_b Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Well, this particular cretin was out kayaking and fly-fishing for a couple of days, so I hope that you'll pardon my absence. Are you really calling yourself a cretin? Because I certainly didn't call you that. And you do have a habit of disappearing when taken to task, for reason you only know, as well as a habit of not addressing what you are told. It's not that I can't respond, it's just that it's tough to summon the energy to respond to what you've presented. It's difficult for me to discern a central argument to respond to in those posts, and it would take more energy than I have at the moment to crank out an argument to deal with each assertion that forms the basis of the sub-arguments to be found in each of the snippets, so I'll just have to put forward a few assertions of my own. Wow! Didn't I say that not taxing resource extraction, decreasing progressive taxes, decreasing corporate taxes, and decreasing social spendings, when the real economy shrinks and good paying jobs are outsourced, all the while increasing regressive taxes on sales and services, and increasing spendings on law and order, results in budget shortfalls that are bound to get worse as revenues from the casino economy crash? -Neither Grey Davis nor Swarzenegger have governed as "free market fundamentalists," and you'd be hard pressed to find such a creature amongst the Democratic majority that actually controls the legislative and regulatory output in Sacramento. If such a man exists, he must take direct personal inspiration from Sisyphus. Whichever hat they wear, they are responsible for the policies described above that are typical of market fundamentalists. Progressives do not have the undemocratic super-majority necessary in the state legislature to change policy. Changes would have been vetoed by either Davis or the gropinator anyway. -California's state and local taxes comprise the sixth highest of any state, and California has been in or near the top-ten in this category since at least the 1970's. California residents pay over $5,000 per capita in state and local taxes - currently the 7th highest in the nation. I read 13th which is on par with other rich, highly urbanized regions. Thankfully, living in California isn't like living in Texas in terms of service availability, you ought to know by now that nothing is free. But most importantly, taxes as a fraction of average income is below the national average. The state currently ranks 47th out of 50 in terms of it's business tax climate (State, local, corporate, property, sales, and unemployment insurance taxes). right, let me check what the dominant "business tax climate" has brought on the overwhelming majority of americans ... Trend in corporate California state taxes up to 2003: Abstract Since 1988, California Corporation Tax revenues grew much more slowly than both the California economy and other major sources of California revenue. In fact, inflation adjusted Corporation Tax revenues actually declined during this period. This paper finds that much of the apparent weakness in the California Corporation Tax can be attributed to policy decisions. Estimates are presented of the revenue losses from: the creation and expansion of new forms of business organization, growth in the use of corporate tax credits (most prominently the Research and Development Credit and the Manufacturer’s Investment Credit), increases in the use of Net Operating Losses, corporate tax rate reductions, and the water’s-edge election http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/Corporate_Tax_Trends.pdf If California is having trouble paying it's bills, its not because people and businesses are taxed too lightly. I never said 95% of the people were taxed too lightly. I said that progressive income tax has been partly replaced by regressive taxes, which has displaced the burden of state revenue onto the middle and lower classes. -If you are arguing that national policy is to blame, you'll need to demonstrate that the said policies have adversely affected California in a manner independent of any particular legislative or regulatory policies that California has enacted or enforced. I didn't argue it but it is clearly true that national policies are also to blame. Note that your condition ("in a manner independent ...") is bunk because it wouldn't be surprising for state policies to reinforce the dominant dogma. But, here is one example of how it can happen: "In late September, while the major presidential candidates debated solutions for reforming the federal corporate income tax, a little-noticed ruling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opened the door for widespread corporate tax avoidance by a few of the biggest, most profitable financial institutions in the country. The IRS ruling, which took Congressional tax writers by surprise, will almost certainly push the federal government—and many states—further into the red at a time when they can least afford it.Generally, corporations that report tax losses in a given year are allowed to apply these losses against profits in future years. But this ability to “carry over” losses from one year to reduce taxes in future years has limits. For example, when one company buys another company that has tax losses, the law prevents the acquiring company from using the purchased company’s tax losses. There’s a very sensible reason for this rule: to ensure that companies don’t purchase other companies simply as a tax dodge. But a little-noticed September IRS administrative ruling creates a specific, temporary exemption from this rule for banks