Here's the saddest fact of all. We're trillions of dollars in so-called debt. Who do we owe it to? Better yet, who's going to call us out on it? I'm fricking serious here. We act like we're in such trouble because of this trade deficit when in truth there isn't a nation or even collection of nations that could make us pay up. Total truth, we needn't pay a fricking dime of our national debt and there isn't a nation on earth that could make us pay. You know what? That scares the Hell out of me and it should scare you. If there's going to be a Babylon or an Anti-Christ guess where it's going to come from. We still are a good nation right now but that could change. I'm not kidding one iota. The idiot right has us looking at the Muslim world and the idiot left has us looking at Russia. Ta da! We are it folks and that won't change for at least a couple of generations. Sorry Europe...
@Balrog99 i like most of what you mentioned, but as to us being a good nation, I am a bit iffy on that. To me, good wouldn't be interfering in other countries affairs and leaving a big fat stinking rubble and openings for who ever to take control. This country could use a good whippin with a hickory switch out back of the woodshed every now and again, or at least one of those real 'come ta jesus meetings' my folks used to give us when young. Those in TN, SC,VA,and GA might know what I mean (and maybe a few other states as well.
Investors do control the direction of companies. I don't think that's breaking news. Wow, how startling, people who invest in the success of companies would like them to make a profit. Holy shit! Throw them in irons! You know what, if they fire everybody and sink the company, they lose money. Why don't the rich just hire everybody in the USA and then fire them. What a rush they would get!
The thing is that it is no longer long term investment as it was in the past. The success of the company has nothing to do with it anymore. It is now short-term flipping and acquiring of investments. Which puts a strain on the working class as investors demand companies to be more aggressive to drive up stock prices, acquiring debt in the process. Companies then have to "streamline" there productivity to make it more efficient which should just be read as, lay off as many people as the company can get away with since labour is one of the few costs a company can control.
Notice the curve. Investors knew the company peeked with that acquisition and began selling immediately. With debt (and struggling sales) piling up, labour costs get cut meaning less staff in the store (or long time staff being replaced by minimum wage workers), but the stocks peter out roughly where they began in the end.
To see this in history, I recommend reading Chocolate Wars by Deborah Cadbury. It illustrates how the industry went from literally building towns such as Hershey, Pennsylvania to exactly the same thing I illustrated above with HBC. It shows how everyone profits from this type of model from the stockholders to the banks lending the money except for the people who actually work(ed) for the company.
I find the whole concept of a culture "war" to be very strange.
Who are the combatants? What do the weapons look like? What do the weapons do?
How do you win? What does victory look like?
I think "culture war" really just means a big argument that never ends.
The combatants are people--usually politicians--who are pursing a specific agenda. The weapons are sound bytes, news stories (sometimes fabricated or driven by social media sources), and pieces of legislation proposed to Congress or Executive Orders (which typically have the effect of law). These weapons keep people divided into the "us versus them" mentality which pervades nearly everything these days.
Here is where things get interesting. In many games featuring two players, there are three scenarios which conclude the game: either I win, you win, or we tie/draw. In this instance, though, there is an independent win condition which is independent of either contestant. The best analogy I can think of on short notice is blackjack. Suppose you and I sit down at a table in a casino to play blackjack. The conclusion conditions now become: 1) we both win, 2) you win and I tie (push with the dealer), 3) you win and I lose, 4) you tie and I win, 5) we both tie, 6) you tie and I lose, 7) you lose and I win, 8) you lose and I tie, or 9) we both lose.
I suppose there is another way to look at it, though--in a "culture war" no one ever wins.
"Victory" usually takes the form of "the other side loses"...even if your side also lost. In that respect, I suppose it is the old Cold War idea of MAD only without radioactive fallout.
Anyway....this kneeling during the anthem thing started out as a cutting edge social statement but now it is reaching the saturation point. It won't take much longer for it to transition into a meme (people posting videos of themselves kneeling in front of flags or during the anthem regardless of their circumstances) and then into parody (people making a bad pun and those hearing it take a knee, people in public randomly taking a knee if they see someone wearing a shirt with an American flag on it).
The world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
Actually, no. The world really does run on oil (well, fossil fuels in general). The energy industry, globally, is somewhere around 20-25% of the world domestic product. Most of that is coal actually. Not so much in the U.S., but elsewhere in developing nations.
Aside from burning it for energy, which is mostly for industrial use, and aside from the most visible consumption for gasoline, all that oil is turned into biochemical feedstocks for billions of types of plastics, artificial fabrics, pharmaceuticals, and more.
Ethylene (a very simple, basic hydrocarbon) production ALONE is upwards of 150 million tonnes per year. It is the most produced organic compound on the planet, because it serves as a good building block for most everything else through organic chemistry.
I am under no illusion that we're going to stop using oil. Or coal for that matter (main use outside of burning for energy is steel production). That said, we can certainly save a lot by not being so wasteful to just burn it for energy or simple transportation when we have the technology now to do it better, cheaper, and sustainably with renewables.
