31
It Was The Best Of Times, It Was The Worst Of Times
Sometimes you stumble across an item that perfectly illustrates the wingnuts’ war on reality — one that future academics would be delighted to find on the archived copy of the Internet that (hello!) they’re looking through right at this moment, here in the future.
Item: ‘Sometimes’ has become about nineteen times a day since earlier this year, when the right-bloggers turned from their fancied roles as media watchdogs and fact checkers toward a more authentic, more matured role as the preeminent rumor-mongers and conspiracy thinkers on the Internet since since UFO research fell out of fashion.
Yesterday we caught up with Pam Atlas and her umpty-word proof that Barack Obama is the secret love child of Malcolm X. Passed over during the excitement was the elaborately wrought theory, as aired on venues including Rush Limbaugh’s show, that Obama is controlling his followers through hypnosis.
Today, amid cycling accusations that Obama is a Marxist, and/or ‘a liberal Fascist,’ we find that the wingnuts are also attacking the problem of Marxofascism from the opposite side: America is already more socialist than the entire rest of the world, and cannot afford more of the same socialist policies that have brought us to the current socialist brink of socialist ruin.
No, really.
First comes a real study by a real European research institution, and so far so good:
Income inequality and poverty rising in most OECD countries
21/10/2008 - The gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries over the past two decades, according to a new OECD report.
OECD’s Growing Unequal? finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor. In some countries, such as Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United States, the gap also increased between the rich and the middle-class.
Countries with a wide distribution of income tend to have more widespread income poverty. Also, social mobility is lower in countries with high inequality, such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries where income is distributed more evenly.
Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría warned of the dangers posed by inequality and the need for governments to tackle it. “Growing inequality is divisive. It polarises societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor. Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Ignoring increasing inequality is not an option.”
Next, as so often happens, comes a phony report on the real study, cooked up by a wingnut shell organization in order to bamboozle people into thinking that false things are true, and vice versa. Watch and see if you can identify the trick they’re using:
News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax System
by Scott A. HodgeBarack Obama’s admission that his policies would “spread the wealth around” has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the “middle class.”
But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population.” As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.
Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.
The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation’s income.
Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.
The study also shows that…
The trick? Woo, it’s an old one. If you leave aside the fact that many countries generate much (or most) of their revenue through devices such as VAT taxes, and look only at American-style income taxes, you’ll notice that upper-income people in the US pay a high amount of the total tax dollars collected. Not a high percentage of their income, but a lot of the total dollars. This is because (choose one of the following):
A) The US has greater income disparity, such that a smaller number of wealthy people controls a greater percentage of the total wealth, just like the OECD study is saying.
B) Compared to countries like Sweden, Germany, and France, America is more socialist and has more notorious soak-the-rich tax policies, just like only a stupid moron would believe.
In that regard, Mr. Hodge of the Tax Foundation gets extra-super bonus points for linking to the original report with the following URL:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/admin/library/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/paste/blank.htm#_ftn1
And here, on cue, come the morons. First we have Chicagoboyz who, despite their degrees in economics from the University of Chicago, and as a testament to the blinding qualities of ideology, are being schooled in the basics of that discipline by a comedy blog:
Why The Really Rich Love Socialists
This article [h/t Instapundit] shows that the U.S. has a more progressive tax code than the democratic-socialist states of Europe.
Such a state of affairs should not come as a surprise. Our own history shows that the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates, “targeted” taxation and industrial policy.
Next comes Wingnuttius vulgaris, the common wingnut. Tigerhawk has almost no distinguishing qualities, making it (he? her?) useful as a benchmark. Roughly 50% of wingnuts are less stupid, crazy, and ill-intentioned than Tigerhawk.
Socialism watch: How progressive do we have to get?
Here we’ve all been worried that Barack Obama’s policies would spread our wealth all the way into socialism, and it turns out we’re socialist already!
…But of course, roughly 50% are above average in such qualities. Hello, Mr. Hinderaker. We seem to be running into each other a lot lately:
We’ve been writing for some years about the fact that America’s income tax system has increasingly concentrated tax liability among the highest income earners. Currently, the top ten percent of American income earners pay 71 percent of all income taxes. Our excessively progressive tax system has created a dangerous situation in which anyone can vote for politicians who promise to deliver goodies by “spreading the wealth,” but only a handful are responsible for paying the bills. Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question.
A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how extreme the progressivity of our tax system has become. The U.S. “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population.” That’s right: our tax system is more progressive than Sweden’s.
The secret to surviving the current climate of ideas — and we’re pleased that future academics are consulting the S,N! community on this point — is to avoid high places, large bodies of water, hard liquor, and whatever Ace is on.
Ken YOU BETCHA Lowery said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:02
blizzard of words
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:03
Well to be fair, under COUNTRY NOTE: UNITED STATES inthat OECD thingamabob, you have to get all the way down to the third bullet point for:
So, um yeah - socialest.
Righteous Bubba said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:03
it turns out we’re socialist already!
Once everything everyone does is socialist a new word will be necessary.
henry lewis said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:08
Breathtaking.
[slipping into wingnut mode] Since I conveniently fail to see that these statistics only highlight the hugely disproportionate income gap, I will now advocate no income tax cut for middle-class americans.
[alternately] If Obama’s proposals were McCain’s they would be wise, prudent, conservative and just what this country needs.
christian h. said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:09
As a bonus, some of my colleagues here at UCLA - economists, of course - seem to have come out with a new paper “proving” that the New Deal, and especially the pro-labor policies of the Second New Deal, are responsible for the duration of the Great Depression. The UCLA press release didn’t say how they “proved” this warmed-over conclusion, and I’m sure as hell not going to read the actual paper, but I suppose we can all guess.
christian h. said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:11
The Dragon-King hits on a point the wingers seem to have, ahem, missed. Taxes aren’t only collected - they are also spent, and what they are spent on may have a large impact on the distributive effects of fiscal policies!!! It’s a complete miracle.
You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:12
Good analysis including illustrating the chain of how nutjob/whackjob/republican “ideas” percolate downwards…always downwards.
