Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (1 Viewer)

[scuba_steve2121]

cosmo's cultural revolution

is this the one where we kill all the non whites?

 

[cosmo kramer]

sim city never lies

 

[Lentern]

Is there a mosque in the Utopian one?

 

[cosmo kramer]

its the taj mahal (a symbol of opulence and architectural splendour)

 

[Lentern]

its the taj mahal (a symbol of opulence and architectural splendour)

Next to the statue of liberty? I really need to get better acquainted with video games.

 

[funkshen]

its the taj mahal (a symbol of opulence and architectural splendour)

also male weakness

 

[abbeyroad]

Implying that rich people are the motor of the economy to the extent that they are the ones 'spending money sustaining our economy' is quite a Keynesian thing to say. But if you endorse Keynesianism, as I do, then you should recognise that higher taxation on the rich only mildly reduces their spending given the higher marginal propensity to save that the rich possess. And this tax can be used to shrink the deficit and stimulate further economic activity by having the government spend it or redistribute it to those low income earners more likely to spend it. After all, you believe that spending stimulates the economy, so lets tax and spend!!

the corollary of mpc is mps ie. mpc+mps=1. higher taxes on the rich decrease the amount they would save. over the long term this would lead to decreased savings in the business and high-income household sector. if you don't know what decreased savings mean you shouldn't even be talking. it's retarded to think that the rich would just sit back and let the government take even more of their wealth. given the deregulated nature of the international financial market they'd just move most if not all their shit offshore faster than you can say capital flight.

and before you say something stupid like well herp derp da govement culd just investa in dere stead. know that you're implicitly saying that the government is more efficient than the private sector in deciding what to invest and how much to invest. if that's the case why not tax the rich to their mps? while you might economically justify an increase in taxes up to the mps, politically it can't be done without resorting to totalitarianism - anything higher than 50% and you start to run into some serious philosophical and moral problems.

1974-early 80's experienced rampant stagflation. It even overthrew all economic thinking up to that point. We had to wait for Milton Friedman to come to the rescue and explain it.

You specify in practice. Are saying that stagflation demonstrated Keynesian fiscal and/or monetary policy to be ineffective? This is demonstrably false as even a cursory look at economic data will testify to its efficacy

self contradiction much? at the very least I think the fact that keynesiansim failed to rein in the stagflation of the 70s and 80s shows that it is not effective in all circumstances.

In theory, stagflation poses no problem either. Although, granted, you may not know it based on how most Keynesians talk today, Keynesian economists do recognise the existence of a supply curve in conjunction with the demand curve. And you can see that a decrease in supply will cause stagflation if labour markets fail to clear.

well in theory you can essentially become your own father by traveling back in time and fucking your mum. but does that mean that in practice you can actually travel back in time much less become your own father?

Your grasp on logic then is obviously pathetically feeble. I would like to say two things

First, in theory, what you say is false. You must understand why and for what purpose we want taxes raised or government intervention. The reason is because it is effective at achieving certain, commonly desired ends. So of course, when high taxation and government involvement reach a point when they become ineffective means to ends, they will not be supported. Everything is subordinate to context. If you like taking a panadol to cure pain, why not take 200? If you think its OK to use physical violence in self defence, why don't you assault people all the time? When you realise why these statements are ludicrous, you'll see why yours are too. Saying something is good or effective or desired does not logically imply that it is so in all contexts.

what are those 'commonly desired' ends? do they justify taxation in the first place? just because a large number of people believe that the ends justify the means does not make it so. surely someone whose understanding of logic is as deep and profound as yourself would know what argumentum ad populum means?

hahahahahahaha yes let's ignore the deadweight loss and distortions taxes and government intervention cause and talk about them in terms of their effectiveness at achieving some desireable endszzzzz111!!! hmmm I'm guessing economic inefficiency isn't one so what must it be? oh I know wealth redistrubution11!!! well u knw becuz sum ppl r richer or just bettar at mking moniez den otherz we should forcebly confiscate a prt of dere welath11!!! all in da name of equality11!!!!111 but only a smll prt n nut 2 much douh or dey go krazy a la da american revolunaries111!!

