If Romney wins the GOP, I forsee bad things for....

[Necronic]

My problem with a truly "free market" is that it's based on so called "strong efficient market hypothesis", which is the view that the free market represents true value in pricing. If this were the case then it would behoove companies to create real wealth as the value of their company would only increase in creating true wealth.

The problem with the strong-EMH is that it's completely false. The recent crash of the stock markets proved that. All of the tools set up by a highly free market to create a highly efficient market (like the ratings agencies) turned out to be completely unreliable, and it turned out that there was no real incentive for a company to use a reputable ratings agency.

The whole debacle showed that markets can become so complex as to hide actual value from consumers, and when the underlying value of a product is unknown a free market fails to perform.

Beyond that there are other serious issues with a free market. The biggest one imho is that the collateral damage that a company can cause goes well beyond the value of the company itself. If a company can potentially destroy more wealth than it is worth then you can have situations where a corporate entitiy is willing to take excessive risks to generate high profits, but with the risk of causing damages to other companies.

A perfect analogy to this is the workplace. Do companies let employees do whatever they want and only punish them if they do something bad? No, companies have internal policies and regulations to limit the collateral damage a bad employee can do. Do you let guys show up to the plant drunk and only fire them if they cause an accident?

Now you could argue that if people knew that a company took dangerous risks then they would avoid doing business with them right? Free market solution right? This again goes back to the lack of efficiency in the market. If people don't have a full understanding of a company, something they can't have, they can't tell how dangerous it is.

Then of course you have the environmental problems with a free market. Certain assets exist that have value to individuals, but can not be contained or parcelled up in any way. One example would be air quality, another would be biodiversity. Due to the nature of these assets they can only truly be understood as existing in a mutual trust.

However in a truly free market there is no system to stop people from over-exploiting these shared trusts for their own personal benefits. Part of this is due to the short lives of humans. The long term affects of diminished bio-diversity will not be felt in an individuals lifetime.

Now, you might counter that in a free market people will see that the company is doing this damage to the environment and say "hey, I'm not going to buy this product anymore" and voila a free market solution right? This, yet again, relies on the existence of an efficient market. With no requirements to release any environmental or safety data why would a company do so? Why not just put a good PR spin out there for 1/10th the price?

These issues are the exact kinds of problems you see in developing countries. Companies will do massive environmental damage and cover it up as best they can or they will use dangerous business practices that damage the economy as a whole. The Free Market is unable to solve these problems because the market is not truly efficient, and until some serious 3rd party comes in to manage these things (ie government regulations) the companies keep on keeping on doing their baddie stuff (see Russia, China, India, too many countries to list).


At the end of the day Free Markest seem like a solution for everything, but they rely so heavy on a mistaken belief in a strongly efficient market, something that doesn't exist.

 

[@Li3n]

You who trumpets the scandinavian socialist miracle of the 20th century is lecturing ME that OUR system hasn't lasted long?

Unlike you i haven't actually made any grand statements about their social miracle causing "broad swaths of prosperity for all" (there's still poor people everywhere btw)...

What i implied was that when it comes to choosing my flavour of inequality i'll take the scandinavian one...

You're getting your sentences crossed.

Nah, you're just not getting what i was implying...

Does it make it ok? No. Does it reveal the irrelevancy in your fallacious insinuation? Yes.

Yeah, me pointing out that "everybody from everywhere" is a gross exaggeration is totally a fallacy...

Yeah, that's been going on for less than 100 years. Let's see where you are in another 200, if you make it that far. It might be pretty easy actually... nobody expects scandinavia to be hegemon/global police.

You've only been a hegemon/global police since after WW2, and your actual "libertarian roots" included something called isolationism... so really, let's not get into the whole timeline thing...because originally i was simply making fun of your implication that your country lasted long, not making any statement about it's system not being able to last (if i were to make a statement about the system it would have more to do with it not being as much pure libertarianism as you claim).

Edit: added bolded part

 

[Necronic]

I was still surprised how good a hegemon Peter turned out to be. Who would have thought?

 

[@Li3n]

My problem with a truly "free market" is that it's based on so called "strong efficient market hypothesis", which is the view that the free market represents true value in pricing. If this were the case then it would behoove companies to create real wealth as the value of their company would only increase in creating true wealth.

The problem with the strong-EMH is that it's completely false. The recent crash of the stock markets proved that. All of the tools set up by a highly free market to create a highly efficient market (like the ratings agencies) turned out to be completely unreliable, and it turned out that there was no real incentive for a company to use a reputable ratings agency.

No, no, no, no... those are just stuff free market advocates (that actually understand it) say to sell it to the masses... the truth is that the free market works even with those because it eventually self corrects under all circumstances...the same way that nature does when there's overpopulation...