And a nice example of how “Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics”…
which in the New Improved version reads as
“Statistics don’t lie, but republicans are lying motherfuckers 100% of the time.”
Till Eulenspiegel said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:16
Shorter everyone-mentioned-above: OMG WE R TEH SOCIALEST!!!111oneeleven
NobodySpecial said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:16
All I want to know is how I get my back welfare checks if we’re so goddamned socialist all this time. I’ve got better than 6 years in Everquest, f’chrissake, how much more lazy do I have to be?
Mr. Wonderful said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:16
I pick A! Because I’m not a stupid moron! How do I know I’m not? Because I just know. I feel it in my “gut.”
(And belated kudos, Gav, for that evocative citation of those old early-aviation disasters in a prev. thread. One couldn’t breathe, one was laughing so hard.)
Shorter The Truth said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:18
> Taxes aren’t only collected - they are also spent, and what they are spent on may have a large impact on the distributive effects of fiscal policies!!!
Absolutely. I have pointed out before on S,N! hat the real difference between depression, recession, and expansion is Money Velocity. Giving rich people more money, which they sit on, results in depression. Giving middle class and poorer people money, which they spend, results in expansion.
A basic (BASIC!!!) concept everybody learns about in Macro 101, but that republicans forget right away. They’re too busy figuring out complicated methods to justify their selfishness as Galbraith pointed out.
It reminds them too much of Reality. And they are terrified of that.
javafascist said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:19
Oh, I don’t know. The stupid seems to flow both ways in wingnuttia. It’s always brown and runny though.
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:20
Wow. A link to a blank study!
Why, you could make that study say anything you wanted to pull out of your ass!
uberuber said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:22
You know, it’s gotten to the point that even I am past the point of taking delight in the winging antics-it’s devolved to the point that every time I take a slum-ride through the right wing intertubular world, I feel very much like I’m taking a walking tour through a lunatic asylum, where one walks through the drooling, mumbling masses dressed up in short gowns and robes, shuffling around dimly lit hallways lit by spasmodically flickering florescent tubes. I then feel very much like taking a hot, cleansing shower to wash off the sour stench of lunatic desperation.
When this is over, I do hope most of them go back to their used band-aid collecting, evidence-of-aliens investigating, basket weaving 101 hobbies. I know this won’t be the case, but one can only hope.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:22
Well the wingers are arguing that current Government Policies are already the socialest (hey it kinda works in this context. Now if I can figure out morans…) in teh world (Bush’s a commie!).
The COUNTRY NOTE is a wealth of amusement packed into just one page.
To live the danish dream, in Sweden the Land of Opportunity. Also, the final bullet point reminds us that it’s even worse than all that!
Clearly, the US is the epitome of distributed ownership of the means of production.
Yes! said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:22
Why are you wasting so much time on this silliness, when you could be devoting resources to uncovering the clues that PROVZE Malcolm X is Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s father?
Teh BUttocks!
You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:23
My suggestion is that for the next eight years we use this expression whenever we’re talking to a republican:
“President Hussein”
All I wanna do with this tactic (or is it a strategy?) is to help explode nutjob/whackjob/republican heads.
I’m sure they’ll refuse the “socialized medicine” that they are so opposed to.
El Cid said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:23
I can only hope that the Republican grass-roots keep up their “Screw Us Workin’ Folk More Pleez!” campaign, until we can count their elected representatives on 1 finger.
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:23
Our own history shows that the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates, “targeted” taxation and industrial policy.
Um, then, why did Glorious People’s Leader Reagan cut taxes again? ‘Cause he wanted to punish the hard-working wealthy?
I CANNOT BRAIN I HAZ TEH STUPID
You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:25
> I feel very much like I’m taking a walking tour through a lunatic asylum, where one walks through the drooling, mumbling masses dressed up in short gowns and robes,
Just imagine that you are Jack Nicholson and a big Native American, or maybe another minority, is going to liberate you on Nov 4, 2008.
Xecky Gilchrist said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:28
nutjob/whackjob/republican “ideas” percolate downwards…always downwards.
zOMG! Stupidity Redistribution = ideosocialismz!
Loneoak said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:36
Wait, so if we are already the socialestest, does that mean the nutters want us to be more like Sweden?
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:39
Our Perinum Patriot:
Well, I don’t know if it actually says that, but I do know that some folks (including Mike Hanlon’s pals at Brookings) have compiled some OECD data on marginal tax rates.
For 2005, the Personal Income Top Marginal Tax Rate for
The US: 35%
The average of 30 OECD countries: 36%
So, umm,,, Rise up ye Captains of Industry, you have nothing to lose but your chains of essentially average marginal tax rates on personal income!!!!
R. Porrofatto said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:40
The great thing about using the “total tax dollars” dodge is that even under an absolutely flat tax, the top % would still be paying vastly more than other folks, BECAUSE THEY SEE SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TOTAL INCOME. Even if their tax rate were somewhat lower than the everybody else, this would still be true. Using this figure to prove progressiviity is just one more typically shameless bit of wingnut math fuzziness.
christian h. said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:40
Hey, Loneoak, there’s an idea. Why don’t we just transfer the Swedish system of taxes, welfare etc. one-to-one. After all, it’s socialess than ours.
tigrismus said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:43
So according to the study the top 10% have 71% of the wealth, and according to Hindy the top 10% pay 71% of the income taxes and THAT’S JUST NOT FAIR. Gotcha.
Thursday said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:45
I’m still waiting for one to describe what the Sam Hill “socialism” is. Perhaps if we could somehow find a definition they would find acceptable, they would be forced to set actual, demonstrable examples of what they call “socialism” that we two sides could then debate over.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!*hic**hic*AAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh gods, that’s funny.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:45
Note: With all of these juicy nuggets of wingnutty crazy, I am never going to unravel the mystery of Jesus-is-Savior.com vs. Jesus-is-Lord.com
Obama controlling his Obots by hypnotism? That is fucking preposterous - no one is that crazy…
Wow. Just - wow.
handy said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:46
Anybody know where the Cadillac line is down here in SoCal? I’m looking at one of those hybrid Escalades. Go USA!