arguments for taxation based on some fucked up notion of equality is about the dumbest and most logically inconsistent shit ever devised. some people are born smarter than others, based on your theory of equality, should we I don't know, lobotomise the geniuses so there's a more equal distribution of intelligence? well you know there's an unequal distribution of height because some people are born taller than others, and since they're tall, their Marginal Propensity to Care About Their Height is lower than a short person, should we then chop off parts of their legs so there's a more equal distribution of height?

there's this thing in logic called ~consistency~. you can't just arbitrarily draw a line somewhere and declare that the principle does not apply. without substantiating why the line must be drawn there specifically and not somewhere else, it's a case of special pleading.

I mean do you actually realise how retarded your line of reasoning is? the same reasoning can be used to justify anything from robbery, rape, and even murder. consider this: well you know robbery should be allowed because it is an effective way to achieve a commonly desired end (the satisfaction of our desire to rob people or whatever). so when it gets to a point where it becomes an ineffective mean to an end ie rape, it will not be supported!1! I mean really we ought to be allowed to rob people at gunpoint so long as we don't rape them afterwards11!!1! No that's simply a line that can't be crossed11!!11!! no actually we should be allowed to raped too so long as we don't murder them111!!111! no wait by the same logic we ought to be allowed to murder as it's an effective mean to a commonly desired end!11! but no genocide cuz that's just ineffective not to mention immoral11111!!!

for fuck's sake can't you see how fucking dumb your arguments are.

 

[abbeyroad]

I thought we were being playful, very well. You may be a pure anti-statist but for bulk of people the "right way" isn't absolute and pure it is somewhere in the middle of a spectrum.

argument to moderation

While we agree there should be a certain number of government funded programmes to ensure people aren't unfairly disadvantaged (it isn't the child's fault he is born to neglectful parents) we still think that this needs to be balanced against a market based incentive for being a productive member of society which is how we come to the conclusion that some but not all income should be taxed.

argument to moderation and appeal to the masses.

Furthermore we only believe that such income should be taxed by means of a democratic consensus to do so and that governments who instate such taxes need to be accountable for them at regular elections.

hahahahahaha democratic consensus??? or tyranny of the majority??? are you seriously suggesting that when anarchists, anti-statists capitalists and certain communists etc say no to taxes what they really mean is yes? are you implying that everyone voluntarily agrees to be taxed?

This is completely at odds with communist teachings which calls for the violent, revolutionary overthrow of the government and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Most left of centre advocates are peaceful and democratic and would not call for this. Likewise no communist would ever sympathise and advocate some sort of market based incentive for being a more productive member of society eg, private property yet most left of centre advocates would. Ergo your assertion that its perfectly sensible to equate social democracy with communism is flawed.

special pleading and question begging. theft and fraud are different from murder too, namely in that unlike murder, which calls for violence, ruthlessness and a total disregard for human life, theft and fraud are peaceful and require deception, craft, and ingenuity. does that mean they're really different? does that mean that theft and fraud should be allowed?

at issue is not whether communism and socialism differ in certain aspects, but whether one of their common tenets - the involuntary redistribution of wealth, is ever justified. you can't seriously make the argument that because a female human has a vagina which a male lacks, one is a human and the other one not.

I don't care what you think about such programs, the point is that it's not communist.

well I don't care what you think about rape, murder or robbery either, the point is that they're not genocide therefore they should be allowed111!!!!!!!

Socialism is fine, socialism is perfectly compatible with peaceful and democratic values. Communism is not.

theft and date rapes are fine, they are perfectly compatible with peaceful and democratic values, murder is not.

