If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Geopolitics)   Back to the future: Lord Macaulay and the calamitous economic unraveling of the United States   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 31
    More: Ironic, Lord Macaulay, United States, political class, progressive taxes, communist revolution  
•       •       •

1602 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-21 09:56:30 AM
Your blog sucks.
 
2013-06-21 09:58:08 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 10:05:16 AM
Done in one.
 
2013-06-21 10:13:44 AM
Yeah, we have some issues, but most of that was pretty dumb.
 
2013-06-21 10:17:05 AM
Waaaah... I don't like the author and his opinion, therefore this is nonsense.
 
2013-06-21 10:23:37 AM
That diatribe certainly came true. It's not like the US ever became the only true economic and military superpower on Earth.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:13 AM
You know how I know your blog biased towards the 1%?

FTB:
"With the supreme power in the hands of a discontented multitude, what kind of government are they likely to elect? Would it be a government committed to "the security of property and the maintenance of order"? Or would it be a government that gets through hard times by robbing the rich "to relieve the indigent"?Eventually, wrote Macaulay, the Jeffersonian bent of the United States will result in the destruction of property, the plundering of the wealthy. "It is quite plain that your government will never be able to restrain a distressed and discontented majority. For with you the majority is the government, and the rich, who are always a minority, absolutely at its mercy."
As we see today, all levels of government in America are involved in relieving the distress of the poor and unemployed, and we also see that this is presently accomplished by taxing the rich as well as by taking on debt. Presently the United States has the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world with the rich paying more than half of all income taxes. As for the accumulation of debt, the gross public debt of the United States exceeds 160 percent of GDP; and this figure necessarily represents the future despoliation of the rich through inflation and/or future taxation."


Yes, and aren't you a sad little plutocrat. Too bad we don't live in a feudal monarchy, huh.

/Paging right wing talking points, paging right wing talking points, your cousin has arrived.
 
2013-06-21 10:43:25 AM

QuakerDude: I don't like the author and his opinion


I don't know the author so I can't say if I don't like him or not.  However, his argument that this 150 year old predicion is now coming true is a bit off the mark.  The premis that we are soaking the rich is not quite correct.  While the point that we do support the unemployed and poor to a high degree is correct, much of our goverment spending is supported via debt spending (about 30 cents of every dollar spent by the gov is through debt issuance).
 
2013-06-21 10:53:10 AM

imashark: Yes, and aren't you a sad little plutocrat.


For me, I really don't mind progressive taxes, so long as everyone pays some into the system.  The beef I have is with those that really have no issues with spending ourselves into the poor house.  There must be a limit to what we do.  We should support those that really need it, but yet we don't want to create a system that breeds dependency.  We should help people that really do need support get back on thier feet, but we can't be a catch-all to everyone that stumbles.  As most of all, we shouldn't just give people money and support without first determining a true need.

Case in point is the premis that reducing funding for food stamps in the farm bill is going to be taking the food out of babies mouths.  Even though they have to advertise food stamp programs just to sell their 'quota'.
 
2013-06-21 11:13:43 AM
DNRTFA, but wasn't this the same blog that was linked about a month ago saying something about a markdown of credit default swaps was on the brink of forcing Cyprus-style recapitalization? And wasn't this dumbass roundly mocked for his overblown and conspiracy-ish bullshiat?
 
2013-06-21 11:14:41 AM
Funny, it seems we're having the opposite problem. It's the rich that are destroying the economy. Graphs of productivity, wages, and income inequality in the last several decades say it all.

Lord Macaulay sucks at predictions 150 years out, and your blog sucks for using his backwards predictions to shill for the rich.
 
2013-06-21 11:20:40 AM

HeadLever: As most of all, we shouldn't just give people money and support without first determining a true need.


Woohoo.  No more oil subsidies, capital gains taxes can come up to normal levels, pro sports get to lose tehir monopoly priveleges
 
2013-06-21 11:21:45 AM

phyrkrakr: DNRTFA, but wasn't this the same blog that was linked about a month ago saying something about a markdown of credit default swaps was on the brink of forcing Cyprus-style recapitalization? And wasn't this dumbass roundly mocked for his overblown and conspiracy-ish bullshiat?