Loneoak said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:48
Just trolled Chicagoboyz. It was fun. What a bunch of snide fucks.
Loneoak said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:53
D-K W, that is quite the find.
Break out the tinfoil, or you might vote for the socialest negrow!
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:53
BTW, here’s what “the top 10% hold 71%” of the wealth means:
Imagine a room with ten people and a bag of cookies. One person, let’s call her Cindy Hensley, takes a cookie. Then someone else takes a cookie. Then it’s Cindy’s turn again. Then someone else takes a cookie. It continues this way until everybody has one cookie, except Cindy who has ten. Then Cindy gets fourteen more cookies.
Legalize said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:53
Did you guys know that it’s been proven that the New Deal actually prolongued the Great Depression? Did you further know that blacks and other non-Americans caused the housing crisis we now face? What do these 2 proven facts illustrate? All kinds of bad stuff about Barack Hussein Obama!!!
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:57
proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans
Limbaugh also points out that the smarter you are the more easily you’re hypnotized. So all those really smart people who support Obama? Victims of mesmerism!
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 20:59
You know, now that I think about it - isn’t the “smart people are more easily hypnotized” arguement actually calling McCain voters stupid?
“He can’t outsmart me, ’cause I’m a mo-ron!”
tigrismus said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:02
Skeptics respond: “the author forgot one.”
rjbraun said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:05
You damned socialists, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? And get the hell off my grass.
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:05
The Chicago Boyz post links to the wrong Instapundit post. This is Ye Ole Professor’s post on the OECD study, and the Tax Foundation article actually comes by way of this post at Roth & Company, PC, to which Ye Ole Professor links in his post.
Ángel Gurría was foreign secretary and then finance secretary in the Zedillo government. If I remember right, he was one of Mexico’s lead negotiators on NAFTA.
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:05
Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question.
As opposed to indefinitely borrowing money from the Chinese to keep the rich folks from having to pay for government services.
Eat a bag of dicks, Butt Scud.
Arty Choke said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:05
No one ever asks why it should be okay that one person should earn one hundred times as much as another, for fundamentally doing nothing.
No one asks that, and no one in the mainstream has the balls to explain that progressive taxes only tax the rich on the amount MORE they have than everyone else.
Personally, I think we should just shoot them and take what they have. They should understand that it’s an act of generosity just to tax them. If I had my way, they’d be dead.
Till Eulenspiegel said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:06
NLP is hardly “little-known.” It’s silly pseudoscience (complete with a technobabble name) advocated and used in various forms by Tony Robbins and others in the self-help snakeoil business.
namvetted said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:06
So the genius Limbaugh thinks we’re all hypnotized?
Maybe it’s just his meds wearing off?
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:06
I have a tape! Here’s a snippet:
Michelle Obama: Look, I don’t see how this publication is going to help us Kill Whitey.
“Fry The Rich” Engels: Umm, you do know that I’m -
B. Hussein X: Please Michelle, a little sensitivity for our cracker friend here. Don’t make me use my hypno-toad powers again.
Jeremiah Wright: God Damn America!
No seriously, it’s true - I got it all on Edison-style printed wax cylindars.
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:08
Skeptics will surely doubt the information provided in this document with four specific oppositions – each of which this document disproves.
You forgot option 5. “Any one with a tad of comprehension can determine that Republicans fuck up everything they touch”.
And don’t call me Shirley.
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:10
The Bene Gesserit is in the tank for Obama!
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:10
Personally, I think we should just shoot them and take what they have. They should understand that it’s an act of generosity just to tax them. If I had my way, they’d be dead.
Silly rabbit.
Keep ‘em alive so you can keep shearing them again and again.
sagra said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:11
No, no, no! The rich people only sit on it to infuse it with the irresistable scent of rich ass-crack. Then they trickle it down to their adoring inferiors.
Once a welfare queen touches it, you might as well throw it away. Ick.
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:15
Tigerhawk is a he.
Oh, crap. The Chicago Boyz is post by the one and only Shannon Love, whom Pinko Punko calls (in comments to second thread) “possibly the most annoying commenter on the internet.”
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:18
Flip the position of “is” and “post.”
Gavin M. said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:19
I’m still imagining an undifferentiated human, wearing clothes of no particular color.
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:20
I am afraid you midunderstand the argument about progressive tax structures. A tax structure is progressive when the total proportion of all taxes paid increases with out of proportion with increases in income and wealth (assets).
Value Added Taxes are flat taxes and thus do not effect progressivity. The taxes are levied on manufactures and imports and are ultimately paid by everyone who consumes end products. Since the wealthy actually spend a smaller proportion of their income on consumption, VAT taxes are actually regressive taxes. (They also penalize productivity.)
VAT’s are just another example of the point in my post you linked to: The really wealthy can get along just fine with socialism. With VAT taxes they can offload part of their tax burden onto ordinary people. With the American style corporate and personal income taxes, they cannot do that.
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:24
I’m still imagining…
Yes, bland is apt.
Gavin M. said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:27
You find a greater reliance on VAT in countries with highly skewed wealth distribution (i.e. without a middle class that can pay income taxes). It’s important in that regard to note that it’s been left out of the calculations.
But more to the point, did you actually read the OECD report, and if so, how did you come to the conclusions you came to? The ones about leftism being good for the rich?
N.C. said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:27
Goddamnit, J–. I blame you.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:27
But back to the OECD thingy. The key that all these wingnut, no tax, trickle down shitbags don’t get is that the study was looking at trends, hence the title “Growing Unequal?” So the point is that despite the massively onerous and totally ridiculous marginal tax rate (essentially the same as the averag for OECD countries) the US has been getting worse in terms of income and wealth distribution. That COUNTRY NOTE shows a graph of Gini coefficient vs. time. The Gini coefficient is a pretty complex concept as it is a quantitative measure of how far from the socialmostest ideal a specific country is - and as is evident on the graph, the US is much less socialmoran than the rest of the OECD. In fact, the very first line of that COUNTRY NOTE is:
Mudhead said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:29
“Communist Martyrs High School!!!”
