Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then I stand corrected, you were not "defending" you were instigating.

I was attempting to explain something to Justin, and couldn't find the quote to do it.

Do you want to tell me why you wish to continue this?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then I stand corrected, you were not "defending" you were instigating. I deleted the earlier post (that you would have learned had you PMed) because I understood where you were coming from and didn't want to derail the momentum of your stated objective by going all philosophical and confusing readers here who could not carry two competing thoughts in their heads at the same time. (Looks like I failed in that endeavor...) At any rate, the issue is effectively over for me. Best...

Blah, blah, blah, blah....I don't see the "positive contribution" or any "forward movement" or "progression". All I see is more blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then I stand corrected, you were not "defending" you were instigating. I deleted the earlier post (that you would have learned had you PMed) because I understood where you were coming from and didn't want to derail the momentum of your stated objective by going all philosophical and confusing readers here who could not carry two competing thoughts in their heads at the same time. (Looks like I failed in that endeavor...) At any rate, the issue is effectively over for me. Best...

Blah, blah, blah, blah....I don't see the "positive contribution" or any "forward movement" or "progression". All I see is more blah, blah, blah.

At least I am vindicated by having you prove my point. Cheers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

How ironic that only yesterday you were lecturing us all about being obnoxious and telling us to grow up.

So I'm a hypocrite on this matter.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

At least I am vindicated by having you prove my point. Cheers.

Atleast Hutch should feel vindicated that this response proved his point as well. Personally speaking, I don't have a particular dog or a personal bone in this intellectual quibble (smarty pants fight). I just popped in to help people feel vindicated and to help others their prove points. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

At least I am vindicated by having you prove my point. Cheers.

Atleast Hutch should feel vindicated that this response proved his point as well. Personally speaking, I don't have a particular dog or a personal bone in this intellectual quibble (smarty pants fight). I just popped in to help people feel vindicated and to help others their prove points. Cheers.

As long as it makes sense to you, that's all that matters. Cheers.

night all...

For both sides of the political fence: a quote from this week's archdruid's blog.

**************The great majority of the people around you know essentially nothing about the subject that concerns you, though they have an ample fund of misinformation culled from books and websites written and read exclusively by people who share their prejudices. They consider themselves qualified to judge the subject because they’ve lifted some canned polemics from these same books and websites, and if you show them that the canned polemics are riddled with ignorance, irrelevancies, and straw man arguments, they’ll just give you an irritated look and go right back to the canned polemics.

Those of my readers with a background in sociology will have no trouble recognizing this as a textbook case in the sociology of deviance—specifically, the way that human groups use seeming statements of fact the way baboons use bared teeth and threat postures, to stake out territory and drive off outsiders. As far as we know, baboons don’t try to use their territorial displays to make sense of their world, and this is to their credit. Human beings, alas, are not always so clever, and the resulting confusions play a massive though rarely recognized role in mangling communication in any complex society.
**********************

And I have seen this in action my own self.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I try very hard not to waste my time arguing for or against religion. For the Believer, it generally turns out to be either a harmless delusion, or else self-correcting once his faith-based behavior runs up against reality. In this particular case, the self-appointed Prophet of the New Truth does us a great service in reminding us just how desperately gullible his archetype is when it comes up against a challenge to its worldview -- how strongly it will grasp at any straw, regardless how absurd, that offers the soothing promise of, 'you were right all along; no need to worry; everything will go on just as it always has for you...'

This is why Prophets turn the cracks of a 3T into the destruction of a 4T, once the adults leave the stage and they're all that remains for a time. Fortunately, their time is relatively short.

----
-edit-

Of course, the Faithful always interpret a lack of attention (as they interpret every other possible condition) as yet more proof that they are on the True Path. That's part and parcel of the basic delusion.

Well, Maybe.

Originally Posted by Odin

Studies from where? The American Enterprise Institute? Sorry, I would rather believe my own experiences with unemployed people than biased "studies"

Who says the unemployed tend to sit around watching TV until the unemployment benefits run out?

Paul Krugman:

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job."

So, several studies from Europe and the assessment of a Nobel Prize winner (before he changed his tune to become a left wing hack) are overturned by your assessment of your anecdotal experience which seems to be tinted by your envy, selfishness, and greed.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The rich supporting more people? Where do you get this? How many floors to the rich mop, or grass to they mow for bottom eighty percent?

Summer. The top 10% pay most of the taxes in this country.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

And who gave them that money to invest with? Or should we just return to castles and landed gentry?
Do you not choose to use your brain at all?

