[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

I came here to stir shit

Me, too! Here's to you, brother!

[andyt]

Oh, shit. No wonder Zip accused me of always posting climate change denial - he's mixing me up with you.

[OnTheIce]

andyt wrote:

And, if OTI had not chopped up my quote, it would show clearly, that as you said, that I said it was my initial motivation. Didn't really work out as planned, unless you consider my posting about income inequality to be flaming or even trolling. Seems as valid a topic as any other to me. I'm sure if every post I made was extolling the virtues of Stephen Haper, OTI would think I was just peachy.

As I've said, I have no problem with arguments getting rough, and it's too boring if we always just play nice. Isn't the League of Extraordinary Debaters there for that? I just think the gang bangs and following somebody from post to post and just spewing at them is too much.

If my initial intention was to come into your house and take a shit on your bed....but changed my mind after talking more to you, you'd still think I was a piece of shit for wanting to drop a load on your bed in the first place.

Keep dropping turds.

[andyt]

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But following your analogy, you're actually urging me to follow my original intention.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

Psudo wrote:

And these rich, they revel and roll in that corruption, delighting in their Machiavellian villainy. That's what you believe, isn't it?

Can you show me a quote where I said that? Some to revel and roll, many others just think it's their due, and some even have the decency to say things have gone too far.

Later in that same post, you say, "the middle class - the class the rich use to get rich." The rich use the middle class? That sounds like an accusation of some nebulous villainy of the part of the rich. It certainly contrasts the description I'd use, wherein the rich and middle class and all involvement in legitimate commerce involves mutual benefit by voluntary exchange.

Besides, if they are not corrupt in some way, why demand the rich sacrifice for the poor in the name of greater income equality? The innocent deserve no punishment, so your punitive prescriptions deny the possibility of the innocence of the wealthy.

andyt wrote:

Actually the main direct beneficiaries of state services are the middle class.

On what do you base that claim? I'm quite confident that the lowest third of income earners receive a greater dollar amount of state services than the middle third. Many services have maximum income qualifications at various levels, but none I'm aware of say "you must earn at least this much to qualify."

Psudo wrote:

Mostly costs are becoming ever less expensive, at least here in BC. Social spending has gone down as a percentage of GDP, only health care has remained constant.

Sounds good.

Psudo wrote:

Meanwhile, as I wrote, we have drives for kids in poor schools to get meals and clothes, kids can't do all the enrichment programs that wealthy kids do because parents can't afford to co-pay for them. More and more of the school burden is being placed on parents, creating unequal access to education.

What percentage of total social spending is education? If it's anything like the USA, it's only a couple percent. If that's the case, you could increase education funding with the savings from your otherwise shrinking social spending. K-12 education, when well-run, is on the short list of government-funded social services I can support. Federal highways and ports are also on that list. The postal service, perhaps, and certainly the courts and prisons and national defense. If anything else is on the list, it evades my memory.

andyt wrote:

That's just one example of where more money needs to be spent.

Name another. The things on my list can be better funded by cuts to other spending and elimination of tax breaks.

andyt wrote:

this has nothing to do with the holocaust or seggregation.

Which is why it does not justify sweeping social change. "My English degree isn't getting me a high-paying job" is not a valid justification for social change.

andyt wrote:

I can understand you wanting to go back to the 80's, because that's when the change in direction we're now going started.

I only want to live in the 80s for the computer programming, as I stated; Atari and Commodore 64, NES and Gameboy, the Genesis and the vast diversity of arcade machines; it was a wonderful time to be a programmer.

Politically, I prefer to live in the world since the cold war ended, thanks. As for the origin of our current situation, the US government's refusal to cut spending once taxes were cut in the 80s gave us a significant chunk of our modern deficit; other than that and maybe amnesty, the 80s didn't cause our modern problems.

andyt wrote:

inequality is back to where it was before the depression, our financial system is in the same state it was when it caused the depression.

Inequality didn't cause the depression. Investment on margin, currency deflation, and runs on banks did. We banned investment on margin, created the FDIC to protect banks in emergency times, and the Federal Reserve keeps currency inflating, so the causes of the Great Depression cannot cause another. Our financial system is in a very different state today than it was then, as is our economic system -- today we have too much inflation, where then it was too much deflation; today we have worthless mortgages declared worthless, where then we had mortgages raising in value faster than they could be paid off. Then we had no government safety net to catch the suffering, whereas today we have one that costs more than half of the US federal budget. It's hard to imagine two economic crises affecting the same society that could be more different.

andyt wrote:

I want us to go back to the values we showed after WWII, with a solid middle class brought about by unionism

Post-WW2 values? I thought this wasn't about segregation. =D

The solid middle class was brought about by prosperity, in turn brought about by the technological advancement gained by arming the world and the cheerful consumerism that celebrated an end to war era rationing and austerity. Post-war unionism tied a noose around the neck of that workhorse, setting the stage for Detroit's drawn out collapse and other employer fragility that helped motivate the bailouts and contributed to our high unemployment.

