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.
blizzard of words
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.
it turns out we’re socialist already!
Once everything everyone does is socialist a new word will be necessary.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Shorter everyone-mentioned-above: OMG WE R TEH SOCIALEST!!!111oneeleven
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?
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.)
> 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.
Oh, I don’t know. The stupid seems to flow both ways in wingnuttia. It’s always brown and runny though.
Wow. A link to a blank study!
Why, you could make that study say anything you wanted to pull out of your ass!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
> 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.
nutjob/whackjob/republican “ideas” percolate downwards…always downwards.
zOMG! Stupidity Redistribution = ideosocialismz!
Wait, so if we are already the socialestest, does that mean the nutters want us to be more like Sweden?
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anybody know where the Cadillac line is down here in SoCal? I’m looking at one of those hybrid Escalades. Go USA!
Just trolled Chicagoboyz. It was fun. What a bunch of snide fucks.
D-K W, that is quite the find.
Break out the tinfoil, or you might vote for the socialest negrow!
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.
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!!!
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!
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!”
Skeptics respond: “the author forgot one.”
You damned socialists, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? And get the hell off my grass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the genius Limbaugh thinks we’re all hypnotized?
Maybe it’s just his meds wearing off?
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.
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.
The Bene Gesserit is in the tank for Obama!
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.
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.
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.”
Flip the position of “is” and “post.”
I’m still imagining an undifferentiated human, wearing clothes of no particular color.
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.
I’m still imagining…
Yes, bland is apt.
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?
Goddamnit, J–. I blame you.
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:
“Communist Martyrs High School!!!”
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 bronze medal is better than nothing, I suppose.
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…
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!
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.
Whether a democracy can survive indefinitely under these circumstances is an open question.
Is that supposed to be a threat?
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?
“Communist Martyrs High School!!!”
That’s where Louise Wong goes, right? She’s got a balcony you could do Shakespeare from!
Where’s your school spirit, Pere?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Where’s your school spirit, Pere?
It’s in the rumble seat – want a snort?
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.
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.
Shannon Love is a he too.
With counter-subversive educational priorities the way they are today, it really helps our side to re-enlist.
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.
Shannon, love, did you actually READ the study we are discussing?
Shannon, why do you insist on confounding corporate taxes and personal income taxes?
“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.
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!
oh jeez – i thought it was “america has more incest than the rest of the world.”
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.
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”!
“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.
By the way, why are the Chicago Boys even relevant in an economy that has proven that Keynes was right?
All my taxes levy in excess…
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!
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.
This just in from the Corner!
Deep thoughts, these.
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.
the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system”
Is this quote actually quoting the OECD source document?
The Voice should fire me and hire you. *I* should fire me and hire you to be me.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is this quote actually quoting the OECD source document?
I have yet to find it in the OECD materials available online.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Actually Obama is using occult powers:
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.
Really? Then why do so many European countries have “immigration problems”?
Proclamation for Nov 4th
http://coudal.com/nov4/
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
The greatest relief from human suffering comes
from keeping POOP out of the drinking water.
I just wrote the OECD’s Washington office about the quote. We’ll see if they get back to me about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
that mean they pay more of every dollar they earn than do others.
This does not jive with marginal tax rates.
Shannon makes shit up faster than I can read it. That’s impressive on some level.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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…”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Walmart is now the largest corporation in American.”
See? See? That kinda thing, right there. That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
I’m looking forward to tonight’s very special Halloween episode of Tales from the Crypto-Marxist.
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.
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.
God in Heaven, make it STOP!!
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.
“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.
> 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.
Ah, a programmer. Aspberger’s suspicions confirmed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
“according to Eurostat, roughly 1.9 million people”
OH NO! Documented facts and evidence!
Make it stop! It burns! Oh my precious……
He’s (presumably) a Mac programmer, though. Doesn’t that balance it out?
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.
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?
Gavin’s beaten me to it.
He’s (presumably) a Mac programmer, though. Doesn’t that balance it out?
Eh, I’m inclined to think not. Macs have become the machine of choice for certain types of low-end geeks (think your typical Digg.com poster) as well as the choice of the arty types.
The Mac customer base is a lot more diverse than it used to be, so “Mac user” doesn’t necessarily mean everything it used to.
You’re simply parroting a cryto-marxist point of faith imported from the experience of the class structure of Europe.
Now we’re getting somewhere! The Inquisition protected us from crypto-Jews. Who will protect us from crypto-Marxists?
LittlePig,
no fracking way, she ain’t no programmer. I am but an unworthy linguist, but I do know enough about programming to know that no fracking body would ever refer to C/C++ as “objective-c.”
I am but an unworthy linguist, but I do know enough about programming to know that no fracking body would ever refer to C/C++ as “objective-c.”
Seconded.
Objective-C is the “other” approach to creating an object-oriented version of C, the far more popular “solution”* being C++. It’s more or less nonexistent outside of the Apple/NeXT world (e.g. Steve has a fetish for it), so it’s fairly safe to assume if he’s working with ObjC then it’s something Apple related.
* Solution being a relative term.
I really must say, gentlemen, you have provided excellent entertainment for this Friday evening. I haven’t seen a troll this good since the real Gary Ruppert.
Oh wait.
The average poor person in America today has a hirer material living standard than the average middle-class (3rd quintile) did fifty years ago.
Ah, yes, the classic “Today’s pathetically poor people should be thankful that they weren’t pathetically poor before there were color TVs” schtick. Loves me some bad faith argumentation!
Shorter libertarian economics: If the government does anything to help poor people it will make them poorer. Therefore, help rich people instead.
As someone who has made a living as a professional programmer for 27 years, I seen a lot of “Shannon Loves” in the profession. I’m not kidding about the Aspberger’s – it’s very common in the class as a whole (I’ve got more than a touch myself). Aspberger’s people tend to miss the systemic connections of economic realities – they often buy heavily into that Randian “indespensible man” horseshit. Programming is about the laziest way to make good bucks these days that doesn’t involve glomming on to Daddy’s friends or wingnut welfare, and right now at this point in history we Aspberger folks are damn lucky that our services trade for a such premium.
I understand that that situation is purely coincidental from a historical point of view. Unfortunately many of my colleagues do not.
No one except someone referring to Objective-C.
By the way, L8T B1NDING 4LIF!!ELEVENTY!
> no fracking way, she ain’t no programmer. I am but an unworthy linguist, but I do know enough about programming to know that no fracking body would ever refer to C/C++ as “objective-c.”
I believe that means a C language extension using some kind of GUI programming aid.
C is to Objective C like Lisp is to Turtle, for those who remember those artifacts.
I actually used and still remember Ada, 50 baud modems, and transistorized (not ICs!) computers.,.
Needless to say, Assrocket is a true believer in the socialist republic of America.
Turtle? You mean LOGO?
LittlePig—
I actually have a professional diagnosis, which, from my time poking around and lurking in online Aspie communities, it does seem that that is something of a rarity. I was a lot like Shannon until I was about 21 or 22, and I distinctly remember my thought processes and feelings, which is why I get so worked up when I see someone like Shannon who basically is a mirror image of myself not but a few years ago.
It happened with that libertarian guy I mentioned upthread, whereas I’m usually somewhat snarky and/or to-the-point when discussing politics with adversaries, I just couldn’t contain the wall of text. I guess it’s sort of like the zeal of a religious convert in a way.
And wow, I totally missed the ObjC joke. Some things never change, I guess.
Simba, handy,
I stand corrected. But still, don’t you just call it C?
Technically, C is C++, but the reverse is not true.
“a such premium”? Gad, I’m devolving into Forth…
I stand corrected.
Me too. I’ve spent too long in the linuxy academic world, apparently.
> Turtle? You mean LOGO?
Something like that. When Logo was around I was fooling around with Pascal, and extensions to Princeton Basic. Soon after that I discovered Hypertalk and wrote a bunch of stacks for that language. Thought it was the cats meow for getting novices to hand-build apps (I was teaching as well as programming Back Then)
I can’t help it I’ve been doing computers since the ice age.
Hey kid, get off my circuit board!
Me too. I’ve spent too long in the linuxy academic world, apparently.
Dtto. Is this where we start making fun of Mac programmers?
RB: Linux has Obj-C and its satellite libs too. gcc has an objc frontend, and the GNUstep project has been around forever.
Simba: C is not C++.
[orz:~] % cat > notcpp.c
int main(int class, char *protected[]) { return 0; }
[orz:~] % gcc notcpp.c -o notcpp
[orz:~] % g++ notcpp.c -o notcpp
notcpp.c:1: error: expected primary-expression before 'int'
notcpp.c:1: error: expected primary-expression before 'char'
notcpp.c:1: error: initializer expression list treated as compound expression
notcpp.c:1: error: expected ',' or ';' before '{' token
Socialism creates a low growth static society in which people shun poor outsiders because they compete for benefits from the state.
Conversely, the polity in Somalia is renowned for an openness to outsiders, to the extent that Somalian entrepreneurs will sail out in small boats and offer their hospitality to the crews of passing ships.
Is this where we start making fun of Mac programmers?
It’s weird – ordinarily I’d say yes, but I’m just not feeling it today.
Somewhere along the line I became a post-partisan programmer.
I’m certainly not qualified to give any kind of psychiatric diagnosis, but I do see a very high-functional, very mild autism among many (not all by any means) programmers. I’m sure it’s not Aspberger’s per se, that’s just my shorthand for it (realizing that autistic behavior occurs across a HUGE spectrum). When I was a kid in the 60’s that called it “being sensitive”.
Emily Deschanel does a very good take on that kind behavior in her role as Temperance Brennan in Bones. My wife and I laugh at how much of ourselves (particularly our younger selves) we see in the character.
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.
Can we call bullshit?
Oh, sure, this may be true for the NUMBER of millionaires, although I noticed a dearth of cite in that comment.
But Sam Walton is anecdotal, and an anecdote is not data. Besides, Ol’ Sam is DEAD, and his heirs are now BILLIONAIRES who did not become that way by hard work, other than it must have been a true pain in the ass to be a descendent of Sam Walton.
Also, until Millionaires are willingly changing places with people earning less than $250K a year, I think it is hard to make a case that taxes are making it unprofitable to make more money.
Simba: C is not C++.
If I’m not mistaken, you are practically correct, but I think I am theoretically correct.
Hmmm. I’m not much of a programmer, honestly. I’m more of the sysadmin type.
Somewhere along the line I became a post-partisan programmer.
It’s weird, I said just the other thing the other day inre: the OS wars.
Shannon Love: Socialism isn’t “high taxes.” Taxes are irrelevant to the socialist/capitalist spectrum. You can have a capitalist economy with a 99% maximum tax bracket.
Socialism is and always will be the system which fulfils this requirement: the means of production are owned by the workers.
Hinderaker: 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.
Is there some particular reason why you left payroll taxes out of that formula? Why do you right-wingers always, always, ALWAYS manage to leave payroll taxes out of your calculations? When the median income family pays as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes? When payroll taxes are not only not progressive, but are in fact wildly regressive? When the guy with a taxable annual income of $45,000 pays a ten times higher percentage rate for FICA withholding than a guy with a taxable annual income of a million dollars?
Well, actually, I can answer that question, Hinderaker. It’s because you’re a dishonest, deceitful God damned son of a bitch who has dedicated his worthless life to deliberately lying to the general public on behalf of the party of greed-crazed millionaires.
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.
Pigs. Fat. Arse. Jeebus mercy, Shannon, did you cut your degree off the back of a corn flakes packet? Or are you really so dumb?
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.
Yes, it seems you are really so dumb. That must be what Karl Marx meant, when he said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” The wealthy obviously need their wealth and power far more than poor people need groceries and rent.
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.
Here’s a small hint from us on Planet Real: that’s a total load of bollocks, Shannon Lovey.
I subscribed to a political discussion email list at work, and it seems to be evenly split between liberals and “Shannon Love” types. I tend to lurk there, as it’s very difficult to argue someone out of believing that their own personal economics experiences are directly applicable to everyone else in the country. I suspect the same thing applies at many other tech companies.
As for Objective-C, it’s basically C with Smalltalk-80 glued on top. Apple finally added garbage collection and a little bit nicer syntax for Objective-C 2.0. It’s still not managed code like Java and C#.
s/other/same
Bah.
The way I understand it:
C++ = C with class extensions. The way C++ deals with OO is very “C-like” in its semantics.
Objective-C is C also, except when it comes to OO, where it in fact behaves like a predecessor language called SmallTalk–which to me looks nothing like C.
…and offer their hospitality to the crews of passing ships.
For a small fee, of course. And there are others offering the same service at competitive prices, so the invisible hand of the market works it all out.
C++ = C with class extensions.
Please. Staplers are much more interesting.
FYWP.
Damn, MzNicky is right. My compositional skills are teh suck this afternoon.
The vast majority of small business owners I’ve worked with didn’t found their enterprises with any desire to grow into massive corporate giants but simply to make a decent living doing something they love to do (enough to work horrendously long hours with nary a vacation) and on their own terms.
AFAIK, “blue states”, on average, receive significantly less back from the federal government than they send in taxes while “red states” receive significantly more. And the most rapid population growth has been in “red states.” Now, of course, the counter argument is that this is due to the fact that “blue states” have higher state taxes than red ones. Perhaps they have to because they get fucked by the federal government spreading their wealth elsewhere?
I dunno, this looks like hard work to me!
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.
Never mind he stole all his ideas on how to run a retail business from others such as J.C. Penny’s.
People vote with their feet against socialism.
As MaineMan notes, this is horseshit. Red states do receive more federal taxes than they pay in, as shown on this handy dandy chart.
http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/
(I would link it but that pisses off WordPress).
Shannon is pulling conjectures out of his/her ass.
Wow, it linked automagically!
Actually, Pere Ubu, it was a Ben Franklin’s if I remember my Walton hagiography correctly.
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.
I would love to, but unfortunately I couldn’t find a direct comparison by googling. If you can find something, please share, I’m a slut for statistics. A brief search did find this site, from which I compiled a few numbers: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm
% of total population that is foreign born (most recent data:
US: 12.1%
Sweden: 11.8%
Netherlands: 10.6%
Ireland: 10.4%
Australia: 23.9%
Canada: 18.8%
If you are correct, why do socialist paradises such as Sweden and Canada sustain nearly the same or higher percentages of immigrants?
As for internal US migration, you are full of shit. California, which you claim is socialist, contains many of the fastest growing counties in the country. The rural populations of the Midwest have flocked to liberal cities like Chicago, leaving ghost towns.
While it is true that there has been a general trend of movement from the Northeast and Midwest to the Southeast and Southwest, every area to which these refugees of socialism have fled – CA, AZ, CO, NM, TX, NC, VA, FL – has been trending more liberal. Why would people pick up and move across the country to escape the Democrats, only to vote for them wherever they settle?
C++ = C with class extensions.
Anyone who reads that as
C+ += Cneeds to take a break.
“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).”
Oh, dude. Do you really want to go there?
Ever read any Dickens?
Ever visit the Lower East Side Tenement Museum in NYC?
Yeah, didn’t think so. The average person in the early days of the Industrial Revolution didn’t have it so good.
The LES Tenement Museum is pretty awesome. I encourage anyone who’s near New York to visit it when you can.
there’s some great gelato being sold right next door, too.
Shannon Love.
Just jumping ahead to nominate this as the funniest sentence in the thread.
Will finish reading now.
“The LES Tenement Museum is pretty awesome”
Awesome in that Oh My God How Did People Live Like This? way. Two rooms, 8×8 and 12×8 to live in, fun for the whole family!
Tripled endorsement of the Tenement Museum. Great fun! Made me appreciative that my capitalist overlords were kind enough to allow me to live in a slightly larger space with plumbing and windows. Oh wait, what is that you say? It was activists and labor unions that pushed for laws requiring urban living spaces to have access to sunlight and fresh air?
Oh. I thought the free market did that out of the kindness of its soul. And magic and stuff.