The most honest idea i've heard is that under an actual free market the economy would have imploded way before 2008 and the implosion would be less severe then it is now... not that it would just go on and on doing fine...

 

[Necronic]

In a truly free market the dudes that caused this would have been able to double dip on the disaster and profited from both the boom and the bust without any reppurcussions. And then it would have happened again in 2 years because there would be no reason for financial firms to NOT cause such a disaster and then profit off of them, aside from feelings of warm fuzzies, and I don't believe any company worth a damn operates based on those. That's not a condemnation of corporate america by the way, that's actually a compliment to it. Economic darwinism creates some of the most brutal companies in teh world.

But you have to use a government to control their growth otherwise they will be eat themselves to death.

 

[GasBandit]

At the end of the day Free Markets seem like a solution for everything, but they rely so heavy on a mistaken belief in a strongly efficient market, something that doesn't exist.

Well, there's free market and then there's absolute anarchy, which is what you're describing. Obviously, for society to function, there has to be regulation on some level... just right now there is a whole lot more than we need (or is healthy).

What i implied was that when it comes to choosing my flavour of inequality i'll take the scandinavian one...

Fair enough then. May your progeny continue to reap the benefits. I hope such is the case, but I'm not optimistic.

Nah, you're just not getting what i was implying...

Then stop implying and come right out and say it.

Yeah, me pointing out that "everybody from everywhere" is a gross exaggeration is totally a fallacy...

there have been a million voluntary immigrants from Africa. Our shores have always been clogged with immigrants from every corner of the earth. Even in the throes of the worst economic period in near 100 years, we still have problems with immigrants coming illegally. "Everybody from everywhere" is obviously hyperbole... but not by very much.

You've only been a hegemon/global police since after WW2, and your actual "libertarian roots" included something called isolationism... so really, let's not get into the whole timeline thing...because i was simply making fun of your implication that your country lasted long, not making any statement about it's system not being able to last (if i were to make a statement about the system it would have more to do with it not being as much pure libertarianism as you claim).

Of course it was never pure, but it was a hell of a lot less the central bureaucracy it has been for beyond living memory. I also never made the assertion that the US was old, I said it has "only lasted as long as it has." As in, we no longer operate in the manner which bests ensures our ability to continue operating. It wasn't a statement about longevity, it was a statement about impending failure.

 

[@Li3n]

Then stop implying and come right out and say it.

Now where's the fun in that?

there have been a million voluntary immigrants from Africa. Our shores have always been clogged with immigrants from every corner of the earth. Even in the throes of the worst economic period in near 100 years, we still have problems with immigrants coming illegally. "Everybody from everywhere" is obviously hyperbole... but not by very much.

Yeah, because the majority of your immigrants, especially at the start where all about just coming to America and not about escaping religious persecution, potato famines or gold rushes... yeah, i'll stick with hyperbole by plenty...

Of course it was never pure, but it was a hell of a lot less the central bureaucracy it has been for beyond living memory. I also never made the assertion that the US was old, I said it has "only lasted as long as it has." As in, we no longer operate in the manner which bests ensures our ability to continue operating. It wasn't a statement about longevity, it was a statement about impending failure.

Oh, so you're just wrong about the future... sure, you might lose your world power, but that's how it's always been, no one stays on top forever... but look at it this way, at least you'll never have to be reminded of it all the time because your monarch is the nominal head of most of the former countries you used to rule...

But as a country it's unlikely that you'll turn into Russia...
Added at: 23:15

Well, there's free market and then there's absolute anarchy, which is what you're describing. Obviously, for society to function, there has to be regulation on some level... just right now there is a whole lot more than we need (or is healthy).

I don't think it's a question of quantity of rules as much as it's one of quality... just ask Romney how much the laws are actually stopping him from having swiss and cayman islands accounts so he can pay only 13.9% in taxes...

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, because the majority of your immigrants, especially at the start where all about just coming to America and not about escaping religious persecution, potato famines or gold rushes... yeah, i'll stick with hyperbole by plenty...

That... wow. That's just some broken-ass stuff right there. That's like saying "you don't want to go to the grocery store, you just want to buy eggs, milk, bread and cheese."

Oh, so you're just wrong about the future... sure, you might lose your world power, but that's how it's always been, no one stays on top forever... but look at it this way, at least you'll never have to be reminded of it all the time because your monarch is the nominal head of most of the former countries you used to rule...

But as a country it's unlikely that you'll turn into Russia...

More likely than you might think, at least as far as "rampant corruption" and "breaking off smaller nations" goes.

