Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

t.

Hey, one could always join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (I'm not making that up).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

Here's a couple gems from the founder:
"...as long as there is one breeding pair of humans, there's too great a threat to the biosphere"
"...voluntary human extinction is unlikely, but it is the moral thing to do."

they should have named themselves Army of twelve monkeys.
it's not too far fetched to make a virus that can wipe us out.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We have about a month of late fall/early spring, 2 months of spring, 2 months of fall, 5 months of summer, and July/August.

As you head north on Kuykendahl, crossing FM 1960, you come to the bridge that crosses Cypress Creek. It's a great, long bridge, with a tiny trickle of water you can barely see down at the bottom. When you first see it you're tempted to ask--why do they need that ruddy 2 hundred foot long bridge to cross that tiny trickle of water? Guess.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Not that wikipedia is a bastion of accuracy, but a quick shot over to the carboniferous period I found this little graphic. Interesting about CO2 concentration over time.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Beyond that, though, I think they're a great deal more detailed and well-founded mathematically than a layperson might realize.

and it seemed so clear



Thank god there are people more scientifically inclined than I

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Your overtime analogy doesn't work -- that's not how income works. Effort and income do not scale directly - the million plus first dollar represents much less effort than the first dollar.

I would wager in blackjack if my expected value was positive. For instance, would I invest in a business if I "had to" factor in paying my employees and my subcontractors? Yes, if I still showed a net profit at the end.

The invocation of "social policy" as an objection is not realistic. Every tax structure is a social choice -- there is no "neutral" system the departure from which is social engineering.

would you double your risk, increase your debt, increase expenses, maybe more than double your stress, spend less time with your family... to make a lesser percentage on that incremental effort?

might as well ask, have you or your family owned a business?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

might as well ask, have you or your family owned a business?

You need to ask?

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We have those in Maine, statewide

Really? Don't ever recall seeing that when vacationing up there (I'm usually on the coast). Also don't recall them in Mass which ought to have a lot more smog. Interesting.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

would you double your risk, increase your debt, increase expenses, maybe more than double your stress, spend less time with your family... to make a lesser percentage on that incremental effort?

might as well ask, have you or your family owned a business?

To your second question, yes. To the first question you're using unquantifiable factors. Double your stress, family time, etc. Bottom line is from a business standpoint would you do extra work for extra money, even if meant getting a little less back? Yes, unless you're stupid.

Do an expiriment of us pirate. Go out some night and find a couple of bums, and offer them 100 bucks to fight each other. Then when finished, offer the victorious bum another 90 bucks to fight a second one. What do you think he'll do (aside from the option of smashing a bottle over your head and taking all your money I mean)?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

To your second question, yes. To the first question you're using unquantifiable factors. Double your stress, family time, etc. Bottom line is from a business standpoint would you do extra work for extra money, even if meant getting a little less back? Yes, unless you're stupid.

Do an expiriment of us pirate. Go out some night and find a couple of bums, and offer them 100 bucks to fight each other. Then when finished, offer the victorious bum another 90 bucks to fight a second one. What do you think he'll do (aside from the option of smashing a bottle over your head and taking all your money I mean)?

but keep going...do you think he'd keep doing it if you go to the point of offering him only $10 to fight for the 5th time?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

it's not too far fetched to make a virus that can wipe us out.

We did. It's called "nationalism."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

but keep going...do you think he'd keep doing it if you go to the point of offering him only $10 to fight for the 5th time?

For the business analogy to be correct, somebody else is doing the fighting for him, he's just placing bets. And as long as his expected value is positive, it's rational to keep placing bets.

This is a classic case of confusing investment risk with labor effort. Conflating the two is a time-honored rhetorical strategy to shelter profits, but it's completely empty.

Labor may or not be admirable. Investment isn't admirable or execrable, it's just math.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Do an expiriment of us pirate. Go out some night and find a couple of bums, and offer them 100 bucks to fight each other. Then when finished, offer the victorious bum another 90 bucks to fight a second one. What do you think he'll do (aside from the option of smashing a bottle over your head and taking all your money I mean)?