If the morning show callers on my local right-wing radio station are any indication (and they are) conservatives are utterly apoplectic about the protests yesterday. These are the same people whose rallying cry for at least the last year and a half has been how society is being destroyed by "political correctness". What is more politically correct than the Pavlovian response that causes everyone to stand and place their hand over their heart when the anthem starts?? Furthermore, the vast, vast majority of these people identify as Christian. Much like they don't abide by the flag code in real life, they also don't even know the First Commandment, which is "I am the lord thy God, though shalt have no other Gods before me". The flag of ANY country is a false god if I have ever seen one. Those who flock to authoritarians are OBSESSED with worship of meaningless symbols, even at the expense of actual people.
Actually, it wouldn't be a violation of the first commandment, but the second. (idols, graven images, etc).
Interestingly, I forgot the bit in there about God visiting his wrath upon a violator's descendants for 3-4 generations. Reminds me of the discussion a few weeks ago during the DACA talk about how many generations one has to be to not be an immigrant.
Graham/Cassidy will not come to a vote. This is the 4th time this year the Republicans have launched an all-out effort to repeal Obamacare and failed. Since it isn't coming up for a vote this week, it is now safe until the end of the year, since they cannot do it by reconciliation after Sept. 31st. The effort will be back next year. How many times are lives of those with pre-exisiting conditions and who have insurance BECAUSE of the ACA going to be held hostage and kept in limbo by these Republicans?? 6?? 12??
Indeed, the only thing accomplished is that Republicans have to go back to the starting line on October 1st, polish a new turd, and bring it out for a vote again and start this whole thing over. Again.
Wouldn't bother me if we got rid of that stupid law. Curious as to why I've never heard of it before now though. Democrats have been in control many times since WW1. Guess it wasn't a big deal until Trump was president...
The Jones act is a MAJOR reason why stuff is more expensive in Hawai'i. All the stuff imported from Asia has to go to California, get unloaded, reloaded on an American-registered cargo ship, and then shipped from California back to Hawai'i, despite the foreign-flagged ships sailing right past Hawai'i.
I'm for it, actually. But not until past like, 20 million dollars, at least, maybe 50 million dollars. With another 3-5 tax brackets leading up to it. Then again, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either.
Instead the Republicans want to simplify brackets, which makes a tax more proportional, which is ultimately regressive for income tax purposes.
Actually, I think my ideal would be a logarithmic function. The more you make, the more you are taxed as a % on a smooth continuum instead of breakpoints caused by bracketed ranges, eliminating the trite BS talking point of Republicans who try muddying the waters of "marginal" tax rates.
Though I've never tried putting on paper such a function.
I'm for it, actually. But not until past like, 20 million dollars, at least, maybe 50 million dollars. With another 3-5 tax brackets leading up to it. Then again, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either.
Instead the Republicans want to simplify brackets, which makes a tax more proportional, which is ultimately regressive for income tax purposes.
Actually, I think my ideal would be a logarithmic function. The more you make, the more you are taxed as a % on a smooth continuum instead of breakpoints caused by bracketed ranges, eliminating the trite BS talking point of Republicans who try muddying the waters of "marginal" tax rates.
Though I've never tried putting on paper such a function.
The problem is that it makes it tempting for those few folks to either hide their money, move it elsewhere or just not bother earning it. That rate is just flat out punitive. If a rich person makes a billion $ and the rate is 20-30% that's 200-300 million $ in taxes. If they make that same billion $ under your system it sounds great that around 800 million $ or so would go to taxes, but what if that person decided not to bother making that money since he can barely keep any of it after the 1st 20-30 million? I daresay a lot less than even the 200 million $ from the first scenario would go into the coffers...
I'm for it, actually. But not until past like, 20 million dollars, at least, maybe 50 million dollars. With another 3-5 tax brackets leading up to it. Then again, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either.
Instead the Republicans want to simplify brackets, which makes a tax more proportional, which is ultimately regressive for income tax purposes.
Actually, I think my ideal would be a logarithmic function. The more you make, the more you are taxed as a % on a smooth continuum instead of breakpoints caused by bracketed ranges, eliminating the trite BS talking point of Republicans who try muddying the waters of "marginal" tax rates.
Though I've never tried putting on paper such a function.
Most liberals don't have a problem wirh rich people. What they have is a problem with obscenely wealthy peolple who seem to be hell bent on getting ALL the money, at the expense of 99% of the rest of the country (or world for that matter). And Wall Street, who produce nothing and just invent wealth out of thin air. I've always said if I win the lottery I am giving half of it away to a children's hospital sight-unseen, buying two nice houses, a nice car, and then I'm done. I'd put the rest in the bank and not worry about anything for the rest of my life. The people who are pushing hardest for GOP tax cuts have hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. What they'd get back in exchange for gutting health care across the board will be nothing but a rounding error to them.
On the subject of taxation, we really need to start from scratch and ask the question, "what is the purpose of taxation?". The answer differs depending upon the level of government you are considering. For city governments, taxation via sales tax or speeding/parking tickets (these are "voluntary" taxes because they are choices people make) is typically the only way a city can generate money it needs for its projects (aside from issuing bonds, which is a completely separate topic). The same applies for school districts, counties/parishes, or other special taxation districts (there are more of these than you think at the local/county level). At the State level, some of them have income taxes in addition to registration/licensing fees (your vehicle(s), driver's license, etc).