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:32
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:20
Which still begs the question - if, as you claimed ” the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates”, why do they spend so much time, effort and money fighting tax raises?
a concerned citizen said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:36
A bronze medal is better than nothing, I suppose.
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:36
I feel very much like I’m taking a walking tour through a lunatic asylum, where one walks through the drooling, mumbling masses dressed up in short gowns and robes, shuffling around dimly lit hallways lit by spasmodically flickering florescent tubes. I then feel very much like taking a hot, cleansing shower to wash off the sour stench of lunatic desperation.
All we’re missing is Miggs flinging his semen…
jim said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:38
Uh, that “top 10%” usually take ALL their major assets to enjoy a nice indefinite sabbatical at such “socialist” havens as the Turks & Caicos Islands, Bermuda, or Lichtenstein … so their heinous tax-burden in Yankee-doodle-land is strictly fucking academic - just as it has been since long before I was born.
Sorry, I don’t think even Buttrocket is THAT much of a naive bohunk - the lad’s having his more, er, innocent readers on for a jape, I daresay … & quite at their expense too, eh wot?
As to “whatever Ace is on” - methinks the ether & pineal-gland extract have finally fully kicked in.
Blogophrenia Ho!
I left him the following exhortation to wish him Gobspeed:
The poor benighted sot. He just needs the right stimulus - & as soon as it’s fully legal, we’re JUST the people to give it to him!
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:43
Value Added Taxes are flat taxes and thus do not effect progressivity. The taxes are levied on manufactures and imports and are ultimately paid by everyone who consumes end products. Since the wealthy actually spend a smaller proportion of their income on consumption, VAT taxes are actually regressive taxes. (They also penalize productivity.)
They also penalize waste, you mean.
pedestrian said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:44
Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question.
Is that supposed to be a threat?
Nim, ham hock of liberty said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:47
Imagine a room with ten people and a bag of cookies. One person, let’s call her Cindy Hensley, takes a cookie. Then someone else takes a cookie. Then it’s Cindy’s turn again. Then someone else takes a cookie. It continues this way until everybody has one cookie, except Cindy who has ten. Then Cindy gets fourteen more cookies.
And if we had a fair tax system that didn’t PUNISH SUCCESS ZOMG, everyone would chip in just one cookie. Why should Cindy have to chip in 2?
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:47
“Communist Martyrs High School!!!”
That’s where Louise Wong goes, right? She’s got a balcony you could do Shakespeare from!
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:48
Where’s your school spirit, Pere?
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:49
Imagine a room with ten people and a bag of cookies.
This must explain why the IRS sent my tax refund back this year entirely in Thin Mints.
curious said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:49
Okay, you guys are braver than I. Maybe some of you could answer my question: How many of the rightwing blogs linked approvingly to that deluded Malcolm X is the Father post? And how many ignored it out of what we will assume is embarrassment?
Perhaps even one or two rightwing bloggers might’ve gone so far as to denounce it, even?
I guess I just can’t believe everyone in the rightwing blogosphere is that completely insane and/or venal. It’s too much, really.
Nim, ham hock of liberty said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:50
Imagine a room with ten people and a bag of cookies. One person, let’s call her Cindy Hensley, takes a cookie. Then someone else takes a cookie. Then it’s Cindy’s turn again. Then someone else takes a cookie. It continues this way until everybody has one cookie, except Cindy who has ten. Then Cindy gets fourteen more cookies.
Also, you left out the part where Cindy gets 10 turns plus 14 bonus cookies, because she’s awesome, and the other 9 just didn’t work hard enough for it.
jim said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:50
Oh, you poor little foundling! Adrift from some lovely planet where there are no unethical VAT amendments favoring special-interests, no sub-rosa backhanders, no pork, no black-market - & no “grey” economy either! However will we help you back to your beautiful, ethically pure homeworld?
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:51
Where’s your school spirit, Pere?
It’s in the rumble seat - want a snort?
Lucky Gerenuk said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:52
Is it Obama hypnotizing everybody… or is it a young Cindy McCain?*
*(Shhh! It’s Not Really Cindy, it’s Pat Collins the “Hip Hypnotist,” with Lucille Ball)
But they do have the same stylist and fashion sense.
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:52
I think where Shannon makes her, umm, mistake is in assuming that the VAT is paid by the end user.
It’s true, the VAT is reimbursed by the end user.
But so are the corporate taxes America companies pay. ALL COSTS ARE PASSED ONTO THE CONSUMER!
The VAT is paid by the recipient of the payment. The manufacturer, being paid by the wholesaler, turns around and pays a portion to the government.
The wholesaler, paid by the retailer, turns around and pays the government from the money he’s gotten from the retailer.
The retailer takes the sales proceeds and sends his share to the government.
Yes, all those VATs are passed onto the consumer.
But, darling Shannon, what the heck do you think happens to the income tax liability in corporate America? It gets factored into the costing of the product and the subsequent sales price.
Idjit.
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:53
Shannon Love is a he too.
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:54
With counter-subversive educational priorities the way they are today, it really helps our side to re-enlist.
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 21:56
Pere Ubu,
Which still begs the question - if, as you claimed ” the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates”, why do they spend so much time, effort and money fighting tax raises?
(1) Well, they don’t. There is little correlation between wealth and political affiliation at the upper reaches. The upper 1% don’t break down solid Republican like the stereotype suggest. You will remember the large number of major corporations that came out in support of Hillary care because they wanted to unload their health care cost onto the state.
(2) Resistance to higher taxes comes primarily from the upper-middle class and the lower half of the 20% incomes (defined as the wealthy). These are people who are more likely to be self-made and to be small to medium business owners. Wealthy who support high taxes are more likely to have inherited wealth than those who oppose.
(3) More importantly, you misunderstand the point. Even if the rich end up worse off absolute i.e. less money total, under socialism, they end up with less of a share of the overall burden of government and society at large. Companies in Sweden don’t pay health care cost. Socialism hurts everyone but it hurts the wealthy the least.
The wealthy also get a major bonus because socialism freezes class mobility and restricts economic insurgents against entrenched interest. In essence, democratic socialism guarantees the social status and power of the wealthy.