And record the fights, and post them on You Tube. "Gold Jerry! Comedy gold!"

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

For the business analogy to be correct, somebody else is doing the fighting for him, he's just placing bets. And as long as his expected value is positive, it's rational to keep placing bets.

This is a classic case of confusing investment risk with labor effort. Conflating the two is a time-honored rhetorical strategy to shelter profits, but it's completely empty.

Labor may or not be admirable. Investment isn't admirable or execrable, it's just math.

But you can't ignore risk. If your your expected return is decreased because of taxes you are less likely to make investments due to the risk that is in place. Yes, there will still be some investments made if you double taxes, but far fewer than you would have now. This is what causes economic stagnation.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

There is almost certainly some limited capacity for the natural CO2 sinks to absorb more than was emitted before we started burning coal, gas, and petroleum reserves. However, as ongoing measurements of the concentration of CO2 in the air demonstrate, that capacity is being substantially outstripped by the amount of CO2 we're pumping out and/or the rapidity with which we're doing so.

The only real quibble I could have with predictive models for CO2 concentration is that I doubt we have a firm grasp on the capacity or time constants of some of the larger and slower CO2 sinks... so are they full, or are the time constants just relatively large? (As a practical matter, mind you, at a certain point it doesn't really matter whether it's a larger capacity with a huge time constant vs. a smaller capacity, as it would still take many generations in order to have an effect...)

Beyond that, though, I think they're a great deal more detailed and well-founded mathematically than a layperson might realize.

I generally agree with you, though I'd say you're a bit more optimistic about how well-founded the models are than I am.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

But you can't ignore risk. If your your expected return is decreased because of taxes you are less likely to make investments due to the risk that is in place. Yes, there will still be some investments made if you double taxes, but far fewer than you would have now. This is what causes economic stagnation.

But you're assuming that you wouldn't invest in X because you could get a better return in Y, so you'd put your money there. But if the government taxes both X and Y at the same rate, you have no choice. If you have $10M to do something with and the government is going to tax any return at 90%, then it doesn't much matter whether you invest in stocks, bonds, CDs, or just leave it in a savings account - the amount of growth you will enjoy will be essentially zero. A nominal 10% rate of return turns into 1% after paying 90% in taxes. Sure, 1% is better than 0%, but would you risk your entire principal just for a possibility of a 1% return? In that situation, it might be a more rational decision just to stick it under your pillow rather than risking it in a market or a bank.

This is the real problem with 90% taxes - it removes the incentive for people with money to take on any investment risk, and the economy would slam to a halt.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

no man, entity or nation has a right to another's labor.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

no man, entity or nation has a right to another's labor.

Which is an excellent reason to make sure that slavery remains illegal.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Not that wikipedia is a bastion of accuracy, but a quick shot over to the carboniferous period I found this little graphic. Interesting about CO2 concentration over time.

As a side note, its become very cliche to infer that Wikipedia is not acurate. Indeed usually its a claim advanced by those who don't want their point to be challenged.

Today there is a huge community who have taken it as their priority to dissect and critique wikipedia. There are 17 different dimensions on each article that are constantly under study. And as a result, I have little doubt that it is one of the best sources on the net. In fact, I would challenge someone to find anything that is incorrect on Wikipedia. I'd love to see me wrong on this point...but seriously doubt I am.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Which is an excellent reason to make sure that slavery remains illegal.

try to keep up there, Jeremiah.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

but keep going...do you think he'd keep doing it if you go to the point of offering him only $10 to fight for the 5th time?

No, at some point it wouldn't be worth his time. However, following this analogy that would be at the point where taxes where 90% of incremental income (original payoff = $100, now down to $10). Yes tax rates at 90% of income are far too high. I'm not aware of anything like that, but if a state or municipality is that high, they ought to consider bringing it down.