At the national level, though, things become different. The national government is the only agency authorized to issue currency in its home nation; therefore, if a national government needs x billion to pay for something it can just print it, state that the money is valid and has that much value, then pay for the program. However, since printing money devalues the currency and leads to inflation, the government must have a method by which it shrinks the money supply to keep inflation in check. This is the true purpose of taxation at the national level--keeping the money supply at a level sufficient to maintain the currency at an acceptable value and to put downward pressure on inflationary trends.
An income tax punishes everyone, whether rich or poor, for being productive and helping to generate value in the economy; clearly, though, it punishes poor people more because being taxed 10% on the $30,000 you made is wildly different than being taxed 35% on the $300,000 you made--in the first instance you have to live on $27,000 per year but in the second instance you have to live on $195,000 per year, making it clear to figure out which scenario is easier even though the richer person's tax rate is triple the poor person's rate.
A truly progressive tax system which does not unfairly punish folks in the lower income brackets is consumption tax--you pay tax on what you buy/consume, not what you earn. This also avoids the trap of punishing people for being productive--why would you want to punish productivity? If the person earning $30,000 wants to buy a $500 smart device that is their choice; if the consumption tax (which could be considered a sort of national sales tax) rate is, oh, 8.5% (number chosen at random) then that person will pay $42.50. If, on the other hand, the person making $300,000 buys a new car for $60,000 then they will pay $5,100. If you don't want to pay "too much" in taxes then you will save your money rather than spending it, meanwhile the people who are richer (and who, by extension, spend more money) will pay more in taxes than poor people. This approaches the nebulous "their fair share" people always claim that rich people need to pay but, mysteriously, which no one ever defines, either by number or rate.
Taxing corporations is significantly more difficult. Not only can the corporation simply raise prices and thus pass the extra tax cost along to consumers, they could "punish" the country who raises taxes on them by moving their manufacturing or distribution operations elsewhere, moving jobs out of the country where they were formerly located. They would react this way if you try to go after their offshore holdings, as well. That being said, corporations are significantly more valuable than people--the richest individuals have wealth over $10 billion so they probably make $1 billion each year but the wealthiest corporations can make profits in excess of $1 billion *each month*.
You know what though, no matter how many times you stick it to the top 1% there will always be a top 1%. Who decides what level of wealth is 'obscene'? We the people? What about the wealth those folks already have? Should we take it? Are these people going to give it to us? Or maybe we should just sieze it because 'we the people' decree that they have too much. Sounds like a government I'd want for sure. As long as 'we the people' don't come after me next...
In the past decade or so I heard something about France having a really high tax rate on individuals making millions of dollars. Supposedly this led to a mass exodus of billionaires and millionaires. Famously, beloved actor Gerard Depardieu was one of the exiles, I think he went to Russia where's he's fallen apart.
Despite the exodus of their 1% masters, the country seems to be doing just fine and is one of the best democracies in the world. Their influence is clearly on the rise. Now that Germany is trying to take a right turn, and the UK is talking Brexit, France is poised to be close to the very top of things European.
In the past decade or so I heard something about France having a really high tax rate on individuals making millions of dollars. Supposedly this led to a mass exodus of billionaires and millionaires. Famously, beloved actor Gerard Depardieu was one of the exiles, I think he went to Russia where's he's fallen apart.
Despite the exodus of their 1% masters, the country seems to be doing just fine and is one of the best democracies in the world. Their influence is clearly on the rise. Now that Germany is trying to take a right turn, and the UK is talking Brexit, France is poised to be close to the very top of things European.
They were one of the great democracies in 1939 too...
Incidentally, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act) was temporarily suspended by Michael Chertoff in the aftermath of Katrina back in 2005, by Janet Napolitano in 2012 to allow an emergency shipment of gasoline on a Russian freighter to reach Alaska, and to allow shipments of various pretoleum products to areas effected by Hurricane Sandy. The Trump Administration could waive it for Puerto Rico right now, if they wanted to. How long would it take to draft a waiver? An hour or two? How long would it take to sign it? A minute? How long would it take to make the phone calls telling people that it has been waived? Fifteen minutes?
Proponents of the Jones Act maintain that it is a vital piece of border security and thus national security. According to the GAO, do you know how many foreign seafarers have been involved in terrorist-related activities in the United States at any point in time? Zero.
Notice that this says "immigrants", not "illegal immigrants". That means "all" immigrants, even the ones who are here legally. What is worse is that you *know* that their wide net is going to capture information from people who are not immigrants...but if a person isn't an immigrant then that means they are a citizen, whether born here naturally or if they became naturalized.
There is no way this data collection ends well. At best, it is innocent and inconvenient but at worst it represents the government collecting information from people whom they consider "enemies" (a very nebulous term which, under certain circumstances, can mean anything you need it to mean).
Incidentally, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act) was temporarily suspended by Michael Chertoff in the aftermath of Katrina back in 2005, by Janet Napolitano in 2012 to allow an emergency shipment of gasoline on a Russian freighter to reach Alaska, and to allow shipments of various pretoleum products to areas effected by Hurricane Sandy. The Trump Administration could waive it for Puerto Rico right now, if they wanted to. How long would it take to draft a waiver? An hour or two? How long would it take to sign it? A minute? How long would it take to make the phone calls telling people that it has been waived? Fifteen minutes?