I don't think it's a question of quantity of rules as much as it's one of quality... just ask Romney how much the laws are actually stopping him from having swiss and cayman islands accounts so he can pay only 13.9% in taxes...

What people tend to forget about capital gains tax is that you have to risk money to get capital gains at all, and the money you risk was already taxed (at the maximum rate in cases such as this) when it came in the form of income. Romney spent 42% of the money he made in 2011 in taxes and charity. He paid 3 million dollars in taxes. There's plenty to dislike Romney about, but no valid reasons on his tax return. That's just wealth envy.

 

[@Li3n]

That... wow. That's just some broken-ass stuff right there. That's like saying "you don't want to go to the grocery store, you just want to buy eggs, milk, bread and cheese."

More like you claiming that your store is better because everyone who wasn't welcomed in the other store comes to buy from you...

More likely than you might think, at least as far as "rampant corruption" and "breaking off smaller nations" goes.

Rampant corruption is everywhere, doing it Russia style actually take effort and a cultural background based on the secret service running everything since Ivan the Terrible...

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...

What people tend to forget about capital gains tax is that you have to risk money to get capital gains at all, and the money you risk was already taxed (at the maximum rate in cases such as this) when it came in the form of income. Romney spent 42% of the money he made in 2011 in taxes and charity. He paid 3 million dollars in taxes. There's plenty to dislike Romney about, but no valid reasons on his tax return. That's just wealth envy.

And the money you get from working isn't already taxed?

And the charity is nice, but that doesn't actually makes exploiting the system fine...

But sure, i'm totally envious that he makes more money then me and pays less taxes, and that's wrong, because we all know people that get less need to contribute more...

He paid 3 million dollars in taxes.

Yeah... that doesn't really matter when it's less % then people who actually need the money more...

As for risks... that's what the rewards are for, and there are plenty of those without the giant tax reduction (not that there should be none, but from 35% to under 15%, wow )...

 

[Krisken]

I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

 

[@Li3n]

I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

Which reminds me: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/jason-jonez-prezentz-mtv-s-tax-avoidance-strategies-for-high-net-worth-individualz

TL;DR version: Working to reduce your taxes requires you already have a lot of them... but hey, fairness = people that get less need to contribute more...

 

[GasBandit]

More like you claiming that your store is better because everyone who wasn't welcomed in the other store comes to buy from you...

No, this is an incorrect assertion couched in a flawed metaphor. The US was not their only possible destination.

Rampant corruption is everywhere, doing it Russia style actually take effort and a cultural background based on the secret service running everything since Ivan the Terrible...

You ever been to Chicago?

An i'll believe Texas' talk when they actually do it... because it's not really in their advantage to break off the US... hell, you guys don't even have the ethnic differences...

Texas won't have to. There won't be a U.S.A. left, and smaller countries will just grow out of the wreckage, so to speak, out of necessity. And WE HAVE NO ETHNIC DIFFERENCES? Oh god, let me wipe a tear out of my eye. That's a good one. Hey everybody - this guy says there are no ethnic differences in the US!

And the money you get from working isn't already taxed?

It wasn't my money the last time it was taxed. However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

And the charity is nice, but that doesn't actually makes exploiting the system fine...

Exploit what system?

But sure, i'm totally envious that he makes more money then me and pays less taxes,

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

Yeah... that doesn't really matter when it's less % then people who actually need the money more...

I didn't realize I was arguing with the resurrected zombie of Karl Marx. The concept that wealth should be confiscated because a third party decides a second party needs it more is repugnant. Furthermore, to pay higher than the 15% tax bracket, one has to make more than $32,000 per year. While not fabulously wealthy, these people are not starving... and more to the point, they are paying 0.0016% taxes to what Mitt Romney does.

As for risks... that's what the rewards are for, and there are plenty of those without the giant tax reduction (not that there should be none, but from 35% to under 15%, wow )...

The 35% tax bracket starts at $379,000. Woe to those guys, huh? And that just means the money OVER 379k is taxed at that rate... everything lower is taxed lower. So it's a little hypocritical for you to be lamenting the tax burden of the 35% tax bracket.
Added at: 18:03

I'm a big fan of the people who actually do the work getting a lower tax rate than those who don't. If that's considered envy then our country is in a sadder state than I anticipated.

"Actually do the work?" Putting aside the fact that you are, like so many others, confusing income tax with capital gains tax, How much work do you think would get done if confiscatory taxation chased all the wealth out of investing and back into sitting in a savings account compounding interest?

Mitt paid 3 million dollars in taxes. He paid more taxes than 136 people making 100k a year did. The system is already "progressive." It is just wealth envy, couched in false compassion.

