UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i also posted everything else on the BLS list too.
can i get extra lettuce on my hoagie? and do you guys still offer avocado? or is avocado month over already?
Some are more equal than others...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
can i get extra lettuce on my hoagie? and do you guys still offer avocado? or is avocado month over already?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when did i say anything to the contrary, bignbushy?
post it if you're not too busy helping people eat fresh, you homosexual junkie.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sure you can have extra lettuce sir. Oh by the way, we are having problems with our bathroom, we hope you understand it's... uh...
temporarily out of order...yeah...that's it.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the eggs thing again?
bucky is arguing that the BLS price stats are accurate because he found a lower price on an item ONLY WHEN BOUGHT IN BULK, and only on one "brand" because he has no idea what a "Loss Leader" is or that bulk prices are not retail prices.
i splattered his bullshit example all over the pavement by posting the ACTUAL prices for the ACTUAL item (one dozen eggs) from that very store's ACTUAL website, while he posted a "screenshot" of a claimed price on a different item
the BLS also claimed coffee was under $5 a pound (far lower than the commodity price at the time) and many other fictions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
One simple law would solve that, and oligarchs do it anyway regardless of what economic system is in place. One problem is that there are a lot of politicians that are oligarchs themselves, I believe I read a report recently that said the majority of congress are millionaires, so why would they enact such laws? They wouldn't, hence my support for article 5; make em.
That's not what Piketty proposes, read his book. Here's a .pdf, totally free where he lays it all out;
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
"It would be wrong, however, to conclude that progressive taxation plays only a limited role in
modern redistribution. First, even if taxation overall is fairly close to proportional for the majority of
the population, the fact that the highest incomes and largest fortunes are taxed at significantly higher
(or lower) rates can have a strong influence on the structure of inequality. In particular, the evidence
suggests that progressive taxation of very high incomes and very large estates partly explains why the
concentration of wealth never regained its astronomic Belle Époque levels after the shocks of 1914–
1945. Conversely, the spectacular decrease in the progressivity of the income tax in the United States
and Britain since 1980, even though both countries had been among the leaders in progressive
taxation after World War II, probably explains much of the increase in the very highest earned
incomes. At the same time, the recent rise of tax competition in a world of free-flowing capital has
led many governments to exempt capital income from the progressive income tax. This is particularly
tr ue in Europe, whose relatively small states have thus far proved incapable of achieving a
coordinated tax policy. The result is an endless race to the bottom, leading, for example, to cuts in
corporate tax rates and to the exemption of interest, dividends, and other financial revenues from the
taxes to which labor incomes are subject."
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Want interesting parallel?
If you live or go to the East Coast. There are all these super mega mansions built by the super rich. You can take tours thru them. Built by Carnegie, vanderbuilts Achencloss's etc etc
They were all built about the same time late 1800s up to about the first decade of the 1900s. Then they pretty much stopped. Right around the time of income tax and monopoly laws came into effect
If you live or go to the East Coast. There are all these super mega mansions built by the super rich. You can take tours thru them. Built by Carnegie, vanderbuilts Achencloss's etc etc
They were all built about the same time late 1800s up to about the first decade of the 1900s. Then they pretty much stopped. Right around the time of income tax and monopoly laws came into effect
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
& now they're museums because nobody can afford to live there
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I took my mother and grandmother thru the Auchincloss's place. If you dont know who they are (I didnt at the time) They are Jackie Kennedys parents. Talk about opulence.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Krugman's problem is he's lost logic in his presentation because of his politics. If you read his articles they have gone full emotional opinion with little to no facts anymore. He's worth less than he gets in a year for writing trash mag articles and speaking engagements. 2.5 Million worth for a man in his position is rather sad if you put it in perspective.
The problem with Keynesian is the simplistic view that "the people" can be easily manipulated and our behavior is 100% predictable. That only works with the idiots.
Krugman predicted 12 of the last 5 recesssions!
Krugman lauded the stimulus for it's design being implemented on the state level. When it was passed he said by letting the states spend the money, it will get in the economy quicker and predicted it would be wildly successful. 3 years later he said the problem with the stimulus and why it didn't work was because the federal gov let the states run it.
His bias is almost perverse. It clouds his judgement and logic.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Hilariously ironic..
"I don't like what he says so what he says is bullshit"
People like you would be arguing the exact opposite if his position praised Reaganomics..
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
How is that ironic? At his age, he's worth what he makes in less than 1 year...
Simple fact, no reagan opinions involved.
Britney Spears has done better with her finances, I don't laud Britney as a financial genius.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You say he makes too little to be right, Kynes says he makes too much to be right..
Both are because he's a commie, socialist, marxist, liberal, lefty scumbag.. who eats babies and rapes unicorns..
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
lol yeah, that's it exactly
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Does he make too little to be taken seriously or does he make too much to be the establishment?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Dude, you were the one who brought up his worth like it was something to prove how awesomely smart he was. All I did was point out that at his age and the amount he's made that's actually not a very awesome amount for an economic genius.
I think you realize this now and are trying to turn it on me. I have many other reasons why I disagree with Krugman. A lot of it has to do with Krugman disagreeing with Krugman when it's convenient.
The money thing was me disagreeing with YOU, not him.
I think you realize this now and are trying to turn it on me. I have many other reasons why I disagree with Krugman. A lot of it has to do with Krugman disagreeing with Krugman when it's convenient.
The money thing was me disagreeing with YOU, not him.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Reverse No True Scotsman.
having a particular characteristic = automatically part of the suspect group.
and yet in the vidya YOU posted in this very thread, frenchy utters the words Global Wealth Tax from his own gob, as THE solution for legal tax liability reduction schemes
was he lying then, or is he lying now?
that wonkish inside baseball ciopy/paste had NOTHING to do with the subject at hand beyond containing some relevant words.
if it is "wrong to conclude that progressive taxation plays only a limited role in modern redistribution" then what is RIGHT to conclude?
thats nothing but a paragraph of weasel words which makes no solid assertion of position, nor does it refute any particular opposing position.
it is a fart in an elevator. nothing more
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you are clearly suffering from sever mental retardation.
My Position: he isnt broke, therefore he obviously doesnt use his own schemes in his personal finances. this does NOT equate to "he makes too much", but rahter, he stiull has too much, considering his "economic philosophy" would leave him sharing a refrigerator box with MC Hammer if he ran his money the way he says the govt should run mine.
Ginwilly's position: he should have a lot more considering his income, so he doesnt manage his money well for being a financial wizard
the two are not incompatible.