Proponents of the Jones Act maintain that it is a vital piece of border security and thus national security. According to the GAO, do you know how many foreign seafarers have been involved in terrorist-related activities in the United States at any point in time? Zero.
Notice that this says "immigrants", not "illegal immigrants". That means "all" immigrants, even the ones who are here legally. What is worse is that you *know* that their wide net is going to capture information from people who are not immigrants...but if a person isn't an immigrant then that means they are a citizen, whether born here naturally or if they became naturalized.
There is no way this data collection ends well. At best, it is innocent and inconvenient but at worst it represents the government collecting information from people whom they consider "enemies" (a very nebulous term which, under certain circumstances, can mean anything you need it to mean).
How many steps is it from "collecting info on immigrants" to gold stars?? I suspect it's far fewer than people realize.
So even immigrants that are citizens now presumably.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be for privacy and Freedom hahahaha yeah right. Only for themselves and and when it suits them. It sounds like they are assuming all immigrants are Democrats and must be monitored and so who cares about the "deep state" when it's other people, right guys? Why, some of these immigrants might not even be, gulp, not christian! And quite possibly some might be brown! They gotta be stopped or they might vote, right Republicans.
In the past decade or so I heard something about France having a really high tax rate on individuals making millions of dollars. Supposedly this led to a mass exodus of billionaires and millionaires. Famously, beloved actor Gerard Depardieu was one of the exiles, I think he went to Russia where's he's fallen apart.
Despite the exodus of their 1% masters, the country seems to be doing just fine and is one of the best democracies in the world. Their influence is clearly on the rise. Now that Germany is trying to take a right turn, and the UK is talking Brexit, France is poised to be close to the very top of things European.
They were one of the great democracies in 1939 too...
Well you never know when a Hitler is going to happen. Can you plan for a radical nationalist claiming he wants to put his country first, scapegoating certain groups of people, and attacking the lying Press?
France relied on the Maginot line which was impressive for the trench warfare style of WWI but completely ineffective for the panzers of hitler. After they had to give up, the beret wearing French became the symbol of resistance.
So now Trump is saying he is going to sign an Executive Order allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. He is saying this because it's been a right-wing talking point for over a decade. Here's the truth: there is nothing preventing that happening right now. The insurance companies aren't doing it. But second of all, even if that changes, you will get just as much use out of burning your money every month as buying across state lines. You'ĺl have a policy, but you will have NO in-network providers anywhere near you. So good luck with that. This man knows nothing.
In the past decade or so I heard something about France having a really high tax rate on individuals making millions of dollars. Supposedly this led to a mass exodus of billionaires and millionaires. Famously, beloved actor Gerard Depardieu was one of the exiles, I think he went to Russia where's he's fallen apart.
Despite the exodus of their 1% masters, the country seems to be doing just fine and is one of the best democracies in the world. Their influence is clearly on the rise. Now that Germany is trying to take a right turn, and the UK is talking Brexit, France is poised to be close to the very top of things European.
They were one of the great democracies in 1939 too...
Well you never know when a Hitler is going to happen. Can you plan for a radical nationalist claiming he wants to put his country first, scapegoating certain groups of people, and attacking the lying Press?
France relied on the Maginot line which was impressive for the trench warfare style of WWI but completely ineffective for the panzers of hitler. After they had to give up, the beret wearing French became the symbol of resistance.
What's worse is they didn't even bother to extend the Maginot Line to the channel. Why not just draw a big arrow over Belgium and Luxembourg and write 'invade here' beside it?
I'm just saying that pointing out how great France is might be premature. Not sure I would want to live there with the terrorism problem they've been dealing with recently. Besides, didn't they basically rape North and Eastern Africa for much of their prosperity? From what I understand, they're responsible for a lot of the problems in countries like Nigeria even today...
Incidentally, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act) was temporarily suspended by Michael Chertoff in the aftermath of Katrina back in 2005, by Janet Napolitano in 2012 to allow an emergency shipment of gasoline on a Russian freighter to reach Alaska, and to allow shipments of various pretoleum products to areas effected by Hurricane Sandy. The Trump Administration could waive it for Puerto Rico right now, if they wanted to. How long would it take to draft a waiver? An hour or two? How long would it take to sign it? A minute? How long would it take to make the phone calls telling people that it has been waived? Fifteen minutes?
Proponents of the Jones Act maintain that it is a vital piece of border security and thus national security. According to the GAO, do you know how many foreign seafarers have been involved in terrorist-related activities in the United States at any point in time? Zero.
Notice that this says "immigrants", not "illegal immigrants". That means "all" immigrants, even the ones who are here legally. What is worse is that you *know* that their wide net is going to capture information from people who are not immigrants...but if a person isn't an immigrant then that means they are a citizen, whether born here naturally or if they became naturalized.
There is no way this data collection ends well. At best, it is innocent and inconvenient but at worst it represents the government collecting information from people whom they consider "enemies" (a very nebulous term which, under certain circumstances, can mean anything you need it to mean).
I wouldn't be surprised. The govt. went buckwild with collectin info after 911, and it kept getting worse. At first I was shocked at my fellow North Carolinian Snowden, but after a while thought it was something that needed to be done to bring it all out in the open. Maybe more folks in the right positions will have the guts and ingenuity to step forward if need be, if (when!) it goes to far. When outed on one method or reason why, humans have the tendency and resourcefulness to do the same again, with different strategies or different explanations to the public as to why. Least that what I reckon anyway.