If you really believed in what you just said, you'd support the Fair Tax.

 

[Krisken]

I like how the 'percentages' don't accurately represent actual payment. Their tax rate may be 39%, but with credits, incentives, and tax havens there is no way they pay nearly that much.

It is, however, a great way to distort the amount those poor exceedingly wealthy people pay in taxes and portray them as the victims in a country of increasing poverty.

 

[GasBandit]

I like how the 'percentages' don't accurately represent actual payment. Their tax rate may be 39%, but with credits, incentives, and tax havens there is no way they pay nearly that much.

35%, actually. And again, that's only for money made above $379k. And it's only that low because of how many loopholes of which you speak were removed.

It is, however, a great way to distort the amount those poor exceedingly wealthy people pay in taxes and portray them as the victims in a country of increasing poverty.

The only thing Romney is a victim of is wealth envy and class warfare. Man, I hate having to stick up for him, but all this is bullshit.

 

[@Li3n]

No, this is an incorrect assertion couched in a flawed metaphor. The US was not their only possible destination.

And that's why Australia and South America are empty, because the US was just the best destination...

You ever been to Chicago?

Well i guess that's a start...

Texas won't have to. There won't be a U.S.A. left, and smaller countries will just grow out of the wreckage, so to speak, out of necessity.

And WE HAVE NO ETHNIC DIFFERENCES? Oh god, let me wipe a tear out of my eye. That's a good one. Hey everybody - this guy says there are no ethnic differences in the US!

2 blonde, blue eyes people meet in america... same ethnicity or not?

It wasn't my money the last time it was taxed. However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

Of course, not having money to pass on to your kid = being treated better.

Exploit what system?

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

I didn't realize I was arguing with the resurrected zombie of Karl Marx. The concept that wealth should be confiscated because a third party decides a second party needs it more is repugnant. Furthermore, to pay higher than the 15% tax bracket, one has to make more than $32,000 per year. While not fabulously wealthy, these people are not starving... and more to the point, they are paying 0.0016% taxes to what Mitt Romney does.

So it;s fine for the not very rich to pay as because they won't starve, but not the rich, even though they will feel the lack of money even less.... good to know.

Did you pay 3 million and one dollars in taxes? No? THEN YOU DIDN'T PAY LESS TAXES.

Did you pay 1000 dollars for caviar? Then you didn't buy more food then Mitt...

The 35% tax bracket starts at $379,000. Woe to those guys, huh? And that just means the money OVER 379k is taxed at that rate... everything lower is taxed lower. So it's a little hypocritical for you to be lamenting the tax burden of the 35% tax bracket.
Added at: 18:03

So wait, 35% is just for ver well of people... and yet americans complain that they pay too much in taxes... you people are crazy.
Added at: 00:20

35%, actually. And again, that's only for money made above $379k. And it's only that low because of how many loopholes of which you speak were removed.

The only thing Romney is a victim of is wealth envy and class warfare. Man, I hate having to stick up for him, but all this is bullshit.

Nah, he's a victim of his own parties hypocrisy...

And it's only class warfare when the poor talk about it... when the rich find ways of paying workers less is being competitive.

 

[Krisken]

You're right that it's 35%, but wrong that it's only that low due to removal of tax incentives.

 

[@Li3n]

However, if I earn money, invest it, and then pass it on to my child at death, it's taxed 3 times before becoming someone else's.

Wait, wouldn't your "the best people" philosophy actually be against people inheriting money they didn't work for at all?

 

[strawman]

Are you saying you aren't allowed to work to secure your children's future? The governement should be in the business of forcing kids out of the nest their parents built?

 

[MindDetective]

Are you saying you aren't allowed to work to secure your children's future? The governement should be in the business of forcing kids out of the nest their parents built?

At first I was thinking, "yeah!" and then I realized that your wording is biasing the reader towards thinking about the poor kids. But inheritance doesn't usually go to minors, does it?

Like a 45 year old kid needs to be pushed out of his 70 year old parent's nest...

 

[strawman]

My children are my children, whether they are a child or an adult. Why should there be a difference between me wanting them to live comfortably as a child or an adult?

Just because they should be able to support themselves as adults doesn't mean that I should be disallowed from providing even more support - support which will ultimately benefit my grandchildren, and perhaps even great grandchildren.

I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

 

[GasBandit]

2 blonde, blue eyes people meet in america... same ethnicity or not?

Because America is entirely populated by Aryans?

So it;s fine for the not very rich to pay as because they won't starve, but not the rich, even though they will feel the lack of money even less.... good to know.