And in the spirit of the thread, I made a punctuation error.
Up there.
Not here.
POOPE!
Worst Thread Ever.
This thread was mentally distressing.
I have to go. I am pressed for time. Silicon Valley halloween party, where we’ll pretend that billionaires who drive to the hangar where their 767 is stored in a Prius are “humble”.
Hey, you guys get yer sports threads every once in a while.
God, I thought the economic wingnuts were supposed to be intelligent but just evil and dishonest. Go over to Chicagoboyz to put that one to rest…complete with a serious attempt to re-argue the Pantload’s Magnum Doughpus, and S. Love calling Bill Ayers “[one of] the most dangerous and radical leftist[s]”.
Ayers? Really, Shannon honey? I mean, I understand when your Kristol types parrot that shit for the Palintariat (thank you whoever came up with this, I forget who you are but I love you for it), but I think your little blog is pretty safe from them. They aren’t going to find you and your Randroid SuperFriends, as they think the Internet consists of Free Republic and Lucianne.com.
There is no such thing has a free lunch. To get you have to give.
The folks at SAIC, Halliburton, Blackwater, et al, might beg to differ – if they weren’t so busy laughing their asses off as they count the money from all those no-bid contracts & de facto governemt subsidies right now.
Cronyism = free lunches galore (for the “right people”).
The problem with a comfort-blanket made of bullshit is that while YOU may not notice the stink after a while, others downwind do not share that luxury.
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.
..but wasn’t Jack “liberated” by placing a pillow over his face? Forced youth-in-asia? I knew Obama was evil and the crazy wingers were right all along.
Ahem:
I am the author of the chapter in the OECD report that deals with income redistribution through the tax and benefit systems. (I am now at the University of New South Wales in Australia rather than the OECD.)
One point to note is that progressivity describes the structure of taxes and benefits, but redistribution is determined both by the progressivity of taxes and benefits and the level of taxes and benefits. For example, a more progressive tax system may redistribute less than a less progressive system if the level of taxes is substantially lower.
It is also important to note that the results refer to 2005, and so do not take account of any changes since then.
It is correct that the report finds and states that the USA has the most progressive system of direct taxes in the OECD, which includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer contributions or indirect taxes. Adding these in would be unlikely to change the results because indirect taxes are everywhere less progressive than direct taxes.
The report also points out that the USA is the only OECD country which redistributes more through the tax system than through the system of cash benefits.
What this mean of course is that other countries reduce inequality more through paying social security benefits than through taxes.
The other half of the equation is that the US redistributes less through social security and unemployment payments etc. than most other countries. (Also most but not all other countries support families with children through cash benefits, whereas the USA mainly does this through the tax system.)
So when you look at the combined effect of taxes and benefits overall the USA redistributes less than most other OECD countries, despite the fact that it has the most progressive system of direct taxes.
The USA also starts off with one the highest levels of earnings inequality among OECD countries, so that when you look at household incomes “after” taxes and benefits, the USA is the fourth most unequal country in the OECD – after Mexico, Turkey and Portugal.
Even though the US social security system overall is about average in progressivity, the overall redistributive effect is lower mainly because most other countries spend a lot more through their social security systems than the US.
The study of equality of opportunity looks at earnings mobility – how the earnings of men compare with those of their fathers. This is before taxes and benefits, and as a result, this is not affected by the welfare system. That is, Denmark does not have greater equality of opportunity than the USA because it has more welfare – it is because it has a less unequal earnings distribution and more mobility in earnings (and it also has a much more effective system of social security, but for the purposes of the results this is irrelevant).
I apologise to Scott A. Hodge (should he read this), for questioning the authenticity of a quoted phrase in the taxfoundation.org summary.
Thanks for that, Professor Whiteford.
I hope Whiteford doesn’t mind, but I found this comment instructive as well, especially the last three paragraphs.
I don’t mind.
Just a wee note to say that I’m applauding your textbook administration of the smackdown to this ‘shannon love’ character, guys n’ gals.
I just wish Euroland was as socialist as you yankees think it is . . .