The problem is that it makes it tempting for those few folks to either hide their money, move it elsewhere or just not bother earning it. That rate is just flat out punitive. If a rich person makes a billion $ and the rate is 20-30% that's 200-300 million $ in taxes. If they make that same billion $ under your system it sounds great that around 800 million $ or so would go to taxes, but what if that person decided not to bother making that money since he can barely keep any of it after the 1st 20-30 million? I daresay a lot less than even the 200 million $ from the first scenario would go into the coffers...
Let's get real, the few people making more than 50 million dollars per year are not engaged in back-breaking labor for that money. The majority of it is wealth compounding on wealth. Only 4 actors, 2 CEOs, and 3 athletes make 50 million dollars or more in America.
France relied on the Maginot line which was impressive for the trench warfare style of WWI but completely ineffective for the panzers of hitler. After they had to give up, the beret wearing French became the symbol of resistance.
To be fair, the Maginot Line WAS effective, it's just that the German army just went around it by going through Belgium and (or over it by air) bypassing the majority of the heavier fortifications. For the most part, when the Germans DID attack the actual fortifications, they failed. But by then, Paris had fallen and the French government surrendered.
The world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
Actually, no. The world really does run on oil (well, fossil fuels in general). The energy industry, globally, is somewhere around 20-25% of the world domestic product. Most of that is coal actually. Not so much in the U.S., but elsewhere in developing nations.
Like I said it's easy to over-estimate the impact of the energy sector - perhaps because they're in the news so much. The sector as a whole accounts for around 8-9% of GDP in the US - you can see a historical analysis of that here. Not all countries produce statistics so there aren't comparable figures for the world as a whole, but those are likely to be slightly below the US level due to the energy intensive economy there (in the UK for instance the figure is about 6%). That includes renewables, though those are still a small proportion of the total.
As an alternative to GDP you can also look at the importance of the sector by considering what proportion of trade relates to energy. In 2015 oil/gas/coal accounted for about $1.2 trillion and petroleum products about $0.6 trillion out of total world trade of $22 trillion - so however you look at it you get a figure of about 8%.
The original discussion was also in the context of the international meddling associated with the sector. While there are international issues associated with any natural resource, this is much more of an issue in relation to oil than coal and I had oil in mind specifically when stating that the world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
I wouldn't be surprised. The govt. went buckwild with collectin info after 911, and it kept getting worse. At first I was shocked at my fellow North Carolinian Snowden, but after a while thought it was something that needed to be done to bring it all out in the open. Maybe more folks in the right positions will have the guts and ingenuity to step forward if need be, if (when!) it goes to far. When outed on one method or reason why, humans have the tendency and resourcefulness to do the same again, with different strategies or different explanations to the public as to why. Least that what I reckon anyway.
The first problem the DHS has to tackle is finding all the people upon whom they wish to collect this information; this group numbers in the millions. Second, not all those people use social media. Third, what if there is a mix-up in a name and they target the wrong person? (silly Mathy--the government doesn't make mistakes *laugh*) Fourth, how is the DHS going to keep track of all social media platforms which keep popping up from time to time? Fifth and final, what happens *when* they target someone who is an actual citizen?
We already know that young males in places like Pakistan are considered to be enemy combatants for drone purposes until proven otherwise (sometimes after they have died), so apparently this same logic is now being applied here--all immigrants are under some thin blanket of suspicion until they prove themselves innocent. That is the *opposite* of one of the core principles of our system of justice (innocent until proven guilty).
@jjstraka34 It won't be something so obvious as a gold star on the lapel. It will be a flag in a database, which you can't see or contradict.
the few people making more than 50 million dollars per year are not engaged in back-breaking labor for that money. The majority of it is wealth compounding on wealth. Only 4 actors, 2 CEOs, and 3 athletes make 50 million dollars or more in America.
True. The richest people in the country do not get their money from a salary; they get it from stock exchanges and investments and so forth.
A capital gains tax could bring in a lot more revenue than simply increasing income taxes for the richer folks in the country. My dad has pointed out that, as a doctor, there are lots of people who work less hard than he does, doing less productive things (betting on the stock market rather than saving human lives), and yet earn much more money and pay less taxes on their earnings.
I've never had much respect for the career of a stock broker, or a similar job in the finance industry. It's one of those jobs where you only make money on another person's loss. That's what "buy low, sell high" means. You're not building anything; you're not providing any services; you're just collecting money.
I place more value on jobs that have a positive impact on humankind. Now, that doesn't have to be medicine or scientific research or nonprofit work or some other "heroic" kind of job; just working for a normal company, in a normal job, is usually contributing in some way to global progress. You can make the world a better place just by doing paperwork or scrubbing a bathroom. It's not as dramatic as saving a baby from a burning building, but it's still a contribution to the world at large.
But there are a few industries and a few jobs that only profit at the expense of other people. And if you make a million dollars a year by trading stocks, I don't see how you're making anyone better off but yourself.
What's sad is these guys making money hand over fist, enough to make doctors envious, it's not enough. They want more. They want zero taxes and probably for reimbursement from the taxpayers bailout if they lose money.