In a free market economy, it wasn't "given" to them, they earned it. They could have gotten it selling sea shells by the sea shore. Who cares?

Do you choose to use your brain at all?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

For both sides of the political fence: a quote from this week's archdruid's blog.

**************The great majority of the people around you know essentially nothing about the subject that concerns you, though they have an ample fund of misinformation culled from books and websites written and read exclusively by people who share their prejudices. They consider themselves qualified to judge the subject because they’ve lifted some canned polemics from these same books and websites, and if you show them that the canned polemics are riddled with ignorance, irrelevancies, and straw man arguments, they’ll just give you an irritated look and go right back to the canned polemics.

Those of my readers with a background in sociology will have no trouble recognizing this as a textbook case in the sociology of deviance—specifically, the way that human groups use seeming statements of fact the way baboons use bared teeth and threat postures, to stake out territory and drive off outsiders. As far as we know, baboons don’t try to use their territorial displays to make sense of their world, and this is to their credit. Human beings, alas, are not always so clever, and the resulting confusions play a massive though rarely recognized role in mangling communication in any complex society.
**********************

And I have seen this in action my own self.

This is what I think is the problem with saying "the left" does this or "the right" does that. People on each side can see the same behavior in the other side. This has the effect of "divide and conquer". In our 2-party political system, a candidate for office only needs to speak to a narrow band of "independents", which is much easier than speaking to a whole nation or state. It is only in the primary elections that you may see the real candidate.

On this forum it seems that "Boomers" bear the brunt of the blame for the polarizing, but I notice Xers and Millies doing their share as well. After I first set "The Fourth Turning" down, I had the same disdain for Boomers but upon further reflection, I realize that they were/are just doing their jobs to move society forward. Now that the first wave of Xers is wading in to do theirs, it is natural that the rhetoric will heat up as the generational constellation changes.

Hypocrisy, denial, selfishness, blame, greed etc. are all human traits. We all exhibit all of them to some extent or another.

Originally Posted by Odin

If you think that parasitizing workers is "earning the fruits of one's labor" you it's no use arguing with you.

Providing the capital which makes a worker far more efficient is not being a parasite, it's the basis of productivity. As a sideline, the worker gets a benefit, even though the increase in productivity has little to do with them. Look at the countries where capital formation is discouraged (or forbidden). It's not pretty.

Originally Posted by Odin

I mean many of these people work 2, or even 3 jobs to make ends meet, and yet still have to take advantage of food pantries.

Nobody should have to work more than 40 hours a week to survive. It is unjust. It is cruel. It is immoral.

Odin.

Working 40 hours a week is not "unjust" "cruel" or "immoral." Most business owners did it before they got where they are, and most of them still do it.

Now, try some math.

If you're on minimum age and work 40 hours a week, you're earning over $14,000 a year. I admit that this is before taxes which are ostensibly for their benefit, but even after taxes, you're looking at well over $11,000 a year (it will depend on jurisdiction). You have plenty of choices. Cut down on your beer intake or cable TV. As Sarte said, you are free to choose; invent! Anyway, you're not going to die.

And how many people do you know who stay at minimum wage?

And can you tell me without frothing at the mouth?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Usually with the ignorant and closed-minded, we first get the 'US is going to go bankrupt!' and the "US has to get its financial house in order just like any family or business!'

Once those myths are exposed for being totally asinine (just ask the former CEO of the S&P Rating Agency), then we move on to "hyperinflation is just around the corner!", "you're turning us into Zimbabwe and the Weimer Republic!; or "our dollars are toilet paper!"

And once those idiocies are shown for what they are, then we start to get the meek, "oh there will be inflation" - you know, the run of the mill kind.

And when that too is shown to be the myopic unsupported thought that can be held by only the ignorant, then we finally get to your gnashing of teeth and the "many monkey turds."

Not one rational, logical or fact-based counter-argument out of the lot of you from the Right - you are all mental midgets.

But given how fast you got to "many monkey turds,” your cowardliness puts you at the head (or is it the butt?) of that shameful sub-group of the mentally challenged that don't even dare to take me on.

Wallace, the Coward-hearted, indeed.

Gimme that MMT Religion!
Gimme that MMT Religion!
Gimme that MMT Religion!
It's good enough for thee!

Originally Posted by Aramea

Sitting on your ass collecting dividends = sitting on your ass
Sitting on your ass collecting silly minimum income = sitting on your ass

A person collecting an ass-sitting income spending money in the economy = money circulating in the economy while doing nothing. They are quite the same. I don't know why anyone assumes that dividends paid to an individual assumes money invested in a productive way. It is quite possible that those dividends represent profits "earned" from laying of 1000's of people.

