Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

This is why I've always said: Verizon: Terrific if you're an investor, horrible if you're a customer. Given the rural portfolio and who would still use AOHell, the merger does make sense.

I honestly thought AOL went bankrupt around 2003.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I honestly thought AOL went bankrupt around 2003.

Time Warner bailed them out.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Time Warner bailed them out.

That's right. They got sucked into Time Warner. Is Time Warner selling them off now?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I thought AOL and Time Warner split a long *** time ago.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I thought AOL and Time Warner split a long *** time ago.

Could be. It's me who's not understanding the timeline. I'll use the Google machine instead of the board.

And here it is.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102670339

Time Warner sold them off as a separate company in 2009. They bailed them out in 2001.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Could be. It's me who's not understanding the timeline. I'll use the Google machine instead of the board.

Always a suspect move.

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

We are no longer a democracy.

and we never were intended nor designed to be one. A democratic republic. Senators chosen by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote. Electors in electoral college chosen by states, the President not elected by direct popular vote. the founders wanted to insulate government from the passions of the mob while still allowing voters to throw the bums out once they became disgusted enough.

A proposal that I saw recently that had some promise was to go back to the original size of congressional districts in terms of people, and have "sub-representatives" chosen from districts of that size. then we'd keep the same number of House members except each House district would be a dozen or so sub-districts with its own representative, that convenes to choose one House representative from among them.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

and we never were intended nor designed to be one. A democratic republic. Senators chosen by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote. Electors in electoral college chosen by states, the President not elected by direct popular vote. the founders wanted to insulate government from the passions of the mob while still allowing voters to throw the bums out once they became disgusted enough.

I'm not sure they expected us to be a democratic/special interest republic though.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

We are no longer a democracy. That's not a rhetorical statement, it's an actual fact. All that stuff we learned growing up about being a country where the people rule is no longer true. We have been made into a feudal society.

Correct. Plutocracy for the win. Fishie is wrong.

[joecct]

Correct. Plutocracy for the win. Fishie is wrong.

Actually, you're both right. Fish is where we started and you are where we are.

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Plutocracy [is where we are now].

Hence proposals to increase the number of representatives with voting rights. Make the plutocrats spend more and spend it more broadly.

Your complaint goes back to Tammany Hall and the concept of "honest graft." Politicians have been for sale since time immemorial. that's human nature. since we cannot rewire human nature, we try to set interest groups in competition with each other. Even Galbraith talked about "countervailing power."

The problem we face today is more like: "it used to be, once you bought a politician, they stayed 'bought.' Today, the best you can manage is to rent them for a few months."

If you look at Russia for example, totalitarian regimes are even more of a plutocracy than ours. The people who run the government become the plutocrats since absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how much of a "plutocracy" we have here, I prefer it to totalitarianism. Progressives are just fooling themselves if they think that a powerful central government cares about them; people who run the government will always put their own personal interests ahead of any so-called "common good," and they will even find a way to fool themselves into thinking that their interests are the "common good." that's human nature too.

Even here, look how many Senators and Congressional representatives became wealthy after they took office. Look at the triangular trade among government agencies, businesses regulated by those agencies, and lobbying firms. People move freely from one to the other all the time.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Hence proposals to increase the number of representatives with voting rights. Make the plutocrats spend more and spend it more broadly.

Your complaint goes back to Tammany Hall and the concept of "honest graft." Politicians have been for sale since time immemorial. that's human nature. since we cannot rewire human nature, we try to set interest groups in competition with each other. Even Galbraith talked about "countervailing power."

The problem we face today is more like: "it used to be, once you bought a politician, they stayed 'bought.' Today, the best you can manage is to rent them for a few months."

If you look at Russia for example, totalitarian regimes are even more of a plutocracy than ours. The people who run the government become the plutocrats since absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how much of a "plutocracy" we have here, I prefer it to totalitarianism. Progressives are just fooling themselves if they think that a powerful central government cares about them; people who run the government will always put their own personal interests ahead of any so-called "common good," and they will even find a way to fool themselves into thinking that their interests are the "common good." that's human nature too.