This was due to Delta allegedly buying the 125 planes from Bombardier in 2016. This is strange because allegedly, Boeing doesn't make a plane the size that Delta requested and signed a 8.5 Billion contract with Delta in 2011 for larger aircraft. It is why Delta went internationally with its second contract between Bombardier and a Brazilian company. The price that Boeing said the planes were sold for is also being disputed by Delta.
What's more striking is that this move threatens Boeings own contracts with both Canada and the UK (where part of these planes are made). If this Delta deal falls through and it leads to layoffs in the aerospace industry in both countries, where politicians have threatened retaliation against the company, Trudeau going so far as to cancel it's order of F-18 Super Hornets.
It's a tit for tat approach, that can trickle into the NAFTA talks and any future trade talks and is turning out to be a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
This dispute also has implications for Brexit. Britain can be thought of as occupying a position as a 'bridge' between US & EU, somewhat torn between its geographical location and linguistic/ cultural affinities. The more vulnerable that Britons feel in a trade dispute with the US, the less comfortable they will feel about leaving the EU.
Trump went on FOX News and said that "NFL owners are afraid of their players." Oh really?? A group of white billionaires, some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, are AFRAID of their employees?? Every single NFL labor negotiation of the last 2 decades contradicts this statement. Let me translate: "NFL owners are afraid of their players" actually means "my supporters should be afraid of black people who speak their mind."
There is never a right time for black people to protest. They are always supposed to wait til things just magically get better. This is what MLK's most important writing, the Letter from the Birmingham Jail, is all about.
In 1961, 61% of Americans disapproved of the Freedom Riders riding desegregated buses into the segregated South. In 1964, 73% of Americans said that "negroes should stop demonstrating now that they've made their point." Muhammed Ali was not always the most popular and admired athelete of the 20th century. In his day, he was reviled, and lost the prime of his career because of his political stances. Don't let recent American history be whitewashed. The general public has NEVER been on board with civil rights issues.
@Mathsorcerer Heyy, I heard this am they are suspending the Jones act after all. Maybe that will help out a little more in PR. Better late than never I reckon.
@Mathsorcerer Heyy, I heard this am they are suspending the Jones act after all. Maybe that will help out a little more in PR. Better late than never I reckon.
It was rescinded without question for Texas and Florida, two states he won. It took well over a week and two days of horrible press on the subject to get it suspended for Puerto Rico, which holds no political value to him whatsoever. I'm not a fan of handing out credit for doing the right thing after you've exhausted all other options. Trump himself flat-out admitted they didn't do it right away because it might upset shipping companies. It was profit over lives from the get-go. He wasn't even ashamed to say it.
I wouldn't give em credit for buildin an outhouse, as he'd prolly try and save money by not diggin the pit underneath, just glad it was finally done, late as it is.
Comments
Notice the curve. Investors knew the company peeked with that acquisition and began selling immediately. With debt (and struggling sales) piling up, labour costs get cut meaning less staff in the store (or long time staff being replaced by minimum wage workers), but the stocks peter out roughly where they began in the end.
To see this in history, I recommend reading Chocolate Wars by Deborah Cadbury. It illustrates how the industry went from literally building towns such as Hershey, Pennsylvania to exactly the same thing I illustrated above with HBC. It shows how everyone profits from this type of model from the stockholders to the banks lending the money except for the people who actually work(ed) for the company.
Here is where things get interesting. In many games featuring two players, there are three scenarios which conclude the game: either I win, you win, or we tie/draw. In this instance, though, there is an independent win condition which is independent of either contestant. The best analogy I can think of on short notice is blackjack. Suppose you and I sit down at a table in a casino to play blackjack. The conclusion conditions now become: 1) we both win, 2) you win and I tie (push with the dealer), 3) you win and I lose, 4) you tie and I win, 5) we both tie, 6) you tie and I lose, 7) you lose and I win, 8) you lose and I tie, or 9) we both lose.
I suppose there is another way to look at it, though--in a "culture war" no one ever wins.
"Victory" usually takes the form of "the other side loses"...even if your side also lost. In that respect, I suppose it is the old Cold War idea of MAD only without radioactive fallout.
Anyway....this kneeling during the anthem thing started out as a cutting edge social statement but now it is reaching the saturation point. It won't take much longer for it to transition into a meme (people posting videos of themselves kneeling in front of flags or during the anthem regardless of their circumstances) and then into parody (people making a bad pun and those hearing it take a knee, people in public randomly taking a knee if they see someone wearing a shirt with an American flag on it).
Aside from burning it for energy, which is mostly for industrial use, and aside from the most visible consumption for gasoline, all that oil is turned into biochemical feedstocks for billions of types of plastics, artificial fabrics, pharmaceuticals, and more.
Ethylene (a very simple, basic hydrocarbon) production ALONE is upwards of 150 million tonnes per year. It is the most produced organic compound on the planet, because it serves as a good building block for most everything else through organic chemistry.