Incidentally, federal spending in the 50s was the lowest proportion of GDP of any time since. Give me that value, and I'll give you strong, sustained economic growth.

andyt wrote:

I thought the knock against the OWS was that they didn't call for anything?

That might be someone's opinion, but it's not mine. OWS don't agree on their views, but what views come from their number are almost always calls for radical, fundamental reform if not literal revolution.

andyt wrote:

what arises out of OWS won't be pretty.

Agreed. Except I think you mean the pain of reform to a better system, and I mean the pain of the misguided reforms themselves.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

Psudo wrote:

And these rich, they revel and roll in that corruption, delighting in their Machiavellian villainy. That's what you believe, isn't it?

Can you show me a quote where I said that? Some to revel and roll, many others just think it's their due, and some even have the decency to say things have gone too far.

Later in that same post, you say, "the middle class - the class the rich use to get rich." The rich use the middle class? That sounds like an accusation of some nebulous villainy of the part of the rich. It certainly contrasts the description I'd use, wherein the rich and middle class and all involvement in legitimate commerce involves mutual benefit by voluntary exchange.

Besides, if they are not corrupt in some way, why demand the rich sacrifice for the poor in the name of greater income equality? The innocent deserve no punishment, so your punitive prescriptions deny the possibility of the innocence of the wealthy.

It is a mutual arrangement, but the rich are the biggest beneficiaries. It's in their interest to maintain the system, which they are not doing currently. Same with the poor and social peace and cohesion and stability. Call it short term pain for long term gain. Only the pain ain't really much when you have millions and have to pay some of it to the govt.

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

Actually the main direct beneficiaries of state services are the middle class.

On what do you base that claim? I'm quite confident that the lowest third of income earners receive a greater dollar amount of state services than the middle third. Many services have maximum income qualifications at various levels, but none I'm aware of say "you must earn at least this much to qualify."

It's what the newspaper tells me. For instance, in Quebec they have subsidized day care (with no means test). The primary users of it are the middle class. Same with many govt services.

Psudo wrote:

Mostly costs are becoming ever less expensive, at least here in BC. Social spending has gone down as a percentage of GDP, only health care has remained constant.

Sounds good.

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

Meanwhile, as I wrote, we have drives for kids in poor schools to get meals and clothes, kids can't do all the enrichment programs that wealthy kids do because parents can't afford to co-pay for them. More and more of the school burden is being placed on parents, creating unequal access to education.

What percentage of total social spending is education? If it's anything like the USA, it's only a couple percent. If that's the case, you could increase education funding with the savings from your otherwise shrinking social spending. K-12 education, when well-run, is on the short list of government-funded social services I can support. Federal highways and ports are also on that list. The postal service, perhaps, and certainly the courts and prisons and national defense. If anything else is on the list, it evades my memory.

Education makes up a huge percentage of our govt spending. I bet it's the same in the US. Are you only looking at federal spending? What shrinking social spending can be used to fund education? With this recession, I think social spending is up.

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

That's just one example of where more money needs to be spent.

Name another. The things on my list can be better funded by cuts to other spending and elimination of tax breaks.

Child poverty. Huge downstream costs to society. No problem with eliminating tax breaks, in fact I suggested it somewhere above.

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

this has nothing to do with the holocaust or seggregation.

Which is why it does not justify sweeping social change. "My English degree isn't getting me a high-paying job" is not a valid justification for social change.

The sweeping social change has already happened - time to change direction. Got nothing to do with English degrees either.

Psudo wrote:

Politically, I prefer to live in the world since the cold war ended, thanks. As for the origin of our current situation, the US government's refusal to cut spending once taxes were cut in the 80s gave us a significant chunk of our modern deficit; other than that, the 80s didn't cause our modern problems.

Other than that - good one. It's the tax cuts that are the problem.

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

inequality is back to where it was before the depression, our financial system is in the same state it was when it caused the depression.

Inequality didn't cause the depression. Investment on margin, currency deflation, and runs on banks did. We banned investment on margin, created the FDIC to protect banks in emergency times, and the Federal Reserve keeps currency inflating, so the causes of the Great Depression cannot cause another. Our financial system is in a very different state today than it was then, as is our economic system -- today we have too much inflation, where then it was too much deflation; today we have worthless mortgages declared worthless, where then we had mortgages raising in value faster than they could be paid off. Then we had no government safety net to catch the suffering, whereas today we have one that costs more than half of the US federal budget. It's hard to imagine two economic crises affecting the same society that could be more different.

No, hot money did, same as this time.

OK - I give. This is just too much work.

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Glad to see your motives were clear from day 1.

You have no more credibility than the old liar Eureka

To be fair here, that may have been his initial motivation but he has not focused on that in the last while - certainly no more than anyone else.

