Orkster:

Anton, I thought you were a reasonable person. Your charts on taxes and income were great. But now you give this stuff on "normal human being" and energy consumption and I am beginning to doubt my judgment.

I hate it when I have to doubt by judgment!

Yes I do want to own a house. And a car. And a lot of other crap that I can probably go without. And when it comes to energy or cheap food, I want the government to help me afford these things. With subsidies and foreign wars if need be.

 Wow, you must have mistaken me for a socialist then. Sorry.

I don't think government should subsidize all consumption. I am really trying to make sense of your claims. On food, fine, let's keep food subsidized. But the current energy policy is unsustainable. Unless of course you think Peak Oil is something like Global Warming, a boogie man in someone's imagination?

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

Egor:

investment does imply an expectation of potential return.  that much we agree on.  So when you fill up, you are not investing into oil, but into whatever it is you are going to use the car for.  If its for work, you've invested purely financially, if its for fun, you've invested in your happiness, if its to pick up a hooker - not sure. Probably not an investment at this point!

Why? I make an investment, and my return on investment in this case are the miles of commute per gallon of my investment. Truckers do this equation day in and day out, you honestly don't think they are not expecting a return from it, right?

Egor, your line of thinking on this is a bridge to nowhere, but it is entertaining I must admit.

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

I'll disagree if I may. I'd rather the reality comes into equilibrium with our lifestyle than the other way around. Like in that song: не стоит прогибаться под изменчивый мир, пусть лучше он прогнется под нас (кстате песня довольно херовая)

 Lets be honest about it. When it comes to our personal life, none of us would have LESS of the good things we have and most of us won't be satisfied with SAME. So why preach morality in a whorehouse?!

...I don't mind if government paves the road by planning ahead. And spend money on contingencies that might never occur. So I am all for the rail system. But we have infrastructure already in existence that assumes cars... Instead of trying to answer the problems of tomorrow with today's technology, why not answer them like we always did? By developing new technology. Energy is cheap and abundant. It's energy from oil that's expensive. Let's work on this instead of changing the way of life which we enjoy and which is the envy of the world! 

---

Jedem Das Seine.

AHTOH:

Egor:

investment does imply an expectation of potential return.  that much we agree on.  So when you fill up, you are not investing into oil, but into whatever it is you are going to use the car for.  If its for work, you've invested purely financially, if its for fun, you've invested in your happiness, if its to pick up a hooker - not sure. Probably not an investment at this point!

Why? I make an investment, and my return on investment in this case are the miles of commute per gallon of my investment. Truckers do this equation day in and day out, you honestly don't think they are not expecting a return from it, right?

Egor, your line of thinking on this is a bridge to nowhere, but it is entertaining I must admit.

we are finally agreeing, and STILL you have some sort of a problem w me :)

Their return is profit from services they render using the fuel.

 

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Egor:

AHTOH:

Egor:

investment does imply an expectation of potential return.  that much we agree on.  So when you fill up, you are not investing into oil, but into whatever it is you are going to use the car for.  If its for work, you've invested purely financially, if its for fun, you've invested in your happiness, if its to pick up a hooker - not sure. Probably not an investment at this point!

Why? I make an investment, and my return on investment in this case are the miles of commute per gallon of my investment. Truckers do this equation day in and day out, you honestly don't think they are not expecting a return from it, right?

Egor, your line of thinking on this is a bridge to nowhere, but it is entertaining I must admit.

we are finally agreeing, and STILL you have some sort of a problem w me :)

Their return is profit from services they render using the fuel.

Their return is profit from services they render using the fuel.

Precisely! But you do realize the cost of this fuel is just that - cost. Cost which will be deducted from the service charges revenues (alongside with other costs such as cofee, mechanical fixes, government fees and licenses, etc) to derive profit. As such, the cost of fuel is not an "investment". Similarly, salaries are not "investments".
Here are examples of investments - Treasury bills, MSFT common stock, gold bullion, Cayman bank overnight deposits, Certificates of Deposit. These are "investments".

Salaries and benefits are not investments. 

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

By the way, what was the return on investments (in the form of new jobs) from the trillions of tax breaks (read: national debt) given to large corporations? Is anyone counting? Lol

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

Orkster:

I'll disagree if I may. I'd rather the reality comes into equilibrium with our lifestyle than the other way around. Like in that song: не стоит прогибаться под изменчивый мир, пусть лучше он прогнется под нас (кстате песня довольно херовая)

Если песня херовая, то зачем из неё черпать жизненные истины?