Capital investments are what make us productive.

As for laying people off, that's what what happens when we become more productive.

In your world, if 90% of the population was needed just to feed ourselves, would you consider that a plus?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm just wondering can we ever push past this. I mean if we found a path (and I believe MMT offers that path), would we still remain so divided in our basic assumptions, our visions, of "the other" that we will never purposefully and collectively achieve anything good again for this country and its people - us?

Gimme that MMT Religion!
Gimme that MMT Religion!
Gimme that MMT Religion!
It's good enough for thee!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

UI benefits are based on a percentage of ones base qualifying salary. Typically, it's less than 50%. So you think that an adult with adult responsiblities should take just any old job? Why? Does it offend you? Forcing people to take massive pay cuts, just to get them off the rolls, means the future is guaranteed to be grim for them. Most will lose their homes, among the many losses that typically can't be recouped. If that becomes the baseline for running the economy, then everyone will stop spending and horde against the day it may happen to them. Try removing 15%-20% of spending from the economy, and see what happens then. If you think what we have now is bad, ...

Planning helps, don't you thuink?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'll take those European levels, since they are beating the bejesus out of us in that category at the moment. Even class mobility is beter there. Sorry. Fables aren't a reliable source of data.

And regarding the rich, they have been coddled in this country since the founding of Jametown. They are the only ones with the ability to influence the formulation of policy, and that continues to this very day.

When Warren Buffett argued for more taxation of "his class", he was rebuffed. Most rich people don't get a tinker's damn about the rest of us, and the politicians serve the mass of the money. Next, he'll be called a class traitor like FDR.

The European experiment isn't sustainable. Come on.

Warren Buffet is free to donate as much as he likes to the government.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Odin.

Working 40 hours a week is not "unjust" "cruel" or "immoral." Most business owners did it before they got where they are, and most of them still do it.

Now, try some math.

If you're on minimum age and work 40 hours a week, you're earning over $14,000 a year. I admit that this is before taxes which are ostensibly for their benefit, but even after taxes, you're looking at well over $11,000 a year (it will depend on jurisdiction). You have plenty of choices. Cut down on your beer intake or cable TV. As Sarte said, you are free to choose; invent! Anyway, you're not going to die.

And how many people do you know who stay at minimum wage?

And can you tell me without frothing at the mouth?

The new American Dream - a shit job and no beer but you're not gonna die! You should put this on a tshirt and make your fortune while there is still money in the economy.

No, I am not frothing at the mouth ...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Do you think that families living on the street is better in some way? If so, feel free to move to Brazil or even India.

If you like Europe so much, move there.

Besides, Brazil and India both have plenty of European type intervention.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Ziggy did a fine job explaining it. Thanks to him for the clarification.

He didn't, but I'll take his opinion as yours.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Summer. The top 10% pay most of the taxes in this country.

They also own 90% of the wealth, whether non-productive (their private abodes, horses, luxury vehicles, antiques) or productive. The share of national income is nearly a half, and until at least 2006 that share has risen steadily since the 1970s. Most of the income of the super-rich comes from cash-cow investments. It is far easier and less disruptive to tax those than it is to tax income that people get the hard way -- such as low-wage labor.

If they want their workforce to be productive they will need to pay taxes to support schools for the working poor, freeways for their impoverished employees to travel upon, medical care for their employees, and of course military defense of "American interests abroad" (meaning their investments overseas) -- unless they are to start paying their "help" well enough that that help can pay taxes based on ability to pay.

Taxing the poor is not worth the effort unless on "sin" taxes (booze, cancerweed) that encourages people to spend elsewhere, or as 'user fees' (gas taxes). We are at a fork in the road... and we will have to choose, as a whole, between a fascist order (modern technology and Bolshevist terror in the service of reactionary interests), a socialistic welfare state, a capitalist system that pays workers equitably, or a Marxist revolution. This is a Crisis Era, as if you didn't notice, one in which current trends in economics and politics are unsustainable due to their absurdity and amorality that create inefficacy and widespread distress.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The rich supporting more people? Where do you get this? How many floors to the rich mop, or grass to they mow for bottom eighty percent?

Summer. The top 10% pay most of the taxes in this country.

The top 10% get the most out of their taxes.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I would be very careful about using the word "sustainability" in the context of defending the profligate behavior of the upper class.

If Paris Hilton wants to waste her money, that's her bidness. Not yours.