Holy Jeez, Gunnair, what drugs have you been taking? That's the second time you've been nice to me. Merry Christmas. Of course maybe you're just using me to tweak OTI.

.

Don't get to warm and fuzzy over this, or entertain romantic thoughts or think you and I will sit down to a latte you just poured me.

Fact is irrespective of what your purpose was initially it's not your purpose now. Whether I agree with what you post, there is value and generally (unless you're having a day where you feel like being a cock) you are open to discourse.

That is the difference between you and Eureka - something very much lost on him.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

Oh, shit. No wonder Zip accused me of always posting climate change denial - he's mixing me up with you.

[ShepherdsDog]

Gunnair wrote:

Don't get to warm and fuzzy over this, or entertain romantic thoughts or think you and I will sit down to a latte you just poured me.

Fact is irrespective of what your purpose was initially it's not your purpose now. Whether I agree with what you post, there is value and generally (unless you're having a day where you feel like being a cock) you are open to discourse.

That is the difference between you and Eureka - something very much lost on him.

Marley...I do believe you've made Cratchit's Christmas.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

OK - I give. This is just too much work.

I don't want to win by attrition. If you want to focus this discussion on some specific point where you believe the argument for your side of our disagreement is especially strong, I won't consider it evasion or think any less of you. I seek truth, not victory.

Until then, I'll let your last word stand.

[eureka]

Is it really that, Gunnair? Or are you just the same petulant non-debater. You have shown no inclination to discuss or enter any discourse. You still have to be agreed with.

[BartSimpson]

eureka wrote:

Is it really that, Gunnair? Or are you just the same petulant non-debater. You have shown no inclination to discuss or enter any discourse. You still have to be agreed with.

You're accusing someone else of non-debate!

Excuse me as I wipe the coffee from my monitor!

[Gunnair]

eureka wrote:

Is it really that, Gunnair? Or are you just the same petulant non-debater. You have shown no inclination to discuss or enter any discourse. You still have to be agreed with.

That's because you are too much of an asshole to bother debating with.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

andyt wrote:

OK - I give. This is just too much work.

I don't want to win by attrition. If you want to focus this discussion on some specific point where you believe the argument for your side of our disagreement is especially strong, I won't consider it evasion or think any less of you. I seek truth, not victory.

Until then, I'll let your last word stand.

OK - I think there's an optimum amount of income inequality that's best for a society. Less, and there's not enough incentive, more and there's a breakdown in social cohesion. In fact there are graphs out there that show this U shaped relationship between inequality and productivity, but I'm too tired right now to look it up. So even just from that perspective, you want optimum inequality for optimum productivity. Society functions best when people in all strata have a reasonable expectation they can economically improve their lives or those of their children, but even if they don't, that they are getting a fair shake for their efforts. It makes them co-operate with the system and give it their best effort. I think this is being recognized by some of the richest people on earth, among others, who are concerned about more than a quick buck. Call it enlightened self-interest. They, and I, think we've moved past this optimum point. You, I guess disagree.

I assume this is what we are disagreeing about - by now I'm not sure anymore.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

there are graphs out there that show this U shaped relationship between inequality and productivity

I guess you're thinking of graphs like this one (from this website; their link to their source is broken, but the study can be found here as a pdf).

andyt wrote:

there's an optimum amount of income inequality that's best for a society.

I agree generally with that principle: growth rate is reduced if productivity loses all relationship with personal finances, which can happen everyone's income is the same or if everyone's income is zero except one person's (that seems like an odd definition of income inequality, since it is perfect equality with a single exception). I can even be brought to believe that the USA has too high a rate of inequality for optimum growth; I'm not confident that it's true, but I don't reject it out of hand.

Where we seem to disagree is on causes and solutions to inequality, and on how much income equality matters. Justice in individual lives is more important to me than the Gini coefficient.

I don't think the rich in general have done anything wrong to get where we are today; sure, there are the Bernie Madoffs of the world, but he dramatically contrasts against the majority of rich folks like Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers who are simply successful. Those who haven't done anything wrong do not deserve punishment, and cutting down their fortunes to even out the lawn seems punitive to me.

Take taxation as an example. I believe in progressive taxation in that rich folks should have a larger "fair share" of the tax burden than poorer folks, and even that there is a valid argument for tax reform on that basis. I think we agree so far. But my goal is that necessary government funding comes from those who can best afford to pay it, not that the income of the rich more closely resemble the income of the poor. My goal is to fix government, not society. It is often said that CEOs once made 40x their employees' salaries, and now it's more like 200x. If tax reform were passed that had two effects, 1) it ensured greater income never reduced the tax proportion and less income never increased it, and 2) CEOs started making 500x what their employees made, I would call that tax reform a success. Those CEOs would be paying a greater and fairer share of the tax burden, and I see no way in which any individual is facing injustice.

I'll resist the impulses that won me a Typewriter medal and let you respond before I say any more.