America by contrast has the highest degree of economic/class mobility in the world. People routinely found small business that grow into massive giants. Giant corporation decay and die routinely.
None of that happens in Europe. The wealthy and the big corporations are much more secure and pay proportionately less of the cost for the state and general welfare.
pedestrian said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:01
Shannon, love, did you actually READ the study we are discussing?
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:01
Shannon, why do you insist on confounding corporate taxes and personal income taxes?
Nim, ham hock of liberty said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:04
“America by contrast has the highest degree of economic/class mobility in the world. People routinely found small business that grow into massive giants. Giant corporation decay and die routinely.”
The OECD doesn’t seem to agree…
“Also, social mobility is lower in countries with high inequality, such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries where income is distributed more evenly.”
I’ll wager that the last 60 days notwithstanding, small businesses fail or stay small a lot more often than they grown into massive giants. And that giant corporations decay and die a lot less routinely than small ones.
christian h. said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:04
Mr. Chicago Boy still ignores that taxes are usually spent on something. Let’s make an example: if we had a really flat tax, ie, a head tax, that would be very regressive (and totally fair, ’cause every person had to pay the same dollar amount no matter their income). But if the state then took the money and returned all of it to the bottom 90% of the income distribution (in the form of welfare, health insurance, child rebates etc.) the fiscal policies of that state would still be redistributive.
On the other hand, if only the richest person in the US had to pay any taxes at all, and he had to pay a buck a year which is then spent on upkeep for the blog chicagoboyz, that wouldn’t redistribute anything - even though the tax code would, according to our friends, be incredibly progressive: all the taxes are paid by the top .000001% of the income distribution!
dex said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:06
oh jeez - i thought it was “america has more incest than the rest of the world.”
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:13
I’ll wager that the last 60 days notwithstanding, small businesses fail or stay small a lot more often than they grown into massive giants
You’d be correct. By far.
Half of all new businesses fail within the first five years.
Not many. Nearly most.
According to the US Census, in the first year, 25% of businesses flat out fail.
By the end of year two, another 11% will fail.
By year three, another 8%. So in the first three years alone, we’re up to nearly fifty percent failure rate (indeed, by the end of year four, half of all new businesses fail).
By the end of five years, 55% will have failed, by the end of year ten, that number is up to 71%.
The ones that succeed usually have sufficient financing to cover expenses in the first three years, before revenues step up to start to cover the nut. That’s the real test of a company.
Orange Tom said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:13
None of that happens in Europe. The wealthy and the big corporations are much more secure and pay proportionately less of the cost for the state and general welfare.
Yeah, and keep in mind that the French have no word for “entrepreneur”!
OneMan said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:14
“Imagine a room with ten people and a bag of cookies.”
I’d prefer to imagine a room with ten wingnuts and a bag of dicks. Kristol would get the lion’s share.
actor212 said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:17
By the way, why are the Chicago Boys even relevant in an economy that has proven that Keynes was right?
George Strait, C.P.A. said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:19
All my taxes levy in excess…
jim said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:22
We’ve got to get this poor creature back to its home planet FAST - plainly our Terran air is damaging its neocortex!
At least 90% of small businesses snuff it in under two years - their growth into “massive giants” is NOT routine, since EXISTING massive giants usually either buy out or undercut them into oblivion … they hate competition (it’s a roadblock to price- & wage-fixing) & will do what it takes to either discourage or destroy it, even at a relatively high cost, knowing that the overall benefit exponentially outweighs the immediate loss.
Big multinationals almost NEVER “decay” OR “die” - they may move to a new continent or change specific brand-names, but pretty well all the big brands you use today would’ve been recognized by your grandparents, or even your great-grandparents … Coca-Cola? Kodak? Boeing? Xerox? Marlboro? Maxwell House? Dole? If MNCs are so frail, can anybody name a recently deceased one - I mean, other than a friggin’ bank?
Ay carumba! Does the poor thing have a starmap, perchance? It sounds like we don’t have a moment to lose!
Gavin M. said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:32
Shannon, I think we’re talking past each other. This is an interesting and provocative theory that socialism benefits the wealthy — or harms the wealthy the least, as the case may be — but I can’t for the life of me figure out how it follows from the OECD report, which says pretty much the opposite.
My hypothesis has been that you clicked through the Instapundit link, saw something interesting at the Tax Foundation, and posted on it. And fair enough, great.
My point has been that nobody who did that seems to have even looked at the OECD report that the Tax Foundation was bare-assedly misrepresenting.
D.N. Nation said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:34
This just in from the Corner!
Deep thoughts, these.
Mooser said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:48
Just send Shannon back to any Upper-middle class suburb, she’ll be right at home. Of course, the upper chunk of the middle class is getting hit the hardest, but they’ll hang on to their myths, even if it starves them.
Smut Clyde said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:49
the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system”
Is this quote actually quoting the OECD source document?
roy edroso said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:51
The Voice should fire me and hire you. *I* should fire me and hire you to be me.
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:53
I’d prefer to imagine a room with ten wingnuts and a bag of dicks. Kristol would get the lion’s share.
An airtIght room, preferably.
Don’t worry, the free market will solve the problem of limited oxygen.
Xecky Gilchrist said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:56
the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system”
Remember, the rightards have latched onto the word “progressive” as a synonym for “liberal” - so what they’re saying is that the U.S. tax system has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
Loneoak said,
October 31, 2008 at 22:58
Shannon Love:
The dudes who wrote the study she cites as proof of her claims:
Shannon, love, it is a pretty simple concept: the downwards pressure of income inequality, lack of wage growth, inefficient and cruel private health care, and a leaking sieve of a social safety net is bad for many, many people. I recognize that conservative economists, apparently including yourself, genuinely favor a certain class of capitalists that have a strong entrepreneurial bent and drive a fair deal of economic growth in the US. But this is a small class of people. A higher taxation rate may cause marginal decreases in their upward mobility, but the constant grind of downward pressure on the lower middle class (and now upper middle class) is a far larger barrier to social mobility.