acquiring other banks whose tax losses are attributable to bad loans. The rule is apparently retroactive." http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irsruling20081106.pdf -Your stance against outsourcing is really just an argument against the mutual advantages of trade. "advantages" for corporations but not people. Lower prices for walmart plastic junk never make up for loss of good paying jobs. If you really think that this practice is harmful for the nation, and California in particular, why draw the line at jobs, and why demarcate the borders around the US? Per this line of reasoning, California would be better off if it mandated that all companies operating in California had to locate 100% of their operations in California, contract all of their services with California businesses, etc. If a business in Oregon offered them a better value for their money - tough. You could extend the same logic down to the region, city, and town level. Ditto for all raw materials, machinery, etc. Want to sell diamonds? Better find 'em in California, buddy... This is a strawman argument because I am not a protectionist. Fair trade includes clauses about worker welfare and environmental protection. There is a cost to doing business that includes living wages and paying for externalites. Communities also have built these industries in many different ways, why should robber barrons steal them away? Wanting so-called free trade without fair trade measures will have the average person in the US meet the chinese 95% of the way toward their condition, including not uncommon slavery of children, if it's what we have to compete with. Irrespective of what spending programs are desirable or useful from a particular point of view - states have to allocate scarce resources that have many alternative uses in a framework that's determined by the amount of taxable revenue generated by the citizens and businesses within the state. States have significantly less scope to finance their deficits than the Federal government. This is the reality. It's unfortunate that the folks running California seem to have forgotten this to the tune of ~40 Billion dollars that they have no idea how to finance. All states will have a hard time funding their budgets during this recession, but the fact that California's taking the worst hit suggests that the policy and regulatory framework in California may have something to do with it. Appropriate state services demand progressive income tax policies. Anything else and the majority of us will live in slums. It's just a matter of time. Quote
JayB Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 This is why we have laws against doing 90, severing heads, and robbing neighbors at knife point. The assumption that prohibition effectively combats any of the above is a tenuous one, at best. The crime, violence, etc that it spawns are abundantly clear. By all means, take your meth-legalization plan to the next Yakima, Darrington, Twin Falls, Bend, Chilliwack, or Butte town council meetings. I'm sure some of the family members of meth users could astonish you with stories of "amazing transformations". Again - take gambling, drinking, pornography, promiscuity, overeating, etc and you could easily produce a crowd that would pour forth with a litany of heart-breaking tragedies brought about by a loved one's behaviors. The fact that there are currently, always have been, and always will be people who have difficulty coping with the freedoms that society allows individuals does not justify granting the state the power to take the said freedoms away from everyone else. Moreover, we've had prohibition, criminalization, and incarceration for ~ 90 years now, and the misfortunes you've alluded to are still with us, and this tragedy has been compounded by an expansion of state power over individual behavior, a dimunition of personal freedoms, a massive missalocation of resources into an enforcement/incarceration bureaucracy, a massive subsidization of organized crime, etc, etc, etc. I'd have zero problem presenting the legalize and treat model as a superior alternative to the prohibition/criminalization/incarceration system that we currently have in place to any such meeting. Quote
JayB Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 47% of all drug convictions are for marijuana, so it's probably helpful to start any drug policy discussion with that low hanging fruit. About a 3rd of Washington voters will not accept any form of decriminalization, about a 3rd don't think the War on Drugs is working but don't know what to do about it, and about a 3rd think pot should be completely legal. Washington has already passed a medicinal marijuana law, but use and possession remains a criminal offense with mandatory day in jail. Clearly, processing and jailing marijuana users is not cost effective, particularly in times of severe budget deficit. On mid step that may be acceptable to Washinton voters would be to reduce possession to a class 2 infraction, with a maximum $100 fine payable by ticket. Regarding the harder drugs, the question is whether society wishes to return to the high addiction rates of the 1920's and the associated social costs and outlays for increased treatment in exchange for a less expensive criminal justice system and the social costs of incarceration. Surely, the goverment must regulate the sale and marketing of harmful substances; poisons, carcinogens, prescription drugs, so presumably it also enjoys the right to regulate drugs such as cocaine and heroin. It would seem workable if government would decriminalize possession of the harder drugs and maintain complete control of their sale. Users would have to get their drugs at treatment centers, where they'd be afforded a safe environment to use while being coaxed into treatment. This approach has been successful in other western countries, including our neighbor to the north. The Moralists hate it, but the end results for everyone are more attractive. +1 Quote