You have just summarized the crux of the entire topic with this quote, I think. Some of the most remarkable errors in human history were made following this thinking.  If each individual wants the world to suit them personally, there is not enough other people's money to pay for it, there's not enough resources in the world, there is not anybody left to clean your bathrooms or flip your burgers. 

In reality, you have a world, it is what it is, and you have an opportunity to do with your life as you please, your standard of living being just one of the criteria to whatever extent it is important to you.

This works.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Agree w Egor on this one.

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

AHTOH:

By the way, what was the return on investments (in the form of new jobs) from the trillions of tax breaks (read: national debt) given to large corporations? Is anyone counting? Lol

unknown w/o time machine.

just like return from the government's stimulus.

I am fairly "agnostic" on these things, as unknowns cannot be weighed versus the knowns of the increase in foreign debt incurred in both instances.  I respect any decisions, had they been made by well-intentioned, intelligent, and objective politicians. And for the record, I've defended both Bush and Obama on both counts, as Bush met the "well-intentioned" criteria, and Obama met the "intelligent" criteria :) 

I entertain the possibility (however low) that each of these may have "saved" the US from an economic depression beyond precedent.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Egor:

AHTOH:

By the way, what was the return on investments (in the form of new jobs) from the trillions of tax breaks (read: national debt) given to large corporations? Is anyone counting? Lol

unknown w/o time machine.

just like return from the government's stimulus.

I am fairly "agnostic" on these things, as unknowns cannot be weighed versus the knowns of the increase in foreign debt incurred in both instances.  I respect any decisions, had they been made by well-intentioned, intelligent, and objective politicians. And for the record, I've defended both Bush and Obama on both counts, as Bush met the "well-intentioned" criteria, and Obama met the "intelligent" criteria :) 

I entertain the possibility (however low) that each of these may have "saved" the US from an economic depression beyond precedent.

Egor, what I have described above is the paradigm of a "trickle down". It states that each decrease in taxation rate (read: new budget deficit and national debt) leads to a larger marginal increase in "prosperity" which eventually makes it to all the sectors and socio economic layers. Republicans were at it for over 30 years now. I don't think we need a time machine to see the negative consequences of it now: the largest gap in income, the largest gap in asset ownership, the increase in economically marginalized population. And of course, increased prosperity for the ever shrinking pool of super-rich. What time machine? Open your eyes and smell the roses!

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

Baloney, there is plenty of resources in the world. We are not running out of iron, copper, sunlight and water anytime soon. Or oil. And what we can't mine we can grow.

My kind of thinking lead the people across the oceans and into space. Yours will have them still hunting and gathering. :-)

---

Jedem Das Seine.

the time machine comment was to show that we do not know what would have happened had a different course been taken.

Republicans and democrats have shared government about evenly for whatever intermediate time range before today you are examining.  Economic conditions percipitated by each "era" or one party rule average out, and where they don't, they can often be attributed to economic conditions that are global, coincide with growth spurts in technology, or otherwise beyond the scope of who holds power in the US.

Bottom line, we do not know what would happen if there was no tax cut that you described.  Smart people will disagree, and split regardless of credentials and intellect.

 

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Orkster:

Baloney, there is plenty of resources in the world. We are not running out of iron, copper, sunlight and water anytime soon. Or oil. And what we can't mine we can grow.

I have never heard anyone make this case.  People of all political persuasions know that multiple crucial resource shortages have begun and will accelerate.  I've reasearched this topis extensively, I am very interested in it. If you have as well, would love to debate it.

 

Orkster:

My kind of thinking lead the people across the oceans and into space. Yours will have them still hunting and gathering. :-)

Actually, mine already had people across oceans and in space :)

  

 

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Egor:

the time machine comment was to show that we do not know what would have happened had a different course been taken.

Republicans and democrats have shared government about evenly for whatever intermediate time range before today you are examining.  Economic conditions percipitated by each "era" or one party rule average out, and where they don't, they can often be attributed to economic conditions that are global, coincide with growth spurts in technology, or otherwise beyond the scope of who holds power in the US.

Bottom line, we do not know what would happen if there was no tax cut that you described.  Smart people will disagree, and split regardless of credentials and intellect.

 

Your logic is lobsided. So we know the path we've taken, and we know where it had taken us, but we can't learn from it, because according to you "we do not know what would have happened had a different course been taken". Yes we do! Things would be much different, as in better. It's like you have this criminal who shot a person, and he says, well I did shoot that person, but we don't know how things would be different if I had not shot them. They could have shot themselves or something. Come on. What kind of logic is this?