The harm done to the vast majority of citizens of this country by a economics regime that favors a fast and loose market solution to everything is tremendous. The harm done to that small class of capitalists by a higher taxation rate and a stable social safety net is small. Since this is still a democracy, it’s about damned time your philosophy got smashed under the boot of pragmatism and economic justice.
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:06
You will remember the large number of major corporations that came out in support of Hillary care because they wanted to unload their health care cost onto the state.
And therefore it didn’t get implemented - why?
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:08
Is this quote actually quoting the OECD source document?
I have yet to find it in the OECD materials available online.
papa zita said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:11
I once knew a man named Shannon. Mike Shannon, one-time Cardinal infielder, What’s it all mean? A boy named Shannon, a boy named Sue, Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:17
The “Seinfeld” quote at the top when I clicked on the comments link here was the “you gotta wear the ribbon” one, and here I was going to copy it and make a comment about how folks had to wear their Princess Plague ribbons to keep the disease from crossing our designer borders, and when I went back to copy it it had changed. Bleah.
Gavin M. said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:18
The study isn’t available online for free, as far as I’ve been able to tell. It can be had via subscription or as a PDF file or bound volume — and ‘accredited journalists’ can request a copy.
…Ah, but did Hinderaker, et al., even bother to find the press release, the abstract, or the online notes and data?
PS said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:18
I don’t have the entire OECD document (I think they wanted money for it, the capitalist swine) but I do have the eight-page Summary. No mention of “progressive” in there at all. Lots of other fine quotes though, presented in the order they appear:
Yes, I am cherrypicking to an extent, but the Summary is entirely consistent, and I included this much stuff to demonstrate that.
Bartholomew said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:24
Actually Obama is using occult powers:
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:24
Pedestrian,
Shannon, love, did you actually READ the study we are discussing.
Did you read their definition of income mobility? People in Europe can be judged as more mobile because, with government benefits included, a poor person can move from the bottom quintile to the second. Americans can be judge more mobile because they are more likely to move from the bottom quintile to the second without government assistance. An American is also more likely to rise through many quintiles than are those in Europe. Class mobility in Europe is wide and low. Class mobility in America is by comparison narrow and high. Further, true income mobility cuts both ways. An rich American is more likely to fall out of the top 20% than is a rich person in Europe.
America has more churning of economic classes. People come from all over the world, including Europe, following the dream they can better themselves through their own efforts. Very few people go to Europe for the same reasons.
Adam said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:28
Really? Then why do so many European countries have “immigration problems”?
Lesley said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:29
Proclamation for Nov 4th
http://coudal.com/nov4/
Crissa said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:31
Sure, small companies grow into giants.
…When they were founded by already rich people.
Connections and ability to invest are far more important than any other features to climb the social ladder.
woody, tokin librul said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:36
“Currently, the top ten percent of American income earners pay 71 percent of all income taxes.”
Innit also true that they control well over 80% of the wealth? Take home (notice i didn’t say ‘earn’) about that same percentage of the ‘income?’
So it would be unfair if they were taxed less, woonit?
Pere Ubu said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:38
People come from all over the world, including Europe, following the dream they can better themselves through their own efforts.
And when they get here they not only find it’s not necessarily true, but they have right-wing nativist jerkwads screaming at them any time they show any affection for the country they left, and muttering dark conspiracies about “THOSE PEOPLE” and how they’re all probably terrorists and need racial profiling and they’re all stealing our tax money blah blah yadda yadda world without end amen.
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:39
Loneoak
Shannon, love, it is a pretty simple concept: …
An like most simple concepts that describe complex phenomena it is wrong.
The greatest relief from human suffering comes from material improvements brought about improving technology and organization of production. The average poor person in America today has a hirer material living standard than the average middle-class (3rd quintile) did fifty years ago. The greatest explosion in human welfare occurred during the wild capitalism of the 1800’s and most of benefit feel to the poor (who prior had composed the majority of the population).
There are also non-material cost to socialism. Think about it: if the government provides your food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation, education, self-defense, media etc at what point do you stop being a free person? At some point your dependency grows so great you say no to the politicians and you can no longer hold them accountable.
There is no such thing has a free lunch. To get you have to give. In case of socialism, to get you have to give up your freedom to chose.
Smut Clyde said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:39
I have yet to find it in the OECD materials available online.
I am loath to accuse people of putting their own words within quote marks — or the words of the guy at the next desk — as if they are quoting the original source. That would be intellectual dishonesty.
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:44
Adam,
Really? Then why do so many European countries have “immigration problems”?
Europe cannot even absorb the relatively small number of immigrants they get from the developing world. Socialism creates a low growth static society in which people shun poor outsiders because they compete for benefits from the state. You can see the same effects operating in the attitudes between supposedly redneck Texas and enlightened California. Texas has far less hostility to illegal immigration than California does.
What you should be looking at the in migration between Europe and America which shows people voting with their feet and leaving Europe. You can see the same pattern between Blue and Red states in America. People vote with their feet against socialism.
V.W. said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:44
Using their best investigative skills, The Editors recently located a photo of esteemed blogger Tigerhawk,* and in fact have incorporated it into the banner for their Website.
*(Well, The Editors don’t actually come out and say that Tigerhawk is the person in the photo, but he is discussed in proximity to the photo, and that’s good enough for me!)
kenga said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:45
The greatest relief from human suffering comes
from keeping POOP out of the drinking water.
J— said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:45
I just wrote the OECD’s Washington office about the quote. We’ll see if they get back to me about it.
Gavin M. said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:48
The greater tragedy here is that Paul Krugman has already pointed out that the Tax Foundation makes shit up, yet apparently nobody even Googled the term, “tax foundation” — because if they had, then this:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/
…would have been the third link from the top.
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:48
Pere Urb,
And when they get here they not only find it’s not necessarily true, but they have right-wing nativist jerkwads screaming at them…
I don’t suppose you’ve notice that most nativist support extensive government intervention in the economy such as restricting free trade and punishing corporations? Indeed, the more racist those people get, the more leftwing their economics grow.
Socialism feeds racism because it puts different groups into competition over a stagnate pie of government benefits. If Europe wasn’t largely comprise of monoethnic states, they probably would have blown apart long before now.
Simba B said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:48
You know, I can see why Shannon Love is described as an annoying fuck.
I’ve seen the type before. More or less robotically going on and on in excessive detail about economics, using a dispassionate tone, acting as if they are above human emotion, when what they say is really quite awful when you consider the implications. Usually not susceptible to the usual comment wars, as they get off more on obscure economic principles than petty Internet fights.
I had to deal with one of these types, a libertarian Randroid, who was a friend’s (now ex) boyfriend, who I’m pretty sure had an undiagnosed case of Asperger’s. Never met the guy (he seemed to think I would enjoy online debate club with a libertarian, which he soon found out otherwise the hard way, despite me trying to warn him off), but to hear friends describe his mannerisms and behavior just screamed “Aspie” to me.
I have yet to decide if these ecobots simply have no emotions, or if they have nothing but hate for their fellow man, and have basically lobotomized themselves to hide it.
Smut Clyde said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:49
the elaborately wrought theory, as aired on venues including Rush Limbaugh’s show, that Obama is controlling his followers through hypnosis.
Please tell me that this will be the topic of its own post.
For some reason it brings to mind the footage of an exploding rocket that was used at the end of Koyaanasqatsi. Even after the fireball, the camera keeps tracking the burning wreckage as it tumbles slowly over and over, seeing to fall through the sky forever.
The Grifter said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:52
Back in the day you sometimes had to hunt for weeks for that perfect combination of stupid and angry. Nowadays they just declare themselves on the Internet.
The Obama presidency is going very profitable.
Whoa doggie!
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:52
The average poor person in America today has a hirer material living standard than the average middle-class (3rd quintile) did fifty years ago.
From a nutritional point of view, that’s utter horseshit.
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:53
I’ve seen the type before. More or less robotically going on and on in excessive detail about economics, using a dispassionate tone, acting as if they are above human emotion, when what they say is really quite awful when you consider the implications. Usually not susceptible to the usual comment wars, as they get off more on obscure economic principles than petty Internet fights.
Yep, Simba B. The Aspberger’s is strong with this one.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:53
Class mobility in Europe is wide and low. Class mobility in America is by comparison narrow and high.
Not-really-shorter-Shannon: America is better because it’s theoretically possible to strike it rich but not bloody likely.
SomeNYGuy said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:54
Shannon Love is a he too.
I think your comment may have been cut off. Surely you meant to type “Shannon Love is a he too row sexual.”
Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:54
woody, tokin librul ,
“Currently, the top ten percent of American income earners pay 71 percent of all income taxes.”Innit also true that they control well over 80% of the wealth?
Income and wealth are not the same thing. Income is a measure of the inflow of money. Wealth is a measure of assets. Most estimations of wealth are notional because nothing has a measurable value until you actually sell it. See the recent mortgage bubble as an example.
In fact, the top 20% of income earners pay 60% of the taxes, taxes set at “progessive” rates that mean they pay more of every dollar they earn than do others.
Shorter Shannon Love said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:56
Yes, I know there is an academic study out about the worlds economies. Yes, I know it is filled with real-life data and analysis.
But, my rhetoric is much more convincing to me.
kenga said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:57
that mean they pay more of every dollar they earn than do others.
This does not jive with marginal tax rates.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:58
Shannon makes shit up faster than I can read it. That’s impressive on some level.
LittlePig said,
October 31, 2008 at 23:59
In fact, the top 20% of income earners pay 60% of the taxes, taxes set at “progessive” rates that mean they pay more of every dollar they earn than do others.
No duh, Sherlock. They also receive more benefits proportionally - monetary system stability helps the very rich much more so than those living paycheck to paycheck; air traffic safety benefits the rich more proportionally as they use air travel more, etc. etc. Calling it “progressive” is actually misleading.
MzNicky said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:02
Is it just me, or does it seem as though almost every comment in this thread has a letter missing from a word or a misspelled word or an incomplete sentence? Even Smut Clyde has caught this viral illiteracy. What, some new InterTube tradition no one told me about? It’s probably just me, I’m feeling vaguely unwell today. Or perhaps the presidential campaign has finally driven me crazy.
LittlePig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:02
Not really. It’s just throwing concepts about without rhyme or reason. It is of the “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit” school.
And rhetoric is the key word here, because it damn sure ain’t logic.
Righteous Bubba said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:04
Is it just me, or does it seem as though almost every comment in this thread has a letter missing from a word or a misspelled word or an incomplete sentence?
FAYL.
You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:04
> They also receive more benefits proportionally - monetary system stability helps the very rich much more so than those living paycheck to paycheck; air traffic safety benefits the rich more proportionally as they use air travel more, etc. etc. Calling it “progressive” is actually misleading.
The classic study on this found the rich pay WAYYYYYY too little for what they get from society. I can’t find the study right now, as googling any of the applicable terms returns a flood of links.
Michael G. said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:05
I once had a nice discussion with a libertarian who gave the usual spiel about how corporate taxes were just taxes on the consumer. I told him that that was certainly true, but then income tax on individuals was really a corporate tax, as laborers just add to the cost they quote employers the amount they’ll be taxed. Then we went through this cycle:
“But then the business will just pass *that* cost on to the consumers.”
“Yeah, but those consumers will just ratchet up their demands for wages, passing those costs back to the businesses…”
Shannon Love said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:05
Crissa,
Sure, small companies grow into giants. When they were founded by already rich people.
65% of all American millionaires are self-made. Sam Walton started out as a the middle-class owner of a small five&dime store in a small town in rural Alabama. You don’t get much further from power and connections than that. Walmart is now the largest corporation in American. Within ten years however, it will have slipped out the top ten and will rapidly slide to irrelevance.
You’re simply parroting a cryto-marxist point of faith imported from the experience of the class structure of Europe. It has little relevance to America, at least as long as we keep the socialist at bay.
papa zita said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:06
Mortician, No, it’s not impressive, really. If you’ve ever been around Deltoid (Tim Lambert’s place), you can see examples of this all the time. Climate science especially tends to bring out the “I can make new ‘facts’ faster than you can debunk them” crowd. Other doctrinaire types are adept at it as well. When you think about it, it’s their life’s work, so it’s no surprise that they can generate bullshit faster than it can be answered.
Shorter Shannon Love said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:07
I’ve started adding percentages to the numbers and “facts” I pull out of my ass to give the “Sheen O’ Truth” to my justify-my-selfishness posts.
LittlePig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:09
Damn. It can’t write grammatically or spell worth a shit, but it’s ass houses a veritable fount of facts.
“65% of all American millionaires are self-made”
100% of Shannon Love’s ‘facts’ are also self-made.
MzNicky said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:09
“Walmart is now the largest corporation in American.”
See? See? That kinda thing, right there. That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
SomeNYGuy said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:09
I’m looking forward to tonight’s very special Halloween episode of Tales from the Crypto-Marxist.
Shannon Love said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:10
LittlePig,
They also receive more benefits proportionally … air traffic safety benefits the rich more proportionally as they use air travel more,
So you’re saying that socializing the cost of things like air traffic safety helps the rich disprotionately? Where have I heard that argument?
monetary system stability helps the very rich much more so than those living paycheck to paycheck.
You’re obviously to young to remember the 70’s or have never read about Wienmar Germany.
Smut Clyde said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:11
does it seem as though almost every comment in this thread has a letter missing from a word or a misspelled word or an incomplete sentence?
I blam Wordpres. Also Im suing a lappot.
MzNicky said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:11
God in Heaven, make it STOP!!
Shannon Love said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:12
I apologize for my typos. I’m switching back forth between programming in Objective-c and posting. It’s mentally jarring and in addition I am pressed for time.
LittlePig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:12
“But then the business will just pass *that* cost on to the consumers.”
Damned if I figure out why that is a problem either, Michael G.. Business is all about handling costs effectively - those that do it better than others do better in their business (generally). By libertarian logic businesses shouldn’t have to pay for insurance, or buildings, or electricity, because hey, it’s all just costs passed to the consumer.
You Can't Put Lipstick On A Repig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:13
> Then we went through this cycle:
Everything in nature is in a cycle. There are very few true Sources and Sinks (as engineers call them).
However, researchers have found the Source of stupidity in the world. It is the ___________ wingnut blog. (fill in with any one of them)
The increasing number of wingnut blogs accounts for SAT scores going down over the years, among other effects.
LittlePig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:13
Ah, a programmer. Aspberger’s suspicions confirmed.
bulbul said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:14
Shannon,
according to Eurostat, roughly 1.9 million people immigrated into the EU (27) in 2007 alone. That’s about 0.4% of the EU’s current population. In contrast, according to this report by the DHS, 431,368 people were granted a green card (new arrivals, Table 1) in 2007. Additionaly, we could include “Expected Long-term Residents” from this report, which is 76,158, which would bring the total to 507,526, i.e. 0.166% of the total population.
All of that, of course, is just legal immigration. As far as I can tell, Eurostat does not take into account illegal immigration. As for the US, according to this report, about 500,000 thousand illegal immigrants entered the US in 2007. That would bring the US total to 1.1 million, i.e. 0.36% of its population total. Still less than the immigration into EU and, fyi, only slightly more than the total number of immigrants into Spain.
But of course, those are just meaningless numbers. You know in your heart what the truth is.
Simba B said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:15
Shannon—
I know you’re reading the other posts here, and maybe you read mine a dozen comments up. I know you like to play like you’re some kind of Ayn Rand superman and if you just ignore us, then we’re wrong and you’re right, but I sincerely hope that even if you only read part of what I wrote, that you felt a little tinge. Just a little.
If so, that’s good, because at least it proves you’re not a fucking heartless machine. There’s hope for you. Let that tinge grow, and soon you’ll find yourself gaining actual worth as a human being, and hey, maybe you’ll get laid and shit, which I think would be good for everyone who has to tolerate you, even if it is just on the Internet.
I used to be like you. As much as you think you’re good as you are now, trust me, you ain’t seen nothin’. Right now you might be a self-satisfied douchebag, but you’re a self-satisfied douchebag. Satisfy others as well as yourself, it really is better.
Gavin M. said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:15
No, but isn’t America already more socialist than Europe? Because the tax rates are higher here for the wealthy, and the wealthy thrive — or are the least harmed — by leftist policies, so if we consider that Europe has fewer rich people, it’s because of the lesser amount of socialism there, as opposed to here.
Or are things all getting terribly confused?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:16
See the recent mortgage bubble as an example.
It’s an example of something, that’s for sure. And that something is not the blinding success of Chicago School free market triumphalism.
LittlePig said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:16
So you’re saying that socializing the cost of things like air traffic safety helps the rich disprotionately? Where have I heard that argument?
I have no idea where you heard it. I notice you do not dispute it.
You’re obviously to young to remember the 70’s or have never read about Wienmar Germany.
What part of “proportionally” do you not understand? (It’s Weimar Germany, by the way).
Shorter Shannon Love said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:17
“according to Eurostat, roughly 1.9 million people”
OH NO! Documented facts and evidence!
Make it stop! It burns! Oh my precious……
Till Eulenspiegel said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:18
He’s (presumably) a Mac programmer, though. Doesn’t that balance it out?
Pere Ubu said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:18
There are also non-material cost to socialism. Think about it: if the government provides your food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation, education, self-defense, media etc at what point do you stop being a free person?
Well, if private corporations provide all those at which point do we “stop being a free person” and become feudal serfs to same?
Please also note that socialism =/= Stalinism.
Righteous Bubba said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:19
I don’t understand what Shannon’s argument is.
America is more socialist than Europe so America is great?
America is less socialist than Europe so America is great?
America is great therefore it has gradually gotten more socialist?
America is great therefore it has gradually gotten less socialist?
Righteous Bubba said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:20
Gavin’s beaten me to it.
Simba B said,
November 1, 2008 at 0:20
He’s (presumably) a Mac programmer, though. Doesn’t that balance it out?
Eh, I’m inclined to think not. Macs have becom