JayB Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 What's interesting to me is that there are folks who simultaneously insist that terminating a pregnancy is an exquisitely personal matter with no ethical or moral dimension beyond personal choice and that any state encroachment on this turf represents a dire intrusion of the state across the boundary of protected personal freedoms, etc - but insist that the consumption of addictive drugs by non-pregnant adults should be outlawed. There's at least a logical consistency in the anti-abortion/anti-drug outlook, and in the pro-abortion/pro-legalization outlook - but it's puzzling when there's such a glaring conflict between the stance on one issue and the other. Prole, Justin, etc - care to explain? I think we have this argument before and I think that your philosophical arguments are convincing, particularly with reference to constitutional promises and personal freedom. But it's entirely another issue I think to suggest that a government should rescue its finances by promoting (from a relative perspective) revenue-generating markets that more or less promise to harm its constituency, at least in the short term. I don't think that's the way it should happen, and I don't think that's the way it happened in the case of abortion. Assuming that we are in agreement re: personal freedom, there is the broader question of how to implement the ideal of personal freedom as it pertains to drugs in a humane fashion. It is easier to accept abortion purely as a societal phenomenon given that it appears to be stable and predictable, and the effects on society are far from catastrophic, if even negative. We don't know how a drug liberalized society would behave, and while it is a very romantic concept that many of us agree with in theory, I think that high a level of caution is warranted in regard to trying to make it happen. In any case, the slow legalization that appears to be occurring, as agonizingly slow as it may be, might be the most prudent way to go about it. In the meantime maybe California will figure out how to manage its finances... without performance enhancing drugs. bada bum ching Yeah - the drug taxes to balance the budget comment was partly in jest, even though I'd honestly prefer that to the effects of the currently drug policy in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As long as we're talking hypotheticals here, I'd attach a mandate that stipulates that all revenues derived from taxes on the sale of drugs have to be spent on treatment, prevention, etc. Returning to the way things are at present, though, it seems like we're already at a point where the state simultaneously taxes vices and attempts to discourage and/or limit their harm. Smoking, drinking, and gambling - doesn't seem like such a stretch to add other vices to the roster. Quote
JayB Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Well, this particular cretin was out kayaking and fly-fishing for a couple of days, so I hope that you'll pardon my absence. Are you really calling yourself a cretin? Because I certainly didn't call you that. And you do have a habit of disappearing when taken to task, for reason you only know, as well as a habit of not addressing what you are told. It's not that I can't respond, it's just that it's tough to summon the energy to respond to what you've presented. It's difficult for me to discern a central argument to respond to in those posts, and it would take more energy than I have at the moment to crank out an argument to deal with each assertion that forms the basis of the sub-arguments to be found in each of the snippets, so I'll just have to put forward a few assertions of my own. Wow! Didn't I say that not taxing resource extraction, decreasing progressive taxes, decreasing corporate taxes, and decreasing social spendings, when the real economy shrinks and good paying jobs are outsourced, all the while increasing regressive taxes on sales and services, and increasing spendings on law and order, results in budget shortfalls that are bound to get worse as revenues from the casino economy crash? -Neither Grey Davis nor Swarzenegger have governed as "free market fundamentalists," and you'd be hard pressed to find such a creature amongst the Democratic majority that actually controls the legislative and regulatory output in Sacramento. If such a man exists, he must take direct personal inspiration from Sisyphus. Whichever hat they wear, they are responsible for the policies described above that are typical of market fundamentalists. Progressives do not have the undemocratic super-majority necessary in the state legislature to change policy. Changes would have been vetoed by either Davis or the gropinator anyway. -California's state and local taxes comprise the sixth highest of any state, and California has been in or near the top-ten in this category since at least the 1970's. California residents pay over $5,000 per capita in state and local taxes - currently the 7th highest in the nation. I read 13th which is on par with other rich, highly urbanized regions. Thankfully, living in California isn't like living in Texas in terms of service availability, you ought to know by now that nothing is free. But most importantly, taxes as a fraction of average