I am under no illusion that we're going to stop using oil. Or coal for that matter (main use outside of burning for energy is steel production). That said, we can certainly save a lot by not being so wasteful to just burn it for energy or simple transportation when we have the technology now to do it better, cheaper, and sustainably with renewables. Actually, it wouldn't be a violation of the first commandment, but the second. (idols, graven images, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_make_unto_thee_any_graven_image
Interestingly, I forgot the bit in there about God visiting his wrath upon a violator's descendants for 3-4 generations. Reminds me of the discussion a few weeks ago during the DACA talk about how many generations one has to be to not be an immigrant. Indeed, the only thing accomplished is that Republicans have to go back to the starting line on October 1st, polish a new turd, and bring it out for a vote again and start this whole thing over. Again. The Jones act is a MAJOR reason why stuff is more expensive in Hawai'i. All the stuff imported from Asia has to go to California, get unloaded, reloaded on an American-registered cargo ship, and then shipped from California back to Hawai'i, despite the foreign-flagged ships sailing right past Hawai'i. I'm for it, actually. But not until past like, 20 million dollars, at least, maybe 50 million dollars. With another 3-5 tax brackets leading up to it. Then again, I don't consider myself a Democrat, either.
Instead the Republicans want to simplify brackets, which makes a tax more proportional, which is ultimately regressive for income tax purposes.
Actually, I think my ideal would be a logarithmic function. The more you make, the more you are taxed as a % on a smooth continuum instead of breakpoints caused by bracketed ranges, eliminating the trite BS talking point of Republicans who try muddying the waters of "marginal" tax rates.
Though I've never tried putting on paper such a function.
Instead the Republicans want to simplify brackets, which makes a tax more proportional, which is ultimately regressive for income tax purposes.
Actually, I think my ideal would be a logarithmic function. The more you make, the more you are taxed as a % on a smooth continuum instead of breakpoints caused by bracketed ranges, eliminating the trite BS talking point of Republicans who try muddying the waters of "marginal" tax rates.
Though I've never tried putting on paper such a function.
The problem is that it makes it tempting for those few folks to either hide their money, move it elsewhere or just not bother earning it. That rate is just flat out punitive. If a rich person makes a billion $ and the rate is 20-30% that's 200-300 million $ in taxes. If they make that same billion $ under your system it sounds great that around 800 million $ or so would go to taxes, but what if that person decided not to bother making that money since he can barely keep any of it after the 1st 20-30 million? I daresay a lot less than even the 200 million $ from the first scenario would go into the coffers...
Most liberals don't have a problem wirh rich people. What they have is a problem with obscenely wealthy peolple who seem to be hell bent on getting ALL the money, at the expense of 99% of the rest of the country (or world for that matter). And Wall Street, who produce nothing and just invent wealth out of thin air. I've always said if I win the lottery I am giving half of it away to a children's hospital sight-unseen, buying two nice houses, a nice car, and then I'm done. I'd put the rest in the bank and not worry about anything for the rest of my life. The people who are pushing hardest for GOP tax cuts have hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. What they'd get back in exchange for gutting health care across the board will be nothing but a rounding error to them.
At the national level, though, things become different. The national government is the only agency authorized to issue currency in its home nation; therefore, if a national government needs x billion to pay for something it can just print it, state that the money is valid and has that much value, then pay for the program. However, since printing money devalues the currency and leads to inflation, the government must have a method by which it shrinks the money supply to keep inflation in check. This is the true purpose of taxation at the national level--keeping the money supply at a level sufficient to maintain the currency at an acceptable value and to put downward pressure on inflationary trends.
An income tax punishes everyone, whether rich or poor, for being productive and helping to generate value in the economy; clearly, though, it punishes poor people more because being taxed 10% on the $30,000 you made is wildly different than being taxed 35% on the $300,000 you made--in the first instance you have to live on $27,000 per year but in the second instance you have to live on $195,000 per year, making it clear to figure out which scenario is easier even though the richer person's tax rate is triple the poor person's rate.
A truly progressive tax system which does not unfairly punish folks in the lower income brackets is consumption tax--you pay tax on what you buy/consume, not what you earn. This also avoids the trap of punishing people for being productive--why would you want to punish productivity? If the person earning $30,000 wants to buy a $500 smart device that is their choice; if the consumption tax (which could be considered a sort of national sales tax) rate is, oh, 8.5% (number chosen at random) then that person will pay $42.50. If, on the other hand, the person making $300,000 buys a new car for $60,000 then they will pay $5,100. If you don't want to pay "too much" in taxes then you will save your money rather than spending it, meanwhile the people who are richer (and who, by extension, spend more money) will pay more in taxes than poor people. This approaches the nebulous "their fair share" people always claim that rich people need to pay but, mysteriously, which no one ever defines, either by number or rate.
Taxing corporations is significantly more difficult. Not only can the corporation simply raise prices and thus pass the extra tax cost along to consumers, they could "punish" the country who raises taxes on them by moving their manufacturing or distribution operations elsewhere, moving jobs out of the country where they were formerly located. They would react this way if you try to go after their offshore holdings, as well. That being said, corporations are significantly more valuable than people--the richest individuals have wealth over $10 billion so they probably make $1 billion each year but the wealthiest corporations can make profits in excess of $1 billion *each month*.
Despite the exodus of their 1% masters, the country seems to be doing just fine and is one of the best democracies in the world. Their influence is clearly on the rise. Now that Germany is trying to take a right turn, and the UK is talking Brexit, France is poised to be close to the very top of things European.
Proponents of the Jones Act maintain that it is a vital piece of border security and thus national security. According to the GAO, do you know how many foreign seafarers have been involved in terrorist-related activities in the United States at any point in time? Zero.