 

[abbeyroad]

ss tv just doen dere job

 

[Blastus]

juliar

 

[Lentern]

argument to moderation

argument to moderation and appeal to the masses.

hahahahahaha democratic consensus??? or tyranny of the majority??? are you seriously suggesting that when anarchists, anti-statists capitalists and certain communists etc say no to taxes what they really mean is yes? are you implying that everyone voluntarily agrees to be taxed?

special pleading and question begging. theft and fraud are different from murder too, namely in that unlike murder, which calls for violence, ruthlessness and a total disregard for human life, theft and fraud are peaceful and require deception, craft, and ingenuity. does that mean they're really different? does that mean that theft and fraud should be allowed?

at issue is not whether communism and socialism differ in certain aspects, but whether one of their common tenets - the involuntary redistribution of wealth, is ever justified. you can't seriously make the argument that because a female human has a vagina which a male lacks, one is a human and the other one not.


well I don't care what you think about rape, murder or robbery either, the point is that they're not genocide therefore they should be allowed111!!!!!!!



theft and date rapes are fine, they are perfectly compatible with peaceful and democratic values, murder is not.

You are asserting whether socialism is good or bad, this is not a debate about whether socialism is good or bad it is merely an illustration of the differences between socialism and communism. Everyone else got that and made their peace with it then you come trundling along like that obnoxious little worm you are determined to dig up a settled argument for the sake of disagreeing with someone. Grow up.

 

[abbeyroad]

You are asserting whether socialism is good or bad, this is not a debate about whether socialism is good or bad it is merely an illustration of the differences between socialism and communism. Everyone else got that and made their peace with it then you come trundling along like that obnoxious little worm you are determined to dig up a settled argument for the sake of disagreeing with someone. Grow up.

jesus fucking chrsit shut the fuck up you fucking dumb cunt can you fucking read? we were discussing the merits and justifications of taxation long before you decided to derail the thread by engaging in the red herring that socialism is ~really~ different from communism like the little illogical cunting fuck you are.


edit and the argument is far from settled as I'm now essentially disputing that socialism is really all that ~~~different ~~~ from communism despite the cosmetic differences. so go suck a dick

 

[Lentern]

jesus fucking chrsit shut the fuck up you fucking dumb cunt can you fucking read? we were discussing the merits and justifications of taxation long before you decided to derail the thread by engaging in the red herring that socialism is ~really~ different from communism like the little illogical cunting fuck you are.

Hardly, you were attacking socially democratic policies by equating them to communism. Social democracy is not equivalent to communism, equating to communism is delusory, fallacious, deceitful and a great many other appropriate adjectives for you.

 

[funkshen]

property is 'private' in a social democracy to the extent that the majority considers it private, for all forms of property are subject to the democratic whim. that is, to varying extents, your wealth and income can and will be subject to expropriation. thus, all property is ultimately collectively owned.

social democracy is communistic.

 

[funkshen]

real capitalists play harvest moon

 

[abbeyroad]

Hardly, you were attacking socially democratic policies by equating them to communism. Social democracy is not equivalent to communism, equating to communism is delusory, fallacious, deceitful and a great many other appropriate adjectives for you.

your adjectives are without substance. I can just as well retort with a number of adjectives and nouns and we'll never get anywhere

 

[scuba_steve2121]

can people just not take my income when 3/4 of things it will fund I don't like?

lol should have a system where people can choose where their money goes

as in tick some boxes at tax time. to indicate where your money is approved to go

see how fucking fast stupid programs get axed because nobody wants to fund that shit

bureaucrat: I'm sorry Mrs Thompson we would love to give you your baby bonus money, but we don't have any, since people think the whole idea of you getting money for something so arbitrary is stupid.

 

[abbeyroad]

the entire concept of taxation is insane. just charge people for the services they use and subsidise free provisions to the poor through any profits made.

it's not my fault that government enterprises can't turn a profit because they're that inefficient

 

[scuba_steve2121]

privatize and stop the entitlements

 

[qawe]

the entire concept of taxation is insane. just charge people for the services they use and subsidise free provisions to the poor through any profits made.

it's not my fault that government enterprises can't turn a profit because they're that inefficient

+1