income is below the national average. The state currently ranks 47th out of 50 in terms of it's business tax climate (State, local, corporate, property, sales, and unemployment insurance taxes). right, let me check what the dominant "business tax climate" has brought on the overwhelming majority of americans ... Trend in corporate California state taxes up to 2003: Abstract Since 1988, California Corporation Tax revenues grew much more slowly than both the California economy and other major sources of California revenue. In fact, inflation adjusted Corporation Tax revenues actually declined during this period. This paper finds that much of the apparent weakness in the California Corporation Tax can be attributed to policy decisions. Estimates are presented of the revenue losses from: the creation and expansion of new forms of business organization, growth in the use of corporate tax credits (most prominently the Research and Development Credit and the Manufacturer’s Investment Credit), increases in the use of Net Operating Losses, corporate tax rate reductions, and the water’s-edge election http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/Corporate_Tax_Trends.pdf If California is having trouble paying it's bills, its not because people and businesses are taxed too lightly. I never said 95% of the people were taxed too lightly. I said that progressive income tax has been partly replaced by regressive taxes, which has displaced the burden of state revenue onto the middle and lower classes. -If you are arguing that national policy is to blame, you'll need to demonstrate that the said policies have adversely affected California in a manner independent of any particular legislative or regulatory policies that California has enacted or enforced. I didn't argue it but it is clearly true that national policies are also to blame. Note that your condition ("in a manner independent ...") is bunk because it wouldn't be surprising for state policies to reinforce the dominant dogma. But, here is one example of how it can happen: "In late September, while the major presidential candidates debated solutions for reforming the federal corporate income tax, a little-noticed ruling by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opened the door for widespread corporate tax avoidance by a few of the biggest, most profitable financial institutions in the country. The IRS ruling, which took Congressional tax writers by surprise, will almost certainly push the federal government—and many states—further into the red at a time when they can least afford it.Generally, corporations that report tax losses in a given year are allowed to apply these losses against profits in future years. But this ability to “carry over” losses from one year to reduce taxes in future years has limits. For example, when one company buys another company that has tax losses, the law prevents the acquiring company from using the purchased company’s tax losses. There’s a very sensible reason for this rule: to ensure that companies don’t purchase other companies simply as a tax dodge. But a little-noticed September IRS administrative ruling creates a specific, temporary exemption from this rule for banks acquiring other banks whose tax losses are attributable to bad loans. The rule is apparently retroactive." http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irsruling20081106.pdf -Your stance against outsourcing is really just an argument against the mutual advantages of trade. "advantages" for corporations but not people. Lower prices for walmart plastic junk never make up for loss of good paying jobs. If you really think that this practice is harmful for the nation, and California in particular, why draw the line at jobs, and why demarcate the borders around the US? Per this line of reasoning, California would be better off if it mandated that all companies operating in California had to locate 100% of their operations in California, contract all of their services with California businesses, etc. If a business in Oregon offered them a better value for their money - tough. You could extend the same logic down to the region, city, and town level. Ditto for all raw materials, machinery, etc. Want to sell diamonds? Better find 'em in California, buddy... This is a strawman argument because I am not a protectionist. Fair trade includes clauses about worker welfare and environmental protection. There is a cost to doing business that includes living wages and paying for externalites. Communities also have built these industries in many different ways, why should robber barrons steal them away? Wanting so-called free trade without fair trade measures will have the average person in the US meet the chinese 95% of the way toward their condition, including not uncommon slavery of children, if it's what we have to compete with. Irrespective of what spending programs are desirable or useful from a particular point of view - states have to allocate scarce resources that have many alternative uses in a framework that's determined by the amount of taxable revenue generated by the citizens and businesses within the state. States have significantly less scope to finance their deficits than the Federal government. This is the reality. It's unfortunate that the folks running California seem to have forgotten this to the tune of ~40 Billion dollars that they have no idea how to finance. All states will have a hard time funding their budgets during this recession, but the fact that California's taking the worst hit suggests that the policy and regulatory framework in California may have something to do with it. Appropriate