It has absolutely nothing to do with who feels what lack of money, but you're, again, missing the fact that the money has been taxed twice AND the difference between income and capital gains. So it's more like Romney paid close to 50% taxes, it's just he paid the first 35 when he made the money as income, and then a further 15% on capital gains from it. Furthermore, if you overtax capital gains the rich just go back to savings accounts with interest instead of investing. You show absolutely no thought for economic repercussions, all you care about is soaking the rich.

Did you pay 1000 dollars for caviar? Then you didn't buy more food then Mitt...

Completely invalid comparison. Mitt doesn't get more services from government than those who pay less (or no) taxes.. in fact, because he's rich, he gets less. No Pell grant for HIS kids' tuition!

Wait, wouldn't your "the best people" philosophy actually be against people inheriting money they didn't work for at all?

Actually, my philosophy is that government should stay the hell out of the individual's way as much as possible while still ensuring the rule of law. Keep them out of your womb, your bedroom, and your wallet.

 

[MindDetective]

My children are my children, whether they are a child or an adult. Why should there be a difference between me wanting them to live comfortably as a child or an adult?

Just because they should be able to support themselves as adults doesn't mean that I should be disallowed from providing even more support - support which will ultimately benefit my grandchildren, and perhaps even great grandchildren.

I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

But that is a different sentiment than the one you gave originally. There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment, though, that is popular amongst conservatives.

 

[GasBandit]

But that is a different sentiment than the one you gave originally. There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment, though, that is popular amongst conservatives.

"bootstraps" is about overcoming adversity, not confiscating wealth.

 

[PatrThom]

I just don't see the point of the inheritance tax, unless the gov't thinks that money I've made should be taxed more than once before it's spent, and I'm not in favor of double and triple taxing the same money.

The g'vt has explained time and again that they are not in the business of taxing wealth. They are in the business of taxing the transfer of wealth. They're like eBay/Amazon, always getting their cut. You know those RPGs where the shop buys something for 600 but then turns right around and says they'll sell it to you for 12000? It's like that. By this logic, the more wealth you keep to yourself, the less taxes you pay.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

There is no question that it is at odds with the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" sentiment

Actually I see the two as very compatible, and can only assume you have a very odd definition for one or the other if you view them as opposite each other.

 

[Krisken]

But keeping dynastic families is very much in the Republican mind set.

 

[MindDetective]

"bootstraps" is about overcoming adversity, not confiscating wealth.

right, but this isn't even a conversation about bootstraps, really. And to the extent that it is, i certainly did not define it that way.

Actually I see the two as very compatible, and can only assume you have a very odd definition for one or the other if you view them as opposite each other.

no, pretty straightforward. work hard on your own or have the benefits of hard work given to you. certainly a person CAN have both but being given wealth without effort is said to discourage hard work...according to many a conservative, at least.

 

[GasBandit]

no, pretty straightforward. work hard on your own or have the benefits of hard work given to you. certainly a person CAN have both but being given wealth without effort is said to discourage hard work...according to many a conservative, at least.

The world presents enough challenges on its own without giving government the authority to decide who isn't challenged enough. Sure, everybody's all on board when we're talking about making Paris Hilton suffer, but we all know what kind of abuses of power our government seems all too eager to embrace of late - you must always consider the potential for misuse first and foremost when giving power to the government. Especially the power to take something away from somebody.

 

[MindDetective]

The world presents enough challenges on its own without giving government the authority to decide who isn't challenged enough. Sure, everybody's all on board when we're talking about making Paris Hilton suffer, but we all know what kind of abuses of power our government seems all too eager to embrace of late - you must always consider the potential for misuse first and foremost when giving power to the government. Especially the power to take something away from somebody.

It could be argued that once a person dies, there is nobody to take from.

 

[GasBandit]

It could be argued that once a person dies, there is nobody to take from.

I don't have any citations on this, but I'm fairly sure the concept of inheritance predates organized government.

 

[Krisken]

 

[GasBandit]

And that was Krisken with today's Insightful Commentary Unlimited. Tune in next time when he tells me I win because he can't be bothered.

 

[MindDetective]

I don't have any citations on this, but I'm fairly sure the concept of inheritance predates organized government.

Not a terribly compelling argument, really. Government predates money, so should people only be allowed to inherit goats and chickens?

 

[ElJuski]

What boggles me mind with gas sometimes is the sense that capitalism should constantly outweigh humanity, which is, at its core, the reason why we fucking have governments in the first place.

 

[Krisken]

And that was Krisken with today's Insightful Commentary Unlimited. Tune in next time when he tells me I win because he can't be bothered.

If you supported your arguments with logic instead of Gas, I might be more inclined to waste time arguing with you.