Even here, look how many Senators and Congressional representatives became wealthy after they took office. Look at the triangular trade among government agencies, businesses regulated by those agencies, and lobbying firms. People move freely from one to the other all the time.

There's one other thing that needs to come into the argument, and that is that the people truly running the country from an executive standpoint are not elected. They are appointed. The biggest piece of evidence with this is the Kennedy assassination. Was it done single-handedly by an ex-military soldier? Heck no. In fact, when he was arrested, he wasn't even accused of shooting the President, but rather a different officer. Take a look at what was being discussed by Kennedy a couple of days before the assassination: Ending the Federal Reserve. Also take a look at people, such as Frank Olson, Dorothy Kilgallen, and Andrew Breitbart, who had an "overdose" or a "heart attack" (any doctor really knowing what to look for would tell you it wasn't that but rather murder by poison and then covering it up). These people aren't elected. They're appointed, sometimes just as "assistants", and not referenced for "plausible deniability".

Sure, you might be able to help things legislatively by expanding the Congress, but until you start looking at the absolute power wielded in the executive departments, you're not going to get anywhere. If you're going to support anyone, support the whistleblowers, such as Snowden. Given the punishment for "getting caught", they aren't crying wolf.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So seeing a lot of sentiment that the US is a plutocracy. I think that's a perspective that misleads what's going on.

One could argue that the US is in fact ruled by the wealthy. But is that really the outcome? While the rich get write offs...US tax rates are progressive better supporting the poor as they should be. We have a decent welfare and support system for the poor. I'm progressive, but all of this is not far from what it should be. While there are many who are seeing a plutocratic outcome, its not really what's happening.

Really we are governed waay too much by special interests. There are financial special interests, there are military special interests, there are big oil, there are religious special interests, and even environmental or education special interests. When money impacts legislation in more damaging ways, it's not due to impact the on rich/poor spectrum but rather undue impact to bias legislation regarding special interests. That's where our problem lies.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So seeing a lot of sentiment that the US is a plutocracy. I think that's a perspective that misleads what's going on.

One could argue that the US is in fact ruled by the wealthy. But is that really the outcome? While the rich get write offs...US tax rates are progressive better supporting the poor as they should be. We have a decent welfare and support system for the poor. I'm progressive, but all of this is not far from what it should be. While there are many who are seeing a plutocratic outcome, its not really what's happening.

Really we are governed waay too much by special interests. There are financial special interests, there are military special interests, there are big oil, there are religious special interests, and even environmental or education special interests. When money impacts legislation in more damaging ways, it's not due to impact the on rich/poor spectrum but rather undue impact to bias legislation regarding special interests. That's where our problem lies.

Meh. The Poor are blight to the rich. Thus the safety net. It's the middle class that is systematically being destroyed. The rich don't care about having someone to sell stuff to here anymore cause they have a global marketplace for their goods, and most of them don't need to sell any goods to make money anyway, cause their money makes more money and it's taxed at a much lower rate.

So, I'm not buying your progressive tax structure argument.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There are a few things that people forget when they whine about taxes:

First off, when they whine about tax cuts for the rich, well guess what: EVERY tax cut affects the rich! We use a progressive structure, not one that looks like a sawtooth. A certain amount is taxed at a particular percent, then another amount after that at another percent, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, they think that certain loopholes only apply to certain people. Not true; they apply to everyone. In fact, if you made your entire income off of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, and you would normally have your top dollar be taxed in the 15% bracket, do you know what percentage of your income goes towards federal taxes? Bupkis. Ever wonder why the nominal value of the stock market indexes didn't start shooting up again until after 2010? It's not because of quantitative easing. It's actually because of the renewal of the qualified dividend and long-term capital gains rates.