state services demand progressive income tax policies. Anything else and the majority of us will live in slums. It's just a matter of time. -I am not opposed to progressive taxes, and prefer an income tax to various consumption taxes for the same reasons. -I'm also for the optimal sustainable tax-yield, so that the state actually can afford to pay for roads, education, etc. I think we differ on what would constitute a sustainable revenue optimizing tax-model. -When it comes to corporations (and all other businesses), they can only do two things with their money. Pay their employees with it, or re-invest it in the business. This is true even of money they put in savings or investments - eventually they have to use it for one or the other. The less money they spend on taxes, the more they'll spend paying their employees or building new factories, etc. Where we differ substantially is that I think that an optimal corporate tax rate would be zero, and that the gains in income taxes would more than offset losses in corporate taxes. Around the world, most countries - even in Europe - are reducing their corporate tax rates for this very reason. Conduct a brief thought experiment and imagine the amount of capital that would flow into the US if the corporate/business tax rate were permanently and permanently reduced to zero. Would this result in increased factories, wages, etc - or less? Would there be more, or fewer opportunities for the people with less to offer in terms of education or skills than we have at present, or less? The bottom line is that when the costs of doing business in a particular area exceed a certain threshold, businesses either move somewhere else or shut-down. Driving through the countryside in the Northeast and and taking a look at all of the abandoned factories there is as good a testament to that fact as any. High margin businesses that employ highly educated people can absorb these costs, low margin businesses that employ people with limited skillsets and educations can't - and they're often the first to go. -When it comes to "fair" trade, I'm all for encouraging businesses to treat their employees as well as possible wherever they are, but I'm also convinced that the people who live and work in those countries are the ones best equipped to make the value judgments about what does and does not constitute an acceptable trade-off. If they decide that the wages that they make by working in a hot factory for 12 hours a day represent a superior alternative to a lifetime of backbreaking labor under a hot sun as a subsistence farmer, I think that we have to respect that choice. Ditto for the "Factory worker vs sucky-sucky in a malarial culvert for 10 cent," "Factory worker vs landfill urchin," and other choices open to them. Where I differ from you, I think, is that I don't think that supporting policies that effectively eliminate the "working in a hot factory" option in order to preserve the jobs of people in a dramatically wealthier society, who have infinitely more options and opportunities, and assistance available to them constitutes the more moral path to go down. In the space of ten years, trade has lifted more people out of poverty in China than all foreign-aid payments from all countries at all times. Worth bearing in mind when discussing trade policy. Cretin #1, signing out to head for the South Island.... Quote
j_b Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 -When it comes to corporations (and all other businesses), they can only do two things with their money. Pay their employees with it, or re-invest it in the business. No. You forget to mention the option most oft used these last 30 years: putting it in the pockets of CEO's and investors. This is true even of money they put in savings or investments - eventually they have to use it for one or the other. The less money they spend on taxes, the more they'll spend paying their employees or building new factories, etc. Where we differ substantially is that I think that an optimal corporate tax rate would be zero, and that the gains in income taxes would more than offset losses in corporate taxe You are still arguing along the lines of the trickle down myth that never had any credibility and has even less today, if it's possible, considering it led inequalities to levels not seen in over 70 years while real income for most american had decreased over the last 30 years. Taking profits from A to invest in B or to put it in savings has no redeeming qualities for the people who produced the profit in A and find themselves without equivalent work for lack of investment by profit takers. How many large businesses have gone bankrupt while their officers made off with the loot or investors put their money in some other venture? You are obviously in denial. Around the world, most countries - even in Europe - are reducing their corporate tax rates for this very reason. No. Neoliberals in sheep clothing took over Europe (Blair, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc..) through the usual lying fear rhetoric about economic decay, security, immigration, ... and were implementing the policies favored by economic elites until it came to an abrupt halt because the economy tanked and the casino went under. Would you care to tell us what % of the people live below the poverty line in that quasi tax heaven for capital known as the UK? (answer: around 25%) How about the state of the economic "miracle" in oft cited tax heavens Ireland and Iceland? I'll even question the basic premise of your argument, insofar a place like France that is among these countries that resisted the longest to the