Ah, found it: Thread 7771017
 
2013-06-21 11:22:58 AM

phalamir: Woohoo. No more oil subsidies, capital gains taxes can come up to normal levels, pro sports get to lose tehir monopoly priveleges


Works for me so long as the base rates are set to a reasonable level.
 
2013-06-21 11:45:40 AM

HeadLever: For me, I really don't mind progressive taxes, so long as everyone pays some into the system. The beef I have is with those that really have no issues with spending ourselves into the poor house. There must be a limit to what we do. We should support those that really need it, but yet we don't want to create a system that breeds dependency. We should help people that really do need support get back on thier feet, but we can't be a catch-all to everyone that stumbles. As most of all, we shouldn't just give people money and support without first determining a true need.

Case in point is the premis that reducing funding for food stamps in the farm bill is going to be taking the food out of babies mouths. Even though they have to advertise food stamp programs just to sell their 'quota'.


I agree with you, except for the thought that 'there must be a limit'. What is that limit? Is there a limit on a government working to fulfill the basic needs of its people (health, security, stability) and ensuring its citizens an opportunity to take advantage of their abilities?


I think the problem that you're implying, and that has been said before, is that government's priority up to now has not been to 'fix' social problems, but to bandage them. Bandaging problems is an easy quick fix, and helps when  you can raid the public treasury for the bandages.

Fixing social problems is very hard, but is doable and requires (somtimes radical) change. However, combining people's natural resistance to change and the fact that bandaging problems lets a lot of people enrich themselves, there's little motivation for the kind of people that seek power to reduce their own influence (read: supporting dependency programs) by fixing problems instead of bandaging them.

/I hope people agree with me that the content of this article is odious, misleading, and malinformative.
 
2013-06-21 11:50:01 AM
The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.
 
2013-06-21 12:23:03 PM

that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.


I can't stand opinions that are wrong. Wrong opinions are in this article by the truckload.
 
2013-06-21 12:23:35 PM

that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.


THIS!  They hyperglobalmeagpocalymeltdown is happening right now!  I've put all my money in beryllium mines.  When the SHTF and all of the sheep are crying into their worthless paper dollars, I'll be sitting in my beryllium rocket car saying "told you so."
 
2013-06-21 12:30:45 PM

imashark: that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.

I can't stand opinions that are wrong. Wrong opinions are in this article by the truckload.


Rapmaster2000: that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.

THIS!  They hyperglobalmeagpocalymeltdown is happening right now!  I've put all my money in beryllium mines.  When the SHTF and all of the sheep are crying into their worthless paper dollars, I'll be sitting in my beryllium rocket car saying "told you so."


Case in point, one and two.
 
2013-06-21 12:51:13 PM

imashark: 'there must be a limit


The limit is the point at which the debt spending - interest becomes a major feedback loop that impairs our ability to maintain our standard of living.

Is there a limit on a government working to fulfill the basic needs of its people

When the 'basic needs' become things like IRS confrences in lavish hotels and studies to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior then I would argue that goverment is not always spending money just to fulfill the basic needs of its people.  I really do support spending on things like infrastructure, the USPS, border security, and I even support Medicare/Medicaid, SS, food stamps, and certain kinds of welfare programs.  However, these need to be constatly evaluated so that fraud and abuse is kept to a minimum and so that we ensure that it is targeted to where it is really needed.  It is hard to argue that much of the pork that you see today is really there to fulfill the basic needs of people, but is there as a goverment trough to which politiicans of both parties use to increase thier chances of being re-elected.

Sadly, any attempt to reign in any of this type of spending brings out the 'you are going to take food out of the mouths of babies', whether it really does or not.  It make nearly any attempt to fix these inefficiencies a policital nighmare.
 
2013-06-21 01:35:38 PM

HeadLever: The limit is the point at which the debt spending - interest becomes a major feedback loop that impairs our ability to maintain our standard of living.