*************
edit/add
It appears that the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) will being collecting social media information about immigrants living in the United States; the information collected will include social media screen names, posts/pictures/videos they share, and search results. The collection is scheduled to begin on 18 October.
Notice that this says "immigrants", not "illegal immigrants". That means "all" immigrants, even the ones who are here legally. What is worse is that you *know* that their wide net is going to capture information from people who are not immigrants...but if a person isn't an immigrant then that means they are a citizen, whether born here naturally or if they became naturalized.
There is no way this data collection ends well. At best, it is innocent and inconvenient but at worst it represents the government collecting information from people whom they consider "enemies" (a very nebulous term which, under certain circumstances, can mean anything you need it to mean).
I thought Republicans were supposed to be for privacy and Freedom hahahaha yeah right. Only for themselves and and when it suits them. It sounds like they are assuming all immigrants are Democrats and must be monitored and so who cares about the "deep state" when it's other people, right guys? Why, some of these immigrants might not even be, gulp, not christian! And quite possibly some might be brown! They gotta be stopped or they might vote, right Republicans.
France relied on the Maginot line which was impressive for the trench warfare style of WWI but completely ineffective for the panzers of hitler. After they had to give up, the beret wearing French became the symbol of resistance.
I'm just saying that pointing out how great France is might be premature. Not sure I would want to live there with the terrorism problem they've been dealing with recently. Besides, didn't they basically rape North and Eastern Africa for much of their prosperity? From what I understand, they're responsible for a lot of the problems in countries like Nigeria even today...
Maybe more folks in the right positions will have the guts and ingenuity to step forward if need be, if (when!) it goes to far.
When outed on one method or reason why, humans have the tendency and resourcefulness to do the same again, with different strategies or different explanations to the public as to why.
Least that what I reckon anyway.
As an alternative to GDP you can also look at the importance of the sector by considering what proportion of trade relates to energy. In 2015 oil/gas/coal accounted for about $1.2 trillion and petroleum products about $0.6 trillion out of total world trade of $22 trillion - so however you look at it you get a figure of about 8%.
The original discussion was also in the context of the international meddling associated with the sector. While there are international issues associated with any natural resource, this is much more of an issue in relation to oil than coal and I had oil in mind specifically when stating that the world's economy runs on a lot more than oil and war.
We already know that young males in places like Pakistan are considered to be enemy combatants for drone purposes until proven otherwise (sometimes after they have died), so apparently this same logic is now being applied here--all immigrants are under some thin blanket of suspicion until they prove themselves innocent. That is the *opposite* of one of the core principles of our system of justice (innocent until proven guilty).
@jjstraka34 It won't be something so obvious as a gold star on the lapel. It will be a flag in a database, which you can't see or contradict.
A capital gains tax could bring in a lot more revenue than simply increasing income taxes for the richer folks in the country. My dad has pointed out that, as a doctor, there are lots of people who work less hard than he does, doing less productive things (betting on the stock market rather than saving human lives), and yet earn much more money and pay less taxes on their earnings.
I've never had much respect for the career of a stock broker, or a similar job in the finance industry. It's one of those jobs where you only make money on another person's loss. That's what "buy low, sell high" means. You're not building anything; you're not providing any services; you're just collecting money.
I place more value on jobs that have a positive impact on humankind. Now, that doesn't have to be medicine or scientific research or nonprofit work or some other "heroic" kind of job; just working for a normal company, in a normal job, is usually contributing in some way to global progress. You can make the world a better place just by doing paperwork or scrubbing a bathroom. It's not as dramatic as saving a baby from a burning building, but it's still a contribution to the world at large.
But there are a few industries and a few jobs that only profit at the expense of other people. And if you make a million dollars a year by trading stocks, I don't see how you're making anyone better off but yourself.
Boeing filed a complaint and the U.S. Department of Commerce slapped a 220% tariff on the import of 100 to 150 seat commercial airplanes.
This was due to Delta allegedly buying the 125 planes from Bombardier in 2016. This is strange because allegedly, Boeing doesn't make a plane the size that Delta requested and signed a 8.5 Billion contract with Delta in 2011 for larger aircraft. It is why Delta went internationally with its second contract between Bombardier and a Brazilian company. The price that Boeing said the planes were sold for is also being disputed by Delta.
What's more striking is that this move threatens Boeings own contracts with both Canada and the UK (where part of these planes are made). If this Delta deal falls through and it leads to layoffs in the aerospace industry in both countries, where politicians have threatened retaliation
against the company, Trudeau going so far as to cancel it's order of F-18 Super Hornets.
It's a tit for tat approach, that can trickle into the NAFTA talks and any future trade talks and is turning out to be a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
There is never a right time for black people to protest. They are always supposed to wait til things just magically get better. This is what MLK's most important writing, the Letter from the Birmingham Jail, is all about.
In 1961, 61% of Americans disapproved of the Freedom Riders riding desegregated buses into the segregated South. In 1964, 73% of Americans said that "negroes should stop demonstrating now that they've made their point." Muhammed Ali was not always the most popular and admired athelete of the 20th century. In his day, he was reviled, and lost the prime of his career because of his political stances. Don't let recent American history be whitewashed. The general public has NEVER been on board with civil rights issues.