neoliberal policies of globalization often see the largest foreign capital investment in Europe apart from the UK where capital investement mostly goes through the City, i.e. in the casino economy that doesn't benefit the common joe. We can plainly see where that path took them. Conduct a brief thought experiment and imagine the amount of capital that would flow into the US if the corporate/business tax rate were permanently and permanently reduced to zero. it is already 'effectively' reduced to 0 in many instances (when not negative) and i challenge you to show me how it translated into more quality jobs since it is your assertion that it would. Corporate tax rates are the lowest since before WW2. How many have invested and created living wage jobs over the last 30 years relative to the number of non-living wage jobs created? http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php Would this result in increased factories, wages, etc - or less? Would there be more, or fewer opportunities for the people with less to offer in terms of education or skills than we have at present, or less? facts show that overall it'd be less even if you could point to some former hillbilly doing marginally better than before The bottom line is that when the costs of doing business in a particular area exceed a certain threshold, businesses either move somewhere else or shut-down. Driving through the countryside in the Northeast and taking a look at all of the abandoned factories there is as good a testament to that fact as any. High margin businesses that employ highly educated people can absorb these costs, low margin businesses that employ people with limited skillsets and educations can't - and they're often the first to go. Manufacturing such as there was in the NE often demand skilled labor. Why would economic elites have never been as wealthy as today while inequalities have reached the level of that found in the age of the robber barons and our manufacturing base is essentially gone if solely 'maintaining profit margin' was the reason? The result of these policies are available for anyone to see and I am not sure how you can afford to keep denying them. Businesses left the NE because they could get cheap non-union labor elsewhere, which increased their profit. They didn't see the advantage in retooling where labor markets weren't "flexible" enough for their need to increase profits When it comes to "fair" trade, I'm all for encouraging businesses to treat their employees as well as possible wherever they are, but I'm also convinced that the people who live and work in those countries are the ones best equipped to make the value judgments about what does and does not constitute an acceptable trade-off. If they decide that the wages that they make by working in a hot factory for 12 hours a day represent a superior alternative to a lifetime of backbreaking labor under a hot sun as a subsistence farmer, I think that we have to respect that choice. as if most of these people left farming by choice. Ditto for the "Factory worker vs sucky-sucky in a malarial culvert for 10 cent," "Factory worker vs landfill urchin," and other choices open to them. Where I differ from you, I think, is that I don't think that supporting policies that effectively eliminate the "working in a hot factory" option in order to preserve the jobs of people in a dramatically wealthier society, who have infinitely more options and opportunities, and assistance available to them constitutes the more moral path to go down. please, don't offend me by pretending that being moral has anything to do with investing in places where labor conditions often resemble that of late 19th century america when mean north-south inequalities have tripled in 30 years. In the space of ten years, trade has lifted more people out of poverty in China than all foreign-aid payments from all countries at all times. Worth bearing in mind when discussing trade policy. yours is a wildly overstated claim and I challenge you to show that globally, unfair trade has lifted more people out of poverty than it has caused to fall into poverty. Worth bearing in mind when cherry-picking data. Cretin #1, signing out to head for the South Island.... I very much doubt that self loathing, including calling yourself a cretin, is really your MO Quote
STP Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Here's my 60-second philosophy tying climbing and thinking: I appreciate the distillation of an issue to two prime factors because that allows a good starting point to begin to understand at a basic level and then to work up and out from there. Personally I see it more as a rhetorical device rather than the actual acknowledgement of a dialectic process only involving the interaction of two entities. Likewise, with consistency in argumentation--easy for me to follow but only if I choose to stay on the path--that's my problem. There is some validity to a gut check, not always correct but valid nevertheless. It's that small voice you sometimes hear when climbing either at the crag or on alpine. No, not the psychotic "redrum redrum" but the internal agent, not quite the conscience, but some internal script that strives to keep things in check. Sometimes it's fear and, as such, prevents my reaching to that unseen hold. But other times, it seems as if something has already reached out and discovered that you should rethink your position. So, do trad climbers and boulderers tend to be smarter than gym climbers? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Alpine climbers are smarter than all of the above. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.