Interest becomes a "major feedback loop" at some point?  Sounds like someone missed the news about the Reinhart - Rogoff paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depressi on .html
 
2013-06-21 01:37:47 PM

imashark: that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.

I can't stand opinions that are wrong. Wrong opinions are in this article by the truckload.


I can't tell if you are arguing that "stop liking what I don't like" is a valid argument or if you conflated "opinions" with "facts".
 
2013-06-21 02:29:20 PM
I get irritated when I read articles discussing US taxation:

" Presently the United States has the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world with the http://perspectivesonthenews.blogs.deseretnews.com/2013/04/12/tax-burd en-falls-heavily-on-the-rich/" target=_blank>rich paying more than half of all income taxes. "

Why is it that when we consider taxes, the income tax is the be all and end all. A guy making 250k pays the same Medicare tax as a guy making a billion, the same social security tax as a guy making a billion. Heck, over the last five years, my tax rate was far higher than Mitt Romney's... sure he (maybe) paid some non-zero amount of taxes, but the government took a good 26 percent of what I made... for him, not nearly as much. Then there's the bang for the buck side... sure the rich pay more... they have stuff to insure... and that's what the government effectively is... a big insurance company with guns. If we got invaded by (insert country here), some mountain people like me living in a pretty basic manner wouldn't lose all that much (I'd be hunting more instead of buying at the grocery store maybe)... but people with palaces... well, they have palaces that they could lose. The argument that we need to charge the hungry, healthcareless, eductationless renters the same rate (let alone a higher rate) to secure their station in life is just downright laughable.
 
2013-06-21 04:08:44 PM

studs up: imashark: that1guy77: The content of the article is fine. It's just that some people around here can't stand a different opinion than theirs.

I can't stand opinions that are wrong. Wrong opinions are in this article by the truckload.

I can't tell if you are arguing that "stop liking what I don't like" is a valid argument or if you conflated "opinions" with "facts".


Saw that too. He conflated opinion with fact and everyone should know the 'opinions are like a-holes...' analogy by now. His is no better than the next man who already has his mind made up and gets all pissy for argument's sake.
 
2013-06-21 04:30:20 PM

studs up: I can't stand opinions that are wrong. Wrong opinions are in this article by the truckload.

I can't tell if you are arguing that "stop liking what I don't like" is a valid argument or if you conflated "opinions" with "facts".


Maybe I should clarify:

"opinions that are wrong" as in "opinions that are not supported by the facts"
 
2013-06-21 04:32:01 PM

HeadLever: When the 'basic needs' become things like IRS confrences in lavish hotels and studies to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior then I would argue that goverment is not always spending money just to fulfill the basic needs of its people.


Do you see this as a lack of the judgement of individuals, or an attempt to 'keep up with the Joneses" of the private sector?
 
2013-06-21 07:39:44 PM
Why does this guy's stupid blog keep getting greenlit?
 
2013-06-21 09:39:04 PM
"Presently the United States has the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world with the rich paying more than half of all income taxes."

Shockingly, horrifyingly wrong.  Amazingly incorrect.  The definition of a progressive tax structure is not dependent on gross revenue by tax bracket.

If "the rich" take in half of all income in a given country, even a completely flat tax would mean they pay half of all gross income taxes.  That would be the exact opposite of a progressive tax structure.

It's like taking a problem and arguing the problem is why there isn't a problem.  It's completely circular.  It makes my head explode.
 
2013-06-22 07:25:52 AM

Bad_Seed: Why does this guy's stupid blog keep getting greenlit?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Why do you hate free markets?
 
2013-06-22 07:39:36 AM

Bad_Seed: Why does this guy's stupid blog keep getting greenlit?


.

Because he pays $5+ a month?

I thought everyone knew that's how things worked here, the wealthy who can afford memberships control what the unsuspecting masses see on Fark and then lobby for friends to be placed as mods so their articles and headlines are chosen.
 
2013-06-22 07:54:31 AM
TFA/blog sounds teabagger.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report