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

AHTOH:

Your logic is lobsided. So we know the path we've taken, and we know where it had taken us, but we can't learn from it, because according to you "we do not know what would have happened had a different course been taken". Yes we do! Things would be much different, as in better. It's like you have this criminal who shot a person, and he says, well I did shoot that person, but we don't know how things would be different if I had not shot them. They could have shot themselves or something. Come on. What kind of logic is this?

Look, humans have a tendency, when things don't go well, to assume that they couldn't be worse.  The word "change" in a vacuum, has a 50% chance of being for the worse.  However, when things are going poorly, it is assumed that any "change" would have improved things.  In politics, the public sentiment over what's happening at any given time, will lean to the critical side, even when things are going relatively well considering what the conditions and environment would dictate should happen.  I am prone to this as well, unfortunately.  However, we need to recognize the following logical possibilities in each of the randomly selected examples from re3cent history, beginning with your example.

1)Taxes were lowered for the "rich".  Apparent result - economic crisis, 10% uneployment, etc, etc.

Reality: the apparent result, is actually that of a global and domestic economic recession, the causes of which, while seen differently by economists on opposing sides, have nothing to do with lowering taxes.  Moreover, this country handled it considerably better that most of the developed world, in terms of all metrics available to us, most obviously: effect on GDP, aggeregate uneployment, %increase in unemployment, etc.  The case that the effect on the US economy was softened considerably could be made that this occurred because of lower taxes on the rich.  I am not necessarily making that case, but it would have no less merit in a purely logical, objective analysis.

2)Stimulus (Bush's and Obama's), each "sold" to the public and congress to help the financial markets, curb unemployment, etc, etc.  Apparent result, unemployment increased significantly following each instance of stimulus.

Reality: the apparent result, does not take into account what unemployment would have been without it.  Case could be made, for example, that it would be 15% without it (just throwing a number out there, but finding a thinktank that would argue this vehemently and intelligently would not be a problem.  With this number, stimuli reduced unemployment by 30%.  But because history didn't test that theory, we are forever left thinking that economic stimuli are counterproductive in all cases.  This argument will be used for decades to argue againt them.

3)Clinton is credited with the largest economic expansion, despite raising taxes.  He is also credited along with  Gingrich on the great compromise that balanced the Federal budget.

Reality: The world was going through the most massive technology revolution since the industrial revolution, and in terms of rate of economic expansion - the largest in word history. Of which the US, as the economic world leader was initially a disproportionate beneficiary.  The massive influx of capital, GDP, and tax revenues was a tsunami, in comparison to which the spectrum of realistically possible variances in US economic policies, are relatively insignificant. If anything, it can be argued that it was slowed, and the higher taxes along with left-leaning labor policies eventually contributed to the severity of ensuing crash and eventual outsourcing of 90% of this nation's accomlishments abroad.  But instead, for the forseeable future we have "learned" that raising taxes is not harmful to the economy, that tax revenues went up due to policy, that budget can be balanced without drastic cuts in spending, etc. 

4)Government bailouts, partial government ownership of C, GM, etc.

You argue with admirable level of confidence that this was unnecessary, counterproductive, etc.  Purely logically, without taking into account what's at stake, I agree with you completely.  However, you credentials in making these arguments, no offence, leave a tremendous amount to be desired.  Reviewing multiple and opposing viewpoints of those actually posessing these credentials and expertise, and weighing the possibility of the scenarios validating these actions by the government, weighing the risk of taking these actions versus the risk of not taking them, in consideration on what is actually at stake, and putting oneself in the shoes of the leader who is accountable and intelligent, it appears that the chance that the actions benefits would have outweighed the drawbacks, was the correct decision.  And more admirable for Bush than Obama, because in his case, they contradicted to some extent his philosophy.  If we could go back in history, not taken these actions, and seen either that worst case scenario unfold, or the best, we would know who was right.  Since we can't do that, we need to remain objective. 

Anoton, these examples are infinite.  It really does take a serious attempt to challenge our own aptitude to commit inexcusably severe logical fallacies, and try to see these things as objective observers of events.

Wrong lessons, learned in each of these examples, are not just rhetorical issues for discussion. They TRULY render us unable to solve real problems.  And that, even more so than the problems themselves, is the real crisis we face as a civilization.

 

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher